Housing India

Low-cost transport is vital to affordable housing – and a Bus Rapid Transit System is the best bet

Localities with mixed-income groups, residential and commercial units are popular across the world and can work for India too.

Affordable housing will find no buyers unless it comes with high-speed, low-cost transit connections.

Our urban population will expand dramatically, so it should be obvious that city footprints must also expand. “Going vertical” in a city like Mumbai, already one of the world’s densest, is no solution. All it does is multiply congestion and degrade quality of life without affecting property prices – those are determined by market demand and, as we have seen, higher floor space index (which determines the buildable area on a plot) automatically means higher land prices. Only new land, opened up with new rapid transit links, can help attenuate land prices.

Expanding the city’s footprint should not be confused with urban sprawl. That comes with the automobile and low-density living. Instead, we propose expansion into dense settlements efficiently served by public transport. Besides accommodating new arrivals, such settlements could improve living conditions in existing congested areas by attracting away some residents.

Goals for development

We want a zero-subsidy framework, to make such projects easily replicable. Development would then have to be mixed-use, with jobs as well as homes, and mixed-income, so that we can have a cross-subsidy (charging higher prices to one group to subsidise lower prices for another) in land cost and, consequently, affordability across all income groups. Housing of different sizes would be for as wide a range of income groups as possible – on separate plots if need be, but within the same locality. Providing housing for all, including the lowest income groups in proportion to their presence in the population, is the only way to avoid slums. Such mixed-income housing across a locality is mandated in Spain and Ireland, and enabled in many countries, including England, France, the United States and Canada. With shared amenities – schools, parks, medical facilities – this makes for a more egalitarian social mix and, very likely, a more peaceful society than one with ghettos for the poor in one location and gated communities for the rich at another. The mixed-income, mixed-use arrangement also reduces commuting, because many lower level service jobs will be in the households or activity centres of the better off within the same locality.

We suggest the following principles to guide development:

  1. Proportionate representation of every income group across the city in the housing, plus as many jobs as there are resident workers – although, admittedly, many such local jobs may be filled by non-residents and many residents will work outside.
  2. A public transit-oriented development with strict segregation of transit from normal traffic – to guarantee high-speed transit.
  3. Uniform net plot densities for all income groups.
  4. A cross-subsidy in land prices across income groups follows automatically with uniform densities of dwelling units per hectare across income groups, but different limits for buildable area, more for higher-income plots, less for lower income, and exactions of payment for land proportionate to income.

Going the BRTS way

The cheapest and most readily expandable feeder system would be a Bus Rapid Transit System on an exclusive two-lane roadway track, with overtaking lanes at platforms spaced 700 meters apart. For high speed and capacity, it must mimic a railway system – boarding and alighting on platforms that are flush with the floor of the vehicle, wide vehicle doors that allow quick passenger discharge and boarding, and ticketed access to platforms to minimise en-route delays. Such a system is not a regular bus system. As in a railway, the vehicles and the roadway would be exclusive to the Bus Rapid Transit System, never mixed with other traffic.

Assuming such a system serves people residing within 500 meters on either side, a 10-km Bus Rapid Transit System loop would open up about 10 square km (1,000 hectares) of land for new development.

To attract ridership, the headway between Bus Rapid Transit System vehicles should never exceed, say, 10 minutes, and two minutes or less at peak hours. Vehicles may be smaller when the settlement is sparsely inhabited, larger as demand builds. Average speed, including stops, should exceed 25 km per hour.

To achieve this average speed, the system must have exclusive right-of-way without intersections. All other traffic must be grade separated, crossing below or above the ground-level Bus Rapid Transit System. Keeping it at ground level minimises initial investment in the track and platforms. Only at the railway station would the Bus Rapid Transit System be lifted to discharge passengers directly on the footbridge crossing the railway tracks. This would thus, free up the ground immediately outside the station for other vehicular traffic.

A pedestrian underpass at every stop on the Bus Rapid Transit System would provide access to its island platforms. This underpass would be widened at alternate platforms so cars can also cross under the system. Heavier vehicles would use shallow-rise overbridges spaced every few kilometers, just high enough to clear single-decker vehicles below. The road network for cars and other motorised vehicles through the development would thus be completely separated from the ground-level Bus Rapid Transit System.

Apart from being fast and reliable, the Bus Rapid Transit System also needs to be cheap. This almost certainly implies a subsidy, whose source should be a carefully considered progressive tariff independent of the ticket cost to travellers. Those who frown at subsidies should know that bus systems around the world are subsidised, and that this is amply justified by their contribution to reduction in traffic congestion and air pollution.

Financial viability

For replicability, the proposed development must be self-financing, with no call for external subsidies. So we must recover from occupants the cost of land, physical and social infrastructure, and construction of their own homes at a price they can afford. International practice recognises four years’ income for a household as an acceptable standard for housing affordability.

Table 1: Affordable land cost with four years' income from 1,000 households.
Table 1: Affordable land cost with four years' income from 1,000 households.

Based on the income profile of Mumbai, Column 1 in Table 1 shows ranges of monthly household income, and Column 2 the percentage population in each income range (we exclude the 4% that forms the highest income bracket as irrelevant to the scheme). Column 3 is four years’ income for each category, that is, Column 1 multiplied by 48 months. Column 4 suggests house sizes for each income category, based on what in Mumbai would be generally acceptable. We assume construction costs vary by income category from Rs 18,000 per square meter to Rs 24,000 per square meter, and Rs 20,000 per square meter as the cost for workers’ spaces. Cost of construction is in Column 5. Column 6, the difference between Columns 4 and 5, represents the surplus after construction available per household in each income group to pay for land and infrastructure.

We convert fractions in Column 2 to absolute numbers in each income group for every 1,000 households, and multiplying by the surplus per household in Column 6, Column 7 shows the surplus generated by each income category.

We do not want a purely residential development. Intermingled jobs would be desirable. The employment ratio in Mumbai is 40%. So we provide for a commensurate number of jobs. The resident population itself will generate many lower-income jobs, ideally taken up by residents to minimise transport costs. We should not inhibit the mixing of residences and zero-nuisance businesses in the same building, or be too rigid about proportions of residential to work space – let the market decide that, and keep planning flexible enough to accommodate variations. To calculate area requirements and construction costs, we assume a 9 square meter built-up area per job and a floor area ratio (the ratio of a building’s total floor area to the size of the plot) of 1, which allows for a mix of single- and multi-storeyed construction.

In Table 1, Rows 1 to 6 are for residential construction. Row 7 concerns construction of work places. Row 7, Column 2 shows the percentage of each household that is employed. Assuming Mumbai’s average household size of 4.5 persons, with an employment floor space requirement of 9 square meters per worker, 40 square meters is required for 4.5 workers (Row 7, Column 3). Since we are calculating per household, we might think of this as “workers’ spaces” for computational purposes, with each accommodating 4.5 workers (as in a household). The affordable value for this (Row 7, Column 4) is based on current business property prices per square meter at sites just north of Greater Mumbai.

From our 1,000 households, each paying four years’ household income, after paying for all construction, we have a surplus of Rs 190 crores. The additional 400 workers’ spaces also generate a surplus, the difference between market price and construction cost. The total surplus is about Rs 317 crores for every 1,000 households (with their 400 associated workers’ spaces), available to pay for land and physical and social infrastructure.

Land required

We assume a within-plot density of 270 households per hectare. In the successful 30-year-old Charkop housing project in Mumbai, density in low-income areas is 278 households per hectare, which would still be considered acceptable.

An important assumption here is that the same density applies across income groups, so wealthier residents consuming more floor area will live in taller buildings. Moreover, each household consumes the same land area. Since we are taking four years’ income from every household, the wealthier are paying more per unit of land – a cross-subsidy – and land per se is differentially priced across income groups. This can be justified in many ways, including attractiveness of location or building regulations, say, that might limit the volume of permissible construction or deny motor car access or parking to the lower income locations. Or the charge for land could be uniform per unit of built-up floor space, and with uniform densities this would painlessly deliver the desired cross-subsidy.

Allowing 30% of the total area for roads and rapid transit, 4% for institutions (schools and hospitals), 13% for parks (based on a minimum of 3 square meters per capita, low but acceptable in Mumbai) we are left with 53% for buildable plots, mainly residential but with shops and offices allowed.

Our land area requirement then works out to just over 10 hectares for 1,000 households and 400 workers’ spaces. The gross residential density of the development would be about 100 households per hectare. Assuming Mumbai’s family size of 4.5, this is 450 persons per hectare.

From the surplus, we have in hand Rs 317.5 crores (see Table 1). Deducting the cost of the Bus Rapid Transit System (Rs 0.3 crores per hectare), physical infrastructure (Rs 2.4 crores per hectare), social infrastructure (Rs 2 crores per hectare), and fees, taxes and interest (Rs 2 crores per hectare), we are left with Rs 24.9 crores per hectare to pay for land.

What is striking is how little the transport system costs in relation to all other infrastructure. Providing this kind of dedicated transit service is not as extravagant as one instinctively imagines.

The figures indicate the scheme is financially viable wherever we can find land around Mumbai under about Rs 25 crores per hectare. This sounds eminently within reach at several suburban railway stations around the city.

Shirish B Patel is a civil engineer and urban planner, one of three authors who first suggested the idea of Navi Mumbai and then for five years was in charge of the plan, design and execution of the new city.

Oormi Kapadia and Jasmine Saluja are both architects and urban designers, and recipients of an awarding-winning proposal for a Community Land Trust Model for the redevelopment of Dharavi in Mumbai.

This is a curtailed version of a paper that will be published in a forthcoming issue of Environment and Urbanization.

We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in.
Sponsored Content BY 

What hospitals can do to drive entrepreneurship and enhance patient experience

Hospitals can perform better by partnering with entrepreneurs and encouraging a culture of intrapreneurship focused on customer centricity.

At the Emory University Hospital in Atlanta, visitors don’t have to worry about navigating their way across the complex hospital premises. All they need to do is download wayfinding tools from the installed digital signage onto their smartphone and get step by step directions. Other hospitals have digital signage in surgical waiting rooms that share surgery updates with the anxious families waiting outside, or offer general information to visitors in waiting rooms. Many others use digital registration tools to reduce check-in time or have Smart TVs in patient rooms that serve educational and anxiety alleviating content.

Most of these tech enabled solutions have emerged as hospitals look for better ways to enhance patient experience – one of the top criteria in evaluating hospital performance. Patient experience accounts for 25% of a hospital’s Value-Based Purchasing (VBP) score as per the US government’s Centres for Medicare and Mediaid Services (CMS) programme. As a Mckinsey report says, hospitals need to break down a patient’s journey into various aspects, clinical and non-clinical, and seek ways of improving every touch point in the journey. As hospitals also need to focus on delivering quality healthcare, they are increasingly collaborating with entrepreneurs who offer such patient centric solutions or encouraging innovative intrapreneurship within the organization.

At the Hospital Leadership Summit hosted by Abbott, some of the speakers from diverse industry backgrounds brought up the role of entrepreneurship in order to deliver on patient experience.

Getting the best from collaborations

Speakers such as Dr Naresh Trehan, Chairman and Managing Director - Medanta Hospitals, and Meena Ganesh, CEO and MD - Portea Medical, who spoke at the panel discussion on “Are we fit for the world of new consumers?”, highlighted the importance of collaborating with entrepreneurs to fill the gaps in the patient experience eco system. As Dr Trehan says, “As healthcare service providers we are too steeped in our own work. So even though we may realize there are gaps in customer experience delivery, we don’t want to get distracted from our core job, which is healthcare delivery. We would rather leave the job of filling those gaps to an outsider who can do it well.”

Meena Ganesh shares a similar view when she says that entrepreneurs offer an outsider’s fresh perspective on the existing gaps in healthcare. They are therefore better equipped to offer disruptive technology solutions that put the customer right at the center. Her own venture, Portea Medical, was born out of a need in the hitherto unaddressed area of patient experience – quality home care.

There are enough examples of hospitals that have gained significantly by partnering with or investing in such ventures. For example, the Children’s Medical Centre in Dallas actively invests in tech startups to offer better care to its patients. One such startup produces sensors smaller than a grain of sand, that can be embedded in pills to alert caregivers if a medication has been taken or not. Another app delivers care givers at customers’ door step for check-ups. Providence St Joseph’s Health, that has medical centres across the U.S., has invested in a range of startups that address different patient needs – from patient feedback and wearable monitoring devices to remote video interpretation and surgical blood loss monitoring. UNC Hospital in North Carolina uses a change management platform developed by a startup in order to improve patient experience at its Emergency and Dermatology departments. The platform essentially comes with a friendly and non-intrusive way to gather patient feedback.

When intrapreneurship can lead to patient centric innovation

Hospitals can also encourage a culture of intrapreneurship within the organization. According to Meena Ganesh, this would mean building a ‘listening organization’ because as she says, listening and being open to new ideas leads to innovation. Santosh Desai, MD& CEO - Future Brands Ltd, who was also part of the panel discussion, feels that most innovations are a result of looking at “large cultural shifts, outside the frame of narrow business”. So hospitals will need to encourage enterprising professionals in the organization to observe behavior trends as part of the ideation process. Also, as Dr Ram Narain, Executive Director, Kokilaben Dhirubhai Ambani Hospital, points out, they will need to tell the employees who have the potential to drive innovative initiatives, “Do not fail, but if you fail, we still back you.” Innovative companies such as Google actively follow this practice, allowing employees to pick projects they are passionate about and work on them to deliver fresh solutions.

Realizing the need to encourage new ideas among employees to enhance patient experience, many healthcare enterprises are instituting innovative strategies. Henry Ford System, for example, began a system of rewarding great employee ideas. One internal contest was around clinical applications for wearable technology. The incentive was particularly attractive – a cash prize of $ 10,000 to the winners. Not surprisingly, the employees came up with some very innovative ideas that included: a system to record mobility of acute care patients through wearable trackers, health reminder system for elderly patients and mobile game interface with activity trackers to encourage children towards exercising. The employees admitted later that the exercise was so interesting that they would have participated in it even without a cash prize incentive.

Another example is Penn Medicine in Philadelphia which launched an ‘innovation tournament’ across the organization as part of its efforts to improve patient care. Participants worked with professors from Wharton Business School to prepare for the ideas challenge. More than 1,750 ideas were submitted by 1,400 participants, out of which 10 were selected. The focus was on getting ideas around the front end and some of the submitted ideas included:

  • Check-out management: Exclusive waiting rooms with TV, Internet and other facilities for patients waiting to be discharged so as to reduce space congestion and make their waiting time more comfortable.
  • Space for emotional privacy: An exclusive and friendly space for individuals and families to mourn the loss of dear ones in private.
  • Online patient organizer: A web based app that helps first time patients prepare better for their appointment by providing check lists for documents, medicines, etc to be carried and giving information regarding the hospital navigation, the consulting doctor etc.
  • Help for non-English speakers: Iconography cards to help non-English speaking patients express themselves and seek help in case of emergencies or other situations.

As Arlen Meyers, MD, President and CEO of the Society of Physician Entrepreneurs, says in a report, although many good ideas come from the front line, physicians must also be encouraged to think innovatively about patient experience. An academic study also builds a strong case to encourage intrapreneurship among nurses. Given they comprise a large part of the front-line staff for healthcare delivery, nurses should also be given the freedom to create and design innovative systems for improving patient experience.

According to a Harvard Business Review article quoted in a university study, employees who have the potential to be intrapreneurs, show some marked characteristics. These include a sense of ownership, perseverance, emotional intelligence and the ability to look at the big picture along with the desire, and ideas, to improve it. But trust and support of the management is essential to bringing out and taking the ideas forward.

Creating an environment conducive to innovation is the first step to bringing about innovation-driven outcomes. These were just some of the insights on healthcare management gleaned from the Hospital Leadership Summit hosted by Abbott. In over 150 countries, Abbott, which is among the top 100 global innovator companies, is working with hospitals and healthcare professionals to improve the quality of health services.

To read more content on best practices for hospital leaders, visit Abbott’s Bringing Health to Life portal here.

This article was produced on behalf of Abbott by the Scroll.in marketing team and not by the Scroll.in editorial staff.