102 PDF

JAPAN INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION AGENCY (JICA)
A GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB PROJECT

TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT
THE PROJECT FOR

LAHORE URBAN TRANSPORT MASTER PLAN
IN THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN
FINAL REPORT
VOLUME I
March, 2012
ALMEC CORPORATION
ORIENT AL CONSULT ANTS CO. LTD.
Exchange Rate:
USD 1.00 = PKR80.00
(2010 Prices)
PREFACE
In response to a request from the Government of the Punjab in the Islamic

Republic of Pakistan, the Government of Japan decided to conduct “The Project for
Lahore Urban Transport Master Plan in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan” and entrusted
to the study to Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA).
JICA selected and dispatched a study team headed by Mr. Takashi Shoyama of
ALMEC Co., LTD. and consists of ALMEC Co., LTD. and Oriental Consultants Co., LTD.
between April, 2010 and March, 2012.
The study team held discussions with the officials concerned of the
Government of the Punjab, conducted field surveys in the study area, prepared a
Lahore Urban Transport Master Plan (LUTMP) and its Action Plan, conducted a
capacity development through On-the-Job-Training (OJT), and prepared this final
report.
The project was composed of two phases; i) Phase I to conduct a Home

Interview Survey (Person Trip Survey) and other transport/ traffic surveys and develop a
transport demand analysis model, and ii) Phase II to prepare a master plan and its
action plan. This report is presents the study findings of both Phases.
I hope that this report will contribute to the promotion of this project and to the
enhancement of friendly relationship between our two countries.
Finally, I wish to express my sincere appreciation to the officials concerned of

the Government of the Punjab for their close cooperation extended to the study team.
March, 2012
KONISHI Atsufumi,
Director, Economic Infrastructure Department
Japan International Cooperation Agency
The Project for Lahore Urban Transport Master Plan in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan
FINAL REPORT: VOLUME I of II
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMARRY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..........................................S-1
VOLUME 1---
URBAN TRANSPORT MASTER PLAN FOR LAHORE
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Study Background ....................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 Study Objectives.......................................................................................... 1-2
1.3 Study Area ................................................................................................... 1-2
1.4 Study Schedule and Framework ................................................................. 1-4
1.5 Composition of LUTMP Reports.................................................................. 1-5
1.6 Study Organization ...................................................................................... 1-5
1.6.1 Study Organization .................................................................. 1-5
1.6.2 Members of Organization ........................................................ 1-5
1.6.3 Meetings Held .......................................................................... 1-7
2. CURRENT TRANSPORT SITUATION, PROBLEMS AND ISSUES
2.1 Review of Existing Information, Studies and Plans/ Projects ..................... 2-1
2.1.1 Historic Development of Lahore and Previous Studies ........... 2-1
2.1.2 Plans and Projects ................................................................... 2-7
2.1.3 Data Gaps Identified .............................................................. 2-13
2.1.4 Possible Future Directions in Transport Infrastructure
Development ...................................................................... 2-14
2.2 Current Policy and Institutional Framework .............................................. 2-17
2.2.1 Policy and Institutional Framework ........................................ 2-17
2.2.2 Expenditure and Financing .................................................... 2-27
2.2.3 Transport Related Organizations ........................................... 2-34
2.2.4 Transport Department (TD) ................................................... 2-39
2.2.5 Traffic Engineering and Planning Agency (TEPA) ................. 2-41
2.2.6 Urban Unit (UU) ..................................................................... 2-44
2.2.7 Housing, Urban Development and Public Health
Engineering Department (HUD & PHED) .............................. 2-46
2.2.8 Communications and Works Department (C&W).................. 2-47
2.2.9 Lahore Transport Company (LTC) ......................................... 2-47
2.3 Socio-Economic Characteristics ............................................................... 2-50
2.3.1 The Study Area Profile ........................................................... 2-50
2.3.2 Urban Development Characteristics ...................................... 2-52
2.3.3 General Socio-economic Condition ....................................... 2-61
2.3.4 Population Distribution ........................................................... 2-66
2.3.5 Employment Distribution ........................................................ 2-72
2.3.6 2010Vehicle Ownership in the Study Area ............................ 2-76
(i)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
2.3.7 Household Income ................................................................. 2-79

2.3.8 Social Increase of Population by Income Level and by
zone of Destination ................................................................ 2-82
2.4 Transport System of Lahore ...................................................................... 2-89
2.4.1 Road Network ........................................................................ 2-89
2.4.2 Road Transport ...................................................................... 2-91
2.4.3 Road-based Public Transport ................................................ 2-96
2.4.4 Railways............................................................................... 2-102
2.4.5 Goods Movement ................................................................ 2-102
2.4.6 Historical Comparison of Present Traffic Demand with
1990 ..................................................................................... 2-103
2.5 Transport Demand Characteristics.......................................................... 2-106
2.5.1 Road Traffic Volume ............................................................ 2-106
2.5.2 External Traffic Volume ........................................................ 2-110
2.5.3 Person Trips ......................................................................... 2-112
2.5.4 Modal Shares ....................................................................... 2-114
2.5.5 Trip Generation/ Attraction ................................................... 2-116
2.5.6 Hourly Distribution of Trips .................................................. 2-115
2.5.7 Travel Time and Speed ........................................................ 2-117
2.5.8 Trip Makers’ Assessment of Their Journey ......................... 2-119
2.6 People’s Perception of Travel.................................................................. 2-121
2.6.1 General Traffic Situation and Congestion............................ 2-121
2.6.2 Traffic Safety ........................................................................ 2-123
2.6.3 Public Transport ................................................................... 2-126
2.6.4 Improvement of Transport System ...................................... 2-127
2.7 Current Transport Problems and Issues ................................................. 2-129
2.7.1 Road Network ...................................................................... 2-129
2.7.2 Public Transport Development ............................................ 2-133
2.7.3 Traffic Management ............................................................. 2-136
2.7.4 Institutional Set-up ............................................................... 2-139
3. URBAN DEVELOPMENT CONTEXT
3.1 Alternative Urban Development Scenarios ................................................. 3-1

3.1.1 Assessment of Past Urban Development in Lahore ............... 3-1
3.1.2 Alternative Urban Development Scenarios ............................. 3-8
3.1.3 Assessment of Alternative Scenarios .................................... 3-17
3.1.4 Existing Land Use Rules of the Punjab and Its Use.............. 3-18
3.1.5 Projects Assumed by Scenario .............................................. 3-20
3.2 Socio Economic Framework...................................................................... 3-24
3.2.1 Population .............................................................................. 3-24
3.2.2 Employment ........................................................................... 3-35
3.2.3 Number of Students ............................................................... 3-44
3.2.4 GDP and Per Capita GDP ..................................................... 3-47
3.2.5 Household Income and Car Ownership ................................ 3-54
4. TRANSPORT DEMAND CONTEXT
4.1 Future Transport Demand ........................................................................... 4-1

4.2 Assessment of Supply Demand Gaps ........................................................ 4-5
(ii)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
5. TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY
5.1 Overall Transport Policy .............................................................................. 5-1

5.1.1 Background .............................................................................. 5-1
5.1.2 Urban Transport Policy for Lahore........................................... 5-2
5.2 Selection of Urban Development Scenario ................................................. 5-8
5.2.1 Scenario Assessment .............................................................. 5-8
5.2.2 Recommended Scenario ......................................................... 5-9
5.3 Budget Envelop ......................................................................................... 5-10
5.3.1 Context................................................................................... 5-10
5.3.2 Estimate of Budget Envelope ................................................ 5-10
5.3.3 Application of Budget Envelope............................................. 5-11
5.4 Public Transport (PT) ................................................................................ 5-13
5.4.1 General .................................................................................. 5-13
5.4.2 Urban Rail Based Mass Transit Development ...................... 5-14
5.4.3 Urban Road Based Mass Transit Development and
Conventional Bus Services .................................................... 5-15
5.4.4 Bus Services .......................................................................... 5-15
5.5 Road Network Development ..................................................................... 5-17
5.5.1 Demand/ Supply Gaps........................................................... 5-17
5.5.2 Already Proposed Projects .................................................... 5-17
5.6 Traffic Management ................................................................................... 5-18
5.7 Modal Integration ....................................................................................... 5-19
5.8 Strengthening Institutional Capacity.......................................................... 5-20
6. ONGOIND AND PROPOSED PROJECTS
6.1 On-Going Projects ....................................................................................... 6-1

6.1.1 Lahore Ring Road (LRR) ......................................................... 6-1
6.1.2 Lahore Ring Mass Transit System (LRMTS) ........................... 6-3
6.1.3 Monorail System in Lahore ...................................................... 6-6
6.1.4 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) System for Lahore ........................... 6-7
6.1.5 Integrated Traffic Management System (ITMS) ...................... 6-7
6.1.6 Finance and Trade Centre ..................................................... 6-10
6.1.7 Other On-Going Projects ....................................................... 6-11
6.1.8 Projects Completed During the Course of the Study ............ 6-13
6.2 Projects Planned by Various Agencies...................................................... 6-15
6.2.1 Lahore Ring Road (LRR) – Southern Section ....................... 6-15
6.2.2 Conversion of Two Stroke Cab Rickshaws to 4-Stroke......... 6-16
6.3 Proposed Projects by Various Agencies ................................................... 6-17
6.3.1 Multimodal Inter-City Bus Terminals in Lahore ...................... 6-17
6.3.2 Vehicle Inspection and Certification System (VICS) ............. 6-18
6.3.3 Parking Management Company ............................................ 6-18
6.3.4 Sub-urban Railway System ................................................... 6-19
6.3.5 Institutional Development of LTTA ......................................... 6-19
6.3.6 Improvement of 52 Junctions in Lahore ................................ 6-19
(iii)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
7. MASTER PLAN 2030
7.1 Transport Network Planning ........................................................................ 7-2

7.1.1 Public Transport Network Development .................................. 7-2
7.1.2 Highway Network Development .............................................. 7-7
7.1.3 Study Area Traffic Management ............................................ 7-14
7.2 LUTMP 2030 Master Plan Network Formulation ...................................... 7-18
7.2.1 Base Case Transport Network............................................... 7-18
7.3 Profile of Major LUTMP 2030 Projects ...................................................... 7-47
7.3.1 Public Transport Projects ....................................................... 7-47
7.3.2 LUTMP 2030 Road Sub-sector Projects ............................... 7-53
7.3.3 LUTMP 2030 Traffic Management Projects .......................... 7-56
7.4 Evaluation of Major Master plan Projects ................................................. 7-66
7.4.1 LUTMP 2030 Economic Evaluation of Projects..................... 7-66
7.4.2 LUTMP 2030 Financial Evaluation of Projects ...................... 7-70
7.4.3 LUTMP 2030 Environmental Evaluation of Projects ............. 7-72
7.4.4 Environmental and Social Considerations in MCA................ 7-77
7.4.5 Overall MCA of LUTMP Projects ........................................... 7-89
7.5 LUTMP 2030 Implementation.................................................................... 7-95
7.5.1 Implementation Schedule and Responsible Agency ............. 7-95
7.5.2 LUTMP 2030 Financing Programme ................................... 7-101
7.5.3 Strengthening of Transport Sector Institutional Capacity .... 7-108
8. ACTION PLAN 2030
8.1 Development of Action Plan ........................................................................ 8-1

8.1.1 Action Plan Development Approach ........................................ 8-1
8.1.2 Available Funds for Action Plan ............................................... 8-1
8.1.3 Broad Priorities for Action Plan ................................................ 8-2
8.1.4 LUTMP 2020 Action Plan – Core Program 1 & 2 .................... 8-2
8.2 Trunk Public Transport System – Core Program - 1 ................................... 8-3
8.2.1 Proposed Trunk Public Transport System ............................... 8-3
8.2.2 Required Actions for Trunk Public Transport System .............. 8-6
8.2.3 Financing Arrangements for Core Program - 1 ....................... 8-7
8.2.4 Intermodal Integration with Public Transport Trunk
System ..................................................................................... 8-8
8.2.5 Preparatory Actions for RMTS System.................................... 8-9
8.3 Core Program - 2 – Traffic Management (TM) Projects ............................ 8-13
8.3.1 Selection of Areas for Priority Traffic Management
Projects .................................................................................. 8-13
8.3.2 Selection of TM Priority – Core Program - 2 ......................... 8-16
8.4 Core Program - 2 – Short Term Traffic Management Projects.................. 8-18
8.4.1 [TM12] Junction Design and Traffic Signal Improvement
– CBD Area ............................................................................ 8-18
8.4.2 [TM18] Linking Communities – Smart Roads ........................ 8-20
8.4.3 [TM23] Pedestrian and Bicycle Path Network ....................... 8-23
8.4.4 [TM24] Comprehensive Parking System Development ........ 8-29
8.4.5 [TM31] Local Standards and Guide Lines Development ...... 8-32
8.5 Core Program - 2 – Medium Term Traffic Management Projects ............. 8-34
(iv)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
8.5.1 [TM16] Traffic Circulation System Design and

Implementation ...................................................................... 8-34
8.5.2 [TM17] Public and Freight Transport Terminals..................... 8-38
8.5.3 [TM19] Feasibility Study for Traffic Demand
Management Measures ......................................................... 8-45
8.6 Core Program - 2 – Road Sub-sector Projects ......................................... 8-49
8.6.1 [R44 & R45] Shadbagh and Samanabad Areas –
Secondary Roads Development ............................................ 8-49
8.6.2 [R57] Development of Secondary Roads in South-west
Lahore .................................................................................... 8-54
8.7 Action Plan 2020 – Implementation .......................................................... 8-56
8.7.1 Implementation Schedule and Responsible Agency ............. 8-56
8.7.2 Action Plan Projects – Investment Plan ................................ 8-63
8.7.3 Institutional Reform ................................................................ 8-65
Annex-1 LUTMP PROPOSED ROAD SUB-SECTOR PROJECTS
(v)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.6.1 Members of the Pakistani Side ......................................................................................... 1-6

Table 1.6.2 Members of the Japanese Side ........................................................................................ 1-6
Table 1.6.3 List of Meetings Held ........................................................................................................ 1-7
Table 2.2.1 Main Transport-relating Organizations ............................................................................ 2-17
Table 2.2.2 Function Allocation of Transport Administration .............................................................. 2-19
Table 2.2.3 Composition of the Provincial Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965 ..................................... 2-21
Table 2.2.4 Allocation of Responsibility by Provincial Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965 .................... 2-21
Table 2.2.5 Composition of the Motor Vehicle Rules, 1969 ............................................................... 2-22
Table 2.2.6 Insurance by the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939 ...................................................................... 2-23
Table 2.2.7 The Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 ........................................................................................ 2-23
Table 2.2.8 The National Highway Safety Ordinance, 2000 .............................................................. 2-23
Table 2.2.9 Budget at a Glance (Government of the Punjab July 2010 to 30 June, 2011) ................ 2-29
Table 2.2.10 Budget Allocation of Annual Development Programme of Punjab 2009-10 .................... 2-30
Table 2.2.11 Roads Projects for Lahore (2010-11 Budget) ................................................................. 2-31
Table 2.2.12 Urban Development Budget 2010-11 for Lahore ............................................................ 2-32
Table 2.2.13 Transport Budget (Punjab, 2010-11, in Services Sectors) .............................................. 2-33
Table 2.2.14 Lahore Ring Road Budget (2010-11) .............................................................................. 2-33
Table 2.2.15 TEPA Staff Numbers by Grade ....................................................................................... 2-43
Table 2.3.1 Historical Development of Lahore ................................................................................... 2-54
Table 2.3.2 Housing Supply and Conditions, 1980 & 1998................................................................ 2-59
Table 2.3.3 Past Population Trends of Pakistan, the Punjab, Lahore Division and the Study
Area ................................................................................................................................ 2-62
Table 2.3.4 Demographic Characteristics by Tehsil........................................................................... 2-62
Table 2.3.5 Age Structure in Lahore District, 1998 ............................................................................ 2-64
Table 2.3.6 Educational Facilities and Enrolment in Lahore, 2009 .................................................... 2-66
Table 2.3.7 The Study Area 2010 Population by Town/ Tehsil .......................................................... 2-67
Table 2.3.8 The Study Area 2010 Employment by Zone of Residence (‘000) ................................... 2-72
Table 2.3.9 LUTMP 2010 Un-employed Residents by Zone of Residence (‘000) .............................. 2-73
Table 2.3.10 LUTMP 2010 Vehicle (Car and Motorcycle) Owning Households ................................... 2-76
Table 2.3.11 LUTMP 2010 Household Income Distribution by Town/ Tehsil ....................................... 2-81
Table 2.3.12 LUTMP 2010 Low Income Household Who Moved Home over the Last 5 or 10
Years to the Study Area .................................................................................................. 2-83
Table 2.3.13 LUTMP 2010 High Income Household Who Moved Home over the Last 5 or 10
Years to the Study Area .................................................................................................. 2-84
Table 2.4.1 Surveyed Road Lengths from RIS .................................................................................. 2-91
Table 2.4.2 Number of Motor Vehicles (‘000) ‘Registered’ as of 30th June 2008 .............................. 2-94
Table 2.4.3 Road Traffic Accidents and Casualties, Lahore .............................................................. 2-95
Table 2.4.4 Estimated Daily Person Trips in Lahore, 2007 .............................................................. 2-101
Table 2.4.5 Estimated Daily Motorized Person Trips in Lahore (LRMTS) ........................................ 2-101
Table 2.4.6 Bus and Wagon Fares, June 2010................................................................................ 2-101
Table 2.4.7 Key Operational Details ................................................................................................ 2-102
Table 2.4.8 Truck City Terminals in Lahore ..................................................................................... 2-103
Table 2.5.1 Comparison of Screenline Crossing Flows since 1991 JICA Study .............................. 2-106
Table 2.5.2 Outer Cordon Traffic Volumes since 1991 JICA Study ................................................. 2-110
Table 2.5.3 Number of Person Trips in the Study Area by Mode and by Trip Purpose, 2010 .......... 2-112
Table 2.5.4 Trip Rate of Lahore Residents, 2010 ............................................................................ 2-113
Table 2.5.5 Trip Generation/ Attraction by Town/ Tehsil, 2010 ........................................................ 2-115
Table 2.5.6 Number of Trips by Travel Time and Trip Purpose, 2010 ............................................. 2-117
Table 2.6.1 People's General Feeling on Present Traffic Situation .................................................. 2-121
Table 2.6.2 Percentage of People who Answered "Much Worse" or "Worse" on Current
Traffic Situation as Compared to 5 Years Ago .............................................................. 2-123
Table 2.6.3 Have you got involved in traffic accidents in the past 5 years? ..................................... 2-123
Table 2.6.4 People's Feeling on the Behaviour of Motorcyclists ...................................................... 2-125
(vi)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table 2.6.5 Frequency of Bus Use .................................................................................................. 2-126

Table 2.6.6 Reasons of Not Using Bus Service ............................................................................... 2-126
Table 2.6.7 People's Assessment on Bus/ Wagon Service ............................................................. 2-126
Table 2.6.8 People's Opinion on the Necessity of Public Transport Improvement........................... 2-127
Table 2.6.9 What types of public transport services must be improved? (Choose two) ................... 2-127
Table 2.6.10 People's Attitude on Transport Improvement ................................................................ 2-127
Table 2.6.11 People's Attitude on Public Transport Improvement Measures..................................... 2-128
Table 3.1.1 Criteria for Land Development Suitability Analysis............................................................ 3-8
Table 3.1.2 Assessment of Alternative Scenarios.............................................................................. 3-17
Table 3.1.3 Proposed Urban Development Projects .......................................................................... 3-20
Table 3.1.4 Workers Density in the Four Zones of CBD, 2010 .......................................................... 3-22
Table 3.2.1 Past Population Trends of Pakistan, the Punjab, Lahore Division and the Study
Area ................................................................................................................................ 3-24
Table 3.2.2 Relation of Population between Pakistan, the Punjab, Lahore Division and the
Study Area ...................................................................................................................... 3-25
Table 3.2.3 Population Forecasts ...................................................................................................... 3-26
Table 3.2.4 Summary of Forecast Population ('000).......................................................................... 3-31
Table 3.2.5 Past Trend in Female (15 years +) Employment Participation Rate in Pakistan ............. 3-35
Table 3.2.6 Forecast No. of Workers for the Study Area ................................................................... 3-35
Table 3.2.7 Forecast No. of Workers by Employment Sector for the Study Area .............................. 3-37
Table 3.2.8 Summary Forecast Result of Zonal Breakdown of Number of Workers (All
Employment Sectors, Night-time, '000) ........................................................................... 3-38
Table 3.2.9 Summary Forecast Result of Zonal Breakdown of Number of Workers (All
Employment Sectors, Day-time, '000)............................................................................. 3-40
Table 3.2.10 Summary Forecast Result of Zonal Breakdown of Number of Workers (Primary
Sector, Night-time and Day-time, '000) ........................................................................... 3-42
Table 3.2.11 Summary Forecast Result of Zonal Breakdown of Number of Workers
(Secondary Sector, Night-time, '000) .............................................................................. 3-42
(Secondary Sector, Day-time, '000) ................................................................................ 3-43
Table 3.2.13 Summary Forecast Result of Zonal Breakdown of Number of Workers (Tertiary
Sector, Night-time, '000) ................................................................................................. 3-43
Table 3.2.14 Summary Forecast Result of Zonal Breakdown of Number of Workers (Tertiary
Sector, Day-time, '000) ................................................................................................... 3-44
Table 3.2.15 Ratio of Students in the Same Age Group ...................................................................... 3-44
Table 3.2.16 Forecast Number of Students for the Study Area ........................................................... 3-45
Table 3.2.17 Forecast Number of Students ('000) by Town/ Tehsil (Night-time) ................................. 3-46
Table 3.2.18 Forecast Number of Students ('000) by Town/ Tehsil (Day-time) ................................... 3-47
Table 3.2.19 Past Trends of Pakistan GDP and GDP per Capita ........................................................ 3-49
Table 3.2.20 Projected GDP and GDP per Capita for Pakistan and the Study Area ........................... 3-49
Table 3.2.21 2010 Estimated GDP and GDP per Capita by Town/Tehsil ............................................ 3-51
Table 3.2.22 2020 Projected GDP and GDP per Capita by Town/Tehsil ............................................. 3-52
Table 3.2.23 2030 Projected GDP and GDP per Capita by Town/Tehsil ............................................. 3-53
Table 3.2.24 Present Household's Income and Car Ownership, 2010 ................................................ 3-54
Table 3.2.25 Household Income and Car Ownership, 2020 Scenario-I ............................................... 3-55
Table 3.2.26 Household Income and Car Ownership, 2020 Scenario-II .............................................. 3-56
Table 3.2.27 Household Income and Car Ownership, 2020 Scenario-III ............................................. 3-56
Table 3.2.28 Household Income and Car Ownership, 2030 Scenario-I ............................................... 3-58
Table 3.2.29 Household Income and Car Ownership, 2030 Scenario-II .............................................. 3-58
Table 3.2.30 Household Income and Car Ownership, 2030 Scenario-III ............................................. 3-59
Table 4.1.1 The Study Area Forecast Trip Production Totals ('000) .................................................... 4-1
Table 4.1.2 The Study Area Forecast Growth in Trips from 2010 ........................................................ 4-3
Table 4.2.1 LUTMP Screenline and Cordon Capacity and Traffic Volume .......................................... 4-5
Table 5.2.1 Environmental/ Social Aspects of Urban Development Scenarios .................................... 5-9
Table 5.3.1 Budget Envelope for Transport Development ................................................................. 5-11
Table 6.1.1 Contents of Planned Centralized Traffic Control Centre ................................................... 6-9
(vii)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table 6.1.2 List of Other On-going Projects - A Summary ................................................................. 6-12

Table 6.1.3 List of the Projects Completed by TEPA and C&W ......................................................... 6-14
Table 6.2.1 Description of Both Loops of Lahore Ring Road Project ................................................. 6-16
Table 6.3.1 List of Proposed Projects - A Summary .......................................................................... 6-17
Table 7.1.1 Public Transport Committed Projects................................................................................ 7-3
Table 7.1.2 RMTS Projects for Master Plan ........................................................................................ 7-5
Table 7.1.3 BRT Projects for Master Plan ........................................................................................... 7-5
Table 7.1.4 RMTS Project Costs ......................................................................................................... 7-6
Table 7.1.5 BRT Project Cost and Its Capacity.................................................................................... 7-6
Table 7.1.6 Summary of BRT Cost for LUTMP Project........................................................................ 7-7
Table 7.1.7 Types of Interchanges and Junctions ............................................................................. 7-11
Table 7.1.8 Example of Target Road Density in Urban Area ............................................................. 7-11
Table 7.1.9 List of LUTMP Committed Road Projects ....................................................................... 7-12
Table 7.1.10 Committed Projects included in LUTMP 2030 Master Plan ............................................ 7-15
Table 7.1.11 LUTMP 2030 Proposed Traffic Management Projects .................................................... 7-17
Table 7.2.1 Current (2010) Road Network and Performance Indicators ............................................ 7-22
Table 7.2.2 Base Case Road Network Performance 2020 and 2030 ................................................ 7-24
Table 7.2.3 Master Plan Road Network and Performance Indicators - 2020 ..................................... 7-32
Table 7.2.4 Master Plan Road Network and Performance Indicators - 2030 ..................................... 7-32
Table 7.2.5 Local and Long Distance Bus Route Network and Demand ........................................... 7-36
Table 7.2.6 PT Travel Demand for LUTMP Master Plan (2020 and 2030 Scenario-2) ...................... 7-39
Table 7.2.7 LUTMP Master Plan - Key Characteristics of Public Transport System .......................... 7-39
Table 7.2.8 LUTMP 2030 - RMTS and BRT System Performance Key Characteristics .................... 7-43
Table 7.3.1 Committed Public Transport Projects.............................................................................. 7-47
Table 7.3.2 List of Committed and Proposed Road Projects by 2020................................................ 7-54
Table 7.3.3 List of Proposed Road Projects by 2030 ......................................................................... 7-56
Table 7.3.4 Committed Traffic Management Projects ........................................................................ 7-56
Table 7.4.1 The Study Estimated Value of Time (VOT) ..................................................................... 7-68
Table 7.4.2 Public Transport Project Economic Evaluation Results .................................................. 7-68
Table 7.4.3 Road Sub-sector Project Economic Evaluation Results.................................................. 7-69
Table 7.4.4 Fare Setting for Public Transport A/C Bus, BRT and RMTS Project ............................... 7-71
Table 7.4.5 Financial Evaluation Results of RMTS and BRT Projects ............................................... 7-71
Table 7.4.6 Environmental Criteria for MCA ...................................................................................... 7-72
Table 7.4.7 Rating and Weighting for the Criteria in MCA ................................................................. 7-72
Table 7.4.8 Environmental Evaluation of LUTMP 2030 Projects ....................................................... 7-73
Table 7.4.9 Ranking Threshold in Environmental Evaluation ............................................................ 7-76
Table 7.4.10 Environmental Components for an IEE Level Study ....................................................... 7-79
Table 7.4.11 Overall Comparison of the Projects by IEE Level Study ................................................. 7-81
Table 7.4.12 Comparison of Land Acquisition Policies between Pakistan and International
Donors including WB, ADB and JICA ............................................................................. 7-84
Table 7.4.13 Comparison of Alternative Routes for Lahore Ring Road Southern Loop ....................... 7-85
Table 7.4.14 Ranking Threshold by Evaluation Criteria ....................................................................... 7-90
Table 7.4.15 MCA Evaluation Results of LUTMP 2030 Public Transport and Road Projects .............. 7-90
Table 7.4.16 Evaluation Criteria for Traffic Management Projects ....................................................... 7-93
Table 7.4.17 Evaluation Results of Committed Traffic Management Projects ..................................... 7-94
Table 7.4.18 Evaluation Results of LUTMP 2030 Traffic Management Projects ................................. 7-94
Table 7.5.1 Indicative Implementation Timetable for Committed and Proposed Projects .................. 7-95
Table 7.5.2 Responsible Agency for LUTMP 2030 Project Implementation ...................................... 7-98
Table 7.5.3 LUTMP 2030 Planned Investment Summary (USD million) .......................................... 7-102
Table 7.5.4 Cost Reduction by Applying PPP Scheme to RMTS/ BRT Projects.............................. 7-102
Table 7.5.5 PPP Opportunities in LUTMP Projects.......................................................................... 7-107
Table 7.5.6 Outline Functions of Six Divisions of LTDC .................................................................. 7-111
Table 8.2.1 RMTS & BRT Proposed Core Program -1 Systems Performance .................................... 8-3
Table 8.2.2 Necessary Actions to Construct Trunk Public Transport System ...................................... 8-7
Table 8.2.3 Estimated Number of Staff for RMTS Green Line Operation .......................................... 8-10
Table 8.3.1 LUTMP 2002 Action Plan Projects - Core Program-2 ..................................................... 8-17
(viii)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table 8.4.1 Tentative Implementation Schedule of TM12 .................................................................. 8-20

Table 8.4.2 [TM18] Tentative Implementation Schedule.................................................................... 8-22
Table 8.4.3 [TM23] Pedestrian and Cycling - Tentative Implementation Schedule ............................ 8-29
Table 8.4.4 [TM24] Parking Study Tentative Implementation Schedule ............................................ 8-32
Table 8.4.5 [TM31] Development of Guidelines and Standards Tentative Schedule ......................... 8-33
Table 8.5.1 [TM16] Traffic Circulation Project Tentative Implementation Schedule ........................... 8-38
Table 8.5.2 Bus and Freight Terminals Project – Tentative Implementation Schedule ...................... 8-45
Table 8.5.3 Traffic Demand Management Strategies ........................................................................ 8-47
Table 8.5.4 [TM19] TDM Project Tentative Implementation Schedule ............................................... 8-48
Table 8.6.1 [R44 & R45] Tentative Implementation Schedule ........................................................... 8-54
Table 8.6.2 [R57] Road Section Details ............................................................................................. 8-55
Table 8.7.1 Indicative Implementation Timetable for Public Transport Projects................................. 8-57
Table 8.7.2 Indicative Implementation Timetable for Road Sub-sector Committed and
Proposed Projects........................................................................................................... 8-57
Table 8.7.3 Indicative Implementation Timetable for Traffic Management Projects ........................... 8-59
Table 8.7.4 Public Transport Project – Responsible Agency ............................................................. 8-60
Table 8.7.5 Road Sub-sector Projects – Responsible Agency .......................................................... 8-61
Table 8.7.6 Traffic Management Projects – Responsible Agency...................................................... 8-62
Table 8.7.7 Planned Investment Summary (USD million) .................................................................. 8-63
Table 8.7.8 Cost Reduction by Applying PPP Scheme to RMTS/ BRT Projects................................ 8-64
(ix)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1.1 A Typical Directionless Traffic Mix and Parking in Lahore ................................................. 1-2
Figure 1.3.1 The Study Area ................................................................................................................. 1-3
Figure 1.4.1 Outline Schedule of LUTMP ............................................................................................. 1-4
Figure 1.6.1 Study Organization ........................................................................................................... 1-5
Figure 2.1.1 Master Plan for Greater Lahore ........................................................................................ 2-2
Figure 2.1.2 Lahore Urban Development and Traffic Study .................................................................. 2-3
Figure 2.1.3 Comprehensive Study of Transportation System in Lahore - Study Area ......................... 2-5
Figure 2.1.4 Comprehensive Study of Transportation System in Lahore - Master Plan ........................ 2-6
Figure 2.1.5 Lahore Rapid Mass Transit System (LRMTS) ................................................................... 2-9
Figure 2.1.6 Lahore Ring Road (as of May 2010) and Connecting Roads Plan ................................. 2-10
Figure 2.1.7 A Completed Section of Lahore Ring Road .................................................................... 2-11
Figure 2.1.8 One of Underpasses along Canal Bank Road ................................................................ 2-11
Figure 2.1.9 Shalimar Interchange ...................................................................................................... 2-12
Figure 2.2.1 Shares of Development Expenditure and Debt Servicing in Federal Finance,
2001-02 to 2009-10......................................................................................................... 2-27
Figure 2.2.2 Composition of Development Expenditure in Punjab Province 2007-08 to
2012-13........................................................................................................................... 2-28
Figure 2.2.3 Location of Road and Urban Development Projects, Budget 2010-11 ............................ 2-32
Figure 2.2.4 Transport-related Governmental Organizations .............................................................. 2-37
Figure 2.2.5 Organizations of Transport Department (TD) .................................................................. 2-39
Figure 2.2.6 Organizational Chart of TEPA ......................................................................................... 2-42
Figure 2.2.7 Organization of LTC ........................................................................................................ 2-49
Figure 2.3.1 Land Elevation in the Study Area .................................................................................... 2-51
Figure 2.3.2 History of Urban Structure Transformation...................................................................... 2-55
Figure 2.3.3 Population Density by LUTMP Zone (Dec 2010) ............................................................ 2-56
Figure 2.3.4 Lahore Metropolitan Area Master Plan 2021................................................................... 2-57
Figure 2.3.5 Delineation and Satellite Image of DHA Phases ............................................................. 2-58
Figure 2.3.6 Historical Population Growth in Lahore District ............................................................... 2-63
Figure 2.3.7 Labour Force by Occupation in Lahore ........................................................................... 2-64
Figure 2.3.8 Labour Force by Industry in Lahore ................................................................................ 2-65
Figure 2.3.9 Migration Origins into Lahore .......................................................................................... 2-65
Figure 2.3.10 The Study Area 2010 Populations by Zone..................................................................... 2-68
Figure 2.3.11 The Study Area 2010 Gross Population Density by Zone ............................................... 2-69
Figure 2.3.12 The Study Area 2010 Net Population Density by Zone ................................................... 2-70
Figure 2.3.13 Age Structure of Lahore 2010 Population ....................................................................... 2-71
Figure 2.3.14 Household Size Distribution of 2010 Population of Lahore ............................................. 2-72
Figure 2.3.15 LUTMP 2010 Zonal Employed Residents by Employment Sector .................................. 2-74
Figure 2.3.16 LUTMP 2010 Zonal Un-employed Residents by Residence Zone .................................. 2-75
Figure 2.3.17 LUTMP 2010 Car Owning Households by Zone ............................................................. 2-77
Figure 2.3.18 LUTMP 2010 Motorcycle Owning Households by Zone.................................................. 2-78
Figure 2.3.19 The Study Area 2010 Household Income Distribution..................................................... 2-79
Figure 2.3.20 LUTMP 2010 Household Income Distribution by Study Area Zone ................................. 2-80
Figure 2.3.21 Household Income Distribution by Vehicle Ownership, 2010 .......................................... 2-81
Figure 2.3.22 Low Income Household Movement by Study Zone over the Last 5 & 10 Years .............. 2-85
Figure 2.3.23 High Income Household Movement by Study Zone over the Last 5 & 10 Years ............. 2-87
Figure 2.4.1 Lahore Study Area Surveyed Road Network as Defined by Agencies ............................ 2-89
Figure 2.4.2 Lahore Study Area Road Network by Number of Lanes ................................................. 2-90
Figure 2.4.3 Traffic Congestion at Qartaba Chowk (Intersection) in the Central Lahore ..................... 2-91
Figure 2.4.4 Motorcycle Rickshaw (Qingqi) at Fort Road.................................................................... 2-92
Figure 2.4.5 Donkey Cart at an Intersection in Central Area ............................................................... 2-92
Figure 2.4.6 Daewoo Intra-City Bus Terminal...................................................................................... 2-93
Figure 2.4.7 Trend in Registered Motorized Vehicles in Lahore District .............................................. 2-94
Figure 2.4.8 Motorization Experiences in Selected Asian Cities ......................................................... 2-94
(x)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Figure 2.4.9 Gazetted Bus Route Coverage in Lahore ..................................................................... 2-100

Figure 2.4.10 Road Traffic Demand in 1990 ....................................................................................... 2-104
Figure 2.4.11 Road Traffic Demand in 2005 ....................................................................................... 2-104
Figure 2.4.12 Change in 4-wheeler Road Traffic, 1990 and 2005 ....................................................... 2-105
Figure 2.5.1 Major Screenlines in Lahore ......................................................................................... 2-107
Figure 2.5.2 Hourly Variation of Traffic Volume on Canal Screenline (South to North) ..................... 2-108
Figure 2.5.3 Hourly Variation of Traffic Volume on Canal Screenline (North to South) ..................... 2-108
Figure 2.5.4 Hourly Variation of Traffic Volume on Railway Screenline (East to West) ..................... 2-109
Figure 2.5.5 Hourly Variation of Traffic Volume on Railway Screenline (West to East) ..................... 2-109
Figure 2.5.6 Cordon Boundary in Lahore .......................................................................................... 2-111
Figure 2.5.7 Hourly Variation of Traffic Volume at Cordon (Inbound) ................................................ 2-112
Figure 2.5.8 Hourly Variation of Traffic Volume at Cordon (Outbound) ............................................. 2-112
Figure 2.5.9 Trip Rate by Gender and by Age Group ........................................................................ 2-113
Figure 2.5.10 Mode Share by Gender and by Age Group, 2010 ......................................................... 2-114
Figure 2.5.11 Mode Share by Household Vehicle Ownership, 2010 ................................................... 2-114
Figure 2.5.12 Mode Share by Trip Purpose (excluding walk), 2010 .................................................... 2-115
Figure 2.5.13 Hourly Distribution of Trips by Mode, 2010 ................................................................... 2-116
Figure 2.5.14 Hourly Distribution of Trips by Trip Purpose (excluding walk), 2010 ............................. 2-116
Figure 2.5.15 Hourly Distribution of Trips by Trip Purpose in terms of Percentage (excluding
walk), 2010 ................................................................................................................... 2-117
Figure 2.5.16 Average Travel Time and Distance by Travel Mode, 2010 ............................................ 2-118
Figure 2.5.17 Average Travel Speed on Selected Roads ................................................................... 2-119
Figure 2.5.18 Average Evaluation Score by Mode, 2010 .................................................................... 2-120
Figure 2.5.19 Reason of Modal Choice, 2010 ..................................................................................... 2-120
Figure 2.6.1 Stated Causes of "Very Bad" or "Bad" Traffic Situation ................................................. 2-121
Figure 2.6.2 Distribution of Respondent Households who Answered "Very Bad" regarding
Traffic Congestion ......................................................................................................... 2-122
Figure 2.6.3 Distribution of Respondent Households who Answered "Much Worse" of Traffic
Safety Situation as Compared to 5 Years Ago .............................................................. 2-124
Figure 2.6.4 People's Opinion on Reasons of Poor Traffic Safety .................................................... 2-125
Figure 2.6.5 People's Opinion on Necessary Traffic Safety Measures.............................................. 2-125
Figure 2.7.1 Location of Overpasses and Underpasses in Lahore ................................................... 2-129
Figure 2.7.2 Retail Encroachment- Road Inventory Surveys ............................................................ 2-131
Figure 2.7.3 Main Road Parking Encroachments.............................................................................. 2-132
Figure 2.7.4 User Assessment of Public Transport Facilities ............................................................ 2-136
Figure 2.7.5 Disorderly Traffic Mixed in Lahore................................................................................. 2-137
Figure 2.7.6 Flood in Lahore ............................................................................................................. 2-138
Figure 3.1.1 Present Urban Structure ................................................................................................... 3-7
Figure 3.1.2 Result of Land Development Suitability Analysis ............................................................ 3-10
Figure 3.1.3 Urban Development Scenario 1 (Zero Option - Trend) ................................................... 3-11
Figure 3.1.4 Urban Development Scenario 2 (Compact Development) .............................................. 3-15
Figure 3.1.5 Urban Development Scenario 3 (Dispersed Multi-Core Development) ........................... 3-16
Figure 3.2.1 Past Population Trends of Pakistan and Future Forecast by Various Agencies .............. 3-24
Figure 3.2.2 Annual Growth Rate Comparison for Future Year Forecast ............................................ 3-26
Figure 3.2.3 2020 Population Forecast for Three Scenarios ............................................................... 3-32
Figure 3.2.4 2030 Population Forecast for Three Scenarios ............................................................... 3-33
Figure 3.2.5 Gross Population Density, 2010 and 2030 by Scenario .................................................. 3-34
Figure 3.2.6 2010 Employment by Sector ........................................................................................... 3-38
Figure 3.2.7 2020 Night Time Forecast for Workers of All Employment Sectors by Scenario ............. 3-39
Figure 3.2.8 2030 Night Time Forecast for Workers of All Employment Sectors by Each
Scenario.......................................................................................................................... 3-40
Figure 3.2.9 2020 Day-Time Forecast for Workers of All Employment Sectors by Each
Scenario.......................................................................................................................... 3-41
Scenario.......................................................................................................................... 3-41
Figure 3.2.11 Past Trends - Growth Rate at Constant Price (% of Per Annum) .................................... 3-48
(xi)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Figure 3.2.12 2020 Percent of Car Owning Households for Three Scenarios....................................... 3-57
Figure 3.2.13 2020 Average Household Monthly Income for Three Scenarios ..................................... 3-57
Figure 3.2.14 2030 Percent of Car Owning Households for Three Scenarios....................................... 3-60
Figure 3.2.15 2030 Average Household Monthly Income for Three Scenarios ..................................... 3-60
Figure 3.2.16 Percent of Car Owning Households, 2010 and 2030 by Scenario .................................. 3-61
Figure 3.2.17 Average Household Monthly Income, 2010 & 2030 by Scenario .................................... 3-62
Figure 4.1.1 Forecast Trip Productions ('000) by Town/Tehsil and by Three Scenario .......................... 4-4
Figure 4.2.1 2010 Traffic Assignment Traffic Volumes (PCU) and V/C Ratio ........................................ 4-6
Figure 5.2.1 Indicative Target for Modal Share for 2030 ....................................................................... 5-9
Figure 5.4.1 Timing of Urban Rail Development in Major Cities of South Asia, Central Asia
and Middle East in Relation to GDP per Capita and Population ..................................... 5-14
Figure 5.6.1 Focus Area for Traffic Management ................................................................................ 5-18
Figure 5.7.1 'Bird-eye' View of Badami Bagh Bus Terminal ................................................................ 5-19
Figure 5.8.1 New Establishment for Transportation Development ...................................................... 5-21
Figure 5.8.2 Road Network Development by Applying Urban Planning Determination ....................... 5-24
Figure 6.1.1 Typical Cross Section of a Completed Section of LRR ..................................................... 6-2
Figure 6.1.2 LRR Northern Section Alignment and Status .................................................................... 6-3
Figure 6.1.3 Lahore Rapid Mass Transit System (LRMTS) Network..................................................... 6-5
Figure 6.1.4 Kalma Chowk Flyover over LRMTS Planned Station ........................................................ 6-6
Figure 6.1.5 Lahore Ferozepur Road Pilot Project - An Integrated Approach ....................................... 6-8
Figure 6.1.6 Location Map Finance and Trade Centre ........................................................................ 6-10
Figure 6.1.7 Finance and Trade Center Layout Plan .......................................................................... 6-10
Figure 6.3.1 Locations of Bus Terminals in Lahore ............................................................................. 6-17
Figure 6.3.2 Proposed Location of Outskirt City Bus Terminals .......................................................... 6-18
Figure 7.1 Development Procedure of Master Plan 2030 .................................................................. 7-1
Figure 7.1.1 LUTMP RMTS/ BRT Network 2030................................................................................... 7-4
Figure 7.1.2 Relationship between Capital Cost and Capacity of BRT Project ..................................... 7-6
Figure 7.1.3 Proposed Typical Cross Section for Motorway.................................................................. 7-8
Figure 7.1.4 Proposed Typical Cross Section for National Road / Trunk Road ..................................... 7-9
Figure 7.1.5 Proposed Typical Cross Section for Urban Primary Road ................................................ 7-9
Figure 7.1.6 Proposed Typical Cross Section for Urban Secondary Road .......................................... 7-9
Figure 7.1.7 Proposed Typical Cross Section for Urban Tertiary Roads ............................................. 7-10
Figure 7.1.8 Design Speed by Road Category.................................................................................... 7-10
Figure 7.1.9 Proposed Road Network by 2030 ................................................................................... 7-13
Figure 7.1.10 Traffic Management Project Areas .................................................................................. 7-16
Figure 7.2.1 Current (2010) Road Network Hierarchy......................................................................... 7-21
Figure 7.2.2 Current (2010) Road Network Performance ................................................................... 7-23
Figure 7.2.3 Base Case Road Network Hierarchy .............................................................................. 7-25
Figure 7.2.4 Base Case Road Network Performance - 2020 .............................................................. 7-26
Figure 7.2.5 Base Case Road Network Performance - 2030 .............................................................. 7-27
Figure 7.2.6 LUTMP 2030 Highway Master Plan Network .................................................................. 7-30
Figure 7.2.7 Highway Master Plan Network Performance - 2020 ....................................................... 7-33
Figure 7.2.8 Highway Master Plan Network Performance - 2030 ....................................................... 7-34
Figure 7.2.9 Para-transit - 2010 Passenger Volumes ......................................................................... 7-37
Figure 7.2.10 Bus Network - 2010 Density of Bus Routes .................................................................... 7-38
Figure 7.2.11 RMTS and BRT 2020 Alignments ................................................................................... 7-41
Figure 7.2.12 RMTS and BRT 2030 Alignments ................................................................................... 7-42
Figure 7.2.13 Scenario-2, 2030 Public Passenger Demand on RMTS and BRT Lines ......................... 7-44
Figure 7.2.14 2030 Public Transport Passengers, Excluding RMTS and BRT Lines ............................ 7-45
Figure 7.2.15 2030 Public Transport Passengers, Para-transit Trips Only............................................ 7-46
Figure 7.3.1 Location Map of RMTS Green Line Alignment ................................................................ 7-48
Figure 7.3.2 Planned Layout of RMTS Green Line Alignment and Station Locations ......................... 7-48
Figure 7.3.3 Location Map of RMTS Orange Line Alignment .............................................................. 7-49
Figure 7.3.4 Planned Layout of RMTS Orange Line Alignment and Station Locations ....................... 7-49
(xii)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Figure 7.3.5 Location Map of RMTS Blue Line Alignment................................................................... 7-50

Figure 7.3.6 Planned Layout of Blue Line RMTS Alignment and Station Locations ............................ 7-50
Figure 7.3.7 Location Map of Purple Line BRT Corridor ..................................................................... 7-51
Figure 7.3.8 Location Map of BRT Line 1............................................................................................ 7-51
Figure 7.3.9 Location Map of BRT Line 2............................................................................................ 7-52
Figure 7.3.10 Location Map of BRT Lines 3a and 3b ............................................................................ 7-53
Figure 7.3.11 UTC and Non-UTC Traffic Signalized Junctions in Lahore ............................................. 7-57
Figure 7.4.1 Vehicle Operating Cost by Vehicle Speed (Economic Cost) ........................................... 7-67
Figure 7.4.2 Examples of Project Site-RMTS Depots ......................................................................... 7-86
Figure 7.4.3 Measures to Minimize Split of Community/ Severance ................................................... 7-87
Figure 7.4.4 Endangered Greenery along Main Boulevard Gulberg ................................................... 7-88
Figure 7.5.1 Assumed Investment Schedule of LUTMP 2030........................................................... 7-102
Figure 7.5.2 Strategic Mobilization of Funding .................................................................................. 7-103
Figure 7.5.3 Effect of PPP................................................................................................................. 7-105
Figure 7.5.4 PPP Models on the Basis of Profitability ....................................................................... 7-106
Figure 7.5.5 New Establishment for Transport Sector Development................................................. 7-108
Figure 7.5.6 Conceptual Organization of PUTPEI............................................................................. 7-110
Figure 7.5.7 Overall Institutional Reform for Lahore Transport Sector Development ........................ 7-113
Figure 8.2.1 Route Alignment of RMTS/ BRT Lines for 2020 ................................................................ 8-4
Figure 8.2.2 Estimated RMTS/ BRT Travel Demand for 2020 .............................................................. 8-5
Figure 8.2.3 Typical Training of Train Drivers in Japan ....................................................................... 8-11
Figure 8.2.4 Proposed Staff Training Program to Open RMTS Green Line. ....................................... 8-12
Figure 8.3.1 Lahore CBD Area for Action Plan Projects ...................................................................... 8-14
Figure 8.3.2 Traffic on Fleming Road in Lahore CBD Area ................................................................. 8-15
Figure 8.3.3 Lahore City Action Plan Area - North of Canal to South of Ravi ...................................... 8-16
Figure 8.4.1 Existing Situation Lohari Gate Junction - Poor Junction Design ..................................... 8-18
Figure 8.4.2 Lohari Gate Junction - Pictures at Marked Sections ....................................................... 8-19
Figure 8.4.3 Smart Road Concept - Activity Centres Network in Operation ........................................ 8-21
Figure 8.4.4 Pedestrians, Public Transport and Private Traffic ........................................................... 8-21
Figure 8.4.5 Side-walk Photos in Fukuoka Japan ............................................................................... 8-21
Figure 8.4.6 Pedestrian Endeavour to Cross Gulberg Main Boulevard............................................... 8-23
Figure 8.4.7 Badami Bagh Bus Terminal - No Pedestrians/ Passengers Facilities ............................. 8-24
Figure 8.4.8 Daily Bicycle Demand in 2010 ........................................................................................ 8-25
Figure 8.4.9 Integrated Design Concept for Walkways, Bicycle Lane and Parking ............................. 8-24
Figure 8.4.10 Application of Integrated Pedestrian and Cycling Design in Central Lahore ................... 8-26
Figure 8.4.11 Concept Design of Mid-block Safe Pedestrian Road Crossing ....................................... 8-27
Figure 8.4.12 Some Street of Central Lahore Identified for Pedestrianization ...................................... 8-27
Figure 8.4.13 Data Darbar Area for Pedestrianization .......................................................................... 8-28
Figure 8.4.14 Discriminate Parking at Panorama Shopping Centre - The Mall ..................................... 8-30
Figure 8.4.15 [TM24] Parking Study - Proposed Project Area .............................................................. 8-32
Figure 8.5.1 Poor Traffic Circulation at Qurtaba Chowk - Note Conflicting Movements ...................... 8-35
Figure 8.5.2 Dual Carriageway Ferozepur Road - Note Traffic in Contra-flow Direction ..................... 8-35
Figure 8.5.3 Poor Gyratory System Design without Traffic Channelization ......................................... 8-36
Figure 8.5.4 Secretariat Junction - 2-way Junctions are Too Close .................................................... 8-36
Figure 8.5.5 Location of Public Transport and Truck Facilities in Lahore ............................................ 8-40
Figure 8.5.6 Bus Terminal Operation around Heritage Sites ............................................................... 8-41
Figure 8.5.7 Condition of Existing Truck Stand/ Terminal at Sabzazar................................................ 8-41
Figure 8.5.8 Steel Industry/ Commercial Activity in CBD Area ............................................................ 8-42
Figure 8.6.1 Shadbagh Area Lack of Access and Issue of Internal Traffic Circulation ........................ 8-49
Figure 8.6.2 Samanabad Area Lack of Internal Secondary Roads and External Linkages ................. 8-50
Figure 8.6.3 Proposed Secondary Roads (R44 and R45) Development............................................. 8-51
Figure 8.6.4 Proposed Urban Secondary Road Cross Section ........................................................... 8-52
Figure 8.6.5 Urban Secondary Concept Design ................................................................................. 8-52
Figure 8.6.6 Bus Bay Concept Design for Secondary Roads ............................................................. 8-52
Figure 8.6.7 Urban Street Concept Design for Dense Populated Area ............................................... 8-53
(xiii)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Figure 8.6.8 Urban Street Concept Design, Pedestrians, Cars, Buses and at-Grade LRT
Coexist, in Pleasant Urban Environment ........................................................................ 8-53
Figure 8.6.9 [R57] Development of Secondary Roads in South-west Lahore ................................... 8-55
(xiv)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABBREVIATIONS & ACRONYMS
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

AD Assistant Director
ADB Asian Development Bank
ADP Annual Development Program
ALOS Advanced Land Observation Satellite
BOT Build Operate Transfer
C&W Communication and Works Department
CantB Cantonment Board
CBD Central Business District
CDG City District Government
CDGK City District Government, Kasur
CDGL City District Government, Lahore
CDGS City District Government, Sheikhupura
CNG Compressed Natural Gas
DCO District Coordination Officer
DHA Defence Housing Authority
DIG Deputy Inspector General
DPL Development Policy Loan
DRTA District Regional Transport Authority
DSMD District Support and Monitoring Department
E&T Excise and Taxation Department
EDO Executive District Officers
EPA Environment Protection Agency
EPD Environmental Protection Department
ETC Electronic Toll Collection
F&P Finance and Planning
FDI Foreign Direct Investment
FMR Farm to Market Roads
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GIS Geographic Information System
GoPb Government of the Punjab
H&PP Housing and Physical Planning Provincial Department
H&UPDD Housing and Urban Physical Development Department
HIS Household Interview Surveys
HOV High Occupancy Vehicle
HP&EP Housing Physical & Environmental Planning
HRT Heavy Rapid Transit
HUD&PHED Housing, Urban Development and Public Health Engineering Department
ICT Information and Communication Technology
IFC International Finance Corporation
IMF International Monetary Fund
ITS Intelligent Transport System
LCCHS Lahore Cantonment Cooperative Housing Society
LDA Lahore Development Authority
LDRTA Lahore District Regional Transport Authority
LIT Lahore Improvement Trust
LRMTS Lahore Rapid Mass Transit System
LRR Lahore Ring Road
LRRP Lahore Ring Road Project
LRT Light Rail Transit
LSE Lahore School of Economics
LTC Lahore Transport Company
LTD Lahore Transport Database
LUTMP Lahore Urban Transport Master Plan
MCC Manual Classified Count
MD Managing Director
MRT Mass Rapid Transit
MS Municipal Services
(xv)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
MTDF Medium Term Development Framework

MVO Motor Vehicles Ordinance
MVR Motor Vehicle Rules
NEC National Economic Council
NESPAK National Engineering Services Pakistan
NFC National Finance Commission
NHA National Highway Authority
NHMP National Highway and Motorway Police
NHSO National Highway Safety Ordinance
NMT Non-Motorized Transport
NTCIP National Trade Corridor Improvement Program
NTRC National Transport Research Centre
NWFP North West Frontier Province
O&M Operation and Management
OBU On Board Unit
OD Origin-Destination
OJP On-the-Job Participation
OJT On-the-Job Training
P&D Planning and Development Department
PHA Parks and Horticultural Authority
PHATA Punjab Housing and Town Planning Agency
PHED Public Health Engineering Department
PMDGP Punjab Millennium Development Goal Program
PMU Project Management Unit
PNR Pakistan National Railway
PPHPD Passenger Per Hour Per Direction
PPO Punjab Police Office
PPP Public Private Partnership
PPTA Punjab Provincial Transport Authority
PRTC Punjab Road Transport Corporation
PSP Private Sector Participation
PTA Provincial Transport Authority
PTPS Pakistan Transport Plan Study
PTUIS Public Transport User Interview Survey
PUTC Punjab Urban Transport Corporation
R&B Rehabilitation and Building
RCC Roller Compacted Concrete
RIS Road Interview Survey
RMTS Rail-based Mass Transit System
RTAs Regional Transport Authorities
STREAM Sustainable Transport in East Asian Mega-cities
TD Transport Department
TDM Traffic Demand Management
TEPA Traffic Engineering and Transport Planning Agency (Under LDA)
TEVTA Technical Education and Vocational Training Authority
TEVTC Technical Education and Vocational Training Council
TMA Town Municipal Administrations
TPU Transport Planning Unit
TSDI Transport Sector Development Initiative
UA Union Administration
UCs Union Councils
UN United Nations
UNESCO United Nations Educational Scientific Cultural Organisation
UU Urban Unit
W&S Works and Services
WASA Water and Sanitation Agency (Under LDA)
WB World Bank
(xvi)
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
FINAL REPORT
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Study Objectives
The Lahore Urban Transport Master Plan (LUTMP) was formulated with the following
main objectives:
(i) To formulate an urban transport master plan for the Study Area up to the year
2030;
(ii) To formulate an action plan for the identified priority projects up to the year 2020;
and
(iii) To provide assistance to strengthen the administrative capacity of the

Government of the Punjab for implementing the master plan.
2. Worsening Transport Situation – Threat to Sustainability
The LUTMP study area of about 3,044 km2, covering the whole of Lahore District, part of
Kasur and Sheikhupura Districts, has been suffering from worsening traffic situation and
environmental degradation in the city center and on major arterial roads.
Population of Lahore District has been growing continuously, and increased by 7.5 times
since the first census in 1951. The fastest growth pace was recorded between 1972 and
1981, i.e., 4.3% per annum. Since then, the growth rate has been steadily declining. As
of 2010 the population of the LUTMP study area was estimated at about 9.9million,
including 0.4million of part of Kasur and 0.9million of Sheikhupura District areas.
However, most of the population is concentrated in the center of Lahore, while the rest of
the areas are mostly rural except for narrow strips along arterial roads, showing a ribbon
development.
Table S.1 Growth of Socio-economy and Transport Demand in LUTMP Study Area
Present Growth
Indicator 2030
(2010) 2030/ 2010
Population (000) 9,928 16,429 1.65
No. of Workers (000) 2,691 4,978 1.85
No. of Students (000) 857 1,597 1.86
1
GDP per Capita (PKR 000) 135.1 274.8 2.03
Car Ownership (% of households) 18.3 44.0 2.40
Trip Production (million/ day) 8.2 17.0 2.07
Average Volume/ Canal Screenline 0.28 0.66 1.74
Capacity Ratio Railway Screenline 0.50 1.07 2.14
(Do-Nothing Ravi River 0.71 1.95 2.75
Scenario) Study Area Cordon 0.32 0.76 2.38
Note: 1) at 2010 constant prices
Source: JICA Study Team
S-1
Figure S.1 2010 Traffic Assignment Volumes (PCU) and V/C Ratio
Figure S.2 2030 Traffic Assignment (2010 Network) Volumes (PCU) and V/C Ratio

While population and economy of the study area are foreseen to grow steadily in the
future, the increase of transport demand will be at much faster rate. The gradual shift
from poor quality public transport to private transport due to the increase of income and
motorcycle/ car ownership would further exacerbate the road traffic congestion,
particularly at the Railway and Ravi crossings. The forecast traffic volume will well
S-2
surpass the road capacity by 2030, if no countermeasures are taken.
This trend is the most fundamental threat to the quality of Lahoris life to overcome. Under
the strong pressure of this rapidly growing transport demand, the critical issues are not
only how to develop transport infrastructure but how to seek a sustainable solution
between urban development and transport development.
3. Constraints and Opportunities
Constraints: - Influencing transport sector development include insufficient institutional

capacity of the government even to understand the problems ahead, poorly coordinated
project implementation, limited funding, unclear status of “committed” projects, and so on.
Particularly critical is the funding capability. The estimated budget envelope is USD 6.6-
19.8 billion for the entire Master Plan period (2011 to 2030) and USD 2.3-6.9 billion for
the Action Plan period (2011 to 2020). However, the percentage of the investment to
Lahore’s GDP is on the high side at 2.4 % during the Action Plan period. This is about 3
times of the current level of investment in transport infrastructure. For the entire plan
period, the investment is equivalent to 1.4 % of the Lahore GDP. Private sector funding
such as PPP scheme would be additional to public funds.
Opportunities: - There are many to improve the situation in the LUTMP study area. These
are, among others: (1) the modal share of public transport in Lahore is considerably high
at 37~40 % as of 2010 (excluding walk trips, residents only) as compared to some other
Asian cities (see Table S.2). This is one of the precious assets that Lahore should
maintain; (2) the road infrastructure of Lahore is well developed and allows Lahoris to live
on “borrowed time” for a while more; and (3) LDA’s land use rules and regulations,
though in a limited coverage, offer a good opportunity not only to control urban
development but to provide revenue sources from integrated development of trunk public
transport system, local access roads and other urban facilities.
Table S.2 Public Transport Modal Shares in Selected Asian Cities
City (Country) Modal Share of Public Transport (%) Year
Shanghai (China) 22 2000
Bangkok (Thailand) 39 1989
Manila (Philippines) 70 1996
Jakarta (Indonesia) 55 2000
Hanoi (Vietnam) 7 2005
Phnom Penh (Cambodia) 18 2000
Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia) 10 1997
Delhi (India) 54 2000
Source: JICA urban transport master plans and UITP publications
S-3
4. Master Plan 2030
Key Strategies
1) For large urban areas, such as Lahore, the only way to effectively meet transport
demand is to provide the city with a high-quality public transport system which must be
developed in integration with the urban development. The core network will be
composed of urban rail (RMTS) and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). Secondary and feeder
services will be by buses with different sizes and types of services. Experiences of
successful cities clearly indicate that mass transit networks serve as the backbone of
the urban transport infrastructure and are integrated with urban land use and
development. Bus, including wagon, is and will remain the most important mode of
public transport system in Lahore. Although urban rail is expected to play a major role
in the future, the coverage will be limited and many corridors and areas would remain
without direct (walk-in) access to mass transit. Bus also provides important feeder
services for urban rail.
2) The travel demand analysis has presented the gap between the available road
capacity and the demand. The outcome is clear that with 2+% growth rate in
population, coupled with GRDP growth of about 6% the current network will not be
able to sustain the future road traffic demand. The primary strategy of road network
development is to fill the gaps by increasing road capacity. This has been seriously
considered in the master plan particularly at the congested cross-section of the Ravi
River.
3) Infrastructure is expensive and requires proper management and operation. Traffic

management is hence essential not only for the efficiency of traffic but for safety,
comfort and urban environment. Particularly in relation to road safety, the current
worsening situation is unacceptable. As car ownership is expected to increase sharply
in the future while road development is limited, managing the demand for private
transport will become a more serious concern. Traffic condition/ situation in the central
area of Lahore is the most serious in the study area. Most intercity and intra-city traffic
concentrate there using radial arterial roads. Disorderly traffic management and
insufficient road infrastructure aggravate the situation. The traffic management
deficiencies need to be tackled urgently.
Investment Summary and Project List
The development of the Lahore Urban Transport Master Plan (LUTMP) has been carried
out based on the analyses on current situation and future transport demand, and project
prioritization by Multi Criteria Analysis (MCA). The summary of the investment planned in
S-4
the Master Plan is presented in Table S.3. The estimated total investment for the entire
plan period till 2030 is about USD 11.1 billion. This falls in the estimated range of budget
envelope though on the high side particularly for the short- and medium-term.
Table S.3 Planned Investment Summary for the Master Plan Projects (USD million)
Medium
Period Short Term Long Term
Term Total
(Year) 2012-2015 2021-2030
2016-2020
Public Transport 1,499 3,021 2,742 7,262
Road Sub-sector 450 570 2,139 3,159
Traffic Management 146 363 154 663
Total 2,095 3,954 5,035 11,084
Note: excluding committed projects of which cost is unknown
Table S.4 summarizes the projects proposed in the Master Plan with responsible agency
specified by project.
Table S.4 Master Plan Projects with Estimated Cost and Responsible Dept./ Agency
Project
Assumed
Project Project Cost Proposed Responsible
Year of Status 1)
No. Description (USD by: Agency
Operation
Million)
Public Transport Projects – Committed
Multimodal Inter-City Bus
PT01 - 2014 Ongoing TD TD
Terminals in Lahore
Effective and Efficient School
PT02 0.01 2014 Planned TD TD
Bus System
PT03 Up-gradation of Bus Stands - 2015 Planned TD TD
PT04 Integrated Bus Operation 80.1 2015 Planned LTC LTC
Establishment of Multimodal
PT05 - 2017 Planned TD TD
Bus Terminal at Shahdara
Public Transport Projects – LUTMP 2030 Proposed
PT06 RMTS Green Line 2,583.0 2020 Planned TD TD
RMTS Orange Line (Initially
PT07 2,330.0 2030 Planned TD TD
BRT)
PT08 RMTS Blue Line (Initially BRT) 1,908.0 2030 Planned TD TD
PT07 BRT Orange Line 74.5 2015 LUTMP LTC
PT08 BRT Blue Line 58.6 2020 LUTMP LTC
PT09 BRT Purple Line 40.8 2020 LUTMP LTC

PT10 BRT Line 1 30.7 2020 LUTMP LTC
PT11 BRT Line 2 30.5 2020 LUTMP LTC
PT12 BRT Line 3a 28.7 2020 LUTMP LTC
PT13 BRT Line 3b 35.3 2020 LUTMP LTC
Road Sub-sector Projects – Committed
Construction of LRR (Airport –
R01 113.0 2015 Ongoing C&W C&W
Ferozepur Road)
Construction of Kalma Chowk
R02 17.5 2015 Completed C&W C&W
Flyover
S-5
Project
Assumed
Year of Status 1)
Operation
Million)
Construction of Canal Bank
Road Flyover
Remodeling of Canal Bank
R04 43.8 2015 Ongoing TEPA TEPA
Road
Remodeling of Barki Road
(LRR – Green City)
Remodeling of Kala Khatai
Road
Remodeling of Allama Iqbal
Road
R08 Remodeling of Multan Road 46.4 2015 Ongoing C&W C&W
Remodeling of Thokar Niaz
Baig Road
Remodeling of Lahore
R10 17.5 2015 Completed C&W C&W
Ferozepur Road
LUTMP 2030 Road Sub-sector Projects – Proposed
Barki Road
R11 17.0 2020 LUTMP C&W
(Green City – BRB Canal)
Bedian Road (DHA – LRR –
R12 142.0 2026 LUTMP C&W
Ferozepur Road)
Shabir Usmani Road
R13 (Barkat Market – Maulana 6.9 2021 Planned TEPA TEPA
Shaukat Ali Road)
Link Peco Road – Ferozepur
R14 6.7 2021 LUTMP TEPA
Road
Link Ferozepur Road - Nalay
Wali Road
R15 5.3 2021 Planned TEPA TEPA
(Completion of link between
Ferozepur and Multan Road)
Old Ravi Bridge and Road
(Bridge 0.5km)
G.T. Road
(Cooper Store - Ek-Moria Pul)
College Road (Ghaus-e-Azam
Road to Defence Road)
Structure Plan Road (Shahrah
R19 Nazria-e-Pakistan – Defence 35.0 2018 Planned TEPA TEPA
Road)
EXPO-Kahna Kacha Station
R20 Road (Khayban-e-Jinnah – 29.9 2024 Planned TEPA TEPA
Kahna Kacha Station)
Main Boulevard PIA Society
R21 Road (Baig Road – Ittehad 4.0 2024 Planned TEPA TEPA
Road)
Raiwind Road (Lahore Ring
R22 Road Southern Loop – 52.5 2025 LUTMP C&W
Raiwind City)
S-6
Project
Assumed
Year of Status 1)
Operation
Million)
Madrat-e-Millat Road -
Defence Road
Extension of Maulana Shaukat
Ali Road (Canal Bank Road –
Noor-ul-Amin Road through
Punjab University)
Kamahan Lidher Road
R25 (Ferozepur Road – Lahore 26.4 2027 Committed C&W C&W
Bedian Road)
Sua Asil Road (Ferozepur
R26 130.7 2030 Committed C&W C&W
Road – Raiwind Road)
Kahna Station – Raiwind City
(Kahna Kacha Approach Road
– Raiwind City along Railway
Line)
Kahna Kacha Road
R28 (Kahna Station – Ferozepur 29.9 2027 Committed C&W C&W
Road)
Sharaqpur Road
R29 (Lahore Ring Road – Saggian 202.0 2030 LUTMP C&W
Wala Bypass) (Bridge 0.7km)
Lahore-Sheikhupura Road
R30 (Saggian Wala Bypass – G.T. 20.4 2028 LUTMP C&W
Road)
Sagianwala Bypass Road
R31 (Ring Road – Sharaqpur Road) 43.4 2028 LUTMP C&W
(Bridge 0.6km)
R32 (West) (Sharaqpur Road – 16.2 2028 LUTMP C&W
Lahore-Sheikhupura Road)
Link Thokar Niaz Baig Canal
Bank Road – Ferozepur Road
R33 (Khyaban-e-Jinnah Road – 57.6 2022 LUTMP TEPA
Defence Road – Ferozepur
Road)
Manga-Raiwind Road
R34 43.5 2028 LUTMP C&W
(Multan Road – Raiwind Road)
Southern Bypass South Road
R35 (Ferozepur Road – College 57.0 2022 Planned TEPA TEPA
Road)
Southern Bypass North Road
(Canal Bank Road – M-2)
Raiwind-Pattoki Road
R37 (Raiwind City – Boundary of 73.3 2028 LUTMP C&W
LUTMP Study Area)
Raiwind Road (Thokar –
R38 Lahore Ring Road Southern 54.2 2028 LUTMP C&W
Loop)
S-7
Project
Assumed
Year of Status 1)
Operation
Million)
Defence Road
R39 (Multan Road – Ferozepur 60.1 2022 LUTMP C&W
Road)
Thokar Niaz Baig Canal Road
Extension (Defence Road –
R40 20.8 2028 LUTMP C&W
Lahore Ring Road Sothern
Loop)
Construction of LRR West
R41 121.9 2024 Planned C&W C&W
(Multan Road – M2)
Construction of LRR South
R42 (Ferozepur Road – Multan 201.2 2030 Planned C&W C&W
Road)
Secondary Roads in
Dharampura Area
Secondary Roads in Shadbagh
Area
Secondary Roads in
Samanabad Area
Lahore Bypass (G.T. Road –
R46 41.0 2022 LUTMP NHA
Kala Shah Kaku Bypass)
M-2 – Lahore-Islamabad
Motorway (Lahore-
R47 Sheikhupura Road – Boundary 89.0 2022 LUTMP NHA
of LUTMP Study Area) (Bridge
0.6km)
R48 Motorway (Bund Road – 64.6 2022 LUTMP NHA
Lahore-Sheikhupura Road)
N-5- Multan Road (Lahore
Ring Road Sothern Loop –
R49 109.7 2029 LUTMP C&W
Boundary of LUTMP Study
Area)
Sharif Complex Road (Defence
Road – Manga Raiwind Road
R50 116.1 2029 LUTMP C&W
– Bhai Pheru Kot Rada Kishan
Road)
North-West Secondary Ring
Road(Sharaqpur Road –
R51 118.3 2031 LUTMP C&W
Lahore-Sheikhupura Road –
G.T. Road)
Sheikhupura Muridke Road
R52 284.4 2031 LUTMP C&W
(G.T. Road – M-2)
Link G.T. Road (Sharaqpur
R53 Road – Lahore-Sheikhupura 22.9 2027 LUTMP C&W
Road – G.T. Road)
Link Kala Shah Kaku – Lahore-
Sialkot Motorway
Lahore-Sialkot Motorway
(Bridge 0.8km)
S-8
Project
Assumed
Year of Status 1)
Operation
Million)
Link G.T. Road Lahore-Sialkot
Motorway
Construction and remodeling
of Secondary roads - south of The Road Projects will be executed by LDA/ TEPA in conjunction
R57 LRR in the south-western with the developer’s contribution towards capital cost to be
quadrant between Ferozepur completed by 2020.
Road and Multan Road
Traffic Management Projects – Committed
Establishment of Centralized
TM01 - 2016 Planned TD TD
Driver Licensing Authority
Parking Management
TM 02 - 2018 Planned TEPA TEPA
Company
Traffic
TM 03 Traffic Education Center - 2014 Planned Traffic Police
Police
Traffic
TM 04 Traffic Control Plan of City - 2015 Planned Traffic Police
Police
Vehicle Inspection and
TM 05 - 2021 Ongoing TD TD
Certification System (VICS)
Construction of New Parking
TM 06 207.1 2020 Ongoing TEPA TEPA
Plazas
Construction of Pedestrian
TM 07 1.8 2016 Ongoing TEPA TEPA
Bridges
TM 08 Improvement of 52 Junctions 30.5 2021 Planned TEPA TEPA
TM 09 Ferozepur Road Pilot Project 28.3 2022 Ongoing TEPA TEPA
Conversion of Two Stroke
TM 10 Rickshaw into CNG Fitted Four 12.4 2019 Planned TD TD
Stroke Rickshaw
Remodeling of Inner and Outer
TM 11 14.1 2015 Planned TEPA TEPA
Circular Road
Traffic Management Projects – Proposed by LUTMP 2030
A.1 Junction Design and
TM 12 Traffic Signal Improvement – 4.0 2015 LUTMP TEPA
CBD
A.2 Existing Junctions Design
TM 13 30.0 2019 LUTMP TEPA
and Network Improvement
A.3 Road Function and
TEPA and
TM 14 Capacity Improvement 2.0 2015 LUTMP
CDGL
Program
B.1 Low Occupancy Vehicles
TM 15 Planning for Outskirt/ Rural 5.0 2017 LUTMP LTC
Areas
B.2 Traffic Circulation System
Design and Implementation
B.3 Public and Freight TEPA and
TM 17 100.0 2021 LUTMP
Transport Terminals CDGL
B.4 Linking Communities -
Smart Roads
S-9
Project
Assumed
Year of Status 1)
Operation
Million)
B.5 Feasibility Study for Traffic
TM 19 Demand Management 2.5 2018 LUTMP TEPA
Measures
B.6 RMTS and BRT Station
Area Traffic Management
C.1 Planning and Design
TM 21 Study for Non-Motorized 1.5 2017 LUTMP TEPA
Traffic
C.2 Non-Motorized Traffic
Facilities Implementation
C.3 Pedestrian and Bicycle
Path Network
D.1 Comprehensive Parking
System Development
D.2 Parking Facilities
Implementation
D.3 Park and Ride Facilities
Development
E.1 Traffic Enforcement
TM 27 3.0 2015 LUTMP Traffic Police
Strengthening Programme
TM 28 F.1 Traffic Calming 6.0 2015 LUTMP TEPA
F.2 Traffic Safety Education Traffic Police
TM 29 1.0 2018 LUTMP
Improvement and 1122
G.1 Intelligent Transportation
System Development
H.1 Local Standards and
Guidelines Development
Note: 1) Committed: officially approved by GoPb. Planned: waiting for approval.
5. LUTMP Action Plan 2020
Core Programs
A number of transport projects have been proposed in the Master Plan. Among the
projects, there are many projects that need immediate action of government agencies
due to urgent needs of the city. These projects are categorized as follows:
Immediate action to commence work on trunk public transport system such as

RMTS and BRT; to improve convenience, accessibility and comfort of people’s
travel, alleviating serious road traffic congestion foreseen in the future
(Core Program-1).
Traffic management in central Lahore; to improve disorderly traffic situation
around the Walled City, by a combination of minor road improvement, junction re-
design, parking management, pedestrian/ bicycle path development and other
cost effective traffic management measures (Core Program-2).
S-10
These projects may be considered as the core program of LUTMP. Other cost effective
projects to supplement and enhance the viability/ performance of the core projects
mentioned above may be included in the core program during project planning phase.
Proposed Core Program-1
In the Action Plan period (2012-2020), one RMTS line (Green) and seven BRT lines are
proposed. Later, by 2030, two BRT lines would need to be upgraded to RMTS (Orange
and Blue Lines). Table S.5 shows implementation programme. Figure S.3 illustrates the
broad corridors for these proposed projects for 2020.
Table S.5 RMTS and BRT Lines Proposed for 2020 and 2030
Max Line Load (Pax Per Hr
Daily Boarding
Project Per Direction – PPHPD)
Project Description System
Code % %
2020 2030 2020 2030
Growth Growth
PT06 RMTS Green Line RMTS 759,000 980,000 29 17,200 21,900 28
2020 BRT/
PT07 RMTS Orange Line 2030 510,000 743,000 46 9,500 20,100 102
RMTS
2020 BRT/
PT08 RMTS Blue Line 2030 270,000 379,000 40 5,600 11,200 100
RMTS
PT09 BRT Purple Line BRT 129,000 276,000 114 1,800 3,700 137
PT10 BRT Line 1 (Red) BRT 88,000 285,000 224 2,100 6,800 219
BRT Line 2 (Light BRT
PT11 109,000 331,000 204 1,500 3,700 164
Blue)
PT12 BRT Line 3a (Pink) BRT 161,000 265,000 65 3,200 3,500 12
PT13 BRT Line 3b (Pink) BRT 167,000 248,000 49 2,700 3,200 19
Totals 2,193,000 3,507,000 60 n/a
Proposed Core Program-2
List of the projects selected for the 2020 Action Plan Core Program 2 are given in
Table S.6.
Table S.6 Proposed Action Plan Traffic Management Projects (Core Program-2)
Project No. Project Description Implementation

TM12 A.1 Junction Design and Traffic Signal Improvement – CBD Short Term
TM18 B.4 Linking Communities - Smart Roads Short Term
TM23 C.3 Pedestrian and Bicycle Path Network Short Term
TM24 D.1 Comprehensive Parking System Development Short Term
TM31 H.1 Local Standards and Guide Lines Development Short Term
TM16 B.2 Traffic Circulation System Design and Implementation Medium-term
TM17 B.3 Public and Freight Transport Terminals Medium-term
TM19 B.5 Feasibility Study for Traffic Demand Management Measures Medium-term
Shadbagh Area (Roads - R44) and Samanabad Area (Roads R45) – Urgent
R44 & R45
Secondary Road Network Development Action
Construction and Remodeling of Secondary roads - south of LRR in the On-Going
R57
south-western quadrant between Ferozepur Road and Multan Road Developments
S-11
Figure S.3 Location of RMTS/ BRT Lines for 2020
S-12
Investment Summary
Table S.7 shows investment summary of LUTMP for the 2020 Action Plan period. Public
transport projects share is about 75 % of the total cost, while road and traffic
management share is 17 % and 8 %, respectively. The budget envelope is USD 2.3-6.9
billion for the Action Plan period (2012 to 2020). The planned investment falls in this
range. However, the percentage of the investment in relation to Lahore’s GDP is on the
high side at 2.6 % during the action plan period. This is about 3 times the current level of
investment. Private sector finance should be sought for these projects and measures to
raise government revenue should also be taken.
Table S.7 Planned Investment Summary for the Action Plan (USD million)
Period Short Term Medium Term
Total
(Year) 2012-2015 2016-2020
Public Transport 1,499 3,021 4,520
Road 450 570 1,020
Traffic Management 146 363 509
Total 2,095 3,954 6,049
Note: Excluding committed projects of costs of which are unknown
Possible reduction of public investment has been estimated assuming PPP scheme on
the proposed RMTS/ BRT projects. This was done assuming a percentage of contribution
from the private sector as shown in Table S.8. The reduction was estimated at about
USD 750 million equivalent to 26 % of the total investment.
Table S.8 Cost Reduction by Applying PPP Scheme to RMTS/ BRT Projects by 2020
Project Project EIRR FIRR Project Cost % Private Cost to Gov’t
No. Description (%) (%) (USD million) Sector (USD million)
PT06 RMTS Green Line 12.1 7.1 2,583.0 20 2,066.4
PT07 BRT Orange Line 18.8 21.0 74.5 100 0.0
PT08 BRT Blue Line 16.7 17.9 58.6 80 11.7
PT09 BRT Purple Line 15.5 16.1 40.8 50 20.4
PT10 BRT Line – 1 37.6 24.9 30.7 100 0.0
PT11 BRT Line – 2 43.6 26.5 30.5 100 0.0
PT12 BRT Line – 3a 28.7 50 14.4
20.4 16.3
PT13 BRT Line – 3b 35.3 50 17.7
Total 2,882.1 26.1 2130.6
6. Recommendations
The LUTMP study team recommends for the Government of the Punjab to:
1) Authorize and get this master plan approved by Chief Minister and concerned
agencies of GoPb, and disseminate its contents to all stakeholders.
2) Allocate implementation responsibilities by project clearly to government agencies.

Transport Department (TD) oversees and monitors the implementation of these
S-13
projects.
3) Establish new organizational setup to make decisions on various transport projects.

This proposal includes the establishment of Transport Management Board (TMB),
Punjab Urban Transportation Planning and Engineering Institute (PUTPEI), Lahore
Transport Development Company (LTDC) and Lahore Urban Transport Advisory
Council (LUTAC) to control the urban transport sector of Lahore as presented in
Figure S.4. This institutional setup is expected also to monitor and manage the
progress of the proposed projects in this master plan.
Figure S.4 New Establishment for Transportation Development

Transport
Department Transport Management Board
(TD) (TMB)
Punjab Urban Transport Planning and

Engineering Institute (PUTPEI) Lahore
Urban
Transport
Advisory
Council
Lahore Transport Development Company (LUTAC)
(LTDC)
4) Take necessary actions to launch the Core Program 1 of the LUTMP Action Plan as
shown in Table S.9.
Table S.9 Necessary Actions to Construct Trunk Public Transport System

Project Actions Needed
Route/ Line System
Code
EIA, detailed design, land acquisition, utility relocation and
PT06 RMTS Green Line procurement of transaction adviser are needed immediately.
RMTS
Tender and financial arrangement by 2015. Completion by
2019/20.
RMTS Orange Reference Design is needed urgently to firm up costs for
PT07 Line BRT budgeting, land acquisition etc. Other actions (EIA etc) by
(Initially BRT) 2015.
RMTS Blue Line
PT08 BRT FS is needed by 2015. Other actions by 2019/20.
(Initially BRT)
PT09 BRT Purple Line BRT All actions by 2019.
PT10 BRT Line – 1 BRT All actions by 2019.
PT12 BRT Line – 3a BRT All actions by 2019.
PT13 BRT Line – 3b BRT All actions by 2019.
5) Start the projects proposed in the Core Program 2 of the LUTMP Action Plan as soon
as possible. GoPb has already requested Japanese Government to conduct a
S-14
technical assistance project in this regard. Particularly in relation to the encroachment

of roads found everywhere at present in central Lahore, not only strengthening
enforcement but rationalization of road space and pedestrian facilities use (along with
improved bus system) should be seriously considered and planned coupled with
improvement of traffic management such as installation of modern signal system.
6) Raise funding capability of GoPb by seeking from various additional revenue sources,
and optimising current revenue sources under the institutional arrangements of the
government. Some of the initiatives that could be expanded further in Lahore could
include: (1) Property Assessment Taxes, (2) Betterment Charges and (3)
Development Charges. Although application of these initiatives needs careful
examination before it is implemented, the revenue potential is huge, presumably at
an order of several tens of billion rupees. It is recommended for GoPb to investigate
the possibility in relation to LDA’s land use rules and regulations.
S-15
Volume-I – Chapter-1
INTRODUCTION
FINAL REPORT
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Study Background
Lahore, the provincial capital of Punjab, is the second largest city in Pakistan with a
population of about 10 million. The city’s population has been growing at a growth rate of
about 3 % per annum. The city’s rapidly growing population coupled with increasing
vehicle ownership has resulted insatiable travel demand. Development of transport
infrastructure has not kept pace with this increase, and has caused transport related
problems like traffic congestion, poor environment and a slew of emerging issues:
• absence of mass transit system, inefficient and dilapidated condition of public

transport system;
• insufficient traffic management; poor junction design and lack of traffic control;
• encroachment of road space and public right of way, and poor public space
management;
• roadside commercial activities, absence of sidewalks, bus stops, proper bus
services, shelters; roadside garbage and garbage collection containers;
• illegal parking, and totally uncontrolled parking; and
• disorderly traffic: mixed of animal-drawn carts, auto rickshaws, bicycles and
pedestrians.
In 1991, Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) conducted a comprehensive

urban transport study and formulated a master plan for Lahore. The priority road projects
identified in the study, included intersection improvements, underpasses and bridge
construction across the Ravi River have been implemented by the World Bank and
Government funds. This improved traffic situation to limited extent, and alleviated
congestion in the last decade. However, guide way transit projects, including the
construction of the light rail transit (LRT) could not be implemented due to lack of
institutional capacity and financial constraints. Over the last twenty years city’s population
has more than doubled, as anticipated, but the transport infrastructure did not keep pace.
Also the city’s growth was not as planned; it expanded uncontrolled in all directions, as
unplanned ribbon development. There was no attempt to review and update the transport
master plan except limited planning for some ad-hoc transport projects.
The necessity of formulating a new urban transport master plan was highlighted under
these circumstances, and this led the Government of the Punjab requesting JICA to
conduct this study. Acting on the request of the Government of the Punjab (GoPb), JICA
dispatched a preparatory study mission to Lahore in January 2010. The mission
discussed and signed the Scope of Work and Minutes of Meeting with the Government of
the Punjab. This study has been implemented based on the agreed Scope of Work.
1-1
This study was divided into two phases; Phase 1 focused on transport/ traffic surveys and
Phase 2 included transport planning and master plan development. This report covers
both Phase 1 and Phase 2 of “The Project for Lahore Urban Transport Master Plan in the
Islamic Republic of Pakistan (LUTMP),” covering transport and traffic surveys, analyses,
formulation of urban development scenarios, setting future socio-economic framework,
demand forecast, preparing transport development strategies, formulation of urban
transport master plan for 2030 and formulation of urban transport action plan for 2020.
Figure 1.1.1 A Typical Directionless Traffic Mix and Parking in Lahore
1.2 Study Objectives
The following are the overall objectives of the study, as defined in the scope of work:
(i) To formulate an urban transport master plan for the Study Area up to the year 2030;
(ii) To formulate an action plan for the identified priority projects up to the year 2020;
and
(iii) To provide assistance to strengthen the administrative capacity of the Government
of the Punjab for implementing the master plan.
1.3 Study Area
The Study Area as shown in Figure 1.3.1, is about 3,044 km2, covers the whole of Lahore
District (yellow area), part of Kasur District (blue area), and part of Sheikhupura District
(green area). This area is 30% larger than the LMA Area (2,306 km2) studied by JICA in
1991 master plan and also by the LDA in 2004 master plan project.
Urbanization in Lahore has spread beyond its administrative boundaries, although the
city continues to be the center of the growing metropolis. As of 2010 the population of the
Study Area was estimated at about 9.9 million, including 0.4 million of Kasur; and 0.9
million of Sheikhupura District areas included in the Study Area. However, most of the
population is concentrated in the center of Lahore, while the rest of the areas are mostly
rural except for narrow ribbon development along arterial roads.
1-2
Figure 1.3.1 The Study Area
1-3
1.4 Study Schedule and Framework
The study commenced in April 2010 and ended in February, 2012. The overall framework
of the study is shown in Figure 1.4.1.
Figure 1.4.1 Outline Schedule of LUTMP

1-4
1.5 Composition of LUTMP Reports

The LUTMP Final Report is composed of the following:
A. Main Text Vol.1: Urban Transport Master Plan for Lahore
B. Main Text Vol. 2: Surveys, Analyses, Demand Forecast and Capacity

Development
In addition to the above, urban transport database has been created in the form of DVD
based on various transport /traffic surveys, demand needed and 2020 and 2030 travel
demand forecasts.
1.6 Study Organization
1.6.1 Study Organization
The study organization is composed of JICA and JICA Study Team on the Japanese side
and Steering Committee, Working Group, and Counterpart Staff on the Pakistani side, as
shown in Figure 1.6.1.
Figure 1.6.1 Study Organization
JICA Government
of Punjab
Steering Committee
Study Team
JICA Study Team Working Group and
Counterpart Staff
1.6.2 Members of Study Organization
The members of the study organization are presented in Table 1.6.1 and Table 1.6.2 for
the Pakistani and the Japanese side, respectively.
1-5
Table 1.6.1 Members of the Pakistani Side

Steering Committee Members
No. Name Position/ Status Department/ Agency
1. Mr. Ali Tahir, Secretary/ (Chairman) Planning and Development
2. Mr. Muhammad Yousaf Secretary Transport
3. Mr. Azam Suleman Khan Secretary Communication and Works
4. Mr. Sajid Saleem Hotiana Secretary Environment Protection
5. Dr. Muhammad Abid Bodla Member (Infrastructure and Development) Planning and Development Board
6. Mr. Ahad Khan Cheema DCO City District Government
7. Mr. Ahmad Mobeen D.I.G Traffic Traffic Police
8. Mr. Abdul Jabbar Shaheen Director General Lahore Development Authority
9. Mr. Ihsan-ul-Hq Managing Director Traffic Engineering and Transport
Planning Agency
10. Dr. Nasir Javaid Project Director The Urban Unit
11. Khawaja Ahmad Hassan Chairman Lahore Transport Company
Working Group Members

No. Name Position/ Status Department/ Agency
1. Mr. Muhammad Yousaf Secretary/ (Chairman) Transport
2. (Vacant) Project Director Transport Planning Unit
3. Mr. Manzoor Ahmad Ch. EDO (W/S) City District Government
4. Dr. Shagufta Shahjahan Director General Environment Protection
5. Dr. Muhammad Shehzad SP Traffic Traffic Police
6. Mr. Waseem Ahmad Khan Chief Metropolitan Lahore Development Authority
7. Mr. Saif-ur-Rehman Chief Engineer Traffic Engineering and Transport
Planning Agency
8. Mr. Tayyab Farid Coordinator LRMTS/ Optional Member Transport Department
9. Mr. Muhammad Imran Asst. Chief, Infrastructure/ Optional Planning and Development
Member
10. Mr. J.I. Kim Chief Exec. Officer Lahore Transport Company
11. Mr. Ozair Shah Transport Specialist The Urban Unit
12. Mr. Sohail Raza Director Lahore Ring Road Project
Table 1.6.2 Members of the Japanese Side

JICA
No. Name Position Division/ Office
1 Mr. Hiroyuki HAYASHI Director Urban and Regional Development Div.
2 Mr. Kenji MAEKAWA Director Urban and Regional Development Div.
3 Mr. Yasuhisa TOMINAGA Urban and Regional Development Div.
4 Mr. Masahiro Suzuki Urban and Regional Development Div.
5 Mr. Nobuyuki KOBE Urban and Regional Development Div.
6 Mr. Tomoharu OTAKE Chief Representative JICA Pakistan Office
7 Mr. Takatoshi NISHIKATA Chief Representative JICA Pakistan Office
8 Mr. Toshiya SATO Senior Representative JICA Pakistan Office
9 Mr. Nobuhiro KAWATANI Representative JICA Pakistan Office
10 Ms. Haruka SHINDO Representative JICA Pakistan Office
11 Ms. Naila ALMAS Senior Program Officer JICA Pakistan Office
JICA Study Team

No. Name Position/ Status Assignment
1. Mr. SHOYAMA Takashi Team Leader Comprehensive Transport Policy
2. Mr. Mazhar IQBAL Deputy Team Leader Public Transport Planning
3. Mr. KUMAZAWA Ken Deputy Team Leader Urban Planning, Land Use Planning
4. Mr. SHIBA Yutaka Member Urban Planning, Land Use Planning
5. Mr. David O’BRIEN Member Demand Forecast/ Bus and BRT Development
6. Mr. OKAMURA Naoshi Member Traffic Survey and Analysis/ Demand Forecast
7. Mr. Malik BECHAR Member Demand Forecast
8. Mr. Johan GEORGET Member Transport Survey
9. Mr. KOMORI Masaru Member Transport Survey
10. Dr. KANAI Yoshikazu Member Supplemental Traffic Survey
11. Mr. WAKUI Tetsuo Member Organization/ Capacity Development
12. Mr. HORIE Tetsuo Member Capacity Development
13. Mr. Joel CRUZ Member GIS
1-6
14. Mr. TANAKA Masanobu Member Database Development

15. Mr.TAKEDA Haruo Member Road Development Planning
16. Mr. NISHIKATSU Yoshiaki Member Road Development Planning
17. Mr. MATSUDA Tatsuyuki Member Railway Development Planning
18. Mr. Frits OLYSLAGERS Member Bus and BRT Development
19. Mr. TAKAGI Michimasa Member Traffic Management Planning
20. Mr. SEKI Yosui Member Project Evaluation
21. Mr. OKUZAWA Shinjiro Member Environmental / Social Considerations
22. Ms. SAKAI Yuko Member Project Coordination
JICA Local Study Team
No. Name Position Title
1. Mr. Aqeel Younis Mughal Member Transport Planning
2. Mr. Nisar Ahmad Shaikh Member Transport Planning
3. Mr. Taimoor-ul-Haq Abbasi Member Transport Planning
4. Mr. Muhammad Usman Member Transport Planning
Akram
5. Ms. Sara Anbreen Member GIS Specialist
6. Ms. Uzma Shahzadi Member Project Administration
7. Mr. Kamran Alam Khan Member Project Coordination
1.6.3 Meetings Held
During the course of the conduct of LUTMP, a series of meetings were held as shown in
Table 1.6.3. In addition, numerous lectures were delivered for capacity development of
Pakistani officials comprised mainly of Transport Planning Unit, Transport Department,
GoPb, The Urban Unit, Lahore Transport Company, University of Engineering and
Technology, Lahore School of Economics and JICA Local Staff, as detailed in Chapter 5,
Volume 2.
Table 1.6.3 List of Meetings Held
Steering Committee
Description Date Venue Participants
st rd
1 Meeting 3 June, 2010 22
nd th
2 Meeting 27 November, 2010 19
rd rd
3 Meeting 23 February, 2011 21
th th Planning and Development
4 Meeting 18 April, 2011 23
Department
th th
5 Meeting 14 September, 2011 26
th nd
6 Meeting 2 December, 2011 24
th nd
7 Meeting 22 February, 2012 26
th th
8 Meeting 24 February, 2012 Transport Department 18
Working Group
st th
1 Meeting 5 August, 2010 18
nd th Transport Department
2 Meeting 17 September, 2010 17
rd st Planning and Development
3 Meeting 1 July, 2011 21
Department
LUTMP Intl. Seminars

st th
1 Seminar 25 February, 2011 152
nd th
2 Seminar 15 September, 2011 Royal Palm Golf and Country 158
rd th
3 Seminar 17 November, 2011 Club, Lahore 45
th st
4 Seminar 1 December, 2011 170
1-7
CURRENT TRANSPORT SITUATION,

PROBLEMS AND ISSUES
FINAL REPORT
CHAPTER 2 – CURRENT TRANSPORT SITUATION, PROBLEMS AND ISSUES
2 CURRENT TRANSPORT SITUATION, PROBLEMS AND ISSUES
2.1 Review of Existing Information, Studies and Plans/ Projects
2.1.1 Historic Development of Lahore and Previous Studies

Lahore is a city which has its mentions in history books as far back as AD 630. Lahore City
has been growing, and underwent many development eras, i.e. The Hindu Era, Mughal
Period, Sikh Raj, the British Rule and then the creation of Pakistan in 1947. Since then, as
the capital of Punjab Province, city has been growing in somewhat circular fashion around
the walled city, and also unplanned organic growth of old population centres outside the
walled city area. The major growth started around late 1960’s when the population growth
rate was very high. This high growth lead to the city’s expansion in the south and
south-west corridors of Ferozepur Road and Multan Road, again mostly unplanned
suburbs, with the exception of rich areas Model Town, Gulberg and Shadman. In the east
urbanisation has been limited due to proximity to the India, and was seriously affected
after the 1965 war. Similarly, westward expansion has been restrained due to Ravi River.
1) 1966 Greater Lahore Master Plan

Development planning of Lahore was first envisaged in the 1966 Master Plan for Greater
Lahore. Similar to the prevailing town planning trends of that period, the Grater Lahore
Master Plan conceived Lahore as a metropolitan area with several satellite towns around
within a radius of 20~25 km. However, due to total lack of development control, no
understanding of transport needs that exceed the growth in transport infrastructure, the
city continued to grow linearly along radial routes, and the Greater Lahore Master Plan
failed to achieve its objectives. The master plan output is depicted in Figure 2.1.1.
2) Lahore Urban Development and Traffic Study, 1980

This study was conducted by Halcrow Fox UK, and it was the first attempt to plan the city
growth, and prepare an integrated development and transport infrastructure plan for the
year 2000. The future growth was planned towards the south and southwest axis, with
additional townships and population centres with adequate transport infrastructure. Again
the plan was for the development of population centres and associated transport
infrastructure. The transport infrastructure comprised mostly building of new secondary
and tertiary roads. No attempt was made to address the overall transport demand,
including the issue of public transport, which is crucial for the mobility of its poor residents,
with such low vehicle ownership. The overall development plan key features are shown in
Figure 2.1.2.
2-1
Figure 2.1.1 Master Plan for Greater Lahore
Source: Grater Lahore Master Plan, 1966
2-2
Figure 2.1.2 Lahore Urban Development and Traffic Study
2-3
3) 1991 Comprehensive Study on Transportation System in Lahore, JICA

This study was conducted in 1991 by JICA consultants with the assistance of Lahore
Development Authority (LDA) and Traffic Engineering and Planning Agency (TEPA). The
study objectives were:
to formulate a transportation master plan for the Study Area for 2010, with
intermediate action plans for year 2000, and
to conduct a feasibility study of selected mass transit system and other selected
transport infrastructure projects.
The study was first ever attempt to apply modern transport planning techniques for travel
demand analyses, development and evaluation transport infrastructure projects to meet
the travel demand of the City of Lahore (comprising of most of the contiguous urban area
of Lahore District and adjoining parts of Sheikhupura District in the north and part of Kasur
District in the south. The Study Area is shown below in Figure 2.1.3. The key features of
the master plan were:
most of the future population will be accommodated by intensification of the

existing urban areas, and further urbanisation of the city in the south/ southwest
quadrant;
a series of road projects, comprising of new roads and major improvement of
existing road intersections by construction of grade separated; and
introduction of mass both road based and fix-track mass transit system;
the implementation cost of the master plan was PKR 20 billion in 1991 prices
The master plan proposed a number of projects as shown in Figure 2.1.4. Its progress
since then is:
Improvement of existing roads – 70 km; halfway

Construction of new roads – 200 km; Lahore Ring Road (LRR) and some feeder
roads completed but no progress for circumferential roads in the south of the
center of Lahore
Improvement of 26 intersections; mostly done but needs further improvement
New bridges over River Ravi; proposed two new bridges completed
Introduction of bus priority lane 52 km; no progress
Provisions of bus larger bus fleet; once tried but failed due to the lack of control
Improvements of bus routes and schedules; being done continuously
Revision of fares; adjustment to inflation only
Improvement of existing railways – 40 km; none
Ferozepur LRT system 12.5 km; Pre-FS conducted by WB in 1994 but suspended
due to financial constraints
Development of 2-multi-modal interchanges (Bus and LRT); none completed
A new bus terminal in the south; proposed
2-4
Parking control; proposed

Segregation of motorised and non-motorised traffic; limited control only
Figure 2.1.3 Comprehensive Study of Transportation System in Lahore – the Study Area
Source: Comprehensive Study on Transportation System in Lahore, JICA, 1991
2-5
Figure 2.1.4 Comprehensive Study of Transportation System in Lahore – Master Plan
2-6
4) Integrated Master Plan for Lahore-2021 by NESPAK

This study was conducted in 2001 by National Engineering Services Pakistan (NESPAK)
consultants for LDA. The study addressed the urban planning issues of Lahore and
prepared a 2020 master plan. The study is comprehensive in nature as far as urban
planning is concerned. The data analysis is weak, as does not provide the impact of the
urban development scenarios on travel demand and corresponding requirement for
transport infrastructure. Therefore the master plan is of little use as an integrated master
plan for the city without taking account of the accessibility/ mobility issues of the residents
and future travel demand requirements.
2.1.2 Plans and Projects

1) Vision 2030
Pakistan’s strategic priorities are summarized in “Vision 2030” prepared by Planning
Commission, Government of Pakistan, August, 2007. The Vision 2030 statement
approved by National Economic Council (NEC) envisages a “developed, industrialized,
just and prosperous Pakistan through rapid and sustainable development in a resource
constrained economy by deploying knowledge inputs”.
The “Vision 2030” mentioned some important comments and targets, including those for
Lahore City, for example:
• “With present infrastructure, it will not be possible to expect our enterprises to

become part of, and players in, the international supply chain, or to facilitate new
investments in industry, agriculture and services.” (p.67)
• “Reducing delays in our transport system is critical instrument for the cost of doing
business, and hence increasing our competitiveness.” (p.67)
• “Lahore, a sprawling metropolis of seven million, has fewer than 150 traffic lights,
which are measures of insufficient traffic management. The result is severe traffic
congestion.” (p.96)
• “Lahore returns to being a city of intellectual activity and entertainment. Half a

dozen foreign universities will have made it their first overseas campus; together
with its older well known Pakistani universities, they will offer a variety of studies to
people from across the world. The Mall will have a large number of theatres and
restaurants, with the walled city and historical monuments becoming a haven for
tourists and students. Its industrial estates, technology parks, and shopping centres
will rival the best in the region. Its cultural and art festivals will attract a large
numbers of domestic and international tourists.” (p.99)
2-7
2) Lahore Rapid Mass Transit System (LRMTS)

Lahore Rapid Mass Transit System (LRMTS) is a project envisioned to provide mass
transit facilities to Pakistan's second largest city Lahore. The project is expected to
complete in 2025. In the first phase, two medium capacity rail based mass transit lines will
be constructed. For the priority Green Line between Shahdara and Hamza Town
(Ferozepur Road), a feasibility study was completed in 2006, and was immediately
followed by its reference design, which was completed in 2008 by SYSTRA. The Green
Line was likely to be completed by 2015 at a cost of USD 2.4 billion. The funding source
for the construction has not been decided. The feasibility study of the second priority line
(Orange Line) was completed in August 2007. No further programme has been made on
the mass transit project, since June 2008.
2-8
Figure 2.1.5 Lahore Rapid Mass Transit System (LRMTS)
Source: LRMTS Study, 2007
2-9
3) Lahore Ring Road (LRR)

The Lahore Ring Road (LRR) Project was launched on December 22, 2004. The LRR
Project is a large road project being developed by the GoPb, intended to ensure efficient
and speedy movement of freight and passengers, to alleviate traffic flow problems, and to
boost the city's potential for industrial development. The project includes the construction
of:
• 6-lane divided highway with interchanges (access-controlled);

• RCC bridges with reinforced earth abutments and walls;
• Overhead pedestrian bridges, culverts, tunnels, underpasses, flyovers and related
works; and
• Total projected cost of over PKR 20 billion.
Figure 2.1.6 Lahore Ring Road (as of May 2010) and Connecting Roads Plan
Completed
Under construction
Completed
Source: NESPAK, 2008
2-10
At present (May 2010), the first phase of the north-eastern part 18 km is under
construction and the part of it from west to Airport is open to operation.
Figure 2.1.7 A Completed Section of Lahore Ring Road
4) Underpasses and Flyovers in Lahore

Lahore has the highest number of underpasses and flyovers in Pakistan after Karachi.
One of arterial roads, Canal Bank Road, has 10 underpasses in the Study Area.
Figure 2.1.8 One of the Underpasses along Canal Bank Road
Shalimar Interchange
In 2009, one of the interchanges in the Canal Bank Road, called Shalimar Interchange,
was completed. It has a flyover 1 km long, in north-south direction and crossing two
underpasses in east-west direction.
2-11
Figure 2.1.9 Shalimar Interchange
W or
ksho
p Rd
.
R d.
ank Shalimar Interchange
al B
Can
Shalimar Link Rd.
Overpass and
Underpass
Features of the underpass of the Shalimar Interchange are as follows (from the Design
report and Drawings):
• Wall Structure: Diaphragm piled-wall (Dia. 660 mm) with retaining

walls (tile- surfaced),
• Overpass part: Pre-cast roof deck slab,
• Vertical clearance: H = 3.6 m Too low by AASHTO standard
• Carriageway: Dual-3
• Carriageway grade: Max. 3 %,
• Design speed: 70 km/h
2-12
Features of the flyover part of the Shalimar Interchange are as follows (from the Design
report and Drawings):
• Superstructure: Inverted Pre-stressed pre-cast concrete T-beam,

span = 25 m, beam height: H=1,360 mm.
• Substructure: Single column piers with bored pile (Dia. 1,000 mm)
foundations,
• Vertical clearance: 5.5 m (under the flyover)
• Carriageway: 3.3 m x 2 x two-way, total 4-lane,
• Carriageway grade: Max. 3.9 %
• Design speed: 70 km/h
5) Ferozepur Road Pilot Project

The GoPb decided to implement the project in 2006. However it has not been completed.
The main components of the project are relatively minor civil works (intersections and
service roads) and the installation of modern traffic signals, signs and road markings on
the 11.8 km stretch of Ferozepur Road from Qartaba Chowk to Khaira distributary near
Lahore General Hospital. It is treated as a pilot project to demonstrate the benefits of
applying modern traffic management methods, with a view to replicating the same
approach elsewhere in the city. In February 2010, the Lahore Division Commissioner
directed that Ferozepur Road should be remodelled soon while imposing a ban on the
entry of two-stroke rickshaws on the thoroughfare, besides removal of all kinds of
encroachments and garbage containers. The project cost was estimated at PKR 600
million.
2.1.3 Data Gaps Identified

There is no single agency/ department of either GoPb or Lahore District or local authority
that is responsible of maintaining transport and traffic data. There is no system in place to
keep up-to-date data, be it socio-economic, vehicle ownership, driving licenses, or on
traffic and transport in Lahore. There is a tendency that each agency collects its own data
for its own purpose and most often for particular purpose or a study. It is sometimes the
case that traffic and transport surveys are repeated on the same road within a year, but by
different agencies and consultants.
The data or database received from various government departments, agencies and
consultants is sometimes rudimentary. As a result LUTMP has to launch a comprehensive
set of transport and traffic surveys to prepare an up-to-date and comprehensive database
of travel demand and traffic situation in the Study Area. For example:
• The last census was in 1998, almost 12 years ago.
• There have been no household interview surveys since Comprehensive Study on

Transportation System in Lahore conducted by JICA in 19991.
2-13
• The road inventory data was poorly collected and documented, without
geographic reference. It only covered physical attributes of roads, and completely
neglected to collect the adjacent land-use, and time conditions such as kerb side
parking and encroachments.
• There was no data available on junction conditions.

• There was little latest and comprehensive traffic count data available from any
agency. The traffic data received is mostly related to localised traffic impact
studies, and lacks level of detail.
Therefore, the Study Phase1 is totally devoted to comprehensive transport and traffic
surveys. The definition and scope of these surveys are detailed in the remaining sections
of this report.
2.1.4 Possible Future Directions in Transport Infrastructure Development

Lahore is undergoing transport infrastructure improvement; albeit at much lower rate than
one would expect for city of 10 million inhabitants and population growth rate of almost
twice the national average. The developments in transport infrastructure during the last
decade were also limited, but the neglect of the system has been much more pronounced
over the last three to four years. Some of the key areas of transport infrastructure
developments have been:
1) Lahore Ring Road (LRR)

The construction of LRR (Phase-I, the northern loop) has been on-going, albeit at slower
pace. To some extent it could be attributed to the changes made to the alignment in the
south-west section of Lahore. It is anticipated that the LRR remainder section from Lahore
Airport to Ferozepur road would be completed by 2012.
The southern loop of the LRR was envisaged after the changes to alignment of the original
LRR route, which passed through the city along Ferozepur Road. A pre-feasibility study of
the southern loop was completed in 2009. This study defined the 49 km alignment and
estimated the cost to be PKR 63 billion. The funding for the project is yet to be secured.
Given the current austerity measures, it is unlikely that GoPb could provide funds for this
project much before 2012/ 13 financial year. However, attempts are being made by the
GoPb to secure private sector financing on ‘Private, Public Partnership (PPP) basis, with
little success.
2) Lahore Rapid Mass Transit System Projects

The work on the project was stopped in June 2008. Since then there has been no
progress on any component of the project. ADB had initially expressed interest in funding
the Green Line capital cost by about USD 1.0 billion. This funding was contingent upon
GoPb putting the project on PPP basis for raising the part or all of the remainder (USD 1.4
2-14
billion) of the capital cost and to secure private sector operator. As the GoPb showed no
interest in funding the project through ADB loans, the proposed financing model collapsed.
The GoPb alone cannot afford to fund the project capital cost. As a result the project
remains suspended until some form of capital cost funding could be secured.
As alternative to building the LRMTS defined alignments, GoPb has been soliciting
proposals of lesser capital costs, albeit of lesser capacity, and not necessarily ‘value for
money’. These attempts are outlined next.
Monorail System for Lahore

A Malaysian group has recently submitted an unsolicited bid to build a monorail system
along the Green Line alignment on BOT basis. The proposal is currently being examined
by the GoPb in detail. Particularly its financial and technical aspects are under scrutiny, as
some of the ‘claims’ regarding source of funding, its technical and financial feasibility lack
level of detail required for the implementation for such large scale infrastructure project. As
a result there has been no decision on adopting a ‘Monorail’ system for Lahore.
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) System for Lahore

A Korean group has expressed interest in providing BRT system for Lahore along the
Green and Orange lines corridors on BOT basis. The proposals are in early stages of
development. GoPb has requested to group to submit detailed feasibility reports on its
proposals. Feasibility report from the proponent has not been submitted yet as of
November 2011.
3) Other Transport Projects

There are a number of transport improvement projects under various phases/ stages of
consideration and implementation. The status of each one of these project is unclear. The
list below outlines these projects:
• Widening of Canal Bank Road project – Project suspended by the Supreme Court
of Pakistan on environmental grounds
• Gradual phasing out of 2-stroke rickshaws and replacement by ‘cleaner’ 4-stroke

engine rickshaws – project completion delayed, due to financial constraints.
• Setting up of Vehicle Inspection and Testing System – at proposal stage with

Transport Department
• Development and implementation of an ITS (Intelligent Transport System) – A pilot

project was studied, but never implemented. Implementation of a city-wide system
under consideration with Transport Department (TD) with the support and
technical help of Istanbul Municipality.
2-15
• Development of Parking Plazas – LDA recently built a parking plaza, and is trying
to operate it as Park-n-Ride facility for the nearby shopping area. So far success
has been limited as a parking facility. A repetition of the project in other areas of
Lahore is being planned.
• Development and Setup of Transport Planning Unit (TPU) – Development and

implementation of transport projects have been under the domain of TEPA.
However, over the last decade or so TEPA has done little or no planning. Much of
the work done by TEPA has been based on ad-hoc project development and its
implementation, without any concern or priority for the overall transport needs of
Lahore citizens. As a result, TD has setup TPU under the provincial government,
which is now conducting Lahore Master Plan study, with the aid of JICA in TD. It is
envisaged that TPU would gain the necessary technical skills from the JICA Study
Team, through a comprehensive technology transfer programme, and would be
capable of carrying out similar transport planning studies for the other major cities
of the Punjab Province.
2-16
2.2 Current Policy and Institutional Framework
2.2.1 Policy and Institutional Framework
1) Transport-related Organizations
Historically, many transport-related organizations and agencies have been established
and abolished in the Punjab Province. In addition, decentralization policy has been
promoted based the Punjab Local Government Ordinance 2001, aiming at the transfer of
administrative powers and obligations from the Provincial Government to the City District
Government. By this, transport-related agencies have been increased and jurisdictional
demarcations became complicated and ambiguous.
Table 2.2.1 shows main organization and agency, in principle, responsible for each sector.
Some of them focus on the physical infrastructure such as roads and pedestrian facilities,
others on public transport services, others on the management of the public space
available for the movement of persons and goods, and yet others have cross-cutting
responsibilities.
Table 2.2.1 Main Transport-relating Organizations

Coverage
Field Organization/ Agency City Town/
Nation Province
District Union
EDO(W&S)/ CDGL Office(W&S)
Lahore Development authority (LDA)
Department of Communication and Works
Infrastructure (C&W)
P&D Department/ Urban Unit (UU)
Cantonment Boards and Defence Housing
Authority (DHA)
Public Transport Department (TD)
Transport District Regional Transport Authority (DRTA)
EDO(MS)/ CDGL Office (Revenue)
Public Space EDO(MS)/ CDGL Office (Municipal Services)
Management Parks and Horticultural Authority)
Traffic Police
Traffic Engineering and Transport Planning
Agency (TEPA)
Cross Cutting
Town Municipal Administrations (TMAs)
Responsibility
Punjab Planning and Development Department
(P&D)
Source: Institutional Development of a Traffic Management for Ferozepur Road Pilot Project, Dec. 2007
Many of these agencies report to the Nazim of the City District Government of Lahore
(CDGL). Some are agencies of the GoPb, while others maintain direct links to both the city
and provincial Governments. In addition, there are two Cantonment Boards,
administrating large areas with a population of more than 830 thousands in 2010. They
are under National Jurisdiction and have virtually no institutional links with local and
provincial agencies.
2-17
There are four mega-cities in Punjab: Lahore, Rawalpindi, Multan and Gujranwala. These
city districts have three tiers: the City District Government (CDG), the Town Municipal
Administration (TMA), and the Union Administration (UA). Accordingly, the CDG of Lahore
includes 9 TMAs and 150 UAs.
(i) Physical Infrastructure

The CDGL office of Works and Services (W&S), under the Executive District Officers
(EDO) of W&S is conceived as the main agency responsible for the management of urban
street system. Most of the senior staffs were transferred from the Communication and
Works Department (C&W) of the GoPb and in many ways, remain in closer coordination
with the provincial agency than with those specifically created for Lahore. However, it is
expected that, over time, this office will be strengthened and to assume all functions
related to public works in the city.
As other organizations responsible for physical infrastructure, there are C&W, LDA,
Cantonment Boards, Defence Housing Authority (DHA), National Highway Authority
(NHA), Urban Unit (UU) and Planning and Development Department (P&D). Their roles
are described in this chapter.
(ii) Public Transport

The Transport Department (TD) is responsible for public transport policy and planning in
the Province. It is also responsible for licensing of public transport service outside the
major cities through the Provincial Transport Authority (PTA) and, by statutory exemption,
licensing of high-occupancy bus services in Lahore and other large cities. District Regional
Transport Authority (DRTA) continues to issue route permits for minibuses (“wagons”)
instead of TEPA.
(iii) Public Space Management

Most attention focuses usually on road infrastructure and transport services, neglecting
the issues regarding day-by-day management of public space such as parking,
encroachments and traffic safety. At present, many of these aspects are addressed by
CDGL, the Parks and Horticultural Authority (PHA), the traffic police and TEPA.
(iv) Cross-cutting Responsibilities

At the provincial level, the P&D has been actively involved in shaping road and transport
investments in Lahore. Most road construction and rehabilitation are financed through the
Provincial Annual Development Program and assigned for execution to variety of
agencies. In addition, the P&D has spear-headed studies and policy initiatives, such as
the studies for a Rapid Mass Transit System in Lahore, and Ferozepur Road Pilot Project
implemented by the UU.
2-18
When TEPA was created in 1987, TEPA was to perform all function and exercise all power
of Authority with regard to traffic engineering and planning within the metropolitan area of
Lahore. Practically, it was given 25 specific functions. As seen in the next section, however,
it could not function as expected mainly due to insufficient financial and personnel
capacity.
2) Allocation of Responsibilities
Table 2.2.2 was worked out in the Ferozepur Road Pilot Project conducted in 2007,
showing allocation of transport-related responsibilities among organizations, both
according to regulations and practice in reality. Comparing allocations by regulation and in
practice, several gaps are observed. In the next steps, reliability of the table will be
examined. As for functions with more than two agencies assigned, their appropriateness
will be investigated as well.
Table 2.2.2 Function Allocation of Transport Administration
Functions Regulation In Practice

Transport Planning Comprehensive Transport Planning TEPA None
and Finance Defining priorities and requesting budget P&D + CDGL P&D + CDGL
Approving budget requests P&D + CDGL P&D + CDGL
Funding infrastructure investment GoP + CDGL ? GoP + CDGL ?
Funding Operation and Maintenance - -
Road Infrastructure Planning TEPA+LDA+CantB+ as per regulation
(Primary and P&D+C&W+NHA
Secondary Road) Design TEPA+LDA+CantB+ as per regulation
P&D+C&W+NHA
Construction + remodeling roads LDA+CantB+P&D+ as per regulation +
C&W+NHA TEPA
Landscaping PHA PHA
Maintenance of road surface W&S W&S
Maintenance of drains WASA + EDO(MS) WASA + EDO(MS)
Maintenance of pedestrian facilities W&S None
National Route N-5 NHA NHA
Road Infrastructure TMAs+LDA+ TMAs+LDA+
(Tertiary Roads) CantB in their areas CantB in their areas
Traffic Signals Planning + Design TEPA TEPA + C&W
Installation + Maintenance TEPA TEPA + C&W
Operation TEPA TEPA + Police
Signals in Cantonment Board Areas CantB CantB
Traffic Signs and Design TEPA PHA + TEPA +
Road Markings C&W+W&S
Implementation TEPA PHA+TEPA+C&W+
W&S+Police
Public Transport Mass Transit Planning TEPA TD
Bus Route Planning and Regulation TEPA TD
Award and Issuance of Bus Route Permits PTA DRTA
Award and Issuance of Wagon Route permits DRTA DRTA
Monitoring and Supervision of Route Permits DRTA None
Issuance of permits for yellow cabs PTA PTA
2-19
Functions Regulation In Practice

Public Transport Issuance of permits for rickshaws and similar vehicles DRTA DRTA
Design of Traffic Safety Strategy TEPA None
Accident Recording (General) Police Police
Accident Recording (Commercial Transport) Police + DRTA Police + DRTA
Black Spot and other Accident Analysis TEPA None
Physical Traffic Safety Improvement TEPA TEPA
Traffic Safety Education and Campaigns TEPA None
Enforcement of Traffic Rules Police Police
Monitoring of Periodic Reports TEPA None
Public Space Design Parking Policy and Regulations TEPA None
Management Implement (enforce) parking regulations EDO (Rev) EDO (Rev)
Parking Fines and Revenue Management EDO (Rev) EDO (Rev)
Define Policy of Encroachment Control - None
Reinstate Pavement Affected by Construction - None
Implement (enforce) encroachment regulations TEPA+TMA+EDO(M as per regulation
S)
Encroachment Fines and Revenue Management TEPA+TMA+EDO(M as per regulation
S)
Public Space Conditions of Road Surface, Signs and Markings TEPA None
Management Functioning of Traffic Signals TEPA TEPA
Conditions of Pedestrian Facilities TEPA None
Traffic Flow Conditions (volumes, speeds, orderliness) TEPA None
Pedestrian Conditions TEPA None
Public Transport Quality TEPA None
Unwanted Use of Public Space, such as parking, TEPA None
encroachment, solid waste management
Consultation with Stakeholders and Neighborhood - None
Groups
Periodic Reports to Government Decision Makers - None
Source: Institutional Development of a Traffic Management for Ferozepur Road Pilot Project, MVA Asia Dec. 2007
3) Main Laws and Regulations

According to Institutional Development of a Traffic Management for Ferozepur Road Pilot
Project, Dec. 2007, the transport sector in Pakistan is regulated through the federal and
provincial enactments; they are:
The Provincial Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965,

The Provincial Motor Vehicle Rules, 1969 – regulates the motor vehicles throughout
the four Provinces, i.e. Balochistan, K.P.K, Punjab and Sindh except the Tribal Areas,
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 – extends its jurisdiction throughout Pakistan except
Tribal Areas,
The Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 – provides the methodology provisions for the payment
of compensation to family for loss caused by the death of a person on account of an
actionable claim.
The National Highway Safety Ordinance, 2000 – extends to the whole of Pakistan
and the Northern Areas for providing safe driving on the national highways and
motorways and for matters connected therewith.
2-20
(i) The Provincial Motor Vehicles Ordinance (MVO), 1965

The Provincial Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965 being a Provincial law relates to the whole
of the Province of Baluchistan, K.P.K., Punjab and Sindh except the Tribal Areas. It
consists of 9 Chapters, 122 Sections and 14 Schedules, as shown in Table 2.2.3.
Table 2.2.3 Composition of the Provincial Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965
Chapter No. Description Sections

I Preliminary 1-2
II Licensing of Drivers of Motor Vehicles 3-22
III Registration of Motor Vehicles 23-43
IV Control of Transport Vehicles 44-69
V Road Transport Corporation 70-72
VI Construction, Equipment and Maintenance of Motor Vehicles 73-74
VII Control of Traffic 95-76
VIII Offences, Penalties and Procedure 97-118
IX Miscellaneous 119-122
The said provincial law contains the provisions for the registration, movement, control and
regulations of Motor Vehicles. The term “Motor Vehicle” as defined in the MVO, 1965
means “any mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon road”. The MVO, 1965
includes a motor cab, contract carriage and stage carriage. The MVO, 1965 provides for
the mandatory Registration of Motor Vehicles and Licensing of drivers of Motor Vehicles
whereas the Transport Vehicles are required to obtain the Fitness Certificate prior to their
registration and then to ply these vehicles in accordance with the terms & conditions of the
Route Permits issued by the Provincial Transport Authorities or District Regional Transport
Authorities.
The MVO, 1965 is administrated by the four departments of the Provincial Government in
the manner listed Table 2.2.4.
The MVO, 1965 provides the mechanism for registration, licensing and regulation of Motor
Vehicles in particular and for control of traffic but it does not cover all the aspects of the
Road Traffic and the Public Space Management. The MVO 1965 has provisions for the
construction, equipment and maintenance of Motor Vehicles but has not been updated for
a long time and there is a frequent need for its amendment.
Table 2.2.4 Allocation of Responsibility by Provincial Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965
No. Name of
Attached Department Statutes Functions
Department
1 Transport Provincial Transport MVO, 1965 and Policy making, Planning
Department Authority; District MVR, 1969 except and regularization of public
Regional Transport control of traffic, service vehicles
Authorities checking and
inspection of motor
vehicles
2-21
No. Name of
Attached Department Statutes Functions
Department
2 Home Department Inspector General of Police Order, 2001 Licensing of Drivers of
Police, Punjab; Deputy MVO, 1965 and Motor Vehicles
Inspector General of MVR 1969 Enforcement of Traffic Laws
Police (Traffic), Punjab and Chapter 7 of Motor
Vehicles Ordinance, 1965
3 Excise and Taxation Director General MVO, 1965 and Registration of Motor
Department ( E&T) MVR, 1969 Vehicle
4 Environment Provincial MVO, 1965 and Monitoring and control of
Protection Environment MVR, 1969 traffic generated air
Department Protection Agency Environment pollution
Protection Act, 1997
(ii) The Motor Vehicle Rules (MVR), 1969

The Motor Vehicle Rules, 1969 prescribed under the provisions of Motor Vehicle
Ordinance, 1965 provides the mechanism causes for carrying out of the provinces of
Motor Vehicle Ordinance, 1965. The MVR, 1969 consists of 8 Chapters, 268 Rules, 6
Schedules and 3 Appendices shown in Table 2.2.5.
Table 2.2.5 Composition of the Motor Vehicle Rules, 1969

I Preliminary 1-4
II Licensing of Drivers of Motor Vehicles 5-27
III Registration of Motor Vehicles 28-53
IV Control of Transport Vehicles 54-125
V Road Transport Corporation 126-149B
VI Construction, Equipment and Maintenance of Motor Vehicles 150-215
VII Control of Traffic 216-239A
VIII Offences, Penalties and Procedure 240--268
The MVR, 1969 expand upon the parent law i.e. MVO, 1965 and are conforming pedigree.
There is a definite need to establish a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal’ Rules providing
specialized, focused and fast relief in Pakistan. The MVR are exhaustive, but they lack
certain issues such as passport/ visa, international driving and technical requirements of
vehicles, transport of animals, dangerous goods and perishable goods. It also lacks the
provisions for new technological advancements in the automobile sector such as CNG 4
stroke Motor Cab Rickshaws and Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Buses.
(iii) The Motor Vehicle Act, 1939

The West Pakistan Motor Vehicle Ordinance, 1965 has repealed the Motor Vehicle Act,
1939 in its application to the Province of West Pakistan, except Chapter VII and VIII and
Section 125; these deal with insurance of motor vehicles against third party risks. The Act
provides that no person shall use a motor car vehicle in any public place without having
proper insurance cover for the third party risk.
2-22
Table 2.2.6 Insurance by the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939

VII Motor Vehicle Temporarily leaving or visiting Pakistan 92
VIII Insurance of Motor Vehicles against third party risks 93-111
Driving uninsured vehicle 125
(iv) The Fatal Accidents Act, 1855

The Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 provides the provisions for the award of compensation to
families for loss occasioned by the death of a person caused by actionable wrong by filing
a Suit in the Court of District and Sessions Judge of the District. It consists of four Sections
shown in Table 2.2.7.
Table 2.2.7 The Fatal Accidents Act, 1855
Section No. Description

1 Suit for compensation to the family of person for loss occasioned to it by his death by
actionable wrong
2 Not more than one suit to be brought. Claim for loss to estate may be added
3 Plaintiff shall deliver particulars, etc
4 Interpretation Clause
(v) The National Highway Safety Ordinance, 2000

The National Highways Safety Ordinance, 2000 provides provisions for safe driving on the
National Highways and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. It consists of
8 Chapters, 99 Sections and 11 Schedules as shown in Table 2.2.8. The Ordinance aims
at safe driving on the National Highways and administration by the Federal Government.
Table 2.2.8 The National Highway Safety Ordinance, 2000

I Short title, extent and commencement 1-2
II Licensing 3-17
III Registration of Road Vehicles 18-38
IV Construction, Equipment and Maintenance of Motor Vehicles 39-40
V Control of Traffic 41-64
VI Offences, Penalties and Procedure 65-89
VII Establishment of a Police for Motorways and National Highways 90-93
VIII Miscellaneous 94-99
4) Orientations of the Current Plans and Policies

Current urban transport policies are briefly summarized in the Punjab Urban Transport
Policy 2007 prepared by the Urban Units. It listed the followings as basic transport policies
which will be checked one by one from the viewpoints of their actualization in the next
steps.
2-23
(i) An Integrated Urban Transport System

The GoPb shall notify an overarching legal and regulatory framework for the
establishment and management of a unified, consolidated and an independent
transportation institution.
(ii) Public Transport System

The GoPb shall encourage, facilitate and guide Local Governments to introduce
competitive mass transit system and make it choice of the riders through long term
strategic intervention to meet public transport demand such as:
Introduce Multi-modal Transit System

Private equitable road space for Public Transport
Private incentives to the operators linked with service performance and
passenger comfort
Reforms for bus and para-transit operations, and
Introduction of executive bus system for educational institutions
(iii) Urban Road Infrastructure

The expansion and up-grade of road infrastructure shall contribute substantially to
transform the economy through significantly reducing journey times and cost of
passengers and freight. The GoPb shall prepare an overall framework to continuous
process of need identification and assessment for the expansion and up-grade of
transport infrastructure. The Local Governments shall be encouraged to adopt planning
process for urban transport expansion based on sound engineering, socio-economic and
environmental consideration.
Adequate financing for road operation and maintenance is critical for sustainability of the
existing road infrastructure. The Local Governments shall estimate systematic and secure
financial arrangement for continuous operation and maintenance of the road infrastructure.
The GoPb shall issue guidelines and manuals for the operation and maintenance of the
transport infrastructure.
The GoPb shall promote traffic management instruments (traffic signaling system, traffic
circulation design, parking management, bus priority, demand management, traffic
signage etc.) for safe and efficient mobility of people and goods.
(iv) Land Use and Transport Planning Integration

The GoPb shall encourage the City Governments to develop area-wide computer based
transport planning models in the framework of overall city land use planning. The Local
Government shall be facilitated to prepare, approve and regularly update land use plans
for all towns and cities. Land use plans shall provide a programmatic and efficient base to
2-24
enable towns and cities to develop an integrated transport and traffic engineering plan and
restructure the urban space.
(v) Public Private Partnership

The GoPb shall develop the necessary legal, regulatory and institutional framework for
optimum use of PPP Model in activities such as:
Construction, operation and maintenance of transport infrastructure;

Construction, operation and maintenance of parking facilities;
Vehicle testing and certification facilities;
Construction and management of terminals;
Investment on Large Buses and Rolling Stock for Mass Transit System and etc.
The Local Government shall be encouraged to adopt various options of Public Private
Partnership (PPP) in design, construction, maintenance and operation of road
infrastructure, public transport and services.
(vi) Urban Freight Transport

Unregulated axle weights, unplanned truck stations due to poor land use control and shop
loading in the city centers resulting in deterioration of road infrastructure, environment and
congestion which can be optimized through restraining freight movement in short term
basis which can be addressed through zoning and land use control on long term basis.
The GoPb shall encourage Local Governments to develop freight transport planning
guidelines, time limited movement strategies and regulatory framework for permissible
weight limits.
(vii) Capacity Building

The GoPb shall develop capacity in the transport sector institutions by strengthening their
professional and organizational capacity. In-house skill development shall be enhanced by
providing scholarships for higher studies, continuous in service training programs and
career development.
(viii) Road Safety

In line with the framework development by the National Road Safety Secretariat, Ministry
of Communication of the Government shall formulate comprehensive road safety
legislation
The Local Government will develop mandatory safety audit system as part of each
transport infrastructure project to ensure road safety of the road users and frame
regulations and rules under proposed road safety legislation such as:
2-25
Rules for operation of vehicles on road

Legislation for victim’s compensation
Permissible traffic speeds
Responsibilities of pedestrians on roads
Procedures to follow in the event of accidents
(ix) Public Awareness

The Local Government shall allocate a reasonable percentage of development budget to
conduct community education programs to change the driving and road use behavior. The
masses shall be educated through community awareness programs, educational
institutions, print and the electronic media etc. These programs shall focus upon inter alia,
Driver’s training;
Road safety;
Women and children mobility;
Pedestrian mobility; and
Other transportation issues as required
(x) Environmental Protection

The GoPb shall invest in research, development, educational programs and utilization of
clearer technologies in the context of indigenous knowledge to reduce vehicular tailpipe
emissions and improve air quality of cities.
The Local Government shall be finalized to adopt clearer technologies to reduce

externalities and concentrate on disseminating basic knowledge of transport impacts on
environment and human health through media. The Local Government shall also make
ensure that environmental impact assessment shall an essential component of the
transport and land-use structure planning.
(xi) Standardization
The GoPb shall develop and encourage Local Government to adopt standardized uniform
procedures, guideline and codes while planning, designing and implementing transport
infrastructure and services projects.
(xii) Central Data Repository

Central Data Repository is essential for planning, monitoring and evaluation of
infrastructure and service delivery.
(xiii) Monitoring and Evaluation

The Local Government shall adopt regulations for monitoring and evaluation of operation,
maintenance and development of various transport projects. Environmental management
and monitoring plan shall be prepared and adopted by the Local Government during
2-26
construction operation stage of the project.
(xiv) Non-Motorized Transport

Non-motorized transport modes (NMT) i.e. walk and bicycle has predominant share in
daily trips therefore NMT network planning must be integrated with detailed road section
planning and intersection planning
2.2.2 Expenditure and Financing
1) Federal Finance
In the Federal budget for 2009-10, a total expenditure of PKR 2,877 billion was estimated
for the full year, comprising of PKR 2,261 billion of current expenditure and PKR 616.5
billion of development expenditure. Among the major expenditure heads, interest
payments of PKR 647.1 billion were estimated. According to IMF in April 2010, Pakistan
has considerable general government debt which is 58.1 % of the country’s GDP. In the
last decade, however, the Government has improved its finance structure. It is attested by
reduced debt servicing ratio in the federal budget, from 52.5 % in 2001-02 to 27.1 % in
2009-10. The second largest category was defence services, requiring PKR 343 billion.
In terms of structure of budgeted expenditure, current expenditure was estimated to

account for 78.9 % of total spending, with development and net lending at 21.1 % of the
total. The government has made continuous efforts to increase development expenditure
in the last decade, i.e., 15.3 % of the 2001-02 budget.
In the Federal budget for 2009-10, net transfer of province was estimated at PKR 697.9
billion, where Punjab Province may receive 51-52 % of the total in compliance with the 7th
National Finance Commission (NFC) Award. From the Punjab Province’s viewpoint,
provincial finance largely depends on federal transfers. In fact, provincial own revenues
accounted for only 27 % in the Punjab Province budget for 2008-09.
Figure 2.2.1 Shares of Development Expenditure and Debt Servicing in Federal Finance,
2001-02 to 2009-10
Source: Pakistan Economic Survey 2009-10
2-27
2) Provincial Finance
Similar to the federal finance, provincial finance of Punjab has expanded development
expenditure, i.e., 24.6 % of the budget in 2005-06 to 38.5 % in 2009-10. As results,
provincial development expenditure sharply increased from PKR 63 billion in 2005-06 to
PKR 175 billion in 2009-10 or by 2.8 times. Even taking rupee depreciation against US
dollar into account, provincial development expenditure substantially increased from USD
1,055 million equivalent to USD 2,101 million equivalent during the same period.
In the development expenditure categories, urban transport related public spending may
be absorbed into “roads” especially for provincial roads or “urban development” for minor
urban roads and terminal facilities or “special infrastructure”.
Special infrastructure comprises two major projects, i.e., Lahore Ring Road (LRR) and
Lahore Rapid Mass Transit System (LRMTS). The projects under this sector cater for
major urban transportation and mass transit needs in the provincial metropolis. These
projects, owing to their potential impact on economic growth, are placed as a separate
sector under present Medium Term Development Framework (MTDF) in Punjab.
In the 2010-11 Development Programme, PKR 19,121 million is budgeted for the Special
Infrastructure Sector including approved 23 contracts or equivalently PKR 4 billion for LRR.
No specific contract is recorded in order to disburse the rest budget of over PKR 15 billion
for both LRR and LRMTS. In the MTDF 2010-13, subsequent budget allocation is planned
for the Special Infrastructure Sector, i.e., each PKR 20 billion for the years 2011-12 and
2012-13, respectively.
Figure 2.2.2 Composition of Development Expenditure in Punjab Province,

2007-08 to 2012-13
250
200
Pak Rupees (Billion)
150
66% 75%
67% 75%
61% 67%
100
50 11% 1% 1%
15% 5% 5%
27% 18% 5%
4%
3% 4% 18% 19% 20%
11% 14%
- 10%
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13
Financial Year
Roads Urban Development Special Infrastructure Others
Note: “Others” include education, health, irrigation, agricultural production, etc.

Source: MTDF 2007-2010, MTDF 2010-13, Punjab Statistical Book 2009
Unit: PKR Billion
2-28
3) Analysis of Punjab Development Budget 2009-10

(i) Overview
According to the White Paper (Budget 2010-11) of GoPb, the overview of the Budget
2010-11 is summarized as follows:
- “Budget for financial year 2010-11 is being presented in the backdrop of difficult
and challenging security situation; sluggish economic growth; persistent
inflationary trends; ever increasing resource requirement for rehabilitation,
improvement and up gradation of existing infrastructure; a substantial salary
increase for public sector employees; a greater demand and emphasis on the
development and implementation of social security net etc.” (p.1)
- “Notwithstanding the constraints highlighted above, provincial government will

ensure the realization of its development vision through substantial allocations
for Annual Development Program.” (p.1)
Table 2.2.9 Budget at a Glance (The GoPb, 1 Jul. 2010 - 30 Jun.2011)
CURRENT BUDGET (Year 2010-2011) PKR (Million)

General Revenue Receipts 558,381.7
Revenue Expenditure 386,787.0
Net Revenue Expenditure 365,787.0
Pro-poor Subsidies 21,000.0
Net Revenue Account Deficit (-) / Surplus (+) 171,594.7
CURRENT CAPITAL BUDGET
Current Capital Receipts 222,049.6
Current Capital Expenditure 222,378.1
Net Capital Account -328.5
Net Public Account -3,040.6
Net Deficit (-) / Surplus (+) in the Budget 168,225.6
Federal Grants 677.4
Foreign Project Assistance 12,597.0
Financing through privatization sale proceeds 12,000.0
Operational Shortfall -
Total Resources for Development 193,500.0
Provincial Annual Development Programme 182,000.0
Other Development Expenditure -
Daanish School 3,000.0
Punjab Millennium Development Goal Program 6,500.0
(PMDGP)
TEVTA / TEVTC 2,000.0
Total provincial Development 193,500.0
PSDP Funded Schemes -
Total Development 193,500.0
Source: Budget 2010-11 (White Paper), the GoPb
From the table above, the following amounts are notable and related to this Project:
General Revenue Receipts: PKR 558 billion,

Foreign Project Assistance: PKR 12 billion,
Provincial Annual Development Programme: PKR 182 billion
2-29
(ii) Budget Items Related to Transport

The Budget for Annual Development Programme of Punjab of PKR 182 billion is tabulated
in Table 2.2.10.
Four (4) Lahore transport related items are found in the table below:
a) Roads (in Infrastructure Development): PKR 32 billion,
b) Urban Development (in Infrastructure Development): PKR 9 billion,
c) Transport (in Services Sectors): PKR 1 billion,
d) Special Infrastructure (Special Programme/ Packages): PKR 19 billion
Table 2.2.10 Budget Allocation of Annual Development Programme Punjab, 2009-10

No. Sector Allocation PKR Percentage
(Budget Year 2010-2011) (Million) (%)
A. Social Sectors (Education, Health etc.) 68,253.0 37.5
B. Infrastructure Development 59,260 32.6
1) Roads 32,885 18.1
2) Irrigation 11,005 6.0
3) Public Buildings 6,210 3.4
4) Urban Development 9,160 5
C. Production Sectors (Agriculture, Livestock etc.) 7,000 3.8
D. Service Sectors 7,050 3.9
1) Information Technology 1,960 1.1
2) Commerce and Investment 140 0.1
3) Labour and HR Development 85 0.0
4) Transport 1,190 0.7
5) Emergency Services 2,000 1.1
6) Tourism 1,675 0.9
E. Others (Planning and Development etc) 6,366 3.5
F. Special Programme/ Packages 34,071 18.7
1) District/TMA Development 12,000 6.6
Programme
2) Special Infrastructure (Lahore Ring 19,121 10.5
Road and Lahore Rapid Mass Transit
System)
3) Special Packages 1,450 0.8
4) New Imitatives/ Medical Colleges 1,500 0.8
Total Development Programme 182,000 100
Source: Annual Development Programme of the GoPb, 2009-10
In the following sections, each item is analyzed.

(iii) Budget Items for Roads
Budget for the roads takes the largest portion (18.1 %, PKR 32 billion) of the Development
Programme as shown above in Table 2.2.10.
The provincial road sector has been focusing to consolidate and maintain the existing
inter-district roads while catering for rehabilitation of the rural-access roads under an
umbrella program. In addition to above, present development portfolio for the province
entails major urban and inter-city road projects including the Lahore Ring Road (LRR) and
Lahore Rapid Mass Transit System (LRMTS) projects (Both are included under Special
Infrastructure section).
2-30
The road projects for Year 2010-11 in Lahore are shown in Table 2.2.11. Location of these
projects is shown in Figure 2.2.3.
Table 2.2.11 Roads Projects for Lahore (2010-11 Budget)

Length Budget
No. Description
(km) (PKR million)
1 Construction of 4 lane, Lahore Wahgha Road 16.35 203
2 Dualization of Lahore Ferozepur Road 11.50 124
3 Thokar Flyover 0.95 100
4 Improvement of Canal Bank Road 10.96 200
5 Widening of Kamahan-Lidher Road 3.10 34
6 Widening from Jallo More to River Ravi 13.95 45
7 Construction of over Head Bridge in Raiwind - 150
8 Rehabilitation of Defense Road 6.00 22
9 Construction of Road along both side of Butcher Kahna 8.50 50
Distributory
10 Widening of road from Kahna Kacha Approach Road 14.10 10
11 Widening of road from Kahna Nau to Kahna Kacha 7.35 37
12 Feasibility study for construction of new Roads - 5
13 Construction of Dual carriageway for Tarogil road 2.00 51
14 Rehabilitation of Allama Iqbal Road 4.00 5
15 Detailed engineering design and Feasibility of Circular Road - 5
16 Detailed engineering design and construction supervision of - 115
Multan Road
17 Improvement of existing Multan Road - 1,000
18 -ditto- 11.20 675
19 -ditto-, Proposed sewerage, drainage and Water supply - 1,325
20 Dualization of Barki Gawandi Road 2.77 40
21 Study and design of Kalma Chowk - 60
22 Establishment of Project Management Unit (PMU) for Kalma - 93
Chowk
23 Widening of Sui-e-Asil to Raiwind Road 19.00 300
24 Linking of Centre Point with Ferozepur Road - 600
25 Improvement of Centre Point Intersection - 1,000
26 Construction of Extension Building for IWMI - 31
27 Rehabilitation of road from Jallo More to Khaira Bridge 0.90 1
28 Rehabilitation of road from Sundar Stop to Khaneki Jhuggian 7.60 13
village
1-28 Total 140.23 6249
Source: Development Programme, 2010-11, the GoPb
(iv) Budget Items for Urban Development

Urban Development Sector covers developmental projects sponsored by WASA and
Development Authorities of the Large Cities (Lahore, Faisalabad, Rawalpindi, Gujranwala
and Multan) and district governments of the selected Intermediate Cities (with population
ranging from 0.24 to 0.54 million) of Punjab.
Budgets 2010-11 for urban development related to Lahore are presented in Table 2.2.12.
Location of these projects is shown in Figure 2.2.3.
2-31
Table 2.2.12 Urban Development Budget 2010-11 for Lahore

Amount
No. Description (PKR Million)
On-going schemes,
Lahore Development Authority (LDA)
1 Improvement of 45m wide road in M.A. Johar Town 33
2 Construction of Structural Road from 163
Khayaban-e-Jinnah to Valencia Town
3 Integrated Traffic Management system, Ferozepure 10
Road
4 Widening of M.M. Alam Road, L=2 km 10
5 Remodeling of Canal Bank Road 50
New Schemes,
6 Construction of Southern Bypass Road from 10
Ferozepur Road to College Road
7 Construction of Missing Link, Allama Iqbal Town 10
Figure 2.2.3 Location of Road and Urban Development Projects, Budget 2010-11
2-32
(v) Budget Items for Transport in Service Sectors

Transport development aims at provision of efficient, economical, comfortable safe and
green transport facility to the public in Punjab. The Development Programme 2010-11
holds three new strategies:
• Introduction of environment friendly transport (CNG Buses).

• Preparation of Transport Master Plan for Lahore with the assistance of JICA.
• Preparation of Transport Master Plans for all major cities of Punjab in coming
years with in-house expertise of TD developed by JICA.
Table 2.2.13 Transport Budget (Punjab, 2010-11, in Services Sectors)

Amount
No. Scheme Information Major Components (PKR Million)
On-going schemes
Capacity building of Transport Purchase of equipment and 1.5
1
Dept. capacity building of officers
Establishment of Transport Recruitment of staff, 51
2
Planning Unit in Transport Dept. procurement of equipment
Lahore Transport Master Plan Hiring of consultants, 92
3 (JICA assisted) procurement of equipment
and vehicles
New Schemes
Conversion of 2-stroke Subsidy to Rickshaw owners 43
4 Rickshaws into 4-stroke CNG
rickshaws
Subsidy for induction of CNG/ To enable private sector to 1,000
5 Diesel buses in Urban areas induct buses in Urban
transport system
(vi) Budget Items for Special Infrastructure

As already mentioned in the previous section, the Special Infrastructure Sector is
composed of Lahore Ring Road (LRR) and Lahore Rapid Mass Transit System (LRMTS).
The Development Programme gives the following targets to LRR:
Completion of LRR (north loop); and

Detailed engineering design for LRR (south loop).
On the other hand, there is no specific budget item for LRMTS.

Table 2.2.14 Lahore Ring Road Budget (2010-11)
Amount
No. Scheme Information No. of Schemes
(PKR Million)
On-going schemes
1 Lahore Ring Road 19 2,875
New Schemes
2 Lahore Ring Road 4 1,125
Total 23 4,000
2-33
2.2.3 Transport Related Organizations

As stated earlier in this report, there are a dozen of transport-related organizations in the
Metropolitan Lahore and their inter-relationships are complicated and role demarcations
are not very clear. Figure 2.2.4 shows such organizations by levels of nation, province,
city district and municipality. In the following sections, the roles and organizations of
transport-related agencies are briefly outlined. There is no special intention regarding the
order of descriptions as this study has not covered yet all the responsible agencies.
1) Federal Government
Under the Ministry on Communication of the Federal Government, National Highway
Authority (NHA) was established in 1991 to plan, construct and maintain national
highways and specific provincial roads entrusted by the provincial Government. In the
Study Area, NHA manages Lahore – Islamabad motorway and Nation Road No.5 (Multan
Road and Ravi Road in Lahore).
National Highway and Motorway Police (NHMP) controls traffic on the national highways
together with Punjab Highway Patrol. National Transport Research Center (NTRC) makes
nation-wide transport plans and strategies as well as transport-related researches. NOTC
conducted “Pakistan Transport Plan Study” in 2005-2006 with the technical cooperation
by JICA.
2) Provincial Government
As of April 2010, there are 42 Departments and Boards in the GoPb and out of which the
following four Departments are responsible to transportation administration and
transportation infrastructure development:
A)
Planning and Development Department (P&D)
B)
Transport Department (TD)
C)
Communication and Works Department (C&W)
D)
Housing, Urban Development and Public Health Engineering Department (HUD &
PHED)
The GoPb P&D is the principal planning organization at the Provincial level. It coordinates
and monitors the programs prepared by the Provincial departments concerned with
provincial development. The department also prepares an overall provincial Five Years
Plan and the Annual Development Program. It acts as a catalyst between different
departments in order to improve the pace and quality of economic development in the
Province. The main objectives of the Planning and development department are:
Assessment of the material and human resources of the province and formulation of
long and short term plans.
Recommendations concerning to prevailing economic conditions, economic policies
or measures. Examination of such economic problems as maybe referred to for
advice.
Coordination of all economic activities in the Provincial Government.
2-34
Urban Unit (UU) was set up under the P&D Department in 2006 with the purpose of urban
development research, improvement of urban traffic, study of solid waste treatment policy
and policy making for water supply and sanitation system.
The TD is responsible mainly in public transport administration established in 1987 based

on the West Pakistan Vehicle Ordinance 1965. TD issues the license for mass-transit
project and bus operation in Lahore, through its subordinate organization, i.e. the
Provincial Transport Authority (PTA).
The C&W Department is responsible for establishment of road and bridge design standard,
planning, designing, construction, improvement and maintenance of roads, bridges and
causeways, management of toll road inclusive of leasing of roadside land, inspection of
roads and materials and training of civil works. Under this department, there are Project
Management Unit (PMU), Lahore Ring Road Office (LRR) and District Support and
Monitoring Department (DSMD).
Lahore Development Authority (LDA) was established under Housing and Urban Physical
Development Department (HUPDD) based on the LDA Act 1975 and in charge of
management of the comprehensive development plan of Lahore, management of the
building code and regulations and development of poverty areas. LDA established the
Traffic Engineering and Planning Agency (TEPA) in 1987 based on LDA Act 1975, aiming
at playing all the roles concerning traffic management and transport planning.
3) City District/ Town Municipality Level

The TD established a government-owned company named Lahore Transport Company
(LTC) in July 2009, aiming at improvement of public transportation, currently with about 40
staffs. LTC is responsible to evaluate and review existing bus routes, propose new routes,
monitor bus operation and plan other improvement measures of public transport,
excluding a rail transit.
PTA has local offices named Regional Transport Authorities (RTA), one of which is Lahore
District Road Transport Authority (LDRTA). LDRTA was established in 2001, based on
Provincial Motor Vehicles Ordinance 1965. LDRTA was originally responsible for
management of public transport and issuing all the public transport. However, since PTA
became responsible for city bus licensing by Provincial Motor Vehicle Act 2005, LDRTA
has issued licenses only to mini-buses. LDRTA has 28 staff, headed by the District
Coordination Officer (DCO).
Lahore City District as well as other three mega-cities has three tiers: the City District
Government (CDG), the Town Municipal Administration (TMA), and the Union
Administration (UA).
2-35
When setting up the City District Government and TMA, two important principles have
been kept in mind (according to www.lahore.gov.pk/city-government/overview):
Where technical factors allow, the principle of subsidiarity has to be used in

determining which planning and municipal services/ functions are assigned to the
CDG and which ones to the TMAs; and
The transition process should be smooth and no disruption in services should be felt
by the people.
The City District Government consists of Zila Nazim and District Administration. The City
District Government of Lahore (CDGL) is component to hold, acquire or transfer any
property, to enter into contract and sue or be sued through the District Coordination Officer
(DCO).
District Coordination Officer (DCO)

In every District, the Government appoints a DCO who is a civil servant of the Federation
or the Province. He is the coordinating head of the District Administration, and his
functions are to:
ensure that the business of the District Coordination groups of officers is carried out
in accordance with the law;
coordinate the activities of the groups of officers for coherent planning and
synergistic development;
exercise general supervision over programs, projects and other activities;
coordinate the flaw of information required by the Zila Council;
act as principal accounting officer for the CDG;
call for information and reports from local governments in the district;
assist Zia Nazim in accomplishing administrative and financial discipline and
efficiency
2-36
Figure 2.2.4 Transport-related Governmental Organizations

Nation Level
Federal Governmentt
Ministry of Communication National Transport Research Center (NTRC)
National Highway Authority (NHA)
National Highway and Motorway Police (NHMP)
Ministry of Railway
Pakistan National Railway (PNR)
Ministry of Defense
Cantonment Boards (CantB)
Defense Housing Authority (DHA)
Provincial Level
Provincial Governmentt of Punjab (GoPb)
Planning and Development Department (P&D)

Urban Sector Policy and Management Unit (UU)
Transportation Department (TD)

Provincial Transport Authority (PTA)
Communication and Works Department (C&W)

Project Management Unit (PMU)/ Lahore Ring Road (LRR)
District Support & Monitoring Department (DSMD)
Housing and Urban Physical Development Department (HUPDD)
Traffic Engineering and Transportation

Planning Agency (TEPA)
City District/ Town Municipality Level

(Administratively) (Functionally)
Transportation Department (DOT) Punjab Police
City District C/W Office (PPO)
Government of DSMD
Lahore Transport
Company (LTC) Lahore (CDGL) Punjab Highway
Patrol
Provincial District
Transport Authority Coordination
Punjab Traffic
(PTA) Officer (DCO)
Police
Regional Transport Executive District City District

Authorities (RTAs) Officers (EDOs) Police of
Lahore
Town Municipal
Administrations (TMAs)
Secretaries of Union
Councils (UCs)
Source: Elaborated by JICA Study Team based on various information sources
2-37
prepare a report on the implementation of development plan

initiate the performance evaluation report of the Executive District Officers; and
implement government policy and collect and disseminate information on behalf of
the Provincial or District Government.
Executive District Officers (EDO)

The activities of any District are assigned to a number of groups and officers, each of
which is headed by an EDO whose functions are:
ensure that the business under his administrative control is carried out in
accordance with the law and that the resources placed at his disposal are optimally
utilized;
supervise the activities and ensure efficient service delivery;
supply information to the Monitoring Committee;
take corrective actions based on the information received from the Monitoring
Committee;
enforce relevant laws and rules;
prepare development plans and propose budgets;
Implement approved plans and policies;
authorize disbursement bonuses to employee;
prepare proposals from programs, projects and other activities;
propose relevant bye-laws on service delivery to the DCO; and
act as Departmental Accounting Officer.
In Lahore, some agencies such as LDA, TEPA, Water and Sanitation Agency (WASA) and
the LDRTA report to either the DCO or Zila Nazim. In addition, there are eleven EDOs
responsible for the following subjects: Revenues, Health, Education, Agriculture,
Community Development, Finance and Planning (F&P), Law, Information Technology,
Literacy, Municipal Services (MS) and Works and Services (W&S).
In this chapter hereunder, outlines inclusive of roles and staffing will be shown as for the
main organizations. Main information sources are:
Institutional Development of Traffic Management Unit for Ferozepur Road Pilot

Project, 2007, Urban Unit
Assessment of Capacity and Capacity Building Institutions in the Development

Policy Loan (DPL) Sectors, 2008, Urban Unit
Home page of the GoPb.
In the next steps, the stated facts will be checked if they are still valid or correct and if
there are any outdated descriptions, they are to be updated.
2-38
2.2.4 Transport Department (TD)

1) General
TD is headed by Secretary (BS-20) with two Deputy Secretaries (BS-18), four Under
Secretaries/ Section Officers and one Data Processing Officer. It has one attached
department i.e. Provincial Transport Authority and one Autonomous body, Punjab Road
Transport Corporation (PRTC). The Department has District Regional Transport
Authorities (DRTA) at District level. Main functions of the Transport Department are:
Formulation of Transport Policy and planning.

Administration of the Punjab Motor Vehicle ordinance, 1965 and the Rules framed
there under except control of traffic and registration of vehicles.
Administration of Provincial Transport Authority, DRTA and PRTC.
Regulation of fares of public service vehicles.
Figure 2.2.5 Organizations of Transport Department (TD)
Secretary Transport / Chairman PTA
Chief Director Director Secy. Punjab Provincial

Transport Additional Secretary
(Finance) (Administrate) Transport Authority
Planner
Transport D.A Secretary District Regional Deputy Secretary Deputy Secretary

Planning Transport Authorities at District Level (Administrate) (Planning)
Officer
Motor Mobil Patrol Data Processing Section Officer
Inspector Officer (Transport-I)
8
Section Officer Section Officer
Motor Vehicle (General) (Transport-II)
Examiner
39
Section Officer
Transport Sub (New Transport System)
Inspector
8
Source: Transport Department, 2010
2) Punjab Provincial Transport Authority

Secretary Transport is an ex-office Chairman of Punjab PTA under the Chairman a
Secretary (BS-18) along with ancillary staff functions at provincial level.
Provincial Transport Authority consists of:

Secretary TD Chairman ;
Secretary, C&W Member ;
Chief (Transport) P&D Member ;
2-39
Deputy Inspector General (DIG) of Police (Traffic) Punjab, Lahore

Member ; and
Secretary, Punjab PTA Member/Secretary
3) District Regional Transport Authority (DRTA)

DRTA constituted under Section 46 of the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965 in each District
of the Punjab. The composition of the District Regional Transport Authority is as under:-
i) DCO of the concerned District Chairman

ii) District Police Officer of the concerned Member
iii) EDO (Works and Services) of the Member concerned District.
iv) Secretary of DRTA Member/ Secy
4) Functions
To regulate transport within their respective jurisdiction by assessing the Traffic
needs of passengers and goods transport.
To grant issue and renew the route permits to the transport vehicles plying in the
District (Region).
To classify various routes within District (Region).
To prepare time and fare tale of public service vehicles.
To issue and renew licenses to the Body Building Workshops.
Checking of traffic in their respective jurisdiction.
To grant/renewal of licenses of A, B, C and D Class stands.
To grant/renewal of licenses of Goods Forwarding Agencies.
5) Regional Transport Authorities

To regulate transport within their respective jurisdiction by assigning the traffic
needs of passengers and goods transport.
To grant issue and renew the route permits to the transport vehicles plying in the
divisions.
To classify various routes within region.
To prepare time and fare tables of public service vehicles.
To issue and renew licences to the Body building workshops.
Checking of traffic in their respective jurisdiction
To grant licences for bus stands.
Note: The right of appeal against the order of the RTA lies with Chairman PTA.
2-40
6) Motor Vehicles Examiners

Examination of motor vehicles for the purpose of issuance of fitness certificates.
Checking of vehicles on roads.
Detection of un-road worthy vehicles.
Suspension of fitness certificates.
Investigation of fatal accidents and to give technical expert opinion
Inspection of government vehicles for repair and issue their condemnation
certificates.
Prosecution of vehicles without fitness certificates and to force such vehicles for
examination.
Acts as essential member of Driving Test Board.
2.2.5 Traffic Engineering and Planning Agency (TEPA)

1) Roles
TEPA was created in 1987 under section 6, subsection (3) sub-clause (xii) of the Lahore
Development Authority Act, 1975 as a subsidiary agency of LDA.
When it was created, TEPA was to perform all function and exercise all power of the
Authority with regard to traffic engineering and planning within the metropolitan area in
Lahore. TEPA was given 25 specific functions, among which the followings were main
ones:
Coordinate and prepare comprehensive transportation plan for the city (item b);
Plan, design and implement traffic engineering and traffic management programs (item c);
Define design standards, specifications and layout plans of roads (item d)
Monitor and undertake regular traffic on roads (item i)
Be responsible for the collection, analysis and publication of road accident data (item j)
Identify the needs of the pedestrians and the facilities as they may be provided (Item k)
Plan and design the public transport system for Lahore Metropolitan Area (Item l)
Undertake the management, design and maintenance of traffic signals, road signs and
road markings (Item m)
Design and maintain a parking policy and impose parking fee (Item n)
Require the concerned agency or authority to remove encroachments (Item u)
Make recommendations to Government with regard of Traffic Police (Item w)
2) Organization, Staffing and Budget

TEPA is headed by a Director General, a Managing Director and Chief Traffic Engineer
who direct a staff of about 135 persons, working in four directorates: (i) Administration and
2-41
Finance, (ii) Traffic Engineering, (iii) Engineering Construction and (iv) Special Projects
(Figure 2.2.6). Number of Staff of TEPA as of December 2007 is shown in Table 2.2.15.
The budget of TEPA is approved and consists of non-development expenditures (salaries,

operating expenses, etc.) and development expenditures (project funded from the
provincial Annual Development Program Annual Development Program (ADP) and
deposit works of CDGL). The budget for development expenditures was raised from PKR
136 million in fiscal year 2005/ 2006 to PKR 315 million in 2006/ 2007 and PKR 2,146
million in 2007/ 2008 The ADP funds most (98%) of the FY 2007/ 2008 program, including
the implementation of the Ferozepur Road project (PKR 593 million).
TEPA does not receive direct income from the transport sector, as original sources from
roadside advertisement charges or parking fees are no longer available. Roadside
advertisements have been taken over by the Parks and Horticultural Authority, and parking
by CDGL and the TMAs. This leaves behind departmental charges and fines to meet the
non-developmental expenses of the agency. The non-developmental expenses budgeted
for FY 2007/ 2008 amount to PKR 99 million, including PKR 23 million for staffing and
PKR 20 million for a new office building in Jubilee Town.
Figure 2.2.6 Organizational Chart of TEPA
Director
General LDA
Managing Director TEPA/ADG LDA
Chief Engineer
Director Director Traffic Director Engineering Additional Chief

Administration Engineering Construction Engineer
Finance Economist
Deputy Director Deputy Director Deputy Director Assistant Director
Accounts (Transport Economics) (Electrical and Mechanical) (Headquarters)
Assistant Director Deputy Director Assistant Director

Accounts (Planning and Design) (Electrical and Mechanical)
Litigation Assistant Director Deputy Director

Officer (Planning and Design) (Engineering-I)
Deputy Director Assistant Director

(Engineering) (Engineering)
Assistant Director Deputy Director

(Engineering) (Engineering-II)
Assistant Director
(Engineering)
Source: TEPA/ Institutional Development of Traffic Management Unit for Ferozepur Road Pilot Project,12-2007
2-42
Table 2.2.15 TEPA Staff Numbers by Grade
Number of Post
Designation BPS Status P/S
2005/6 2006/7 2007/8 2009/10
Managing Director 20 Regular P 1 1 1
Chief Traffic Engineer 20 Regular P 1 1 1
Addl. Chie Engineer 19 Regular P 1 1 1
Director Traffic Engineer 19 Regular P 1 1 1
Director Engg. Const. 19 Regular P 1 1 1
Director (P&D) 19 Regular P - 1 1
Director Admin. & Fin. 19 Regular S 1 1
Director Admin. 19 Regular S - - 1
Director Finance 19 Regular S - - 1
Director Study 19 Regular P - 1 1
Dy. Director Headquater 18 Regular S 1 1 1
Dy. Director Engg. 18 Regular P 2 2 2
Dy. Director Electrical 18 Regular P 1 1 1
Dy. Director (P&D) 18 Regular P - 1 3
Dy. Director Engg. Const. 18 Regular P 2 2 2
Dy. Director Account 18 Regular S 1 1 1
Magistrate 18 Regular S - - 1
Magistrate 17 Regular S 1 1 -
Transport Economist 18 Project P 1 1 1
A.D. to M.D. 17 Regular S - 1 1
AD Admin. 17 Regular S - - 1
Litigation Officer/ Asst Regular S - 1 1
17
Dir.
Asst. Director Engg. 17 Regular P 6 6 7
Asst. Director Account 17 Regular S 1 1 1
Asst. Director 17 Regular S - - 2
Assistant Architect 16 Regular P - 1 1
Sub-Engineer 16 Regular P 7 6 12
Sr. Accountant 16 Regular S - - 1
Sub-Engineer 11 Regular P 8 8 10
Sub-Engineer 11 Project P 1 1 1
Circle Head Draft Man 16 Regular P - 1 2
Sr. Accountant 16 Regular S - - 1
Stenographer 12 Regular S 1 5 6
Stenographer 12 Project S 1 1 1
Draft Man 11 Regular P - 1 1
Junior Accountant 11 Regular S 1 1 1
D-E-O 11 Regular S - - 1
Assistant 11 Regular S 3 3 3
Supervisor 6 Project P 5 5 5
Junior Clerk 5 Regular S 2 5 9
Junior Clerk 5 Project S 4 4 4
Telephone Operator 5 Regular S - 1 1
Reader/ Junior Clerk 5 Regular S - 1 1
Electrician 5 Regular S 1 1 1
Driver 7 Regular S 1 1 1
Driver 5 Regular S 2 6 9
Driver 5 Project S 6 6 6
Naib Qasid 1 Regular S 2 4 3
Peon 1 Regular S - 2 5
Peon 1 Project S 4 4 4
2-43
Number of Post
Designation BPS Status P/S
2005/6 2006/7 2007/8 2009/10
Chowkidar 1 Regular S - 4 4
Chowkidar 1 Project S 2 2 2
Dak Runner 1 Regular S - 1 1
Sweeper 1 Regular S 1 2 2
Total Number of Posts 74 104 135
Source: TEPA/ Institutional Development of Traffic Management Unit for Ferozepur Road Pilot Project,12-2007
2.2.6 Urban Unit (UU)

1) General
UU with the formal name of the Urban Sector Policy and Management Unit was
established in March 2006 as a project management unit within the GoPb P&D
Department. It is a professional team, staffed with highly qualified and experienced
professionals in the field of urban management, including urban planning, urban transport,
solid waste management, urban water and sanitation and municipal finance.
In the urban transport sector, its projects include the development of a Manual for Uniform
Traffic Control Devices, an Urban Transport Study for the Province, and Ferozepur Road
Pilot Projects.
2) Roles and responsibility

The UU shall be working under the overall guidance and supervision of the Chairman of
Planning and Development Board. The Unit is proposed to be staffed by a core team of
qualified and experienced professionals in various fields/sectors relating to urban planning
and development, in particular those included in the Development Policy Loan (Urban
planning, Urban transport, Solid Waste Management and municipal finance), the Private
Sector Participation (PSP) initiative in municipal services (Water and sanitation, Costing
and tariff) etc, development of an Integrated Traffic Management System and for the
overall development of cities to turn these into engines of economic growth in-line with the
vision 2020 of the GoPb.
The Unit shall act as a technical wing of the P&D in urban matters and shall have the
following broad parameters of responsibility:
Shall provide technical advice and support in matters relating to urban planning
and development.
Shall coordinate with the WB for DPL, International Finance Corporation (IFC) for
PSP in WASA Lahore in matters related to project preparation, and execution.
Shall assist the P&D in evaluation and appraisal of projects programs and
schemes related to urban development, whether donor funded or ADP funded.
Shall carry out extensive data collection, data analysis and research on all issues
of urban development, especially in the five city District Governments in the
Province.
2-44
Shall act as a resource bank for all the information, data, facts and figures relating
to urban sectors in the province.
Assist the P&D Department in preparation of project proposals and documentation
for donor funded projects.
Shall assist the GoPb in developing a sound and effective regulatory framework for
PSP in municipal services.
Shall act as a technical facilitation unit for the local governments, in matters
relating to urban development, service delivery, infrastructure and municipal
finance.
Shall provide technical assistance and guidance to the Local Governments in all
urban matters.
Any other work assigned by the Chairman P&D on matters related to Urban
Development.
3) Staffing
Project Director (1)
Cultural Heritage Specialist (1)
Urban Planner (1)
Junior Urban Planner (1)
Urban Economist (1)
Local Government Finance Specialist (1)
Water and Sanitation Specialist (1)
Solid Waste Management Specialist (1)
Costing and Tariff Specialist (1)
Urban Transport Specialist (1)
Institutional Development Specialist (1)
Communications Specialist (1)
GIS Expert (1)
Internees (10)
Supporting Staff
a. Admin officer (1)
b. Accountant (1)
c. Internal Auditor (1)
d. Stenographer (1)
e. Receptionist (1)
f. Office assistants (3)
g. IT Manager (1)
h. IT Assistant (1)
i. Drivers (3)
j. Naib Qasids (3)
k. Chowkidar (2)
l. Sanitary Worker (1)
Ten floating positions of ‘interns’ at the UU have been proposed. The interns would be
recruited from the market for a period of six months to a year in three categories.
2-45
1. Research Assistant (Fresh Graduates)

2. Research Associate(one to 2 years experience)
3. Research Analyst (2+years experience)
These interns would be working as assistants to the sector specialists/ Project Director
and would be selected from amongst the brilliant graduates in the fields of Engineering,
Town Planning, Economics, Business Administration, Information Technology and
Sociology etc.
These interns would enhance the output of the consultants; provide ‘skilled mind power’
for data collection, data analysis, research and studies etc, one of the key assignments of
the Urban Unit. It may be mentioned that provided the guidance, this kind of activities can
be performed very well by these interns and saves a lot of time of the more expensive
specialists for strategic work.
Last, but not the least, the Urban Unit would be disseminating knowledge skills and
expertise available in the country for dealing with urban issues, and narrowing the gap
between the academics and the implementers.
2.2.7 Housing, Urban Development and Public Health Engineering Department (HUD
& PHED)
HUD&PHED was created during August, 1972 by replacing West Pakistan Housing and
Settlement Agency with a single attached department of "Directorate General Housing
and Physical Planning" at Lahore. Later on Improvement Trust at Faisalabad, Gujranwala,
Multan, Rawalpindi, Sargodha and Murree with Social Welfare and Local Government
Department were placed under the administrative control of Housing and Physical
Planning (H&PP) Department during 1973.
Improvement Trusts ultimately were converted into Development Authorities except

Murree and Sargodha. In 1978 Public Health Engineering Department (PHED) was
placed under the administrative control of Housing and Physical Planning Department.
The Department was renamed as Housing Physical and Environmental Planning (HP &
EP) in 1978 and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was created as its attached wing.
In 1996, Environmental Protection Agency was detached from Housing Physical and
Environmental Planning Department and was made independent provincial Department.
Finally Housing Physical and Environmental Protection Department was given the name
as Housing, Urban Development and Public Health Engineering Department
(HUD&PHED) in 1997 to depict Urban Development Authorities and Public Health
Engineering Department.
The Directorate General H&PP Punjab has been revamped as Punjab Housing and Town
2-46
Planning Agency (PHATA) under the PHATA Ordinance, 2002. The said agency has been
effectuated w-e-f 01.04.2004 with the objective of rejuvenating the housing sector in
general and provision of shelter to shelter-less low income group in particular.
2.2.8 Communications and Works Department (C&W)

1) Establishment and Function
C&W Department was set up in May 1962, with attached departments, namely, Buildings,
Highways and Architect departments beside the three organizations namely, Budget
Directorate, Building Research Station and Road Research Laboratory. The Buildings and
Highways Departments are further subdivided geographically into two zones. Each zone
is headed by a Chief Engineer. The Architecture Department is headed by a Chief
Architect.
The functions of C&W are defined as follows:

To plan, design, construct, maintain, repair and improve all government buildings;
Evaluation, fixation of rent, control, management, leases of government buildings;
Preparation of architectural design/ drawings;
Building, road research and material testing activities;
Laying standards and specifications for various types of buildings, roads and
bridges;
Plan, design, construct, maintain, repair and improve roads, culverts, causeways
and boat bridges
Administration of roads, bridges and boat bridges, toll collection. Leases of land for
access road for filling/ service stations ant factories
Execution of works on behalf of other agencies/ departments as deposit works
2) Budget
The C&W Department allocates funds under two heads i.e. development and
non-development. All development activities in the Rehabilitation and Building (R&B) as
well as Farm to Market Roads (FMR) sectors are carried out under the development
budget. Payment of establishment and maintenance activities are done under the
25-communications budget grant. The construction of government buildings both offices
as well as residential are carried out through budget allocations for the respective sector.
Buildings maintenance activities are done under the head 24-civil works budget grant. The
maintenance allocations are made according to yard stick which is based per 10 feet width
per kilometer for roads and on the basis of unit area for government buildings.
2.2.9 Lahore Transport Company (LTC)

LTC was established in July 2009, as a non-profit public association under the Transport
2-47
Department, aiming at review and assessment of present bus routes, propose of new
routes, effective monitoring of bus operation and planning of other public facilities other
than rail transits.
1) Legal Framework
LTC was established under Section 42 of the Company Ordinance, 1984. Prior to
establishment, the Section 2 of Ordinance XIX of 1965 was amended by inserting the
following definitions.
• (1-A) “Area” means such as area or areas as are notified by the Government,
• (4-A) “Company” means the urban public transport company established under 43-A
• (43-A) “Urban Public Transport” means the urban public transport vehicles operating
under the regime of company with valid route permits within the area.
In addition, the following Chapter V-A was inserted in the Ordinance XIX of 1965.
• 72-(A) Company, --- (1) Government may establish a not-for-profit Urban Public
Transport Company limited by shares incorporated under the Section 42 of the
Companies Ordinance, 1984 in such area as the Government may determine, for the
provision of urban public transport and related services consistent with the
provisions of this Ordinance and the Company so established shall have perpetual
succession and a common seal and shall by that name sue and be sued.
2) Activities
According to a presentation material by the Company, its nature and responsibilities are
defined as follows:
• LTC shall be a corporate sector limb of the Go0vernment with the objective to plan,
provide, operate, enforce and regulate urban transport in the city of Lahore
• LTC shall enter into negotiations, understandings, agreements and contracts with
public and private persons/ entities
• LTC shall plan, align, classify and re-classify the routes
• LTC shall prescribe the criteria for operation of urban public transport
• LTC shall undertake and maintain such works as required for infrastructure related to
public transport, i.e. Bus Stops, Bus Bays Shelters, Terminals, Bus Lanes, Fleet
management systems, Control room(s), etc.
• LTC shall solicit and channelize subsidies/ concessions of the Government if any for
Urban Public Transport
• LTC shall survey, collect, classify, analyze, plan, circulate, distribute the data,
information, statistics relating to Urban Public Transport
• LTC shall be competent to establish and maintain contacts and relations with
companies, bodies, authorities, associations, societies and institutions throughout
the world for achievement of its objectives.
• LTC shall employ or engage the required services of its professionals for the
achievement of its objectives
• LTC shall be competent to obtain permits and other certifications in its name under
2-48
Hire-purchase agreements for the public transport operating in its area of operations
• LTC shall survey, assess, purchase, lease and acquire under the law the immovable
properties required for the purpose of public transport.
(Omitted hereunder)
3) Associate and Members

LTC is a company, not a corporation because public corporation and authorities are more
inflexible in their management style subject to government rules and regulations. LTC is
on self-financing basis and therefore can have the option of working under a more flexible
structure controlled by its own Board of Directors.
LTC was licensed as Association Not-for-Profit and registered as a Guarantee Limited

Company having no share of capital. LTC is a Membership Organization which will derive
income from membership fees, user fees and commercial revenue but does not distribute
it amongst its directors but utilize the same for achievement of its objectives.
LTC has individual members and corporate members which are classified into four
classes: Class A to D. Class A members are nine founders of LTC and constitute the
Board of Directors, inclusive of Chairman, Chief Executive Officer, Secretary, Treasurer
and other five members of Secretary of Transport Department, Deputy Inspector General
Traffic Police of Lahore, District Coordination Officer/ Chairman DRTA of Lahore, Director
General of LDA and Private Sector Nominee. Members of Class B to D are the persons
fulfilling criteria of membership up to the satisfaction of the Board of Directors.
4) Organization
Figure 2.2.7 shows the organization of LTC. As of May 2010, LTC has about 40
employees out of which approximately 15 staffs are professionals of traffic surveys, data
analysis, demand forecast and transport planning.
Figure 2.2.7 Organization of LTC
Chief Executive Officer

(CEO)
Operations and Infrastructures Administration Enforcement

Planning and Finance
Source: Presentation Material of Seminar by LTC
2-49
2.3 Socio-Economic Characteristics

2.3.1 The Study Area Profile
1) Regional Setting
Lahore District lies between 310-15` and 310-43` north latitude and 740-10` and 740-39`
east longitudes. The district is bounded by Sheikhupura District on the north and west
mostly separated by Ravi River, on the east by the Indian district of Amritsar and in the
south by Kasur District. The Study Area land elevation is depicted in Figure 2.3.1.
The summer season starts in April and continues till September. May, June and July are
the hottest months. The winter season lasts from November to March. December, January
and February are coldest months. Light rain fall happens during January and February.
Towards the end of June, monsoon starts and continues for about two and half months.
The maximum temperature touches around 50 degrees Celsius. Sometimes, minimum
temperature falls below zero degrees Celsius.
The terrain conditions are flat and gently sloping towards south and south-west directions.
There is no physical hindrance in the expansion of the metropolis except the Ravi River
and the Indian Border.
The Ravi River historically caused floods and consequently flood protection facilities were
constructed, including Mahmood Booti Bund (initially constructed in 1952, 8.8 km long),
Lahore Protection Bund (initially constructed in the early 1950s, 7.6 km long), Tie Bund
(constructed in 1979-80) and others. The local topography shows that flat lands located at
the north of the city center and across the river are very low and vulnerable against floods.
In recent years, the year 1988 flood seriously damaged Tie Bund of Lahore Protection
Bund and Shahdara Distributary Flood Bund. The year 1997 flood caused damages to the
Spur near Furrakhabad and Shahdara Flood Protection Bund.
The water right of Ravi River is given to India in accordance with the Indus Water Treaty.
Beside natural conditions, India operates Thein Dam, at the upstream of Madhopur
Barrage. It is therefore difficult for Pakistan to control river stream.
The Indian border lies at the eastern edge of district boundary. There are defense
restricted areas notified by the Army authorities. There is Niaz Baig Ammunition Depot
and its surrounding area with a radius of 11 km is regarded as prohibited area in
development.
2-50
Figure 2.3.1 Land Elevation in the Study Area
Source: LUTMP GIS Database
2) Local Administration
The administrative structure has been changed after promulgation of Local Government
Ordinance (2001). Districts, City Districts, Towns/ Tehsil and Union Council’s
Administrations have been created. Lahore was declared as City District and divided into
2-51
six towns. In 2005, six towns were split to create nine towns in CDGL. Now, Lahore City
District comprises of following nine towns which are administrated by TMA. The Lahore
cantonment is separately governed by cantonment board and provision of core facilities is
the responsibility of Lahore Cantonment Board.
Today, Lahore District is spread over 1,772 km2: over 80 % of the total area is occupied by
three towns of Iqbal Town, Nishtar Town and Wagha Town.
Local Government Ordinance 2001 changed local administration. Before 2001, in urban
areas, local bodies which performed services1 were metropolitan corporations, municipal
corporations, municipal committees and town committees. In rural areas district and union
councils were performed functions. After 2001, major local level services have been
transferred to Local Governments. These include primary education, health, water supply
and sanitation. Three tiers of Local Government have been developed in the form of
district/city district, Town/ Tehsil and union administration.
Under the Punjab Development of Cities Act 1975, LDA was established in 1975 as a
successor body of Lahore Improvement Trust (LIT) which was established in 1935 under
Punjab Town Improvement Act 1922. The prime purpose of its establishment is to
introduce a comprehensive system of Planning and Development in order to improve
standard of living in Lahore. It is headed by a Director General (DG) and houses three
sections: 1) Urban Development, 2) WASA, and 3) TEPA. LDA under its first wing i.e. the
Urban Development is responsible for the planning, designing and development of various
projects in accordance with the functions of the Development Authority. Area jurisdiction
under LDA is over 2,000 km2, consisting of Lahore District and parts of areas of
Sheikhupura and Kasur Districts.
2.3.2 Urban Development Characteristics

1) Urban Structure
As a meaningful debate on urban structure formation, the history of Lahore started from
the walled city as shown in Figure 2.3.2. During the Mughal Era, particularly 16th and 17th
centuries, the city was walled and many gardens were constructed. To protect the city
from floods, 4 miles long embankment, known as Band-e-Alamgiri was constructed.
During the British Rule period, the city was expanded by 3 times, equipped with modern
urban infrastructure. Particularly for the second half of 19th century, urban development
was significant. Some remarkable events were recorded including the Bari Doab Canal
opened in 1859, Lahore Railway Station opened in 1861 and the first piped water supply
started in 1882.
1
It included provision and maintenance of roads, bridges, public buildings, water supply, hospitals and
school buildings.
2-52
As to urban structure in 1900, two built-up areas were separated between expanded city
center and cantonment area. In the early 20th century, two built-up areas were further
expanded and combined in a form of conurbation. The city sought for new large
development lands southwards around Model Town.
Soon after the independence, Lahore experienced severe times, tackling with urban
rehabilitation, redevelopment and new development. The situations were brought about
from about 40 % of city’s populace migrated to India and a proportionate number of
refugees came to Lahore. LIT empowered under the Punjab Development of Damaged
Areas Act 1952 undertook numerous urban renewal and new development projects such
as Shah Almi, Gulberg, Samanabad, Upper Mall, etc.
During the period 1970s and 1980s, urban population exceeded 2 millions, forming
Lahore into a metropolis. Ferozewala in Sheikhupura District was urbanized as part of the
metropolis although major expansion trends remained to the south and southwest
directions.
In the last two decades, urbanization has shown more dynamics and is complex. It is
discussed in the next section.
Since the 1950s, urban development pace has been accelerated because of greater
accumulation of population and economy. Today, Lahore experiences mass urbanization
of over 1,000 hectares every year.
2) Current Urbanization Directions

Below Tehsil or Towns, there are Union Councils (UC). In Lahore District, there are 122
urban UCs and 28 rural UCs. In the Study Area, for the Household Interview Survey (HIS)
zoning system, some UCs are subdivided (as they lie across natural or man-made
barriers) and Cantonment is subdivided into 24 Zones, resulting in 228 Zones in the Study
Area (Volume 2, Annex -1).
Figure 2.3.3 shows population density by zone and it implies urban directions in the Study
Area. As we define urbanized zones over 100 inhabitants per hectare, such urban zones
are concentrated in 7 towns, the northern edge of Nishtar Town and part of Ferozewala
Tehsil in Sheikhupura District.
As we define the zones from 20 to 100 inhabitants per hectare are partially settled such as
rural centers along inter-city roads and new housing areas adjacent to the urban zones,
the latter zones are found to be in many directions from the massive urbanized areas of
Lahore, i.e., to the north-west across the Ravi River, to the north beyond the Ring Road, to
the east along GT Road, to the southeast beyond the airport towards Barki and Bedian
Roads, DHA V, VI & VII, and Ghazi Road, to the south along Ferozepur Road and to the
southwest along Multan Road.
2-53
Those urbanization trends are quite different from the Integrated Master Plan for Lahore
2021 which clearly directs urbanization towards south and southwest axis is inverted V
shape as shown in Figure 2.3.4. The gap can be explained by the following reasons:
(1) Mono-centric metropolitan structure: Holding a mono-centric structure in the

metropolis, travel time to the existing city center is only a decisive factor in land
development and valuation;
(2) No mass transit available: The Comprehensive Study on Transportation System in
Lahore (JICA, 1991) envisaged LRT on the Ferozepur corridor by 2010. However,
no mass transit has been introduced. Frequent and punctual mass transit services
allow people longer commuting distance. Without mass transit, actually in Lahore,
people particularly who can’t afford private transport means must be conscious
about accessibility to their work places on severely congested roads;
(3) Cantonment development by DHA: Beforehand, Lahore Cantonment was regarded
as an exclusive area for military purpose and residents were limited to active military
staff families and veterans. In addition, the area beyond the cantonment area to the
east was supposedly restricted in urban development due to border management.
However, DHA was established in 1999 as a converted body of former Lahore
Cantonment Cooperative Housing Society (LCCHS), changed the situations. DHA
has actively engaged in housing development for upper middle-class clientele, i.e., 7
phases or 4,400 ha under construction, Phase VIII (1,400 ha) under planned and
Phase IX / X (2,400ha) under land acquisition (see Figure 2.3.5). Today, DHA is the
largest housing supplier and the east and southeast suburbs in Lahore becomes
most active development areas although they were not assumed in the previous
metropolitan planning documents;
(4) Insufficient housing schemes for low to middle income class: Many small to
medium-size developers are undertaking residential development along south and
southwest axis. But their target is upper middle-class, competing with the current
DHA market while low to middle-class residential development schemes barely
appear in the suburbs. Without such schemes and transit support, those people
must cling to the edge of the city center regardless of congested housing units and
unfavorable urban environments.
Table 2.3.1 Historical Development of Lahore
Cumulative Developed Average Growth Area
Period Area (km2) Per Year (ha)
Pre-British Period 23.8
1850 – 1900 68.7 90
1901 – 1950 71.2 48
1951 – 1965 117.2 323
1966 – 1980 175.7 390
1981 – 1990 245.6 699
1991 - 2000 326.0 804
2001 - 2006 397.8 1,196
Source: Developing Comprehensive “City Boundary” for Lahore – Consultation Report, NESPAK, 2010
2-54
Figure 2.3.2 History of Urban Structure Transformation

Survey of Pakistan and LUTMP GIS Database
2-55
Figure 2.3.3 Population Density by LUTMP Zone (Dec 2010)
2-56
Figure 2.3.4 Lahore Metropolitan Area Master Plan 2021
Source: Lahore Metropolitan Area Master Plan, NESPAK, 2021
2-57
Figure 2.3.5 Delineation and Satellite Image of DHA Phases
Source: DHA
2-58
3) Housing Condition
Lahore city is facing severe shortage of housing. Although data are limited and not new,
two milestone statistics of 1980 and 1998 showed the situation. Majority of these housing
units comprised two to three rooms, with 3.0 inhabitants per room on the average. During
the period, the number of inhabitants per unit increased from 6.7 to 7.1 inhabitants. It is an
adverse phenomenon experienced in other countries where household size becomes
small as a city grows with economic development. Such household congestion is
attributed to high density urban areas in Lahore.
Table 2.3.2 Housing Supply and Conditions, 1980 and 1998

Data Item 1980 1998
No. of house stock 441,721 722,721
Persons per house 6.7 7.1
Persons per room 3.0 3.0
Rooms per house 2.2 2.4
Source: City Report, Lahore, 1998
According to Population Census 1998, about 68 % of total population of Lahore owned a

house, 22 % rented a house and the rest stayed free.
4) Urban Services
(i) Water Supply and Waste Disposal
The Household survey of 2007-08 indicates that 85 % people were using potable (tap)
water, and the rest 10 % people were dependent of their personal hand pumps. These
figures are not different from that of 1998, where 10 % population was using hand pumps
for drinking water.
WASA Lahore provides its sanitation services to very large number of people, i.e., 80 % of
the city population on 66 % of the city area, according to WASA Report 2005-06.
(ii) Solid Waste Management

In Lahore it is estimated that 5,000 ton waste is generated within the day and in which
70 % waste is lifted but 30 % waste leaves un-lifted. The services are labor-intensive, i.e.
7,897 to serve the vast area of Lahore city and thus the division of worker per thousand
people is 1.21.
Solid waste management needs considerable improvements. The Solid Waste

Management department of Lahore faces weak management, the biggest reason of its
inefficiency in fulfilling the demands of growing population. Landfill sites, workshops and
proper machinery are apparently short. The problem becomes more crucial when the
hospital and industrial waste is dumped with household waste and disposed without
treatment.
2-59
5) Development Regulation
The Building Regulations 2005 was issued by the LDA which is responsible for a
coordinated process of planning and development in Lahore Metropolitan Area. Relevant
regulations with urban transport development are cited in the following:
(i) Right of Way (Article 17)

The right of way for arterial, major and secondary roads prescribed as such in the Master
Plan, shall be as specified below:
a) Arterial Roads 150 feet and above

b) Major Roads 120 feet
c) Secondary Roads 80 feet
The minimum right of way for minor roads is less than 20 feet (6 m).
However, existing roads are accepted as established at site in existing built-up areas. It
means that existing arterial, major and secondary roads designated by a statutory master
plan must be widened on an individual project basis when necessary.
(ii) Parking of Vvehicles (Article 66)

In the Central Area as well as in case of converted plots in other areas, every prospective
builder shall be required to provide parking space within the premises at the rate of:
a) Apartment buildings: one car space for every 1000 sft. of covered area subject to
minimum one car space for every housing unit and one motor cycle/ scooter
space for every housing unit.
b) Office, commercial including large stores and retail shops and hospitals: One car
space for every 1000 sft. of floor area and one motor cycle/ scooter for every 500
sft. of floor area.
Vehicle parking is regulated in other building types in a similar way except residential lots.
(iii) Areas Subject to Special Control (Section 96)
In addition to general requirements, the Building Regulation 2005 specifies some areas
subject to special control.
For example, a minimum building line (30 ft.) is required in case of properties abutting the
following 26 roads:
(1) Main Boulevard, Gulberg, (2) Stadium Road, Gulberg-III, (3) M.M Alam Road,
Gurberg-III, (4) Syed Hussain Shaheed Suhrwardi Road, (5) College Road, Gulberg,
(6) Main Market Road, Gulberg-II, (7) Park Road, Gulberg, (8) Gurumangat Road,
Gulberg, (9) Road from PACE to Chen One Junction, Gulberg, (10) Shabbir Ahmad
Usmani Road, (11) Ferozepur Road, (12) Jail Road and Gulberg Road, (13) Multan
Road, (14) Wahdat Road, (15) Raiwind Road, (16) Road behind Liberty Market to
Stadium Road, (17) Tollinton Market Shadman, Shadman Road, (18) Link M.M Alam
Road, (19) Link Road Main Boulevard Garden Town, (20) Link Road Main Market
Gulberg-II, (21) Qazi M.Esa Road Link, (22) Road from Firdaus Market to 37 Block-J,
2-60
Gulberg-III, (23) U.B.D. Canal, (24) Campus Bridge U.B.D. Canal to Y-Junction, New
Garden Town, (25) Sher Shah Road, and (26) Main Boulevard, Shadbagh.
10 Roads are also designated for general commercial areas, including all types of retail
and wholesale commercial activities, offices, restaurants, showrooms, etc. These are:
(1) Multan Road, (2) Lytton Road, (3) Ferozepur Road, (4) Allama Iqbal Road, (5)
Shahrah-e-Quaid-e-Azam, (6) Temple Road, (7) Ravi Road, (8) G.T. Road (Baghbanpura),
(9) Sheikhupura Road from Octroi to the roundabout near Ravi Bridge, and (10) Shalimar
Link Road.
Due to roadside development, heavy urban traffic and substantial public transport needs
are expected on the above-mentioned roads.
(iv) Rules for Private Site Development Schemes

Punjab Private Site Development Schemes (Regulation) Rules 2005, attached to the
Building Regulation 2005, guide privately-led housing schemes. Planning standards other
than residential lots and roads are set as below:
a. Open space/ parks – not less than 7 % of total scheme area;

b. Graveyard – not less than 2 % of total scheme area;
c. Commercial area – not more than 5 % of total scheme area;
d. Maximum size of residential plots – 1,000 sq.yds.;
e. Minimum road width – 30 feet; and
f. Public buildings – 2 to10%
2.3.3 General Socio-economic Condition

1) Demography
(i) Broad Analysis
Broad population analysis is given in the table below. 8.5 million People reside in Lahore
District and 82 % of which are urban dwellers. The population growth rate of 2.5 % since
1998 Census is much faster than the national and provincial rate of 1.9 %.
The Study Area is expanded by 70% from Lahore District due to inclusion of parts of Kasur
and Sheikhupura Districts. Rural populace is still dominant in these two inclusion areas
and thus urban residents account for 66 % in the Study Area. The reason of inclusion of
these two areas into the Study Area is simply to compare the result with the
Comprehensive Study on Transportation System in Lahore conducted by JICA in 1991.
The population growth rate of 2.3 % is slightly lower than Lahore District.
2-61
Table 2.3.3
Past Population Trends of Pakistan, the Punjab, Lahore Division and the Study Area
Area Census Population (‘000) Annual Growth Rate (%)
Area Description 1 1 1 1 1
(sq.-km) 1961 1972 1981 1998 2010 1951-61 1961-72 1972-81 1981-98 1998-10
Pakistan 796,096 42,880 65,309 84,254 132,352 168,258 2.43 3.90 2.87 2.69 2.02
The Punjab 205,345 25,464 37,607 47,292 73,621 93,682 2.17 3.61 2.58 2.64 2.03
Lahore Division 11,729 3,560 5,431 7,183 12,016 15,784 2.36 3.91 3.16 3.07 2.30
Lahore District 1,772 1,626 2,588 3,545 6,319 8,650 3.66 4.32 3.56 3.46 2.65
Kasur District 3,995 8542 1,1862 1,5282 2,376 3,016 1.16 3.03 2.86 2.63 2.01
3 3 3 3
Sheikhupura District 3,242 656 1,028 1,338 2,276 2,888 1.61 4.17 2.97 3.17 2.00
The Study Area 3,044 N/A N/A N/A 7,307 9,928 N/A N/A N/A N/A 2.59
Note 1: Census Year; Note 2: Lahore divided in to Lahore District and Kasur District; Note 3: Sheikhupura divided in to Sheikhupura
District and Nankana Sahib District in 2005.
Source: Punjab Development Statistics, 2010
(ii) Analysis at Tehsil/ Town Level

Tehsil is lower level of administration boundary under district administration in Pakistan.
The Study Area is composed of whole of Lahore District: 2 Tehsils of Lahore and
Cantonment areas; Part of Sheikhupura District: parts of Tehsils of Ferozewala, Muridke,
and Sharaqpur; and Part of Kasur District: Tehsils of Kasur and Pattoki adjacent to Lahore
District in the South-west and south respectively.
In Lahore District, Tehsil Lahore is comprised of 9 towns, whereas Lahore Cantonment

Tehsil areas are treated as single town. In Lahore district six towns (including
Cantonment) are totally urbanized. Except Cantonment, other 5 towns areas are densely
populated with density reaching over 200 inhabitants per hectare.
It is noted that there are Data constraints at Tehsil level. After 1998 Census, all Towns in
Lahore, except Cantonment has the same population growth rates in the District, as
shown in Table 2.3.4 below.
2-62
Table 2.3.4 Demographic Characteristics by Tehsil

Current Population (Dec 2010) Annual
Tehsil/ 1998
Area Growth
District Lahore 2 Census Pop Urban Pop Density Urban
(km ) Rate
Tehsil Town Population (000) (000) (persons/ha) Rate (%) (%)
Aziz Bhatti
89 414 553 348 60 62.9 2.4
Town
Data Gunj
33 712 949 949 288 100.0 2.4
Baksh Town
Gulberg Town 32 571 761 761 238 100.0 2.4
Iqbal Town 464 567 756 279 16 36.9 2.4
Nishtar Town 520 734 978 526 19 53.8 2.4
Lahore
Ravi Town 62 1,163 1,550 1,550 250 100.0 2.4
Samanabad
35 722 963 963 275 100.0 2.4
Town
Shalimar
15 389 519 519 346 100.0 2.4
Town
Wahgha Town 435 481 642 258 15 40.2 2.4
Cantonment 87 566 791 791 90 100.0 2.8
Ferozewala 576 428 547 149 10 27.2 2.1
Sheikh-
Muridke 224 420 538 180 24 33.5 2.1
upura
Sharaqpur 140 151 193 36 14 18.7 2.1
Kasur 150 1,157 1,452 458 97 31.5 1.9
Kasur
Pattoki 162 634 797 144 49 18.1 1.9
(iii) Historical Change

Population in Lahore District has been growing continuously, and increased by 7.5 times
since the first census in 1951. The fastest growth pace was recorded between 1972 and
1981, i.e., 4.3 % per annum. Since then, the growth rate has been steadily declining. In
recent years, a growth rate of 2.69% is estimated.
The share of urban population in Lahore District has always been in a narrow range
between 75 % and 85 %. Inline with rapid population growth, urban areas have been
expanding accordingly.
Figure 2.3.6 Historical Population Growth in Lahore District
Source: District Census Reports, Lahore

Punjab Development Statistics, 2010
2-63
(iv) Age Profile
Age profile in Lahore District is very much young like other Districts in Pakistan. The
population below 14 years old account for nearly 40 %. Within possible labor force age
group between 15 and 64, people less than 49 years are dominant.
The Lahore urban areas show a similar age profile where the possible labor force age
group is slightly weighted due to the accumulation of higher education facilities and other
reasons.
Table 2.3.5 Age Structure in Lahore District, 1998

Age Group Total Urban
Below 14 39.2 % 38.1 %
15 – 49 50.0 % 51.1 %
15 – 64 57.5 % 58.7 %
65 and Over 3.2 % 3.2 %
Age Dependency Rate* 73.6 % 70.4 %
Note: * Age Group = (below 14 + 65 and over) / Age Group (15 – 64)
Source: District Census Report, Lahore
2) Labour Force
In Punjab Province, labour force (‘working’ plus ‘looking for work’) accounts for 31.8 % of
the provincial population during the period 2006-07. In the urban areas, an unemployment
rate of 7.5 % is rather high than that of 4.7 % in the rural areas. Recent provincial statistics
do not show district-level labor force. When working population had a share of 29.4 % in
the provincial population during the period 2003-04, its share was 21.8 % in Lahore
District due to the mass of students and other reasons. According to the labor survey done
by the Urban Unit during the period 2007-08, Lahore labor force is characterized as many
service workers by occupation type and social services and trade and commercial
activities by industry type as illustrated in Figure 2.3.7 and Figure 2.3.8.
Figure 2.3.7 Labour Force by Occupation in Lahore
Labour Force Participation by Occupation
45
40 38.8
35
30
Percent
25 19.5
20
13.1 11.2
15 10.4
10 6.1
0.9
5
0
Manager/administrator
Service worker
Occupation Workers
others
Professional/technician
Clerical
Skilled agricultural
Elementary
worker
Occupation
Source: Urban Unit, Lahore, 2007-08
2-64
Figure 2.3.8 Labour Force by Industry in Lahore
Labor Force Distribution by Industry

Manuf acturing
2% Construction
8%
20%
Community, social,
personal services
8% Transport, storage,
communication
29% Finance, and business
Trade, Restaurants and

Hotels
Agricultural
5% 8% 20%
Others
Source: Urban Unit, Lahore, 2007-08
Lahore District also shows considerable labour concentration on the manufacturing sector.
In 2004, the district has 1,454 factories with 118,450 workers. The share of manufacturing
workers in the province is 19.9 % which is much larger than that of population, 9.2 % in the
province. Locally prevalent manufacturing types are metal, machinery, textile and food
related.
3) Social Migration
According to 1998 Census, 897,129 migrants in urban Lahore were reported. It nearly
constituted 17.4 % of total urban population. There are two types of migration inflow, i.e.,
intra-provincial migration and international migration. In the census figure, 70.5 % of
intra-provincial migrants came from other districts while international migration accounted
for 17.2 %. In Lahore, primary reasons of in-migration are better economic opportunities
and larger high-quality educational facilities.
Figure 2.3.9 Migration Origins into Lahore

Life Time Migrants by Areas
Migrants from the
same province
17.22
0 Migrants from other
1.44 provinces
Migrants from
AK/NA
10.87
Migrants from other
70.47 countries
Migrants from
places not reported
Source: 1998 Census
4) Education
Educational facilities are considered important social facilities and an indicator for human
development. In Punjab Province as a whole, various enrolment rates by education stages
during 2007-08 were estimated as follows:
2-65
Primary stage education (5-9 years) – 42.2 %

Middle stage education (10-12 years) – 29.6 %
High stage education (13-14 years) – 20.6 %
Intermediate stage education (15-16 years) – 11.9 %
Degree stage education (17-18 years) – 5.4 %
The 1998 Census indicated that the literacy rate of urban dwellers in Lahore District was
69.1 % which was higher than that of provincial urban average, i.e., 64.5 %. It is thus
supposed that enrolment rates of Lahore by education stages may be higher than the
above-mentioned provincial averages accordingly.
Lahore is known as an educational hub in the country. High schools and higher
educational facilities are concentrated in the city. The number of all types of students is
estimated at approximately 883 thousand. 651 thousand of which goes to high schools or
higher education facilities and they mostly need longer trips to the education places than
primary and middle school students.
In Lahore, there are 24 universities. 11 universities are relatively new since they
established after 1990. The largest university is University of the Punjab (30,000 students),
followed by University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore (16,000 students) and the
University of Lahore (11,500 students).
Table 2.3.6 Educational Facilities and Enrolment in Lahore, 2009

Education Level and Type No. of Facilities No. of Students
Primary, Mosque Schools 847 146,123
Government
Middle 192 86,694
Schools
High 268 247,872
Colleges and Vocational, Intermediate Schools 231 282,656
Universities 24 Approx. 120,000
Total 1,562 Approx. 883,000
Source: Punjab Development Statistics , 2009
2.3.4 Population Distribution

The population of the Study Area in 2010 is estimated at about 9.9 million, of which 8.65
million (87 %) are resident in Lahore district, and 0.9 million (9 %) are resident in part of
Sheikhupura District: partial Tehsils of Ferozewala, Muridke, and Sharaqpur. The
remainder 0.37 million (4 %) are resident in Kasur District Tehsils of Kasur and Pattoki.
Within Lahore District population is almost evenly distributed (around 900,000) between
the seven Towns and Tehsils of Cantonment, with the exception of two peripheral towns
Aziz Bhatti and Wagah where the population is just over 660,000 each. Key Study Area
population statistics are summarised below in Table 2.3.7.
2-66
Table 2.3.7 The Study Area 2010 Population by Town/ Tehsil

2010 Urban Density % of
Area
District Town/ Tehsil 2 Population Population (Persons/ Study
(km )
(‘000) (‘000) ha) Area
Lahore Ravi Town 31 1,007 1,007 328 10.1
Data Gunj Bakhsh Town 31 970 970 317 9.8
Samanabad Town 38 984 984 262 9.9
Shalamar Town 24 854 854 350 8.6
Gulberg Town 44 778 778 178 7.8
Aziz Bhatti Town 69 667 609 97 6.7
Wagah Town 440 656 263 15 6.6
Nishter Town 497 945 399 19 9.5
Iqbal Town 520 960 424 18 9.7
Cantonment 98 831 831 85 8.4
Sheikhupura Ferozwala Tehsil 576 534 152 9 5.4
Muridke Tehsil 224 266 143 12 2.7
Sharaqpur Tehsil 140 101 36 7 1.0
Kasur Kasur Tehsil 150 168 50 11 1.7
Pattoki Tehsil 162 207 71 13 2.1
Lahore Lahore District 1,792 8,652 7,119 48 87.1
Sheikhupura Part of Sheikhupura 939 901 331 10 9.1
Kasur Part of Kasur 312 375 121 12 3.8
LUTMP The Study Area Total 3,044 9,928 7,571 33 100
The zonal population is depicted in Figure 2.3.10 indicating that zonal population mostly
lies around 40-80,000, with the exception of few large suburban zones, where population
exceeds 80,000 and further dis-aggregation was not possible.
The gross population density (total population / total zone area) is shown in Figure 2.1.11.
This reflects that highest densities are in and around the walled city area. However, some
zones in south model town, Township, Ghazi road and Shahdara areas also have
densities similar to the inner city areas.
The net 2010 population density (total zonal population/ built up area of the zone) as
shown in Figure 2.3.12 gives a more realistic picture of residential developments in the
Study Area.
2-67
Figure 2.3.10 The Study Area 2010 Populations by Zone
Source: Punjab Development Statistics 2010 and JICA Study Team
2-68
Figure 2.3.11 The Study Area 2010 Gross Population Density by Zone
2-69
Figure 2.3.12 The Study Area 2010 Net Population Density by Zone
2-70
The net density plot clearly demonstrates that the population is mostly concentrated
around the old city area in a concentric fashion, with the exception of linear developments
along major arterial roads in the Study Area. The population in the mostly built up area
around the city centre accounts for over 66 % of the Study Area population in
approximately 10 % of the Study Area. This signifies that the population density in Lahore
is still considerably lower than similar conurbation/ metropolis around the Asia region.
Figure 2.3.13 shows the age structure of the people living in the Study Area. Age groups
15-19 and 20-24 form the peak for both male and female due to the inflow of young
students and workers into Lahore.
Figure 2.3.14 illustrates the distribution of household size in the Study Area. The average
household size as of 2010 has been anticipated to be 5.62 persons per hundred.
Figure 2.3.13 Age Structure of Lahore 2010 Population
2-71
Figure 2.3.14 Household Size Distribution of 2010 Population of Lahore
2.3.5 Employment Distribution

The Punjab or city statistics do not provide data on employed residents (level of
employment) in the Study Area. The analysis below is based on the Household Interview
Surveys (HIS) conducted for the Study. The data relates to the residence of the employed
persons. Table 2.3.8 summarises the employed residents by zone in the Study Area.
Table 2.3.8 The Study Area 2010 Employment by Zone of Residence (‘000)
Town/ Tehsil Primary Secondary Tertiary Total

1 Ravi 5 40 248 293
2 Data Gunj Baksh 3 31 227 262
3 Samanabad 4 40 232 275
4 Shalamar 3 36 197 237
5 Gulberg 3 23 191 217
6 AzizB 5 24 145 174
7 Wagah 27 29 111 167
8 Nishter 27 52 171 251
9 Iqbal 19 39 194 252
10 Cantt 8 29 185 221
11 Ferozewala 27 33 86 146
12 Muridke 12 13 44 70
13 Sharaqpur 16 5 18 39
14 Kasur 8 5 26 40
15 Patoki 13 6 27 47
1-10 Lahore District 103 343 1,902 2,348
11-13 LUTMP_SHK 54 51 149 254
14-15 LUTMP-Kasur 22 11 54 87
1-15 LUTMP Total 179 405 2,105 2,689
2-72
The employment participation rate (Number of employed persons/ Total population) in

Lahore is estimated to be around 27 %. This figure is rather low, and the main reason
being that most of the population is young, and is below the employment age group of 0 ~
16 years. As anticipated, majority of the population is employed in tertiary sector, almost
five times more than those employed in the industrial or manufacturing sector. This is
significant to note that most of the Punjab provincial government offices are in Lahore,
along with the banking, and other service sector employment. Distribution of employed
residents by zone and employment sector is shown in Figure 2.3.15.
The unemployment level in the city remains very high, and exceeds those employed by
about 27 %. The main conclusion to be drawn is that unemployment is almost 99 %
among female residents. This is illustrated in Figure 2.3.16 for each zone in the Study
Area and is summarised in Table 2.3.9.
Table 2.3.9 LUTMP 2010 Unemployed Residents by Zone of Residence (‘000)

District Town / Tehsil Unemployed
Ravi Town 339.4
Data Gunj Bakhsh Town 346.7
Samanabad Town 353.5
Shalamar Town 281.2
Gulberg Town 262.4
Lahore
Aziz Bhatti Town 229.1
Wagah Town 224.1
Nishter Town 318.2
Iqbal Town 328.0
Cantonment 277.2
Ferozwala Tehsil 194.4
Sheikhupura Muridke Tehsil 91.0
Sharaqpur Tehsil 27.5
Kasur Tehsil 58.5
Kasur
Pattoki Tehsil 73.7
Lahore 2,959.8
Sheikhupura 312.9
Kasur 132.2
LUTMP The Study Area Total 3,404.9
2-73
Figure 2.3.15 LUTMP 2010 Zonal Employed Residents by Employment Sector
2-74
Figure 2.3.16 LUTMP 2010 Zonal Un-employed Residents by Residence Zone
Unemployment
2-75
2.3.6 2010 Vehicle Ownership in the Study Area

In the Study Area there are 1.77 million household, with an average household size of
5.62. The car ownership is highest in Cantonment (more than double of the Study Area)
and stand at about 40 %. Gulberg and Iqbal towns have car ownership close to 30 %
where as in the remainder of the Study Area it is lowest in the inner-city area towns,
compared to larger towns on the outskirts. The car ownership in the areas of other two
districts included in the Study Area is just over 10 %. The significant conclusion is that
there are about 350,000 cars in the Study Area. Vehicle (cars and motorcycles) ownership
in the Study Area is summarised in Table 2.3.10. The car owning households by the Study
Area zones are shown in Figure 2.3.17.
Table 2.3.10 LUTMP 2010 Vehicle (Car and Motorcycle) Owning Households
2010 Household (HH)
Total % % Car and
District Town/ Tehsil Car % Car M/ Cycle
2010 M/Cycle M/ Cycle
Owning Owning Owning
HH Owning Owning
HH (000) HH HH
(000) HH HH
Ravi Town 172.8 13.1 7.6 80.9 46.8 54.4
Data Gunj Bakhsh 173.4 30.9 17.8 90.1 52.0 69.8
Samanabad Town 175.5 39.9 22.7 88.2 50.3 73.0
Shalamar Town 144.7 18.3 12.6 75.1 51.9 64.5
Gulberg Town 138.5 40.6 29.3 64.5 46.6 75.9
Lahore
Aziz Bhatti Town 121.6 20.2 16.6 60.5 49.8 66.4
Wagah Town 106.8 7.4 6.9 46.2 43.3 50.2
Nishter Town 161.9 14.4 8.9 66.2 40.9 49.8
Iqbal Town 177.1 49.6 28.0 60.9 34.4 62.4
Cantonment 161.3 64.2 39.8 54.4 33.7 73.5
Ferozwala Tehsil 98.4 8.8 8.9 34.7 35.3 44.2
Sheikhupura Muridke Tehsil 44.8 3.0 6.7 12.6 28.1 34.8
Sharaqpur Tehsil 27.9 4.0 14.3 9.4 33.7 73.5
Kasur Tehsil 28.1 6.4 22.8 5.8 20.6 43.4
Kasur
Pattoki Tehsil 33.2 1.8 5.4 8.2 24.7 30.1
Lahore 1,533.6 298.6 19.5 687.0 44.8 64.3
Sheikhupura 171.1 15.8 9.2 56.7 33.1 42.4
Kasur 61.3 8.2 13.4 14.0 22.8 36.2
The Study Area Total 1,766.0 322.6 18.3 757.7 42.9 61.2
Motorcycle ownership in the Study Area exceeds 42 % of all households. The motorcycle
ownership is more dominant in the inner city towns of Data Gunj Baksh, Samanabad and
Shalamar towns, where it exceeds 50%. The motorcycle ownership is also dominant in the
rural areas, as it is the only means of transport for the isolated villager and farmer. In
Lahore around 45 % households are owning one or more motorcycles on average, and it
is about 30% lower in Sheikhupura and about half in the district of Kasur. It is estimated
that there are about 850,000 motorcycles in the Study Area. In total there are about 1.2
million vehicles in the Study Area. Figure 2.3.18 illustrates the motorcycle owning
households by the Study Area zones.
2-76
Figure 2.3.17 LUTMP 2010 Car Owning Households by Zone
2-77
Figure 2.3.18 LUTMP 2010 Motorcycle Owning Households by Zone
2-78
2.3.7 Household Income

One of the key factors in trip making is the household income. The HIS recorded income
in a number of ranges from less than PKR 2,000 per month to those earning more than
PKR 50,000 per month. The income distribution of the Study Area is shown in Figure
2.3.19.
Figure 2.3.19 The Study Area 2010 Household Income Distribution
Table 2.3.11 presents the household income results of HIS. The data has been
aggregated into three income groups: low, medium and high. It is interesting to note that
there are similar number of households in low and high income groups (381,000 ~ 22 %)
and 430,000 ~ 24 %).
The middle income group accounts for just over 54 % of all households, with an average
income of around PKR 20,000 (USD 250) per month. When converted to income per
capita, it amounts to just over PKR 3,500 per month or USD 1.4 per day per person, rather
low income on per capita basis by international standards. However, when compared with
Pakistan GDP per capita, it shows that the survey results are quite consistent.
Household income varies considerably between areas of Lahore. Highest income group
lives in Cantonment, where high income group amounts to 44 % of households. The other
richer areas are Gulberg and Samanabad. As anticipated, the outskirt areas (mostly rural
Wagah and Nishtar towns) have lowest proportion of high income household.
Household income in the areas of two adjoining districts is lower than those of Lahore. In
both of these districts the high income group is less than 20 % of the total households,
2-79
with Kasur being the poorer of the two districts.
The complete household distribution by income groups, by Towns/ Tehsils is summarised

in Table 2.3.11 and illustrated by zone in Figure 2.3.20.
Figure 2.3.20 LUTMP 2010 Household Income Distribution by the Study Area Zone
2-80
Table 2.3.11 LUTMP 2010 Household Income Distribution by Town/ Tehsil

Low Income Middle Income
High Income
(< =PKR (> PKR10,000 & Total
(>PKR 30,000/m)
District Town / Tehsil 10,000/m) < =30,000/m) Household
HH % in HH % in HH % in (000)
(000) Area (000) Area (000) Area
Ravi Town 34.4 20 106.6 62 31.8 18 172.8
Data Gunj Bakhsh 25.1 14 105.4 61 43.0 25 173.4
Samanabad 20.0 11 96.6 55 59.0 34 175.5
Shalamar Town 25.6 18 87.9 61 31.3 22 144.7
Gulberg Town 10.6 8 74.9 54 53.1 38 138.5
Lahore
Aziz Bhatti Town 29.9 25 69.0 57 22.6 19 121.6
Wagah Town 35.4 33 58.9 55 12.5 12 106.8
Nishter Town 50.9 31 89.5 55 21.5 13 161.9
Iqbal Town 39.1 22 84.4 48 53.5 30 177.1
Cantonment 18.6 12 71.8 45 70.3 44 161.3
Ferozwala Tehsil 39.3 40 48.8 50 10.3 10 98.4
Sheikhupura Muridke Tehsil 18.4 41 21.8 49 4.6 10 44.8
Sharaqpur Tehsil 7.9 28 14.3 51 5.7 20 27.9
Kasur Tehsil 10.6 38 10.1 36 7.5 27 28.1
Kasur
Pattoki Tehsil 15.5 47 14.5 44 3.3 10 33.2
Lahore 289.6 19 845.0 55 399.1 26 1,533.6
Sheikhupura 65.6 38 84.9 50 20.6 12 171.1
Kasur 26.1 43 24.6 40 10.8 18 61.3
The Study Area Total 381.3 22 954.5 54 430.5 24 1,766.0
Household income has a strong relationship with household vehicle ownership as

revealed by Figure 2.3.21. Car is owned more as income level goes up. Motorcycle seems
to be suitable for middle- to high-income households with a monthly income of PKR 20 to
50 thousand.
Figure 2.3.21 Household Income Distribution by Vehicle Ownership, 2010
2-81
2.3.8 Social Increase of Population by Income Level and by Zone of Destination

The assessment of population behaviour to move home was also studied through HIS, by
asking household their previous address, and how long ago they moved. The analysis
reported below summarises the population which moved home within the last five or ten
years, by low and high income groups. This is a preliminary analysis, with respect to
population movement from outside or within the Study Area to the Study Area only. The
analysis from where the population moved form will be subject of further analysis, at a
later date.
The low income households (those earning <= PKR 10,000 /month) who moved home
within the last five or ten years to the Study Area Town/ Tehsil are summarised in Table
2.3.12. Close to one third of all low income households moved home to the Study Area
over the last ten years, whereas, those who moved within the last five years is about
one-fifth of all low income households. This amounts to about 4 % of total households of
the Study Area. The area-wide distribution of households which moved to the Study Area
is above 30 % for most areas of Lahore Towns and adjoining areas of Sheikhupura District.
In case of Kasur District the low income household movement is close to half of all those
who moved in the Study Area. This would illustrate that the tendency of low income
household to move, is to the areas in concentric fashion around city centre, and as
adjoining Tehsil areas of Pattoki and Kasur are farther away, the migration is much lower
than the adjoining Tehsils of Sheikhupura District.
The low income households who moved over the last 5 or 10 years are also shown at
zonal level in Figure 2.3.22 below. The five and ten year movement figures below, clearly
depicts the low income household growth areas over the past five to ten years are mostly
around (say within 10~20km radius) central Lahore, and very much limited to the outskirts,
to the east and west/ south-west of Lahore.
By comparison, household with high income (Household’s earning > PKR 30,000 /month)
have more tendency to move homes. Table 2.3.13 provides a summary of all high income
households which moved home over the last five or ten years, with destination in the
Study Area Towns or Tehsils. The favourite destination towns for high income group were
urban area of Cantonment, and rather greener outskirt towns of Aziz Bhatti and Iqbal
Towns in Lahore District. The adjoining areas of Kasur Tehsil also attracted more than
50 % of household, of high income households who moved, albeit the numbers are rather
small and account for less than 0.3 % of total households of the Study Area. Overall 56 %
of all high income households moved home over the last 10 year. This illustrates a
considerable movement of households with changing economic and job environment.
2-82
Table 2.3.12 LUTMP 2010 Low Income Household Who Moved Home
over the Last 5 or 10 Years to the Study Area
Low Income HH Low Income HH
Total
who moved within who moved within
last 5 years last 10 years Low
District Town / Tehsil Income
% of Total % of Total HH
HH HH
Low Income Low (000)
(000) (000)
HH Income HH
Ravi Town 6.3 18 12.4 36 34.4
Data Gunj Bakhsh 5.3 21 7.6 30 25.1
Samanabad Town 5.0 25 7.5 38 20.0
Shalamar Town 4.1 16 6.3 25 25.6
Gulberg Town 2.1 20 3.5 33 10.6
Lahore
Aziz Bhatti Town 6.5 22 10.7 36 29.9
Wagah Town 6.5 18 11.1 31 35.4
Nishter Town 9.8 19 16.3 32 50.9
Iqbal Town 7.8 20 13.0 33 39.1
Cantonment 5.1 27 6.5 35 18.6
Ferozwala Tehsil 7.6 19 12.3 31 39.9
Sheikhupura Muridke Tehsil 3.7 20 6.0 33 18.4
Sharaqpur Tehsil 1.5 19 1.9 24 7.9
Kasur Tehsil 1.0 9 1.6 15 10.6
Kasur
Pattoki Tehsil 1.5 10 2.7 17 15.5
Lahore 58.5 20 94.9 33 289.6
Sheikhupura 12.8 20 20.2 31 65.6
Kasur 2.5 10 4.3 16 26.1
The Study Area Total 73.8 19 119.4 31 381.3
The zonal distribution of low and high income group households who moved over the last
five or ten years are shown in Figures 2.3.22 and 2.3.23 respectively, for both five and ten
years. The majority of the movement of high income group households have been to DHA
Lahore, Cantonment and areas along the Canal (various very high-end income gated
communities) and also the areas of Raiwind. Some areas of DHA and along the Canal
show that all the movement is over the last ten years and the entire household who moved
are from high income group. Additionally, it can also be seen that during the period of five
to ten years how the movement of high income household is static in some areas,
particularly to the south-west direction.
2-83
Table 2.3.13 LUTMP 2010 High Income Household Who Moved Home
over the Last 5 or 10 Years to the Study Area
High Income HH High Income HH
who moved within who moved within Total High
last 5 years last 10 years Income
District Town/ Tehsil
% of Total % of Total HH
HH HH
High High (000)
(000) (000)
Income HH Income HH
Ravi Town 3.5 11 6.9 22 31.8
Data Gunj Bakhsh 5.2 12 8.4 20 43.0
Samanabad Town 13.2 22 20.2 34 59.0
Shalamar Town 4.2 13 8.4 27 31.3
Lahore Gulberg Town 7.5 14 13.0 24 53.1
Aziz Bhatti Town 6.6 29 11.5 51 22.6
Wagah Town 2.3 18 3.7 30 12.5
Nishter Town 3.8 18 6.7 31 21.5
Iqbal Town 16.1 30 28.6 53 53.5
Cantonment 23.1 33 36.1 51 70.8
Ferozwala Tehsil 1.2 12 1.7 17 10.3
Sheikhupura Muridke Tehsil 0.3 7 0.9 20 4.6
Sharaqpur Tehsil 0.6 11 0.8 14 5.7
Kasur Tehsil 4.3 57 5.0 67 7.5
Kasur
Pattoki Tehsil 0.3 9 0.5 15 3.3
Lahore 85.5 21 143.5 36 399.1
Sheikhupura 2.1 10 3.4 17 20.6
Kasur 4.6 43 5.5 51 10.8
The Study Area Total 92.2 21 152.4 35 430.5
2-84
Figure 2.3.22
Low Income Household Movement by HIS Zone over the last 5 and 10 Years <5 years>
2-85
Figure 2.3.22
Low Income Household Movement by HIS Zone over the last 5 and 10 years <10 Years>
2-86
Figure 2.3.23
High Income Household Movement by HIS Zone over the last 5 and 10 years <5 years>
2-87
Figure 2.3.23
High Income Household Movement by HIS Zone over the last 5 and 10 years <10 years>
2-88
2.4 Transport System of Lahore

2.4.1 Road Network
A Road Inventory Survey (RIS) was undertaken for this study and the results were used to
build a complete picture of the Study Area road network. A highway network model was
built and the results are shown in Figure 2.4.1, with the various road types classified by
their function in the road hierarchy. Figure 2.4.2 presents the road network expressed in
terms of number of lanes (by direction). The road network is relatively well developed in
Lahore. At the same time, however, it is observed that road development did not take
place evenly by area and a number of bottlenecks were observed.
Figure 2.4.1 Lahore Study Area Surveyed Road Network as Defined by Agencies
Source: Road Classification as By Different Agencies
2-89
Figure 2.4.2 Lahore Study Area Road Network by Number of Lanes
2-90
The RIS surveyed 64km of Motorways, about 430 km of Trunk and Primary Roads and
other road lengths as specified in the table below.
Table 2.4.1 Surveyed Road Lengths from RIS

Road Class Length Surveyed (km)
Motorway 64
Trunk Road 230
Primary Road 200
Secondary Road 55
Local Road 265
Streets and Rural Roads 1,447
Service Road 386
Total 2,647
2.4.2 Road Transport
(1) Road Transport Modes in Lahore

In general, Lahore has better road infrastructure than other major cities of the Punjab. The
roads are wide and several underpasses and flyovers have been constructed, except for
the city center and “Walled City” areas. The central areas cause major traffic jams,
resulting in longer travel time for all travellers in central areas of Lahore.
In addition to private vehicles such as motor cycles, cars and trucks, the public transport
modes of Lahore include:
Public buses, large and medium size

Mini buses (Delivery Vans), Mini-vans called ‘Wagons’
Auto Rickshaws, Qingqis (a motorcycle driven Rickshaw)
Taxis, and
Horse Drown carriages and hand pulled Carts
Many auto rickshaws are being changed from 2-stroke-cyle to 4-stroke-cyle engines and
from petrol to Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) operation to reduce air and noise pollution
in the city.
Figure 2.4.3 Traffic Congestion at Qartaba Chowk (Intersection) in the Central Lahore
2-91
Figure 2.4.4 Motorcycle Rickshaw (Qingqi) at Fort Road
Figure 2.4.5 Donkey Cart at an Intersection in Central Area
(2) Bus Services

Several bus companies operate in Lahore. Premier Bus Services, owned by the Beacon
House Group, was started in 2003. It provides premium transportation services to the
general public of Lahore, with hundreds of buses running on exclusive routes. This is the
largest public transport service provider in Lahore. The buses are in the process of being
converted to CNG for environmental and economic reasons.
Daewoo City Buses provide intra-city and inter-city transport for the masses. Though
these buses are fewer in number, they are air conditioned and provide better comfort to
passengers. In addition to these two major companies, there are several other smaller
companies (New Khan Metro, Niazi etc.) that provide services within Lahore. These cover
only particular routes and are limited in number. The urban bus operation is regulated
through LTC, setup by the GoPb.
2-92
Figure 2.4.6 Daewoo Intra-City Bus Terminal
(3) Motorization
In 2008, 1.9 million motorized vehicles were registered in Lahore District. Lahore has
witnessed a number of transport problems due to somewhat rapid motorization. In fact,
motorization in Lahore is acute. The number of registered vehicles in Lahore District
sharply increased by 294 % between 2001 and 2008, higher than the provincial
motorization trend, i.e., 212 % during the same period. Among vehicle types, Lahore
citizens nowadays show a strong preference for motorcycles, which increased at much
faster rate, by 483 % during the same period and accounted for 136 units per 1,000
residents in 2008. This rapid growth is illustrated in Figures 2.4.7 and 2.4.8.
Table 2.4.2 below shows the number of registered vehicles with District Regional
Transport Authority (DRTA), for all districts of Lahore division. Around 1,950,000 vehicles
are registered within the Lahore district area, to be compared with only 34,000 and 52,000
for Kasur and Sheikhupura. Motorcycles make up for more than half (56 %) of all
registered vehicles, while cars represent one third of registered vehicles in Lahore.
Due to such rapid rate of motorization, the number of motorized vehicles per 1,000
residents substantially increased from 95 vehicles in 2001 to 238 vehicles in 2008.
International experiences imply that such sharp trend may not continue for a long period.
Compared with advanced Asian cities such as Tokyo and Seoul, vehicle ownership in
Lahore has already reached the saturation range over 200 vehicles per 1,000 residents.
However, Lahore differs from these cities in vehicle composition; motorcycles are
dominant in Lahore with a 57 % share, while passenger cars are dominant in Tokyo and
Seoul with a marginal role of two wheelers.
2-93
Table 2.4.2 Number of Motor Vehicles (‘000) ‘Registered’ as of 30th June 2008
Districts Lahore
Registered
Nankana Division
Vehicle Type Lahore Kasur Sheikhupura
Sahib* Total
Cars, Jeeps and
638 0 0 4 642
Wagons
Motorcycles 1,110 6 2 21 1,140
Trucks 16 0 0 1 17
Delivery Vans 40 0 0 0 41
Buses 33 0 0 1 34
Taxis 12 0 0 0 12
Auto-Rickshaws 66 1 0 2 70
Tractors 29 26 0 23 77
Others 1 0 0 0 2
Total 1,945 34 3 52 2,034
*Note: Nankana Sahib became a District in 2008
Figure 2.4.7 Trend in Registered Motorized Vehicles in Lahore District
Source: Punjab Development Statistics
Figure 2.4.8 Motorization Experiences in Selected Asian Cities
Lahore
Note: Number of vehicles per 1,000 residents

Source: Sustainable Transport in East Asian Megacities (STREAM), 2007 except Lahore
2-94
Two-wheeler patronage may shift to public transport usage with the provision of attractive
public transport services and the imposition of stricter policies to two wheelers such as a
local ban on riding two wheelers within Central Business Districts (CBDs), as China did
this in late 1990s. On the other hand, a shift from two wheelers to private cars may
happen only when considerable income increase occurs.
(4) Traffic Management

Road safety is declining as revealed by the increase in number of fatalities per year from
100 in 1990 to over 400 nowadays. Vulnerable road users are more exposed to traffic
fatalities, including 30 % pedestrian, 10 % cyclist and 8 % motorcyclists due to inadequate
walkways and cycle routes2. Recent introduction of segregated highways within the city
environment has lead to severe severance, without adequate provision for road crossing
for residents, particularly in dense urban areas, resulting in such high pedestrian fatalities.
Table 2.4.3 Road Traffic Accidents and Casualties, Lahore
Accidents Casualties
Year
Total Fatal Non-fatal Total Killed Injured
2005 806 394 412 982 432 550
2007 759 443 316 1,003 455 548
Source: Punjab Development Statistics, 2007 and 2009
Intersections/ Junctions: There are four major types in Lahore city: grade separation,
intersections with traffic signals, roundabouts and priority / uncontrolled junctions. Each
type has pros and cons in terms of traffic management. Intersections with traffic signals
can cope with heavy flows with small turning movements. In Lahore, however, traffic
police is assigned at major intersections to ensure smooth traffic flows. It is reported that
an area-wide traffic control system by means of synchronizing traffic signals and central
signal control and management within a certain urban area has not been introduced yet.
Other Traffic Management Issues: They are restriction and rationalization of on-street
parking, restricting roadside encroachment by vendors and allocating safe and
comfortable pedestrian sidewalks and crossings. Those issues do not necessarily address
to capital-intensive infrastructure development. Instead, institutional coordination among
relevant government agencies and public involvement and awareness are keen to
improve the situations for efficient and safe road space utilization.
ITS solutions: may become more attractive in the city. Possible options are Electronic Toll
Collection (ETC) and vehicle On Board Unit (OBU) with wireless transaction or touch-less
smartcard for ticketing to smooth traffic flow, car navigation services through OBU and
message sign board, efficient transfer between public transport modes and between car
2
Final Report, Assessment of Capacity and Capacity Building Institutions in the Development Policy Loan
Sectors
2-95
parking and public transport use (park-and-ride) by smartcard, and so on.
2.4.3 Road-based Public Transport

(1) Introduction
The population of Lahore nearly doubled in 20 years and quadrupled in 40 years, from 2.6
million in 1972 to 5.4 million in 1991 and 9.7 million people today, which represents a 3 %
growth per annum since 1991. In the meantime, the vehicle growth reached 17 % per
annum between 2004 and 2008 in Lahore. Around 2 million vehicles are estimated to ply
the roads of Lahore, majority of these being motorcycles, cars and relatively few buses,
taxis and rickshaws.
(2) Historic Trends

Before Independence
As Pakistan gained independence from the British Empire in 1947, the First Five Year
Plan (1955-1960) recognized that the most valuable asset of Pakistan was the railways
built under the British Rule. Karachi is connected by railway since 1861, and Lahore since
1865. Around 8,100 kilometres of railways connected Pakistani cities in 1947, and rail
represented the only inter-urban public transport system while the road network was
comparatively underdeveloped.
The first bus service in Lahore started in the beginning of the 20th century with the
introduction of the Omni Bus Company by the then British government, plying Mall Road
to connect the major buildings and government offices. Model Town, built during the
1920’s decade, also started a bus public transport service connecting the town to the rest
of Lahore. However, as Lahore is characterized by a mixed land use of homes, work
places and bazaars within a short distance, walking remained the most common mode of
transport and horse-drawn carriages (tonga) were the main urban public transport mode
until the late 19th century.
Urban and inter-urban public transport services have historically been owned and
operated by the provincial governments in Pakistan. The Omni Bus service was a public
monopoly and expanded both in organization and resources over time.
After Independence
Following the First Five Year Plan, The Second Five Year Plan (1960-1965) encouraged
the development of roads and road-based public transport over railway. By pushing
private companies to engage towards public transport due to high demand, it led to the
development of private wagons along assigned routes. In the seventies public transport
became fully deregulated, which also allowed the private sector to compete with public
bus companies. However, this measure did not meet the expectations as public
2-96
companies were given the priority over private ones in the allocation of routes.
The Punjab Road Transport Corporation (PRTC) was established in 1977 to provide
efficient, adequate, economical, and coordinated public intercity transport services in the
province while the Punjab Urban Transport Corporation (PUTC) was established to
develop and maintain urban and intra-city bus services. PUTC took over the existing
public-owned Omni Buses, and, following a study of Lahore bus system conducted by
Volvo in 1980 which led to recommendations toward a continued mix between public and
private companies, expanded its fleet with a gift of 350 Volvo buses from the Swedish
government. However, even with new buses, the PUTC fleet was too small to provide
adequate bus services. As PUTC lacked investment capabilities, it started a leased bus
scheme in an effort to attract the private sector – invest in intra-city public transport
system.
These efforts eventually proved unsuccessful as the level of bus services degraded and
no buses were purchased after 1989. PUTC was disbanded by the government in 1998.
Despite the priority given to road-based public transport services over urban rail for both
urban and inter-urban movements, the policies and efforts undertaken after the
independence achieved little success in the improvement and quality of public transport in
the centre of Punjab.
(3) Structure and Organization

The government has further encouraged the private sector in public transport operation,
and the current public transport structure in Lahore is a direct heritage of the 1998
transport policy review, which revamped the structure of public transport services. The
franchise scheme was introduced in 1999 by support of the government through the
Transport Sector Development Initiative (TSDI), which promoted a privatization and
deregulation of public transport, while government agencies regulate the services. New
private operators then entered the market, increased the number of buses in operation
and significantly improved the public transport situation in Lahore in 1999.
The public transport administration, policy making and planning in Punjab is coordinated
by the Transport Department, which was established in 1987 under the West Pakistan
Motor Vehicles Ordinance 1965. It is responsible for the licensing of ‘high-occupancy’
large bus services in Lahore and other large cities, and of public transport services outside
the major cities of Punjab through the PTA. Minibus routes are granted by the Lahore
DRTA, which was established in 2001 by the Punjab Transport Department, and reports to
the CDGL and PTA.
However, in the 2000s the government’s attention shifted to other projects (road projects,
2-97
rail based public transport (LRMTS), and 4-stroke rickshaws), and as the bus system in
Lahore received little consideration the improvements seen since 1999, failed to continue
and the situation started worsen since 2006-07. The number of large buses in operation
has decreased considerably since 2005 due to poor maintenance, lack of investment, and
somewhat unfair competition with the other road-based modes (Wagons). Between 2005
and 2009 no operator entered the market and no additional bus had been added to the
depleting fleet.
While the number of buses declined and private operators were unable to meet the overall
demand, the services of public transport were provided by smaller, private vehicles such
as Wagon, Rickshaw and Qingqi, which have had a significant growth in the later half of
the last decade.
In an effort to improve the situation of road-based public transport, the LTC, a state-owned
company, was established in December 2009, taking over the infrastructure and regulation
responsibilities from the Lahore DRTA.
LTC is primarily a regulatory body and is now the sole organ responsible for custody of all
transport infrastructures in Lahore and its operations through a network of private
operators. Infrastructures include bus stops, shelters, bays, depots and terminals, while
the regulation and operational aspects cover service routes and the buses provided by
and operated through a network of private operators.
(4) Key Characteristics and Statistics

Buses
The bus transport service in Lahore district has over 53 planned routes, based on a 2005
survey of passengers and published in Punjab Gazette 2006, yet only 30 routes are
operational. Non-operational bus routes are being served by non-permitted vans, coasters,
wagons, rickshaws and Qingqis. The lower operating costs of these informal and poorly
maintained service vehicles has literally driven out the bus service from these routes. All of
the gazetted bus routes are shown on Figure 2.4.9.
Bus service are currently (2010) provided by a fleet of about 250 to 300 buses, almost all
of which are older than 2004. However, LTC planned to introduce 2,000 buses within 2010
with the help of 20 % upfront capital cost for new and old subsidies, refurbished buses and
to operate the currently non-operated routes. While LTC has law enforcement capabilities
and eventually intends to withdraw illegal vehicles (wagons, motorcycle rickshaws) from
official bus routes, it has raised several concerns among drivers.
The current operational bus routes are operated by 9 operators: Daewoo, Premier Bus
Service, BHK Transport (Sial Express), Makks, Niazi, ABC, Monolite Star, Baloch
2-98
Transport Company and Chattha Brothers.
Minibuses and Wagons

Many public transport vehicles operate without valid license, with an estimated 25 % or
more of minibuses with no valid license or documentation at all. It has also been reported
that many wagons and coasters are operating without licenses, and that many do not
follow the authorized route, sometime do not complete the full route journey, and also
provide services to suburbs satellite towns and illegally competing with legal buses
although they are not allowed to serve the designated urban high occupancy vehicle
(HOV) routes.
Wagon and bus routes should normally be controlled and enforced by DRTA/ LTC, but the
inefficiency of public-owned public transport has led to the multiplication of illegal
operation and forcing the private vehicle ownership even higher.
Auto-rickshaws and Qingqis

The number of rickshaws running on the roads of Lahore is about 66,000 as per
registration by the Lahore District Registration Authority, but up to 80,000 may actually ply
the routes of Lahore when taking into account unregistered vehicles. About 5,000 route
permits have also been issued for Qingqis, but it is estimated that as many as 40,000 are
currently operating ‘illegally’ in Lahore, many along primary and secondary roads which
are also served by licensed bus services. While there has been no change in the design of
the auto-rickshaws over the last 4 decades, the government is currently trying to ban
two-stroke engines in favour of CNG fuelled four-stroke rickshaws.
Mode share
Tables below show estimated mode share and trip-making in Lahore, by TEPA for 2007
and by the JICA Study Team for 2006 and 2011. The proportion of non-motorized (mostly
walk trips, and some bicycle trips) trips is high, at 45%, while the proportion of public
transport trips among motorized trips is around 35% (TEPA) to 38 % (LRMTS). This puts
the percentage of public transport share of motorised trips at around 51 % including trips
by Rickshaws. This has been declining over the years, due degradation of the Public
transport services, and the declining trend of public transport mode share has led to shift
of these trips in favour of mostly motorcycle and to some extent car trips, but considering
the growth of population and trip-making, the actual number of trips made by public
transport services will continue to increase over the next decade.
2-99
Figure 2.4.9 Gazetted Bus Route Coverage in Lahore
Source: Lahore Transport Company (LTC)
2-100
Table 2.4.4 Estimated Daily Person Trips in Lahore, 2007
Proportion
Mode Trips (,000) Proportion Excluding
Walk
Public Transport 3,409 19.3% 35.4%
Cars 2,894 16.4% 30.1%
Private Vehicles
Motorcycles / Bicycles 3,314 18.8% 34.5%
Mechanised Total (Excluding Walk) 9,617 54.5% 100%
Walk 8,050 45.5% -
Total 17,667 100% -
Source: TEPA, 2007
Table 2.4.5 Estimated Daily Motorized Person Trips in Lahore (LRMTS)
2006 2011 (Forecast)

Travel Mode
Total (,000) Proportion Total (,000) Proportion
Motorcycle 1,292 18.5% 1,532 18.3%
Rickshaw 1,014 14.5% 1,157 13.9%
Car/Taxi/4WD 1,991 28.5% 2,561 30.7%
Public Transport 2,699 38.6% 3,100 37.1%
Total 6,996 100.0% 8,350 100.0%
Operational Details
The table below shows the distance ranges and fares for bus and wagon routes.
Table 2.4.6 Bus and Wagon Fares, June 2010
Fare
Distance (km)
(PKR)
0–4 13
4.1 – 8 18
8.1 – 14 22
14.1 – 22 25
Source: Transport Department, 2010
Bus fares have significantly increased since the introduction of the franchised scheme, as
they had started at PKR 3 for the 0-3 km distance (representing more than twice the 1999
price when taking inflation into account). The cost of free of charge ridership is high, and is
estimated at 3.5 PKR/bus/km according to the Department of City and Regional Planning,
with 10 to 15 % of passengers who do not pay a fare.
2-101
Table 2.4.7 Key Operational Details
Distance (km) Distance (km) Fare (PKR)
Specified headways Peak 5.7

(minutes) Off Peak 8.2
Observed headways Peak 9.3
(minutes) Off Peak 11.5
Average Speed (km/h) 19
<=4 km 40%
Passenger trip length <=8 km 66%
<=14 km 89%
Bus kilometres (km/day/bus) 234
Operating cost (PKR/km) 29
Source: Department of City and Regional Planning, Study/policy planning of intra city
routes in four major cities in Punjab, 2007
2.4.4 Railways
PR (Pakistan Railways) has only a limited role in urban transport of Lahore. It has various
kinds of problems in train operation, i.e. late running problems, lack of service, old-type
rolling stocks, obsolete maintenance equipment, and so on. Because almost all the trains
run late, normal urban railway passengers such as workers and students do not use
railway for short- to medium-distance travel.
The punctuality is the most superior point of railway, compared with other transport modes.
Therefore the lack of this important feature can be seemed fatal for public usage. The
current PR has been on a steady decline. PR (Pakistan Railway) has been a target of the
Government of Pakistan for reform, rationalization and privatization for a long time.
2.4.5 Goods Movement

Goods vehicles can be classified in several types: pick-up trucks, delivery trucks, 2 axles,
3+ axles, tractors, construction machines and animal-drawn vehicles. Most of the goods
vehicles registered today in Lahore are delivery vans, with around 41,000 registered
vehicles in the Study Area, while there are around 29,000 tractors.
As the HIS, conducted in Phase-I of this study, focused on person trips in the future rather
than vehicle trips, the movements of goods vehicles was not captured as precisely by this
survey. However, traffic count surveys (cordon, screenline, vehicle occupancy, and traffic
counts at major intersections) provided estimates of the goods vehicles flows on the
network.
Larger trucks are banned from most of the roads in Lahore during daytime, and are only
allowed in specific areas. Table 2.4.8 below lists the existing truck terminals in Lahore.
2-102
Table 2.4.8 Truck City Terminals in Lahore
Freight Loading/
No. Inter-city Terminals City Terminals
Unloading Terminals
Lahore Railway Badami Bagh on
1 Badami Bagh
Station Ravi Link Road
Site close to the Railway Babu Sabu on
2 Bhatti Gate
Station Bund Road
Daewoo stand on
3 Airport
Ferozepur Road
4 Bund Road Dry Port
Source: Integrated Master Plan for Lahore, 2021
2.4.6 Historical Comparison of Present Traffic Demand with 1990

During the period 1990-1991, JICA conducted the first full-scale urban transport study or
the “Comprehensive Study on Transportation System in Lahore” with cooperation of LDA
and TEPA. This on-going study intends to totally renew the year 1990 traffic database by
means of various traffic surveys including HIS, cordon, screenlines surveys, public
transport user interview survey and through others data collection and analysis.
Although complete new traffic database has not been established at this stage of reporting,
this section attempts to make some historical comparisons between recent other survey
results and the year 1990 database. After the JICA study 1991, sporadic traffic count
surveys were conducted for several road projects while a city-wide traffic survey was done
in 2005 for the Lahore Rapid Mass Transit System (LRMTS) Feasibility Study. The LRMTS
database is quoted for historical comparison. As results, the historical comparison shows
the following characteristics; which are compared in Figure 2.4.10 and 2.4.11.
Expansion of urban transport activity area: The two transport studies illustrate existing
traffic demand maps on the city’s road network (see Figure 2.4.10 and 2.4.11). Although
detailed demand degree settings vary from each other, the two images differ in urban
transport area and it means the extension of urban transport area particularly to the east,
southeast and southwest directions as the city’s urban areas have considerably
expanded.
Road traffic increase: We observe 4-wheeler road traffic increase at all the comparable
lines and points between 1990 and 2005. However, increase rates vary from 149 % (6.2 %
p.a.) at the West Canal Screen Line to 752 % (15 % p.a.) at the Inner Southeast Cordon
Point. Significant traffic increase can be found at the fringe of urban areas due to acute
urbanization and densification of existing urban areas during this period.
Change in modal share: In 1990, bicycle, rickshaw and horse carriages took an important
role in urban transport. The 1990 HIS reported that they enjoyed a person trip share of
15 %. Due to their small passenger capacity and slow speed, such non-motorized
2-103
transport means excluding walking occupied more road space than the modal share.
Nowadays the role of the old non-motorised modes is marginal and all animal drawn
modes have converted to rickshaws and in narrow urban streets to Qingqis.
Figure 2.4.10 Road Traffic Demand in 1990
Figure 2.4.11 Road Traffic Demand in 2005
Source: LRMTS, 2006
2-104
Figure 2.4.12 Change in 4-wheeler Road Traffic, 1990 and 2005

Ravi River Crossing
Inner East
Cordon
West Canal Crossing
Inner Southeast
Inner Southwest Cordon
Cordon
Source: Comprehensive Study on Transportation System in Lahore, JICA, 1991 and LRMTS, 2006
2-105
2.5 Transport Demand Characteristics

2.5.1 Road Traffic Volume
Screenline surveys were undertaken based on the screenlines as shown in Figure 2.5.1.
The road traffic as determined from the Screenline surveys is summarised in Table 2.5.1.
Of note in Table 2.5.1 is the absence of a 1991 screenline of Ravi River. There are
dramatic increases in the traffic volumes across the screenlines, most notably in the South
and East. This is likely due to the development of the Cantonment area, DHA and the
general development away from the Walled City.
Table 2.5.1 Comparison of Screenline Crossing Flows since 1991 JICA Study
1991 JICA Study 2011 JICA Study Growth Per Annum (%)
Screenline All 2 4 All 2 4 All 2 4
Vehicle Wheel Wheel Vehicle Wheel Wheel Vehicle Wheel Wheel
Railway:
North of - - - 131,559 61,846 69,713 - - -
Ravi River
Ravi River 81,169 42,533 38,636 201,942 74,316 127,626 4.7% 2.8% 6.2%
Railway:
North of 277,332 201,627 75,705 525,867 310,993 214,874 3.3% 2.2% 5.4%
Canal
Railway:
South of 165,300 83,882 81,418 653,282 340,351 312,931 7.1% 7.3% 7.0%
Canal
Canal:
West of 439,877 212,790 227,087 828,521 362,421 466,100 3.2% 2.7% 3.7%
Railway
Canal: East
76,207 58,187 18,020 383,161 228,653 154,508 8.4% 7.1% 11.3%
of Railway
Note: 2 Wheeled Vehicles are Bicycles, Motorcycles and Animal Drawn Carts.
4 Wheeled vehicles included cars, wagons, buses, trucks.
Figure 2.5.2 to 2.5.5 show hourly variation of traffic volume on the Canal Screenline and
the Railway Screenline by direction and by vehicle type. Note that the traffic volume is the
total of all survey locations on the screenlines on these sections.
2-106
Figure 2.5.1 Major Screenlines in Lahore
On the Canal Screenline, motorcycle and car are the dominant mode although the number
of motorcycle is larger than that of car. Hourly traffic volume is distributed relatively equally
from morning till evening with unclear peaks in the morning and evening. For car, there is
a vague peak at around 1-2 o’clock.
On the railway screenline, the dominant mode is motorcycle. Car traffic is less compared
to the Canal screenline. Hourly traffic volume is also distributed relatively equally from
morning till evening. However, motorcycle has a peak around 8-9 a.m. for east to west
direction and around 18-19 p.m. for west to east direction. The traffic volume of trucks is
relatively large on this screen line.
2-107
Figure 2.5.2 Hourly Variation of Traffic Volume on Canal Screenline (South to North)
Figure 2.5.3 Hourly Variation of Traffic Volume on Canal Screenline (North to South)
2-108
Figure 2.5.4 Hourly Variation of Traffic Volume on Railway Screenline (East to West)
Figure 2.5.5 Hourly Variation of Traffic Volume on Railway Screenline (West to East)
2-109
2.5.2 External Traffic Volume

Cordon Surveys were undertaken along the cordon as shown in Figure 2.5.6. The
External Traffic volume as determined from the Cordon surveys are summarised in Table
2.5.2.
Table 2.5.2 Outer Cordon Traffic Volumes since 1991 JICA Study
1991 JICA Study 2010 JICA Study Per Annum Growth

Cordon All 2 4 All 2 4 All 2 4
Vehicle Wheel Wheel Vehicle Wheel Wheel Vehicle Wheel Wheel
Northern 21,780 7,334 14,446 39,424 7,378 32,047 3.0% 0.0% 4.1%
Northeastern 2,294 1,544 750 6,172 1,841 4,331 5.1% 0.9% 9.2%
Eastern - - - 172 0 172 - - -
Southern 19,932 11,573 8,359 21,097 7,017 14,080 0.3% -2.5% 2.6%
Southwestern 8,127 879 7,248 28,174 4,647 23,527 6.4% 8.7% 6.1%
Western 16,026 3,323 12,703 65,691 5,187 60,504 7.3% 2.3% 8.1%
Note: 2 Wheeled vehicles are Bicycles, Motorcycles and Animal Drawn Carts.
4 Wheeled vehicles included cars, wagons, buses, trucks.
Source: JICA Study Team and Comprehensive Study on Transportation System in Lahore, JICA, 1991
In 1991, there was no cordon survey at the Wagah Border Crossing, so there are no
vehicles recorded at the Eastern Screenlines. In any case, the traffic volumes across the
border are very low. It is also important to note that the cordons are in different locations
between the two studies. A strict comparison is misleading, but serves as an indicator of
the changes in traffic volumes over time.
The current study has not surveyed an inner cordon, so there is not basis for comparing
the 1991 JICA Study inner cordon.
Figure 2.5.7 and 2.5.8 show hourly variation of traffic volume at the Cordons by direction
and by vehicle type. Note that the traffic volume is the total of all survey locations at
cordon.
On the cordon, the dominant mode is car followed by motorcycle then wagon. Hourly
traffic volume is distributed relatively equally from morning till evening. However, outbound
car traffic has a peak at around 11 a.m.
2-110
Figure 2.5.6 Cordon Boundary in Lahore
2-111
Figure 2.5.7 Hourly Variation of Traffic Volume at Cordon (Inbound)
Figure 2.5.8 Hourly Variation of Traffic Volume at Cordon (Outbound)
2.5.3 Person Trips

In the Study Area, in 2010 about 12 million trips are made in a day as shown in Table 2.5.3.
However, about 3.7 million trips or 32 % of the total trips are of short-distance walking.
Excluding walking, about 8.1 million trips are made on a usual weekday.
2-112
Table 2.5.3 Number of Person Trips in the Study Area by Mode and by Trip Purpose, 2010
No. of Trips by Trip Purpose (‘000/day)
Travel Mode
To Work To School Private Business To Home Total
Bicycle 152 72 11 5 231 472
MC (Driver) 775 206 123 76 1,110 2,290
Private
MC (Passenger) 72 171 28 8 223 501

Car 382 191 155 56 732 1,517
Truck 2 1 1 0 4 7
Sub-Total 1,383 640 319 145 2,300 4,786
Bus/Mazda/Wagon 418 253 131 34 784 1,620
Rail/Air 1 0 0 0 3 4
Public
Rickshaw 129 171 75 9 368 751

Qinggi 170 71 53 7 311 612
Sub-Total 718 495 259 50 1,466 2,987
Taxi 1 1 1 0 3 6
Others
Private Bus 28 99 2 0 127 256

Others 13 3 2 1 17 37
Sub-total 42 103 5 1 147 299
Walk 561 1,197 86 41 1,845 3,729
(including walk) 2,705 2,436 668 236 5,756 11,801
Total
(excluding walk) 2,144 1,239 582 195 3,911 8,072
Table 2.5.4 shows the daily trip rates (No. of trips divided by population). On average, the
residents in Lahore make 1.14 trips a day including walking or 0.76 trips a day excluding
walking. This is very low at almost half the level compared to other mega-cities in Asia
such as Manila, Ho Chi Minh and Jakarta. This may be attributed to the existence of
inactive female population and the high percentage of unemployment. Figure 2.5.9 further
shows the trip rate distribution by gender and by age group.
Table 2.5.4 Trip Rate of Lahore Residents, 2010

Mode Male Female Total
Including walking 1.59 0.60 1.14
Excluding walking 1.12 0.32 0.76
Figure 2.5.9 Trip Rate by Gender and by Age Group

2.00
Male Female Both
1.80
1.60
1.40
No. of Trips per Day
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
-
6 - 9 10 - 15 - 20 - 25 - 30 - 35 - 40 - 45 - 50 - 55 - 60 - 65 - 70 -74 75 +
14 19 24 29 34 39 44 49 54 59 64 69
Age Group
2-113
2.5.4 Model Shares

Figure 2.5.10 presents model shares by gender and by age group. Female largely depend
on walking and uses rickshaw relatively frequently. Male travels by motorcycles more than
female. Females are usually passengers.
Figure 2.5.10 Model Share by Gender and by Age Group, 2010

Walk Bicycle MC (Driver) MC (Passenger) W a lk B ic y c le M C ( D r iv e r ) M C (P assen g er)
( M a le )
(Female) Rickshaw Car Bus Others
R ic k s h a w C ar B us O th ers
75 +
75 +
70 -74
70 -74
65 - 6 9
65 - 69
60 - 6 4
60 - 64
55 - 5 9
55 - 59
50 - 54 50 - 5 4
45 - 49 45 - 4 9
Age Group
40 - 44 40 - 4 4
35 - 39 35 - 3 9
30 - 34 30 - 3 4
25 - 29 25 - 2 9
20 - 24 20 - 2 4
15 - 19 15 - 1 9
10 - 14 10 - 1 4
5- 9 5 - 9
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
% of Trips % o f T r ip s
Car owning households naturally use cars more frequently, but they use motorcycles as
well because they often have motorcycles too, as presented in Figure 2.5.11. Motorcycle
is used mainly by motorcycle owning households and car owning households. Public
transport such as bus and rickshaw is important for non-vehicle owning households.
Modal shares do not change much depending on trip purpose. “To School” trips tend to
use buses more than other trips due to school bus services.
Figure 2.5.11 Model Share by Household Vehicle Ownership, 2010
Walk Bicycle MC (Driver) MC (Passenger) Rickshaw Car Bus Other
Others
Car/Van
MC
Bicycle
None
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Household Vehicle Ownership
2-114
Figure 2.5.12 Modal Share by Trip Purpose (excluding walk), 2010
2.5.5 Trip Generation/ Attraction
Table 2.5.5 presents the total trip generations/ attractions by Town/ Tehsil. Data Gunj
Baksh and Gulberg attract a greater number of “To Work” and “To School” trips than trips
for the same purpose generated from the area. Shalamar, Samanabad, Aziz Bhatti are
typical residential towns where more “To Work” trips are generated than attracted.
Table 2.5.5 Trip Generation/ Attraction by Town/Tehsil, 2010

Generations (‘000/day) Attractions (‘000/day)
Town/
No To To To To To To
Tehsil Private Bus Total Private Bus Total
Work School Home Work School Home
1 Ravi 226 92 39 21 426 803 272 72 62 38 336 781
2 DataGB 161 122 52 16 771 1,121 453 248 92 34 308 1,135
3 Samanabad 218 137 85 35 405 880 170 172 66 31 422 860
4 Shalamar 295 130 44 16 208 693 102 91 25 13 470 701
5 Gulberg 214 155 71 25 713 1,177 381 238 90 32 425 1,166
6 AzizB 188 124 41 14 189 556 88 62 31 9 360 550
7 Wagah 129 81 37 6 157 410 80 48 32 5 239 405
8 Nishter 179 70 41 16 204 510 126 41 34 8 312 523
9 Iqbal 207 135 79 24 424 870 262 135 82 25 379 882
10 Cantt 182 132 49 26 369 758 194 122 63 14 374 767
11 Ferozewala 90 44 45 12 90 282 62 20 27 6 154 269
12 Muridke 47 21 27 4 62 159 62 21 28 4 80 195
13 Sharaqpur 11 9 15 1 23 59 10 8 10 0 29 57
14 Kasur 36 20 7 4 20 87 11 7 4 0 49 72
15 Patoki 40 19 13 3 43 117 29 14 17 4 82 146
Total 2,223 1,290 644 223 4,103 8,483 2,302 1,299 665 223 4,021 8,509
2-115
2.5.6 Hourly Distribution of Trips

Figure 2.5.13 and 2.5.14 show hourly distribution of trips generated by time of the day,
classified by mode and by trip purpose. There are two peaks around 7-8 a.m. and 1-2 p.m.
The morning peak is due to “To School” and “To Work” trips and the afternoon peak is due
to “To home” trips made by students/ pupils. A large number of walk trips are seen in these
peak hours.
Figure 2.5.13 Hourly Distribution of Trips by Mode, 2010
Rickshaw Bus Med-Bus Truck Small Bus

Public Bus Car Motorcycle Bicycle Walk
2,200
2,000
1,800
1,600
1,400
No. of Trips ('000)
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Time Period (Hour)
Figure 2.5.14 Hourly Distribution of Trips by Trip Purpose (excluding walk), 2010
To Home Business Private To School To Work
1,120
920
720
No. of Trips ('000)
520
320
120
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
(80)
Time Period (Hours)
2-116
The tendency described above can be clearly seen in Figure 2.5.15. “To School” and “To
Work” trips make a sharp peak around 7-8 a.m. and “Business” and “Private” trips are made
mainly in the morning period. “To Home” trips are made relatively equally from 1-2 p.m.
Figure 2.5.15 Hourly Distribution of Trips by Trip Purpose in terms of Percentage

(excluding walk), 2010
To Work To School Private Business To Home
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Time Period (Hours)
2.5.7 Travel Time and Speed

The average travel time of Lahore residents is 38.3 minutes as a whole. About 62 % trips
are less than 30 minutes as shown in Table 2.5.6. However, about 9 % of the trips exceed
60 minutes. The relation between travel time and distance can be illustrated by mode
schematically as presented in Figure 2.5.16.
Table 2.5.6 Number of Trips by Travel Time and Trip Purpose, 2010
No. of Trips by Trip Purpose (000/day)

Travel Time
To Work To School Private Business To Home Total
- 10 min 135 148 48 20 276 628
- 20 min 364 337 91 37 693 1,522
- 30 min 659 391 117 55 1,211 2,434
- 40 min 122 64 27 9 252 475
- 50 min 210 107 40 15 360 733
- 60 min 307 107 74 19 533 1,041
- 75 min 52 20 12 4 97 185
- 90 min 69 30 23 6 114 242
- 120 min 40 18 18 1 82 159
120 min + 14 5 11 1 37 69
Total 1,975 1,227 462 168 3,655 7,487
Average (min.) 38.9 31.9 42.8 34.3 38.8 37.8
2-117
Figure 2.5.16 Average Travel Time and Distance by Travel Mode, 2010
Train
20
Bus
Car
15
Travel Distance (km)
M/C Truck
10
Bicycle
5
Walk
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Travel Time (min)
Figure 2.5.17 shows the result of LUTMP travel speed survey. Motorway and Lahore Ring
Road show high travel speed of above 50 km/h throughout the day. Circular Road, Mall
Road, Ferozepur Road and G.T. Road (east and north) show a relatively slow speed of 20
to 30 km/h throughout the day. This indicates the serious traffic congestion in the city
centre and along the north – south radial corridor of the city.
2-118
Figure 2.5.17 Average Travel Speed on Selected Roads

Direction: to city center
80.0
Motorway
70.0
Band Rd & Lahore Ring Rd
Avg. Speed (Km/hour)
60.0 Lahore Ring Rd

50.0 Sagian Wala Bypass
40.0 G.T. Rd (Northern Part)
30.0 G.T. Rd (Eastern Part)

Circular Road
20.0
Mall Road
10.0
Canal Bank Road
0.0 Ferozepur Road
AM IP PM Avg.
Direction: from city center
80.0
Motorway
70.0
Band Rd & Lahore Ring Rd
Avg. Speed (Km/hour)
60.0 Lahore Ring Rd

50.0 Sagian Wala Bypass
40.0 G.T. Rd (Northern Part)
30.0 G.T. Rd (Eastern Part)

Circular Road
20.0
Mall Road
10.0
Canal Bank Road
0.0 Ferozepur Road
AM IP PM Avg.
2.5.8 Trip Makers’ Assessment of Their Journey

In LUTMP HIS, questions were asked to interviewees on their assessment of the journey
they make. Figure 2.5.18 depicts this assessment of the mode they have used. In general,
their scoring is lower for public transport trips including bus and rickshaw.
Figure 2.5.19 shows the reason of mode choice. Albeit no large difference is seen by
mode, “No Other Choice” answer is significant for bus and rickshaw. For these modes,
“Convenience” was least selected.
2-119
Figure 2.5.18 Average Evaluation Score by Mode, 2010
Travel Time Convenient Safety Overall Assessment

3.4
3.3
Average Evaluation Score
3.2
3.1
3.0
2.9
2.8
2.7
2.6
2.5
Note: 5-point evaluation – 5: very good, 4: good, 3: so-so, 2: bad and 1: very bad
Figure 2.5.19 Reason of Modal Choice, 2010
Travel time Comfort Convenience Cost Safety No other choice
Others
Bus
Car
Rickshaw
MC
(Passenger)
MC (Driver)
Bicycle
Walk
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

% of Trips by Mode
2-120
2.6 People’s Perception of Travel Situation

The Study has conducted a large-scale HIS (Home Interview Survey) covering about
18,000 households. In the interview, a considerable number of questions were asked to
the respondent households in relation to their perception and opinion of traffic/ transport
situation in Lahore. Major findings from this interview are briefly described in the following:
2.6.1 General Traffic Situation and Congestion

Table 2.6.1 shows the perception of Lahore citizen of the present traffic situation. It is
amazing that nearly 90 % people opinion is that traffic situation is “very bad” or “bad”.
Figure 2.6.1 portrays the reasons why they think this situation has been brought about.
There are major reasons; “Increase of Car Traffic”, “Bad Driving Behaviour”, “Lack of
Enforcement” and “Lack of Public Transport”.
Table 2.6.1 People’s General Feeling on Present Traffic Situation

Opinion Number of Percentage
Samples (%)
Very Good 24 0.1
Good 239 1.4
Average 1,865 10.5
Bad 5,489 31.0
Very Bad 10,086 57.0
Figure 2.6.1 Stated Causes of “Very Bad” or “Bad” Traffic Situation
Increase of Car Traffic

5%
22% Increase of Motorcycle Traffic
19%
Bad Driving Behavior
13% Lack of Enforcement

18%
Lack of Public Transport
23%
Lack of Parking / Other Reasons
Many people answered “Much Worse” or “Worse” of current traffic situation as compared
to 5 years ago as shown in Table 2.6.2. The percentage is highest regarding congestion
followed by safety. It is clear that most people are frustrated with the current traffic
situation. Figure 2.6.2 illustrates the distribution of respondent households who answered
“very bad regarding traffic congestion. Its percentage is high around the city center and its
surrounding areas.
2-121
Figure 2.6.2 Distribution of Respondent Households who Answered “Very Bad”

regarding Traffic Congestion
2-122
Table 2.6.2 Percentage of People who Answered “Much Worse” or “Worse”

on Current Traffic Situation as Compared to 5 Years Ago
Subject Percentage answered “Much Worse” or “Worse”
Congestion 80.4%
Safety 76.6%
Convenience 68.6%
2.6.2 Traffic Safety

In Lahore, traffic safety situation is serious. Nearly 20 % of households have experienced
traffic accidents in the past 5 years as shown in Table 2.6.3.
Table 2.6.3 “Have you got involved in traffic accidents in the past 5 years?”
Response Number of Samples Percentage
Yes 3,416 19.3%
No 14,266 80.7%
Total 17,682 100.0%
Traffic safety situation in Lahore is worsening rapidly. Figure 2.6.3 shows the distribution
of respondents who answered “Much Worse” of the current traffic situation as compared to
5 years ago. Its percentage tends to be higher in the city centre areas.
2-123
Figure 2.6.3 Distribution of Respondent Households who Answered Much Worse”

Traffic Safety Situation as Compared to 5 Years Ago
Lahore citizen think that the reasons of this poor traffic safety are “Poor Road Condition”,
“Lack of Education”, “Increase of Traffic / Congestion”, “Poor Traffic Enforcement”, “Lack
of Facilities for Traffic Safety”, and so on as presented in Figure 2.6.4. It is noted that
“People’s Driving Manner” is not taken seriously as traffic safety. As to the behavior of
motorcyclist, people have generally negative impression such as “Very Bad” or “Bad”.
2-124
Regarding traffic safety measures, majority thinks “Enhancement of People’s Awareness”

and “Improvement of Road” are most necessary measures, as illustrated in Figure 2.6.5
Figure 2.6.4 People’s Opinion on Reasons of Poor Traffic Safety
People's Driving Manner

0%
15% 13%
Increase of Traffic / Congestion
4%
Lack of Traffic Signals
11%
11%
Poor Traffic Enforcement
Poor Road Condition

8%
Lack of Traffic Signs
Lack of Facilities for Traffic Safety

38%
Lack of Education
Table 2.6.4 People’s Feeling on the Behavior of Motorcyclists

Very Good 24 0.1%
Good 358 2.0%
Ok 3,294 18.6%
Bad 5,853 33.1%
Very Bad 8,166 46.1%
Total 17,695 100.0%
Figure 2.6.5 People’s Opinion on Necessary Traffic Safety Measures

2% 0%
12% Enhancement of People's Awareness
26% Improvement of Road
Traffic Safety Education / Campaign
7%
Control of Motocycles Use
Control of Car Use
9% More Traffic Signals
More Safety Facilities for Pedestrians
3%
Stricter Enforcement of Traffic Rules
5% Compulsory Use of Helmet in City Area
26%
10% Others
2-125
2.6.3 Public Transport

Most of Lahore citizen are not using bus service regularly. Only about 14 % are the regular
bus users as summarised in Tables 2.6.5 and 2.6.6. Among the reasons of not using
buses, “Have own transport vehicles” was the reply of most respondents, followed by “Do
not need to use buses” and “Not satisfied with bus services”. Based on people’s
assessment on bus/ wagon service given in Table 2.6.7, majority of people are not
satisfied on almost all aspects of the present bus/ wagon services.
Table 2.6.5 Frequency of Bus Use

Number of Percentage
Regularity
Samples (%)
5-7 Times a Week 2,434 13.8
2-4 Times a Week 2,318 13.2
Once a Week 2,422 13.7
Rarely 6,127 34.8
Never 4,315 24.5
Total 17,616 100.0
Table 2.6.6 Reasons of Not Using Bus Service

Number of Percentage
Reason
Samples (%)
Have Own Transport Vehicle 4,015 43.2
Not Satisfied with Bus Service 1,821 19.6
Don’t need to Use Bus 1,896 20.4
No Opinion 1,568 16.9
Total 9,300 100.0
Table 2.6.7 People’s Assessment on Bus/Wagon Service

Reason Percentage Answered Very Bad or Bad
Route System 67.9
Operating Hours 69.6
Frequency/ Headway 67.7
Punctuality 73.3
Bus Speed 66.2
Bus Fare 73.0
Access to Bus Stop 59.3
Bus Stop Facilities 73.1
Waiting Condition 77.9
Number of Bus Stops 65.5
On-Board Comfort 70.9
On-Board Security 72.7
Driver/ Conductor’s Attitude 68.5
Convenience of Transfer 62.2
Others 59.0
Despite adverse views on the present bus/ wagon services, people generally agree to
the necessity of improving public transport as shown in Table 2.6.8. For the improvement
of public transport, improvement of bus services is considered most important.
2-126
Development of air conditioned buses and rail based mass transit are also considered
as a necessity by the citizens of Lahore.
Table 2.6.8 People’s Opinion on the Necessity of Public Transport Improvement

Yes 15,925 90.5%
No 970 5.5%
Don’t Know 356 2.0%
No Opinion 349 2.0%
Total 17,600 100.0%
Table 2.6.9 “What types of public transport services must be improved? (Choose two)”
Mode Number of Samples Percentage
Taxi/ Rickshaw 3,208 10.1
Bus Services 11,447 36.1
Aircon Buses 7,056 22.2
Underground Railway 5,084 16.0
Elevated Railway 2,344 7.4
Railway 2,596 8.2
Total 31,735 100.0
2.6.4 Improvement of Transport System

Table 2.6.10, presents that possible measures for transport improvements as supported
by people. More than 90 % of people support “Construction/ Improvement of Roads”,
“Strict Traffic Control” and “Improvement of Walking Condition”. “Restricting Motorcycle”
seems to be the relatively unpopular response.
Table 2.6.10 People’s Attitude on Transport Improvement

Percentage Answered “Strongly
Transport Improvements
Support” or “Support”
Construction / Improvements of 96.5
Roads
Strict Traffic Control 93.4
Restricting Motorcycle 49.0
Installation of Traffic Signals 82.6
Strict Parking Control 88.0
More Parking Facilities 89.2
Improvements of Walking 91.5
Condition
Expansion of Bus Services 88.1
Introduction of Bus Lanes 87.5
Remove of Animal-driven Carts 64.8
Others 60.0
Regarding public transport improvement measures, “Control of Air Pollution”, “Promotion

of People’s Understanding of Transport Problems and Measures”, “Construction of Bus
Exclusive Lane / Bus-way” and “Construction of Urban Railway” have a strong support
from the citizens of Lahore. “Removal of Animal-driven Carts” and “Removal of Qingqi”
2-127
also have a support to certain extent. Restrictive and economic measures on the use of
private vehicles (car and motorcycle) are unpopular, as summarized in Table 2.6.11.
Table 2.6.11 People’s Attitude on Public Transport Improvement Measures
Percentage Answered “Strongly

Restrictive Measures
Agree” or “Agree”
Restriction of Motorcycle Use on Service Roads 48.3
Restriction of Car Use in City Area 42.2
Increase of User Charges for Car 32.5
Increase of User Charges for Motorcycle 31.1
Construction of Bus Exclusive Lane / Bus Ways 83.8
Construction of Urban Railway (Elevated) 77.4
Construction of Urban Railway (Underground) 78.2
Construction of Urban Railway (At-Grade) 76.2
Control of Air Pollution 93.2
Promotion of People’s Understanding of 88.3
Transport Problems and Measures
Removal of Rikshaw 51.5
Removal of Qinq Qi 61.6
Removal of Animal-driven Carts 63.8
Others 52.2
2-128
2.7 Current Transport Problems and Issues
2.7.1 Road Network

Lahore is one of the most accessible cities of the Punjab Province. In addition to the
historic Grand Trunk Road (G.T. Road), a motorway (M-2) was completed in 1997 from
Lahore to Islamabad. The government has built underpasses to ease congestion and
prevent traffic jams, and according to official figures, Lahore transportation services have
improved to accommodate the growing number of visitors to the city. It is well connected
by air to other countries as well as all major cities of Pakistan. Buses, trains, taxis and
rickshaws are the other means of transport available in Lahore. The problems regarding
road infrastructure are summarized as follows:
1) Lack of Overpasses and Underpasses
Despite these improvements, Lahore struggles for safety on its roads, which are
dangerous because the number of vehicles overwhelms the road space. Massive
congestion occurs every day as millions of Lahorites travel through disorganized,
fast-moving traffic, and accidents are widespread. However the government is trying to
improve traffic conditions by constructing flyovers, underpasses, and conducting public
safety campaigns. As shown in Figure 2.7.1, the number of overpasses and underpasses
are still limited, only on few roads including Canal Bank Road.
Figure 2.7.1 Location of Overpasses and Underpasses in Lahore
2-129
2) Encroachment
There is no segregation between markets and roads in Lahore. All roads are market
places in Lahore. LUTMP conducted RIS and recorded the extent of encroachment in
terms of percentage of road area illegally occupied within the right-of-way (RoW).
The Retail Encroachments are shown in Figure 2.7.2. The reasons will be:
Many street vendors are working to earn their daily income.

Parking spaces are limited or non-existent in most of commercial shops and
business buildings.
Solutions to remove the encroachment will not be easy because it depends on a kind of
social policy. The possible solutions will be:
The street vendors are required to develop their economy so as to discontinue

the street vending (Overall economic development is needed.).
The shops and buildings owners have to determine to invest for their required
parking spaces.
2-130
Figure 2.7.2 Retail Encroachment – Road Inventory Surveys
Other forms of encroachment result from the activities outside schools, industrial facilities,
hospitals and office spaces. Most of these are relatively minor, parking on main roads is
significant cause of encroachments, as shown in Figure 2.7.3.
2-131
Figure 2.7.3 Main Road Parking Encroachments
Source: LUTMP Road Inventory Surveys
There is rarely parking all along the entire length of a road section. It is quite common to
see parking along 25 % to 50 % of the road section, where commercial activity is
prevalent.
3) Lahore Ring Road (LRR) Construction

Over quarter of the LRR is complete and eastern section is now under construction. LRR
land acquisition process has been slow, however, it is anticipated that LRR Phase-I will be
operational by the end of 2012. Early completion of both phases of LRR is essential to
relieve the congestion in the inner city areas.
4) Lack of Ravi River Bridges

In the 1991 Master Plan prepared by Comprehensive Study on Transportation System in
Lahore, JICA, three additional bridges over Ravi River were proposed. The outstanding
2-132
one is from the south end of the Canal Bank Road to the north-west over the Ravi River.
For the development of the city to the west of the Ravi River, additional bridges over the
Ravi River would be required.
5) Development in the South-west of Lahore

Present new housing and industrial development schemes are mostly located in the
south-west quadrant of the city between Multan Road and Ferozepur Road. The
development of this area was initially proposed in the 1991 Master Plan prepared by JICA
Study and later confound by the 2001 Master Plan prepared by LDA. Development toward
east, north and even west were not considered due to fear of flooding from Ravi River
proximity to the international border with India.
For the balanced development of Lahore, all directional development should be sought
including road infrastructure development for smaller sub-centres, otherwise more people
will tend to travel to the city centre from a single (south-west Ferozepur Road) corridor
which is not sustainable.
6) Lack of Road Classification and Inventories

At present, road classification of each road is not clear, every authority has its own
definition and classification is not authorized by laws. For the long term development and
smooth implementation of each road, the classification should be well planned and the
road inventories should be prepared for a single classification for all the relevant agencies.
7) Vertical Clearance of Underpasses

In May 2010, several pupils sitting on the roof top of a bus were hit and killed at one of the
underpasses at Canal Bank Road. Existing vertical clearances of most of underpasses
varies and maximum is only 4 m, sub-standard even by American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standard (min. 4.3 m).
2.7.2 Public Transport Development

The public transport network in Lahore is currently under-developed, fragmented,
inadequately managed and highly inefficient.
1) Under-Development
It is estimated that there are 3.3 million passenger trips in the Study Area using public
transport (buses, wagons and other paratransit), whereas there are only 300 to 400 buses
(55 ft) are operated by 13 private companies. Evidently the public transport network is
under-developed and there is a great gap between the demand and provision of an
efficient and environment friendly public transport system. Despite a considerable
demand and several projects (Green, Orange, Blue and Purple Mass Rapid Transit lines),
there is currently no Rail-based Mass Transit (RMTS) line in Lahore.
2-133
2) Fragmentation
Historically, the provincial governments in Pakistan have owned and operated intercity
and urban public transport services. However, over the years, the government, according
to the guidelines of the World Bank, advocated to encourage the private sector in
operating public transport. The decline of state-owned public transport services created a
vacuum that was filled by private operators in accordance with these guidelines. Initially,
the market was opened to private operators in parallel with public-owned public transport.
However, the availability of public transport has not grown at the same rate as the
population. Therefore, a large number of small private operators were permitted to fulfil
this gap in a fragmented way. As a result, a chaotic mass of individually-owned small
vehicles (Wagon, Qingqi, Rickshaw etc.) operate in Lahore, competing for road space.
3) Inadequate Management
Public transport organizations have a long history of deficiency in professional,
administrative, and financial capacity to manage public transport service planning. In the
absence of human resources, coordination, research, and financial capacity of public
transport institutions in Punjab, public transport has now become fully the prerogative of
the private sector as described in the previous paragraph. The incomplete routes, high
fares, fewer-than-needed buses, gender discrimination, and even absence of buses in
some places are common in the urban areas. Whole public transport is grossly
mismanaged with least objective of service provision, limited and inadequate condition of
the public transport facilities (including buses, bus terminals and bus stops) and chaotic
use of road space (leap frogging by Wagons) due to absence of proper government
regulations and enforcement. Public transport operation should be improved by extending
franchised bus operations on all major corridors and restricting small vehicles operations
on feeder routes. It will require emphasis on high-capacity buses (50+ seats) rather than a
multitude of small vehicles.
Transport related functions (transport planning, engineering and maintenance, and

licensing, registration, regulation and operation of public transport routes) were not
concentrated into one single and efficient authority: TEPA has no longer any involvement,
and licenses are issued without assistance of any origin-destination data or transport
planning processes. LTC is established to regulate public transport operations, it is
anticipated to improve, albeit, the program has been limited over the last three years since
its operation.
Actually there are currently many public transport vehicles operating without valid license
and or even registration. About 25 % of mini-buses operate without any valid documents.
It has also been reported that many wagons are operating without any registration, and
2-134
that many do not follow the authorized route. Buses also suffer because of undue
competition with paratransit; there are wagons and coasters which provide licensed
services to neighbouring towns and, although they are not allowed to serve intra-urban
passengers, these compete illegally with bus routes by picking-up and dropping-off
passengers within Lahore district area.
In addition to unlicensed mini-bus and wagon services, there is increasing phenomenon of

Qingqis and Rickshaws. About 5,000 route permits have been issued to Qingqis, but it is
estimated that as many as 40,000 are currently operating in Lahore, many along primary
and secondary roads which are also served by licensed bus services. In parallel, the
presence of more than 80,000 rickshaws not only causes congestion but serious threat to
efficiency and service quality.
4) Performance
Due to rapid motorization increase in traffic volume over the last two decades, the road
network has many congested sections along arterial roads, which increases travel delays
and reduces bus travel speeds, implying a less competitive public transport network,
especially in the CBD where commercial and trading activities are concentrated.
Current public transport services are suffering greatly due to irregularity. On certain routes
waiting times for the passengers are too long, whereas on certain routes buses wait for
the passengers to be filled. Such a situation prevails because of the fact that routing and
licensing is not based on passenger demand analysis but based on convenience of
operators and the regulator. Efficiency is acceptable on certain routes but reliability is poor,
there being no scheduling at all. Quality of public transport services, as reported by users
is illustrated in Figure 2.7.4.
2-135
Figure 2.7.4 User Assessment

Assessment of Public Transport
Public Transport Facilities
Facilities
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Very Good Good Fair Bad Very Bad
Transfer Facilities Comfort Safety
Parking Area at Stations Air Quality Noise Levels
2.7.3 Traffic Management

Mainly due to institutional issues, traffic management is highly inefficient and ineffective in
Lahore. Main aspects are: traffic laws, management of the public spaces, management of
the physical infrastructure, traffic control, also management of the drivers, provision of
pedestrian facilities and safety of all road users.
1) Traffic Laws
In general, traffic related regulations are insufficient, ineffective and obsolete; moreover,
enforcement of rules is quite weak. This generally implies a chaotic and an in-disciplined
traffic on roads, and therefore results in high rate of accident and even loss of life, injuries
and damages to the properties. This chaotic situation is exacerbated by the diversity of
the traffic in Lahore. The traffic laws are not though applied on pedestrians, cyclists,
animal-drawn carts and hand-pushed carts, even though these modes make up around
70% of the total road users. The typical traffic enforcement fines are quite low and are in
the range of around PKR 50 to 300. Also there are no appropriate punishments for
damaging the road infrastructure; and compensation for a death in a road accident is
around only PKR 10,000 with a third party insurance. Road safety is globally declining
resulting in increase in number of fatalities per year.
2) Management of Public Spaces

Management of the public spaces in Lahore is poor, resulting in disorderly traffic mixed
with various modes, many encroachments and illegal parking, and few facilities for
pedestrians and cyclists.
As illustrated by the following Figure 2.7.5, Lahore is characterized by a disorderly traffic

mix with pedestrians, animal-drawn carts, hand-pushed carts (fruit sellers, hawkers),
2-136
bicycles, motorbikes, rickshaws, Qingqis, cars, vans, mini-buses, inter-city coaches,

trucks etc. The animal driven vehicles and the other slow-moving non-motorized vehicles
need to be eliminated from using the main road and separated from general traffic. These
slow modes of traffic cause blocking back in traffic resulting in congestion, queues and
even severe traffic accidents. It is observed that such animal driven/ hand carts and slow
modes are frequently parked on footpaths, as a result the pedestrian walk in the main
carriageway, are major problem and reasons for pedestrian accidents.
Figure 2.7.5 Disorderly Traffic Mixed in Lahore
Wide spread, encroachments of roadside, both permanent and temporary, reveal a lack of
parking policy in Lahore. Parking blocks sidewalks in many locations and inhibit both
pedestrian and vehicular flows. For instance, large Solid Waste Containers are placed on
main roads (as service roads are full with the parked vehicles). These obstruct traffic and,
while this procedure eases solid waste collection, it is clearly contrary to any modern
principles of traffic management. Due to encroachments, the slow modes and two
wheelers have to use higher speed lane which make travelling difficult and increase the
risk of accidents as well as traffic congestion. There is a strip commercial development
along most of the transportation corridors without proper offsets, set-backs, on and
off-street parking and access management as per the bye-laws; causing severe
encroachments and traffic congestion issues. Moreover, traffic police does not have the
adequate authority/ capacity or even interest to remove encroachments.
On the other hand, facilities for pedestrians and cyclists are either non-existent or
inadequate. These are the most vulnerable groups and are the victims of 50% road
accidents. Most sidewalks are in poor condition or encroached by parked vehicles or
commercial activities, garbage and hawkers forcing pedestrian to walk on the street and
therefore affecting traffic safety.
3) Management of the Physical Infrastructure

Management of the physical infrastructure particularly concerns road maintenance. The
poorly developed transport network in Lahore is under-maintained. One of the key
2-137
weaknesses in the system is indeed relatively low priority to the maintenance of existing
infrastructure. Roads are completely dilapidated condition resulting in frequent pavement
failures and require full rehabilitation. Road maintenance is generally ignored till
reconstruction becomes due. Secondary and tertiary road/ drainage networks in lower
income parts of the city have been neglected and become impassable in the rainy season
for pedestrians and vehicles alike, as shown in Figure 2.7.6.
Figure 2.7.6 Flood in Lahore
4) Traffic Control
Traffic control devices include traffic signs, signals, road marking and other devices
(cameras) are used and are key elements for managing traffic flow. There is no standard
practice of using uniform traffic control devices in the Punjab. The only Manual for Uniform
Traffic Control Devices available is the National Transport Research Centre (NTRC)
Manual for Signs, Signals ad Markings (1989), which has never been updated.
Furthermore, there are many gaps and missing areas in the NTRC Manual e.g. work zone
area, school children signage etc. Many of the traffic signals (only 120 in Lahore) are
inoperative and signage is almost non-existent. In Lahore, traffic signals are largely being
managed by TEPA as originally stipulated. There was a period in the late 1990s when the
traffic signal functions were re-assigned to an agency responsible for civil works, with the
result that most signals ceased functioning. In recent years, some signals have been
installed and managed by other agencies, such as the GoPb, C&W, the NHA (on National
Route N-5) and The Cantonment Board, about 50 signal installations in the Defence
Housing Areas. Similarly, traffic signs and road markings are placed and maintained by
TEPA, CDGL and Parks and Horticultural Authority (PHA), and also by other agencies and
even private sector with advertisement. For the sake of efficiency, uniformity and economy,
it would be desirable to concentrate these functions in a city-wide single traffic agency.
5) Management of the Drivers

The current situation in Lahore is also worsened by a weak management concerning the
drivers, both private and public transports, with a considerable proportion that are lacking
2-138
proper training and licensing. Commuters and transporter have generally no traffic sense
resulting in a chaotic situation. A lack of operators discipline in this complex environment
reduces traffic capacity further and increases safety concerns. Traffic police also suffers
from inadequate strength and needs further training. There is finally a significant safety
issue concerning the motorbikes use, sometimes transporting two or more passengers,
often without helmet for both driver and passengers. The general situation causes a fatal
failure to follow traffic rules, which in turns leads to a worsening of congestion level and
contribute to road accidents.
2.7.4 Institutional Set-up

In LUTMP Phase-I, institutional issues of transport sector administration in Lahore were
reviewed through perusal of past studies and interviews of relevant organizations. As a
result, following was understood as the key current institutional problems. However, there
are still quotations pointed out in some reports or hearsays mentioned in some interviews.
1) Many Responsible Agencies and Duplication of Roles

There are at least 17 departments or agencies of the national, provincial and city district
Governments that play important role in the management of roads, public space and
transport services. In addition to these, there are nine TMAs. Among these, some roles
are assigned to plural organizations and as a result, such roles are prone to be neglected.
The matter is now further worsened by creation of government owned public companies
for public transport and waste management without clear delineation of power.
2) Insufficiently Trained Traffic Police

Traffic police is mainly responsible for traffic control and management, while capacity
building of traffic police has been neglected. In the past 20 years, information technology
in traffic management has been significantly advanced and training of traffic police has
failed to catch up with these advances.
Along with increase of traffic volume, roles of traffic police has been widened and
complicated, while training of traffic police is not adequate, this has resulted in low
efficiency in traffic control and road space management. As a result, people have not
respect of traffic police and their role in traffic management.
3) Shortage of Planning Expertise

The TD of the GoPb does not have any agency specialized in transport planning and as
result, has no trained staff or planning expertise. By this, every action and projects tend to
have a nature of a patchwork, which will impair investment efficiency. With this
background, the Transport Department has decided to establish the Transport Planning
Unit (TPU).
2-139
4) Outdated Transport-related Rules and Regulations

The transport sector in Pakistan is regulated through the federal and provincial
enactments which are (a) The Provincial Motor Vehicle Ordinance (MVO), 1965 (b) The
provincial Motor Vehicle Rules, 1969 (c) The Motor Vehicle Act, 1939 (d) The Fatal
Accidents Act, 1855 and (e) The National Highway Safety Acts.
Most of these well out dated and losing their proper workability to the 21st Century
transportation phenomena. These require review and amendment. For example, the MVO
1965 provides the mechanism, licensing and regulation of motor vehicles in particular and
for control of traffic but it does not cover all the aspects of the Road Traffic Control,
Regulation and the Public Space Management. It has provisions for the construction,
equipment and maintenance of motor vehicles but has not been updated for a very long
time.
The section 67 of the MVO, 1965 provides another aspect relating to accidents of motor
vehicles and causalities which specify the responsibility for compensation. However, the
principles relating to award of compensation in motor accident cases and the provisions
relating to insurance in the MVO, 1965 are extremely vague, uncertain and complicated.
5) Incomplete Implementation of Rules and Regulations

The MVO, 1965 is a consolidated and comprehensive law with various amendments over
the years. Despite the exhaustive nature of the ordinance and the matters contained
therein, the issue of effective enforcement is lacking, resulting in deterioration of traffic
conditions and motor vehicle affairs in general.
The criteria for granting various licenses like driving licenses, stage carriage licenses and
private/ public carrier licenses are contained in the ordinance but not followed by proper
enforcement. The discretion available to the traffic police officers and cumbersome penal
ticketing system in case of traffic rules violations have contributed towards corrupt
practices and deterioration of traffic system.
As for another example, the National Highway Safety Ordinance (NHSO), 2000 has
provision for “No Fault Accident Compensation” by a registered insurance company, but
the rules have not yet been framed to implement this provision. An urgent need is pointed
out in Pakistan to introduce new concepts within the MVO, 1965, commensurate for the
compensation for no fault liability.
Section 76 of the MVO, 1965 authorizes the Government to prescribe conditions for the
issue of permits to heavy transport vehicles. In reality, however, an offender driving an
over-loaded heavy vehicle is only asked to reduce the weight at the close-by storage point,
which is rarely exercised, resulting in the common and widespread road surface rutting.
2-140
URBAN DEVELOPMENT CONTEXT
FINAL REPORT
The Project for Lahore Urban Transport Master Plan in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (Phase II)
FINAL REPORT: VOLUME – I of II
CHAPTER 3 – URBAN DEVELOPMENT CONTEXT
3. URBAN DEVELOPMENT CONTEXT
3.1 Alternative Urban Development Scenarios
3.1.1 Assessment of Past Urban Development in Lahore
1) Urban Area Formation in the Past
The origin of Lahore’s urban development is the Walled City. During British colonial era,
urban facilities including residence, parks and universities were constructed in the south
of the Walled City surrounding administrative centres. At present, a number of
administrative facilities such as provincial parliament, governor’s official residence and
government officer’s residences are concentrated in this area together with the Jinnah
Park, the University of Punjab, other colleges and many business/ commercial buildings.
This area boasts of its beautiful urbanization with low-coverage buildings, characterized
by wide streets and parks/ gardens covered by tall trees.
The Canal also has a salient influence on the formation of Lahore’s urban area. The
Canal Bank road runs in the east to south-west direction, and contributes largely to the
special urban scenery of Lahore having the canal in the center of the road. The canal has
its source in Larger BRB Canal upstream and supplies irrigation water to Lahore and
agricultural areas in Lahore and the south-west green belt.
In the north-east of this built-up area, the Lahore station is located. The railway is
basically for intercity long distance travel connecting Lahore with Rawalpindi and
Peshawar in the north and Karachi in the south. The agglomeration of iron/ steel
industries located in the north-east of the railway (about 150 ha) is considered to have
been once developed due to the proximity to the railway. Although it has little relation with
the railway transportation at present yet its production and sales functions still remain in
the same area. The road traffic generated from these industries, coupled with intra-city
bus terminal traffic on the opposite side of the railway, creates serious traffic congestion
between the Walled City and the Lahore Station.
Lahore’s population was about 2.5 million in 1960, which is less than third of the present.
As population increased with economic growth, urbanization went southward and
eastward. Eastward urbanization was led by the military as Cantonment, and southward
expansion was based on road and road transport. There is no evidence that railway
played any role in leading urbanization.
In the later decade of the Last Century (1980-1990), urban development pattern was
gradual outward expansion of the existing built-up areas. Motorcycles and auto-rickshaws,
which became popular, then, may have assisted this development. In the meantime, a
huge academic town of universities and colleges of about 10km 2 was developed at the
3-1
south-western end of the urban area. This academic town, however, is in the midst of
residential area at present.
Urban development pattern changed in 1990’s due to rapid motorization, commercial,

industrial and residential development occurred along arterial roads showing ribbon
development pattern along radial roads. In one word, the pattern changed from
concentric-contiguous pattern to starfish pattern. This pattern, however, is changing
again. The concentric-contiguous pattern is appearing again due to the following reasons:
 New road development has become difficult (except for northern half of the LRR).
 Insufficient capacity of radial arterial roads has become a restriction for large-
scale urban development between radial corridors.
 Development permission system has started functioning (LDA was established in

1975 and legal system has been provided).
The concentric-contiguous pattern is seen mainly in the south and in the east. In
Cantonment, well-organized residential area (DHA) was developed by the military, and
the eastern section of the LRR further enforced this development. In the south,
development permissions were given to vast areas such as Engineering Town and
Chung. However, these areas are not necessarily built-up yet, and agricultural land and
other open space still remain in the midst of residential areas.
In the north of the Ravi River, ribbon-type development is still seen particularly along the
G.T. Road and Sheikhupura Road. Industrial, commercial and residential development of
this area is mainly due to the improvement of access condition by the Motorway.
The population of the Study Area is 9,928 thousand (8,652 thousand for Lahore District
and 7,571 thousand for built-up area of Lahore) as of 2010. Population density exceeds
1,700 /ha in some zones of the Walled City. However, it is sometimes below 50/ha in the
residential areas that are not fully built-up. In the remaining vacant parts of these
inefficient areas, high-rise buildings of up to 15 stories are often built. But the location is
not well-planned in general. In addition, LDA promotes many housing schemes, mostly in
the suburbs in the east and south.
 LDA Regular Schemes: 52
 Private Housing Schemes approved by LDA: 215
With regards to industrial estates, there are two salient industrial estates: one in the south
nears the border with Kasur District (Sundar Industrial Estate) and the other in the north
along Lahore-Sheikhupura Road. The former depends on a narrow 2-lane local road and
the later on a 6-lane National Highway. There is also industrial ribbon belt along G.T.
3-2
Road (National Highway N-5) between Lahore and Muridke in the Study Area.
2) Assessment and Identified Problems
(i) Densely Built-up Area in the North
In the north of Lahore, there are extremely high-density built-up areas such as the Walled
City. The most salient advantage of this area is that a wide variety of functions exist in
proximity and the area does not generate many long-distance trips as compared to the
dense accumulation of population and urban functions. The close community incubates
local/ family industries and vitalizes people’s life. The disadvantage of the area is
obsolete residences with extreme high population density and poor sanitary condition
due to dust, sewerage and uncollected garbage. The advantage and disadvantage are in
a trade-off relation.
A large problem exists with the agglomeration of iron/ steel industries, which produces
traffic congestion as mentioned earlier. Its production efficiency is deteriorated due to its
dependency on road transport, and with limited access to main roads.
Congestion on the secondary and local roads of this area is serious due to mixed traffic
of car, bus, truck, auto-rickshaw, Qingqi, and animal-drawn carts and had drawn carts
mostly for movement of goods.
(ii) Government Building Area and Its Environs
This area consists of government buildings, offices, hotels, high-grade residences and so
on, and its environment such as greeneries, parks, gardens, historic buildings and wide-
carriageway roads needs to be inherited. This area is the actual CBD of Lahore. The
coverage of most buildings is low and high-rise buildings are few (mostly 3-5 stories, 10
stories at most). The space in this area for future possible development and
enhancement is sufficient because limited elevation of buildings in harmony with the
existing environment may suffice for immediate future needs.
The only problem of this area is that it is located in far north of Lahore, and it creates
large travel needs to/ from the southern and eastern residential areas. If urbanization
proceeds further to the south without strong public transport, there is a strong possibility
that the CBD functions would get paralyzed in the not too distant future.
(iii) Existing Built-up Residential Areas
This area consists mainly of residential areas constructed before 1990. With moderate
population density and reasonable road network, people’s life is comfortable and
convenient in general. This situation, however, is changing.
First, 3-7 story buildings are constructed along arterial roads. However, the location
3-3
seems to be selected randomly without any city plan. Usually, this type of building is
admitted in limited areas to form urban functions in an orderly manner. Another problem
is related to the fact that the construction period seems very long. Due to this inefficient
investment (e.g. interest during construction), building construction does not contribute
much to the urban economy as seen in other cities of the world.
Second, there are many unused land spaces that seem to be increasing recently. Large-
scale disorderly development in the suburbs, results in deterioration of existing urban
area, and this again increases unused land spaces. This vicious cycle should be checked
early on. Such development cycle was also observed in the early redevelopment years of
Japan after the World War II.
Third, conversion from residence to commercial building is often seen in high-grade

residential areas. This increases convenience of the area, while this tends to aggravate
the living environment. It may be necessary to restrict this conversion. In addition, GoPb
has development rules established in 2009 which can deal with this situation.
In summary, this area is changing rapidly. Major effort should be made to create good
urban environment in this area.
(iv) University Area
As mentioned earlier, an academic town is located in the midst of residential area in the
south-west of Lahore. Its population density ranges 50-100 /ha (partially over 200 /ha)
showing that many staff and students stay in residences and dormitories on campus.
Travel demand to/ from outside is relatively small.
For instance, Zone 57 (Sikandar Block) is mostly university campus. This zone has
incoming 5,757 trips on commuting purpose, of which 2,723 trips or 47 % are intra-zonal.
Nearly half of the university staff lives on the campus. Number of “to-school” trips is
11,252, of which 4,405 or 39 % are intra-zonal. About 40 % of the students live on
campus.
The problem of this area is that the area hinders the north-south traffic flow due to the
lack of through road from this 4-5 km wide area. In addition to the above, there are other
universities, colleges, etc in the CBD or in the suburbs. Those in the suburbs have been
developed recently, such as the Institute of Technology located 10 km north of the Ravi
River and two universities located in the west of Nishtar Town and recently opened
Lahore School of Economics and University of South Asia on Burki Road in the east of
Lahore.
(v) Expansion of Urban Area toward the East and South
The expansion of urban areas toward east and south has created a number of problems
3-4
due to vast and low-density development:
 Poor community formation with weak internal relationship;
 Inconvenient access to urban facilities;
 Dependency on cars for commuting with large load on arterial roads.
The largest problem is lack of coordination between urban development projects and
arterial road development that support daily traffic needs of the residents. LDA
acknowledges this problem focusing on “increasing distances from city center, deficiency
in social and physical infrastructure, environmental degradation”.
It is essential for sound urban development to pursue maturation of urban area by filling
scattered unused open space and development of trunk transport system. As for unused
open space, it is recommended to classify it into the area to be urbanized or the area to
be conserved as green spaces.
(vi) Ribbon Development in the North
With regard to the ribbon development along arterial roads seen in the north, some
problems are identified:
 Difficulty of land use at the back of ribbon development;
 Low efficiency of the thinly developed area;
 Degraded function of the arterial road.
Due to the reasons above, UK prohibited ribbon-type development by law in 1935 1 .

Owing to this restriction, many British cities including London are generally compact and
efficient. In Japan, however, because ribbon-type development was admitted, suburban
land use became inefficient and functions of arterial roads were degraded. Disorderly
development in the suburbs damages city efficiency as a whole.
In the north, planned development should be pursued taking advantage of the following
favourable condition:
 Proximity to the center of Lahore;
 High mobility due to the Motorway and wide-carriageway arterial roads;
 Vast open space usable for various projects of urban development.
Without planned development, ribbon-type development will further proceed and

‘concentric-contiguous’ development will become unfeasible.
1
Restriction of Ribbon Development Act
3-5
(vii) Industrial Zones
Industrial development in Lahore has continued depending on existing arterial roads. This
was favourable to strengthen the basis of Lahore’s economy.
In the south, most industries are located in the shape of ribbon developments except for
some estates, and its production environment is not generally good in terms of
transportation of materials/ industrial products and workers. Immediate countermeasures
are required to prevent exodus of factories.
The developing industrial area in the north of Ravi River also has the problem of ribbon-
type development although the function of intercity arterial roads is much stronger than in
the south. Development of industrial estates is required. According to Sheikhupura Tehsil,
723 factories were established by 2000 in that Tehsil, and the reason of location was the
existence of intercity roads for 307 factories or 42.5 % of the total. In addition, the
factories are rice mills, iron steel re-rolling mills, tanneries, flour mills and so on. Most of
the factories are small except for sugar mills, polyester processing and fertilizer
production. Although no data is available after 2000, recent industrial developments can
be observed in this area.
(viii) Overall Urban Structure
As stated earlier, the CBD of Lahore is located in the north due to historical reasons and
urbanization spreads toward the south and the east. Due to poorly developed public
transport depending on a small number of buses, long-distance travel becomes more and
more uncomfortable, inconvenient and extremely difficult affecting economic performance
of Lahore.
The residential area spreading to the south and the east seems to have been developed
in a planned manner. However, developed areas are actually distributed widely like
islands in the sea with numerous vacant land plots. The overall population density of
these residential areas is very low. This incurs the issues of low efficiency of urban
infrastructure and the difficulty of public transport development.
Outside Lahore District, there are some urban clusters in Sheikhupura and Kasur District
such as Muridke, Raiwind area and Pattoki Tehsil areas. However, the interrelation of
these urban clusters with urban activities of Lahore is very weak, presumably due to
historical reason and the lack of high-mobility transport system.
The present urban structure is schematically illustrated in Figure 3.1.1.
3-6
Figure 3.1.1 Present Urban Structure
CBD
High-density urban area
Mixed-use urban area

University area
Residential area
Industrial area
3-7
3.1.2 Alternative Urban Development Scenarios
In order to solve the urban problems mentioned above and to promote future
development, medium- to long-term urban development scenarios should be formulated.
Three scenarios have been developed;
Scenario1: assumes past natural tendency will continue without any political intervention
from the Government except for some ongoing projects such as LRR.
Scenario 2: assumes compact development with improvement of living environment and

mobility by development/ enhancement of public transport.
Scenario 3: assumes dispersed multi-core development by fostering suburban cities and

urban areas by restricting urban expansion of Lahore.
In order to determine the land use pattern for each scenario above, the result of land
development suitability analysis was taken into account. The analysis are based on three
factors; proximity to major roads, accessibility to city center and net population density.
Natural conditions were not considered due to the similarity over the entire Study Area.
This is presented in Figure 3.1.2, with its criteria shown in Table 3.1.1.
Table 3.1.1 Criteria for Land Development Suitability Analysis

Grade
Weight
Factor 5
(%) 4 3 2 1 (Bad)
(Good)
<500m 500-1000m from 500-1000m
<500m 500-1000m
Proximity to from primary roads or from
25 from trunk from trunk
major roads primary <500m from secondary
roads roads
roads secondary roads roads
Access time 15-30 60 mins. or
25 - 15 mins. 30-45 mins 45-60 mins
to city center mins. more
Net
50-100/ 100-150/ 250/ha or
population 50 < 50/ ha 150-250/ ha
ha ha more
density
1) Scenario 1 (Zero Option – Trend)
This scenario assumes that the past tendency of urbanization will continue in the future.
Although there is a risk that this Scenario will further amplify the current urban problems
such as: inefficiency of urban infrastructure and worsening of traffic congestion, public
investment by the Government would be limited.
Population of this area will not increase much. Actually the population of the Walled City
has been stagnant already according to the “Sustainable Development of Walled City
Lahore Project”. As people’s income increases, residents of this area will move out
gradually looking for better living environment.
3-8
The needs for public facility and office spaces will increase according to the population
growth. Thus the floor area of this zone will increase accordingly. Although existing
greenery and open space will decrease slightly, its environmental impact will be minimal
considering strict land use restriction and its abundance.
(iii) Existing Built-up Residential Area
Although strong political intervention is not considered, vacant land space will be
gradually filled by buildings as a natural tendency. Moderate land use control based on
existing laws is assumed in this scenario.
No change is assumed in this scenario.
(v) Expansion of Urban Area toward the East and South
Population of LDA project areas and development permitted areas will reach its target by
2030 as planned. The rest of increased population is assumed to be distributed in newly
developed areas to the east of LRR, in the south of Defense Road, around Ravi Town
and so on. Moderate land use control based on existing laws is assumed in this scenario
as well.
Ribbon development will further expand along arterial roads.
Considering the existing road network, industrial development will not precede much in
the south. In the north, however, it will expand taking advantage of the favourable road
condition.
In this scenario, urban structure will be the same as at present as a whole. Urban area
will expand mainly to the east and south. It is a car-oriented society. The resultant
scenario (Zero Option – Trend) is depicted in Figure 3.1.3.
3-9
Figure 3.1.2 Result of Land Development Suitability Analysis
3-10
Figure 3.1.3 Urban Development Scenario 1 (Zero Option – Trend)
CBD
High-density urban area
University area
Residential area
Industrial area
3-11
2) Scenario 2 (Compact Development)
This scenario intends a compact urbanization led by public transport development. This
scenario is friendly to people’s travel, living environment and natural environment. Many
of the current urban problems will be alleviated although sizeable public investment and
administrative capacity of the government are required.
This scenario assumes a salient urban development project. The existing agglomeration
of iron/ steel industries will be relocated to suburbs and integrated development of this
area including the retaining of the bus terminal and railway station will be carried out
using this space. This intends to alleviate the problems of high density and traffic
congestion in the area. The development is of multi-purpose mainly of residential but
including business/ commercial functions. The environment of the Walled City may be
improved in relation to this project. Using the impact of this key project, similar projects
can be carried out one after another.
(j) Government Building Area and Its Environs
This scenario assumes integrated urban development in some obsolete areas to

enhance the CBD functions. Conservation of the present scenery and environment
should be pursued, too.
(k) Existing Built-up Residential Area
The three problems of this area will be tackled by designating specific areas or streets for
high-rise buildings and by stringent application of LDA’s land use rules to deal with
unused land space remaining in the area and land use conversion. In some cases,
relaxation of the rules may be necessary.
(ii) University Area
As for existing universities located in urbanized area, no action is assumed in this

scenario. The new academic town planned in Ferozewala Tehsil, where the University of
Engineering and Technology of Lahore has already located some of its faculties, should
be expanded by inviting high-grade education facilities, research organizations and
related business establishments. It is important to relate this academic town with the
adjacent industrial estate mentioned later so that this academic town becomes one of the
leading areas for high technology in the Punjab and Pakistan.
(iii) Expansion of Urban Area toward East and South
2030 as planned. The rest of increased population is assumed to be distributed in areas
3-12
to be developed near the railway stations and other public transport nodes to be
proposed in this master plan.
(iv) Ribbon Development in the North
This scenario assumes concentric-contiguous development of this area consisting of

industrial estates and an academic town mentioned above. Ribbon-type development
should be suppressed to enhance land use efficiency of this area. The industrial estates
are considered to become the relocation site of iron/ steel industries located in the north
of Lahore station at present. Residential development is also done in this area to absorb
the increasing of population.
(v) Industrial Zones
Development of industrial estates is assumed in this scenario in the north in connection

with the proposed academic town. In the south, improvement of access and arterial
roads should be carried out to strengthen the functions of the existing industries. The
road improvement includes some circumferential roads and Thokar Niaz Beg Canal
Road.
(vi) Overall Urban Structure
As this scenario assumes urban Rail-based Mass Transit System (RMTS) to be the trunk
public transport system of Lahore, dense urbanization will occur along these RMTS
routes. Urban RMTS facilitates people’s movement in the city as well as conservation of
suburban greenery and agriculture. RMTS usually reduces traffic congestion on roads.
The combination of industrial estates and academic town proposed in Ferozewala Tehsil
has a possibility to lead high-tech industrial development of not only Punjab but entire
Pakistan. As a whole, this scenario aims to vitalize various urban functions by combining
them closely with each other using improved mobility and enhanced land use efficiency.
The envisioned urban structure is shown in Figure 3.1.4.
3) Scenario 3 (Dispersed Multi-Core Development)
The core idea of this scenario is to increase absorptive capacity of Lahore for rapidly
growing population by developing suburban cities. Thus this scenario assumes less
population increase in the built-up areas of Lahore. Suburban development is proposed
in this scenario at Muridke, Raiwind area, and Pattoki Tehsil areas. Each of these areas
will be a sub-center of the metropolis of Lahore with its own CBD and surrounding
residential areas.
3-13
Same as Scenario 2.
Same as Scenario 2.
(iii) Existing Built-up Residential Area
Same as Scenario 2.
Same as Scenario 2.
(v) Expansion of Urban Area toward East and South
2030 as planned. However, this scenario assumes no more development permitted in
Lahore except for the proposed academic town located in Ferozewala Tehsil. All the rest
of increased population is assumed to be accommodated in Muridke, Raiwind area and
Pattoki Tehsil areas. These three areas have their own accumulation of business/
commercial facilities. Enhancement of CBD functions will be pursued coupled with
residential development in the surrounding areas.
Same as Scenario 2.
Same as Scenario 2.
The existing built-up areas in Lahore will mature with fewer vacant spaces/ plots,
industrial estates are located in the south and north, and there will be an academic town
in the north. To be more important, three cities will appear in the suburbs of Lahore with
urban functions and 300-500 thousand population. In the long run, high-speed, high
capacity transport system connecting Lahore and these sub-centers will be required.
In Tokyo, Japan, there is a conceptual plan called “Core Cities Linkage Plan”. The
intention of this plan is to transplant part of CBD functions of Tokyo to medium to large
cities located at 30-50 km distance from Tokyo. The objective of this plan is to alleviate
the negative impacts of high density and to prevent disorderly urbanization. At present
these core cities perform the central functions significantly. This concept is illustrated in
Figure 3.1.5.
3-14
Figure 3.1.4 Urban Development Scenario 2 (Compact Development)
CBD
High-Density urban area
University area
Residential area
Industrial area
3-15
Figure 3.1.5 Urban Development Scenario 3 (Dispersed Multi-Core Development)
3-16
3.1.3 Assessment of Alternative Scenarios
1) Assessment by Scenario
The three scenarios described above are compared and an assessment is presented in
Table 3.1.2.
Table 3.1.2 Assessment of Alternative Scenarios

Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3
Component
(Trend) (Compact Development) (Multi-Core Dev.)
Transport Chronic traffic Development of public Due to increase of sub-
Convenience congestion near the city transport enhances urban traffic,
center will become more mobility of people and development of sub-
serious (Grid-lock) due reduces traffic congestion urban public transport
to expansion of on roads will become necessary.
urbanization.
Living Difficult to provide Gradual enhancement of Gradual enhancement of
Environment favorable living living environment can be living environment can
environment for many expected in the built-up be expected in the built-
people due to continued area in the north and high up area in the north and
over-saturation of the mobility due to public urban expansion in the
built-up area in the north transport development in area of poor mobility will
and insufficient mobility expanded urban area can be restricted. Living
in the expanded be expected. environment in Lahore
residential area. will be much improved
as a whole and that of
suburban cities could be
favorable, depending on
city planning.
Impact on Due to lack of planning, Owing to planned In terms of conservation
Natural disorderly land use will urbanization control, of greenery and
Environment continue and conservation of greenery agricultural land, this
conservation of greenery and agricultural land can scenario is the best for
and agricultural land will be done in an orderly Lahore. However, the
become difficult. manner. situation may become
worse in suburban areas.
Reality Most realistic because Though there are difficult Development of
public investment is targets of development of suburban cities needs
minimal and competitive public tremendous efforts by
government intervention transport system and the government. If this is
is also the least; only planned urban not prepared in a timely
with 2009 land use rules development, many cities manner, the situation will
of LDA. in the world have become the same as
overcome these issues. It Scenario 1
is feasible if institutional (Zero Option - Trend).
and financial problems
could be resolved.
Others If suburban cities are
developed, high-speed
- - rail transport system will
be needed to connect
these cities with Lahore.
3-17
2) Conclusion
Scenario 2 and 3 are both excellent for a city with a population over 10 million in terms of
mobility, living environment and conservation of greeneries and agricultural land. From
the viewpoint of reality, Scenario 1 (Zero Option - Trend) is the easiest way. However,
Scenario 2 and 3 are also realistic only if strong ‘political will’ and leadership are
guaranteed in planning and funding. Scenario 3, however, may be slightly weak in
flexibility because the timing of project implementation must be consistent with population
increase and high-speed transport system will be required in the long run to support the
intended structure of the metropolis.
In contrast, Scenario 2 has a flexibility to shift from Scenario 1 to Scenario 2 depending

on the timing of public transport development. In this sense it may be called Scenario 2a
(between Scenario 1 and 2).
3.1.4 Existing Land Use Rules of the Punjab and Its Use
1) Existing Land Use Rules of the Punjab
The GoPb enacted new land use rules on the 10th February, 2009 based on the 1975
Lahore Development Authority Act. The Rules intend to determine land use in controlled
areas according to land use classification. There are 6 land use classes, as follows:
1. Residential,
2. Commercial (including institutional),
3. Industrial,
4. Peri-urban,
5. Agricultural, and
6. Notified Areas. (e.g. specially designated development area)
For each of these classes, maximum height, coverage, floor to area ratio, etc. are
determined by size of the plot. Orderly development is thus ensured in the controlled area.
This specification is done by plot, and it is easy to understand for both government and
private developers since subdivision of a plot is prohibited by law (Subdivision Ordinance).
However, this detailed specification requires a long time for the government to prepare
and the consistency of these specifications with macroscopic land use plans is not
necessarily guaranteed. In addition, land use conversion from one class to the other is
allowed by paying the land use conversion tax if the conversion is deemed appropriate
judging from the environment nearby. LDA applies these rules mainly to the areas where
land use is changing rapidly or new development is foreseen because of the huge time
and cost required for land use classification of entire Lahore. In reality, built-up areas like
3-18
Walled City and rural villages are excluded from application of these rules.
Although this system has a significant effect to improve the quality of urban areas, there
still remain some problems. Private developers tend to select arbitrarily development
areas for their convenience, and thus these are inefficient, and in many cases the
agricultural land remains in between developed areas (e.g. in the southern developing
areas of Lahore). LDA recognizes this problem and is seeking for measures for solution.
Another big issue is how to keep consistency between detailed land use classification
and the overall urban structure of Lahore. Strong political will may be needed to realize
an ideal land use for the entire metropolis.
2) Application of Present Land Use Rules toward Realization of the Scenario
As described above, GoPb has a strong power through LDA to realize planned land use.
In this section, how to use the present land use rules to attain the goals of Scenario 2 is
briefly discussed.
The basic assumption here is the future development of urban RMTS. Around planned
RMTS stations, development areas (assuming 800 m to 1000 m radius, 200ha and fifty
thousand population) should be determined first, and the mode of development (LDA
direct or through private developers) should be selected depending on the land use
condition such as the size of commercial area, type of public facilities to be developed,
size of parks/ greeneries, and open spaces.
Next step is the implementation of the development around RMTS stations. LDA has
enough capacity of these types development although their experience is based on
Radial or Trunk roads (e.g. development along Thokar Niaz Baig; Canal Bank Road). In
this scenario, the road is replaced by RMTS. If LDA does not implement the project
directly, private developer should be selected on a competitive basis based on land use
requirement and other condition. This procedure is allowed by the 2009 land use rules.
There is an important point in the RMTS-based development. While financial viability of

the project is not affected by the timing of implementation in the case of road-based
development, the synchronization of the timing of urban development and station
development is a critical factor to determine the financial (and also economic) viability of
the entire project in the case of RMTS-based development.
Korea amended the city planning law and its related rules and regulations in 2000-2003,
where the right of cancellation of development permit was given to local government
when private developer could not observe the planned timing of development. This
system may be added to the 2009 land use rules of Lahore, and would be an essential
pre-requisite for Scenario 2 and 2a.
3-19
3) Proposal for a Development Benefit Recovery System
The development around RMTS stations produces a huge benefit for urban developers.
After developing a RMTS station, land price of the surrounding area naturally increases
many fold due to improved mobility, and the benefit becomes huge as a whole.
Theoretically, therefore, developers should pay a part of the benefit to the RMTS operator.
If this system is introduced, it can be a part of the funds required for the RMTS
development.
This system has been implemented in many cities of the world. For instance, subway line
No.1 in Osaka, Japan was subsidized in 1930’s by a new tax imposed on land owners
around stations (within 800 m radius) who were potential beneficiaries of the subway.
This tax was collected as a surcharge to the property tax.
3.1.5 Projects Assumed by Scenario
In order to materialize the three urban development scenarios shown above, a series of
urban development projects need to be implemented. Some projects are common among
the scenarios while others are unique to the scenario.
1) Proposed Urban Development Projects
Table 3.1.3 shows the proposed urban development projects needed for each scenario.
Table 3.1.3 Proposed Urban Development Projects
Project Scenario
Utilization of open space in built-up areas 1, 2, 3
Control of expanding urban area 1, 2
Environment improvement in northern densely built-up area 2, 3
Maturing of CBD 2, 3
Development of academic town 2, 3
Development of industrial estates 2, 3
Fostering suburban cities 3
2) Project Description
(i) Utilization of Open Space in Built-up Areas
This is materialized only when “carrot and stick” strategy is applied to land developers or
land owners. As to “stick”, the 2009 land use rules should be strictly applied in the
controlled areas and need to be strengthened, for example, by imposing “non-utilization
surcharge” on unused land plots in the classified area.
3-20
As to “carrot”, subdivision of land plot and high-rise buildings may be admitted under
certain condition, and a part of taxes may be exempted for a certain period when land is
used properly. For this purpose, the Subdivision Ordinance may be deregulated for large
land plots above a certain size if environmental degradation is not incurred.
(ii) Control of Expanding Urban Area
The principle of this project is the stringent application of the 2009 land use rules. In
Scenario 1, development will proceed along arterial roads, and development permit
should be given to developers so that remaining unused land area becomes minimal. In
Scenario 2, the most important is the political intervention to guide urban development to
RMTS station areas. Plans and concepts should be informed to the public, and the role of
LDA is quite significant as planner, developer and controller.
(iii) Environment Improvement in Northern Densely Built-up Area
The 150ha land produced by the relocation of the existing iron/ steel industries to the
suburbs is the key element of this project. In close coordination with the adjacent bus
terminal and railway station, the environment of the area will be largely improved by an
integrated multi-purpose development. The image of the central redevelopment building
is as follows:
 First floor – Integrated transport terminal including Pakistan Railway, city bus and
feeder transport. Shopping mall, office, park and road space.
 Second floor – Artificial ground covering Lahore Station of Pakistan Railway.
Business and commercial facilities. Pedestrian deck. Equipment room to support
the complex building.
 Third floor and above – Residence in principle.
 The overall scale could be:
- Developed area : 300 ha;
- Floor area : 2,000 ha (1,500 ha residence);
- Population : 150 thousand (with population density at 500/ha); and
- No. of workers : 50 thousand
The residence here absorbs residents from the nearby area, and other environment
improvement projects will be promoted one after another in the adjacent area.
(iv) Maturation of CBD
The present CBD takes advantage of well developed social infrastructure including roads
and parks/ gardens. However, as population and economy grow, the function of this CBD
needs to be upgraded. For this purpose, a large-scale development project will be
necessary.
For this project, a comprehensive plan needs to be formulated including future number of
3-21
workers, necessary floor space, building location, height of building, transport access,
pedestrian movement and conservation of greenery/ parks. For areas of government
buildings, the project should be implemented by LDA, while other areas can be
developed by private developers under control of LDA.
The present CBD of Lahore consists of the four zones shown in Table 3.1.4 and the
density of workers, particularly of tertiary sector (service and commercial), is quite high
compared to the zones nearby.
Table 3.1.4 Workers Density in the Four Zones of CBD, 2010

Zone Area No. of Workers in Area Density
No. Name Daytime (‘000) (ha) (/ha)
27 Anarkali 79 206 384
30 Qila Gujjar Singh 88 243 361
32 Mozang 37 145 256
33 Jinnah Hall 41 161 252
Total 244 755 324
As seen in the table above, the density of daytime workers is not high as a CBD. For
instance, the same figure in Tokyo, Japan is 1,000-3,000 as of 2010. Although the
situation of Tokyo is not necessarily favorable, the room for future development is very
large in Lahore.
The present CBD of Lahore should remain as the CBD in the future too, because of the
well developed infrastructure and the abundant room for future upgrading. The current
workers density could be easily raised to 500/ha without any negative impact on
environment. For this upgrading project, high-rise building may be allowed in some
specific areas or streets.
(v) Development of Academic Town
The academic town proposed in the north of Ravi River is expected to be one of the high-
tech centers of Pakistan. The proposed site has favorable conditions such as well
developed road infrastructure, existence of The University of Engineering and
Technology, proximity to railway and industrial estates proposed nearby.
The overall scale of this project could be:
 Development area: 1,500 – 2,000 ha;

 Campus area: 1,000 – 1,400 ha;
 No. of universities/ high-grade education organizations: 3 – 4;
 No. of research organizations: 30 – 50;
 Population: 100 – 150 thousand;
 No. of workers: 60 – 80 thousand; and
 No. of students: 60 – 80 thousand.
3-22
(vi) Development of Industrial Estates
In the south-west of the academic town mentioned above, industrial estates will be
developed. The ribbon development along Lahore-Sheikhupura Road should be
absorbed. This is the relocation site of the existing industries located in Lahore. Modern
high-tech industries should be invited too to promote synergy with the proposed
academic town. The overall scale of this project could be:
 Development area : 500 – 800 ha;

 Floor area : 400 – 600 ha;
 No. of enterprises : about 2,000; and
 No. of workers: about 50 thousand.
(vii) Fostering Suburban Cities
This project, inherent to Scenario 3 only, intends to foster, Muridke, Raiwind area, and
Pattoki Tehsil areas, as suburban cities. The other aspect of this project is the stringent
restriction of urban area expansion in Lahore.
In this project, the role of District Government becomes essential. The experience of
LDA should be transferred to local government agencies in the field of planning, design,
contract preparation, implementation, control and monitoring.
3-23
3.2 Socio-Economic Framework
3.2.1 Population
1) Past Trends in Population Growth

Table 3.2.1 shows the past population trends for Pakistan, the Punjab, Lahore Division
and the Study Area. The latest census was conducted in 1998, and the 2010 figures have
been estimated by the Study Team after consulting various government agencies. Past
population trends and forecast for future years by various agencies and JICA Study Team
are shown in Figure 3.2.1.
Table 3.2.1 Past Population Trends of Pakistan, the Punjab, Lahore Division and
the Study Area
Area Census Population (‘000) Annual Growth Rate (%)
Area Description 2 1 1 1 1 1 1951- 1961- 1972- 1981- 1998-
(km ) 1961 1972 1981 1998 2010
1961 1972 1981 1998 1910
Pakistan 796,096 42,880 65,309 84,254 132,352 168,258 2.43 3.90 2.87 2.69 2.02
The Punjab 205,345 25,464 37,607 47,292 73,621 93,682 2.17 3.61 2.58 2.64 2.03
Lahore Division 11,729 3,560 5,431 7,183 12,016 15,784 2.36 3.91 3.16 3.07 2.30
Lahore District 1,772 1,626 2,588 3,545 6,319 8,650 3.66 4.32 3.56 3.46 2.65
2 2 2
Kasur District 3,995 854 1,186 1,528 2,376 3,016 1.16 3.03 2.86 2.63 2.01
3 3 3 3
Sheikhupura District 3,242 656 1,028 1,338 2,276 2,888 1.61 4.17 2.97 3.17 2.00
The Study Area 3,044 N/A N/A N/A 7,307 9,928 N/A N/A N/A N/A 2.59
Note 1: Census Year; Note 2: Lahore divided in to Lahore District and Kasur District; Note 3: Sheikhupura divided in to Sheikhupura
District and Nankana Sahib District in 2005.
Figure 3.2.1 Past Population Trends of Pakistan and Future Forecast by Various Agencies
Pakistan Population Growth Rates
4.50 WB Tot-Pop-Gr
UN-Pop-Gr
4.00 PDS-Pop-Gr
'Forecast'
Population Growth % p.a.
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
Source: WB, UN and PDS 2010
3-24
2) Population Projections
Due to lack of detailed demographic data, macroscopic approach has been taken. The
procedure of projection is as follows:
Step-1: Set future population growth rates for Pakistan:

2010 – 2015: 2.13 % p.a.
2015 – 2020: 2.03 % p.a.
2020 – 2025: 1.92 % p.a.
2025 – 2030: 1.82 % p.a.
The above growth rates are the same as the projection of the United Nations (UN)
Census Bureau, and also consistent with the recent Planning Commission’s paper
“Pakistan: Framework for Economic Growth”. These rates are higher than the targets of
the Mid-Term Development Framework 2005 – 10 (MTDF) which states 2010 population
growth rate at 1.63 %. Pakistan Transport Plan Study (PTPS, 2006 JICA), following the
MTDF approach, also used these low growth rates of 1.63 % for 2010 and 1.08 % for
2020. Considering the recent trends, however, these low growth rate projections have
proven to be unrealistic.
Step-2: Set future population share of the Punjab to Pakistan, and the Study Area to the
Punjab:
These shares can be calculated as shown in Table 3.2.2. The share of the Punjab has
been gradually diminishing, while the share of Lahore Division and the Study Area is on
the increasing trend. Note that the share of the Study Area can be calculated only for
1998 and 2010 due to the change of administrative boundaries of Districts, Tehsils and
Lahore Towns. Kasur District was separated out of Lahore District in 1976 and
Sheikhupura District was split in to Sheikhupura and Nankana Sahib District in 2005.
In addition, Lahore district Tehsils/ Towns have been created and merged in to number of
towns. Therefore at time it is almost impossible to do a direct area based comparison.
Table 3.2.2 Relation of Population between Pakistan, the Punjab, Lahore Division
and the Study Area
Description 1961 1972 1981 1998 2010

Share (%) of Punjab to Pakistan 59.4 57.6 56.1 55.6 54.0
Share (%) of Lahore Division to Punjab 14.0 14.4 15.2 16.3 16.8
Share (%) of the Study Area to Punjab N/A N/A N/A 9.9 10.6
Source: Punjab Development Statistics
Assuming the same tendency between 1998 and 2010 continues in the future until 2030,
these shares can be calculated as follows:
2030 Share (%) of the Punjab to Pakistan: 51.3 %
3-25
2030 Share of Lahore Division to the Punjab: 17.9 %
2030 Share of the Study Area to the Punjab: 11.7 %
Step-3: Calculate Future Population:
The results of projected population for Pakistan, Punjab and the Study Area is presented
in Table 3.2.3 and annual growth rate comparison for future years forecast is shown in
Figure 3.2.2.
The 2030 population of Pakistan was projected at 256.4 million. This is considerably
higher than the PTPS 2030 projection at 216.2 million. However, the UN Census Bureau
projected 2025 population at 245.1 million is considerably on the high side. Regarding
Lahore Metropolitan Area (LMA), “Integrated Master Plan for Lahore 2021” by LDA
projected population at 10.5 and 14.1 million for 2011 and 2021, respectively. Although
comparison cannot be made exactly due to the difference in the Study Areas, this
estimate seems to be considerably higher than the current projection. In addition, the
1991 JICA, Comprehensive Study on Transportation System in Lahore projected 2010
LMA population at 10.4 to 11.0 million. This is comparable to the LDA study forecasts.
Table 3.2.3 Population Forecasts
Province / Division Estimated Population ('000) Annual Growth Rate (%)

/ District 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 10-15 15-20 20-25 25-30
Pakistan 168,258 186,957 206,720 227,342 248,797 2.13 2.03 1.92 1.82
The Punjab 93,682 104,093 115,097 126,578 138,524 2.13 2.03 1.92 1.82
Lahore Division 15,784 17,772 19,913 22,191 24,609 2.40 2.30 2.19 2.09
The Study Area 9,928 11,362 12,925 14,615 16,429 2.74 2.61 2.49 2.37
Figure 3.2.2 Annual Growth Rate Comparison for Future Year Forecast
3) Population Breakdown to the Study Area Zones
(i) General
The projected 2030 population is distributed to traffic zones according to the
3-26
methodology explained hereafter. After zonal breakdown, the difference is adjusted by
distributing the projected total to zones in proportion to the calculated figures as a result
of the zonal breakdown. 2020 population by zone was estimated by interpolation, and the
values by zone were adjusted to the projected total. The zonal breakdown methodology
is different by scenario.
(ii) Methodology of Population Breakdown to Study Area Zones
1. Ravi, Data Gunj Baksh, Samanabad and Shalamar Towns
The methodology is common for all scenarios. The density of these towns is extremely
high and needs to be reduced by political intervention. According to the “Sustainable
Development of Walled City Lahore Project”, there are already some zones where
population has started to decrease. It is a common phenomenon in many cities of the
world that the population of high-density areas has decreased and living environment has
been improved. Therefore population of these areas will certainly continue to decrease
for some time to come. However, political intervention is desirable rather than wait-and-
see attitude of natural change, for the betterment of the living environment.
The upper limit of population density for a low to medium height building areas population
density is set at 500 /ha, and 1,000 /ha in the case of super high-rise building areas. In
Lahore, super high-rise building is not admitted and excellent city scenery with open
skyline has been traditionally maintained. This tradition should be observed in the future.
It is assumed that population density of zones with more than 500 /ha be lowered to 500
/ha while population density of other zones remain unchanged.
2. Gulberg Town
This area boasts of its excellent environment with large residences, wide streets and
parks/ greeneries. For scattered open spaces including under-used facilities of Pakistan
Railway (PR), redevelopment projects should be promoted as proposed in the previous
chapter.
In Scenario 2 and 3, the population of zones 77 (Railway Colony) and 79 (Daras Barey
Mian) that include PR facilities is assumed to be 150 thousand. In other zones, it is
assumed that population will increase by 5 % (open space 1 % and its redeveloped
population density at 5 times of the present).
3. Aziz Bhatti Town
The western part of this area has been densely built-up, and the same assumption is
introduced as 1 above (Ravi and other towns). For other zones, Scenario 1 assumes that
urbanization spreads beyond LRR while Scenario 2 and 3 controls urbanization within
LRR. Upper limit of population density is set at 100 /ha. For zones already built up, the
3-27
present population is maintained.
4. Wahgah Town
Present population density of this area is about 15 /ha showing low level of urbanization.
This is due to the government restriction on development for the defense reasons and
lack of arterial roads to Lahore city centre.
Similarly to Aziz Bhatti Town, Scenario 1 assumes that urbanization spreads beyond LRR
while Scenario 2 and 3 controls urbanization within LRR. Upper limit of population
density of newly developed areas is assumed at 100 /ha in all the scenarios.
5. Nishtar Town
This area remains under-developed with a population density of 19 /ha although a part of
northern area shows considerable urbanization. The area to the west of railway has been
developed mainly by private developers with relatively high standards although
numerous unused land plots are common. In the eastern area, Ferozepur Road has led
urbanization towards the south.
Scenario 1 assumes the following:
a. Population density of densely inhabited areas of more than 1,000 /ha located in
the north of this area be lowered to 500 /ha similarly to the northern densely built-
up area.
b. Population density of areas with a population density of 200-500 /ha should be

raised to 500 /ha.
c. Population density of areas with a population density of less than 200 /ha be
raised to 200 /ha.
d. Population density of suburban areas with a population density of 10-60 /ha at

present is raised to 100 /ha on average.
e. Other agricultural areas will remain as is.
Scenario 2 has the same assumption for densely inhabited area of more than 1,000 /ha
located in the north of this area (as above). Along the railway, new development areas
will have a population density at 200 /ha. For other areas urbanization is controlled within
the planned areas at average population density of 100 /ha.
Scenario 3 has the same assumption for densely inhabited areas of more than 1,000 /ha
located in the north of this area (as above). Urbanization is controlled within the planned
areas at average population density at 100 /ha. Planned development along the railway
is not assumed unlike Scenario 2.
3-28
6. Iqbal Town
This area has been partially urbanized along Multan Road with a population density over
600 /ha. As a whole, however, urbanization level is low with an average population
density of 18 /ha. In this area, there are a number of urban development projects are
planned and prepared, and it is assumed that these projects will be implemented.
Population density of over-saturated areas will be lowered to 500 /ha at the highest. This
assumption is common for all scenarios.
Scenario 1 assumes conventional road-based urban development taking advantage of

LRR and other roads. This scenario assumes urbanization beyond LRR. Westward
development is not taken into account due to the risk of flooding of the Ravi. Assumed
population density is 100 /ha.
Scenario 2 assumes planned dense development around the stations of the proposed
RMTS to be developed in the long run. Planned population density is 200 /ha. Suburban
development is limited within the planned/ on-going projects. Its population density is set
at 100 /ha.
Scenario 3 assumes that suburban development be restricted within the planned/

ongoing projects. Its population density is set at 100 /ha.
7. Cantonment
This area is characterized by high-quality residences. In the west of the airport, the
residential area is already matured while future development is foreseen in the east.
Unlike Gulberg, unused land plots are limited.
Scenario 1 assumes that population density of already built up zones remain basically
as it is except for immature zones with a population density of less than 200 /ha that will
be raised to 200 /ha. For eastern zones, maximum population density is set at 100 /ha.
Scenarios 2 and 3 assume the same as Scenario 1. However, outside LRR,

urbanization is not considered and population will remain unchanged.
8. Tehsil Ferozewala Areas
This area has a large potential for future development due to the proximity to Lahore
CBD.
Scenario 1 assumes conventional ribbon development toward the north and north-west
along arterial roads. Population density is assumed at 200 /ha for the area near Ravi
Town and 100 /ha for other areas.
Scenario 2 and 3 assume planned development of the area taking advantage of the high
potential. The key project is the development of an academic town mentioned in the
3-29
previous chapter. Population density is set at 100 /ha in the academic town, 200 /ha in
the surrounding residential area and 100 /ha for the high-quality residential area further
outside of the academic town.
9. Muridike, Pattoki and Kasur North (Raiwind)
These areas have been conventional rural villages without salient urban development.
In Scenario 1 and 2, no major change is foreseen.
Scenario 3 intends to utilize the potential of Lahore’s urbanization for developing these
areas as suburban cities by providing urban functions in the built-up areas and by
supplying residences in the surrounding area. The total population of this area should be
500-600 thousand with a population density of 200 /ha near the city center and 100 /ha in
the adjacent area.
10. Sharaqpur
In this area, population will not change much due to the absence of urban development
projects.
(iii) Results of Forecast Population Distribution
The resultant distributed forecast population by Towns and Tehsil is given in Table 3.2.4
and detailed in Figure 3.2.3 and 3.2.4. It is noted that population decrease is assumed in
Ravi, Data Gunj Baksh, Samanabad and Shalamar towns while significant increases are
forecast for Nishtar and Iqbal Towns, Cantonment and Ferozewala under all scenarios.
Large increase in population is assumed for Muridike, Raiwind and Pattoki as assumed
under Scenario 3.
The results might be considered as too drastic from practical point of view of Lahore
residents. However, political intervention, if applied properly, could have strong influence.
This is the reason why master planning is important. Of course there must be a strong
will of residents to guide Lahore to the desirable direction they choose whether Scenario
1, 2, 3, or another scenario as combination of the proposed scenarios.
In addition, the total population of the Study Area is controlled to be the same under all
three scenarios to facilitate an easy and direct comparison.
3-30
Table 3.2.4 Summary of Forecast Population (‘000)
2020 2030
Town/ Tehsil in
No. 2010
the Study Area Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario
I II III I II III
1 Ravi 1007 978 971 976 949 938 947
Data Gunj
2 970 968 961 966 970 958 967
Baksh
3 Samanabad 984 990 983 988 1002 990 999
4 Shalamar 854 790 784 788 720 711 717
5 Gulberg 778 850 926 931 937 1102 1112
6 AzizB 667 901 686 690 1175 714 721
7 Wagah 656 881 713 717 1145 784 792
8 Nishter 945 1906 2007 1399 3017 3226 1927
9 Iqbal 960 1840 1824 1366 2857 2818 1838
10 Cantt 831 1149 1018 1024 1521 1240 1251
11 Ferozewala 534 883 1268 1275 1288 2110 2130
12 Muridke 266 284 282 609 305 302 1005
13 Sharaqpur 101 108 107 107 116 114 115
14 Kasur 168 179 177 520 192 190 927
15 Patoki 207 221 219 568 238 235 983
1-10 Lahore 8653 11252 10873 9846 14291 13479 11270
11-13 Sheikhupura 901 1274 1656 1992 1708 2526 3250
14-15 Kasur 375 399 397 1088 430 424 1910
The Study
1-15 9928 12925 12925 12925 16429 16429 16429
Area
3-31
Figure 3.2.3 2020 Population Forecast for Three Scenarios
3-32
Figure 3.2.4 2030 Population Forecast for Three Scenarios
3-33
Figure 3.2.5 Gross Population Density, 2010 and 2030 by Scenario
3-34
3.2.2 Employment
1) Ratio of Number of Workers to Population and Total Workers
According to LUTMP HIS, the ratio of Number of workers to population is 27.1 % for the
Study Area. This is extremely low compared to international standard employment
participation rate. This is due to the high unemployment rate and particularly the lack of
female workers due to social issues. However, female employment participation rate is
gradually progressing as can be seen in Table 3.2.5.
Table 3.2.5 Past Trend in Female (15 years +) Employment Participation Rate in
Pakistan
1995 2000 2005 2006 2007 2008
10.7 13.5 16.8 18.8 19.0 19.8
Source: World Development Indicators 2010
Judging from this table, female labour participation rate is on an increasing trend, and it
will naturally be 21 % in 2020 and 33 % in 2030 if the past trend is to continues. Although
the basis is different between HIS (total population) and WDI (population age 15 years+),
only growth rate of labour participation rate is used for the analysis. Meanwhile, male
labour participation rate is assumed to be constant at 80 % in the future as no remarkable
change has been observed in the past.
Since male and female contribution to labour participation rate is 80:20 according to
World Development Indicators of WB, female labour participation rate will grow from
5.4 % (20 % of 27.1 %) in 2010 to 8.5 % (1.57 times of 5.4 %) in 2030 while male labour
participation rate will remain at 21.8 % (80 % of 27.1 %). Thus the total labour
participation rate will become 28.8 % in 2020 and 30.3 % in 2030.
As a result the total number of workers in 2020 and 2030 is estimated by multiplying
these ratios with population for entire Study Area as whole and for each zone. These are
3.8 million in 2020 and 5.1 million in 2030 for the Study Area. In addition, the current
labour participation rate by zone is almost constant at 26-29 % according to HIS.
Table 3.2.6 Forecast No. of Workers for the Study Area
Description 2010 2020 2030

Population ('000) 9,928 (100.0) 12,925 (130.2) 16,429 (165.5)
Number of Workers ('000) 2,691 (100.0) 3,722 (138.3) 4,978 (185.0)
Participation Rate (%) 27.1 % 28.8 % 30.3 %
3-35
2) Employment by Sector
(i) Primary Sector Employment
In Pakistan, the share of primary sector workers has dropped from 51.5 % in 1990 to
43.6 % in 2007, while the number of primary sector workers has increased by about 4
million during the same period. In the Study Area, however, the number of primary sector
workers is considered to have been and will continue decrease due to rapid urbanization.
In the period 1994 to 2000, urbanized area has increased by about 41 thousand hectare
(from 21 to 62 thousand hectare). Assuming this is due to the decrease of agricultural
land, and its declining rate is about 1 % per year. Assuming again that the number of
agricultural workers has decreased and will decrease at the same pace, the total number
of primary sector workers in the future will be as follows:
2010: 179 thousand

2020: 160 thousand
2030: 146 thousand
For zonal disaggregation of primary employment following steps were taken:
a. For 2030, no primary sector workers are assigned to zones in the CBD, High-
Density Urban Area, Mixed-use Urban Area, University Area and Industrial Area.
b. For 2030, one half of primary sector workers of the present numbers are
assigned to zones in the Residential Area.
c. For 2030, remaining primary sector workers are assigned to other zones in
proportion to the present numbers.
d. The assigned result is adjusted to the predetermined control to total given above.
e. The 2020 numbers are estimated by interpolation using 2010 and 2030 figures.
Then the assigned result is adjusted to the predetermined control to total given.
f. For primary sector workers, the number is assumed to be the same for daytime
and nighttime (i.e. they live and work in the same zone).
(ii) Secondary and Tertiary Sector Employment
General
The sectoral composition of workers in the Study Area is characterized by the high
percentage of the tertiary sector at 78.3 % according to 2010 LUTMP HIS. Out of this
(78.3 %) 27.3 % is the contribution of wholesale/ retail commerce sector employment and
this is comparable to major cities in the world. However the remaining 51 % is very high
presumably due to contribution of provincial government and other public services
concentration in Lahore. As a result, the share of the secondary sector is small at 15.1 %
of the total employment.
3-36
Due to the estimated improvement of labour participation rate, the growth of employment
is higher than population. Moreover, the number of secondary and tertiary workers will
grow rapidly due to the decrease of primary sector workers.
It is essential for the economy of Lahore to absorb more workers into the secondary
sector by effective political intervention. This is the reason why academic town and
industrial estates are proposed under development Scenario 2 and 3.
It is assumed that the number of tertiary sector workers increases in proportion to

population as seen in other major cities of the world. Once the number of tertiary sector
workers is estimated, the remainder is the number of workers of the secondary sector. In
addition, it is also assumed that the number of secondary and tertiary sector does not
change between daytime and nighttime as a whole for the Study Area considering the
present day/night ratio revealed by 2010 HIS (0.996 and 1.008 for the secondary and
tertiary sector, respectively). The results are tabulated below in Table 3.2.7 and
employment by sector for year 2010 is shown in Figure 3.2.6.
Table 3.2.7 Forecast No. of Workers by Employment Sector for the Study Area
2010 2020 2030

Description
No. ('000) % No. ('000) % No. ('000) %
Total Workers 2691 100.0 3722 100.0 4978 100.0
Primary Sector 179 6.6% 164 4.4% 154 3.1%

Secondary Sector 406 15.1% 819 22.0% 1339 26.9%
Tertiary Sector 2107 78.3% 2740 73.6% 3485 70.0%
Zonal Breakdown of Tertiary Sector Workers (night-time)
The ratio of the number of tertiary sector workers to population ranges between 0.22-
0.28 for most of the urbanized zones and 0.12-0.15 in the surrounding areas. It is
assumed that the number of tertiary sector workers is 25 % of population for zones
already built up or to be urbanized in the future and 15 % for other zones. The values
thus calculated are then adjusted to the control totals of predetermined above.
Zonal Breakdown of Tertiary Sector Workers (day-time)
First, planned number of workers is allocated to the proposed projects including

redevelopment of the super high-density area, CBD redevelopment and academic town.
The rest is then assigned to other zones in proportion to the present number of tertiary
sector workers (day-time).
Zonal Breakdown of Secondary Sector Workers (night-time)
This is calculated simply by subtracting the number of primary and secondary sector
3-37
workers from the total employment.
Zonal Breakdown of Secondary Sector Workers (day-time)
For zones of industrial estates, planned number of secondary workers is allocated, and
the rest is then assigned to other zones in proportion to the present number of secondary
sector workers (day-time).
Figure 3.2.6 2010 Employment by Sector
(iii) Result of Zonal Breakdown
Table 3.2.8 to 3.2.14 details the result of zonal breakdown of number of workers by
Town/ Tehsil for night-time and day-time population for the Study Area Towns and
Tehsils. All employment sectors Night-time comparison of forecast for different scenarios
are shown in Figure 3.2.7 and 3.2.8, and Day-time shown in Figure 3.2.9 and 3.2.10.
3-38
(All Employment Sectors, Night-time, ‘000)
Town/ Tehsil 2020 2030
No. in the Study 2010 Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario
Area I II III I II III
1 Ravi 293 278 277 281 273 271 279
Data Gunj
2 261 260 263 270 267 275
Baksh 262
3 Samanabad 275 276 275 279 288 286 295
4 Shalamar 237 217 217 219 205 204 210
5 Gulberg 217 228 248 252 248 291 298
6 AzizB 174 244 183 186 329 201 206
7 Wagah 167 266 214 217 383 273 281
8 Nishter 251 618 645 460 1040 1096 705
9 Iqbal 252 513 506 382 812 797 535
10 Cantt 221 305 274 278 405 341 350
11 Ferozewala 146 274 382 393 422 651 675
12 Muridke 70 95 95 198 127 126 343
13 Sharaqpur 39 43 43 43 48 48 50
14 Kasur 40 47 47 131 56 56 232
15 Patoki 47 58 58 140 72 72 245
1-10 Lahore 2348 3206 3099 2817 4253 4026 3434
11-13 Sheikhupura 254 411 519 634 597 825 1068
14-15 Kasur 87 105 105 271 129 128 477
The Study
1-15 2689 3722 3722 3722 4978 4978 4978
Area
Figure 3.2.7 2020 Night Time Forecast for Workers of All Employment Sectors by
Scenario
3-39
Figure 3.2.8 2030 Night Time Forecast for Workers of All Employment Sectors by Each
Scenario

(All Employment Sectors, Day-time, ‘000)
Town/ Tehsil 2020 2030
1 Ravi 325 421 443 443 541 589 589
Data Gunj
2 450 592 622 622 767 831 831
Baksh
3 Samanabad 219 285 295 293 366 388 386
4 Shalamar 158 202 217 216 259 289 289
5 Gulberg 323 426 439 441 553 581 585
6 AzizB 111 150 147 147 198 193 193
7 Wagah 138 202 189 189 280 253 253
8 Nishter 198 344 270 271 520 360 363
9 Iqbal 298 465 418 419 669 568 570
10 Cantt 210 269 270 270 344 347 347

11 Ferozewala 113 157 198 200 213 299 303
12 Muridke 61 87 82 80 119 109 106
13 Sharaqpur 32 37 40 40 44 49 51
14 Kasur 31 37 40 39 46 52 50
15 Patoki 42 50 54 52 60 69 65
1-10 Lahore 2427 3354 3309 3311 4496 4400 4404
11-13 Sheikhupura 205 281 320 321 376 458 459
14-15 Kasur 73 87 94 91 106 121 115
The Study
1-15 2705 3722 3722 3722 4978 4978 4978
Area
3-40
Scenario
Scenario
3-41
(Primary Sector, Night-time and Day-time, ‘000)
2020 2030
Town/ Tehsil in
No. 2010 Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario
the Study Area
I II III I II III
1 Ravi 5 3 3 3 1 1 1
Data Gunj
2 3 2 2 2 - - -
Baksh
3 Samanabad 4 2 2 2 1 1 1
4 Shalamar 3 2 2 2 0 0 0
5 Gulberg 3 2 2 2 - - -
6 AzizB 5 4 4 4 2 2 3
7 Wagah 27 26 28 28 27 30 29
8 Nishter 27 24 24 25 22 22 24
9 Iqbal 18 16 16 17 14 13 15
10 Cantt 8 5 5 5 2 2 2
11 Ferozewala 27 27 26 28 29 27 31
12 Muridke 12 13 13 11 14 14 10
13 Sharaqpur 16 16 16 17 18 18 19
14 Kasur 8 9 9 8 9 9 8
15 Patoki 14 14 14 12 15 16 11
1-10 Lahore 103 85 86 88 70 71 75
11-13 Sheikhupura 54 56 55 56 60 59 60
14-15 Kasur 22 23 23 20 25 25 19
The Study
1-15 179 164 164 164 154 154 154
Area

(Secondary Sector, Night-time, ‘000)
2020 2030
Town/ Tehsil in
the Study Area
I II III I II III
1 Ravi 40 52 53 56 71 71 77
Data Gunj
2 32 45 45 48 64 64 70
Baksh
3 Samanabad 40 54 55 58 75 76 82
4 Shalamar 36 42 42 45 53 53 58
5 Gulberg 23 34 38 40 49 57 62
6 AzizB 24 48 33 35 78 47 51
7 Wagah 29 67 50 53 113 77 83
8 Nishter 53 200 206 152 377 390 272
9 Iqbal 39 108 106 80 193 187 130
10 Cantt 29 51 49 52 81 76 83
11 Ferozewala 33 72 98 105 121 177 193
12 Muridke 13 29 29 62 48 48 120
13 Sharaqpur 5 5 5 5 6 6 6
14 Kasur 5 5 5 15 6 6 28
15 Patoki 6 6 6 15 7 7 25
1-10 Lahore 343 702 676 617 1152 1096 968
11-13 Sheikhupura 51 106 132 172 174 231 319
14-15 Kasur 11 11 11 30 13 13 53
1-15 The Study Area 405 819 819 819 1339 1339 1339
3-42
(Secondary Sector, Day-time, ‘000)
2020 2030
Town/ Tehsil
1 Ravi 49 66 97 97 91 158 158
Data Gunj
2 47 72 93 93 107 151 151
Baksh
3 Samanabad 28 39 56 54 56 90 88
4 Shalamar 27 36 54 54 48 88 88
5 Gulberg 35 55 67 69 81 108 112
6 AzizB 15 29 30 30 47 48 48
7 Wagah 28 67 56 56 114 91 91
8 Nishter 41 152 82 82 283 134 133
9 Iqbal 56 161 122 121 288 203 203
10 Cantt 33 56 63 63 86 100 100
11 Ferozewala 23 48 55 55 80 95 95
12 Muridke 11 26 23 23 44 37 37
13 Sharaqpur 3 3 6 6 4 10 10
14 Kasur 4 4 8 8 5 13 13
15 Patoki 5 5 10 10 6 16 16
1-10 Lahore 358 732 718 718 1200 1170 1170
11-13 Sheikhupura 37 78 84 84 128 141 141
14-15 Kasur 9 9 18 18 11 28 28
The Study
1-15 404 819 819 819 1339 1339 1339
Area

(Tertiary Sector, Night-time, ‘000)
2020 2030
Town/ Tehsil
No. in the Study 2010
Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario
1 Ravi 248 223 222 223 201 199 201
Data Gunj
2 227 214 213 214 206 203 205
Baksh
3 Samanabad 232 220 219 220 213 210 212
4 Shalamar 197 173 173 173 153 151 152
5 Gulberg 191 192 209 210 199 234 236
6 AzizB 147 193 146 147 249 152 153
7 Wagah 111 173 136 137 243 166 168
8 Nishter 171 394 415 283 640 684 409
9 Iqbal 195 389 385 286 606 598 390
10 Cantt 185 249 220 221 323 263 265
11 Ferozewala 87 175 258 260 273 448 452
12 Muridke 44 54 53 125 65 64 213
13 Sharaqpur 18 21 21 21 25 24 25
14 Kasur 27 33 33 108 41 40 197
15 Patoki 28 38 38 114 50 50 209
1-10 Lahore 1902 2419 2337 2113 3031 2859 2390
11-13 Sheikhupura 149 249 332 406 362 536 689
14-15 Kasur 54 71 71 221 91 90 405
The Study
1-15 2105 2740 2740 2740 3485 3485 3485
Area
3-43
(Tertiary Sector, Day-time, ‘000)
2020 2030
Town/ Tehsil in
the Study Area
I II III I II III
1 Ravi 272 352 343 343 449 430 430
2 Data Gunj Baksh 400 518 527 527 661 680 680
3 Samanabad 188 243 237 237 310 297 297
4 Shalamar 127 165 161 161 211 202 202
5 Gulberg 285 370 371 371 472 473 473
6 AzizB 91 117 114 114 149 143 143
7 Wagah 84 109 106 106 139 133 133
8 Nishter 130 168 164 164 214 205 205
9 Iqbal 223 288 281 281 368 352 352
10 Cantt 169 208 203 203 255 244 244
11 Ferozewala 63 82 117 117 105 178 178
12 Muridke 37 48 47 47 61 58 58
13 Sharaqpur 14 18 17 17 23 22 22
14 Kasur 19 25 24 24 31 30 30
15 Patoki 24 31 30 30 39 38 38
1-10 Lahore 1966 2537 2505 2505 3226 3159 3159
11-13 Sheikhupura 114 148 181 181 188 258 258
14-15 Kasur 43 55 54 54 70 68 68
1-15 The Study Area 2123 2740 2740 2740 3485 3485 3485
3.2.3 Number of Students
1) Ratio of Students in the Same Age Group and Number of Students
(i) Ratio of Students in the Same Age Group
Ratio of students (high school and above) in the same age group is shown in Table
3.2.15 by Town/ Tehsil. These Towns/ Tehsils were classified into three groups; A, B and
C. A is a group of high income and a number of high schools, universities, etc. are
located in the same Town/ Tehsil. C belongs to the area of relatively low income with
insufficient number of high-grade education facilities, and B comes in between A and C.
This grouping may change in the future depending on economic growth and location of
high-grade education facilities.
Table 3.2.15 Ratio of Students in the Same Age Group

No. Town/ Tehsil Ratio of Students (%) Group
1 Ravi 39.6 B
2 Data Gunj Baksh 48.8 A
3 Samanabad 44.7 B
4 Shalamar 51.6 A
5 Gulberg 56.6 A
6 Aziz Bhatti 47.8 A
7 Wagah 30.5 C
8 Nishtar 31.4 C
9 Iqbal 43.2 B
10 Cantonment 51.8 A
11 Ferozewala 27.3 C
12 Muridike 31.9 C
13 Sharaqpur 32.9 C
3-44
No. Town/ Tehsil Ratio of Students (%) Group
14 Kasur 42.8 Ｂ
15 Pattoki 28.6 C
1-15 The Study Area 43.2 B
In the world, this ratio is as follows2:
United States 57.1 (2005)

UK 52.4 (2006)
Germany 51.5 (2006)
France 56.2 (2006)
Japan 67.1 (2008)
Korea 116.7 (2007)
In Lahore, this ratio is almost comparable with developed countries reflecting the fact that
a lot of academic and educational facilities are accumulated in Lahore. Actually the ratio
is only 6.4 % for entire Pakistan (2008, United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO)). This trend/ tradition should be maintained also in the future.
(ii) Future No. of Students
It is assumed that the upper limit of the ratio of students in the same age group will
become as follows by 2030:
Group A: 55 %
Group B: 44 % (80 % of Group A)
Group C: 35 % (80 % of Group B)
The population ratio of zones belonging to Group A, B and C is 5:2:3 at present and the
weighted average of the Study Area is calculated at 46.8 % for 2030 and 45.0 % for 2020.
Average growth rate is 1.8 % p.a. The result is given in Table 3.2.16.
Table 3.2.16 Forecast Number of Students for the Study Area

Description 2010 2020 2030
Population ('000) 9,928 12,925 16,429
Population of the Age Group ('000) 1,986 2,665 3,386
Ratio of Students in the Age Group 0.43 0.45 0.49
No. of Students ('000) 857 1,163 1,597
2) Zonal Breakdown of Student Population
(i) No. of Students (Night-time)
The number of students residing in a zone is first estimated by multiplying population with
the present ratio of number of students to population. Then it is adjusted to the total of
the Study Area control total as predetermined above. The result is presented in
Table 3.2.17.
2
source: Ministry of Education and Science, Japan
3-45
Table 3.2.17 Forecast Number of Students (‘000) by Town/ Tehsil (Night-time)
2020 2030
Town/ Tehsil in
Study Area
I II III I II III
1 Ravi 80 84 82 84 90 86 89
2 Data Gunj Baksh 95 102 99 101 111 106 110
3 Samanabad 102 112 109 112 128 122 126
4 Shalamar 82 83 81 82 84 81 83
5 Gulberg 88 106 113 115 130 148 153
6 AzizB 64 84 71 72 112 81 84
7 Wagah 40 57 46 47 81 56 58
8 Nishter 59 122 134 90 209 237 133
9 Iqbal 83 169 177 131 291 306 198
10 Cantt 86 129 114 117 190 154 160
11 Ferozewala 29 59 82 84 101 155 160
12 Muridke 17 20 19 40 24 23 73
13 Sharaqpur 7 8 8 8 9 9 9
14 Kasur 14 17 16 46 20 19 90
15 Patoki 12 14 13 37 17 16 72
1-10 Lahore 778 1046 1025 949 1426 1376 1194
11-13 Sheikhupura 53 87 109 132 135 186 242
14-15 Kasur 26 31 30 83 37 35 162
1-15 The Study Area 857 1163 1163 1163 1597 1597 1597
(ii) Number of Students (day-time)
For Scenario 1, the number of students by zone was estimated by distributing the
predetermined total in proportion to the present number of students (daytime).
For Scenario 2 and 3, 40 thousand students were allocated to the academic town
proposed in Ferozewala. Then the rest was distributed to zones in proportion to the
present numbers. The result is summarized in Table 3.2.18.
Table 3.2.18 Forecast Number of Students (‘000) by Town/ Tehsil (Day-time)
2020 2030
Town/ Tehsil in
Study Area
I II III I II III
1 Ravi 54 59 59 61 65 64 68
2 Data Gunj Baksh 186 212 214 221 249 247 261
3 Samanabad 136 155 156 161 181 180 190
4 Shalamar 66 69 70 72 74 74 78
5 Gulberg 129 154 163 168 189 204 216
6 AzizB 33 44 37 38 61 42 44
7 Wagah 26 44 31 32 70 37 39
8 Nishter 38 88 94 63 157 167 96
9 Iqbal 75 160 164 114 277 280 166
10 Cantt 63 111 94 97 180 134 141
11 Ferozewala 15 29 42 44 48 121 126
12 Muridke 14 16 16 30 19 19 52
13 Sharaqpur 5 5 6 6 7 6 7
14 Kasur 6 7 7 23 8 8 47
15 Patoki 11 12 13 35 15 15 69
1-10 Lahore 806 1094 1081 1027 1501 1428 1297
11-13 Sheikhupura 33 50 64 79 74 147 184
14-15 Kasur 16 19 19 58 23 22 116
1-15 The Study Area 855 1163 1163 1163 1597 1597 1597
3-46
3.2.4 GDP and Per Capita GDP
1) Past Trends
Past trends of Pakistan Gross Domestic Products (GDP) are outlined in Table 3.2.19 and
GDP Growth rate past trend is shown in Figure 3.2.11.
Table 3.2.19 Past Trends of Pakistan GDP and GDP per Capita
GDP (PKR billion) GDP per

Annual GDP
Capita at
Growth Rate -
Population 2010 2010
Year Current Constant
(Million) Constant Constant
Price price
Price1 price
(% p.a.)
(PKR ‘000)
1980 82.73 234.53 3,309.55 - 40.0
1981 85.10 278.20 3,571.69 7.92 42.0
1982 87.44 324.16 3,805.19 6.54 43.5
1983 89.83 364.39 4,063.12 6.78 45.2
1984 92.28 419.80 4,268.92 5.07 46.3
1985 94.79 472.16 4,593.03 7.59 48.4
1986 97.35 514.53 4,845.72 5.50 49.8
1987 99.95 572.48 5,158.38 6.45 51.6
1988 102.62 675.39 5,551.72 7.63 54.1
1989 105.27 769.75 5,827.07 4.96 55.4
1990 107.98 855.94 6,086.88 4.46 56.4
1991 110.75 1,016.72 6,394.97 5.06 57.7
1992 113.56 1,205.20 6,887.76 7.71 60.6
1993 116.44 1,333.04 7,008.83 1.76 60.2
1994 119.40 1,561.10 7,270.78 3.74 60.9
1995 122.37 1,865.92 7,631.60 4.96 62.4
1996 125.41 2,120.17 8,001.47 4.85 63.8
1997 128.46 2,428.31 8,082.64 1.01 62.9
1998 131.58 2,677.66 8,288.76 2.55 63.0
1999 134.79 2,938.38 8,592.14 3.66 63.7
2000 138.08 3,826.11 8,958.18 4.26 64.9
2001 141.45 4,209.87 9,135.77 1.98 64.6
2002 144.90 4,452.65 9,430.35 3.22 65.1
2003 148.44 4,875.65 9,887.37 4.85 66.6
2004 152.06 5,640.58 10,615.93 7.37 69.8
2005 155.77 6,499.78 11,429.89 7.67 73.4
2006 159.14 7,623.21 12,135.97 6.18 76.3
2007 162.59 8,673.01 12,825.67 5.68 78.9
2008 166.11 10,242.80 13,030.37 1.60 78.4
2009 169.71 12,739.34 13,503.70 3.63 79.6
2010 168.26 13,976.33 13,976.33 3.50 83.1
Note: 1) Calculation assuming a growth rate between 2009 and 2010 predicted by International Monetary Fund (IMF).
Source: World Development Indicators 2010
3-47
As seen in the table, Pakistan economy has been growing. However, the growth has not
been stable and has been fluctuating year to year. Although average growth rate was
4.9% between 1972 and 2010, it has declined recently (Pakistan: Framework for
Economic Growth, April 2011, Planning Commission).
Figure 3.2.11 Past Trends - Growth Rate at Constant Price (% of Per Annum)
9
Growth Rate - Constant Price (% p.a)
-
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2008
2009
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Years
Source: World Development Indicators, WB 2010
As for the Punjab, Lahore District as well as the Study Area, there is no GDP or GRDP
statistics available. However, Price Water House Coopers of UK estimated 2008 GDP of
Lahore in purchasing power parity (PPP) at USD 40 billion using population and income
statistics available for Lahore and other similar cities (Economic Outlook, Nov. 2009). In
this estimate, “Lahore” means urban agglomeration of Lahore based on UN definition,
and this is almost comparable to the Study Area.
We estimated 2010 GDP of the Study Area at about PKR 1,341 billion or USD 17 billion
at 2010 constant prices using GDP growth between 2008 and 2010 and the ratio between
PPP and 2010 constant price basis estimated by IMF (2010 Economic Outlook).
2) GDP Projections
In the absence of available data and considerable fluctuation of economy in the past, it is
difficult to forecast future GDP. In order to forecast GDP and GDP per Capita in the future
both for Pakistan and the Study Area, the following assumption were introduced:
A. For entire Pakistan, between 2010 and 2015, the forecast of IMF’s 2010 economic
outlook was referred. This assumes the following growth rates:
2010-11: 2.8 %
2011-12: 4.0 %
2012-13: 5.0 %
3-48
2013-14: 5.5 %
2014-15: 6.0 %
2.8 % of 2010-11 is the same as the Planning Commission’s “Pakistan Economic
Outlook, Feb. 2011”. In this Study, these rates were taken and for 2016 and after, it
were assumed that the growth rate would be constant at 6.0 %. Then the average
growth for 2010-30 is 5.7 %. This is comparable to the forecast of Price Water House
Coopers at 5.6 % for 2008-25 (Economic Outlook, Nov. 2009).
B. For Lahore or the Study Area, no reference is exists as to GDP. Thus it was assumed
that the 2010 GDP of Lahore estimated above would grow in parallel to national
economy with slightly higher rate due to higher population increase.
The result is presented in Table 3.2.20 below. It should be noted that this is just an
approximation on most likely basis. However, this indicative estimate provides a relatively
good basis for transport demand forecast.
Table 3.2.20 Projected GDP and GDP per Capita for Pakistan and the Study Area
Assumed GDP GDP at 2010 GDP per Capita at

Population
Growth Rate Constant Price 2010 Constant
Year (million)
(% p.a.) (PKR billion) Price (PKR ‘000)
Pakistan LUTMP Pakistan LUTMP Pakistan LUTMP Pakistan LUTMP
2010 168.26 9.93 - - 13,976 1,341 83.1 135.1
2011 171.84 10.20 2.8 2.81 14,368 1,387 83.6 136.0
2012 175.50 10.48 4.0 4.01 14,942 1,451 85.1 138.4
2013 179.24 10.77 5.0 5.01 15,689 1,532 87.5 142.3
2014 183.06 11.06 5.5 5.52 16,552 1,626 90.4 147.0
2015 186.96 11.36 6.0 6.02 17,546 1,734 93.8 152.6
2016 190.75 11.66 6.0 6.02 18,598 1,848 97.5 158.5
2017 194.62 11.96 6.0 6.02 19,714 1,970 101.3 164.7
2018 198.58 12.28 6.0 6.02 20,897 2,101 105.2 171.1
2019 202.61 12.60 6.0 6.02 22,151 2,239 109.3 177.8
2020 206.72 12.93 6.0 6.02 23,480 2,387 113.6 184.7
2021 210.69 13.25 6.0 6.01 24,889 2,545 118.1 192.1
2022 214.73 13.58 6.0 6.01 26,382 2,712 122.9 199.8
2023 218.86 13.91 6.0 6.01 27,965 2,891 127.8 207.8
2024 223.06 14.26 6.0 6.01 29,643 3,081 132.9 216.1
2025 227.34 14.61 6.0 6.01 31,421 3,284 138.2 224.7
2026 231.48 14.96 6.0 6.01 33,307 3,500 143.9 234.0
2027 235.69 15.31 6.0 6.01 35,305 3,730 149.8 243.6
2028 239.98 15.68 6.0 6.01 37,423 3,975 155.9 253.6
2029 244.35 16.05 6.0 6.01 39,669 4,237 162.3 264.0
2030 248.80 16.43 6.0 6.01 42,049 4,515 169.0 274.8
3-49
3) Zonal Breakdown
For distributing the estimated Study Area GDP to traffic zones, the following procedure
was adopted:
1. Development of regression equation to estimate average per capita GDP by zone

based on sector distribution of employment. Using WDIs from 1980 to 2007 for
entire Pakistan, the following equation was developed:
y = c1 * p1 + c2 * p2 + c3 * p3 + c4
Where,
y: GDP per capita (PKR/person)
p1-p3: employment composition of the Primary, Second and Tertiary sectors (%)
c1-c4: parameters be determined by regression
The values of these parameters were estimated by least square regression method
as:
c1: 10,233.9 (1.216)
c2: 11,046.6 (1.295)
c3: 12,467.9 (1.515)
c4: -1,050,940.8 (-1.257)
Correlation Coefficient R2 = 0.82; and
figures in parenthesis give the (t-statistics); indicating that there is

good correlation and all parameters are statistically significant.
2. Using worker’s sectoral composition by zone, per capita GDP was calculated by the
above equation for each zone. For 2010, the result of HIS was used, and for 2020
and 2030, the estimated values described in previous sections were used.
3. By multiplying population with per capita GDP is estimated as above, GDP was
calculated by zone. The total of these values, however, is slightly different from the
GDP estimated earlier for the Study Area.
4. To keep consistency, the total GDP of the Study Area was distributed to zones in
proportion to the value by zone calculated in 3 above.
The results are presented in Tables 3.2.21, 3.2.22 and 3.2.23 for 2010, 2020 and 2030,
respectively.
3-50
Table 3.2.21 2010 Estimated GDP and GDP per Capita by Town/Tehsil
GDP GDP per
Town/ Tehsil in the Population
No. (PKR, Capita
Study Area ('000)
billion) (PKR, 000)
1 Ravi 1007 148 146.7
2 Data Gunj Baksh 970 145 149.4
3 Samanabad 984 144 146.3
4 Shalamar 854 125 145.2
5 Gulberg 778 119 152.2
6 AzizB 667 96 143.3
7 Wagah 656 75 112.9
8 Nishter 945 114 120.0
9 Iqbal 960 128 133.0
10 Cantt 831 120 144.0
11 Ferozewala 534 57 105.1
12 Muridke 266 30 110.9
13 Sharaqpur 101 8 73.7
14 Kasur 168 19 110.9
15 Patoki 207 20 95.5
1-10 Lahore 8,653 1,210 139.8
11-13 Sheikhupura 901 94 103.3
14-15 Kasur 375 39 102.4
1-15 The Study Area 9928 1341 135.1
3-51
Table 3.2.22 2020 Projected GDP and GDP per Capita by Town/Tehsil
Town/ Tehsil in LUTMP

No. Population ('000) GDP (PKR billion) GEP per Capita (PKR '000)
Study Area
Scenario I Scenario II Scenario III Scenario I Scenario II Scenario III Scenario I Scenario II Scenario III
1 Ravi 978 971 976 194 192 192 197.4 197.4 195.9
2 Data Gunj Baksh 968 961 966 195 194 193 201.1 201.1 199.6
3 Samanabad 990 983 988 195 194 193 196.5 196.4 194.9
4 Shalamar 790 784 788 156 155 154 196.8 196.7 195.3
5 Gulberg 850 926 931 175 190 190 204.9 204.7 203.3
6 AzizB 901 686 690 176 135 134 194.8 195.7 194.1
3-52
7 Wagah 881 713 717 144 113 113 162.9 158.1 157
8 Nishter 1906 2007 1399 320 340 228 167.7 169.2 162.6
9 Iqbal 1840 1824 1366 347 345 254 188.5 189 185.8
10 Cantt 1149 1018 1024 230 201 201 199.7 197.2 195.7
11 Ferozewala 883 1268 1275 145 218 216 163.1 171.9 168.8
12 Muridke 284 282 609 42 41 102 145.1 144.6 166.5
13 Sharaqpur 108 107 107 13 12 12 112.8 112.3 110.4
14 Kasur 179 177 520 30 30 102 166.9 166.5 196
15 Patoki 221 219 568 34 34 109 152 151.5 191.6
1-10 Lahore 11252 10873 9846 2127 2054 1848 189 188.9 187.7
11-13 Sheikhupura 1274 1656 1992 198 271 329 154.9 163.4 165
14-15 Kasur 399 397 1088 64 63 211 158.6 158.2 193.7
1-15 LUTMP Study Area 12925 12925 12925 2387 2387 2387 184.7 184.7 184.7

Table 3.2.23 2030 Projected GDP and GDP per Capita by Town/Tehsil
Town/ Tehsil in LUTMP

No. Population ('000) GDP (PKR billion) GEP per Capita (PKR '000)
Study Area
Scenario I Scenario II Scenario III Scenario I Scenario II Scenario III Scenario I Scenario II Scenario III
1 Ravi 949 938 947 272 268 266 285.7 285 280.3
2 Data Gunj Baksh 970 958 967 284 280 278 292.3 291.6 287.2
3 Samanabad 1002 990 999 286 282 280 285.1 284.4 279.7
4 Shalamar 720 711 717 206 203 202 286.2 285.4 280.7
5 Gulberg 937 1102 1112 283 334 332 301.9 302.2 298.2
6 AzizB 1175 714 721 339 207 205 288.6 288.5 283.9
7 Wagah 1145 784 792 284 186 185 248 236.6 233.3
8 Nishter 3017 3226 1927 764 828 469 253.1 256.5 243.4
3-53
9 Iqbal 2857 2818 1838 816 808 513 285.3 286.5 279.1
10 Cantt 1521 1240 1251 460 366 365 302.1 295.1 291.1
11 Ferozewala 1288 2110 2130 331 568 560 256.4 269 262.7
12 Muridke 305 302 1005 66 64 260 213 211.8 258.3
13 Sharaqpur 116 114 115 21 21 20 178.9 177.2 171.3
14 Kasur 192 190 927 51 50 285 263.6 262.5 306.6
15 Patoki 238 235 983 59 58 302 246.7 245.4 306.7
1-10 Lahore 14291 13479 11270 3990 3756 3091 279.2 278.6 274.2
11-13 Sheikhupura 1708 2526 3250 416 652 839 243.4 258 258.1
14-15 Kasur 430 424 1910 110 108 586 254.3 253 306.7
1-15 LUTMP Study Area 16429 16429 16429 4515 4515 4515 274.8 274.8 274.8

3.2.5 Household Income and Car Ownership
1) Current Situation
Table 3.2.24 presents the present household income and car ownership by Town/ Tehsil
in the Study Area. Between car-owning and non-car-owning households, there is a big
difference in household income of about 2.3 times. Thus higher-income towns/ tehsils
have high car ownership. The highest car ownership is found in Cantonment at about
40 % which also has the highest average income in the Study Area. The average
percentage of car-owning household is about 18% in the Study Area at present.
Table 3.2.24 Present Household’s Income and Car Ownership, 2010

No. of Households Car Ave. HH Income (PKR/month)
No. Town/ Tehsil Car Non-Car Owning Car Non-Car
Total HH (%) Average
Owning Owning Owning Owning
1 Ravi 13,052 159,723 172,775 7.5 42,356 19,098 20,855
Data Gunj
2
Baksh 30,859 142,579 173,438 17.8 40,849 20,337 23,987
3 Samanabad 39,950 135,553 175,503 22.8 40,507 23,101 27,063
4 Shalamar 18,343 126,403 144,746 12.7 39,237 19,948 22,392
5 Gulberg 40,550 97,992 138,542 29.3 44,612 23,412 29,617
6 Aziz Bhatti 20,201 101,391 121,592 16.6 34,660 17,867 20,657
7 Wagah 7,432 99,347 106,779 7.0 34,035 15,976 17,233
8 Nishtar 14,408 147,451 161,859 8.9 36,428 16,314 18,104
9 Iqbal 49,646 127,990 177,636 28.0 43,550 17,735 24,949
10 Cantonment 64,188 97,114 161,302 39.8 50,950 20,215 32,446
11 Ferozewala 8,888 89,648 98,536 9.0 34,967 14,524 16,368
12 Muridike 2,991 42,274 45,265 6.6 37,829 14,754 16,279
Sharaqpur
13
Sharif 3,964 23,930 27,894 14.2 39,385 18,140 21,159
14 Kasur 6,372 21,739 28,111 22.7 56,975 13,432 23,302
15 Pattoki 1,757 31,438 33,195 5.3 34,624 14,301 15,376
1-10 Lahore 298,629 1,235,543 1,534,172 19.5 43,099 19,371 23,990
11-13 Sheikhupura 15,843 155,852 171,695 9.2 36,612 15141 17,122
14-15 Kasur 8,129 53,177 61,306 13.3 52,144 13945 19,010
The Study
1-15 322,601 1,444,572 1,767,173 18.3 43,009 18,715 23,150
Area
2) Car Ownership Forecast
Car ownership has a strong correlation with household income. Therefore the first step to
forecast car ownership is to estimate future household income. It is well known that
income increases or decreases in proportion to GDP per capita. Since GDP and GDP per
Capita have been forecast by zone as explained in the previous section, it is easy to
know the income level by zone.
Next step is to analyze the interrelationship between household car ownership and
household income. As analyzed by regression analysis, household car ownership and
household income by zone have shown a very good correlation as anticipated. However,
3-54
this analysis tends to lead very high forecast. Because all the zones have the same
weight in this analysis regardless of the size of zones. Hence, the following equation was
selected to forecast the future car ownership.
NC = 0.0000109 HI – 705.308
Where, NC: No. of cars by zone
HI: Total Household Income by zone
(R2=0.69, T-statistics: 21.6 for HI and -7.3 for Constant)
In addition, for extremely densely built-up 8 zones located in the center of the city, car
ownership rate was assumed to remain stable, and for other densely built-up 17 zones,
car ownership was assumed to grow only by 5 % and 10 % for 2020 and 2030,
respectively.
The result of forecast is shown in Table 3.2.25 to 3.2.30 for 2020 and 2030 by urban
development scenario and illustrated in Figure 3.2.12 for the three urban development
scenarios. Car ownership by Household will increase from 18 % in 2010 to 29-30 % and
43-45 % in 2020 and 2030, respectively.
Table 3.2.25 Household Income and Car Ownership, 2020 Scenario-I

Town/ Tehsil
Owning
No. in the Study
Car Non-Car HH Car Non-Car
Area Total Average
Owning Owning (%) Owning Owning
1 Ravi 29,648 137,496 167,144 17.7 48,385 23,716 28,092
Data Gunj
2 57,080 115,931 173,012 33.0 48,129 24,355 32,199
Baksh
3 Samanabad 69,691 103,845 173,537 40.2 48,545 28,228 36,387
4 Shalamar 33,825 100,120 133,945 25.3 47,258 24,549 30,284
5 Gulberg 58,728 82,369 140,830 41.7 54,878 26,748 38,529
6 AzizB 44,745 112,869 157,614 28.4 46,256 22,442 29,202
7 Wagah 32,182 108,870 141,052 22.8 44,584 19,644 25,334
8 Nishter 72,150 242,613 314,763 22.9 44,938 19,685 25,473
9 Iqbal 86,361 208,907 294,943 29.3 63,753 27,270 37,983
10 Cantt 92,215 132,292 224,507 41.1 63,048 24,687 43,397
11 Ferozewala 32,946 128,259 161,204 20.4 46,199 20,182 25,499
12 Muridke 8,413 35,471 43,572 19.3 45,035 16,663 22,260
13 Sharaqpur 9,361 20,362 29,724 31.5 55,777 24,854 34,593
14 Kasur 7,566 22,389 29,955 25.3 70,066 18,918 34,749
15 Patoki 4,910 30,463 35,372 13.9 54,450 21,615 26,172
1-10 Lahore 576,627 1,345,313 1,921,347 30.0 52,858 23,853 32,918
11-13 Sheikhupura 50,720 184,092 234,500 21.6 47,774 20,021 26,050
14-15 Kasur 12,476 52,852 65,327 19.1 63,921 20,473 30,105
The Study
1-15 639,823 1,582,256 2,221,175 28.8 52,649 23,280 32,108
Area
3-55
Table 3.2.26 Household Income and Car Ownership, 2020 Scenario-II
Town/ Tehsil
Owning
No. in the Study
Area Total Average
1 Ravi 29,416 136,511 165,927 17.7 48,364 23,711 28,081
Data Gunj
2 56,788 114,964 171,752 33.1 48,093 24,335 32,190
Baksh
3 Samanabad 69,349 102,924 172,273 40.3 48,505 28,197 36,372
4 Shalamar 33,601 99,369 132,970 25.3 47,235 24,539 30,274
5 Gulberg 60,726 93,129 153,587 39.5 54,861 25,381 37,081
6 AzizB 36,370 84,593 120,962 30.1 42,622 21,750 28,026
7 Wagah 25,479 90,619 116,098 21.9 39,623 19,806 24,155
8 Nishter 76,226 252,774 329,000 23.2 45,535 19,549 25,569
9 Iqbal 83,533 221,982 305,190 27.4 70,046 30,053 41,032
10 Cantt 84,854 112,909 197,763 42.9 64,367 24,984 45,183
11 Ferozewala 57,960 183,482 241,442 24.0 52,437 22,107 29,388
12 Muridke 8,314 35,253 43,255 19.2 44,815 16,641 22,177
13 Sharaqpur 9,254 20,254 29,507 31.4 55,484 24,752 34,390
14 Kasur 7,509 22,228 29,737 25.3 70,211 18,921 34,694
15 Patoki 4,811 30,304 35,115 13.7 54,303 21,582 26,065
1-10 Lahore 556,342 1,309,772 1,865,522 29.8 53,578 24,289 33,389
11-13 Sheikhupura 75,528 238988 314204 24.0 51,972 21,525 28,865
14-15 Kasur 12,319 52,532 64,851 19.0 63,999 20,456 30,021
The Study
1-15 644,189 1,601,293 2,244,578 28.7 53,570 23,738 32,658
Area
Table 3.2.27 Household Income and Car Ownership, 2020 Scenario-III

Town/ Tehsil
Owning
No. in the Study
Area Total Average
1 Ravi 29,379 137,463 166,842 17.6 48,040 23,555 27,866
Data Gunj
2 56,734 115,965 172,699 32.9 47,862 24,185 31,964
Baksh
3 Samanabad 69,247 103,977 173,223 40.0 48,201 28,012 36,083
4 Shalamar 33,577 100,126 133,704 25.1 46,953 24,381 30,050
5 Gulberg 60,685 94,017 154,435 39.3 54,552 25,248 36,807
6 AzizB 36,326 85,304 121,630 29.9 42,362 21,611 27,809
7 Wagah 25,412 91,326 116,739 21.8 39,470 19,658 23,971
8 Nishter 50,960 184,055 235,015 21.7 44,946 18,995 24,622
9 Iqbal 74,855 159,851 234,380 31.9 62,310 25,979 37,618
10 Cantt 84,751 114,103 198,854 42.6 64,091 24,840 44,883
11 Ferozewala 57,205 185,570 242,774 23.6 51,758 21,809 28,866
12 Muridke 21,488 70,615 91,791 23.4 51,061 17,807 25,652
13 Sharaqpur 9,146 20,524 29,670 30.8 54,676 24,420 33,747
14 Kasur 26,520 61,258 87,778 30.2 61,206 19,735 41,087
15 Patoki 28,539 62,994 91,534 31.2 72,443 22,971 38,396
1-10 Lahore 521,926 1,186,188 1,707,522 30.6 52,317 23,516 32,724
11-13 Sheikhupura 87,838 276709 364236 24.1 51,891 20,982 28,454
14-15 Kasur 55,059 124,253 179,312 30.7 67,031 21,375 39,713
The Study
1-15 664,823 1,587,150 2,251,069 29.5 53,466 22,891 32,592
Area
3-56
Figure 3.2.12 2020 Percent of Car Owning Households for Three Scenarios
Figure 3.2.13 2020 Average Household Monthly Income for Three Scenarios
3-57
Table 3.2.28 Household Income and Car Ownership, 2030 Scenario-I
Town/ Tehsil
Ownin
No. in the Study
Car Non-Car g HH Car Non-Car
Area Total Average
1 Ravi 47,376 114,191 161,567 29.3 61,181 32,228 40,718
Data Gunj
2 83,113 90,319 173,432 47.9 62,539 31,949 46,609
Baksh
3 Samanabad 101,160 73,817 174,977 57.8 64,336 37,399 52,972
4 Shalamar 49,663 72,604 122,268 40.6 60,929 32,259 43,904
5 Gulberg 84,680 70,790 155,203 54.6 73,789 35,570 56,484
6 AzizB 89,416 115,061 204,477 43.7 63,731 29,794 44,634
7 Wagah 68,466 112,617 181,083 37.8 61,094 25,490 38,952
8 Nishter 175,964 315,741 491,705 35.8 60,375 26,466 38,601
9 Iqbal 215,074 228,394 443,142 48.5 85,630 33,714 58,935
10 Cantt 149,386 148,758 298,144 50.1 82,872 31,293 64,086
11 Ferozewala 84,670 149,224 233,893 36.2 63,776 26,241 39,828
12 Muridke 15,404 31,783 46,876 32.9 60,453 20,739 33,928
13 Sharaqpur 16,280 15,697 31,977 50.9 79,497 34,123 57,224
14 Kasur 11,390 20,836 32,226 35.3 86,188 24,262 54,655
15 Patoki 12,008 26,046 38,054 31.6 74,094 29,738 43,735
1-10 Lahore 1,064,297 1,342,293 2,405,998 44.2 70,709 30,693 49,267
11-13 Sheikhupura 116,354 196704 312746 37.2 65,536 25,981 40,723
14-15 Kasur 23,398 46,883 70,280 33.3 79,981 27,304 48,742
The Study
1-15 1,204,049 1,585,879 2,789,025 43.2 70,365 29,980 48,293
Area
Table 3.2.29 Household Income and Car Ownership, 2030 Scenario-II

Town/ Tehsil
Owning
No. in the Study
Area Total Average
1 Ravi 46,738 112,847 159,585 29.3 61,031 32,154 40,612
Data Gunj
2 82,173 89,132 171,305 48.0 62,385 31,861 46,503
Baksh
3 Samanabad 100,047 72,784 172,831 57.9 64,154 37,276 52,835
4 Shalamar 49,046 71,722 120,768 40.6 60,780 32,172 43,790
5 Gulberg 92,078 90,996 182,807 50.4 73,630 31,466 52,750
6 AzizB 57,109 68,852 125,960 45.3 56,347 29,066 41,435
7 Wagah 49,364 78,275 127,639 38.7 52,095 25,881 36,019
8 Nishter 186,423 334,635 521,058 35.8 61,417 26,254 38,835
9 Iqbal 244,641 219,926 464,242 52.7 93,053 34,337 65,303
10 Cantt 126,773 113,960 240,733 52.7 85,726 31,322 68,420
11 Ferozewala 161,493 243,821 405,314 39.8 72,241 29,742 46,675
12 Muridke 15,146 31,467 46,301 32.7 60,043 20,672 33,691
13 Sharaqpur 15,989 15,596 31,585 50.6 78,784 33,881 56,612
14 Kasur 11,217 20,614 31,831 35.2 86,348 24,271 54,466
15 Patoki 11,731 25,856 37,588 31.2 73,843 29,657 43,447
1-10 Lahore 1,034,394 1,253,128 2,286,929 45.2 72,614 30,553 50,481
11-13 Sheikhupura 192,629 290,883 483,200 39.9 71,825 28,982 46,080
14-15 Kasur 22,948 46,470 9,418 33.1 79,955 27,267 48,499
The Study
1-15 1,249,971 1,590,481 2,839,548 44.0 72,607 30,144 49,684
Area
3-58
Table 3.2.30 Household Income and Car Ownership, 2030 Scenario-III

Town/ Tehsil
Owning
No. in the Study
Area Total Average
1 Ravi 46,655 114,419 161,074 29.0 60,211 31,674 39,940

Data Gunj
2 82,123 90,780 172,903 47.5 61,686 31,434 45,803
Baksh
3 Samanabad 99,909 74,534 174,443 57.3 63,300 36,760 51,960
4 Shalamar 48,979 72,915 121,894 40.2 59,994 31,688 43,062
5 Gulberg 92,138 92,641 184,512 49.9 72,782 31,158 51,988
6 AzizB 57,016 70,119 127,135 44.8 55,652 28,691 40,783
7 Wagah 49,192 79,637 128,829 38.2 51,576 25,567 35,498
8 Nishter 110,523 209,527 320,050 34.5 59,672 24,997 36,971
9 Iqbal 151,699 161,414 312,788 48.5 85,571 33,165 58,616
10 Cantt 126,786 116,193 242,979 52.2 84,907 31,018 67,573

11 Ferozewala 160,200 248,895 409,095 39.2 70,970 29,236 45,579
12 Muridke 52,871 97,963 150,522 35.1 70,229 23,909 40,228
13 Sharaqpur 15,749 16,131 31,880 49.4 76,583 33,049 54,556
14 Kasur 59,402 97,100 156,503 38.0 82,068 27,704 64,326
15 Patoki 65,808 92,956 158,764 41.5 100,666 36,802 63,274
1-10 Lahore 865,022 1,082,178 1,946,608 44.4 69,323 30,179 48,644
11-13 Sheikhupura 228,820 362,989 591,497 38.7 71,185 27,968 44,701
14-15 Kasur 125,210 190,056 315,267 39.7 91,843 32,154 63,796
The Study
1-15 1,219,052 1,635,223 2,853,371 42.7 71,975 29,894 49,508
Area
3-59
Figure 3.2.14 2030 Percent of Car Owning Households for Three Scenarios
Figure 3.2.15 2030 Average Household Monthly Income for Three Scenarios
3-60
Figure 3.2.16 Percent of Car Owning Households, 2010 and 2030 by Scenario
3-61
Figure 3.2.17 Average Household Monthly Income, 2010 and 2030 by Scenario
3-62
TRANSPORT DEMAND CONTEXT
FINAL REPORT
CHAPTER 4 – TRANSPORT DEMAND CONTEXT
4. TRANSPORT DEMAND CONTEXT
4.1 Future Transport Demand
Travel demand analysis and forecast procedure have been described in detail in
Volume II, Chapter 2. This Chapter focuses on the analysis of the demand forecasts
prepared for the 2020 and 2030 for the three alternative Study Area urban development
scenarios. The scenario details and the socio-economic forecasts are described above in
Chapter 3 of this volume.
Travel demand estimates were made for all three development scenarios. It is estimated
that overall total number of trips between the three scenarios are similar. The main
reason for the Study Area-wide total travel demand to be similar under all three scenarios
is that the 2020 and 2030 forecast total population and economic growth is the same for
the Study Area. The differences are only regional, and apply to the distribution of
population within the Study Area. This result of this varied population distribution under
each scenario lead to different levels of growth in trips. Table 4.1.1 below compares the
overall travel demand in terms of total trip production by Town/ Tehsil and are illustrated in
Figure 4.1.1.
Table 4.1.1 The Study Area Forecast Trip Production Totals (‘000)
Trip Productions ('000)
Town / Tehsil
No. Obs-
Name 2020-S1 2020-S2 2020-S3 2030-S1 2030-S2 2030-S3
2010
1 Ravi 751 974 995 1,002 1,173 1,216 884
2 Data Gunj Baksh 1,103 1,408 1,438 1,451 1,732 1,788 1,191
3 Samanabad 850 1,072 1,078 1,089 1,304 1,310 1,232
4 Shalamar 695 704 716 724 810 834 760
5 Gulberg 1,142 1,147 1,204 1,219 1,453 1,588 1,298
6 Aziz Bhatti 555 663 564 570 974 709 736
7 Wagah 405 666 562 567 1,012 773 816
8 Nishtar 482 1,369 1,340 1,026 2,428 2,366 1,992
9 Iqbal 810 1,554 1,503 1,277 2,690 2,657 1,886
10 Cantonment 725 1,083 1,006 998 1,536 1,379 1,410
11 Ferozewala 265 595 834 847 998 1,602 2,057
12 Muridke 155 236 230 386 329 315 961
13 Sharaqpur Sharif 57 108 110 112 137 142 145
14 Kasur 81 129 131 300 163 168 769
15 Pattoki 108 146 149 331 195 202 811
1-10 Lahore 7,518 10,640 10,406 9,923 15,112 14,620 12,205
11-13 Sheikhupura 477 939 1,174 1,345 1,464 2,059 3,163
14-15 Kasur 189 275 280 631 358 370 1,580
1-15 LUTMP 8,184 11,854 11,860 11,899 16,934 17,049 16,948
It can be seen that by 2020 the growth in travel demand will increase by about 46 % -
50 % under all three scenarios, and would more than double by 2030 irrespective of the
4-1
development scenarios. This more than doubling of trips in 20 years is based on over
60 % growth in the Study Area population (from around 10 million to 16.4 million
inhabitants in the Study Area) and a sustained growth of over 5 % in Gross Domestic
Product (GDP). The GDP growth increases household incomes and hence propensity to
buy more motorcycles and cars – which further leads to higher growth of trips.
The travel growth in mature towns of Lahore like: Ravi, Data Gunj Baksh, and Shalamar
is limited, mainly due to high population densities, no land parcels left to develop, and the
housing stock is unlikely to be replaced by multi-storey buildings due to lack of
technology and general people’s resistance to live in high rise block type
accommodations. In addition to that vehicle ownership in these towns is also limited due
to lack of personal parking, lack of access for cars among narrow streets and intensely
mix land use – where by people do not have to travel far for several day to day activities.
Growth in the mainly leafy towns of Samanabad, Gulberg, Aziz Bhatti, and Cantonment
would be limited by land prices (as these are high income residential areas) and are likely
to stay on the limited growth path. The majority of the growth in Lahore District is
therefore expected to be in Nishtar, Iqbal and Wahgah Towns, where it would more than
double the existing demand levels. Under development Scenario 3, under which three
new satellite towns would be developed outside the Lahore District the demand in these
new development areas would be more than triple the existing level.
Travel growth outside Lahore District is mainly concentrated along radial corridors outside
Lahore. Ferozewala Tehsil would grow at a faster rate than the other two Tehsils of
Muridke and Sharaqpur Sharif. Same is the case with the two adjoining areas of Tehsil
Kasur and Pattoki in the south. Only if, Scenario 3 is taken up then the travel demand
would be much high to/ from Pattoki and Kasur areas. Total trip productions as tabulated
above are also depicted in Figure 4.1.1 following this page. The growth in trips by 2020
and 2030 over 2010 is presented in Table 4.1.2, and shows that travel demand is highest
under scenario 3, and lowest under Scenario 2 in Lahore district – representing the
majority of the demand, for both 2020 and 2030.
Further differences in regional growth are shown in Figure 4.1.1 on the following page for
the 15 towns of Lahore and Tehsil areas of Sheikhupura and Kasur included in the Study
Area.
4-2
Table 4.1.2 The Study Area Forecast Growth in Trips from 2010
Trip Productions ('000)
Town / Tehsil
No. Obs-
Name 2020-S1 2020-S2 2020-S3 2030-S1 2030-S2 2030-S3
2010
1 Ravi 751 974 995 1,002 1,173 1,216 884
2 Data Gunj Baksh 1,103 1,408 1,438 1,451 1,732 1,788 1,191
3 Samanabad 850 1,072 1,078 1,089 1,304 1,310 1,232
4 Shalamar 695 704 716 724 810 834 760
5 Gulberg 1,142 1,147 1,204 1,219 1,453 1,588 1,298
6 Aziz Bhatti 555 663 564 570 974 709 736
7 Wagah 405 666 562 567 1,012 773 816
8 Nishtar 482 1,369 1,340 1,026 2,428 2,366 1,992
9 Iqbal 810 1,554 1,503 1,277 2,690 2,657 1,886
10 Cantonment 725 1,083 1,006 998 1,536 1,379 1,410
11 Ferozewala 265 595 834 847 998 1,602 2,057
12 Muridke 155 236 230 386 329 315 961
13 Sharaqpur Sharif 57 108 110 112 137 142 145
14 Kasur 81 129 131 300 163 168 769
15 Pattoki 108 146 149 331 195 202 811
1-10 Lahore 7,518 10,640 10,406 9,923 15,112 14,620 12,205
11-13 Sheikhupura 477 939 1,174 1,345 1,464 2,059 3,163
14-15 Kasur 189 275 280 631 358 370 1,580
1-15 LUTMP 8,184 11,854 11,860 11,899 16,934 17,049 16,948
4-3
Figure 4.1.1 Forecast Trip Productions (‘000) by Town/Tehsil and by Three Scenarios
4-4
4.2 Assessment of Supply Demand Gaps
LUTMP 4-stage travel demand model was run for the two (2020 and 2030) forecast years
and the three development scenarios. Table 4.2.1 presents the prevailing (2010) road
capacity and assigned daily traffic volumes for 2010, 2020 and 2030 for all three
scenarios. It can be seen that in 2010 there is limited capacity available in the network
across major canal crossing, rail crossings, Ravi crossings and also in and out of the
Study Area cordon. Only at Ravi the Volume / Capacity (V/C) Ratio exceeds 0.7 in 2010.
This shows that overall during the day the network is operating at fairly good level of
service, however during peak periods there would be higher congestion towards the city
areas.
A significant reason for lower congestion across these roads is that over the last decade
there has been a number of urban road improvement project e.g. Lahore Ring Road,
widening of Ferozepur Road, Canal Bank Road under passes, new crossings over canal
(Mall Rd 2nd Bridge), Muslim Town bridge etc.
Table 4.2.1 LUTMP Screenline and Cordon Capacity and Traffic Volume
Total Daily Two Way Total (Private + Public + Goods Vehicle) PCUs ('000)
Screenline Description 2010 Daily 2010, Daily 2020, Daily Two Way Volumes 2030, Daily Two Way Volumes
Capacity Volume Scenario-I Scenario-II Scenario-III Scenario-I Scenario-II Scenario-III
Canal East of Mall Road 1,193 298 461 440 434 676 609 592
Canal West of Mall Road 1,811 553 879 902 886 1,337 1,369 1,319
Railway Crossings East-West 1,186 757 961 1,023 1,075 1,195 1,484 1,634
Railway Crossings North-South 983 321 540 539 534 864 844 823
Ravi River Crossings 461 327 461 521 577 740 899 1,033
Study Area Cordon 1,036 335 482 526 577 750 790 839
Total Daily Two Way Volume Capacity (V/C) Ratio
Screenline Description 2010 Daily 2010 2020, Daily Two Way V/C Ratio 2030, Daily Two Way V/C Ratio
Capacity V/C Ratio Scenario-I Scenario-II Scenario-III Scenario-I Scenario-II Scenario-III
Canal East of Mall Road 1,193 0.25 0.39 0.37 0.36 0.57 0.51 0.50
Canal West of Mall Road 1,811 0.31 0.49 0.50 0.49 0.74 0.76 0.73
Railway Crossings East-West 1,186 0.64 0.81 0.86 0.91 1.01 1.25 1.38
Railway Crossings North-South 983 0.33 0.55 0.55 0.54 0.88 0.86 0.84
Ravi River Crossings 461 0.71 1.00 1.13 1.25 1.61 1.95 2.24
Study Area Cordon 1,036 0.32 0.47 0.51 0.56 0.72 0.76 0.81
By 2020 all Ravi crossings would have reached capacity for most of the day. East-west
traffic across railways would be congested. Traffic across canal would be operating at
about 50 % of its capacity. These roads are mostly encroachment free; therefore the level
congestion on these roads is not so severe. However, the congestion on the inner city
roads poses a very different picture, to be discussed later.
4-5
By 2030, irrespective of the scenarios, traffic volume on almost all screenlines would
reach near capacity level, as can be seen from Table 4.2.1 above. This level of
congestion is the outcome of more than doubling of total travel demand in the Study Area.
In some cases the demand would even reach three times that of 2010 traffic volumes.
Figure 4.2.1 below illustrates the 2010 assigned traffic volumes. Congestion is clear by
the colour Orange (V/C Ratio 0.7~1.0) indicating that the network is under stress, and in
peak periods could reach capacity. Ravi Bridge is already at Capacity – colour Red
(Volume / Capacity Ratio 1.0~1.5), indicating immediate action is required to address the
poor traffic condition and low journey speeds to cross Ravi in the north. The blue section
indicates that the network is operating at V/C ratio 0.5 to 0.7 indicates that during
average hour the journey speed would be acceptable in urban areas. The Green sections
show V/C Ratio below 0.5. But it does not imply that there is no congestion. These are
mostly local access roads, and inner city streets. In this case the local intra-zonal traffic
would take up considerable capacity, as these (intra-zonal) trips are not assigned to the
network. Colour Green on Lahore Ring Road (LRR) northern and eastern sections
indicates poor utilisation i.e. below 50 % of its capacity, indicates it poor accessibility and
function as a ‘Ring Road’ to take through traffic out of the local city roads.
Figure 4.2.1 2010 Traffic Assignment Traffic Volumes (PCU) and V/C Ratio
4-6
Figure 4.2.2 compares the assigned traffic volumes in 2020 under three different
development Scenarios. It can be seen that under these scenarios all major arterial and
radial roads in/ out of the city would be at capacity. LRR still would be reasonably
congestion free, indicating its poor utilisation. All three bridges would be well over
capacity, except in case of Scenario 2, (compact development), as in this case motorway
would still have some capacity. Scenario 3 would overload Multan Road and Raiwind
Road in the south and all bridges and G.T. Road in the north; indicates much higher travel
demand to/ from the three satellite towns and Lahore city.
Similarly Figure 4.2.3 compares the assigned traffic volumes in 2030 under the three
different development Scenarios. It illustrates that under all scenarios all major arterial
and radial roads in/ out of the city, and local distributors would be at V/C Ratio of 1.0 or
even 50 % over capacity (some reaching more than twice the capacity – Ravi bridges,
Ferozepur road, sections of Multan and Raiwind roads would be at more than 150 % of
the capacity.
LRR still would not even be close to capacity as most of its sections would be at V/C ratio
around 0.7. All three Ravi bridges would be well over capacity. Scenario 3 would overload
Multan Road and Raiwind Road in the south and all bridges and G.T. Road in the north to
demand levels much higher than the other two scenarios and would be well beyond their
capacities by 2030.
4-7
4-8
4-9
TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT
STRATEGY
FINAL REPORT
CHAPTER 5 – TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY
5 TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY
5.1 Overall Transport Policy
5.1.1 Background
1) Vision 2030
Pakistan’s strategic priorities are summarized in “Vision 2030” prepared by Planning

Commission, Government of Pakistan in August 2007. The Vision 2030 statement
approved by NEC envisages a “developed, industrialized, just and prosperous Pakistan
through rapid and sustainable development in a resource constrained economy by
deploying knowledge inputs”.
In the “Vision 2030” there are some important comments and targets, directly or indirectly
related to Lahore, for example:
z “With the present infrastructure, it will not be possible to expect our enterprises to
become part of, and players in the international supply chain, or to facilitate new
investments in industry, agriculture and services.” (p.67)
z “Reducing delays in our transport system is critical instrument for the cost of doing
business, and hence increasing our competitiveness.” (p.67)
z “Lahore, a sprawling metropolis of 8.5 million, has fewer than 150 traffic lights,
which are measures of insufficient traffic management. The result is severe traffic
congestion.” (p.96)
z “Lahore returns to being a city of intellectual activity and entertainment. Half a

dozen foreign universities will have made it their first overseas campus; together
with its older well known Pakistani universities. They will offer a variety of studies to
people from across the world. The Mall will have a large number of theatres and
restaurants, with the walled city and historical monuments becoming a heaven for
tourists and students. Its industrial estates, technology parks, and shopping
centres will rival the best in the region. It’s cultural and art festivals will attract a
large numbers of domestic and international tourists. “ (p.99)
The realization of the Vision 2030 is complex, expensive, needs firm planning policy, and
development strategies. Over the last decade various Governments of the Punjab have
attempted to meet this challenge and started a number of projects. A number of these
projects have been completed, some are on-going and numerous are still in the planning
phase.
5-1
2) Current Status
The Study analysis presented in this report clearly shows that Lahore transport system is
‘living on borrowed time’, using but not maintaining – its road network, while adding little to
its infrastructure inherited from our fore-fathers and the colonial masters. A clear example
is the wide ‘Right of Way’ (RoW) left along almost all arterial roads and even right through
the city centre for us to constantly abuse and waste away by setting up hawker stalls,
storage areas for adjacent shops, out-right encroachment by buildings (including
encroachment by Government buildings, police stations and mosques alike.). The
continuation of this practice in a fast growing mega city, without any policy and transport
development strategies, land use control, lack of project planning and implementation and
enforcement of rules and regulations is unsustainable. With a relatively robust population
and economic growth, the number of private cars has been increasing significantly,
placing a severe burden on the roads. With a weak traffic management the congestion is
becoming serious day by day.
Currently GoPb has no ‘officially approved’ urban transport policy to follow. In 2007 Urban
Unit P&D prepared a Draft Urban Transport Policy. This document was prepared in the
light of Government of Pakistan Vision 2030. It had been circulated to various departments
and agencies, but still awaits final approval.
The draft policy document has no official standing. Given the current state of the urban
transport in Lahore (the Punjab Capital) and other major cities of the Punjab, the
document is rather ambitious, and perpetrates to achieve the unachievable, given the past
record of achievements by the provincial and city authorities, and the development budget
constraints of the GoPb. The draft policy document lacks clarity, and is remote from
day-to-day reality as it has totally failed to address the financial aspects and social
constraint to achieve the stated policy goals. However, the documents objectives are
‘noble’, and some of these could be achieved through serious and committed GoPb
unwavering ‘will’ and strong interventions for funding and implementation.
The Study’s transport development strategies try to adopt some (all or in part) of the policy
objectives, where possible and feasible within the GoPb budget envelope.
5.1.2 Urban Transport Policy for Lahore
1) Objective of the Policy
The key objectives of the Lahore urban transport policy are:
z To facilitate the development and promulgation of a comprehensive legal and

regulatory framework for an integrated institutional arrangement which ensures
close coordination and enhances sustainability of the urban transport system.
5-2
z To provide a framework for development of a sustainable and secure financing of

the urban transport system through diversified revenue sources and public private
partnership.
z To facilitate the development of urban transport infrastructure and public transport

facilities by responsible institutions and agencies.
z To improve and modernize the system of asset management.
z To enhance the safety, affordability and equity of the urban transport system.
z To restructure the utilization of urban road space through Integrated land-use,

transport planning and traffic management.
z To progressively enhance the use of Information and Communication Technology

(ICT) aiming at reduced traffic pollution and improved air quality in urban areas.
z Capacity enhancement of relevant institutions to effectively plan, implement,

operate, control and manage urban transport system
z Development of responsible and mature attitude of road users, through a well

designed education and campaign program.
2) General Policy Principles
Transport infrastructure is the foundation of urban development, as development takes

place along, and is greatly affected by, transport facilities such as roads, urban railway,
and terminals. Roads also provide important space for urban utilities, such as water supply,
drainage, electricity, and telecommunications, as well as venue for the people’s varied
activities, opportunities for disaster prevention, and improved landscape. Efficient
transport system is critical in linking Lahore to international gateways for trade and tourism,
and at the same time to integrate it with other provinces in Pakistan thereby creating
synergy from the growth and development being experienced in both areas. Key policy
principles to remember in urban transport development are as follows:
(a) Establish effective intermodal transport system and logistics services that are
competitive in international/regional trade and passenger travel: Since the
growth and development of Lahore are becoming increasingly connected with the
regional and the international communities and markets, transport infrastructure and
services such as roads and railways must be continuously upgraded to ensure
seamless and effective movement of people and goods.
(b) Develop efficient and high-quality public transport system: The future urban
passenger travel of Lahore must be based on a public transport network. It must be
attractive and competitive enough to encourage the people to shift from private
5-3
transport use. The public transport system must have a good combination and
network of urban railway, bus rapid transit (BRT), ordinary buses of different sizes
offering various services, taxis, etc. Urban development must likewise be integrated
with public transport development to enhance accessibility, safety, and environment.
(c) Establish effective management system: Effective management of traffic and

transport infrastructure, including proper maintenance, traffic control, parking
management, safety improvement, pollution control, pedestrian safety, among others,
is critical in optimizing available, expensive infrastructure. While it is expected that
traffic congestion would worsen mainly due to increases in the ownership and use of
private cars, more drastic measures to manage transport demand may also have to be
introduced such as higher vehicle registration fees, stricter parking management, etc.
Increasing the capacity to provide funds as well as to address resettlement issues
must also be seriously attended to.
3) Suggested Policies
(1) Enhancement of Institutional Capacity for Integration of Urban Transport System
An integrated urban transport system requires a unified, consolidated and an independent

transport institution for the entire city, with sound mechanisms for integration and
coordination with other federal, provincial and local government departments, agencies
and authorities. The GoPb shall establish an effective legal and regulatory framework for
the establishment and management of a unified, consolidated and independent transport
institution.
Urban transport institutions in Punjab lacks in both institutional and human resource
capacity. Significant efforts are required at institutional and personal level for the
development of sustainable transport system. The Government shall develop capacity in
the transport sector institutions by strengthening their professional and organizational
capacity. In-house skill development shall be enhanced by providing scholarships for
higher studies, continuous in service training programs and career development.
(2) Development of Urban Railway System
The potential roles of railway in Lahore manifest in two ways. One, it forms the backbone
of the public transport system by providing efficient and high-quality services. Two, it
promotes a more effective urban growth and land use through the integrated development
of transport and urban development. Rail transport development is a critical determinant
of the future urban growth and the realization of a public transport-based city. Key
principles to be considered are as follows:
(a) Define clearly the role and capability of Pakistan Railway: PR has the potential to
5-4
contribute to inter-city and suburban/urban transport services. However, these two

services are often contradictory in large urban areas due mainly to the differences in
the nature of their services and required operation, although the opportunity to use PR
for suburban/urban services is large if it is improved in the nationwide scale.
(b) Develop rapid mass transit system (RMTS): A network of RMTS comprising urban
railway lines and BRTs must be developed to provide the city with a core public
transport system offering high-quality services and integrating all major urban areas
and activity centers.
(c) Establish sustainable mechanism to develop RMTS network: RMTS requires a

large amount of investment and a lengthy period of time before it is realized. It must
be developed as a network with good coverage and in integration with efficient feeder
services. Strategies for an integrated development, strategic funding, and phased
development must be made clear to sustain the development of the envisioned
network.
(3) Strengthening of Bus Transport System
Bus is and will be the most important mode of public transportation system in Lahore.
Although urban rail is expected to play a major role in the future, the coverage will be
limited and many corridors and areas will remain unserved because it requires lengthy
time and huge costs for construction of such system. Bus also provides important feeder
services for urban rail. Key planning principles should be as follows:
(a) Develop integrated and attractive bus system: Bus services must be developed as
an integrated network to provide convenient services between origins and
destinations, comprising various types of modes and services including BRT, express
buses, air-conditioned buses, minibuses, wagons, etc. The services must also be
attractive and competitive to encourage a shift from private transport.
(b) Establish a sustainable bus operation and management system: The current
dominance of buses and wagons in Lahore may not guarantee further successes in
the future when diversified services are required, more bus units need to be managed
and wider areas have to be covered. Besides, people demand improved services at
affordable prices. Hence sustainable bus operation and management systems must
be established.
(c) Provide adequate environment for private sector to invest in public transport
services: An effective way to improve bus services is providing fair competition
among operators. Since Lahore needs expanded and diversified bus services,
providing opportunities for new investors to offer such services in a competitive
5-5
manner must be considered.
(4) Improvement of Roads
Roads are the most important and fundamental infrastructure. They provide space for
traffic and various activities in urban areas, determine the growth directions and patterns
of urban areas, and contribute to the improvement of landscape and disaster prevention.
Roads are also important to link Lahore with other regional and international markets and
communities. To achieve this, arterial roads must be upgraded, particularly for the
bottlenecks across the Ravi River. Key principles to be considered are as follows:
(a) Segregate interprovincial and urban traffic: Interprovincial traffic must be

segregated from urban traffic to prevent heavy traffic from passing through the city.
Adequate interface between these two types of traffic must be provided at the
peripheries of urban areas around the Lahore Ring Road which will be
access-controlled with interchanges/flyovers at major intersections.
(b) Establish clear ring and radial road systems: Urban roads must be developed in a
hierarchical manner, i.e. primary, secondary, and tertiary, wherein the primary and
secondary road networks must be in good condition. The primary road system,
comprising ring roads and radial roads, must be completed. The secondary road
network should likewise be developed to distribute traffic to all urban areas efficiently.
(c) Establish more effective mechanism for at-grade road development: Tertiary and
lower-level roads must likewise be developed based on traffic management plans and
together with urban development control measures. Developers must provide roads or
road space as specified in the plan. The integrated approach is also important to
effectively secure lands for infrastructure and resettlement.
(5) Traffic Management and Safety
Effective traffic management is important not only to ensure smooth circulation and safe
vehicular traffic but also to improve the amenity and safety of pedestrians, roadside
residents and activities. The restricted use of road space also enhances the landscape
and the city’s image. As car ownership is expected to increase sharply in the future while
road development is expected to be limited, managing the demand for private transport
will become a more serious concern. Key principles to consider are as follows:
(a) Enhance people’s awareness of the need for traffic discipline and the efficient
use of road space: Many traffic accidents in Lahore are caused by human error,
principally due to lack of discipline or disregard for basic traffic rules. Social awareness
of road traffic safety issues must be enhanced by all means.
5-6
(b) Establish an effective traffic management system: Good traffic management is

most fundamental in ensuring efficient flows of traffic, effective use of available
facilities, as well as orderly, safe, and comfortable activities on the road space. This is
particularly important in the central area of Lahore where traffic situation is serious
already and is worsening rapidly.
(6) Rationalization of Freight Transport
Freight transport planning and development supported by land use control, modal
integration and amalgamated with transport network is essential to improve living
environment, to promote domestic labour market, to reduce local traffic congestion and to
improve infrastructure life. Unregulated axle weights, unplanned truck station locations
due to poor land use control and shop loading in the city centres bring about congestion
and deterioration of road infrastructure and environment. This could be optimized through
restraining freight movement in short term basis while can be addressed though zoning
and land use control on long term basis.
(7) Non-motorized Transport
Non Motorized Transport modes (NMT) i.e. walk and bicycle has predominant share in our
daily trips therefore NMT network planning must be integrated with detailed road section
planning and intersection planning. Government shall develop regulatory framework for
rights and responsibilities of pedestrians and cyclist in traffic enforcement laws and
regulations. Government shall also develop planning guidelines and standards for
provision of cyclist and pedestrian facilities in road infrastructure design.
(8) Diversification of Fund Sources
The main funding source for Lahore is derived mainly from balancing allocations of the
Federal Government. Local revenue, household investments, and external sources such
as Foreign Direct Investments (FDIs) and Official Development Assistance (ODA) is not
salient. The revenue base should be expanded and diversified. Some of the possible
initiatives are 1) Applying User Charges and Service Fees, 2) Expansion of Local
Revenue Base, 3) Access to Capital Markets and Other Credit Finance, and 4) Application
of Public-Private Partnership (PPP).
5-7
5.2 Selection of Urban Development Scenario
5.2.1 Scenario Assessment
In Chapter 3 of this report, three urban development scenarios were presented. These
scenarios were assessed as follows:
Urban development point of view
Scenario 2 and 3 are both excellent for a city with a population over 10 million in terms of
mobility, living environment and conservation of greeneries and agricultural land. From the
standpoint of reality, Scenario 1 (Zero Option - Trend) is the easiest way. However,
Scenario 2 and 3 are also realistic only if strong ‘political will’ and leadership are
guaranteed in planning and funding. Scenario 3, however, may be slightly weak in flexibility
because the timing of project implementation must be consistent with population increase
and high-speed transport system will be required in the long run to support the intended
structure of the metropolis.
In contrast, Scenario 2 has a favourable flexibility to shift from Scenario 1 to Scenario 2

depending on the timing of public transport development.
Transport development point of view
It is imperative for Lahore to have a robust public transport system to serve citizen that
cannot afford private cars. Moreover, under the foreseen rapid motorization, roads will be
more and more seriously congested, and modal shift from private to public transport
should be strategically promoted.
For this strategy, Scenario 2 is the most desirable since this scenario has been prepared
and designed assuming a network of urban rail systems. Actually, patronage of the
proposed RMTS lines (Green, Orange, Blue and Purple) is the highest for Scenario 2 as
outlined below:
2030 Scenario 1: 1,890 thousand passengers per day
Environmental/ social point of view
Table 5.2.1 summarizes environmental/ social aspects of the three urban development
scenarios. Generally, Scenario 3 is the most favourable. However, the difference between
Scenario 3 and 2 is very small.
5-8
Table 5.2.1 Environmental/ Social Aspects of Urban Development Scenarios

Anticipated
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3
Impact
Impacts on Difficult to provide favorable Gradual enhancement of living Gradual enhancement of living
Social living environment for many environment can be expected in the environment can be expected in the
Environment people due to continued built-up area in the north and high built-up area in the north and urban
over-saturation of the mobility due to public transport expansion in the area of poor mobility
built-up area in the north development in expanded urban area will be restricted. Living environment in
and insufficient mobility in can be expected. Lahore will be much improved as a
the expanded residential whole and that of suburban cities could
area. be favorable, depending on city
planning.
Impact on Due to lack of planning, Owing to planned urbanization In terms of conservation of greenery
Natural disorderly land use will control, conservation of greenery and and agricultural land, this scenario is
Environment continue and conservation agricultural land can be done in an the best for Lahore. However, the
of greenery and agricultural orderly manner. situation may become worse in
land will become difficult. suburban areas.
Impact on Extent of environmental Extent of environmental pollution Extent of environmental pollution such
Environmental pollution such as air such as air pollution, water pollution as air pollution, water pollution and
Pollution pollution, water pollution and noise will improve considerably if noise will improve considerably if
and noise will increase due effective measures are implemented effective measures are implemented
to no practice of effective together with greening and proper together with greening and proper
measures. application of land use regulation. application of land use regulation.
However, there is some possibility of However, there is some possibility of
pollution due to iron/steel industrial pollution due to iron/steel industrial
estate suburban areas. estate suburban areas.
5.2.2 Recommended Scenario
Based on the discussion above, Scenario 2 has been selected as the most favorable
scenario.
Although rapid increase of car ownership cannot be suppressed as desired, the pace of
motorization could be slowed down to a considerable extent. The following figure shows
conceptually the target for mode shares for 2030. The target mode share of RMTS is 10%
in 2030 excluding walk trips. If other public transport modes are taken into account, the
target modal share of public transport could be about 34 % in 2030.
Figure 5.2.1 Indicative Target for Modal Share for 2030
5-9
5.3 Budget Envelope
5.3.1 Context
Pakistan has huge development needs and only modest government funds. It appears to
be strongly committed to largely fluctuating social, political and economic situation. In the
short to medium-term (next 10 years) there is probably no realistic option other than to:
z Reform the tax system and raise own-revenues. Sector policies that are
economically efficient will help do this.
z Develop the PPP framework, applying this where practicable, and
z Secure low-cost ODA (JICA provides most ODA – typically 30 year loans at <2%
interest rate with 10 year grace).
5.3.2 Estimate of Budget Envelope

1) Past Investment on Transport Development
As stated earlier in Chapter 2 of this report, provincial finance of Punjab has expanded
development expenditure, i.e., 24.6% of the budget in 2005-06 to 38.5% in 2009-10. As
results, provincial development expenditure sharply increased from PKR 63 billion in
2005-06 to PKR 175 billion in 2009-10 or by 2.8 times. According to the Punjab
Development Programme 2010-11, however, only about PKR 11 billion is allocated to
urban transport development budget in Lahore. This includes road infrastructure, transport
service (mainly subsidy for the purchase of bus units) and special infrastructure (LRR and
RMTS).
This amount (PKR 11 billion) is equivalent to about 0.8% of the 2010 GDP of the Study
Area, estimated to be PKR 1,341 billion. Although development budget is likely to increase
gradually in the future, the realistic target would be 0.8% to 1.0% of the GDP.
2) Empirical Viewpoint
JICA has conducted urban transport master plan studies in various cities in the developing
world. In most cases, its investment target for urban transport development has been
around 3% of the city’s GDP. Note, however, that this target includes maintenance of
transport infrastructure, and therefore actual expenditure for new transport infrastructure
is considerably lower than this level.
3) Budget Envelope
Judging from the above, the following three levels of budget envelope can be considered.
That is:
5-10
1% of GDP: Conventional level
2% of GDP: Realistic if revenue measures are taken
3% of GDP: Ambitious
Note that this budget covers investment for urban transport infrastructure (including
improvement and rehabilitation).
Table 5.3.1 shows budget envelop estimated for the Study Area for these three levels. For
20 years by 2030, the envelope ranges from PKR 527 billion (USD 6.2 billion) to PKR
1,582 billion (USD 18.6 billion). The envelope decreases to about 1/3 of this level for the
first 10 years (2011-2020).
Table 5.3.1 Budget Envelope for Transport Development
LUTMP GDP Transport Development Budget (PKR billion)

Years
(PKR billion) @ 1% of GDP @ 2% of GDP @ 3% of GDP
2011-15 7,730 77 155 232
2016-20 10,546 105 211 316
2021-25 14,514 145 290 435
2026-30 19,958 200 399 599
2011-20 18,276 183 366 548

2021-30 34,471 345 689 1,034
2011-30 52,747 527 1,055 1,582

5.3.3 Application of Budget Envelope
1) Reason for Adopting the Budget Envelope
Budget envelope is considered essential to creating a meaningful urban transport strategy,

because:
z It enables to formulate a core investment strategy consistent with the ‘Low’ budget
estimate (that will ‘almost certainly’ be available), and
z It becomes possible to identify extra investments, to be implemented if higher

levels of spending became available.
In LUTMP, the proposed projects have been selected vis-à-vis this budget envelope.
Without this approach there is every danger the strategy would not be financially
constrained. It would then be little more than a wish-list of politically attractive projects.
5-11
2) Issues in Application
In applying budget envelope, the following issues arise:
z What scale of additional financing will be available from the private sector, as a
result of implemented concessions?
z It is a common practice to assume that private financing from concessions is

additional to the public sector budget envelope. Also extra fund may be produced
by e.g. raising fuel taxes, parking charges etc.
z The approach depends upon project costing being realistic. We know that many
costing are unrealistic such that major cost escalation takes place when the
project is implemented. It follows that we should check the credibility of cost
estimates. If the costs are far too low they undermine the credibility of the
approach.
z Part of the budget envelope is already committed by projects under construction

or about to start. Line agencies naturally try to say there is a high level of
commitment so that their projects can proceed.
5-12
5.4 Public Transport (PT)
5.4.1 General
The Study surveys analysis showed that in Lahore the public transport (PT) mode share is
anything between 40~60% depending on the corridor and time of day. It is significant to
note that many Asian cities are spending hundreds of millions of Dollars to achieve even
10% PT mode share. In Lahore, public transport system could be vastly improved, at no
great cost to the public purse, and simultaneously subsidy could be reduced or removed
once for all. This has been done in other big cities of Asia and the World. In view of the
high mode share of buses this could be done in Lahore.
For large urban areas, such as Lahore, the only way to effectively meet transport demand
is to provide the city with a high-quality public transport system which must be developed
in integration with urban development. The core network will be composed of urban rail
(RMTS) and bus rapid transit (BRT). Secondary and feeder services will be by buses with
different sizes and types of services. However, building a good public transport system is
not an easy task; it requires large amounts of funds and operation and management
capacities over a long period of time. Fares to be collected from users will hardly pay for
the investment cost and poorly developed systems can attract only a limited number of
passengers. Experiences of successful cities clearly indicate that mass transit networks
serve as the backbone of the urban structure and are integrated with urban land use and
development.
A public-transport-oriented city cannot be realized solely by introducing mass transit as a

mode of transportation; it must also be associated with effectively integrated urban areas
and a corresponding lifestyle shift by the people. Key considerations must be given to the
following:
(a) Integrated Urban Development: Land use and urban development must be
reorganized along the mass transit corridors in a way that socio-economic
activities are more effectively articulated with mass transit. This requires a review
of the existing urban master plan which is rather road-transportation-based.
(b) Adequate Role-sharing with Private Transport: Private transport, including cars,
motorcycles, and bicycles, is also an equally important mode as the society
becomes affluent and demands diversify. Private transport modes are also
important feeder services to mass transit systems.
(c) Long-term Commitment: A successful mass-transit-based city cannot be

realized in a short time but needs long-term, consistent policy intervention and the
people’s good understanding and support.
5-13
5.4.2 Urban Rail Based Mass Transit Development
Figure 5.4.1 presents the timing of urban rail development in major cities of South Asia,
Central Asia and Middle East in comparison with national GDP per capita and city’s
population. In these regions, there are four cities where modern urban rail has been
developed, i.e. Kolkata, Delhi, Cairo and Tehran.
It is interesting to note that urban railway is developed when city’s GDP is between USD 3
billion and 30 billion (in 2000 constant prices) as shown in Figure 5.4.1. It is true not only in
this region but in other developing regions. And more importantly, Lahore is already in the
‘zone’. This implies that Lahore should have an urban rails based mass transit system
judging from the world-wide trend.
Following the world trend, JICA in its previous 1991 transport master plan study had
proposed an LRT system, along one of the busiest corridors of Lahore, with PT mode
share reaching as high as 60% along some of its sections. However, due to various
reasons the project could not be implemented.
Figure 5.4.1 Timing of Urban Rail Development in Major Cities of South Asia,
Central Asia and Middle East in Relation to GDP per Capita and Population
Dhaka
GDP per capita to Urban Population (1960‐2010) －South Asia,Central Asia,Mideast－
10,000 Kolkata (Calcutta)
Mumbai (Bombay)
Delhi
GDP per capita (USD 2000 constant, WDI)
Hyderabad
Pune (Poona)
Lahore
Karachi
1,000 Kathmandu
Baku
Tehran
Baghdad
Damascus
Cairo
metro open
100 GRDP=$3bln
100 1,000 10,000 100,000
GRDP=$30bln
Population (x1000, UN)
Source: Population: World Urbanization Prospect 2009 (UN), GDP per capita: WDI2008
The GoPb also made a second attempt to give Lahore a rail based mass transit system in
2005. Consultants MVA Asia carried out a feasibility study and proposed a network of four
lines to be implemented over the next 20 years. However, implementation of this plan has
also not been materialized due to various reasons. Currently, the GoPb is considering to
get the Chinese funding/ backing to implement the priority line in the near future. This
system is essential, if implemented, it would form the back-bone of the Lahore public
5-14
transport system.
5.4.3 Urban Road Based Mass Transit Development and Conventional Bus Services
Figure 5.4.1 also illustrates that cities which have just entered the rail-based mass transit
zone, could very well benefit from low cost Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system. Such BRT
system could meet the PT demand not only in the short-medium term for medium demand
corridors, but may be converted to a rail based mass transit high capacity system in the
future.
JICA 1991 master plan had also proposed some corridors to be served by BRT systems,
but none has materialized as yet. Currently, LTC is studying/ considering the introduction
of the BRT along some of the medium-high demand corridors in Lahore. The status of
these studies is not yet clear.
However, LUTMP recommends an integrated PT transport system for Lahore. The

proposed system need to be sustainable, and should meet the future travel demand
efficiently through a combination of rail-based mass transit, BRT, Large Bus, Wagon and
feeder services. For BRT system development, the same key principles as urban rail may
apply.
5.4.4 Bus Services
The goal should be to turn the whole of the bus industry in the Study Area to genuine
private operation. GoPb has already taken steps to address this issue by setting up
Lahore Transport Company (in 2010). The organization is in its infancy, and finding it hard
to establish its authority. LTC goals and objectives are rather mixed. However, it has
started to assert its control on illegal operation, monitoring of service quality etc. But it has
a long way to go yet.
Over the last 3 to 4 years the number of large buses have declined sharply from around
1,000 to about 300, and GoPb has failed to win over private sector investment for the
introduction of larger (more efficient) CNG (environment friendly) buses. It is essential that
robust demand analysis be used to establish high occupancy and low occupancy routes.
The existing gazetted routes were notified using the information and data from ages old
routes, with very basic demand data analysis. The route definition was mostly based on
intuitions and whims of the implementers, and on occasions through collusion of the route
planning/ issuing authorities with the operators. Such practices lead to inefficient operation,
as this was done mostly to give some operators unfair advantage by eliminating ‘fair’
competition.
It is essential that healthy competition exists; people have choice and good quality service.
5-15
This requires establishing of new High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) (Bus Size of 50 seats)
routes and rationalization of existing HoV routes. In addition rationalization of Wagon
routes is also required and it is well over due. The Wagons should operate in low-medium
PT demand corridors, and with more of a feeder role, than the main line haul service. In
addition, para-transit modes using low demand routes also need to be reviewed to provide
adequate PT demand for the Wagons.
Currently the normal bus and wagon fares are the same. These need to be reviewed to
ensure that Bus operators with much higher capital cost investment (bus price) can afford
to run a good service and make reasonable profit on their return. Currently, subsidy is paid
to compensate for high fuel prices. But this has lead to confrontation between the
operators and the GoPb, as the operators were forced to keep the fares low. Subsidy
should be targeted for particular purposes and not just as a ‘safety net’ for the poor.
Subsidy if provided should be with ‘stick-and-carrot’ approach. The receiving operator
must ensure good, regular service, to receive subsidy, and this should be monitored
through performance based targets checked regularly by independent bodies.
5-16
5.5 Road Network Development
5.5.1 Demand/ Supply Gaps
The travel demand analysis has presented the gap between the available road capacity
and the demand in the previous chapter. The outcome is clear that with 3+% growth rate in
population, coupled with GRDP growth of about 6% the current network will not be able to
sustain the future road traffic demand. The primary strategy of road network development
is to fill the gaps by increasing road capacity. This is seriously considered in the master
plan particularly at the congested cross-section of Ravi River.
However, due to the fact that road development has hardly caught up with rapid
motorization in many cities of the world, road development has to be implemented as a
part of integrated transport system, i.e. in combination with public transport development
and transport demand management (TDM).
5.5.2 Already Proposed Projects
A number of highway projects proposed by various departments and agencies are in the
pipeline, at various stages of implementation. These are outlined in the next Chapter 6.
Some or all of these projects were evaluated and discussed in Chapter 7 of this report to
ascertain their feasibility and role in the overall highway network and the sustainable
transport system for Lahore. The master plan highway network strategy is not based on
demand alone. The overall consideration is based on a combination of best overall PT and
highway system, which is efficient and sustainable transport system from economic,
financial, operational and environmental point of views.
5-17
5.6 Traffic Management
Traffic condition/ situation in the central area of Lahore is the most serious in the Study
Area. Most inter-city and intra-city traffic concentrate there using radial arterial roads.
Disorderly traffic management and insufficient road infrastructure aggravate the situation.
The traffic management deficiencies need to be tackled urgently.
Focal areas for traffic management have been identified as shown in Figure 5.6.1. The
countermeasures for these areas should form the core programme of the Action Plan
proposed by the Study.
Other areas of Lahore also need attention in the master plan, such as:
z Civilizing the road system, where roads are used for travelling and not for
economic activity or storage, and for waste disposal and collection.
z Pedestrian facilities
z Severance issues
z Environmental issues of Noise, air pollution,
z Safety of pedestrians, cyclists and PT passengers alike, and
z Facilities for the physically impaired and Gender issues.
Figure 5.6.1 Focus Area for Traffic Management
Area #1
Area #3
Area #2

5-18
5.7 Modal Integration
Planning by subsector or project-based approach is no longer an effective method of

transport development. Concern is growing in the world on the disadvantages due to
uncoordinated/ un-integrated developments resulting in higher investment cost to
suppliers and low benefit and convenience to users. As urbanization proceeds, available
space becomes limited, people’s activity becomes concentrated, more quality services are
required, and social/ environmental condition tends to be aggravated. Transport sector is
thus required to adopt more integrated and coordinated approach in project planning and
implementation. Integration is required in relation not only to inter-modal issues but to
inter-sectoral and inter-agency activities.
In Lahore modal integration is simple, because the transport system is simple. Most of the
modal interchanges are between one public mode and the other at various termini in
Lahore. For example, Lahore Badami Bagh Bus terminal – where passengers change
from inter-city buses to intra-city buses, wagons, or other para transit modes.
Figure 5.7.1 (photo) shows the situation of this terminal; large buses and smaller wagons
park in queues in separate places without proper guideways and waiting sheds for
passengers, and a number of wagons are waiting on roads surrounding the terminal.
LUTMP proposes measures to enhance the efficiency of such termini, through better
management and to make public transport more attractive. Again with the goal to keep the
PT mode share at least at current levels (or improve it), and save it from sliding decline.
The decline in public mode share could be disastrous for the city’s economy and not to
mention the degradation of the environment.
Under the current transport system modal integration between PT modes is the likely
scenario. However, when developing an urban road- or rail-based mass transit systems,
integration of the private (car and motorcycle) and public system through park-n-ride type
of operation should also be considered, at project planning and implementation stage.
Figure 5.7.1 ‘Bird-eye’ View of Badami Bagh Bus Terminal
Source: Transport Department
5-19
5.8 Strengthening Institutional Capacity
1) Necessity of Organization Responsible for Realization of Master Plan
There is almost no Governmental organization responsible for realizing, monitoring and

updating the transport master plan. According to the regulation, TEPA is mandatory to
carry out such a function. TEPA’s achievements give too much weight to road traffic
engineering and minor road improvement. This is why in the past, transport master plans
have not been implemented, or sometimes completely ignored. A powerful organization
may be needed for realization of policies and projects of the transport master plan.
The transport master plan encompasses wide subsectors and a variety of projects with
different natures. Therefore, the said organization will be required to make decisions from
comprehensive and multidisciplinary viewpoints on project implementation.
To attain this, institutional arrangements will be necessary to establish a decision-making

board consisting of high-ranked officials of transport-related organizations. It should be
technically supported by a research and planning institute with high technologies and
expertise. The decision making board, named Transport Management Board (TMB),
which is strongly recommended to be established as part of institutional reforms proposed
by the Study.
It may be almost impossible to recruit qualified professionals at such a low salaries as

current wage system for Pakistan Government officials as well as other terms of recruiting
conditions. Consequently, the wage system needs to be revised upwards, especially for
higher ranked officials. Unless otherwise, the research and planning institute
abovementioned should be established to be free from the current official wage system.
On the other hand, it has to function as a part of Government under the Transport
Management Board, with close relation to Transport Department (TD). This
semi-Governmental agency is named Punjab Urban Transportation Planning and
Engineering Institute (PUTPEI).
The research and planning institute should work as a brain of the decision-making board
as well as the secretariat. Such institute is desirably operated not only with the official
budget, but also with its own financial sources.
While PUTPEI is a research and planning institute, another agency is needed to establish
for project execution, implementation and maintenance of transportation infrastructure,
facilities and schemes. This agency should not be bound by the official wage system as
well and to be allowed to conduct profit-oriented activities in order to become financially
self-sustainable. This is recommended to develop as a province-owned company
servicing to the Lahore City District, named Lahore Transport Development Company
5-20
(LTDC), comprising six divisions of administration, planning, rail transit, public bus,
parking and traffic management.
Figure 5.8.1 New Establishment for Transportation Development

Transport
(TD) (TMB)

Urban
Transport
Advisory
Lahore Transport Development Company Council
(LTDC) (LUTAC)
Transportation policies and projects are to be implemented, by widely reflecting public

opinion to exclude planners’ arbitrary decision and execution. To secure this, it is
recommended to establish a group advisory to LTDC, named Lahore Urban Transport
Advisory Council (LUTAC).
2) Capacity Development of Transport-related Organizations
Every transport-related agency is suffering from a shortage of qualified professionals

especially in planning sectors. Currently, there are no effective capacity development
programs or incentives for being trained. Such situations need to be improved
immediately.
Transport Planning Unit (TPU)
• TPU has to maintain and update various transport-related databases and then
TPU must have some staff versed in database.
• TPU will take over a set of LUTMP models and database and be responsible for
undertaking feasibility study. To shoulder there tasks, more capacity building is
needed especially in the field of socio-economic analysis and transport demand
forecast as well as project evaluation.
• A study group on PPP shall be established in the Transport Department. TPU

should take initiative in the study. To do this, more capacity building or recruitment
of new staff will be needed.
• To attain above, capacity building program shall be developed together with

preparation of budget to implement the program as well as utilization of
international technical cooperation.
5-21
Traffic Engineering and Planning Agency (TEPA)
• TEPA should also build capacity for demand analysis and project evaluation.
Demand analysis in TEPA ought to include micro-traffic simulation. Some of TEPA
staffs must be familiar with micro-traffic simulation.
• TEPA is responsible to develop an inventory of parking facilities and database of

parking demand. Using these inventory and database as well as LUTMP OD
matrices, TEPA should develop a parking demand forecast package and then
should develop capacities for these tasks.
• TEPA should start the preparatory studies for centralization of traffic signal control.
Reinforcement of Traffic Police
• Training traffic police to techniques is essential for traffic control especially at

intersections, enforcement of rules and regulations and crackdown of traffic
violations.
• Transfer of responsibility on Operation and Management (O&M) of traffic signal to

traffic police. For this, TEPA should take initiative.
• Traffic polices are to be trained to be familiar with computerized equipment.
• Training traffic polices includes making traffic enforcers familiar with on-line
operation of vehicle registration database and driving license database.
City/ District Government Office
• Historically, Pakistan Governmental Institutions has been strongly centralized and

the Local Governments were kept lack of capacity. This hinders to realize
decentralization policy. City District Government Lahore (CDGL) is currently
responsible for construction and development of roads, street light, solid waste
disposal, construction of hospital and dispensaries, primary schools and sewage
facility and parks. In all sectors, capacity building is needed especially for
execution and maintenance fields
• The Governments of local level are chronically suffering from shortage of capacity
not only in Lahore, but in other large cities. The provincial Government prepares
training programs and implements them. In the capacity development, some
incentive measures should be added.
3) Preservation of Space for Transport Facility by Law
Implementation of a master plan needs a huge investment and then a long time. Some
projects recommended in LUTMP would start after 10 or 15 years. Meantime, urbanization
5-22
would continue outward without stopping. Therefore, a trunk road could not be
constructed due to fully built-up areas in the alignment. Whereas it would be easy to build
in these areas now, or require land when the area is mostly open spaces or farm land.
Thus, restrictive measures will be necessary to build a new permanent structure in the
future right of way once the road alignment is officially determined based on the law. There
may be strong oppositions to make such a low because it restricts free utilization of a
private property. It is necessary, however, from the view of public benefits.
The urban planning law has to establish clearly;
a) Procedure to determine an urban planning road;
b) Restriction of development acts in the right of way of a determined urban planning

road;
c) Compulsory submission of a promissory note by the person to build a

not-permanent structure, promising that the person would demolish at the
commencement of road construction;
d) Land owners have to sell the land the Government at the market price; and
e) Punishment to the violators of the law.
Repetitive opinion polls and study on the similar laws in other countries would be
necessary before the law is established.
Such a determination system of an urban planning road is also applicable to develop a

trunk road in the central built-up area. Supposing a trunk road is planned by considering a
necessary conditions and desirable alignment, but ignoring the existing buildings and
officially determined taking the formal procedure provided by the law. If no building is
newly built for a long time, the right of gradually changes to open space. If the
Government buys vacant lots and constructs the road step by step, the road can be finally
completed, presumably after 50 years or 100 years after determination. If such a century
project be implemented patiently, a trunk road planned even in the urban centre. Figure
5.8.2 shows an example planned for the central area of Lahore, although new roads in the
Figure are not included in the LUTMP projects. If a land readjustment system is applied
together with the urban planning determination system, the construction will be
accelerated and public investment would be less.
5-23
Figure 5.8.2 Road Network Development by Applying Urban Planning Determination
Urban Planning Determination and Land Readjustment in Japan

Legal system for construction of urban roads is provided in Japanese City Planning Law, which is Land
purchasing system and Land readjustment system as illustrated below. Land purchasing system in the
Japanese city planning law is briefed as follows;
Once the Government makes city planning determination (official approval) on the planned roads, the road is
authorized as City planning roads. After the determination, city planning restrictions are imposed within the
areas of Right of Way (ROW) of the city planning roads. The restrictions include city planning restriction
(prohibition of building and rebuilding activities except some removable buildings) is to be enforced by Building
standard act. This aims to prevent land purchasing for the construction of the city planning roads from getting
difficult mainly due to construction of irremovable buildings/structures, soaring land prices and others within
ROW of the city planning roads.
Before After With Land Readjustment
Building constructions are, in principle, not allowed in areas where public facilities have been determined.
However, those which can meet the following conditions can take place provided that the prefectural governor’s
approval is received.
• The building is no more than 2 storey high without basement.

• The main structures are simple such as those of wood, iron frames or concrete blocks.
The landowners concerned should comply with these building restrictions for the sake of public interest; there is
no need for compensation, until the actual project implementation which may take scores of years to launch.
The building restrictions are enforced through the process of issuing building confirmation stipulated in the
Building Standard Law.
5-24
ONGOING AND PROPOSED

PROJECTS
FINAL REPORT
CHAPTER 6 – ONGOING AND PROPOSED PROJECTS
6. ONGOING AND PROPOSED PROJECTS
6.1. On-Going Projects
There are number of transportation related projects on-going in the Study Area in various
sectors, under a number of provincial departments, local government bodies, authorities
and agencies. This section provides an outline of all major on-going projects as available
to the Study Team by August, 2011, and their status has been updated again in October,
2011.
6.1.1. Lahore Ring Road (LRR)
The LRR is a circumferential road planned around the city, with the objective to keep most
of the through traffic out of the busy city roads, and to provide a high speed limited access
direct road connecting all the radial roads around Lahore. The Lahore Ring Road Project
was launched on December 22, 2004. The LRR Project is the biggest mega road project
ever undertaken by the GoPb.
The project was started as a single project, but due to unforeseen circumstance the
project was split into two parts: Northern and Southern sections of a loop around the city
with a radius of 10 to 20 km from the city centre. The north-eastern half loop is
under-construction, and likely to be completed by 2012 (as per discussion with C&W
dept.). The construction on the project started in 2006, and progress has been rapid.
Almost 80 % of the northern half of the loop has now been completed and is operational.
The salient features of the Lahore Ring Road are:
 A Dual-3 with ‘emergency lane hard shoulder’ limited access highway; a typical
cross-section of a completed section is depicted in Figure 6.1.1.
 All junctions are grade-separated, with slip roads for access and egress;
 The northern half intercepts the radial road in the north and to the east of the city;
whereas the southern half loop is planned to intercept the radial routes from the
south and south-west of the city – thus to keep the through traffic out of the city
 The highway permitted speed is 80 km/h.
 All vehicle types (except animal drawn carts) are allowed.
 There is no restriction for good vehicles of load/ size or time;
 Pedestrians are not allowed, nor vehicles are allowed to stop, except in case of
emergency;
 The project is being implemented in stages; the Northern section is split into 16
construction packages. Packages 1 through to 13 have been completed and are
operational and Packages 14~16 is under construction, due for completion by the
end of 2012.
6-1
 As per recent data the estimated completion cost of the northern section is
PKR 86 billion (USD 1.24 billion)
 The southern section is in the planning stages, and is discussed in the subsequent
sections of this Chapter.
At present almost all of the northern and eastern part, about 43 km is complete (except the
last section between Bedian Road and Ferozpur Road) with nine major interchanges, as
shown in Figure 6.1.2. The figure also illustrates trial section which is under construction.
Figure 6.1.1 Typical Cross Section of a Completed Section of LRR
6-2
Figure 6.1.2 LRR Northern Section Alignment and Status
Under
Construction
Source: NESPAK
6.1.2. Lahore Rapid Mass Transit System (LRMTS)
In the 1991 JICA Master Plan Study proposed a limited mass transit system (a Light Rail
System - LRT) a 13 km one LRT line for Lahore, along one of its busiest corridor –
Ferozepur Road. However, its implementation could not be realised due to numerous
unforeseen circumstance right up to 2004. In-line with the vision 2030, in 2004 the GoPb
launched the Lahore Rapid Mass Transit System (LRMTS) project to provide a
6-3
comprehensive network of mass transit lines for the people of Pakistan's second largest
city Lahore. In the 1st phase, GoPb commissioned international consultants to review all
previous work and develop a state-of-the-art mass transit network for the year 2025. The
Study was completed in 2006. The Study proposed a rail based mass transit prioritised
network of four lines (Figure 6.1.3) about 97 km, with 82 stations. The Study also
completed the feasibility of the 1st priority (Green) line. Again Ferozepur Road corridor
was proposed for the priority line envisioned to be completed by 2015/ 16.
GoPb taking on-board the recommendations started work in earnest on the

implementation of the system, by seeking funding from the Asian Development Bank
(ADB). In parallel the GoPb also commissioned consultants to proceed with the feasibility
study of the 2nd priority (Orange) line and also the reference design of the Priority (Green)
line. These studies were completed in 2007 and 2008 respectively. The feasibility studies
concluded that the mass transit lines are economically viable, and should be implemented
as planned in approximately one line every five years.
ADB conducted independent assessment of the feasibility studies, agreed to fund the
LRMTS project in phases, and approved to provide a Multi-tranche financing facility
(MMF) loan of USD one billion towards the capital cost of the priority (Green) line.
However, since 2008 negotiations with the ADB has been suspended. GoPb is seeking
alternative funding source for the 1st priority (Green) line from friendly countries. So far
there is no commitment for funding, but the details are confidential, as the negotiations for
the terms and conditions of the loan are on-going. The key features of the priority (Green)
line are outlined below:
 Green Line alignment is 27 km long, (15 km underground) from Hamza Town in

the South to Shahdara in the North;
 22 stations, 12 underground 10 elevated; 5 interchange stations would provide

direct transfer with the other 3 LRMTS lines.
 2-Depots, both depot will be developed as multi-modal bus terminals for direct
transfer between the buses (inter and Intra City) and the Green Line stations.
 All stations will have integrated feeder bus routes and passenger drop-off and
pick-up areas with direct access to the station;
 Some station will have park-n-ride facilities;
 Fare levels will be affordable and comparable to the prevailing air-conditioned bus
services
 Capital cost of the Green Line is estimated to be USD 2.4 billion (2008 prices) and
6-4
that of the Orange Line is USD 2.0 billion (2007 prices).
 Both Lines would need capital cost subsidy, however would not require
operational cost subsidy.
 GoPb had set in motion a plan to operate the mass transit system under ‘PPP’, the
modalities of which still need finalisation.
 The ADB funding was contingent upon GoPb putting the project on PPP basis for
raising the part or all of the remainder (USD 1.4 billion) of the capital cost and to
secure private sector operator for the system.
The GoPb from its ADP cannot afford to fund the project capital cost. As a result the
project remains suspended until some form of capital cost funding could be secured, as
descried above.
Figure 6.1.3 Lahore Rapid Mass Transit System (LRMTS) Network
GoPb, recently negotiated the project with Chinese investor company “NORNICO” who
showed willingness to obtain the buyers’ credit from Chinese financing institutions to
provide 85 % of the contract amount; whereas GoPb would be responsible for effecting
15 % advance payment. NORINCO had to do detail design and build LRMTS; whereas
LTC to engage an operator for subsequent operation of the system. No more details are
6-5
available to the Study Team for further progress in this regard.
Fate of this project is under risk, as GoPb has constructed a flyover at Kalma Chowk and
Canal Bank Road along Ferozpur Road. Semi Government Consultant Company was
responsible for the design and construction of the Kalma Chowk flyover. LRMTS Green
Line alignment and design had been completely ignored. The construction had been done
on ad-hoc basis due to inability of the Consultant to understand and incorporate the
complex LRMTS Green Line (GL) alignment and station design. The most serious
problem is the location of flyover pillars which incurs re-design of the GL underground
Kalma Chowk station as shown in Figure 6.1.4, and also the alignment from Model Town
to Wahdat Road and beyond.
Figure 6.1.4 Kalma Chowk Flyover over LRMTS Planned Station
Note: The red part is the Kalma Chowk Flyover above the planned station.
The situation is further made worse by the recently started construction of Canal/ Muslim
Town/ Wahdat Road junction flyover. This will have the same impact on GL alignment and
Canal station as did the Kalma Chowk flyover. Future LRMTS Green Line would need
another review and re-design by International Consultant.
6.1.3. Monorail System in Lahore
An international group (lead by a Malaysian Co.) had submitted to Transport Department

an unsolicited bid to build and operate a monorail system along the Green Line alignment
on BOT basis. The proposal was being examined by the GoPb for its viability and
characteristics. The technical specifications of the proposed system were also being
scrutinised and confirmed. Some of the ‘claims’ regarding the system capacity, operational
characteristics, source of funding, hence its technical and financial viability were in
6-6
question. As a result, there has been no decision on implementing a ‘monorail’ system in

Lahore.
6.1.4. Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) System for Lahore
A Korean group of investors have expressed interest in providing BRT system along the
Green and Orange lines corridors on BOT basis. The GoPb has requested the Korean
investors to prepare detailed feasibility study, giving details of technology, financing and
implementation plan for the two BRT lines along both Green and Orange Lines corridors.
The feasibility report was expected in February 2011. No further details are available to
the JICA Study Team.
6.1.5. Integrated Traffic Management System (ITMS)
The Urban Sector Policy and Management Unit under Planning and Development
Department, GoPb intended to design and implement an “Integrated Traffic Management
System” in the five large cities of Punjab; before implementing the citywide system, GoPb
planned to implement the system as a pilot project on Ferozepur Road, Lahore.
The Ferozepur road is one of the busiest radial corridors into Lahore from the south. In
2006 GoPb decided to improve the traffic condition along this dense urban corridor about
12 km of the road from Qurtaba Chowk to Khaira distributary (Figure 6.1.5). The project
was launched as a pilot project, to prepare an integrated traffic management; public
transport improvement; and institutional study to act as a model which could be extended
over whole of the city, and also to be a stop gap measure until the LRMTS Green line is
operational.
The studies were completed in 2008 by the urban unit. The outcome of the institutional
study was not implemented as a whole; however some components did filter through the
system and have proved useful. The traffic management study has been implemented to
some extent, mostly involving minor junction improvements, and building of service road
sections, where there was no service road without economic and environmental
assessment. The integration of the service road to the overall road network in the corridor
remains to be implemented. This is mostly due to the fact that the junction improvement,
installation of modern linked signals through some kind of traffic control system remains to
be implemented.
In order to improve the public transport service and facilities a number of measures were
proposed. The building of bus stops and bus stop shelters have been partially built.
Bus-only lanes have been planned and implemented, but effective enforcement is not a
reality yet. The effectiveness of these measures has not been assessed.
The integrated management approach also provided for the implementation of
6-7
co-ordinated signal system. A complete integrated/ coordinated signal system has been
designed. But this component is yet to be tendered, and implemented. A number of other
departments, including TEPA, C&W and Transport are also trying now to implement the
system; apparently the main hurdle is the availability of finances for the system. The cost
is estimated to be around USD 6 million just for this corridor and signals for a few
adjacent/ crossing roads. Table 6.1.1 gives the proposed details.
Figure 6.1.5 Lahore Ferozepur Road Pilot Project – An Integrated Approach
North
Section-I - 3.5 Km
Section-II - 5.2 Km
Section-III - 3.1 Km
Source: JICA Study Team, Study Area definition by Urban Unit
6-8
Table 6.1.1 Contents of Planned Centralized Traffic Control Center

Item # Description Unit Qty.
NO.1 UTC Control Center Building
Part 1 Office
Design Furnishing
& Construction of Control Center
1.1 Construction of Control Center including all civil works, lighting, airconditioning and elevators, Sum Item
furniture, transport etc (estimate and concept drawings attached)
NO.2 Traffic Signal Equipment Onsite
2.1.1 Dismantling of traffic Signal Lights, poles, foundations etc and transportation to TEPA store Nos. 27
2.1.2 Laying of ducts and cabling i/c road cuts, restoration, foundations, draw pits earthling complete in all site 27
2.1.3 respect
Providing and fixing of new poles, traffic lights (LED), lights and UPS 5 KVA imported (both for UTC site 17
and Cameras) complete in all respect
2.1.4 Rehabilitation of the existing intersection other than Ferozepur road including traffic lights, UPS 5KV 10
etc
2.1.5 Detector Loops slot cutting, lay detector, cabling, sealing and joining at stop line for each lane per Site 27
crossing
2.1.6 Slot cutting for laying queue detectors, feeder cable, junction boxes, loop term pannel and Sites 27
programming complete in all respect
2.1.7 Feeder Cable for connecting each individual loop to the controller Site 27
2.1.8 Supply and installation of min 16 signal group controller complete in all respects including detector Nos. 27
arrangement, original housing imported compatable with adaptive UTC system
2.1.9 Supply & Laying of Fiber Optic Cable in 2 Inch dia, G.I.Pipe including Splicing, Jointing, repeaters Mtr. 40,000
etc Including Road Cut and its restoration, setting and configuration Complete in all respects.
NO.3 CENTRAL COMPUTER CENTER
Part No. 1 of 2: UTC Processor and Ancillary Equipment
3.1.1 In station data transmission equipment. Sum 1
3.1.2 In station / outstation data transmission equipment. Nos. 1
3.1.3 In station Optical modems, Receiver Module for single mode, single fibre, I channel video plus two Nos. 27
full duplex channels with hand shake control and PTZ control.
3.1.4 Out station Optical modems Transmitter Module for single mode, single fibre, I channel video plus Nos. 27
two full duplex channels with hand shake control and PTZ control.
3.1.5 Optical Modem Rack to mount optical modem cards Nos. 3
3.1.6 DIGI Card Nos. 3
3.1.7 Traffic Control System Software Job 1
3.1.8 TRS Control and Monitoring Package Job 1
3.1.9 Traffic Control System Customization Software (Windows based) included firmware Job 1
3.1.10 Monitoring Package Job 1
3.1.11 Recording devices equivalent to three times the primary storage capacity. Set 2
3.1.12 PC Workstation Software Job 1
3.1.13 Testing, commissioning, calibration and validation of on site equipmnet i.e. controllers, loop Nos. 27
detector, testing,
3.1.14 Network CCTV etccommisioning, calibration and validation with centralized UTC and CCTV system Job 1
Part No. 2 of 2: CCTV Processor and Ancillary Equipment
3.2.1 Special traffic Dome Cameras for day /night vision Nos. 15
3.2.2 Control Room Hardware / software as per list attached sum 1
3.2.3 Industrial PC with 21" LCD with Control Software Nos. 2
3.2.4 Plasma/ LCD Screen 52" Nos. 6
3.2.5 Hi Tech Projector and Screen Nos. 1
3.2.6 Galvanized Pole with Brackets and Foundation 12 to 15 meters Nos. 20
3.2.7 Flood Lights 400 Watts with wiring complete in all respects Nos. 60
3.2.8 Distribution box with Circuit Breakers, photo cell etc complete in all respact Nos. 20
Communication Network
3.2.9 Single-mode 10-bit digital video transmitter duplex data Card on 1-core Fiber Nos. 15
3.2.10 Single-mode 10-bit digital video receiver duplex data Card on 1-core Fiber Nos. 15
3.2.11 Chassis with 2 PSU Nos. 2
3.2.12 Laying of Optical Fiber Cable with G.I Pipe including repeaters Mtr. 4,500
3.2.13 Power Cable 6mm2 for Cameras Mtr. 1,200
No 4: SPARES FOR 27 INTERSECTIONS
4.1.1 Supply and installation of min 16 signal group controller Complete in all respects including detector Nos. 2
arrangement, original Housing imported compatible with UTC system
4.1.2 Module 16 SG Nos. 1
4.1.3 Supply of Cards Processor required for operation of controller Nos. 20
4.1.4 Supply of 300 mm LED Modules Nos. 15
4.1.5 Supply of Site IDS Nos. 4
4.1.6 Supply of 210mm 3 Aspect LED Traffic Light Nos. 10
4.1.7 Supply of 210mm 3 Aspect Traffic Light LED Module. Nos. 15
4.1.8 Supply of facility switch Nos. 5
4.1.9 Supply of Filter Circuit Nos. 15
4.1.10 Man Machine Interface / Key Board Display unit Nos. 2
NO.5: OPERATION & MAINTENANCE
5.1.1 Routine Maintenance of Central Computer System for a period of 1 years after taking over along Months 12
with maintenance of 27-Signals
5.1.2 Operation/Supervision of the Urban Traffic Control Centre along with traffic signals for 1 years after Months 12
taking
5.1.3 PC over. commercial, work stations in conjunction with server and House Keeping software and
computer Nos. 6
Licensed operating system.
5.1.4 Laser Printers A3 Nos. 1
5.1.5 Heavy Duty Color Laser Printer A3 Nos. 1
5.1.6 CD Writer, Digital and video camera's and scanner as approved Nos. 1
5.1.7 Consumable Items as listed below
a 50 reams of A3 paper 95 gram listing paper for item 2/2/3 Sum 1
b 6 cartridges as appropriate for each of items 2/2/2 and 2/2/3
c CDS Flash Ram Accessories list attached
5.1.8 Six Copies of documentation as Specified for the central computer system Sum 1
5.1.9 Documentation as specified for Detectors Sum 1
5.1.10 Operator/Traffic training Course by Foreign Experts Job 1
Source: TEPA
6-9
6.1.6. Finance and Trade Centre
Lahore Development Authority (LDA) has planned to build Finance and Trade Centre near
Expo Centre in Johar Town with an objective to generate commercial activities in the area.
The area allocated for the Finance and Trade centre is 55 ha. The proposed projects are
to build a 5-Star Hotel, Big Box store, LDA Tower, Luxury Apartments, play land, lake and
parks. Location is shown in Figure 6.1.6 and detail layout plan is given in Figure 6.1.7.
No feasibility study for the scheme was available. The impact of the development on the
traffic and transport facilities in the surrounding area has not been made clear.
Figure 6.1.6 Location Map Finance and Trade Centre
Source: LDA
Figure 6.1.7 Finance and Trade Center Layout Plan
Source: LDA
6-10
6.1.7. Other On-Going Projects
There are a number of other transport improvement projects under various phases/ stages
of consideration and implementation. The status of each one of these project is not clear.
The list below outlines some of these projects:
 Widening and Improvement of Multan Road – the road is being realigned/ re-modelled
mostly through removal of encroachments.
 Widening of Canal Bank Road project – Project was suspended by the Supreme Court
of Pakistan on environmental grounds up to August, 2011. But now work has been
started after SC verdict to add one lane from Jail Road underpass to Ferozepur Road
underpass on both sides of BRB Canal.
 Gradual phasing out of 2-stroke engine Rickshaw and replacement by ‘cleaner’
4-stroke engine Rickshaws – project completion delayed, not sure why (but may be
due to lack of funding).
 Setup of Transport Planning Unit (TPU) – Development and implementation of
transport projects have been mostly under the domain of TEPA. However, over the last
decade or so TEPA has done little or no planning, and has mostly focused its efforts on
implementing ad-hoc projects. Much of the work done by TEPA has been based on
single project development and its implementation, without any concern or priority for
the overall transport needs of Lahore. As a result, TD has setup TPU under the
provincial government, which helped the conduct of Lahore Urban Transport Master
Plan (LUTMP) Study, with the aid of JICA. It was envisaged that TPU would gain the
necessary technical skills from the JICA Study Team, through a comprehensive
technology transfer programme, and would be capable of carrying out similar transport
planning studies for the other major cities of the Punjab.
There are numerous other on-going projects, which are listed below in Table 6.1.2. Table
also provides the details: such as executing agency, cost, completion dates etc, where
available. The tabulation is for the Study Area only, and covers whole of Lahore District,
and parts of Kasur and Sheikhupura districts areas within the Study Area.
6-11
Table 6.1.2 List of Other On-going Projects – A Summary

On-going Development Projects – Lahore District
Executing
No. Project Description Comments
Agency
1 Lahore Urban Transport Master Plan Study TD JICA Grant
2 Vehicle Inspection and Certification System TD
3 Multimodal Inter-City Bus Terminals in Lahore TD
4 Operational Cost Subsidy for Urban Public Transport System TD and LTC
5 E-Ticketing and Fleet Management System TD and LTC
6 Bus Rapid Transit System LTC
Amount yet to
7 2,000 New CNG/ Diesel Buses for Lahore Intra-city Transport LTC
be finalised
8 Induction of CNG Mini Buses on Urban LOV Routes LTC
9 Operation of Taxis in Lahore LTC
10 AC Coaster Service on New Routes - operational LTC
11 Finance and Trade Centre, Johar Town, Lahore. LDA
12 Commercialization of Roads LDA
13 ITS System for Lahore Area TEPA PKR 2.4billion
On-going Roads Projects – Lahore District

Executing Estimated Cost
No. Project Description
Agency PKR Million
Construction of Structure Road from Khayaban-e-Jinnah to
1 TEPA 480
Valencia Town
2 Remodelling of Katcha Jail Road TEPA 280
3 Lahore Ring Road Project (Total Northern Section - 51km) C&W 86,400
Construction of 4 Lanes Lahore Wahgha Road Facility from
4 Daroghwala to Wahgha Border (G.T. Road KM No 11.88 to 28.33 C&W 1,590
District Lahore.
Dualization of Lahore Ferozepur Road (Lahore to Kasur) Section
5 C&W 1,398
km 15.15 to 26.65, from Khaira Distributors to Kahna
Widening/ Improving of Road from Kahna Kacha Approach Road
6 C&W 307
to Raiwind City along main railway line
Widening/ Improvement of Road from Jallo More to River Ravi
7 C&W 194
Siphon Along Western Bank of BRB Canal
Construction of Overhead bridge Sua Asil level crossing in
8 C&W 442
Raiwind
Construction/Widening of Road from Lahore Ferozepur Road
9 C&W 780
Kahna to Halloki along Both side of Butcher Kahna Distributors
10 Construction of Dual Carriage Way for Tarogil Road Raiwind C&W 150
Detailed Engineering Design and Feasibility of Circular Road
11 C&W 54
District Lahore (PC-2).
Detailed Engineering Design and Construction Supervision of
12 Improvement, Renovation of Existing Dual Carriageway of C&W 211
Multan Road, Lahore
Improvement/ Rehabilitation of existing Multan road from Thokar
13 Niaz Baig to Chauburji (Proposed Sewerage, Drainage and C&W 1,825
Water Supply System) Package III
Dualization of Barki Gawandi Road (Phase I, from Mehfoozpura
14 C&W 160
Cant. To Klas Mari Town)
15 Widening/ Improving of Sua Asil to Raiwind Road C&W 549
Linking of Centre Point with Ferozepur Road near Gulab Devi
16 C&W 1,000
Hospital through Walton Airport
6-12
On-going Road Network Development Projects – Sheikhupura District

Executing Estimated Cost
No. Project Description (the Study Area Only)
Agency PKR Million
Construction of road from Narowal to Lahore via Badomalhi,
1 C&W 417
Narang, Shahdara
2 Rehabilitation of Road from Shahdara Chowk to Begum Kot C&W 156
3 Widening/Improvement of Shahdara Maqboolpura Narang Road C&W 488
Rehabilitation/ Improvement of Road from Lahore Jaranwala
4 road Thabal Stop to Marh Bhangwan Sheikhupura Sharaqpur C&W 80
Road via Essen and Mah Devi
5 Construction of Underpass at Railway Crossing at Muridke Town C&W 199
Construction of Road from Abdalia Pattan Marh Bhangawan I/C
6 C&W 69
New Bridge on Distributary Canal in Tehsil Sharqpur
Construction of Road from Chak No. 17 UCC to Khaira to Chak
7 C&W 30
No. 19 UCC in Tehsil Sharqpur
Construction of road from Old Narang Bhatta Chowk to Narowal
8 C&W 52
Road via Dera Baway Wala including Naggal Kaswala
6.1.8. Projects Completed During the Course of the Study
TEPA and C&W departments are executing major road projects and traffic improvement
schemes in Lahore areas. C&W is mainly building the provincial or inter-districts roads,
and its highway division of each district is responsible for planning and execution of their
regional road development projects. First update was taken from all transport related
agencies over their on-going projects at the start of year 2011. The second update is
taken recently to incorporate projects is proposed by the JICA Study Team evaluation and
assessment. List of the completed projects by TEPA and C&W is given in Table 6.1.3.
6-13
Table 6.1.3 List of the Projects Completed by TEPA and C&W

Estimated
Executing Cost
No. Project Description
Agency
PKR Million
Projects Completed – Lahore District
1 Remodelling of Garden Town Boulevard TEPA 400
Remodelling of Boulevard Gulshan-e-Ravi from Multan Road to
2 TEPA 260
Bund Road
Improvement of Road along Lahore Branch Canal from Thokar
3 C&W 386
Niaz Beg to Defense Road
Widening/Improvement of Kamahan Lidhar Road( length in
C&W 136
District Lahore )
Rehabilitation of Defense Road from L.M.Q road to Niaz Beg
4 C&W 147
Raiwind road
Improvement/ Rehabilitation of existing Multan Road from
5 Thokar Niaz Baig to Chauburji (Land acquisition and shifting of C&W 1,000
utilities) Package I
Improvement/ Rehabilitation of existing Multan Road from
6 Thokar Niaz Baig to Chauburji (Road Works) Package II (Phase C&W 675
I)
Widening/ Improvement of Road from Kahna Nau to Kahna
7 C&W 150
Kacha Railway Crossing
Rehabilitation/ Upgrading of road from Jallo Morr to Khaira
8 C&W 10
Bridge on Eastern Bank of BRB Canal
9 Dualization of Lahore – Kasur Road (Kahna – Kasur) C&W 3400
Projects Completed – Kasur District
1 Dualization of Lahore-Kasur Road (Kahna - Kasur) C&W 3,434
2 Construction of Dual Carriageway Phool Nagar C&W 277
Dualization of Pattoki-Old Multan Road (Medina Garden to Edhi
3 C&W 223
Center)
Projects Completed – Sheikhupura District
Widening/ Improvement of Road Sharaqpur and Sheikhupura
1 C&W 557
Road
Dualization of Lahore Jarana Wala Road from Faizpur
2 C&W 1,633
Interchange to Mandi Faizabad
Construction of road from Lahore Sharaqpur Road Dhamakey
3 C&W 18
Bus Stop to Chak No. 23 Shumali to Chak No. 23 Janubi
Construction of road from Burj Atari Nooray Wala Road Dera
4 C&W 74
Odanwala to Narangi Bridge Sheikhupura Sharqpur Road
Construction of Ring Road from Kot Pindi Das along with side
5 C&W 20
drains on both side
6-14
6.2 Projects Planned by Various Agencies
There are numerous transport related projects, which have been ‘planned’. Feasibility
studies of these projects have been conducted, and found to be economically feasible and
are awaiting implementation. Their implementation may be imminent or some time away,
may not be clear. However, full efforts have been made to advise the reader of the current
status of the project. These projects are discussed further in this section.
6.2.1 Lahore Ring Road (LRR) – Southern Section
The LRR southern section was planned, and its feasibility study was completed in 2008/ 9
by NESPAK. This section is 40 km in length, with six major interchanges at major radial
roads from Ferozepur road, Raiwind Road, Multan Road and the M-2 motorway. The
planned alignment runs from Ferozepur road to westwards, parallel and 2~3 km south of
Defense Road to Multan Road and turns northwards after its interchange with Multan
Road. The complete alignment is shown in the previous section in Figure 6.1.2. The
design criterion of this section is that of motorway standards, with design speed of 120
km/h. Description of each section of LRR loops; both Northern and Sothern section is
given in Table 6.2.1.
To make project financial and economically feasible, ribbon development and four land
clusters of housing and industry are proposed by the feasibility study. The estimated cost
of the project is PKR 44.98 billion (USD 530 million), and ribbon and cluster development
costs are PKR 29.5 billion (USD 347 million); which makes total cost of PKR 74.48 billion
(USD 876 million).
C&W Department, GoPb proposed PPP mode for inviting the private investor which is as
follows;
I. GoPb: 35 % of total cost (PKR 26.07 billion)

II. Public Private Partnership: 75 % of total cost (PKR 48.41 billion)
III. Concessionaire’s Equity (20 %): PKR 14.8 billion
IV. Commercial Loan (45 %): PKR 39.80 billion
a. 17 % Markup, Loan Tenure 10 Years + 2 Years grace period
V. Concession Period: 17 Years
Concessionaire is responsible for design, construction of road, land development,

operation, maintenance, and collection of Toll.
Project feasibility study is considered to be weak; Project is unable to attract any investor
for about 3 years. The land acquisition process is underway. The construction start date or
project completion date is not clear. The main reason is the financial constraints.
6-15
Table 6.2.1 Description of Both Loops of Lahore Ring Road Project
Description Northern Loop Southern Loop

Length (6 Lane Carriageway) 51 Km 40 Km
Type of Land Use Urban -
Design Speed 100 Km / h -
No. of Lanes 3+3 (6 Lane Carriageway) 3+3 (6 Lane Carriageway)
120 m
R.O.W 60 ~ 90 m
(30 m Railway Corridor)
Present 9 6
Interchanges
Future 1 5
Vehicular 10 17
Underpasses
Pedestrian 6+26 Pedestrian Bridges 15
Source: C&W Department
6.2.2 Conversion of Two Stroke Cab Rickshaws to 4-Sroke
Transport Department formulated a strategy to curb the two stroke rickshaws on roads to
improve the environment. This has been implemented on some roads. Project is on-going,
albeit at slow pace, and further progress is not known.
6-16
6.3 Proposed Projects by Various Agencies
It is a common practice in Pakistan that numerous projects are proposed and executed,
without feasibility studies, and are implemented on ad-hoc basis. Brief list of the projects
categorized by proposing agency is given in Table 6.3.1. Outline of some projects is also
provided.
Table 6.3.1 List of Proposed Projects – A Summary
Proposing
No. Project Description (the Study Area Only)
Agency
1 Establishment of Centralized Drivers Licensing Authority TD
Computerization of Transport Department under Motor Transport Management and
2 TD
Information System (MTMIS)
3 Up-grading of 'D-Class' Bus Stands TD
4 Effective and Efficient School Bus Service TD and ED
5 Suburban Railway System LTC
6 Integrated Bus Operation LTC
7 Traffic Education and Travel Behavior Traffic Police
8 Traffic Management Plan of City Traffic Police
9 Two Major Housing Scheme on Ferozepur Road and Raiwind Road LDA
10 Relocation of Proposed Lahore-Sialkot Motorway Alignment Urban Unit
11 Institutional Development of Lahore Metropolitan Traffic and Transport Authority Urban Unit
12 Establishment of Multimodal Truck Terminal in Sheikhupura CDGS
13 Establishment of Multimodal Bus Terminal in Sheikhupura CDGS
6.3.1 Multimodal Inter-City Bus Terminals in Lahore

Lahore has two general bus stands under operation of City District Government of Lahore
(CDGL), and eleven private inter-city bus terminals these locations are shown in Figure
6.3.1.
Figure 6.3.1 Locations of Bus Terminals in Lahore
Badami
Bagh Bus
Terminal
Railway
Station Bus
Terminal
Niazi Bus
Terminal
Daewoo
Bus
Terminal
6-17
Transport Department intends to shift existing bus terminals to outskirts of the city which
also includes shift of major bus terminal of Badami Bagh on PPP basis to locations as
shown in Figure 6.3.2. It is understood that a feasibility study has or would be
commissioned to finalize the project. No further details are available.
Figure 6.3.2 Proposed Location of Outskirt City Bus Terminals
6.3.2 Vehicle Inspection and Certification System (VICS)
Transport Department has visual vehicle inspection system; which is mandatory for all
kind of public service vehicles. Each vehicle is issued vehicle fitness certificate before
allotting the route permit to ply on the inter-city or intra-city routes. Enforcement is done in
Lahore by Motor Vehicle Examiners (MVOs). Project was advertised for hiring of
Transaction Advisor through IPDF; no further details are available.
6.3.3 Parking Management Company
There are only three off-street parking plazas controlled by TEPA with a capacity of about
750 vehicles; CDGL is managing 72 mix, both motorcycles and cars parking stands
through their town administrations along 32 major roads; which are not sufficient for the
current parking demand.
6-18
To resolve these problems; TEPA proposed to either do capacity development of the

CDGL or create parking management cell in TEPA or create another company similar to
Lahore Transport Company. The Parking Company will be seeded through GoPb and
later would generate its own funds for company expenditures and development of parking
facilities in Lahore. Further details on the progress of this project are not evident.
6.3.4 Sub-urban Railway System
Lahore Transport Company envisioning that growing demand cannot be met only through
BRT in the city as there is high daily inflow of passengers from Kasur, Sheikhupura,
Raiwind, and Gujranwala. This justifies the need of alternate mode which should cater
sub-urban demand efficiently. No further details are available on the progress of this
project.
6.3.5 Institutional Development of LTTA
The Urban Unit through Ferozepur Road pilot project is proposing an institutional
improvement to develop a Lahore Traffic and Transport Authority. The Urban Unit has
defined its functions, further work is on-going, and realization timeframe is not clear.
6.3.6 Improvement of 52 Junctions in Lahore
TEPA intends to improve a number (about 52) of important road junctions/ interchanges
along important corridors to improve the traffic flow in the city. No detailed plans or
schedule of implementation was available.
6-19
MASTER PLAN 2030
FINAL REPORT
CHAPTER 7 – MASTER PLAN 2030
7. MASTER PLAN 2030
Development Procedure for the Master Plan 2030
The development of the Lahore Urban Transport Master Plan (LUTMP) adopted the
following methodology as outlined in Figure 7.1.
1. List the projects in each sub-sector planning.
2. Analyze future traffic demand by comparing with the network capacity.
3. Conduct economic evaluation for physical projects and prioritize projects by

economic, financial and operational performance.
4. Conduct a preliminary environmental assessment of each project and consider

countermeasures against environmental issues, if any.
5. Prioritize all projects by examining their respective characteristics from different

perspectives by Multi-Criteria Assessment (MCA) process.
6. Classify the projects into three categories: ‘short’, ‘medium’ and ‘long’ term
according to when it needs to be implemented.
7. Prepare action plan 2020 for short and medium term projects, which is presented
in Chapter 8.
Figure 7.1 Development Procedure of Master Plan 2030
Planning in each Sector (7.1 Planning)

Public Transport Roads Traffic Management
Travel Demand Analysis

(7.2 Network Formulation)
Identified Project
(7.3 Profile of Major Projects)
Economic/ Financial
Environmental Evaluation
Evaluation
(7.4 Evaluation of
Prioritization
Major Projects)
(7.5 Implementation)
Implementation Program
Long-term Medium-term Short-term

Project Project Project

7-1
7.1 Transport Network Planning
7.1.1 Public Transport Network Development
1) Rail Based Mass Transit System (RMTS)
For the development of rail based mass transit system, the Study follows basically the
concept and results of the recently conducted LRMTSS studies from 2005 to 2008 by
MVA Asia Ltd. and SYSTRA France. The project is expected to be completed by 2025. In
the first phase, two medium capacity rail based mass transit lines will be constructed; i.e.
Green Line (GL) and Orange Line (OL). In the second phase, another two medium
capacity lines will be completed; i.e. Blue Line (BL) and Purple Line.
However, due to low ridership estimate as detailed in Chapter 4 of this report, Purple Line
has been downgraded to be a BRT Line in the Study. In other words, Lahore will have
three RMTS lines by 2030. However, this may require further review, in about a decade.
2) Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
BRT Network Potential in Lahore
Presently there are many adverse impacts from the intercity bus terminal located at
Badami Bagh including local pollution and road congestion and the amount of intercity
bus traffic across the Ravi Bridge. Removing the bus terminal to a location north of the
River Ravi (presently earmarked RMTS depot and an integrated bus terminal) and
connecting this Bus Stand via RMTS and BRT systems across the Ravi Bridge will
significantly reduce bridge traffic and the traffic impacts around the walled city. RMTS and
BRT will offer a high level of connectivity to the northern bus terminal as well as
increasing the passenger capacity of the Ravi Bridge which presently acts as a severe
bottleneck.
Once the Intercity bus terminal is moved north of the bridge, it is connected to the city via
LRMTS (Green Line) and BRT across the Ravi Bridge. These mass transit links would be
able to carry up to 40,000 passengers per hour per direction which represents a capacity
increase equal to building 3 new bridges. To improve traffic management further, (and
encourage less car usage across the Ravi) the present tolling gates can apply a road
user charge on all crossing traffic, with this charge being set at a value which will
encourage use of the RMTS and BRT. Motorcycles and rickshaws can be banned from
the Ravi Bridge and be diverted to the Old Ravi Bridge after structural improvements with
additional lane for BRT. The outcome would be that the Ravi will be utilized to their full
capacity with a very low investment.
The proposed BRT network should be designed to offer good connectivity by linking
7-2
mass transit systems and overlapping routes so that passengers could transfer at any
station across the platform serviced by multiple routes. Integrated ticketing allows at/
across the platform transfer on the paid side without any ticket processing.
It is considered that due to passenger demand, availability of Right of Way and traffic
conditions, along all main arterial bus routes in Lahore can be operated as a BRT, simply
because there are no other ways to guarantee efficient bus speeds to make bus
operations financially viable. However, due to budgetary constraints, all possible routes
cannot be proposed in this study. High demand corridors will be selected taking into
account the integration with the proposed RMTS lines. The BRTs would be built so that
passengers can immediately access a trunk mass transit network and maximum early
impact is gained.
Another important point is that BRT could be operated even in the corridor where RMTS
is planned, if there is a time of at least 10 years before it is replaced by RMTS. In the
severe lack of funding, BRT option should be considered as realistic, and safe in the
sense that it remains as a trunk public transport system when RMTS is found to be
un-implementable.
3) Projects for LUTMP 2030 Master Plan
(i) Committed Projects
The committed public transport projects, which are confirmed with the counterpart
agencies are included in the Master Plan and are listed in Table 7.1.1.
Table 7.1.1 Public Transport Committed Projects
Project Project
Project Name
No. Code
PT01 C.1 Multimodal Inter-City Bus Terminals in Lahore
PT02 C.2 Effective and Efficient School Bus System
PT03 C.3 Up-grading of Bus Stands
PT04 C.4 Integrated Bus Operation
PT05 C.5 Establishment of Multimodal Bus Terminal at Shahdara
(ii) RMTS/ BRT Network
The proposed RMTS/ BRT network for 2030 is presented in Figure 7.1.1. Note that some
of the RMTS lines will be proposed as BRT to be operational before 2020.
7-3
Figure 7.1.1 LUTMP RMTS/ BRT Network 2030
7-4
(iii) RMTS/ BRT Projects
Based on the result of travel demand forecast for 2020 and 2030, eight candidate
projects were identified as RMTS/ BRT system to be included in the Master Plan. The
project summary is given in the following Tables 7.1.2 and 7.1.3.
Table 7.1.2 RMTS Projects for Master Plan
Project Project Length

Project Name Alignment Description
No. Code (km)
Ferozepur Road/ Mall Road/ Ravi
PT06 RMS1 Green Line 27.0
Road/ Shahdara
Orange Line Raiwind Road/ Multan Road/ Macleod

PT07 RMS2 27.1
(Initially BRT) Road/ Railway Station/ G.T. Road
Blue Line Township/ Gulberg Boulevard/ Jail

PT08 RMS3 24.0
(Initially BRT) Road
Table 7.1.3 BRT Projects for Master Plan
Project Project Length

Project Name Alignment Description
No. Code (km)
PT09 BRT1 Purple Line Bhatti Gate/ Allama Iqbal Road/ Airport 19.0
Multan Road/ Canal Bank Road/
BRT Line 1
University Road and terminates at
PT10 BRT2 (Thokar to Muslim 14.1
Wahdat Road before Ferozepur Road
Town)
and Green Line Station
Khayaban-e-Jamia Punjab Road/
BRT Line 2 Maulana Sarfraz Naemi Road/ Multan
PT11 BRT3 (Barkat Market to Road/ Bund Road West/ Lahore Ring 14.3
Bhatti Chowk) Road/ Outfall and terminates at Bhatti
Chowk
Shalamar Link Road/ Workshop Road/
BRT Line 3a Ghari Shahu/ Allama Iqbal Road/
PT12 BRT4 (Shalamar to Circular Road/ Badami Bagh and 15.7
Shahdara) terminates at Shahdara across Ravi
River and Green Line Terminal
Canal Bank Road/ Workshop Road/
BRT Line 3b Ghari Shahu/ Allama Iqbal Road/
PT13 BRT5 (Harbanspura to Circular Road/ Badami Bagh and 19.1
Shahdara) terminates at Shahdara across Ravi
River and Green Line Terminal
(iv) Cost Estimate
RMTS Project Costs
RMTS project costs were estimated based on the unit costs of the Reference Design
Study Report of Green Line and the Feasibility Study of the Orange Line. The following
table gives the estimated costs for each project in USD at 2010 prices. The rolling stock
cost is included in the capital cost.
7-5
Table 7.1.4 RMTS Project Costs
Project Project Capital Cost Capital Cost (/km) Annual O&M Cost
No. Name (USD million) (USD million) (USD million)
PT06 Green Line 2,583.0 96.7 32.8
PT07 Orange Line 2,330.0 86.0 32.1
PT08 Blue Line 1,908.0 79.5 26.1
BRT Capital Cost Estimates
The following table compares construction cost of selected BRT projects in the world. BRT
construction cost ranges from USD 2.0 to 8.0 million /km in other cities of the world. The unit
cost of BRT seems to depend on its capacity. The relationship between capital cost and
capacity of BRT project is shown in Figure 7.1.2 and outlined in Table 7.1.5. In this study, the
BRT construction cost was estimated using this relationship between future demand and
BRT costs.
Table 7.1.5 BRT Project Cost and Its Capacity
Capital Cost Actual Capacity
BRT System /km (Pax /hour
(USD million) /direction)
Bogota Trans Milenio 8.0 35,000-45,000
Bogota Trans Milenio (Phase I) 6.9 35,000-45,000
Sao Paulo Busways 3.0 27,000-35,000
Porto Alegre Busways 2.0 28,000
Curitiba Busways 2.5 15,000
Quito Bus Rapid Transit 2.0 9,000-15,000
Trans Jakarta 2.0 8,000
Hyderabad (Plan) 1.14 5,200
Hyderabad (Plan) Inc. Bus Fleet 1.88 -
Cavite Busways (Bus Lane Only) 4.1 -
Source: JICA Study Team and Hyderabad BRT - Feasibility Study ITDP
(Institute for Transportation and Development Policy), excluding Bus Fleet.
Figure 7.1.2 Relationship between Capital Cost and Capacity of BRT Project
50,000
Capacity (Pax/Hour/Dirction)
40,000
30,000
y = 20454 ln(x) + 63.24
20,000
R² = 0.7219
10,000
0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Capital Cost (Mil. USD / km)
7-6
O&M and Rolling Stock Costs for BRT Projects
O&M Cost: O&M cost is comprised of road maintenance cost and bus operation cost.
 Road Maintenance Cost: 1.0 % a year of the Capital Cost as Road Maintenance
 Bus Operation Cost = (No. of Bus Fleet)*(No. of Bus Trip)*VOC*Length (km))
– VOC of Bus Fleet is assumed at PKR 105.04 /km.
– PKR 105.04/ km is of a large Bus at an average speed of 30km per hour.
Rolling Stock (Bus Fleet) Cost: Rolling stock cost is assumed based on the following
formula.
 Rolling Stock Cost = (Number of Required Bus Fleet)*(Price of Bus Fleet)
– Standard Bus: PKR 6.2 Million (45 Seats and 75-Pax Capacity)
Cost Estimate of BRT Projects
The following table summarizes BRT cost by LUTMP project.
Table 7.1.6 Summary of BRT Cost for LUTMP Project
Capital Cost (USD million) Annual O&M Cost of Bus

Project Length (USD Fleet Upgrade
Project Name Construction Bus Fleet
No. (km) million) in 2030 (USD
Cost Cost 2020 2030 million)
PT07 Orange Line (Initially BRT) 27.1 54.2 20.2 38.1 RMTS Not Applicable
PT08 Blue Line (Initially BRT) 24.0 48.0 10.6 20.2 RMTS Not Applicable
PT09 BRT Purple Line 19.0 38.0 2.8 5.5 10.7 6.7
PT10 BRT Line 1 14.1 28.2 2.5 5.0 14.9 9.5
PT11 BRT Line 2 14.3 28.6 1.8 3.7 8.4 5.2
PT12 BRT Line 3a 15.7 24.6 4.1 8.0 8.4 5.4
PT13 BRT Line 3b 19.1 31.2 4.1 8.0 9.4 5.9
Total 133.3 252.8 46.4 88.6 52.0 32.7
7.1.2 Highway Network Development
Lahore is bounded on the north and west by the Sheikhupura District, on the east by
India and on the south by Kasur District. The Ravi River flows on the north-western side
of Lahore, and it covers a total land area of 404 km². Lahore is the capital of the Punjab
Province and the second largest city of Pakistan. The city is situated approximately 25
km from Wahgah, India border crossing. Major national road links are Motorway (M-2),
National Highway N-5 (G.T. Road and Multan Road), Sheikhupura Road to the west and
Ferozepur Road along with Raiwind Road to the south. Main functions of the hierarchal
road transport corridor are as follows.
Functional Classification of Urban Roads
Planning of urban roads must be done with due consideration to a hierarchy of network
7-7
connectivity with different level and function of roads. Urban roads in the Study Area must
consider adequate connectivity with national/ regional transport network including
motorways, trunk roads, and facilities like bus termini, freight centres, railway stations
and international airport.
Inter provincial/ national roads in the Study Area will be developed in a way that they will
not pass through urban areas to avoid conflicts and mix with urban traffic. Proper design
standards will be adopted for the intersections of urban roads. To develop a proper road
network, a systematic and hierarchical functional classification is necessary. The function
of hierarchical classification is comprised of motorways, national roads (trunk system),
urban primary, secondary, and local roads.
(i) Motorway and Trunk Road System:
Motorway and Trunk Road (Lahore Ring Road – LRR) has a function for long distance
transport at higher operating speed. At some sections of LRR traffic accidents have
happened. The main cause of these accidents is different running speed of traffic modes
using the LRR. One should select the road design speed according to the vehicle mix
likely to use the road.
It is proposed that an embankment type road structure, and service roads along the
embankment. The service road is for residential/ adjacent commercial access. Service
roads will be designed for broth local motorized traffic as well as pedestrian movement.
This concept is shown in a typical cross-section in Figure 7.1.3.
Figure 7.1.3 Proposed Typical Cross Section for Motorway

(ii) Urban Primary Road System:
The urban primary road system serves the major percentage of trips entering and leaving
urban areas as well as some of the through travel that wants to bypass the city. In
addition, significant intra-urban travel, such as between CBDs and outlying residential
areas, between major sub-urban centres, are served by these primary urban roads. For
the proposed road network, the urban primary roads have two functions: the primary
7-8
system formed the significant framework linking up with the regional trunk road network,
and also primary with the secondary road network. Typical cross sections for Trunk/
National and Primary roads are depicted in Figures 7.1.4 and 7.1.5 respectively.
Figure 7.1.4 Proposed Typical Cross Section for National Road/ Trunk Road
Figure 7.1.3 Proposed Typical Cross Section for Urban Roads
Figure 7.1.5 Proposed Typical Cross Section for Urban Primary Road
(iii) Urban Secondary Road System:
The urban secondary road system interconnects with local roads and augments the
urban primary road system. It provides travel with moderate trip lengths at a somewhat
lower level of travel speed than primary roads. Urban secondary road typical cross-
section is illustrated in Figure 7.1.6.
Figure 7.1.6 Proposed Typical Cross Section for Urban Secondary Road

(iv) Urban Tertiary Road System (Local/ Access/ Service Roads):
The urban local road system aims to provide access to areas located along the roads
7-9
and to serve not only vehicular traffic but also for cyclist and pedestrians as well as
roadside access activities. Some urban streets that have commercial frontage serve fairly
substantial volumes of traffic. A typical cross-section is illustrated in Figure 7.1.7.
Figure 7.1.7 Proposed Typical Cross Section for Urban Tertiary Roads
Source: JICA Study Team (Length in m)
2) Design Standards
(i) Design Standard
“A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets” published by AASHTO that has
been widely referred to in the preparation of the geometric design standards in many
countries.
(ii) Design Speed
Design speed is the maximum speed for safe travel that can be maintained for a
specified section of a road in a free flow condition, and it is determined with respect to the
terrain, adjacent land use, type of road, and the design speed of merging/ diverging
sections. The design speed will directly affect many geometric elements, like the
horizontal and vertical alignments, sight distances, and provision of super elevation.
Other features, such as lane width and shoulder width are also influenced by the design
speed, as shown schematically in Figure 7.1.8.
Figure 7.1.8 Design Speed by Road Category

Design Speed (km/h)
Category or Class
20 40 60 80 100 120
Inter-city Motorway
Roads Trunk Road
(National Road)
Urban Primary Urban
Roads Secondary Urban
(iii) Cross Section Design
Cross-section elements should be based on AASHTO standards, as shown above in

Figures 7.1.3 to 7.1.7.
7-10
(iv) Intersections and Interchanges
When two intersecting roads each have four or more lanes, excluding the turning lane
and the speed change lane, the intersection may be grade-separated, except where the
traffic volume on the intersection, traffic safety condition, road network composition,
interval between intersections, and topography allow an at-grade intersection. In
selecting the appropriate type of intersection, both traffic operation and economic aspects
are to be considered. The road network’s hierarchy should also be taken into account in
accordance with a road’s traffic capability and accessibility as summarized in Table 7.1.7.
Table 7.1.7 Types of Interchanges and Junctions

Intersecting Roads Normal Arrangement
1. Motorway and Motorway Grade separated interchanges in all cases.
Interchanges, except when interchange spacing is
2. Trunk and Primary
too close.
Grade separations or at Grade, Evaluate each
3. Primary and Primary
case
Intersections, but grade separation may be
4. Primary and Secondary/
justified in the case of capacity limitation, serious
Secondary and Secondary
delays, injury, high fatality rate and low cost.
(v) Road Density
Road density is a key index of the road network’s appropriateness for keeping a balance
with land-use activity and intensity. Target road densities corresponding to types of land use
have been introduced in various design manuals and are summarized in 7.1.8.
Table 7.1.8 Example of Target Road Density in Urban Area

Land Use Target Road Density (km /km2)
Residential 4
Commercial 6
Semi-Industrial/ Mixed 2
Industrial 1
Source: Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, Japan
(vi) Road and Facility Maintenance
Urban Primary road and Secondary road also require suitable and sustainable
maintenance management and program. These include traffic control, traffic information
and emergency services, processing of traffic accidents. Routine and periodic
maintenance work is important. Maintenance works are classified into three types:
routine, periodic and emergency. Routine maintenance is based on routine (daily)
inspection of the condition of pavement, cut and fill slopes, drainage, bridges and other
structures and facilities to monitor any defects and damage. The results of routine
inspection will be promptly reported to the maintenance office for follow-up maintenance
works to be undertaken either continually throughout the year or at certain intervals.
7-11
Periodic maintenance is based on detailed inspection performed at certain time intervals

such as seasonally or yearly depending on the type and kind of facility. It includes
checking and testing the conditions of various structures and facilities. Defects and
damage will be reported for repairs or remedies.
Emergency maintenance basically comprises works to restore road and road related
facilities to their normal operating conditions after they are damaged by road accidents or
natural calamities. It is impossible to foresee the frequency, but such maintenance
requires immediate action.
3) LUTMP Road Projects for 2030 Master Plan
The road sub-sector projects are depicted in Figure 7.1.9 and details are provided in
Section 7.3.2. However, the committed road projects, which are either completed or
scheduled to be completed in the near future (2012/ 2013) are listed in Table 7.1.9.
Further details of these road projects are illustrated in Volume-I, Annex-I.
Table 7.1.9 List of LUTMP Committed Road Projects

Project
Length Status/
No. Project Description Lanes Implementation
(km) Completion
(Code)
Construction of LRR D-3 and
R01 On-Going/
(Airport – Ferozepur 13.3 Service Road. C&W
(12001) 2012-13
Road) D-2 or D-3
R02 Construction of Kalma Completed
3.4 D-3 C&W
(12002) Chowk Flyover 2011
Construction of Canal
R03 On-Going/
Bank Road Flyover along 3.3 D-3 C&W
(12003) 2012
Ferozepur Road
R04 Remodeling of Canal Completed
15.6 D-3 TEPA
(12004) Bank Road 2012
Remodeling of Barki
R05 Completed
Road 3.6 D-3 C&W
(12005) 2012
R06 Remodeling of Kala On-Going/
26.9 D-2 C&W
(12006) Khatai Road 2012
R07 Remodeling of Allama On-Going/
3.3 D-3 C&W
(12007) Iqbal Road 2012
R08 Remodeling of Multan Completed
11.3 D-3 C&W
(12008) Road 2011
Remodeling of Thokar
R09 Completed
Niaz Baig Road (Thokar 11.0 D-3 C&W
(12009) 2012
– Defence Road)
Remodeling of Ferozepur
R10 Road Completed
23.6 D-3 C&W
(12010) (Lahore Bridge – Mustafa 2012
Abad)
7-12
Figure 7.1.9 Proposed Road Network by 2030
Note: Further details of these road projects are illustrated in Volume-I, Annex-I.
7-13
7.1.3 Study Area Traffic Management
1) Examination of Typical Traffic Management Projects
The typical traffic management projects for the Master Plan 2030 were, identified and
developed under the following six (a–f) broad categories. These categories may be
described as follows:
(a) Road Network Operational Efficiency Improvement: Remove bottlenecks and

provide safe traffic flow on Secondary Road network in urban areas, where traffic
congestion would be getting seriously deteriorated.
(b) Parking and Pedestrian Environment in Urban Centre: To provide an environment

of "Park and Walk" by eliminating illegal parking, in coordination with new off-street
parking facilities.
(c) TDM and Priority for Public Transport: To enhance effective usage of the limited
road capacity, by promoting public transport system, particularly new RMTS and BRT
systems.
(d) Road Function and Capacity Improvement Program: In order to maximize the
usage of the limited road space, it is important to define the traffic function of the
network according to its designated hierarchy. Mix traffic and roadside activities
cause traffic congestions and accident, and must be banned at least on all Trunk and
Primary Roads, and must be limited on Secondary roads.
(e) Traffic Safety Improvement: Traffic accidents have become one of the serious
social problems. More comprehensive measures shall be taken to minimise accidents.
(f) Comprehensive Traffic Management Plan and Human Resource Development

Program: In order to implement complex traffic management, organizations involved
shall improve their capacity and capability, enhanced under new institutional
arrangements.
2) Traffic Management Projects for LUTMP Master Plan 2030
Transport related departments/ agencies of GoPb proposed many projects to do with

effective traffic management in the city. Most of these projects will be funded by GoPb
according to set priority; some of the major projects may be financed through Public
Private Partnership (PPP) proposals. These committed traffic management related
projects are an integral a part of the LUTMP 2030 Master Plan. Through the reviews of
government plan and discussion with counterpart agencies, all committed projects were
included and are listed in Table 7.1.10.
7-14
Table 7.1.10 Committed Projects included in LUTMP 2030 Master Plan

Cost
Project Implementing Funding
Project Title Schedule (USD
No. Agency Source
million)
Establishment of Centralized Driver
TM01 2012 – Onward TD N/A GoPb.
Licensing Authority
TM02 Parking Management Company 2012 – Onward TEPA N/A GoPb.
TM03 Traffic Education Center 2012 – Onward Traffic Police N/A GoPb.
TM04 Traffic Control Plan of City 2012 – Onward Traffic Police N/A GoPb.
Vehicle Inspection and Certification
TM05 2012 – Onward TD N/A GoPb. / PPP
System (VICS)
TM06 2012 – Onward TEPA 207.1 GoPb. / PPP
Plazas
TM07 Construction of Pedestrian Bridges 2012 – Onward TEPA 1.8 GoPb.
TM08 Improvement of 52 Junctions 2012 – Onward TEPA 30.5 GoPb.
TM09 Ferozepur Road Pilot Project 2012 – Onward TEPA 28.3 GoPb.
TM10 Rickshaw into CNG Fitted Four 2012 – Onward TD 12.4 GoPb.
Stroke Rickshaw
TM11 2012 – Onward TEPA 14.1 GoPb.
Circular Road
For the development of traffic management projects, the Study Area has been divided into
six parts for the traffic management project identification purposes, due to differences in
urban transport fabric and their local impact on the city’s transport system. These areas are
defined below and the location map is given in Figure 7.1.10.
a) Lahore City: All areas under the jurisdiction of Lahore City District Government
(CDGL).
b) Central Area: Area under jurisdiction of CDGL within Lahore city.
c) North of Ravi River: Area north of Ravi River, part of Ravi Town and
Sheikhupura Tehsil included in the Study Area
d) North of Canal and South of Ravi River: Area bounded between Canal Bank
Road, Lahore Ring Road and part of M-2 Motorway up to Thokar Niaz-baig.
e) South of Canal: Whole area south of canal excluding outskirts and rural villages.
f) Outskirts of Lahore City: Area east of BRB Canal, south-east of DHA toward
Bedian Road, Ferozepur Road, South of Defence Road, and along Multan Road
towards west.
The traffic management projects identified, developed and studied for the LUTMP 2030 are
listed in Table 7.1.11.
7-15
Figure 7.1.10 Traffic Management Project Areas
7-16
Table 7.1.11 LUTMP 2030 Proposed Traffic Management Projects
Project Area (a-f) Cost

Project Title
No. (Figure 7.1.10) (USD million)
A. Road Network Operation

TM12 A.1 Junction Design and Traffic Signal Improvement – CBD (b) 4.0
TM13 A.2 Existing Junctions Design and Network Improvement (a) 30.0
TM14 A.3 Road Function and Capacity Improvement Program (a) 2.0
B. Traffic Management
TM15 B.1 Low Occupancy Vehicles Planning for Outskirt/ Rural Areas (f and c) 5.0
TM16 B.2 Traffic Circulation System Design and Implementation (a) 20.0
TM17 B.3 Public and Freight Transport Terminals (a and c) 100.0
TM18 B.4 Linking Communities - Smart Roads (a) 4.0
TM19 B.5 Feasibility Study for Traffic Demand Management Measures (a) 2.5
TM20 B.6 RMTS and BRT Station Area Traffic Management (a) 1.5
C. Non-Motorized Traffic
TM21 C.1 Planning and Design Study for Non-Motorized Traffic (d) 1.5
TM22 C.2 Non-Motorized Traffic Facilities Implementation (d) 6.0
TM23 C.3 Pedestrian and Bicycle Path Network (b and e) 5.0
D. Parking Management
TM24 D.1 Comprehensive Parking System Development (d and e) 2.5
TM25 D.2 Parking Facilities Implementation (d and e) 60.0
TM26 D.3 Park and Ride Facilities Development (d and e) 75.0
E. Enforcement of Traffic Rules and Regulations

TM27 E.1 Traffic Enforcement Strengthening Programme (a) 3.0
F. Traffic Safety
TM28 F.1 Traffic Calming (e) 6.0
TM29 F.2 Traffic Safety Education Improvement (a) 1.0
G. Intelligent Transportation System

TM30 G.1 Intelligent Transportation System Development (a) 38.0
H. Standards and Guidelines

TM31 H.1 Local Standards and Guidelines Development (a) 1.5
7-17
7.2 LUTMP 2030 Master Plan Network Formulation
7.2.1 Base Case Transport Network
1) Prevailing Conditions
Analysis of current transport supply and demand has been presented at various stages of
the project and particularly in relation to travel demand forecast in Volume 1, Chapter 4.
It has been established that the current network demand and supply situation is adequate,
as it is generally perceived and as reported in the opinion surveys. The prime causes for
poor network performance and traffic congestion is not due to lack of road space and
capacity deficiencies but mostly due to local reasons, which could be summarised as:
 Bad traffic mix, particularly animal drawn carts, pedestrians, bus passengers
and slow moving traffic – all in the same road space due to various reasons;
 Poor lane disciple and bad driving behaviour,
 Lack of understanding of traffic rules, particularly ‘priority’ ;
 Inefficient junction design – allowing fast merging traffic from the left; and lack
of intersection control (police controlled traffic signals),
 Poorly and incorrectly laid out merges and diverges on primary and
secondary roads;
 Interaction between traffic, pedestrians and frontage access; and
 Total lack of signage (even the limited signage is poorly planned, designed
and located) and enforcement of traffic rules.
These comments are based on observations and also the result of several different types
of surveys conducted by the Study.
2) Need for Road Network Hierarchy
Urban roads perform many functions besides providing passage for moving vehicles and
pedestrians. These functions may be broadly classified as: environmental, access, local
traffic and through traffic. Not all functions need to be performed by anyone road, but for
purpose of planning and design, the function need to be recognised and appropriate
design standards applied. When defining the function of road; assessment must be made
of all the activities on and along the road. Therefore, when planning a road; a balance
must be achieved between traffic capacity, operating speed, environment, safety and the
convenience of road users including pedestrians. Therefore, the benefits to be achieved
by classifying and managing road hierarchy could be summarised as:
7-18
 When environment and access functions are given priority, activities related
to building frontage may be allowed – Access/ Local roads/ Streets/
Service roads
 Where traffic movement is given priority, activities incompatible with traffic

flow may be restricted, provided the safety (pedestrian) is not compromised –
Secondary/ Distribution roads; and
 Capacity of roads could be immensely improved by segregating different

types of traffic, and limiting access to adjoining roads, reducing the number
of intersections and vehicular conflicts – Primary roads
 In addition, Lahore has major intercity roads passing through or terminating

on the outskirts. These roads have function of ‘Trunk Roads’; and the M-2
Motorway which links Lahore with the northern Punjab also performs the
intercity linkage function.
 The road capacity in urban areas is more a function of junction design

performance and control/ operation. This is essential in such that city needs
all four types of roads, and the Motorways/ Trunk Roads for inter-city travel,
and their connectivity through efficient junctions – that is what makes an
efficient hierarchical road network.
A road Hierarchy for Lahore was considered to be essential. Currently a number of radial
primary routes provide access to Lahore from all directions with considerable capacity –
even with excess capacity (e.g. current capacity of M-2 and LRR). Now that the LRR is a
reality (after 20 years of its proposal), extending the primary network to the heart of the
city is not essential. There is a need to strengthen the distribution network and access
roads with clearly identified priorities. This is to ensure that there is adequate capacity to
feed and distribute traffic to/ from the primary and higher level network to/ from the city.
This is emphasized as essential for the road network to work in an integrated and
efficient manner to provide reasonable speed for all long and short distance users. As a
result the study approach was to define the existing (2010) road network hierarchy in the
light of above criterion, based on surveyed information and best international practices.
This hierarchy is illustrated in Figure 7.2.1 for the Study Area network.
3) Proposed Hierarchical Road Network and Current (2010) Performance
The current 2010 road network hierarchy as defined by the study is illustrated in Figure
7.2.1 and its characteristics under the current road traffic condition are summarised in
Table 7.2.1. The Study Area road network as illustrated does have good road density,
except in the inner city areas. The areas in the outskirts still rely mostly on a single road
7-19
and basic low-grade street / rural unpaved roads (not in the LUTMP network) – such as
GT Road to the east Barki Road and Bedian Road in the South-east. Similarly in the
south-west and south the local and secondary road network is quite sparse and requires
strengthening. On the other hand inner areas to the north of Railways and most of the
western areas between Bund Road and major arterial roads lack well defined secondary/
distribution roads. Cantonment, DHA, Gulberg and Model Town areas are well laid out in
terms of local and secondary road network.
7-20
Figure 7.2.1 Current (2010) Road Network Hierarchy
7-21
Table 7.2.1 Current (2010) Road Network and Performance Indicators

Av. Network Network PCU*Hrs
% of V/C PCU*km (Daily) (Daily)
Road Type km Speed
Network Ratio
(kph) (‘000) % (‘000) %
Motorway 52 2% 59 0.67 2,049 11% 35 8%
Trunk 185 8% 47 0.55 5,635 31% 120 26%
Primary 127 5% 38 0.48 2,316 13% 61 13%
Secondary 212 9% 34 0.40 3,297 18% 98 21%
Local 1,818 76% 31 0.21 4,641 26% 149 32%
Total 2,395 100% 39 0.37 17,938 100% 463 100%
The LUTMP hierarchically defined road network performance under the 2010 traffic
situation is summarized in Table 7.2.1 and illustrated in Figure 7.2.2. The poorly planned
network development is quite evident form the lower percentage of primary and
secondary network in each category. Particularly secondary network is only 8% of the
Study Area roads but carries 18 % of the PCU*kms and 21 % of the PCU*Hrs.
Internationally there is no ideal split of road network by primary/ secondary and local
roads. It depends on the form of the city, its geography (rivers etc.), and location relative
to other regional centres. It can be seen that about 42 % of PCU*kms are on the
motorway and trunk roads with only 10 % of the share of the network. This indicates
considerable internal-external and through traffic demand on the Study Area network –
requiring that due consideration be paid to the regional traffic within the Study Area.
The average daily travel speed by road type shows that most of the network operates at
above 30kph. It should be noted that it is not peak period speed or by direction. The
LUTMP model is strategic in nature and deals with average daily traffic volumes as 9% of
the daily volumes. (Derived from cordon, screenline and traffic count surveys).
7-22
Figure 7.2.2 Current (2010) Road Network Performance
7-23
4) 2020 and 2030 Road Network Performance and Capacity Deficiencies
The 2010 road network as discussed above was updated to include the following on-
going schemes to represent the ‘base case’ network for future (2020 and 2030) demand
assessment. These upgrades and new constructions include:
i. Completion of Kalma Chowk and Ferozepur Road Canal flyovers;
ii. Upgrade of Ferozepur-Kasur Road, Multan Road and Kala Khatai Road;
iii. Canal Bank Road widening, upgrade of Canal Bank Road beyond Thokar Niaz
Baig; Barki Road; Allama Iqbal Road; and
iv. Completion of LRR from Bedian Road to Ferozepur Road.
These upgrades would increase the network length by about 17 km to 2,412 km, but
would have limited impact on the overall network capacity and performance. The base
case network is shown in Figure 7.2.3. The 2020 and 2030 (in both cases Scenario II)
traffic volumes when assigned to the base case network, the results are shown in Figures
7.2.4 and 7.2.5 respectively and summarised in Table 7.2.2.
Table 7.2.2 Base Case Road Network Performance 2020 and 2030
Network V/C Network Av.
% of Ratio Speed (kph)
Road Type km
Network
2020 2030 2020 2030
Motorway 52 2% 0.92 1.15 28 9
Trunk 204 8% 0.66 0.93 27 10
Primary 152 5% 0.52 0.69 29 16
Secondary 226 9% 0.50 0.69 33 23
Local 1,777 76% 0.33 0.55 26 15
Total 2,412 100% 0.49 0.71 28 13
7-24
Figure 7.2.3 Base Case Road Network Hierarchy
7-25
Figure 7.2.4 Base Case Road Network Performance - 2020
7-26
Figure 7.2.5 Base Case Road Network Performance - 2030
7-27
Under the 2020 Scenario II, travel demand the exception of local network all other road
types would be at V/C ratio in excess of 0.5 and the overall network speed would drop
from the base case speed of about 40 kph to 28 kph. The trunk roads, primary and
secondary network would be overloaded at various locations. Figures illustrates main
bottlenecks would be Ravi Bridges, Multan Road (N-5), Raiwind Road, adjacent local
Roads and sections of Ferozepur Road. However, the situation would be tolerable, but
not conducive to a functioning modern metropolis with close to 13 million inhabitants with
growing car ownership and increasing income levels.
By 2030 the situation will be further exasperated with more than doubling of the traffic
volumes (see Volume 2, Chapter 4, demand forecast). The 2030 network performance
posts a much bleaker picture. Almost all of the network would be above V/C ratio of 0.5
and all roads with the exception of local streets would be at level of service D or worst.
Average speed except on secondary roads would drop below 20 kph. The inner city area
roads may show a somewhat better picture with many roads above 25 kph, but it should
be noted that the LUTMP strategic demand model does not take account of very short
trips (mostly intra-zonal) in the inner-city area. With that additional volumes, which could
be realised at more detailed modelling level would show much more congested local/
street network. This situation is not sustainable.
The Study Area base case road network was systematically upgraded, starting with
improvement to the capacity and connectivity of the secondary road network,
improvement to junctions and better utilization of service roads through 1-way operation if
possible; or at least 1-way at entry and exit, but 2-way flow along the service road
sections. It was estimated that additional 20 % capacity could be realised by such
improvements when coupled with serious removal of encroachment and zero-tolerance
for roadside activities such as hawkers, motor vehicle repairs, storage of goods for sale,
garbage storage and collection, and other such activities which limit road capacity. The
analysis showed that further road improvement/ upgrading would be necessary to have
sustainable network speeds in 2020 and 2030.
All proposed and committed road schemes were then analysed for:
 their role and contribution to the network hierarchy,

 constructability, likely land take, and impact on community, and
 the ‘need’ for in an integrated sustainable network.
The deferred (as may be considered later if needed – through proper planning and
feasibility studies) are:
 Wahdat Road – Already good dual-2, with additional Right of Way (RoW),
7-28
simple management would be adequate, or reconsider additional lane at the

time of LUTMP BRT Line feasibility stage, not now.
 Walton Road Area – Serves No purpose, why?
 PIA Main Boulevard Housing Society – Poor connectivity, duplicates other
local roads and passes through established housing areas.
 Jallo Morr to Siphon – Rural (Not in LUTMP scope to provide rural links)
 Kot Pindi Das Road – Rural (Not in LUTMP scope to provide rural links)
The 2020 demand forecast scenarios were tested including all TEPA and C&W and other
proposed projects, except those listed above. The network performance was evaluated,
and it was found to be seriously deficient in meeting the future travel demand. As a result
the whole network was hierarchically developed and iteratively evaluated. The additional
projects based on road hierarchical upgrade i.e. local to secondary upgrades, and so on
were developed both for 2020 and for 2030, again based on when a project is needed.
These physical/ structural details of the full master plan projects are given in the next
Section (7.3) of this Chapter. The final LUTMP 2030 Master Plan is illustrated in Figure
7.2.6, and key projects are outline below:
7-29
Figure 7.2.6 LUTMP 2030 Highway Master Plan Network
7-30
Key highway projects for implementation are:

 Lahore – Sialkot Motorway to LRR in the north;
 M-2 Upgrade to Dual 4 up to Kala Shah Kaku (KSK) bypass;
 Upgrade KSK by Pass to Dual-3;
 Motorway interchanges with Lahore-Sheikhupura Road and additional
interchange with Muridke Road from Chand Bagh;
 Lahore-Sheikhupura Road Upgrade to Dual-3;
 Multan Road (N-5) Upgrade to Dual-3;
 Sharaqpur Road upgrade and connect across Ravi to LRR south-west
section;
 LRR southern and western sections;
 New secondary road network to relieve Multan Road (N-5);
 Raiwind Road upgrade; and additional Secondary Roads upgrade south of
Sua Asil Road;
 Additional secondary roads in the north west of GT Road (N-5)
 Shahdara Bypass; and additional secondary road improvements;
 2 New Ravi bridges (one adjacent to old Ravi Bridge and another next to
Saggian Bridge)
 Construction of some missing links in the south west of Lahore to improve
connectivity of existing roads;
 Additional Pak Railway crossings in south west and from Noor Jahan Road to
Sham Road;
 New link from UET to Zafar Ali Road using disused railway links via
Dharampura and Mian Mir;
 Upgrade of Ek-Moria and Do-Moria railway underpasses;
 Upgrade of similar rail crossings (underpasses) to Dual-2;
 Defence Road upgrade;
 Construction of Southern bypass – left over from 1980 structure plan;
 Development of secondary road network almost entirely from existing roads
in the northern and western parts of Lahore.
 Upgrade of all Local roads to Secondary level in the area: south of LRR and
north of Sua Asil Road between Ferozepur Road and Multan Road quadrant;
also addition of new Secondary roads to improve connectivity.
Full 4-stage LUTMP travel demand model runs were carried with full highway master
7-31
plan network; including complete integrated public transport master plan for 2020 and
2030. Highway projects were then selected according to the need i.e. to be included in
2020 or later in 2030. The whole network was tested for their operational performance,
until 2020 and 2030 and provides acceptable and sustainable level of service in the
Study Area. The highway network operational performance is discussed next, and is
followed by the Public Transport (PT) network development programme. The 2020 and
2030 road traffic volumes and resulting average speed are depicted in Figures 7.2.7 and
7.2.8 and are summarised in Table 7.2.3 and 7.2.4 respectively.
Table 7.2.3 Master Plan Road Network and Performance Indicators - 2020
Av. Network Network PCU*Hrs
% of V/C PCU*km (Daily) (Daily)
Road Type km Speed
Network Ratio
(kph) (‘000) % (‘000) %
Motorway 52 2% 28 0.84 2,569 10% 91 12%
Trunk 279 11% 37 0.57 9,805 37% 266 34%
Primary 129 5% 39 0.47 2,915 11% 76 10%
Secondary 502 20% 37 0.35 6,186 23% 167 21%
Local 1,571 62% 28 0.25 4,903 19% 177 23%
Total 2,533 100% 34 0.41 26,378 100% 776 100%
Table 7.2.4 Master Plan Road Network and Performance Indicators - 2030
Av. Network PCU*km Network
% of V/C (Daily) PCU*Hrs (Daily)
Road Type km Speed
Network Ratio
(kph) (‘000) % (‘000) %
Motorway 89 3% 39 0.69 4,600 12% 117 10%
Trunk 279 11% 39 0.73 13,043 34% 332 29%
Primary 129 5% 33 0.54 3,519 9% 108 9%
Secondary 626 24% 31 0.50 11,076 29% 352 31%
Local 1,499 57% 28 0.33 6,609 17% 239 21%
Total 2,622 100% 34 0.53 38,846 100% 1,149 100%
7-32
Figure 7.2.7 Highway Master Plan Network Performance - 2020
7-33
Figure 7.2.8 Highway Master Plan Network Performance - 2030
7-34
It can be seen that through proper planning and structured highway network development
with an overall increase of only 210km of new roads (9 % increase over 2010) more than
double the traffic volumes (PCU*km) are accommodated without much degradation to
network-wide speed – down to 34 kph in 2030 from around 40 kph in 2010. The main
strategy was to create coherent secondary road network - increased by 400 km, mostly
from existing local roads by getting rid of encroachment, junction improvements and
limited widening/ remodelling – where appropriate. The local road network would
decrease to about 1,500 km from 1,800km in 2010). This would provide major
environmental benefits to the remainder of the local roads due to reduced traffic volumes.
It can be seen from Table 7.2.4 that the major road network (Motorways and Trunk roads
would be at around 40kph, and Secondary roads at 31kph, while local roads at just under
30 kph. It may be argued that Motorway and trunk roads should have higher average
speeds, but this would require major motorway and trunk road programme which could
be financially unsustainable within the GoPb budget. Another way to look at the network
is to introduce further secondary road network when the areas to the west and north of
Ravi are developed, which would take away local traffic of these major trunk roads.
In addition, it is also necessary to mention that: a major regional study is required to fully
realise the impact and implications of external and through traffic, considered to be
beyond the scope of this project. Pakistan Railway could also assist in taking away
considerable external and through bus traffic off these regional roads, but again it is
difficult to fully assess the impact of such regional modal shift and the level of investment
required, to achieve such a shift, given the poor state and lack of capacity in Pak Rail
network system. The impact of such a massive investment would or could also adversely
impact the available budget for transport infrastructure programme for Lahore. Alternative
would be to get National Highway Authority/ Federal Government to fund these
developments to the national road network.
5) Current Public Transport Network and Systems
The Public Transport (PT) is a serious issue in Lahore and its operation and lack of
performance has been discussed elsewhere. Lahore is fortunate to have 38 ~ 40 %
Public Transport mode share (even with such poor and dilapidated services – as public
without private vehicle have no choice). However broad PT demand has been discussed
in Chapter 2 (Volume 2) Travel demand forecast are detailed in Chapter 4 (Volume 1). In
brief there are currently about 53 Government ‘notified’ bus routes (Large bus or some
time called as HOV routes). These 53 routes are incorporated in the LUTMP ‘strategic’
modelling process.
In addition 16 inter-city bus routes representing long distance travel along motorway and
7-35
trunk roads were also incorporated in the model. Thus there were 69 total bus routes
representing major bus travel in/ out and intra-city travel. Table 7.2.5 describes some of
the key features of the current bus network in the Study Area. It can be seen that for
network of about 2,400 km the bus services cover just over 1,000 km. The rest of the
road network (more than half) is left to the mercy of para-transits, legal and illegal wagon
operations. The total demand does not even yield one boarding per trip. This shows the
sparse coverage of the Study Area by the ‘notified’ bus routes, and the remainder trips
are assigned to the para-transits (see Figure 7.2.9).
Further analysis showed that about 30 % of travel is (pax*km) is on the para-transit

modes – a very high proportion resulting in in-efficient use of road space. Figure 7.2.10
shows the density of bus routes in the Study Area and on the road network to/ from the
Study Area. Majority of the routes are concentrated on main roads – some roads carrying
5+ routes along the entire length from outside the city to the inner city area, like
Ferozepur Road and Multan Road. Again it is a clear reflection of how much of the inner
city area is not covered by regular bus routes. There may be excuse of lack of road
space (width) but once the secondary road network is developed/ upgraded as described
in the highway development programme, new routes could be introduced to serve these
inner city areas.
Table 7.2.5 Local and Long Distance Bus Route Network and Demand
Total Total PT
Number of
Route-KM Bus Stops Boardings Demand
Routes
(‘000) (‘000)
Local - 53 1,040 4,000 3,994 2,870
These routes are from the Study
Inter-city 672 574
Area cordon to bus termini
7-36
Figure 7.2.9 Para-transit – 2010 Passenger Volumes
7-37
Figure 7.2.10 Bus Network - 2010 Density of Bus Routes

In addition, route by route patronage analysis indicated a vast difference between the
daily boardings by route. About one third of the routes daily patronage is less than 15,000
boardings. 25 routes have daily boardings of 15,000 to 40,000 per day and the remainder
carry in excess of 40,000 pax daily. There are some high utilization routes, which need
further analysis, and such an analysis is out-side the scope of this strategic planning
study, and could only be carried out in a comprehensive bus operations and route
7-38
rationalisation study, based on much more detailed network representation of operational

routes and further disaggregated travel demand in the inner city area.
6) LUTMP Master Plan Public Transport Network and Systems
Analysis of the 2010 network as described above not only indicated poor coverage but
also lack of high capacity bus system for major demand corridors. Future PT demand has
been discussed elsewhere, and is again summarised below in Table 7.2.6
Table 7.2.6 PT Travel Demand for LUTMP Master Plan (2020 and 2030 Scenario-2)
Person Trips Growth over 2010
Area
2010 2020-S2 2030-S2 2020 2030
Internal 2,870,000 3,562,000 4,204,000 24% 46%
External 574,000 669,000 798,000 17% 39%
Total 3,444,000 4,231,000 5,002,000 23% 45%
It can be seen that total travel demand for public transport would exceed 5 million trips by
2030, a modest increase of about 45% over the next 20 years. However, the current
unplanned, ill-organised poorly served bus network and mixture of Paratransit as a public
transport system for over 16 million inhabitants is not sustainable. High demand corridors
were analysed according to the demand and a comprehensive high capacity mass transit
(bus and rail based) system is planned through an iterative process using the LUTMP
strategic demand forecast model. The 2020 and 2030 public transport system
characteristics internal to the Study Area are summarised in Table 7.2.7.
Table 7.2.7 LUTMP Master Plan – Key Characteristics of Public Transport System
Line / Route 2010 2020 2030

Bus Lines 53 44* 44*
BRT Lines - 7 5
RMTS Lines - 1 3
Bus Route Km 1,040 840 840
BRT Line KM - 148 95
RMTS Line KM - 27 78
BRT Stations - 260 150
RMTS Stations - 22 68
Bus Boardings 4,616,000 4,660,000 3,855,000
BRT Boardings - 1,533,000 1,404,000
RMTS Boardings - 760,000 2,074,000
% Bus Boardings 100% 67% 53%
% BRT Boardings - 22% 19%
% RRMTS Boardings - 11% 28%
Total Boardings 4,616,000 6,953,000 7,333,000
Note: 9 Bus routes were deleted –as these routes were competing with the Mass Transit Lines
It can be seen that how higher capacity systems would continue to take up the future
travel demand (growth) and bus share of number of passengers would be similar to 2010.
7-39
Conversion of two lines (Orange and Blue to RMTS is also essential as the loadings on
these lines could not be sustained using a road based (BRT) system. At this stage the
analysis is strategic, and would require further investigation at the feasibility study stage
of each line. Additional patronage from Bus could be diverted to the BRT/ RMTS systems
in the future years through better feeder route planning. In the LUTMP master planning
the bus planning is limited to removing the competing nine (9) routes from the bus
operations as these were operating almost parallel to the mass transit systems along
majority of their length.
The proposed four of the eight routes (BRT and/ or RMTS) are based on the LRMTS
study outputs and are reconfirmed here through LUTMP model for their viability and
sustainability. However, the purple route is downgraded to be a BRT up to 2030. Similarly
Orange and Blue lines are also proposed to be BRT lines up to 2020, and converted to
rail based system after that. The exact timing of such conversion would be subject of
further studies. The key question is more likely to be the availability of funding rather than
the level of demand. The proposed BRT and RMTS systems are depicted in Figures
7.2.11 and 7.2.12 for 2020 and 2030 respectively.
7-40
Figure 7.2.11 RMTS and BRT 2020 Alignments
7-41
Figure 7.2.12 RMTS and BRT 2030 Alignments
7-42
The RMTS and BRT 2030 passenger volumes are illustrated in Figure 7.2.13. The bus
and para-transit volumes are excluded so that a direct assessment of the mass transit
volumes could be made. The bus, para-transit (including feeder) volumes are shown in
Figure 7.3.14. The performance of each of the eight BRT/ RMTS line is summarized in
the Table 7.2.8.
Table 7.2.8 LUTMP 2030 – RMTS and BRT System Performance Key Characteristics
Max Line Load (Pax Per Hr

Daily Boarding
Project Project Per Direction – PPHPD)
System
Code Description % %
2020 2030 2020 2030
Growth Growth
PT06 Green Line RMTS 759,000 980,000 29 17,200 21,900 28
2020 BRT/
PT07 Orange Line 510,000 743,000 46 9,500 20,100 102
2030 RMTS
2020 BRT/
PT08 Blue Line 270,000 379,000 40 5,600 11,200 100
2030 RMTS
PT09 Purple Line BRT 129,000 276,000 114 1,800 3,700 137
PT10 BRT Line 1 (Red) BRT 88,000 285,000 224 2,100 6,800 219
BRT Line 2 (Light BRT
PT11 109,000 331,000 204 1,500 3,700 164
Blue)
PT12 BRT Line 3a (Pink) BRT 161,000 265,000 65 3,200 3,500 12
PT13 BRT Line 3b (Pink) BRT 167,000 248,000 49 2,700 3,200 19
Totals 2,193,000 3,507,000 60 N/A
7-43
Figure 7.2.13 Scenario-2, 2030 Public Passenger Demand on RMTS and BRT Lines
7-44
Figure 7.2.14 2030 Public Transport Passengers, Excluding RMTS and BRT Lines
The above analysis demonstrates that an increase of about 1.6 million person trips from
2010 to 2030 would need to be accommodated to retain the PT mode share. This could
only be done efficiently through a well-developed, public transport network as developed
for the 2030 LUTMP Master Plan. It shows that it is essential to provide efficient higher
capacity (than just HOV bus routes) network of Bus Rapid Transit and Rail-based mass
transit systems. It should also be noted from Figure 7.2.14 that having provided the mass
transit systems there would still be need for bus services and para-transit trips as feeder
and local services. The 2030 Para-transit only trips are shown in Figure 7.2.15.
7-45
Figure 7.2.15 2030 Public Transport Passengers, Para-transit Trips Only
Previous studies, since 1991 Master Plan has advocated the introduction of Light Rail
Transit System, but has not been implemented. Now we have reached a stage where
further delay in the provision of high capacity public transport system would be very
detrimental for the city’s transport system, and its sustainability. A balanced and
integrated public/ private transport system must exist in any thriving metropolitan area.
Neither private nor public transport mode alone can provide an efficient system. Failure
to provide much improved public transport system would drive the low-middle income
households to purchase motorcycles and use them – away for public transport, where its
share is already on the decline.
7-46
7.3 Profile of Major LUTMP 2030 Projects
7.3.1 Public Transport Projects
1) Committed Public Transport Projects
Some projects for improving existing public transport are committed or planned, funded
by state budget. These existing committed public transport projects are supposed to be a
part of the Master Plan up to 2030. Through the reviews of government plans and
discussions with counterpart agencies, all committed projects were included and are
listed in the following Table 7.3.1.
Table 7.3.1 Committed Public Transport Projects

Project Project Project Original Implementing Cost Funding
No. Code Description Schedule Agency (PKR) Source
Multimodal Inter-City 2012 – GoPb and BOT/
PT01 C.1 TD, GoPb N/A
Bus Terminals in Lahore Onward PPP
TD with Education
Effective and Efficient 2012 –
PT02 C.2 Department, N/A GoPb and PPP
School Bus System Onward
GoPb
Up-grading of Bus 2012 –
PT03 C.3 TD, GoPb N/A GoPb or PPP
Stands Onward
Integrated Bus 6,410 Lahore Transport
PT04 C.4 - LTC
Operation million Company
District District
Establishment of
2012 – Government of Government of
PT05 C.5 Multimodal Bus Terminal N/A
Onward Sheikhupura, Sheikhupura,
at Shahdara
GoPb GoPb
1) LUTMP 2030 Proposed Public Transport Projects
The proposed public transport projects for 2020 and 2030 are identified and outlined in
Section 7.1.1 and given in Tables 7.1.2 and 7.1.3. The proposed projects are described in
the following section.
PT06: Green Line (RMTS)
The Green Line (27 km) has been planned with 12 km underground section, 12 stations,
and viaduct section of 15 km with 10 stations. The line follows Ferozepur Road corridor,
starting in the south just north of the Hudiara Drain Road Bridge and through Mall Road
ending at Shahdara across the Ravi River.
Project Corridor: Ferozepur Road/ Mall Road/ Ravi Road/ Shahdara

Capital Cost 2,583 (USD Million)
Depot: The 2 Depot have been planned as follows;
・Main Depot (192,828 m 2) is planned near Shadab Colony Station.
・North Depot (74,981 m 2) is planned near Shahdara Station
7-47
Figure 7.3.1 Location Map of RMTS Green Line Alignment
Figure 7.3.2 Planned Layout of RMTS Green Line Alignment and Station Locations
Model Town South
Shadab Colony
Wapda Colony
Hamza Town
Walton Road
Nishter town
Ghazi Road
Ferozapur Road
South Depot Pakistan Railway

Kalma Interchange
Model Town North
Qurtaba
Garden Town
Ichhra
Canal
Shame Chowk
Badahari Masjid
Timber market
Shahdara
Ravi Road GT Road
Ravi River North Depot

Central Interchange
Fatima Jinnah
Jinnah Hail
Data Darbar
Regal Chowk
7-48
PT07: Orange Line (Initially BRT and then RMTS)
The Orange Line (27.1 km) as a RMTS has been planned with underground section of
6.9 km with 6 stations and viaduct section of 20.2 km with 20 stations. Orange Line as a
BRT project would require a full feasibility study along the proposed corridor.
Project Corridor: Raiwind Road/ Multan Road/ Macloed Road/ Railway Station/ G.T.
Road
Capital Cost: [(RMTS) 2,330 (USD Million)], [(Initial BRT) 62.8 (USD Millions)]
Figure 7.3.3 Location Map of RMTS Orange Line Alignment
Figure 7.3.4 Planned Layout of RMTS Orange Line Alignment and Station Locations
Salahudin Road
Cuishan-E Ravi
Wahdat Road
Samanabad
Awan Town
Bund Road
Canal View
Hanjarwal
Shahnoor
Niaz Baig
Sabzazar
Ali Town
Raiwaind Road Multan Road
Stabling Yard
Lake Road
Chauburji
Shalamar Garden
Mahmood Booti
Pakistan Mint
Baghbanpura
Salamatpura
Dera Gujran
Islam Park
UET
Pakistan Railway STN

GT Road
Green Line Tunnel North Depot

Main Railway Station
Central Interchange
Lakshami
Sultanpura
7-49
PT08: Blue Line (Initially BRT and then RMTS)
Blue Line (24.0 km) as a RMTS has been planned with underground section of 4 km with
3 stations and viaduct section of 20.0 km with 17 stations. Blue Line as a BRT project
would require a full feasibility study along the proposed corridor.
Project Corridor: Township/ Gulberg Boulevard/ Jail Road

Capital Cost: [(RMTS) 1,908 (USD Million)], [(Initial BRT) 50.9 (USD Million)]
Figure 7.3.5 Location Map of RMTS Blue Line Alignment
Figure 7.3.6 Planned Layout of Blue Line RMTS Alignment and Station Locations
④ ⑤ ⑥ ⑦ ⑧ ⑨ ⑩ ⑪ ⑫ ⑬ ⑭ ⑮ ⑯ ⑰ ⑱ ⑲ ⑳
Green Line Tunnel
Orange Line Tunnel Green Line Tunnel
① ② ③
Jinnah Hall Station

(Green Line)
7-50
PT09: Purple Line (BRT)
Purple Line as a BRT project would require a full feasibility study along the proposed
corridor.
Project Corridor: Township/ Gulberg Boulevard/ Jail Road

Capital Cost: 38.9 (USD Million)
Length: 19.0 km
Figure 7.3.7 Location Map of Purple Line BRT Corridor
PT10: BRT Line 1
Project Corridor: Thokar, Canal Bank Road, Punjab University, Wahdat Road, Muslim
Town, Ferozepur Road
Length: 14.1 km
Figure 7.3.8 Location Map of BRT Line 1
7-51
PT11: BRT Line 2
Project Corridor: Barkat Market, Jamia Punjab Road, Punjab University, Sarfraz Naeemi
Road, Multan Road, Bund Road, LRR, Sagianwala Bypass, Bhatti Chowk.
Length: 14.3 km
Figure 7.3.9 Location Map of BRT Line 2
7-52
PT12: BRT Line 3a
Project Corridor: Shahdara, Old Ravi Bridge, G.T. Road, Badami Bagh Bus Terminal,
Badshahi Mosque, Circular Road, Allama Iqbal Road, Garhi Shahu, G.T. Road, Shalamar
Link Road, Shalamar Gardens.
Length: 15.7 km
PT13: BRT Line 3b
Project Corridor: Shahdara, Old Ravi Bridge, G.T. Road, Badami Bagh Bus Terminal,
Badshahi Mosque, Circular Road, Allama Iqbal Road, Garhi Shahu, G.T. Road, Canal
Bank Road, Harbanspura.
Length: 19.1 km
Figure 7.3.10 Location Map of BRT Lines 3a and 3b
7.3.2 LUTMP 2030 Road Sub-Sector Projects
1) Committed and Proposed Road Projects for 2020 and 2030
The proposed road projects for 2030 include new construction of motorway, trunk,
Primary and Secondary roads. The existing Secondary road network should be
7-53
expanded to cover the fast growing outer areas. Since construction of primary road in
urbanized area is very difficult, the development of Secondary roads is very crucial, as
these should have at least 4–8 lanes with an adequate curbside and traffic control
system.
In general, the ideal density of arterial road network (including primary and secondary
roads) in urban area is said to be about 3.5 km/km 2. For the urban area of Lahore,
secondary roads are to form a diverse road network.
2) Committed and Proposed Road Projects – 2020
The projects committed or proposed by TEPA, C&W or JICA Study Team are listed in Table
7.3.2.
Table 7.3.2 List of Committed and Proposed Road Projects by 2020

Project No. Project Length Proposed Project Proposed
Status
(Code) Description (km) Lanes Type By

R01 Construction of LRR On-Going/
13.3 D-3 Committed C&W
(12001) (Airport – Ferozepur Road) 2012-13
R02 Completed
Construction of Kalma Chowk Flyover 3.4 D-3 Committed C&W
(12002) 2011
R03 Construction of Canal Bank Road On-Going/
(12003) Flyover 2012
R04 Completed
Remodeling of Canal Bank Road 15.6 D-3 Committed TEPA
(12004) 2012
R05 Remodeling of Barki Road Completed
(12005) (LRR – Green City) 2012
R06 On-Going/
Remodeling of Kala Khatai Road 26.9 D-2 Committed C&W
(12006) 2012
R07 On-Going/
Remodeling of Allama Iqbal Road 3.3 D-4 Committed C&W
(12007) 2012
R08 Completed
Remodeling of Multan Road 11.3 D-3 Committed C&W
(12008) 2011
R09 Completed
Remodeling of Thokar Niaz Baig Road 11.0 D-2 Committed C&W
(12009) 2012
R10 Remodeling of Lahore Ferozepur Completed
(120010) Road 2012
Road Sub-sector Projects – LUTMP Proposed
R11 Barki Road
6.8 D-2 Remodeling LUTMP Proposed
(20002) (Green City – BRB Canal)
R12 Bedian Road
(20003) (DHA – LRR – Ferozepur Road)
Shabir Usmani Road
R13
(Barkat Market – Maulana Shaukat Ali 2.8 D-3 Remodeling TEPA Proposed
(20004)
Road)
R14
Link Peco Road – Ferozepur Road 1.9 D-2 Remodeling LUTMP Proposed
(20005)
Link Ferozepur Road - Nalay Wali
Remodeling
R15 Road
1.5 D-2 + TEPA Proposed
(20006) (Completion of link between Ferozepur
Construction
and Multan Road)
Remodeling
R16 Old Ravi Bridge and Road
(20007) (Bridge 0.5km)
Construction
R17 G.T. Road
2.1 D-2 Remodeling TEPA Proposed
(20008) (Cooper Store - Ek-Moria Pul)
College Road Remodeling
R18
(Ghaus-e-Azam Road to Defence 6.9 D-2 + TEPA Proposed
(20010)
Road) Construction
Structure Plan Road Remodeling
R19
(Shahrah Nazria-e-Pakistan – Defence 12.9 D-3 + TEPA Proposed
(20011)
Road) Construction
EXPO-Kahna Kacha Station Road Remodeling
R20
(Khayban-e-Jinnah – Kahna Kacha 7.1 D-3 + TEPA Proposed
(20020)
Station) Construction
7-54
Project No. Project Length Proposed Project Proposed

Status
(Code) Description (km) Lanes Type By
R21 Main Boulevard PIA Society Road
1.6 D-3 Remodeling TEPA Proposed
(20021) (Baig Road – Ittehad Road)
Raiwind Road
R22
(Lahore Ring Road Southern Loop – 14.2 D-3 Remodeling LUTMP Proposed
(20023)
Raiwind City)
R23
Madrat-e-Millat Rd - Defence Road 2.6 D-3 Construction TEPA Proposed
(20024)
Extension of Maulana Shaukat Ali
R24 Road
2.4 D-3 Construction LUTMP Proposed
(20027) (Canal Bank Road – Noor-ul-Amin
Road through Punjab University)
Kamahan Lidher Road Remodeling
R25
(Ferozepur Road – Lahore Bedian 8.8 D-2 + C&W Committed
(20041)
Road) Construction
R26 Sua Asil Road
22.0 D-2 Remodeling C&W Committed
(20043) (Ferozepur Road – Raiwind Road)
R27
(Kahna Kacha Approach Road – 17.8 D-2 Remodeling C&W Committed
(20044)
Raiwind City along Railway Line)
R28 Kahna Kacha Road
7.1 D-2 Remodeling C&W Committed
(20046) (Kahna Station – Ferozepur Road)
Sharaqpur Road
R29 (Lahore Ring Road – Saggian Wala
(20049) Bypass)
(Bridge 0.7km)
Construction
R30 Lahore-Sheikhupura Road
2.4 D-3 + LUTMP Proposed
(20049) (Saggian Wala Bypass – G.T. Road)
Remodeling
Sagianwala Bypass Road Remodeling
R31
(Ring Road – Sharaqpur Road) 6.7 D-4 + LUTMP Proposed
(20050)
(Bridge 0.6km) Construction
Lahore-Sheikhupura Road (West) Remodeling
R32
(Sharaqpur Road – Lahore- 1.9 D-4 + LUTMP Proposed
(20050)
Sheikhupura Road) Construction
Link Thokar Niaz Baig Canal Bank
Remodeling
R33 Road – Ferozepur Road
(20052) (Khyaban-e-Jinnah Road – Defence
Construction
Road – Ferozepur Road)
Remodeling
R34 Manga-Raiwind Road
(20053) (Multan Road – Raiwind Road)
Construction
R35 Southern Bypass South Road
9.9 D-3 Construction TEPA Proposed
(20054) (Ferozepur Road – College Road)
Remodeling
R36 Southern Bypass North Road
(20055) (Canal Bank Road – M-2)
Construction
R37
(Raiwind City – Boundary of the Study 19.8 D-3 Remodeling LUTMP Proposed
(20056)
Area)
Raiwind Road
R38
(Thokar – Lahore Ring Road Southern 12.9 D-3 Remodeling LUTMP Proposed
(20057)
Loop)
R39 Defence Road
(20060) (Multan Road – Ferozepur Road)
R40 Extension
3.5 D-3 Construction LUTMP Proposed
(20061) (Defence Road – Lahore Ring Road
Sothern Loop)
R41 Construction of LRR West
15.6 D-3 Construction C&W Committed
(20081) (Multan Road – M2)
R42 Construction of LRR South
(20082) (Ferozepur Road – Multan Road)
Remodeling
R43 Secondary Roads in Dharampura
(20091) Area
Construction
R44
Secondary Roads in Shadbagh Area 41.0 D-2 Remodeling LUTMP Proposed
(20092)
R45
Secondary Roads in Samanabad Area 46.0 D-2 Remodeling LUTMP Proposed
(20093)
7-55
3) Proposed Road Projects by 2030
The road sub-sector projects proposed for LUTMP 2030 are listed in Table 7.3.3 and
depicted in Figure 7.1.9.
Table 7.3.3 List of Proposed Road Projects by 2030

Project
Length Proposed
No. Project Name Lanes Project Type Status
(km) By
(Code)
R46 Lahore Bypass

(30,002) (G.T. Road – Kala Shah Kaku Bypass)
Lahore-Islamabad Motorway (M-2)
R47 (Lahore-Sheikhupura Road – Boundary of
(30,002) the Study Area)
(Bridge 0.6km)
R48 Lahore-Islamabad Motorway (M-2) (Bund
(30,002) Road – Lahore-Sheikhupura Road)
N-5- Multan Road
R49
(Lahore Ring Road Sothern Loop – 31.3 D-3 Remodeling LUTMP Proposed
(30,004)
Boundary of the Study Area)
Sharif Complex Road Remodeling
R50
(Defence Road – Manga Raiwind Road – 33.2 D-3 + LUTMP Proposed
(30,005)
Bhai Pheru Kot Rada Kishan Road) Construction
North-West Secondary Ring Road Remodeling
R51
(Sharaqpur Road – Lahore-Sheikhupura 33.8 D-3 + LUTMP Proposed
(30,006)
Road – G.T. Road) Construction
R52 Sheikhupura Muridke Road
(30,008) (G.T. Road – M-2)
Link G.T. Road
R53
(Sharaqpur Road – Lahore-Sheikhupura 5.0 D-3 Remodeling LUTMP Proposed
(30,010)
Road – G.T. Road)
R54 Link Kala Shah Kaku – Lahore-Sialkot
(30,028) Motorway
R55 Lahore-Sialkot Motorway
(30,028) (Bridge 0.8km)
R56
Link G.T. Road Lahore-Sialkot Motorway 0.3 D-3 Construction C&W Committed
(30,028)
Construction and remodeling of Secondary
Remodeling LDA/
R57 roads - south of LRR in the south-western
93.6 D-3 + TEPA/ Proposed
(Optional) quadrant between Ferozepur Road and
Construction Developer
Multan Road
7.3.3 LUTMP 2030 Traffic Management Projects
1) Committed Traffic Management Projects
The following committed projects are on-going or at various stages with GoPb
departments/ agencies and are included in LUTMP 2030 as an integral component. The
committed projects are listed below in Table 7.3.4 which also outlines their status.
Table 7.3.4 Committed Traffic Management Projects

Project Project Cost Funding
No. Description (USD Million) Source
TM01 Establishment of Centralized Driver Licensing Authority N/A GoPb
TM02 Parking Management Company N/A GoPb
TM03 Traffic Education Center N/A GoPb
TM04 Traffic Control Plan of City N/A GoPb
TM05 Vehicle Inspection and Certification System N/A GoPb/ PPP
TM06 Construction of New Parking Plazas 207.1 GoPb/ PPP
TM07 Construction of Pedestrian Bridges 1.8 GoPb
TM08 Improvement of 52 Junctions 30.5 GoPb
7-56
Project Project Cost Funding

No. Description (USD Million) Source
TM09 Ferozepur Road Pilot Project 28.3 GoPb
Conversion of Two Stroke Rickshaw into CNG Fitted Four
TM10 12.4 GoPb
Stroke Rickshaw
TM11 Remodeling of Inner and Outer Circular Road 14.1 GoPb
2) LUTMP Proposed Traffic Management Projects
In addition to the above committed projects, the study has given a full and due
consideration to the role of traffic management in the LUTMP 2030. This has been
defined and discussed for the traffic management project identification, selection and
development in Section 7.1.3. The Following section provides an outline project
description and its scope within the LUTMP 2030 for each of the twenty traffic
management projects, TM12 to TM31 are listed in Table 7.1.11. The location of each
project is depicted in Figure 7.1.10 under six sub-areas, a–f.
A. Road Network Operation
A.1 [TM12] Junction Design and Traffic Signal Network Improvement – CBD
Description: This project is aimed to conduct a complete diagnosis of existing traffic

situation and junction design, and traffic signal operation in the area. Road network and
junctions designs improvement are proposed particularly to accommodate non-motorized
traffic (pedestrians and bicycles). New ITS based signalized network should be
established with a central control, as a pilot project.
Scope: There are about total 26 major junctions in this area. Road junction improvement
and coordinated traffic signal network is proposed and to be implemented.
Area: Central (b); Capital Cost: USD 4.0 Million
A.2 [TM13] Existing Junctions Design and Network Improvement
Description: This project will consist of three components for each junction
improvement; First; build transport database, junctions topographic layout, Second;
replacement of existing Non-UTC traffic signal controllers to UTC type, Third; junction
design improvement, signal design and network connection of all signalized junctions.
Scope: Total major junctions in Lahore city are about 250, and this project is to cover
initially 134 signalized junctions which are identified in Figure 7.3.13. Other
non-signalized junctions could be studied for conversion to signalized type at a later
stage.
Area: Lahore City (a); Project Cost t: USD 30.0 Million
7-57
Figure7.3.11 UTC and Non-UTC Traffic Signalized Junctions in Lahore
Source: TEPA
A.3 [TM14] Road Function and Capacity Improvement Program
Description: This project is aimed to enhance the existing road operational capacity by
minimizing the road side activities. This will include increasing the road capacity by
permanently or temporarily removing the encroachments: parking, vendors, shops, or
illegal construction of houses. This will consist of three major components; First; sufficient
laws and regulations should be prepared for strict land use control and enforcement, and
later curb future encroachment activities. Second, prepare comprehensive road network
public right of way plan for identification of encroachments of the road network. Illegal
encroachment removal operation should be launched to remove the existing
encroachment, immediately. Third, street vendors used to occupy space on temporary
and daily basis; will not be easy to remove them. A continuous effort and strict monitoring
would be required to curb such encroachments. On other hand, separate commercial
facilities should be developed to accommodate all such vendors in a mix land use pattern
in all large communities after identification of land area.
Scope: Development of existing right of way plan using the GIS of whole road network
right of way should be measured and compared with public right of way records. Prepare
comprehensive existing encroachment removal plan.
7-58
Mainly include following components; legal framework, fine system development, illegal
encroachment database development, and street vendor control.
Area: Lahore City (a); Capital Cost: USD 2 Million
B. Traffic Management
B.1 [TM15] Low Occupancy Vehicles – Public Transport for City Outskirts
Description: Outskirts areas of Lahore in the south and east, south and south west have
limited or no public transport system. This project is aimed to deploy low occupancy
vehicles like Wagons, and may be Qingqis in the outskirts with defined routes. This would
also provide feeder service to RMTS, BRT, and Bus transport system.
Scope: Feasibility study for low occupancy vehicle routes to be integrated with the city
urban transport system in the outskirts to provide public transport to rural areas.
Area: Outskirts of Lahore City and North of Ravi River (c&f); Capital Cost: USD 5.0
Million
B.2 [TM16] Traffic Circulation System Design and Implementation
Description: This is to improve traffic circulation system in the urban center, and other
dense parts of CBD. Detail traffic study would formulate an optimal traffic circulation plan
for the CBD of Lahore.
Scope: This project should design the traffic circulation system based on traffic
simulation, and propose traffic management and control devices plan. This will also
include one way street system, installation of traffic control devices and pavement
markings etc.
Area: Lahore City (a); Project Cost: USD 20 Million (Approximate)
B.3 [TM17] Public and Freight Transport Terminals
Description: Public transport terminal locations in Lahore are not optimal. Freight truck
stands are illegally operating along many area and corridors of Lahore due to lack of
logistic planning. All such facilities should be relocated to appropriate places with access
to urban centres and limit to regional road network. Small delivery trucks and local bus
services distribute goods and passengers in the city and other areas.
Scope: This project would have following key components;
i. Feasibility study for the relocation and site selection of public and freight transport
terminals;
ii. Detailed design of these terminal facilities considering access to transport
7-59
network both local and regional;
iii. Construction of public transport (3) and freight terminals (3);
Area: Lahore City and North of Ravi River (a&c); Capital Cost: USD 100 Million
B.4 [TM18] Linking Communities – Smart Roads
Description: This is an approach that manages competing interests for limited road
space by giving priority use of the road to different transport modes at particular times of
the day. All road users will continue to have access to all roads. However, certain routes
will be managed to work better for cars, while others will be managed for public transport,
cyclists, and pedestrians. It would have the following salient features;
 This would encourage walking by facilitating good pedestrian access to and within
the activity centres in periods of high demand;
 Buses are to be given priority along key public transport routes that link activity
centres during peak periods;
 Cars would be encouraged to use alternative routes around activity centres to
reduce the level of through traffic;
 Bicycles would be encouraged through development of cycle network;
 While trucks would have access at all times to the Trunk road network, these may
be given priority on important routes that link freight terminals through the
regional network;
Scope: Operational road network simulation model needs to be developed with greater
detail than the LUTMP strategic demand model.
Area: Lahore City (a); Capital Cost: USD 4.0 Million
B.5 [TM19] Feasibility Study for Traffic Demand Management (TDM) Measures
Description: There are many TDM measures which are practiced worldwide specially in
developed countries. TDM measures which suitable for the local traffic and transport
environment should be evaluated. This study should set the direction for future TDM
strategy for the city, and recommend future needs.
Scope: Evaluation of different TDM measures implemented in many developing and

developed countries. Develop options for the implementation of such measures,
according to the local conditions and their acceptability to public.
B.6 [TM20] RMTS and BRT Station Area Traffic Management
Description: Rail based Mass Rapid Transit and Bus Rapid Transit stations will be the
7-60
major multi-modal interchange points; so there needs to be traffic management plan for
all station areas of RMTS and BRT lines. Feeder service, private vehicles, and modes
like Rickshaws, Wagons and Qingqis need to be given access to avoid traffic chaos
around the stations.
Scope: To be conducted with feasibility study of each line.
Area: Lahore City (a); Capital Cost: USD 1.5 Million (Approx.)
C. Non-Motorized Traffic
C.1 [TM21] Planning and Design Study for Non-Motorized Traffic
Description: Study for the development of pedestrian friendly city including improvement
of the accessibility for the vulnerable road users. North of Lahore should be studied in
detail and practical road improvements, junction improvements, traffic circulation in
coordination with NMTs movements, landscaping, and NMTs user friendly facilities should
be planned, and designed. Certain areas could be planned as pedestrian only areas
depending upon the requirement.
Scope: This will include the detailed traffic management plan for the non-motorized traffic
which includes pedestrians, bicycles, and wheelchairs. Areas should be designed with
road access design, walkways, and traffic calming measures.
Area: North of Canal and South of Ravi River (d); Capital Cost: USD 1.5 Million
C.2 [TM22] Non-Motorized Traffic Facilities Construction
Description: NMTs planned proposals will be implemented by this project
Scope: Road geometric design, junctions design improvement, walkways, bicycle paths
construction, and other proposed measures for handicap persons.
Area: North of Canal and South of Ravi River (d); Capital Cost: USD 6 Million
C.3 [TM23] Pedestrian and Bicycle Path Network
Description: Newly developed housing communities in last few decades; like DHA,
Model Town, Gulberg, Johar Town areas do not include pedestrian or bicycle facilities at
all. Traffic is moving at high speed as compared to densely mixed areas north of the
canal. Pedestrians and cyclist are always at risk as they are forced to mix with fast
moving traffic in the same road space.
This project objective is to study and design facilities for pedestrians and cycles to make
the transport system more sustainable and environment friendly.
Scope: Study to provide segregated or mixed NMT path network with full connectivity
7-61
with commercial centres, and communities. This project will include the implementation of
the proposed measures.
Area: Central (b) and South of Canal (e); Capital Cost: USD 5 Million
D. Parking Management
D.1 [TM24] Comprehensive Parking System Development
Description: This includes comprehensive planning and design study for on-street and
off-street parking facilities. This study would lead to the construction and operation of
such facilities in Lahore. Parking Management Company should be established before
the start of this project.
Scope: Project will include the following components:
i. Parking policy, guidelines and design standards development;
ii. Parking system facilities planning and design.
Area: North of Canal, and South of Canal (d&e); Capital Cost : USD 2.5 Million
D.2 [TM25] Parking Facilities Implementation
Description: Parking facilities construction based on the facilities proposed and

designed in comprehensive parking system development project.
Scope: This will include the construction/ provision of on-street and off-street parking
facilities, removal of encroachments, and enforcement mechanism for illegal parking
control/ management.
Area: North of Canal, and South of Canal (d&e); Capital Cost: USD 60 Million (Approx.)
D.3 [TM26] Park and Ride Facilities Development
Description: Park and Ride facilities may be provided in order to attract private car users
to public transport system. People can walk; take cycle, motorcycle or car to Park and
Ride facility, and take BRT or RMTS to the CBD area.
Scope: Park and Ride facilities to be planned at mass transit line terminals and at the
stations if feasible. To be studied in conjunction with the BRT/ RMTS line feasibility
studies.
Area: Lahore City (a); Capital Cost: USD 75 Million (Approx.)
E. Enforcement of Traffic Rules and Regulations
E.1 [TM27] Traffic Enforcement Strengthening Program
Description: Traffic enforcement is the best way to control traffic violations, improve
7-62
traffic safety of NMTs and other vehicles, stop reckless driving, and streamline traffic flow.
Automatic traffic violations central database should be established which would assist in
interactive traffic enforcement in the field and detecting vehicles with repeated violations.
It would be necessary to do the capacity development of traffic police for efficient
enforcement of traffic laws.
Scope: This project could have following components;
i. Traffic violations automated central record;
ii. Capacity development of traffic police;
iii. Provision of controlled space for vehicles detention;
Area: Lahore City (a); Capital Cost: USD 3 Million (Approx.)
F. Traffic Safety
F.1 [TM28] Traffic Calming
Description: Road in Lahore have wide right-of-way, and specialy in the newly
developed south and south-west side areas. This is to apply road design and traffic
management techniques to control traffic speeds in these areas for pedestrian, cyclist
safety and better environment.
Scope: The project objectives are to include preparation of detailed design of traffic
calming measures and their implementation.
Area: South of Canal (e); Capital Cost: USD 6 Million
F.2 [TM29] Traffic Safety Education Improvement
Description: Sense of safety is most important for safe travel behaviour for both
motorized and non-motorized traffic. This awareness can be developed through proper
education during early childhood, primary school, secondary school, and drivers training.
Traffic Safety should be mandatory part of the syllabus of students in school. This should
be specifically designed in context of existing traffic environment by the traffic safety
experts.
Scope: Project will include designing and conduct of traffic safety course as mandatory
part of education at all possible levels. Public seminars, talk shows should be organized
to improve road safety sense in the young generation who are most vulnerable and
reckless.
7-63
G. Intelligent Transportation System
G.1 [TM30] Intelligent Transportation System Development
Description: This project will consist of three components; First; study for urban traffic
control and information system development. Second; will include installation of CCTV
cameras and traffic detectors to control and collect real time traffic data, and use for
incident management system. Third; centralization of the signal control system in order to
provide area-wide real time adaptive traffic control system.
Section for the data collection and processing and dissemination for the traffic information
will also be established. This whole project includes extensive component of local
capacity development to operate, maintain and further expand the system to wider area.
Scope: Project will include the following components;
i. Study for Urban Traffic Control and Information System Development
ii. Centralized Urban Traffic Control Center
iii. Traffic Signals Equipment and CCTV Surveillance System
iv. Incident Management System
v. Information Dissemination System
vi. Parking Management System Provisions
vii. Enforcement System, FM Radio Channel
viii. Operation and Management of the whole ITS system
H. Standards and Guidelines
H.1 [TM31] Local Standards and Guidelines Development
Description: Local standards and guidelines related traffic engineering are a pre-
requisite for bringing the conformity in transport facilities design. This would help to avoid
unsafe and poor designs based on perception and intuitions.
Scope: These standards need to be developed considering local conditions and should
involve local and international experts in each field in the design review team.
Following standards or guidelines will be developed under this project to be used in

Lahore;
i. Road Geometric Design
ii. Traffic Control Devices
7-64
iii. Parking Design
iv. Traffic Signal System Design
v. Pavement Design
vi. Development Traffic Impact Assessment Guidelines
vii. Traffic Safety Standards and Guidelines
7-65
7.4 Evaluation of Major Master Plan Projects
In this Section, major projects in Section 7.3 are evaluated from the economic, financial
and environmental points of view, based on the methodology of Strategic Environmental
Assessment (SEA). Finally, these projects are prioritized and classified into the short-,
medium- and long-term projects.
7.4.1 LUTMP 2030 Economic Evaluation of Projects
1) Methodology and Assumptions
Following the method of social cost-benefit analysis, all the public transport and road
projects comprising the maximum network were evaluated from the economic or social
point of view. As the economic benefits of a project, two direct effects by the projects
were taken into consideration; one was savings in Vehicle Operating Cost (VOC) and the
other was savings in Travel Time Cost (TTC). They were measured by so-called “with-
and without” comparison, that is, comparison of traffic assignment results on a network
with the project and without the project.
There are many projects to be evaluated and a main purpose of evaluation is to put a
comparative priority on each project. Therefore, the following assumptions and
standardizations were adopted for simplification and convenience of comparison.
1) Construction Period is assumed to be three years of 2017 to 2019 for the road
and BRT projects. Construction cost was distributed among the three years,
based on the previous studies. In case of RMTS projects, and large-scale
highway construction projects, the construction period is assumed to be five
years of 2015 to 2019. In case of public transport projects, Rolling stock (or Bus
Fleet) cost of the project was allocated only in 2019.
2) Project Life is thirty years after starting operation. No residual value is

considered.
3) Traffic Assignment was done for the year of 2020 and 2030, and the economic
benefits were estimated for the two years and an interpolation was done for
intermediate years. The economic benefits have been calculated from the results
of traffic assignment. After 2030, economic benefit was assumed not to change.
4) Three Indicators of Economic Viability have been calculated from the annual
cost and benefit streams:
 B/C (Cost Benefit Ratio)

 Net Present Value (NPV)
 EIRR (Economic Internal Rate of Return)
7-66
5) Social Discount Rate was assumed at 12 %, which is generally used in Pakistan.
6) Annual Maintenance Cost of a road project was assumed to be 1.0 % of

construction cost of the project. As for a public transport project, annual operation
and maintenance cost was estimated separately for each project.
7) Economic Cost of a project was assumed to be 85 % of the financial cost of the

project.
8) Exchange Rate was set as USD 1.00 = PKR 80.00 on December 2010.
2) VOC and TTC
As savings in VOC and TTC were selected as the economic benefit of a project, unit
costs of VOC and TTC were required to estimate those benefits. The unit costs were
estimated in 2010.
(i) VOC (Vehicle Operating Cost)
The following figure shows the VOCs by vehicle types used in this study for a range of
speeds. The important is that the VOC should be a function of vehicle speed so that the
improvement of road condition would be duly reflected as economic benefit.
Figure 7.4.1 Vehicle Operating Cost by Vehicle Speed (Economic Cost)
(PKR/km)
Bicycle
600
Motor- cycle
500 Car
Large Bus (50pax)
400
Pickup Truck
300 2 Axle Truck (8ton)
3 Axle Truck (15ton)
200
100
0
5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Speed (Km/h)
(ii) VOT (Value of Time)
VOT is an important parameter to determine the modal split of passenger traffic, and to
provide the basis for economic evaluation of the proposed project. Based on the result of
Willingness-To-Pay (WTP) survey conducted in this study, the value was estimated by
7-67
mode of transport as summarized in Table 7.4.1. This value was assumed to grow at the
same growth rate as per-capita GDP used in this study.
Table 7.4.1 The Study Estimated Value of Time (VOT)

(PKR/ Minute.) 2010 2020 2030
(1) Car/ Truck 3.68 5.03 7.49
(2) Motor-cycle 1.81 2.47 3.68
(3) Rickshaw/ Qingqi 1.34 1.83 2.73
(4) Bicycle 1.34 1.83 2.73
(5) Wagon 1.43 1.96 2.91
(6) Bus 1.42 1.94 2.89
(7) A/C Bus 2.23 3.05 4.54
3) Economic and Financial Evaluation Results
Economic benefit and estimated economic internal rate of return (EIRR) of each project is
given in the following tables. As the threshold of EIRR is 12 %, most projects are judged
economically feasible with several expectations. EIRRs of BRT projects were higher than
that of RTMS projects. Generally, many projects show extraordinarily high EIRR because
of sever congestion in “without project” case.
Due to the excessive simplification of the method, the EIRR should be referred to only for
project prioritization.
(i) Public Transport Projects
Table 7.4.2 Public Transport Project Economic Evaluation Results
Public Transport Projects

O&M Cost
Project Project Project Length Capital Cost EIRR
(USD million/ year) (%)
No. Code Description (km) (USD million)
in 2020
PT06 RMS1 Green Line (RMTS) 27.0 2,583 32.8 12.1
PT07 RMS2 Orange Line (RMTS) 27.1 2,330 32.1 10.3
PT08 RMS3 Blue Line (RMTS) 24.0 1,908 26.1 8.0
PT07 RMS2 Orange Line (BRT) 27.1 74.5 38.1 18.8
PT08 RMS3 Blue Line (BRT) 24.0 58.6 20.2 16.7
PT09 BRT1 Purple Line (BRT) 19.0 40.8 5.5 15.5
PT10 BRT2 BRT Line 1 14.1 30.7 5.0 37.6
PT11 BRT3 BRT Line 2 14.3 30.5 3.7 43.5
PT12 BRT4 BRT Line 3a 15.7 28.7 8.0

20.3
PT13 BRT5 BRT Line 3b 19.1 35.3 8.0
7-68
Table 7.4.3 Road Sub-sector Project Economic Evaluation Results
O&M Cost
Project Project Length Project Cost EIRR
Project Description (USD million) (USD
No. Code (km) (%)
million)
Barki Road
R11 20002 (Green City – BRB Canal)
6.8 17.0 0.17 15.6
Bedian Road
R12 20003 (DHA – LRR – Ferozepur Road)
26.3 142.0 1.42 15.6
Shabir Usmani Road
R13 20004 (Barkat Market – Maulana Shaukat 2.8 6.9 0.07 11.6
Ali Road)
R14 20005 Link Peco Road – Ferozepur Road 1.9 6.7 0.07 11.6
Road
R15 20006 (Completion of link between
1.5 5.3 0.05 11.6
R16 20007 (Bridge 0.5km) 1.2 5.3 0.05 56.0
G.T. Road
R17 20008 (Cooper Store - Ek-Moria Pul)
2.1 6.3 0.06 11.6
College Road
R18 20010 (Ghaus-e-Azam Road to Defence 6.9 14.0 0.14 17.8
Road)
Structure Plan Road
R19 20011 (Shahrah Nazria-e-Pakistan – 12.9 35.0 0.35 37.3
Defence Road)
EXPO-Kahna Kacha Station Road
R20 20020 (Khayban-e-Jinnah – Kahna Kacha 7.1 29.9 0.30 17.8
Station)
Main Boulevard PIA Society Road
R21 20021 (Baig Road – Ittehad Road)
1.6 4.0 0.04 11.6
Raiwind Road
R22 20023 (Lahore Ring Road Southern Loop – 14.2 52.5 0.53 10.7
Raiwind City)
R23 20024 Madrat-e-Millat Road - Defence Road 2.6 10.9 0.11 11.6
Road
R24 20027 (Canal Bank Road – Noor-ul-Amin
2.4 6.0 0.06 11.6
Kamahan Lidher Road
R25 20041 (Ferozepur Road – Lahore Bedian 8.8 26.4 0.26 15.6
Road)
Sua Asil Road
R26 20043 (Ferozepur Road – Raiwind Road)
22.0 130.7 1.31 10.7
R27 20044 (Kahna Kacha Approach Road – 17.8 91.7 0.92 10.7
Kahna Kacha Road
R28 20046 (Kahna Station – Ferozepur Road)
7.1 29.9 0.30 10.7
Sharaqpur Road
(Lahore Ring Road – Saggian Wala
R29 Bypass)
37.4 202.0 2.02 6.1
20049 (Bridge 0.7km)
R30 (Saggian Wala Bypass – G.T. Road)
2.4 20.4 0.20 6.1
R31 (Ring Road – Sharaqpur Road) 6.7 43.4 0.43 13.3
(Bridge 0.6km)
20050 Lahore-Sheikhupura Road (West)
R32 (Sharaqpur Road – Lahore- 1.9 16.2 0.16 13.3
Sheikhupura Road)
Road – Ferozepur Road
R33 20052 (Khyaban-e-Jinnah Road – Defence
17.7 57.6 0.58 30.2
Road – Ferozepur Road)
Manga-Raiwind Road
R34 20053 (Multan Road – Raiwind Road)
15.8 43.5 0.44 10.7
R35 20054 (Ferozepur Road – College Road)
9.9 57.0 0.57 26.6
R36 20055 (Canal Bank Road – M-2)
3.9 19.7 0.20 26.6
R37 20056 (Raiwind City – Boundary of the 19.8 73.3 0.73 10.7
Study Area)
Raiwind Road
R38 20057 (Thokar – Lahore Ring Road 12.9 54.2 0.54 17.8
Southern Loop)
Defence Road
R39 20060 (Multan Road – Ferozepur Road)
14.3 60.1 0.60 17.8
7-69
O&M Cost
Project Project Length Project Cost EIRR
Project Description (USD million) (USD
No. Code (km) (%)
million)
Extension
R40 20061 (Defence Road – Lahore Ring Road
3.5 20.8 0.21 15.6
Sothern Loop)
R41 20081 (Multan Road – M2)
15.6 121.9 1.22 23.0
R42 20082 (Ferozepur Road – Multan Road)
21.8 201.2 2.01 15.6
Secondary Roads in Dharampura
R43 20091 Area
5.1 38.9 0.39 35.2
R44 20092 Secondary Roads in Shadbagh Area 41.0 102.5 1.71 11.6
Secondary Roads in Samanabad
R45 20093 Area
46.0 115.0 0.48 11.6
Lahore Bypass
R46 (G.T. Road – Kala Shah Kaku 7.6 41.0 0.41 13.2
Bypass)
M-2 – Lahore-Islamabad Motorway
(Lahore-Sheikhupura Road –
R47 30002 Boundary of the Study Area)
16.5 89.0 0.89 13.2
(Bridge 0.6km)
R48 (Bund Road – Lahore-Sheikhupura 11.3 64.6 0.65 13.2
Road)
N-5- Multan Road
R49 30004 (Lahore Ring Road Sothern Loop – 31.3 109.7 1.10 15.7
Sharif Complex Road
(Defence Road – Manga Raiwind
R50 30005 Road – Bhai Pheru Kot Rada Kishan
33.2 116.1 1.16 15.7
Road)
North-West Secondary Ring Road
R51 30006 (Sharaqpur Road – Lahore- 33.8 118.3 1.18 13.3
Sheikhupura Road – G.T. Road)
R52 30008 (G.T. Road – M-2)
52.7 284.4 2.84 13.3
Link G.T. Road
R53 30010 (Sharaqpur Road – Lahore- 5.0 22.9 0.23 6.1
R54 Sialkot Motorway
4.2 25.1 0.25 20.4
R55 30028 (Bridge 0.8km)
32.0 128.0 1.28 20.4
R56 Motorway
0.3 2.2 0.02 20.4
Construction and remodeling of
The Road Projects will be executed by LDA/
Secondary roads - south of LRR in
R57 Optional 93.6 TEPA in conjunction with the developer’s
the south-western quadrant between
contribution towards capital cost.
Ferozepur Road and Multan Road
7.4.2 LUTMP 2030 Financial Evaluation of Projects
1) Methodology and Assumptions
Among the projects comprising the maximum network, income generating projects such
as railway projects were evaluated from the financial viewpoint, by comparing cash inflow
(fare revenue) and cash outflow (construction cost and operation and maintenance cost).
Overall profitability of a project was measured with the Financial Internal Rate of Return
(FIRR), not considering the distribution of the profit. This is because the purpose of
analysis is just for priority setting on projects.
Main assumptions for the financial analysis are as follows:
1) Construction Period is assumed to be three years of 2017 to 2019 for BRT

projects. Construction cost was distributed among the three years, based on the
7-70
previous studies. In case of RMTS project, the construction period is assumed to

be five years of 2015 to 2019. Rolling stock (or Bus Fleet) cost of the project was
allocated only in 2019.
2) Project Life is thirty years after starting operation. No residual value is

considered.
3) Traffic Assignment was done for the year of 2020 and 2030, and the revenues
were estimated for the two years and an interpolation was done for intermediate
years. After 2030, revenues were assumed not to change.
4) Fare Revenue was calculated based on the following fare setting and the result
of traffic assignment which provided the usage. Fares are assumed to be the
same as existing A/C bus in Lahore for BRT and RMTS.
Table 7.4.4 Fare Setting for Public Transport A/C Bus, BRT and RMTS Project
Distance Band Fare (PKR)
0-5 km 15
5-9 km 20
9-13 km 23
13-17 km 25
Above 17 km 30
Source: Daewoo Urban A/C Bus Service Fare in 2010
5) Miscellaneous Revenues were assumed as 3% of fare revenue, and added to

fare revenues.
6) Impact of Inflation has been incorporated in the revenue projections as an

annual increase of 6%. In addition, 4% of inflation rate applied to O&M cost.
2) Financial Evaluation Results
The following table summarizes the results of financial evaluation. The trend of FIRR
results seems to be different by the project. FIRR of RMTS Green line is higher than both:
Orange and Blue Lines. FIRR results of BRTs are high, compared with that of RMTS lines.
Table 7.4.5 Financial Evaluation Results of RMTS and BRT Projects

Project Length Capital Cost O&M (USD Revenue (USD million)
Project Description FIRR (%)
No. (km) (USD million) million/ year) 2020 2020 2030
PT06 RMTS Green Line 27.0 2,583.0 32.8 70.1 242.7 7.1
PT07 RMTS Orange Line 27.1 2,330.0 32.1 48.9 149.2 5.7
PT08 RMTS Blue Line 24.0 1,908.0 26.1 51.7 154.4 4.9
PT07 BRT Orange Line 27.1 74.5 38.1 43.1 139.9 21.0
PT08 BRT Blue Line 24.0 58.6 20.2 41.4 128.0 17.9
PT09 BRT Purple Line 19.0 40.8 5.5 24.8 134.8 16.1
PT10 BRT Line 1 14.1 30.7 5.0 19.2 107.7 24.9
PT11 BRT Line 2 14.3 30.5 3.7 22.4 108.6 26.5
PT12 BRT Line 3a 15.7 28.7 8.0

44.5 172.8 16.3
PT13 BRT Line 3b 19.1 35.3 8.0
7-71
7.4.3 LUTMP 2030 Environmental Evaluation of Projects
1) Methodology and Assumption
Regarding project selection/ prioritization, Multi-Criterion Assessment (MCA) is used. In

terms of the environmental assessment, following four environmental criteria are included
as it is desirable to comply with the JICA Guidelines for Environmental and Social
Considerations, regardless of extent of its contribution to the overall MCA evaluation
process.
Table 7.4.6 Environmental Criteria for MCA
Criteria Indicator Expected Major Impacts
Impacts on Social Land acquisition and
1 Loss of land. assets, income, livelihood
Environment-1 resettlement
Impacts on Social Location of project Projects in CBD and/or densely populated urban areas may encounter with more
2
Environment-2 site difficulties and conflicts of interests among stakeholders than those in other areas.
Environmental Increase of NOx and
3 Deterioration of air quality
Pollution PMx emissions
Impacts on global Increase of CO2
4 Increase in greenhouse gases emissions
warming emissions
Table 7.4.7 Rating and Weighting for the Criteria in MCA
Rating (Score)
Projects Weight
Indicator
Concerned (%)
1 3 5 8 10
Remodeling, Remodeling,
Land Construction Construction Soft approach,
X road length road length less
acquisition (Required land (Required land only such as
1 Road project > 10km than 10km 40
and cost > USD 10 cost less than institutional
(No new land (No new land
resettlement million) USD 10 million) improvement
required) required)
Public Mostly CBD Soft approach,
Location of Transport and/or densely Suburban only such as
2 Urban area Rural area 20
Project site project/Traffic populated area institutional
Management urban area improvement
Increase of Significant Some increase
Air Pollutants increase - -
3 20
(NOx/PMx) 1) Construction 1) Construction
emissions (Required land (Required land Some reduction
cost > USD 10 cost less than (Bus transport Significant
Almost no
Common million), USD 10 improvement/Tr reduction
change
Increase of 2) Remodeling million), affic (RMTS/ BRT)
4 CO2 (> 30km, 4 2) Remodeling management) 20
emissions lanes and > < 10km with 6
10km with 6/8 lanes and > 30
lanes km with 4 lanes
Notes 1: a) According to World Bank and ADB Guidelines (and JICA implicitly recognizes), in case of number of project
affected persons (PAPs) is more than 200 the project is classified into Category A, which require full EIA study and
Resettlement Action Plan for compensation and supporting PAPs. b) In case of occurrence of land acquisition, it is not sufficient
to compensation of required land value to land owner. Because the land acquisition and resettlement may affect not only to
land, but also to relating assets, livelihood, income etc. of Project Affected Persons (PAPs). Thus, total cost required woul d
include cost of compensation and assistance of PAPs as well as land acquisition cost. In case of no new land requirement such
as remodeling of the existing road, matter of land acquisition and resettlement may enlarge with increase in length of road
section and traffic volume.
Note 2: If the project sites are located in CBD and/or densely populated urban areas, it may often raise more disputes and
conflicts among stakeholders over issues relating to misdistribution of benefit and damage, compensation and support of PAPs
than other areas.
Note 3: In general, road transport may dominantly generate both air pollutants and CO2 emissions resulting in air pollution and
global warming in transport sector. In contrast to this, railway transport such as RMTS/BRT may bring about co-benefits in
terms of air quality and global warming.
7-72
2) Environmental Evaluation Results
The following Table 7.4.8 summarizes the results of environmental evaluation of LUTMP
Public Transport, Road Sub-sector and Traffic Management Projects.
Table 7.4.8 Environmental Evaluation of LUTMP 2030 Projects

Land
Environ-
Acquisition Global
Location mental
Total Score
and Warming
Pollution
Resettlement
Rank
Project Project Project Length
No. Code Description (km)
Weight
Weight
Weight
Weight
Rating
Rating
Rating
Rating
Committed Public Transport Projects
PT01 C.1 - 3 0 1 0 8 0 8 0 5 B
Terminals in Lahore
PT02 C.2 - 5 0 3 0 8 0 8 0 6 B
Bus System
PT03 C.3 Up-grading of Bus Stands - 3 0 3 0 8 0 8 0 5 B
PT04 C.4 Integrated Bus Operation - 3 0 3 0 8 0 8 0 5 B
Establishment of Multimodal Bus
PT05 C.5 - 1 0 1 0 10 0 10 0 5 B
Terminal at Shahdara
LUTMP 2030 Proposed Public Transport Projects
PT06 RMS1 Green Line (RMTS) 27.0 1 0 1 0 10 0 10 0 5 B
PT07 RMS2 Orange Line (Initially BRT) 27.1 1 0 1 0 10 0 10 0 5 B
PT08 RMS3 Blue Line (Initially BRT) 24.0 1 0 1 0 10 0 10 0 5 B
PT09 BRT1 Purple Line (BRT) 19.0 8 0 3 0 10 0 10 0 8 A
PT10 BRT2 BRT Line 1 14.1 8 0 3 0 10 0 10 0 8 A
PT11 BRT3 BRT Line 2 14.3 8 0 3 0 10 0 10 0 8 A
PT12 BRT4 BRT Line 3a 15.7 8 0 3 0 10 0 10 0 8 A
PT13 BRT5 BRT Line 3b 19.1 8 0 3 0 10 0 10 0 8 A
Road Sub-sector Projects - Committed
Construction of LRR
R01 12,001 13.3 1 0 5 0 1 0 1 0 2 C
(Airport – Ferozepur Road)
R02 12,002 3.4 3 0 1 0 3 0 3 0 3 C
Flyover
Construction of Canal Bank
R03 12,003 Road Flyover along Ferozepur 3.3 3 0 1 0 3 0 3 0 3 C
Road
R04 12,004 Remodeling of Canal Bank Road 15.6 5 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 C
R05 12,005 3.6 8 0 5 0 3 0 3 0 5 B
R06 12,006 Remodeling of Kala Khatai Road 26.9 5 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 4 B
Remodeling of Allama Iqbal
R07 12,007 3.3 8 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 5 B
Road
R08 12,008 Remodeling of Multan Road 11.3 5 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 C
Remodeling of Thokar Niaz Baig
R09 12,009 11.0 5 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 4 B
Road (Thokar – Defence Road)
Remodeling of Ferozepur Road
R10 12,010 23.6 5 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 C
(Lahore Bridge – Mustafa Abad)
Barki Road
R11 20002 6.8 8 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 5 B
Bedian Road
R12 20003 26.3 5 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 4 B
(DHA – LRR – Ferozepur Road)
Shabir Usmani Road
R13 20004 (Barkat Market – Maulana 2.8 8 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 5 B
Shaukat Ali Road)
Link Peco Road – Ferozepur
R14 20005 1.9 8 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 5 B
Road
Link Ferozepur Road - Nalay
Wali Road
R15 20006 1.5 8 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 5 B
R16 20007
(Bridge 0.5km)
1.2 8 0 1 0 3 0 3 0 5 B
7-73
Land
Environ-
Acquisition Global
Location mental
Total Score
and Warming
Pollution
Resettlement
Rank
Weight
Weight
Weight
Weight
Rating
Rating
Rating
Rating
G.T. Road
R17 20008 2.1 8 0 1 0 3 0 3 0 5 B
College Road
R18 20010 (Ghaus-e-Azam Road to 6.9 8 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 5 B
Defence Road)
Structure Plan Road
R19 20011 (Shahrah Nazria-e-Pakistan – 12.9 5 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 4 B
Defence Road)
EXPO-Kahna Kacha Station
Road
R20 20020
(Khayban-e-Jinnah – Kahna
7.1 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 C
Kacha Station)
Main Boulevard PIA Society
R21 20021 Road (Baig Road – Ittehad 1.6 8 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 5 B
Road)
Raiwind Road
R22 20023 (Lahore Ring Road Southern 14.2 5 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 C
Loop – Raiwind City)
Madrat-e-Millat Road - Defence
R23 20024
Road
2.6 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 C
Extension of Maulana Shaukat
Ali Road
R24 20027 (Canal Bank Road – Noor-ul- 2.4 8 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 5 B
Amin Road through Punjab
University)
Kamahan Lidher Road
R25 20041 (Ferozepur Road – Lahore 8.8 1 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 2 C
Bedian Road)
Sua Asil Road
R26 20043 (Ferozepur Road – Raiwind 22.0 1 0 5 0 3 0 3 0 3 C
Road)
R27 20044 (Kahna Kacha Approach Road – 17.8 1 0 5 0 3 0 3 0 3 C
Kahna Kacha Road
R28 20046 (Kahna Station – Ferozepur 7.1 3 0 5 0 3 0 3 0 3 B
Road)
Sharaqpur Road
(Lahore Ring Road – Saggian
R29 37.4 5 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 C
Wala Bypass)
20049 (Bridge 0.7km)
R30 (Saggian Wala Bypass – G.T. 2.4 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 C
Road)
R31 (Ring Road – Sharaqpur Road) 6.7 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 C
(Bridge 0.6km)
20050 Lahore-Sheikhupura Road
(West)
R32
(Sharaqpur Road – Lahore-
1.9 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 C
Sheikhupura Road)
Link Thokar Niaz Baig Canal
Bank Road – Ferozepur Road
R33 20052 (Khyaban-e-Jinnah Road – 17.7 1 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 2 C
Defence Road – Ferozepur
Road)
Manga-Raiwind Road
R34 20053 15.8 3 0 5 0 3 0 3 0 3 B
R35 20054 (Ferozepur Road – College 9.9 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 C
Road)
R36 20055
3.9 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 C
R37 20056 (Raiwind City – Boundary of the 19.8 5 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 4 B
Study Area)
Raiwind Road
R38 20057 (Thokar – Lahore Ring Road 12.9 5 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 C
Southern Loop)
Defence Road
R39 20060 (Multan Road – Ferozepur 14.3 5 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 4 B
Road)
7-74
Land
Environ-
Acquisition Global
Location mental
Total Score
and Warming
Pollution
Resettlement
Rank
Weight
Weight
Weight
Weight
Rating
Rating
Rating
Rating
Extension
R40 20061 3.5 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 C
(Defence Road – Lahore Ring
Road Sothern Loop)
R41 20081
15.6 1 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 1 C
R42 20082 (Ferozepur Road – Multan 21.8 1 0 5 0 1 0 1 0 2 C
Road)
Secondary Roads in
R43 20091
Dharampura Area
5.1 1 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 2 C
R44 20092 41.0 5 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 C
Area
Secondary Roads in
R45 20093 46.0 5 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 4 B
Samanabad Area
Lahore Bypass
R46 (G.T. Road – Kala Shah Kaku 7.6 8 0 5 0 3 0 3 0 5 B
Bypass)
Motorway
R47 (Lahore-Sheikhupura Road – 16.5 5 0 5 0 1 0 1 0 3 B
30002
(Bridge 0.6km)
Motorway
R48 11.3 5 0 5 0 1 0 1 0 3 B
(Bund Road – Lahore-
Sheikhupura Road)
N-5- Multan Road
(Lahore Ring Road Sothern
R49 30004 31.3 5 0 5 0 1 0 1 0 3 B
Loop – Boundary of the Study
Area)
Sharif Complex Road
(Defence Road – Manga
R50 30005 33.2 5 0 5 0 1 0 1 0 3 B
Raiwind Road – Bhai Pheru Kot
Rada Kishan Road)
North-West Secondary Ring
Road
R51 30006 33.8 5 0 5 0 1 0 1 0 3 B
R52 30008 52.7 5 0 5 0 1 0 1 0 3 B
(G.T. Road – M-2)
Link G.T. Road
R53 30010 (Sharaqpur Road – Lahore- 5.0 8 0 5 0 3 0 3 0 5 B
R54 4.2 3 0 8 0 3 0 3 0 4 B
Sialkot Motorway
R55 30028 32.0 1 0 8 0 1 0 1 0 2 C
(Bridge 0.8km)
R56 0.3 3 0 8 0 3 0 3 0 4 B
Motorway
The Road Projects will be executed by LDA/ TEPA in
Secondary roads - south of LRR
conjunction with the developer. No environmental
R57 Optional in the south-western quadrant 93.6
assessment is considered essential at this stage as each
between Ferozepur Road and
sub-project must be examined on its own merits.
Multan Road
TM01 - - 10 0 10 0 8 0 8 0 9 A
TM02 - Parking Management Company - 10 0 10 0 8 0 8 0 9 A
TM03 - Traffic Education Center - 10 0 10 0 8 0 8 0 9 A
TM04 - Traffic Control Plan of City - 10 0 10 0 8 0 8 0 9 A

TM05 - - 10 0 10 0 8 0 8 0 9 A
TM06 - - 1 0 3 0 8 0 8 0 4 B
Plazas
TM07 - - 3 0 3 0 8 0 8 0 5 B
Bridges
TM08 - Improvement of 52 Junctions - 1 0 3 0 8 0 8 0 4 B
7-75
Land
Environ-
Acquisition Global
Location mental
Total Score
and Warming
Pollution
Resettlement
Rank
Weight
Weight
Weight
Weight
Rating
Rating
Rating
Rating
TM09 - Ferozepur Road Pilot Project - 3 0 3 0 8 0 8 0 5 B

TM10 - Rickshaw into CNG Fitted Four - 1 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 5 B
Stroke Rickshaw
TM11 - - 1 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 5 B
Circular Road
Traffic Management Projects – LUTMP Proposed
Junction Design and Traffic
TM12 A.1 - 1 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 5 B
Signal Improvement – CBD
Existing Junctions Design and
TM13 A.2 - 8 0 10 0 8 0 8 0 8 A
Network Improvement
Road Function and Capacity
TM14 A.3 - 10 0 10 0 8 0 8 0 9 A
Improvement Program
Low Occupancy Vehicles
TM15 B.1 Planning for Outskirt/ Rural - 10 0 10 0 8 0 8 0 9 A
Areas
Traffic Circulation System
TM16 B.2 - 10 0 10 0 8 0 8 0 9 A
Public and Freight Transport
TM17 B.3 - 1 0 10 0 8 0 8 0 6 B
Terminals
Linking Communities - Smart
TM18 B.4 - 3 0 10 0 8 0 8 0 6 B
Roads
Feasibility Study for Traffic
TM19 B.5 - 10 0 10 0 8 0 8 0 9 A
Demand Management Measures
RMTS and BRT Station Area
TM20 B.6 - 5 0 10 0 8 0 8 0 7 A
Traffic Management
Planning and Design Study for
TM21 C.1 - 10 0 10 0 8 0 8 0 9 A
Non-Motorized Traffic
Non-Motorized Traffic Facilities
TM22 C.2 - 3 0 10 0 8 0 8 0 6 B
Implementation
Pedestrian and Bicycle Path
TM23 C.3 - 3 0 10 0 8 0 8 0 6 B
Network
Comprehensive Parking System
TM24 D.1 - 10 0 10 0 8 0 8 0 9 A
Development
Parking Facilities
TM25 D.2 - 1 0 10 0 8 0 8 0 6 B
Implementation
Park and Ride Facilities
TM26 D.3 - 10 0 10 0 8 0 8 0 9 A
Development
Traffic Enforcement
TM27 E.1 - 10 0 10 0 8 0 8 0 9 A
TM28 F.1 Traffic Calming - 10 0 10 0 8 0 8 0 9 A
Traffic Safety Education
TM29 F.2 - 10 0 10 0 8 0 8 0 9 A
Improvement
Intelligent Transportation System
TM30 G.1 - 3 0 10 0 8 0 8 0 6 B
Development
Local Standards and Guidelines
TM31 H.1 - 10 0 10 0 8 0 8 0 9 A
Development
The ranking thresholds used in project ranking are given in Table 7.4.9.
Table 7.4.9 Ranking Threshold in Environmental Evaluation
Ranking Extent of Negative Impact Total Score

A Little or negligible impacts 10 to 7
B Not significant but some impact 7> to 3
C Significant impact 3>
Note 1: Public transport and traffic management projects may cause in general little
negative impact. However, if the project sites are located in CBD and/or densely
populated urban areas, and land acquisition and resettlement are required, it may raise
disputes and conflicts among stakeholders over compensation and/or relocation of
PAPs including encroachment and illegal occupants. Therefore, severe rating value
such as 1 or 3 was applied to some projects of public transport and traffic management.
7-76
Results of environmental evaluation ranking are briefly described below:
 Projects of ranking C (significant negative impacts expected) are mostly those of

construction of roads.
 Projects of ranking B (not significant but some negative impacts expected) are
those of RMTS, remodeling of roads (shorter length), and some projects of traffic
management and bus transport improvement.
 Projects of ranking A (Little or negligible negative impacts expected) are those of

BRT and most of the traffic management projects
7.4.4 Environmental and Social Considerations in MCA
1) Scope of Environmental and Social Considerations
In this study, it is required that Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) level study for
several priority projects including scenarios of the regional development plan as well as
reviewing existing IEE/ EIA level should be studied separately. In these studies some
elements of Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) must also be examined.
2) Methodology of Environmental and Social Considerations
(a) Role and Components of Strategic Environmental Assessment
In the JICA Guidelines for Environmental and Social Consideration (April, 2010), SEA is
defined as “an assessment being implemented at the policy, planning and program level
rather than a project-level EIA.”
In general most of the components of a SEA are the following:
 Comprehensive assessment with integrated evaluation by environmental and

social considerations as well as economic, financial, operational and technical
factors at the program, plan and policy levels;
 Impact assessment at the early decision-making stage (e.g. planning stage);
 Consideration of alternatives;
 Public participation and information disclosure at the earliest stages;
 Assessment of accumulated impacts beyond one project, if sub-projects are
involved.
Regarding major components of SEA, as for comprehensive assessment is concerned, it

is conducted by using MCA as described in the previous section. As for public
participation and information disclosure at the earlier stage frequent meetings with
stakeholders were already held including International Seminar (four times) in the Study.
7-77
(b) Examination of Environmental and Social Considerations in the Master Plan
Examination of Environmental and Social Considerations were conducted for the

following four types of projects/ plans.
 Public Transport – RMTS, BRT and Bus Transport Improvement projects

 Road Transport projects
 Traffic Management projects
 Urban Development plans
(c) Methodology for IEE Level Study
i) Setting of Environmental Components
 According to JICA Guidelines for Environmental and Social Considerations,

anticipated impacts to be assessed include impacts on human health and safety,
as well as on the natural environment, that are transmitted through air, water, soil,
waste, accidents, water usage, climate change, ecosystems, fauna and flora,
including trans-boundary or global scale impacts. These also include social
impacts, including migration of population and involuntary resettlement, local
economy such as employment and livelihood, utilization of land and local
resources, social institutions such as social capital and local decision-making
institutions, existing social infrastructures and services, vulnerable social groups
such as poor and indigenous peoples, equality of benefits and losses and
equality in the development process, gender, children’s rights, cultural heritage,
local conflicts of interest, infectious diseases such as HIV/AIDS, and working
conditions including occupational safety.
 In addition to the direct and immediate impacts of projects, the derivative,
secondary, and cumulative impacts as well as impacts associated with indivisible
projects will also be assessed with regard to environmental and social
considerations, so far as it is rational.
 In this examination thirty five (35) environmental items/ components (social
environment, natural environment and environmental pollution) are selected with
taking into considerations the above and laws and relevant guidelines of Pakistan
Government as well as feature of the project and location of project. These
components are given in Table 7.4.10.
7-78
Table 7.4.10 Environmental Components for an IEE Level Study

Environmental Component Remarks/ Comments
A. Social Environment
Involuntary Resettlement (Land Acquisition Land acquisition and/or resettlement to secure Right of Way
1
and Resettlement) and land for transport related facilities and structures
2 Local economy Situation of employment and livelihood etc.
3 Land use and utilization of local resources Change of land use and utilization of local resources
Social infrastructure and local decision-making institutions,
4 Social institutions
split of communities
5 Existing social infrastructures and services Other than Transport infrastructures and services
6 Transport and traffic conditions Including non-mechanized transport and walks
1) Peoples living in slum areas (Katchi Abbadis) and below
poverty level,
7 The poor, indigenous of ethnic people
2) dignity, human rights, economics and cultures of ethnic
minority group
8 Gender Issues Consideration of gender equality and women's empowerment
Interruption of children's schooling and increase in number of
9 Children's Rights
children encountered traffic accidents)
Equality of benefits and losses and equality involved in
10 Misdistribution of benefit and damage
development process
11 Local conflict of interests Possible cause for destruction of community structures
12 Cultural property and heritage Cultural, religious, archaeological and heritage sites
Fishing Rights, Water Rights and Rights of
13 Existence of rights ownership
Common
Health condition, prevalence of diseases and sanitary
14 Public health and Sanitation
condition
Other developing countries infection of HIV/AIDS were often
15 Infectious diseases such as HIV/AIDS reported due to contact of workers with HIV/AIDS affected
people at their camp.
16 Working condition Including occupational safety
Including cyclone, seismicity, free from danger (safety and
17 Hazard/ Risk (disaster, security)
security)
18 Accidents Traffic accidents and accidents during construction work
B. Natural Environment
1 Topography and Geology Specific/valuable feature of topography and geology
2 Soil erosion Susceptibility to erosion or landslide
3 Groundwater Major water supply resources of the area
1) River and canal flow;
4 River, canal and storm water drainage
2) Storm water drainage water conditions
1) Valuable and endangered species;
5 Flora, Fauna and Biodiversity 2) Trees and green spaces along the roads and surrounding
areas
1) National Parks, Nature Reserves, Bird Sanctuaries etc.
6 Protected areas
2) City parks
7 Landscape and visual amenity Esthetic value of green area and landmarks
8 Meteorology Change of local climate condition
Greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles and construction
9 Global Warming
machines
7-79
Environmental Component Remarks/ Comments
C. Environmental Pollution
Air pollutants emissions such as NOx and PMx from vehicles
1 Air pollution
and construction work
2 Water pollution Discharge of water pollutants during construction work
3 Soil contamination Contamination of toxic materials in soil
Contamination of toxic materials in bottom sediment of water
4 Bottom sediment
bodies
5 Waste Waste generation during construction work
6 Noise and Vibration Noise and vibration due to vehicles and construction work
7 Ground Subsidence Situation of foundation and pumping up of groundwater
8 Offensive odor Bad smell due to exhaust emission and factories
ii) Identifying Project activity
Activities which might affect environmental impacts due to the projects are identified for
three stages of implementation, i.e. (a) planning, (b) construction and (c) operation
stages.
iii) Identifying of Anticipated Environmental Impacts-1, Formulation of Impact
Matrix
By correspondence of each activity to each environmental item extent of anticipated
environmental impacts are evaluated one by one with rating.
Anticipated environmental and social impacts due to the project are identified, predicted
and evaluated with rating for 35 items according to the scoping procedure as given above
in Table 7.4.9.
Rating of the impacts on each item
In general, both positive (beneficial) impact (+) and negative (adverse) impact (-) are
expected due to the project activities for the three (planning, construction and operation)
stages. Thus the following rating criteria are adopted depending on the extent of impacts:
A (+/-) --- Significant positive/negative impact is expected,
B (+/-) --- Positive/negative impact is expected to some extent,
C (+/-) --- Extent of positive/negative impact is unknown or not clear (Further
examination is needed. It should be taken into consideration that impacts
may become clearer as study progresses. ),
Blank --- Negligible or No impact is expected.
Overall rating --- Overall rating is determined by adopting the worst (negative) value of
rating among the three stages.
Extent of anticipated environmental impacts is identified one by one according to the

rating corresponding to each activity to each environmental item and the results are
expressed with the formulated Impact Matrix.
7-80
iv) Identification of Anticipated Environmental Impacts-2, Provisional Scoping
Anticipated environmental impacts are identified and described for each environmental
item with provisional scoping table.
v) Possible Mitigation Measures
The above mentioned impacts should be fully taken into considerations to conduct further
baseline survey in case of lack of required information and to examine the possible
mitigation measures and monitoring as much as possible.
 Baseline survey will be done to make further understanding of existing

environment and the effects expected to be caused by the project activities.
 Mitigation measures will minimize the negative impact to an acceptable level
through the planning, construction and operation phases. Monitoring is required
to ensure that the specified mitigation measures are properly carried out through
construction and operation stages.
3) Results of IEE Level Study-1, Overall Comparison of the Projects
Table 7.4.11 shows that the overall comparison of the results. Project categorizations
according to JICA Guidelines for Environmental and Social Considerations are also
shown in the final column of this Table.
Table 7.4.11 Overall Comparison of the Projects by IEE Level Study

Road Road Traffic Bus Urban
Environmental Component RMTS BRT
Const. Remod. Mgmt. Improv. Dev.
A. Social Environment
Involuntary Resettlement (Land Acquisition and
1 A- C- A- B- B- B- A-
Resettlement)
2 Local economy B+ B+ B+ B+ B+ B+ B+
3 Land use and utilization of local resources B- B- B- B- B- C- A-
4 Social institutions A- B- A- B- B- B- A-
5 Existing social infrastructures and services B- B- B- B- C- C- B-
6 Transport and traffic conditions B- B- B- B- C- C- B-
7 The poor, indigenous of ethnic people B- B- C- C- C- C- C-
8 Gender Issues C- C- C- C- C- C- C-
9 Children's Rights C- C- C- C- C- C- C-
10 Misdistribution of benefit and damage A- B- A- B- B- B- A-
11 Local conflict of interests A- B- A- B- B- B- A-
12 Cultural property and heritage A- C- B- B- B- B- B-
13 Fishing Rights, Water Rights and Rights of Common C- C- C- C- C- C- C-
14 Public health and Sanitation B- B- B- B- C- C+ B-
15 Infectious diseases such as HIV/AIDS B- B- B- B- B- B- B-
16 Working condition B- B- B- B- B- C- B-
17 Hazard/ Risk (disaster, security) B- B- B- B- C- C- B-
18 Accidents B- B- B- B- B- B- B-
B. Natural Environment
1 Topography and Geology A- C- B- B- C- C- C-
2 Soil erosion A- C- B- B- C- C- B-
7-81
Road Road Traffic Bus Urban

Environmental Component RMTS BRT
Const. Remod. Mgmt. Improv. Dev.
3 Groundwater B- B- B- B- C- C- B-
4 River, canal and storm water drainage B- B- B- B- C- C- B-
5 Flora, Fauna and Biodiversity B- B- B- B- B- B- B-
6 Protected areas C- C- C- C- C- C- C-
7 Landscape and visual amenity B- B- B- B- C- C- B-
8 Meteorology C- C- C- C- C-
9 Global Warming B- B- B- B- C- C- C-
C. Environmental Pollution
1 Air pollution A- B- A- B- B- B- A-
2 Water pollution A- B- B- B- C- C- A-
3 Soil contamination A- B- B- B- C- C- B-
4 Bottom sediment C- C- C- C- C- C- C-
5 Waste A- B- B- B- B- B- A-
6 Noise and Vibration A- B- A- B- B- B- A-
7 Ground Subsidence C- C- C- C- C-
8 Offensive odor C- C- C- C- C- C- C-
Note 1: Overall Rating (Magnitude of impacts); In general, both positive (beneficial) impact (+) and negative
(adverse) impact (-) are expected due to the project activities. A (+/-) - Serious impact is expected, B (+/-) - Some
impact is expected, C (+/-) - Extent of impact is unknown or not clear (Further examination is needed. It should be
taken into consideration that impacts may become clear as study progresses. ), Blank - Negligible or No impact is
expected. Overall Rating corresponds to the worst value of rating for three stages.
Note 2: C.5, C.6 and C.7 - Assuming in cases of relocation and/or land requirement, and construction of transport
related structures in CBD and/or densely populated urban areas.
Public Transport (RMTS) Projects
For the RMTS projects considerable area of land would be required for stations (elevated
stations and underground station) and elevated sections, depots and multimodal
terminals. In addition, a large scale of construction work may cause significant negative
impacts, especially in Walled City and high-density urban area. Therefore, RMTS projects
are classified as Category A.
In this regards, for RMTS Green Line an EIA level study was conducted in the Reference
Design to comply with ADB Safeguard Policies. In the Reference Design stage,
unexpectedly major environmental impacts are also examined in detail such as land
acquisition and resettlement plan (LARP) for Project Affected Persons (PAPs) including
entitlement matrix, quantitative prediction of air quality improvement, measures to protect
archaeological and historical sites.
For the RMTS Orange Line project about the same scale of land requirement and
construction work is required according to the Feasibility study 2007. At the next step,
Reference Design stage, similar to that of the RMTS Green Line, the environmental
impacts will be studied.
Public Transport (BRT) Projects
In general little negative impacts are expected of BRT projects. However, some change of
existing alignment would be necessary due to encroachment by mosques and other
7-82
structures in the Walled City area and in central urban areas. Thus, BRT projects are
classified as Category B.
Road Transport Projects – Construction of Motorway, Trunk Roads etc.
In case of new construction of Motorway, Trunk Road etc. considerable area of

permanent land for road, RoW, related structures (including flyovers, bridges,
underpasses, interchanges), and for construction site, would be required. Therefore, land
acquisition and resettlement may occur at a larger scale. In addition, construction of
structures is also expected to be of larger scale like 4 km length new road bridge across
Ravi River. These activities may cause significant impact. Therefore, these projects are
classified as Category A.
Road Sub-sector Projects - Remodeling of Existing Roads
In the case of remodeling of existing roads ROW is mostly available. Thus, land
acquisition and resettlement may occur at a small scale. However, if the project area is
located in high-density, urban consensus of local communities and citizens is an
important issue. In general, these projects are classified as Category B.
Traffic Management Projects

Projects are expected to improve vehicular air pollution and greenhouse gases emission
due to reducing idling time of vehicles travelling at optimal speed and tend to decrease
traffic accidents. However, if the project sites are located in CBD and/ or densely
populated urban areas, and land acquisition and resettlement are required, it may raise
issues and create conflicts among stakeholders over compensation and/or relocation of
PAPs including encroachment and illegal occupants. Therefore, projects are classified as
Category B or C, depending on the project.
Bus Transport Improvement Projects
Projects are expected to enhance efficient passenger transportation. However, if the

project sites are located in CBD and/or densely populated urban areas, and land
acquisition and resettlement are required, it may raise issues and disputes among
stakeholders similar to the traffic management projects. Therefore, projects are classified
as Category B or C, depending on the project.
Urban Development Plans
Plan of each project relevant to urban development scenario is not in the scope of work
as all projects are tested against a single urban development scenario. Therefore at
present to examine IEE level study is not necessary. However, projects are as a whole
classified into Category A or B through coarse examination.
7-83
4) Results of IEE Level Study – General Suggestions and Recommendation

a) Compliance with Both Laws of Pakistan and JICA Guidelines for the
Environmental and Social Considerations
Take fully into considerations the differences of relevant environmental laws and
regulations, procedure of Environment Approval, EIA Categorization and the land
acquisition and resettlement policy between the two: JICA Guidelines and Pakistan.
There are gaps in the compensation and resettlement assistance between Pakistan
Government and foreign donors. For example, resettlement assistance to illegal
occupants for eligibility and non-depreciated value of structures and assets for valuation
are included in the donors’ policy, while there are no such considerations for
compensation measures in Pakistan laws as shown in Table 7.4.12.
Table 7.4.12 Comparison of Land Acquisition Policies between Pakistan and International
Donors including WB, ADB and JICA
No. Existing Pakistan Land Acquisition Procedure Donor's Involuntary Resettlement Policy*
Lack of title should not be a bar to compensation and/or

Land compensation only for titled land owners or rehabilitation.
1
holders of customary rights
Non-title holders are to be rehabilitated
Crop losses compensation provided only to registered Crop compensation is provided to landowners and
2 landowners and lease/sharecrop tenants (Non- sharecrops/lease tenants according to their shares whether
registered are often deprived). they are registered or not.
Tree losses are compensated on the basis of officially Tree losses are compensated according to actual worth of
3
fixed rates by the Forest and Horticulture Departments. affected trees based on market rates.
Land valuation based on the median registered land Land valuation is to be based on current replacement
4
transfer rate over the previous 3 years. (market) value.
Structures valuation based on official rates, with Valuation of structures based on current market value/ cost
5
depreciation deducted from the gross value. of new construction of the structure.
Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) is the only pre- Complaints and grievance are resolved informally through
litigation final authority to decide disputes and address community participation in the Grievance Redress
6
complaints regarding quantification/ compensation for Committees (GRC), local governments, NGO and/ or local-
the affected lands and other assets. level community based organizations.
b) Land Use Rules 2009
The GoPb enacted new land use rules on 10th February, 2009 based on the 1975 Lahore
Development Authority Act. The Rules intend to determine land use in “controlled” areas
according to land use classification. In Lahore land use plan in any development should
comply with land use classification and sub-classification of the Rules.
c) Public Participation
As described in Volume II Chapter 4.3 Public participation is another pillar of SEA,

information disclosure and public participation should be fully considered for all the
7-84
stakeholders from early stage of planning for obtaining thorough understanding and
consensus of the people and communities. In addition, delay or suspension of the project
implementation and a split of communities may occur. Full consideration is to be given to
minimize misdistribution of benefits and damage, and to avoid local conflict of interest.
d) Alternative Comparisons
Proposed projects should be evaluated with alternatives including “no action” or do

nothing case in the SEA process. In the Feasibility Study of Lahore Ring Road Southern
Loop project following four alternative routes (A1, A, C and D) in the project area and
alternative D was selected finally as shown in Table 7.4.13.
Table 7.4.13 Comparison of Alternative Routes for Lahore Ring Road Southern Loop
Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative
No. Evaluation Item
A1 A C D
1 Utility Services Upgrades ++ ++ + +
2 Right of Way Restrictions/ +++ +++ + +
3 Height Restrictions
Constraints +++ ++ - -
4 Constructability Constraints +++ +++ + +
5 Off-Site Improvements +++ +++ + +
6 New Interchanges + ++ ++ ++
7 Parallel Roads ++ +++ - -
8 Environmental Impacts +++ ++ ++ +
9 Economic And Financial Viability + ++ + +++
Note 1: Extent of negative impact - (+++) High, (++) Medium, (+) Low, (-) Negligible
Note 2: “No action” and Alternative B cases are excluded.
e) Environmental Components to be Considered
 Impact on global warming: reduction of CO 2 emission is not estimated

quantitatively.
 Vulnerable social groups such as poor and gender aspects.
5) Results of IEE Level Study-2, Suggestions and Recommendation for Major

Components/ Items
(a) Land Acquisition and Resettlement Issues
One of the most critical issues in development projects is land acquisition and
resettlement. In the transport development if the land for the Right of Way (ROW) is
required for the alignment and related structures, land acquisition and resettlement
issues would need to be considered.
In order to make it clear that the occurrence of land acquisition and resettlement,
following survey are required in general:
7-85
 Survey of ownership, usage and usufruct rights of the project site.

 Inventory survey on facilities and structures along corridor/ road and
encroachment on the ROW. --- Identify the occurrence and features of land
acquisition and resettlement and anticipated PAPs through the detailed survey of
RoW based on Cadestral map.
 Survey on legal and institutional framework for resettlement and compensation.
If the occurrence of land acquisition and resettlement are anticipated, project proponent
should provide adequate information to PAPs and consult with stakeholders including
PAPs to reach an agreement or thorough understanding of the issues from an early stage
of the project plan as much as possible.
Project proponent should also formulate LARP (Land Acquisition and Resettlement Plan)
according to both Pakistan Laws and JICA Guidelines and monitor result of the
compensation and restoring living conditions and livelihood after implementation.
Figure 7.4.2 Examples of Project Site – RMTS Depots
(1) Green Line South Depot located in Shadab (2) Orange Line South Stabling Yard at Ali town
Colony (150,000m2) (50,000m2)
Source: LRMTS Studies
b) Special Concerns with Archaeological and Heritage Sites
There are no archaeological sites protected under the Federal Antiquities Act near or
adjacent to the alignment and works area. However, the RMTS alignments will run
through important historic areas of Lahore and close to a number of historical buildings.
Therefore, there is some possibility of impacts on currently unidentified archaeological
deposits. In this regard, special concerns of examination of possible impacts and
mitigation measures are to be undertaken.
c) Measures to Avoid and/ or Minimize Split of Community/ Severance
Road structure should be somewhat elevated structure with underpass for non-motorized
transport and walking at appropriate stretch/ interval to be provided and not at-grade for
the length of the project.
To avoid split of community and interference of cattle movement devices such as
7-86
underpass and walking bridge are required for road structure design. According to C&W
Department, LRR EIA study report was submitted to EPD and they have received an
Environmental Approval.
Figure 7.4.3 Measures to Minimize Split of Community/ Severance
(1) Concrete fence on central median (Multan (2) Foot bridge for Multan Road crossing
Road), severe case of severance severance mitigation
d) Working Condition
A large scale of construction work including underground station requires a large number
of construction workers would be engaged in the work. Thus, safety and health condition
of the workers may be jeopardized due to construction work.
 Prepare tangible safety considerations for individuals involved in the project, such
as the installation of safety equipment which prevents accidents, and
management of hazardous materials.
 Plan and implement intangible measures for individuals involved in the project,
such as the establishment of a safety and health program, and safety training for
workers etc.
e) Infectious Diseases such as HIV/ AIDS
In general, road construction workers, and construction vehicle drivers are considered as
having high potential for the spread of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) and
HIV/AIDS virus due to their mobility. Infection with HIV/AIDS and venereal disease was
often reported at worker's camps during road construction in other countries.
f) Topographical and Geological Impacts
In transport projects considerable scale topographical and geological alteration are

expected for road and railway constructions such as a bridge crossing of Ravi River and
underground sections and stations of RMTS. In these cases precise topographical and
detailed geotechnical survey are necessary at the Detailed Design phase. In Reference
Design of RMTS Green Line the survey by drilling exploratory boreholes and measuring
geotechnical parameters such as standard penetration test (SPT) and field permeability
7-87
test etc., were conducted and due care was taken to note the existence of any
archeological deposits.
g) Measures Against Inundation
There is some possibility of inundated water to result in flooding of structures/ facilities,

especially underground station due to poor drainage condition of the project area.
h) Flora, Fauna and Ecosystem
A tree-cutting permit shall be secured by the contractor prior to removal of vegetation. In

general, for every tree felled, four trees need to be planted to compensate for the loss in
vegetation.
Selection of appropriate species and the design of the planting and maintenance program
shall be carried out by the contractor in close consultation with the Forestry Department.
Figure 7.4.4 Endangered Greenery along Main Boulevard Gulberg
(1) Greenery along the road

i) Global Warming
In case of category A project, increase or reduction of greenhouse gases emissions due

to the project should be roughly estimated quantitatively in order to make the extent of
negative/positive impact more persuasive.
In this regards, CO2 emission is applicable as an indicator of greenhouse gases

emissions using appropriate emission factor.
j) Air Pollution
In case of category A project, increase or reduction of vehicle exhaust emissions due to

the project should be roughly estimated quantitatively in order to make the extent of the
negative/positive impact more persuasive.
In this regards, NOX, PMX and other pollutants due to vehicles emissions are applicable
as indicators of air pollutants emissions using appropriate emission factor.
In the Reference Design Study of RMTS Green Line the ambient air quality effects of
7-88
traffic emissions were evaluated for seven locations at the busiest and most congested
areas such as Badshahi Masjid Chowk along the corridor using the CALINE4 dispersion
model.
k) Formulation of Environmental Management Plan Including Monitoring
Anticipated negative impacts should be fully taken into considerations to conduct further
necessary baseline survey and examine the mitigation measures including avoidance
and monitoring as much as possible.
 Baseline survey will be conducted to make further understanding of existing

environment and affects expected to be caused by the project activities.
 Mitigation measures will minimize the adverse impact to an acceptable level
through the planning, construction and operation phases. Monitoring is required
to ensure that the specified mitigation measures are properly implemented
throughout the construction and operation stages.
In general, to ensure the implementation of mitigation measures including monitoring, a

comprehensive environmental management plan is needed. The plan portrays expected
impacts, mitigation measures and responsible organizations for planning, construction
and operation stages of a project.
7.4.5 Overall MCA of LUTMP 2030 Projects
1) Road and Public Transport Project
When the public sector invests in transport facilities, the primary purpose is “the public
service”, or the social benefit. The proposed projects were evaluated for their economic
IRRs to assign priority accordingly. The social benefit of a given project can be
paraphrased as its impact in serving the twin purposes of reducing the operational cost of
all the transport means available and reducing the travel time of all passengers on the
available transport means (both users and non-users).
In addition, the projects are evaluated on the following aspects of implementation.
A. Economic Viability
B. Traffic Demand (Contribution to the improvement of transport capacity),
Operational aspects
C. Consistency with Land Use
D. Financial Viability
E. Environmental and Social Impacts
As a first step, the scores are aggregated per project and are used to prioritize. Each
project is evaluated by the threshold defined in the following Table 7.4.14.
7-89
Table 7.4.14 Ranking Threshold by Evaluation Criteria

Criteria Weight Indicator X Y Z
A. Economic Return 0.4 Economic IRR X>20% 20>X>12% 12%>X

30,000-
Road (Veh.* km)/km X>30,000 10,000<X
B. Demand 10,000
0.15
in 2020 Public 800,000-
Pax/day X>800,000 500,000<X
Transport 500,000
C. Consistency with Land
0.15 - Contribute Supportive No Relation
Use Plan
2%>X or
D. Financial Return 0.15 Financial IRR X>5% 5>X>2%
No income
E. Environmental No impact Some impact Serious impact
0.15 (SEC result)
Evaluation (no mark) (+) (++)
As the second step, the rankings by five criteria were aggregated into a single rank,
taking such process as (1) to give five points to rank “A”, three points to rank “B” and one
point to rank “C”, (2) to add up each point after multiplication with “weight”, and (3)
Classify into “Short-term” if the total is greater than 3.5 points; rank “Medium-term” if the
total is greater than 2.5 and less than 3.5; otherwise “Long-term”. Results of the
evaluation are given in Table 7.4.15 for the LUTMP Projects
Table 7.4.15 MCA Evaluation Results of LUTMP 2030 Public Transport and Road Projects
Demand Land
EIRR FIRR Env.
Length
2020 Use
(km)
No. Project Total

Rank Remarks
Project Code Description Weights Score
0.4 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15

Multimodal Inter-City Bus Terminals in
PT01 C.1 Lahore - - - 3 1 5 - S On-going
PT02 C.2 Effective and Efficient School Bus System - - - 1 1 5 - S On-going
PT03 C.3 Up-grading of Bus Stands - - - 1 1 5 - S On-going
PT04 C.4 Integrated Bus Operation - - - 1 1 5 - S On-going

Establishment of Multimodal Bus Terminal
PT05 C.5 at Shahdara - - - 3 1 5 - S On-going
Public Transport Projects – LUTMP Proposed

PT06 RMS1 RMTS Green Line 27.0 1 5 5 5 3 3.1 M LUTMP
PT07 RMS2 RMTS Orange Line (Initially BRT) 27.1 1 3 5 3 3 2.5 L LUTMP
PT08 RMS3 RMTS Blue Line (Initially BRT) 24.0 1 3 5 3 3 2.5 L LUTMP
PT09 BRT1 BRT Purple Line 19.0 3 1 5 5 5 3.6 S LUTMP
PT10 BRT2 BRT Line 1 14.1 5 1 5 5 5 4.4 S LUTMP
PT11 BRT3 BRT Line 2 14.3 5 1 5 5 5 4.4 S LUTMP
PT12 BRT4 BRT Line 3a 15.7 5 3 5 5 5 4.7 S LUTMP
PT13 BRT5 BRT Line 3b 19.1 5 3 5 5 5 4.7 S LUTMP
Road Sub-sector Projects – LUTMP Committed
Construction of LRR
R01 12001
(Airport – Ferozepur Road) 13.3 - 1 5 1 1 - S On-going
R02 12002 Construction of Kalma Chowk Flyover

3.4 - 1 5 1 1 - S Completed
R03 12003 Construction of Canal Bank Road Flyover

3.3 - 1 5 1 1 - S On-going
R04 12004 Remodeling of Canal Bank Road

15.6 - 1 5 1 1 - S Completed
7-90
Demand Land
EIRR FIRR Env.
Length
2020 Use
(km)
No. Project Total
Rank Remarks
0.4 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15

R05 12005
(LRR – Green City) 3.6 - 1 5 1 3 - S On-going
R06 12006 Remodeling of Kala Khatai Road

26.9 - 1 5 1 3 - S On-going
R07 12007 Remodeling of Allama Iqbal Road

3.3 - 1 5 1 3 - S On-going
R08 12008 Remodeling of Multan Road

11.3 - 1 5 1 1 - S Completed
R09 12009 Remodeling of Thokar Niaz Baig Road

11.0 - 1 5 1 3 - S On-going
R10 12010 Remodeling of Lahore Ferozepur Road

23.6 - 1 5 1 1 - S Completed

Barki Road
R11 20002 6.8 3 3 3 1 3 2.7 M LUTMP
Bedian Road
R12 20003 26.3 3 3 3 1 3 2.7 M LUTMP
Shabir Usmani Road
R13 20004 (Barkat Market – Maulana Shaukat Ali 2.8 1 1 5 1 3 1.9 L LUTMP
Road)
R14 20005 Link Peco Road – Ferozepur Road 1.9 1 1 5 1 3 1.9 L LUTMP
Link Ferozepur Road - Nalay Wali Road
R15 20006 (Completion of link between Ferozepur and 1.5 1 1 5 1 3 1.9 L Committed
Multan Road)
R16 20007 1.2 5 5 1 1 3 3.5 M Committed
(Bridge 0.5km)
G.T. Road
R17 20008 2.1 1 1 5 1 3 1.9 L Committed
College Road
R18 20010 6.9 3 3 3 1 3 2.7 M Committed
(Ghaus-e-Azam Road to Defence Road)
Structure Plan Road
R19 20011 (Shahrah Nazria-e-Pakistan – Defence 12.9 5 5 3 1 3 3.8 S Committed
Road)
R20 20020 (Khayban-e-Jinnah – Kahna Kacha 7.1 3 3 3 1 1 2.4 L Committed
Station)
Main Boulevard PIA Society Road (Baig
R21 20021 1.6 1 1 5 1 3 1.9 L Committed
Road – Ittehad Road)
Raiwind Road
R22 20023 (Lahore Ring Road Southern Loop – 14.2 1 1 3 1 1 1.3 L LUTMP
Raiwind City)
R23 20024 Madrat-e-Millat Road - Defence Road 2.6 1 1 5 1 1 1.6 L Committed
Extension of Maulana Shaukat Ali Road
R24 20027 (Canal Bank Road – Noor-ul-Amin Road 2.4 1 1 5 1 3 1.9 L Committed
through Punjab University)
Kamahan Lidher Road
R25 20041 8.8 3 3 3 1 1 2.4 L Committed
(Ferozepur Road – Lahore Bedian Road)
Sua Asil Road
R26 20043 22.0 1 1 3 1 1 1.3 L Committed
(Ferozepur Road – Raiwind Road)
R27 20044 (Kahna Kacha Approach Road – Raiwind 17.8 1 1 3 1 1 1.3 L Committed
City along Railway Line)
Kahna Kacha Road
R28 20046 7.1 1 1 3 1 3 1.6 L Committed
(Kahna Station – Ferozepur Road)
Sharaqpur Road
R29 37.4 1 3 1 1 1 1.3 L Committed
Bypass)
20049
(Bridge 0.7km)
R30 2.4 1 3 1 1 1 1.3 L LUTMP
(Saggian Wala Bypass – G.T. Road)
R31 (Ring Road – Sharaqpur Road) 6.7 3 1 1 1 1 1.8 L LUTMP
(Bridge 0.6km)
20050
Lahore-Sheikhupura Road (West)
R32 (Sharaqpur Road – Lahore-Sheikhupura 1.9 3 1 1 1 1 1.8 L LUTMP
Road)
Link Thokar Niaz Baig Canal Bank Road –
Ferozepur Road
R33 20052 17.7 5 5 3 1 1 3.5 M LUTMP
(Khyaban-e-Jinnah Road – Defence Road
– Ferozepur Road)
Manga-Raiwind Road
R34 20053 15.8 1 1 3 1 3 1.6 L LUTMP
R35 20054 9.9 5 5 3 1 1 3.5 M LUTMP
(Ferozepur Road – College Road)
R36 20055 3.9 5 5 3 1 1 3.5 M Committed
7-91
Demand Land
EIRR FIRR Env.
Length
2020 Use
(km)
No. Project Total
Rank Remarks
0.4 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15

R37 20056 (Raiwind City – Boundary of the Study 19.8 1 1 3 1 3 1.6 L LUTMP
Area)
Raiwind Road
R38 20057 (Thokar – Lahore Ring Road Southern 12.9 3 3 3 1 1 2.4 L LUTMP
Loop)
Defence Road
R39 20060 14.3 3 3 3 1 3 2.7 M LUTMP
(Multan Road – Ferozepur Road)
Thokar Niaz Baig Canal Road Extension
R40 20061 (Defence Road – Lahore Ring Road 3.5 3 3 3 1 1 2.4 L LUTMP
Sothern Loop)
R41 20081 15.6 5 5 3 1 1 3.5 M Committed
R42 20082 21.8 3 3 3 1 1 2.4 L Committed
(Ferozepur Road – Multan Road)
R43 20091 Secondary Roads in Dharampura Area 5.1 5 5 5 1 1 3.8 S LUTMP
R44 20092 Secondary Roads in Shadbagh Area 41.0 1 1 5 1 1 1.6 L LUTMP
R45 20093 Secondary Roads in Samanabad Area 46.0 1 1 5 1 3 1.9 L LUTMP
Lahore Bypass
R46 7.6 3 3 3 1 3 2.7 M LUTMP
(G.T. Road – Kala Shah Kaku Bypass)
(Lahore-Sheikhupura Road – Boundary of
R47 30002 16.5 3 3 3 1 3 2.7 M LUTMP
the Study Area)
(Bridge 0.6km)
R48 11.3 3 3 3 1 3 2.7 M LUTMP
(Bund Road – Lahore-Sheikhupura Road)
N-5- Multan Road
R49 30004 (Lahore Ring Road Sothern Loop – 31.3 3 3 1 1 3 2.4 L LUTMP
Sharif Complex Road
R50 30005 (Defence Road – Manga Raiwind Road – 33.2 3 3 1 1 3 2.4 L LUTMP
Bhai Pheru Kot Rada Kishan Road)
R51 30006 (Sharaqpur Road – Lahore-Sheikhupura 33.8 3 1 1 1 3 2.1 L LUTMP
Road – G.T. Road)
R52 30008 52.7 3 1 1 1 3 2.1 L LUTMP
(G.T. Road – M-2)
Link G.T. Road
R53 30010 (Sharaqpur Road – Lahore-Sheikhupura 5.0 1 3 1 1 3 1.6 L LUTMP
Road – G.T. Road)
Link Kala Shah Kaku – Lahore-Sialkot
R54 4.2 5 3 1 1 3 3.2 M LUTMP
Motorway
30028 Lahore-Sialkot Motorway
R55 32.0 5 3 1 1 1 2.9 M LUTMP
(Bridge 0.8km)
R56 Link G.T. Road Lahore-Sialkot Motorway 0.30 5 3 1 1 3 3.2 M LUTMP
Project is LDA/ TEPA/
roads - south of LRR in the south-western MCA was not conducted as project EIRR,
R57 Optional 93.6 Private Developer
quadrant between Ferozepur Road and FIRR and Landuse not available.
Promoted.
Multan Road
Note 1: S: Short Term, M; Medium Term, L: Long Term
2) MCA Evaluation of Traffic Management Project
Traffic Management Projects – Evaluation Criteria
Traffic management projects will be most effective in alleviating of traffic congestion,

improving traffic safety and mobility of non-motorized transport user. Especially, the
alleviation of traffic congestion will contribute to improvement of air pollution, along
project site. Therefore, these three items will be the main criteria for the traffic
management project evaluation. On the other hand, feasibility of these projects depends
on capacity of executing agencies, project cost and technical difficulty. Taking into these
things, the prioritization of traffic management projects is evaluated by the following eight
(8) criteria components:
7-92
A. Congestion Alleviation: Contribution to the alleviation of traffic congestion.

This will contribute to the improvement of air pollution along project sites, from
view point of environmental consideration;
B. Contribution to Traffic Safety;
C. Contribution to Non-Motorized Transport User;
D. Environmental Evaluation;
E. Institutional Capacity: Some projects will require new law, new legal system
and inter-sectoral coordination among relevant agencies. Therefore, its
difficulty will be divided into 3 grades;
F. Implementation Experience;
G. Technical Difficulties: Some projects would require application of new
technology, so its difficulty will be divided into 3 grades; and
H. Scale of Cost
The following Table 7.4.16 shows the evaluation criteria and its ranking threshold.
Table 7.4.16 Evaluation Criteria for Traffic Management Projects
Evaluation Criteria Weight X Y Z
A. Congestion Alleviation 0.20 Big Effect Some Effect Less Effect
B. Contribution for Traffic Safety 0.20 Big Effect Some Effect Less Effect
C. Contribution to Non-motorized Transport 0.20 Big Effect Some Effect Less Effect
User
D. Environmental Evaluation 0.10 No impact Some impact Serious impact
E. Institutional Capacity 0.05 No Difficulty Some Difficulty Serious Difficulty

Capacity of (no mark) (+) (++)
Executing F. Implementation 0.05 Enough Some No
Agencies Experience Experience
G. Technical Difficulties 0.05 No Difficulty Some Difficulty Serious Difficulty
Experience Experience
H. Scale of Cost 0.15 Low Medium High
Rankings by five criteria were aggregated into single rank, taking such process as: (1) to
give five points to rank “A”, three points to rank “B” and one point to rank “C”, (2) to add
up each point after multiplication with “weight”, and (3) Classify into “Short-tem” if the total
is greater than 3.5 points, rank “Medium-term” if the total is between 2.5 and 3.5;
otherwise “Long-term”.
Results of the evaluation of the traffic management projects are given for the committed projects
in Table 7.4.17, and for the LUTMP proposed projects in Table 7.4.18.
7-93
Table 7.4.17 Evaluation Results of Committed Traffic Management Projects

B C
A D E F G H
Road NMT
Ranking
Cong. Env. Inst. Exp. Tech. Cost
Project Project Safety Traffic Total
No. Description Weight Score
0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.15

TM01 3 5 1 5 3 1 3 5 3.4 M
TM02 Parking Management Company 3 3 3 5 1 1 1 5 3.2 M
TM03 Traffic Education Center 3 5 3 5 3 1 3 5 3.8 S
TM04 Traffic Control Plan of City 5 3 5 5 1 1 1 5 4.0 S
TM05 1 5 1 5 1 1 1 5 2.8 M
TM06 3 1 1 5 5 3 3 3 2.5 L
Plazas
TM07 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 3.9 S
Bridges
TM08 Improvement of 52 Junctions 5 3 3 5 1 1 1 3 3.3 M
TM09 Ferozepur Road Pilot Project 1 3 1 5 1 1 1 3 2.1 L
TM10 Rickshaw into CNG Fitted Four 5 3 5 5 3 3 3 3 4.0 S
Stroke Rickshaw
TM11 5 3 5 5 1 1 1 5 4.0 S
Circular Road
Table 7.4.18 Evaluation Results of LUTMP 2030 Traffic Management Projects

B C
A D E F G H
Road NMT
Ranking
Cong. Env. Inst. Exp. Tech. Cost
Project Project Safety Traffic Total
No. Description Weight Score
0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.15

A.1 Junction Design and Traffic
TM12 5 5 5 5 1 1 1 5 4.4 S
A.2 Existing Junctions Design
TM13 4 4 4 4 1 1 1 3 3.4 M
and Network Improvement
A.3 Road Function and Capacity
TM14 5 4 5 5 3 3 3 5 4.5 S
Improvement Program
TM15 Planning for Outskirt/ Rural 3 2 2 5 3 1 3 5 3.0 M
Areas
TM16 5 3 3 5 1 1 1 3 3.3 M
B.3 Public and Freight Transport
TM17 5 3 2 5 1 1 1 3 3.1 M
Terminals
B.4 Linking Communities - Smart
TM18 4 5 5 5 1 1 1 5 4.2 S
Roads
TM19 3 3 3 5 1 1 1 5 3.2 M
B.6 RMTS and BRT Station Area
TM20 1 1 1 5 0 1 1 3 1.7 L
Traffic Management
C.1 Planning and Design Study
TM21 3 5 5 5 0 1 1 5 4.0 S
for Non-Motorized Traffic
C.2 Non-Motorized Traffic
TM22 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4.6 S
Facilities Implementation
C.3 Pedestrian and Bicycle Path
TM23 3 5 5 5 1 1 1 5 4.0 S
Network
TM24 4 4 4 5 1 1 1 3 3.5 S
System Development
TM25 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1.9 L
Implementation
TM26 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1.4 L
Development
TM27 3 5 3 5 4 3 3 5 4.0 S
TM28 F.1 Traffic Calming 3 5 5 5 2 1 1 4 3.9 S
F.2 Traffic Safety Education
TM29 2 5 3 5 3 1 3 5 3.6 S
Improvement
TM30 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2.1 L
System Development
TM31 5 5 5 5 1 1 1 5 4.4 S
7-94
7.5 LUTMP 2030 Implementation
7.5.1 Implementation Schedule and Responsible Agency
1) Implementation Schedule
Table 7.5.1 presents indicative implementation schedule of the LUTMP projects already
committed and proposed in LUTMP, together with needed funding by year. This schedule
was determined based on the result of overall evaluation of the projects.
All committed projects were allocated to short-term (2012-15) and medium-term (2016-
2020). Among proposed projects, RMTS Green Line and eight BRT lines were allocated
by 2020. However for RMTS Green Line and BRT Orange Line (to be converted to RMTS
by 2030), the first investment should be done in the short-term (by 2015). Construction of
RMTS Orange Line and Blue Line are scheduled for long-term (by 2030).
As a result, the amount of yearly investment is heavy during 2012-20 and 2025-30.
Road Projects
All committed projects are scheduled for short- and medium-term similarly to the public
transport projects. Proposed projects are distributed almost equally in the plan period, i.e.
2012-30.
Most of the committed and proposed projects are allocated for short- and medium-term.
This is due to the urgency and low-cost features of the projects.
Table 7.5.1 Indicative Implementation Timetable for Committed and Proposed Projects
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
Project Project Implem- Period

No. Description entation (Year)

PT001 C.1
Terminals in Lahore S 2
PT002 C.2
Bus System S 2
PT003 C.3 Up-gradation of Bus Stands S 2
PT004 C.4 Integrated Bus Operation S 3
Establishment of Multimodal Bus

PT005 C.5
Terminal at Shahdara
S 4
Public Transport Projects – LUTMP 2030 Proposed

PT006 RMS1 LRMTS Green Line M 5
LRMTS Orange Line
PT007 RMS2
(Initially BRT)
L 8
LRMTS Blue Line
PT008 RMS3
(Initially BRT)
L 8
PT009 BRT1 BRT Purple Line S 3
PT010 BRT2 BRT Line 1 S 3
7-95
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
PT011 BRT3 BRT Line 2 S 3
PT012 BRT4 BRT Line 3a S 3
PT013 BRT5 BRT Line 3b S 3

Construction of LRR
R01 S 3
R02 S 3
Flyover
Construction of Canal Bank Road
R03 S 3
Flyover
R04 Remodeling of Canal Bank Road S 3
R05 S 3
R06 Remodeling of Kala Khatai Road S 3
R07 Remodeling of Allama Iqbal Road S 3
R08 Remodeling of Multan Road S 3

Remodeling of Thokar Niaz Baig
R09 S 3
Road
Remodeling of Lahore Ferozepur
R10 S 3
Road
LUTMP 2030 Road Sub-sector Projects – Proposed

Barki Road
R11 M 3
Bedian Road
R12 M 5
Shabir Usmani Road
R13 (Barkat Market – Maulana Shaukat L 3
Ali Road)
R14 Link Peco Road – Ferozepur Road L 3
Road
R15 L 3
R16 M 3
(Bridge 0.5km)
G.T. Road
R17 L 3
College Road
R18 (Ghaus-e-Azam Road to Defence M 3
Road)
Structure Plan Road
R19 (Shahrah Nazria-e-Pakistan – S 3
Defence Road)
R20 (Khayban-e-Jinnah – Kahna Kacha L 3
Station)
Main Boulevard PIA Society Road
R21 L 3
(Baig Road – Ittehad Road)
Raiwind Road
R22 (Lahore Ring Road Southern Loop L 3
– Raiwind City)
Madrat-e-Millat Road - Defence
R23 L 3
Road
Road
R24 L 3
(Canal Bank Road – Noor-ul-Amin
Kamahan Lidher Road
R25 (Ferozepur Road – Lahore Bedian L 3
Road)
Sua Asil Road
R26 L 5
R27 (Kahna Kacha Approach Road – L 3
Kahna Kacha Road
R28 L 3
Sharaqpur Road
(Lahore Ring Road – Saggian
R29 L 5
Wala Bypass)
(Bridge 0.7km)
R30 (Saggian Wala Bypass – G.T. L 3
Road)
R31 (Ring Road – Sharaqpur Road) L 3
(Bridge 0.6km)
R32 L 3
Sheikhupura Road)
7-96
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030

Road – Ferozepur Road
R33 M 3
(Khyaban-e-Jinnah Road –
Defence Road – Ferozepur Road)
Manga-Raiwind Road
R34 L 3
R35 M 3
R36 M 3
R37 (Raiwind City – Boundary of the L 3
Study Area)
Raiwind Road
R38 (Thokar – Lahore Ring Road L 3
Southern Loop)
Defence Road
R39 M 3
Extension
R40 L 3
(Defence Road – Lahore Ring
Road Sothern Loop)
R41 M 5
R42 L 5
Secondary Roads in Dharampura
R43 S 3
Area
R44 M 5
Area
Secondary Roads in Samanabad
R45 M 3
Area
Lahore Bypass
R46 (G.T. Road – Kala Shah Kaku M 3
Bypass)
(Lahore-Sheikhupura Road –
R47 M 3
(Bridge 0.6km)
R48 (Bund Road – Lahore- M 3
Sheikhupura Road)
N-5- Multan Road
R49 (Lahore Ring Road Sothern Loop – L 5
Sharif Complex Road
(Defence Road – Manga Raiwind
R50 L 5
Road – Bhai Pheru Kot Rada
Kishan Road)
R51 (Sharaqpur Road – Lahore- L 5
R52 L 5
(G.T. Road – M-2)
Link G.T. Road
R53 (Sharaqpur Road – Lahore- L 3
R54 M 3
Sialkot Motorway
R55 M 5
(Bridge 0.8km)
R56 M 3
Motorway
Secondary roads - south of LRR in
R57
(Optional) the south-western quadrant N/A 10 Tentative Program
between Ferozepur Road and
Multan Road

TM01 M 3
Licensing Authority
TM02 Parking Management Company M 3
TM03 Traffic Education Center S 2
TM04 Traffic Control Plan of City S 3
TM05 M 4
System (VICS)
TM06 L 6
Plazas
TM07 Construction of Pedestrian Bridges S 3
TM08 Improvement of 52 Junctions M 7
TM09 Ferozepur Road Pilot Project L 3
TM10 Rickshaw into CNG Fitted Four S 4
Stroke Rickshaw
TM11 S 3
Circular Road
7-97
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
Traffic Management Projects – Proposed by LUTMP 2030

A.1 Junction Design and Traffic
TM12 S 3
A.2 Existing Junctions Design and
TM13 M 4
Network Improvement
TM14 S 2
Improvement Program
TM15 M 2
Planning for Outskirt/ Rural Areas
TM16 M 5
B.3 Public and Freight Transport
TM17 M 8
Terminals
B.4 Linking Communities - Smart
TM18 M 4
Roads
TM19 M 2
B.6 RMTS and BRT Station Area
TM20 L 2
Traffic Management
C.1 Planning and Design Study for
TM21 S 3
C.2 Non-Motorized Traffic Facilities
TM22 S 4
Implementation
C.3 Pedestrian and Bicycle Path
TM23 S 3
Network
TM24 S 3
System Development
TM25 L 6
Implementation
TM26 L 6
Development
TM27 S 3
TM28 F.1 Traffic Calming S 2
F.2 Traffic Safety Education
TM29 S 2
Improvement
TM30 L 5
System Development
TM31 S 5
Note: S: Short Term; M: Medium Term; L: Long Term
2) Responsible Agency for Project Implementation
Table 7.5.2 shows the responsibility allocation of project implementation among

government agencies. Note that this allocation assumes the present organizational/
institutional setup. If this changes in the future, the responsibility goes automatically to
the redefined agency. Transport Department (TD) oversees and monitors the
implementation of the LUTMP projects.
Table 7.5.2 Responsible Agency for LUTMP 2030 Project Implementation

Project
Assumed
Project Cost Proposed Responsible
Project No. Year in Status
Description (USD by Agency
Operation
million)

PT01 C.1 N/A 2014 On-going TD TD
Terminals in Lahore
Effective and Efficient
PT02 C.2 N/A 2014 Planned TD TD
School Bus System
PT03 C.3 Up-grading of Bus Stands N/A 2015 Planned TD TD
PT04 C.4 Integrated Bus Operation 80.1 2015 Planned LTC LTC
PT05 C.5 N/A 2017 Planned TD TD
Public Transport Projects – Proposed
PT06 RMS1 RMTS Green Line 2,583.0 2020 Designed TD TD
PT07 RMS2 RMTS Orange Line 2,330.0 2031 F. Study TD TD
PT08 RMS3 RMTS Blue Line 1,908.0 2031 Planned TD TD
7-98
Project
Assumed
Operation
million)
BRT Orange Line

PT07 RMS2 74.5 2015 - LUTMP TD/ LTC
(Initially BRT)
BRT Blue Line
PT08 RMS3 58.6 2020 - LUTMP TD/ LTC
(Initially BRT)
PT09 BRT1 BRT Purple Line 40.8 2020 - LUTMP LTC
PT10 BRT2 BRT Line 1 30.7 2020 - LUTMP LTC
PT11 BRT3 BRT Line 2 30.5 2020 - LUTMP LTC
PT12 BRT4 BRT Line 3a 28.7 2020 - LUTMP LTC
PT13 BRT5 BRT Line 3b 35.3 2020 - LUTMP LTC

Construction of LRR
R01 113.0 2015 On-going C&W C&W
R02 Construction of Kalma Chowk Flyover 17.5 2015 Completed C&W C&W
R03 Construction of Canal Bank Road Flyover 17.5 2015 On-going C&W C&W
R04 Remodeling of Canal Bank Road 43.8 2015 On-going TEPA TEPA
R05 2.0 2015 On-going C&W C&W
R06 Remodeling of Kala Khatai Road 10.8 2015 On-going C&W C&W
R07 Remodeling of Allama Iqbal Road 16.1 2015 On-going C&W C&W
R08 Remodeling of Multan Road 46.8 2015 On-going C&W C&W
R09 Remodeling of Thokar Niaz Baig Road 4.8 2015 On-going C&W C&W
R10 Remodeling of Lahore Ferozepur Road 17.5 2015 On-going C&W C&W
Road Sub-sector Projects – Proposed

Barki Road
R11 17.0 2020 Proposed LUTMP C&W
Bedian Road
Shabbir Usmani Road
R13 (Barkat Market – Maulana Shaukat Ali 6.9 2021 Planned TEPA TEPA
Road)
R14 Link Peco Road – Ferozepur Road 6.7 2021 Proposed LUTMP TEPA
R15 (Completion of link between Ferozepur and 5.3 2021 Planned TEPA TEPA
Multan Road)
(Bridge 0.5km)
G.T. Road
(Cooper Store - Ek-Moria Pull)
College Road
Structure Plan Road
R19 (Shahrah Nazria-e-Pakistan – Defence 35.0 2018 Planned TEPA TEPA
Road)
R20 (Khayban-e-Jinnah – Kahna Kacha 29.8 2024 Planned TEPA TEPA
Station)
Raiwind Road
R22 (Lahore Ring Road Southern Loop – 52.5 2025 Proposed LUTMP C&W
Raiwind City)
R23 Madrat-e-Millat Road - Defence Road 10.9 2024 Planned TEPA TEPA
R24 (Canal Bank Road – Noor-ul-Amin Road 6.0 2024 Planned TEPA TEPA
Kamahan Lidher Road
Sua Asil Road
R27 (Kahna Kacha Approach Road – Raiwind 91.7 2027 Committed C&W C&W
Kahna Kacha Road
Sharaqpur Road
Bypass)
(Bridge 0.7km)
R31 (Ring Road – Sharaqpur Road) 43.4 2028 Proposed LUTMP C&W
(Bridge 0.6km)
7-99
Project
Assumed
Operation
million)

R32 (Sharaqpur Road – Lahore-Sheikhupura 16.2 2028 Proposed LUTMP C&W
Road)
Ferozepur Road
R33 57.5 2022 Proposed LUTMP TEPA
(Khyaban-e-Jinnah Road – Defence Road
– Ferozepur Road)
Manga-Raiwind Road
R37 (Raiwind City – Boundary of the Study 73.3 2028 Proposed LUTMP C&W
Area)
Raiwind Road
R38 (Thokar – Lahore Ring Road Southern 54.2 2028 Proposed LUTMP C&W
Loop)
Defence Road
R40 (Defence Road – Lahore Ring Road 20.8 2028 Proposed LUTMP C&W
Sothern Loop)
R43 Secondary Roads in Dharampura Area 38.9 2018 Proposed LUTMP TEPA
R44 Secondary Roads in Shadbagh Area 102.5 2018 Proposed LUTMP TEPA
R45 Secondary Roads in Samanabad Area 115.0 2017 Proposed LUTMP TEPA
Lahore Bypass
R46 41.0 2022 Proposed LUTMP NHA
(Lahore-Sheikhupura Road – Boundary of
the Study Area)
(Bridge 0.6km)
N-5- Multan Road
R49 (Lahore Ring Road Sothern Loop – 109.7 2029 Proposed LUTMP C&W
Sharif Complex Road
R50 (Defence Road – Manga Raiwind Road – 116.1 2029 Proposed LUTMP C&W
Bhai Pheru Kot Rada Kishan Road)
Road – G.T. Road)
(G.T. Road – M-2)
Link G.T. Road
Road – G.T. Road)
Link Kala Shah Kaku – Lahore-Sialkot
R54 25.0 2022 Planned C&W C&W/ NHA
Motorway
R55 128.1 2024 Planned C&W C&W/ NHA
(Bridge 0.8km)
R56 Link G.T. Road Lahore-Sialkot Motorway 2.2 2022 Planned C&W C&W
roads - south of LRR in the south-western The Road Projects will be executed by LDA/ TEPA in conjunction with the
R57
quadrant between Ferozepur Road and developer’s contribution towards the project capital cost.
Multan Road
TM01 - 2016 Planned TD TD
Licensing Authority
TM02 Parking Management Company - 2018 Planned TEPA TEPA
TM03 Traffic Education Center - 2014 Planned Traffic Police Traffic Police
TM04 Traffic Control Plan of City - 2015 Planned Traffic Police Traffic Police
TM05 - 2021 Ongoing TD TD
System (VICS)
TM06 Construction of New Parking Plazas 207.1 2020 Ongoing TEPA TEPA
TM07 Construction of Pedestrian Bridges 1.8 2016 Ongoing TEPA TEPA
TM08 Improvement of 52 Junctions 30.5 2021 Planned TEPA TEPA
TM09 Ferozepur Road Pilot Project 28.3 2022 Ongoing TEPA TEPA
Conversion of Two Stroke Rickshaw into
TM10 12.4 2019 Planned TD TD
CNG Fitted Four Stroke Rickshaw
7-100
Project
Assumed
Operation
million)
Remodeling of Inner and Outer Circular

TM11 14.1 2015 Planned TEPA TEPA
Road
Traffic Management Projects – LUTMP Proposed

A.1 Junction Design and Traffic Signal
TM12 4.0 2015 Proposed LUTMP TEPA
Improvement – CBD
A.2 Existing Junctions Design and Network
Improvement
TM14 2.0 2015 Proposed LUTMP TEPA and CDGL
Improvement Program
B.1 Low Occupancy Vehicles Planning for
TM15 5.0 2017 Proposed LUTMP LTC
Outskirt/ Rural Areas
B.2 Traffic Circulation System Design and
Implementation
TM17 B.3 Public and Freight Transport Terminals 100.0 2021 Proposed LUTMP TEPA and CDGL
TM18 B.4 Linking Communities - Smart Roads 4.0 2019 Proposed LUTMP TEPA
B.5 Feasibility Study for Traffic Demand
Management Measures
B.6 RMTS and BRT Station Area Traffic
Management
C.1 Planning and Design Study for Non-
Motorized Traffic
Implementation
TM23 C.3 Pedestrian and Bicycle Path Network 5.0 2017 Proposed LUTMP TEPA
D.1 Comprehensive Parking System
Development
TM25 D.2 Parking Facilities Implementation 60.0 2024 Proposed LUTMP TEPA
TM26 D.3 Park and Ride Facilities Development 75.0 2030 Proposed LUTMP TEPA
E.1 Traffic Enforcement Strengthening
TM27 3.0 2015 Proposed LUTMP Traffic Police
Programme
TM28 F.1 Traffic Calming 6.0 2015 Proposed LUTMP TEPA
Traffic Police
TM29 F.2 Traffic Safety Education Improvement 1.0 2014 Proposed LUTMP
and 1122
G.1 Intelligent Transportation System
Development
H.1 Local Standards and Guidelines
Development
Note: Committed: officially approved by GoPb; Planned: waiting for approval.
7.5.2 LUTMP 2030 Financing Program
1) Proposed Financing Program
Table 7.5.3 gives summary of investment available/ required for the LUTMP 2030
projects. Public transport projects share about 66% of the total, while road and traffic
management share 28% and 6%, respectively. As compared to the other urban transport
master plans conducted by JICA in Asian cities, the share of public transport projects is
on the high side and road projects on the low side.
The budget envelope estimated in Chapter 5 of this report is USD 6.6~19.8 billion for the
entire LUTMP plan period of 2012 to 2030, and USD 2.3~6.9 billion for the Action Plan
period of 2012 to 2020. Compared to this budget envelop, the planned investment falls
within the budget range. However, the percentage of the investment to Lahore’s GDP is
on the high side at 2.6% for the action plan period. This is about 3 times that of the
current level of investment. For the entire plan period, the investment is equivalent to
1.7% of the Lahore GDP.
7-101
Table 7.5.3 LUTMP 2030 Planned Investment Summary (USD million)

Short Term Medium Term Long Term
Project Total
2012-2015 2016-2020 2021-2030
Public Transport 1,499 3,021 2,742 7,262
Road Sub-sector 450 570 2,139 3,159
Traffic Management 146 363 154 663
Total 2,095 3,954 5,035 11,084
Yearly distribution of the proposed investment is illustrated in Figure 7.5.1. As stated

earlier, investment on public transport projects becomes minimal during 2020-2025. This,
however, does not mean that no effort would be made to improve public transport system
during this period. For the opening of the two RMTS lines (Orange and Blue) by 2030,
major studies and arrangements should be made here. In addition, loan repayment for
RMTS Green Line will start during this period.
Figure 7.5.1 Assumed Investment Schedule of LUTMP 2030
US$ (Million) (1) Public Transport

1,200
(2) Road Transport
1,000 (3) Traffic Management
800
600
400
200
0
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
If PPP is taken into account in the proposed RMTS/ BRT projects, how much public
investment can be saved was estimated assuming a percentage of contribution from the
private sector as shown in Table 7.5.4. The reduction was estimated at about USD 800
million equivalent to 11 % of the total investment.
Table 7.5.4 Cost Reduction by Applying PPP Scheme to RMTS/ BRT Projects
Cost to
%
EIRR FIRR Project Cost Gov’t
Project No. Code Project Name Private
(%) (%) (USD million) (USD
Sector
million)
RMTS Green
PT06 RMS1 12.1 7.1 2,583.0 20 2,066.4
Line
RMTS Orange
PT07 RMS2 10.3 5.7 2,330.0 0 2,330.0
Line
RMTS Blue
PT08 RMS3 8.0 4.9 1,908.0 0 1,908.0
Line
BRT Orange
PT07 (Initially BRT) RMS2 18.8 21.0 74.5 100 0.0
Line
7-102
Cost to
%
EIRR FIRR Project Cost Gov’t
Project No. Code Project Name Private
(%) (%) (USD million) (USD
Sector
million)
PT08 (Initially BRT) RMS3 BRT Blue Line 16.7 17.9 58.6 80 11.7
BRT Purple
PT09 BRT1 15.5 16.1 40.8 50 20.4
Line
PT10 BRT2 BRT Line 1 37.6 24.9 30.7 100 0.0
PT11 BRT3 BRT Line 2 43.6 26.5 30.5 100 0.0
PT12 BRT4 BRT Line 3a 28.7 50 14.4
20.4 16.3
PT13 BRT5 BRT Line 3b 35.3 50 17.7
Total 7,120.1 10.6 6,368.5
2) Applicable Financing Strategies
The existing revenue base of Lahore is not sufficient to fund future infrastructure projects.
As part of the financial strategy, the city may have to expand the local revenue base,
make efficient use of existing funding sources and exercise good management of capital
financing. This process is depicted in the Figure 7.5.2 below.
Figure 7.5.2 Strategic Mobilization of Funding
Innovative PPPs/ Local Government

PFIs, ODA, Bonds/ Project Bonds,
special-use taxes Capital Market
Make Efficient
Use of Existing
Funding
Prepare Good Achieve Stable Long-term

Strategic Management of Cash Flow and Borrowing for
Plan Capital Creditworthines Capital
Financing s Investment
Expand Local
Revenue Base
User charges and
service charges to
recover costs of
providing urban services
(ii) Efficient Use of Funding
The main funding source for Lahore is derived mainly from balancing allocations of the
Federal Government. Local revenue, household investments, and external sources such
as FDIs and ODA is not salient. There has to be greater efficiency in the use of these
funds especially through the development of management information systems and
strategic financial planning. Some of the key initiatives in this area are the following:
7-103
(a) Contracting Out Services: The existing practice of contracting out urban services
especially for infrastructure maintenance should continue and be expanded to new
areas. This will provide greater opportunities for the private sector to participate and
would generally lead to more efficient service delivery if managed well.
(b) Applying User Charges and Service Fees: Direct cost recovery through user
charges is usually more effective than indirect cost through property taxes. User
charges are generally applied for electricity and water and as tolls for bridges and
expressways. More recently, these are also used for area road pricing to discourage
private transport into the city center during peak hours and to encourage the use of
public transport instead. While user charges should help recover maintenance costs,
the capital costs for roads and other transport infrastructure cannot be directly
recovered from them. Some form of property tax may be needed to recover the
capital cost.
(iii) Expansion of Local Revenue Base
While it may be difficult for local authorities to rely totally on locally generated funds to
finance large urban development and infrastructure projects, it is important for city
governments to expand the local revenue base within the provisions of the law. Some of
the initiatives could be expanded further in Lahore. This will be further discussed in
Chapter 8 of this report.
(iv) Good Management of Capital Financing
Good management of capital financing is important to reduce the prolonged financial

burden of repaying long-term debts. While ODA lending is usually at subsidized rates, it
does create long-term debts for the city. Refinancing ODA funds at higher commercial
rates in the form of state investment credit is a popular source of funding for social
investment projects in various countries in the developing world.
(a) Access to Capital Markets and Other Credit Finance: It is also important to ensure
funding for urban development projects. The use of stocks and shares as collateral
for loans is not common and could be developed further with the strengthening of the
stock market and the Securities Law. The other strategy is to introduce government-
guaranteed bonds. Currently, many of the larger cities have issued municipal bonds
to raise capital. It is important that in issuing bonds, the capacity of the city to repay
promptly is important to ensure the long-term viability of raising finance through this
means. Good management of capital finance is also related to the various types of
project implementation methods that could be utilized to reduce the financial burden
on the city.
7-104
(b) Effective Project Implementation Methods: Include measures, such as BOT (Build
Operate and Transfer), BT (Build and Transfer) and deferred payment schemes which
have been widely applied on highway and water supply projects in some developing
countries. The city should also continue with further initiatives in outsourcing urban
services. This could be extended to bus transport operation, public infrastructure
maintenance and operation of parking facilities and other public facilities.
3) Application of Public-Private Partnership (PPP)
As economy and private sector grow further, application of PPP concept is becoming
critical for effective management of urban and transport development and sector
administration. Main aspects of the PPP are as explained below.
(i) Maximizing the Effect of Public Sector Resource Allocation
Resources in public sector such as fund and man power are very limited. A key concept
of PPP is to maximize the effect of public sector resource allocation when implementing
public sector projects. Under the PPP arrangement, the effect may expand to a
considerable extent with the power of private sector resources (fund, knowhow and
human resources) allocated to the project. In other words the public sector may be able
to “leverage” the effect of the input of 40 to become the output of 100 by introducing the
PPP concept as illustrated in Figure 7.5.3.
Figure 7.5.3 Effect of PPP
(ii) Adopting Different PPP Models on the Basis of Profitability
Profitability of the project will decide what type of PPP model to be applied as shown
Figure 7.5.4. Usually, urban and transport infrastructure projects have a wide range of
profitability from very profitable to non-profit producing (no user charges). In LUTMP,
however, the proposed projects fall mostly in the category of “Medium Profitability with
Risk”, or “Low Profitability or No Profit”.
7-105
(a) Very High Profitability: If the project is highly profitable such as commercial
development in urban center, the GoPb could arrange a PPP on the basis of LDA’s
rules to ask for developer’s contribution for community level infrastructure projects
like Road Project R57. This PPP concept may also be applied to the integrated urban
development with the RMTS systems.
(b) High Profitability: When profitability is high enough for the project to be financially
self-sustainable, self-standing PPP model may be applied. Example of this may be a
toll road project with high traffic demand. Project of this type could go on the
conventional BOT bidding procedure.
(c) Medium Profitability with Risk: The third type model, risk and profitability supported
PPP will be applied to those projects that have a limited degree of profitability.
Majority of revenue producing projects in LUTMP will fall into this category and
require a careful PPP structuring. Toll road with low traffic demand, RMTS systems,
BRTs and so on are the example of this type. GoPb will have to be involved in PPP
structuring in terms of necessary risk and profitability support.
(d) Low Profitability or Non-profit: Service purchase PPP model may have to be
applied to those projects with very low profitability where GoPb will “purchase” the
service that the private sector produces by allocating GoPb’s own funding resources.
Examples are the public bus operation on public service obligation basis and non-
revenue generating road and traffic management projects.
Figure 7.5.4 PPP Models on the Basis of Profitability
7-106
(iii) Value Capturing of External Benefit of RMTS Systems
External benefit which a RMTS system (Green/ Orange Line) brings about to the City is
very large and its huge investment can only be recouped when the City is able to
successfully capture the value that the RMTS system creates along its corridor. Tax
revenue and user charge are used to fund its construction and operation, but it is also
essential to capture the value which people and business benefit from the operation of
the RMTS system (beneficiary charge or betterment charge). In order to do the above,
GoPb should take an initiative in applying various PPP models in implementing integrated
commercial, office and residential projects that are: a) directly integrated with the
stations/ terminals, b) developed in the vicinity of the station/ terminals and c) developed
along the corridors of the RMTS systems. Thus, GoPb will be able to share a part of
benefit that those PPP arrangements produce in the future to recoup its huge initial
investment in the long run.
(iv) PPP Opportunities in the LUTMP Projects
There are a variety of PPP opportunities in implementing the LUTMP proposed projects
are outlined in Table 7.5.5. There are many opportunities such as some of the Trunk
roads to be tolled, and also some of the traffic management projects may yield revenue
through user charges. The BRT projects may well be on the concession and the RMTS
lines may be implemented under PPP scheme although GoPb may have to shoulder the
cost of infrastructure. Some of the Secondary and Local roads may be developed through
the urban development projects initiated by the private sector developers, like Road
Project R57.
Table 7.5.5 PPP Opportunities in LUTMP Projects
PPP Opportunities
Subsector Remarks
Construction Maintenance Operation
With high traffic
Motorway yes but limited yes yes
demand
With high traffic
Primary Road yes but limited yes yes
demand
Road
Through urban
Secondary Road yes but limited yes but limited N/A
development
Through urban
Local Road yes but limited yes but limited N/A
development
Infrastructure
RMTS yes but limited yes yes developed by
Public public sector
Transport
BRT yes yes yes Concession PPP
Bus Transportation yes yes yes Concession PPP
Traffic Large support
Traffic Management yes yes yes
Management needed
7-107
7.5.3 Strengthening of Transport Sector Institutional Capacity
As stated in Chapter 5 of this report, there is a crucial need to establish new

organizational setup to make decisions on various transport projects from comprehensive
and multidisciplinary viewpoints. For this reason, Transport Management Board (TMB),
Punjab Urban Transportation Planning and Engineering Institute (PUTPEI), Lahore
Transport Development Company (LTDC) and Lahore Urban Transport Advisory Council
(LUTAC) are proposed for establishment to control the urban transport sector of Lahore
as presented in Figure 7.5.5. This institutional setup is expected also to monitor and
manage the progress of the LUTMP proposed projects.
Figure 7.5.5 New Establishment for Transport Sector Development
Transport
(TD) (TMB)

Urban
Transport
Advisory
Lahore Transport Development Company Council
(LTDC) (LUTAC)
(a) Setting-up Transport Management Board (TMB)
Transport Management Board is an inter-departmental board, chaired by the Permanent

Secretary of the Transport Department (TD), comprised of the heads of transport-related
organizations such as P&D, C&W, HUD&PHED/ LDA, Traffic Police, Cantonment Board,
DHA and National Highway Authority (NHA).
TMB is the highest decision making body concerning transport at the provincial level and
technically supported by PUTPEI, which will function as a secretariat of TMB. Regular
meeting will be held once a month and ad-hoc meeting will be occasionally called by the
chairman.
P&D keeps the budget allocation function and endorses all the project implementation.
However, the resolutions of TMB shall be respected because P&D also sends an official
presumably in-charge of budgeting for the transport sector, to the TMB as a member.
(b) Establishment of Punjab Urban Transport Planning and Engineering Institute

(PUTPEI)
PUTPEI is a semi-governmental institute of research and planning of urban transport and

main function is to monitor, revise and promote the Lahore Urban Transport Master Plan
7-108
(LUTMP). The Institute manages the implementation program of LUTMP and prepare the
materials for discussion to TMB and acts as the secretariat. Other functions are listed
below:
 To manage the progress of the current transportation master plan.

 To conduct feasibility studies on demand (contract research).
 To be a window entity for BOT/ PPP projects.
 To be a key agency to support large projects technically such as urban rail transit
and BRT projects and a traffic control center project.
 To maintain and provide transport-related databases such as those developed in
LUTMP, vehicle registration and driving license database.
 To assist traffic police and other organizations for capacity development.
The Institute is owned by GoPb. Most part of PUTPEI’s expense is financed by the
provincial budget but it can have own financial source such as dividends and research
commissions from LTDC (see below). In a certain period, it aims to be a financially self-
sustainable institute. However, it is a non-profit organization in nature.
To achieve the listed functions, PUTPEI’s initial organization would be as proposed in

Figure 7.5.6, consisting of six units of administration, transport planning unit and the other
four are corresponding to the four subsectors. Assuming each unit holds at least 20
professionals, the institute would be a think tank with more than 100 researchers and
planners.
Under the planning unit, there is a group (sub-unit) named PPP/ BOT Group with
capacity of developing a PPP/ BOT scheme for a project based on the financial analysis
and a database with abundant success and failure examples. Without a high degree of
expertise on PPP/ BOT in the Government side, any PPP project would hardly succeed.
If the Punjab Government has an intention to carry out any PPP project, such
professional group is inevitable.
The planning unit includes also urban planning group because every transportation
master plan require clear vision on urban structure and land use as a base map for
planning. To secure the land for future road and railway, urban planning will become more
important as state the item (4) in this section.
7-109
Figure 7.5.6 Conceptual Organization of PUTPEI
Chairman
Legal Affairs Audit
Vice Chairman
Planning Rail Transit Public Parking Traffic Administration

Unit Unit Transport Unit Management Unit
Unit Unit
Comprehensive
Planning Group
System Analysis Group
PPP/ BOT Group
Urban Planning Group
(c) Lahore Transportation Development Company (LTDC)
On the tier of City District, it is recommended to establish Lahore Transportation

Development Company (LTDC) as an executing and administration agency. The function
is near to private sector’s business, LTDC is a company and main shareholder is PUTPEI.
Therefore, LTDC is a public-owned company.
As many projects come from PUTPEI, the organization of LTDC would be very similar to
that of PUTPEI, consisting of five divisions (so naming to distinguish from units of
PUTPEI) of planning, rail transit, public bus, parking and traffic management in addition
to administration, as proposed in Figure 7.5.7. Functions of each division are as outlined
in Table 7.5.6.
7-110
Table 7.5.6 Outline Functions of Six Divisions of LTDC

Division Outline of Functions
 Overall planning of LTDC’s activities
1. Planning Division
 Interface with planning unit of PUTPEI
 Promotion of Rail Transit Project under PPP scheme
 Bidding and Selection of proponents
2. Rail Transit Division
 Interface of Public and Private
 Supervision of Rail Transit Operator
 Promotion of BRT Project under PPP scheme
 Bidding and Selection of proponents for BRT project
3. Public Bus Division  Interface of Public and Private in BRT PPP project
 Supervision of BRT Operator and Bus Operator
 Monitor and Revise Bus Network
 Contract and Supervise Parking Operator (Collector of road-side
parking and off-road parking operator)
4. Parking Division  Bidding and Selection of proponents for off road parking project
 Interface of Public and Private
 Supervision of Parking operation
 Signal installation and promotion of control center project
5. Traffic Management  Bidding and Selection of proponents for signal and others
Division  Execution of traffic management project
 Training of traffic enforcer/ warden and traffic police
 Personnel Affairs and general affairs
 Accounting
6. Administration Division
 Various Contract
 Quality Control
Out of six divisions, three divisions of Rail Transit, Public Bus and Parking would yield
revenue while Planning Division may yield some revenue and Administration Division
none. Each of the former three is the representative body of the Government side in PPP
projects. The Company as a whole aims at being financially sustainable. However,
internal cross-subsidy among income generating divisions and non-income generating
division would be possible.
(1) Among six divisions, Administration Division, Planning Division and Traffic
Management Division are non-profit departments, while other three of Rail Transit
Division, Public Transport Division and Parking Development Division are profit
divisions.
(2) The Rail Transit Division will be indispensable, in any case, to promote the Lahore
Railway Transit projects as well as the PPP Section under the Planning Division.
(3) Lahore Transport Company can be the parent organization of the Public Transport
Division of the LTDC. In the same way, Traffic Engineering and Transport Planning
Agency (TEPA) can be the parent organization of the Traffic Management Division.
(4) Reinforced TPU can be transformed to the Planning Division of LTDC.
7-111
 Maintenance and update of LUTMP
 Maintenance of transport-related database
 Integration of planning and prioritization function in the transport sector
 Planning and monitoring PPP-schemed projects, Including BRT projects
 Monitoring and planning of revision of public transport fare system
 Setting-up of a professional group responsible for review and updating of

transport rules and regulations.
Institutional arrangements, their functions and interactions as stated above, are further
illustrated in Figure 7.5.7.
(d) Lahore Urban Transport Advisory Council (LUTAC)
Lahore Urban Transport Advisory Council (LUTAC) should be set up in order to advise to
LTDC and at the same time to watch LTDC not to behave arbitrarily. About ten council
members may be appointed by the chairman of PUTPEI among people in academia,
journalism, writers, and others ‘notable’ members of the Society.
LTDC has to request advice of the (LUTAC) council before starting new scheme or
projects with strong impact upon people’s daily life. On a request, the council should have
a series of meeting and submit the written opinion to the CEO of LTDC. LTDC has to
respect the opinion of the LUTAC although it would not obligatory to follow the opinion.
(e) Functions of Existing Related Organizations
 TPU: Transport Planning Unit (Transport Department) is to be a core body of the

planning unit of PUTPEI
 TEPA: Planning section of TEPA is to be the parent of the traffic management unit
and some staff will be transferred to the planning unit of PUTPEI. Operation sectors
of TEPA shall be merged to LTDC.
 LTC: Lahore Transport Company is to be the parent of the public bus unit of
PUTPEI and some operational staff shall be transferred to the public transport
division of LTDC.
 The UU: Urban planners are to be transferred to the Urban Planning Group of
Planning Unit of PUTPEI.
7-112
Figure 7.5.7 Overall Institutional Reform for Lahore Transport Sector Development
Government
Level/ Function Organization
Provincial
Level HUPDD
Traffic
P&D C&W LDA Police Academia
NHA
Decision Transport Management Board
TD (Policy and Decision Making Body)
Making Cant. B.
Secretariat
DHA
Planning and Punjab Urban Transport Planning and

Monitoring Engineering Institute (Research and Planning)
Body)
City District Instruction Advisory
Level Lahore Transport Development Company Lahore
Administration
(Execution and Administration Body) Urban
Division
Transport
Advisory
Planning Parking Traffic Council
Execution Develop Manage
Division (LUTAC)
Maintenance and ment ment
Administration Division Division
Rail Public
Transit Bus
Division Division
Private Administration
Sector Lahore Parking Lahore
Rail Companies BRT
Operation and Transit Company
Maintenance Company
7-113
ACTION PLAN 2020
FINAL REPORT
CHAPTER 8 – ACTION PLAN 2020
8. LUTMP ACTION PLAN 2020
8.1 Development of Action Plan
8.1.1 Action Plan Development Approach
To understand and tackle the current transport/ traffic problems urgently, an Action Plan
has been formulated for the year 2020. The primary components of the Action Plan
include the following:
1) Project Integration and Coordination
While some major projects are underway in transport sector, the coordination among the
projects is insufficient in terms of facility and service at many locations. For instance,
intersection improvement should be implemented with due consideration, if the planned
urban railway (RMTS) and/ or BRT is to be realised without excessive additional cost,
particularly at road intersections. The Action Plan focuses on integrating new and the
existing facilities, and serves to maximize the potential benefits of investment.
2) New Strategy
The future transport/ traffic situation will never improve if Lahore relies on conventional
countermeasures, like ad-hoc solutions for localised problems. Rapid growth of population
and urbanization has been a continued pressure on transport development. Rapidly
growing vehicle ownership (car and motorcycle) and usage are the most serious threat to
the living environment of Lahore. Hence the Action Plan intends to introduce possible new
strategies to promote more effective use of existing infrastructure and attempts to
moderately control the transport demand. The Carrot and Stick strategy will be adopted.
This is with improvement of public transport and road traffic vs. stricter traffic management
and control.
3) Reality
Public investment during the action plan period is severely constrained due to the lack of
funding sources, and existing commitment to several mega projects. Institutional and
organizational capacity also needs improvement. In the light of the budget envelope,
realistic projects are proposed in the Action Plan 2020.
8.1.2 Available Funds for Action Plan
As estimated in Chapter 5 of this report, the budget envelop until 2020 for Action Plan in
the Study Area is as follows:
2012 – 2015 Total: PKR 77 ~ 232 billion, (USD 1,000 ~ 2,900 million)
8-1
Realistically, the total fund available for the next 9 years (2012-2020) should be
considered - at best this would amount to PKR 250 billion (USD 3,100 million). It should be
noted, that most of this fund would need to be allocated to already on-going and
committed projects.
8.1.3 Broad Priorities for Action Plan
Under these severe financial constraints, investment priorities have been broadly
determined as follows:
 Preparatory but urgent works for establishing convenient and robust trunk
public transport system in Lahore. This includes RMTS Green Line and all
seven (7) BRT lines.
 Management of network for improved efficiency and low-cost traffic

management measures such as, upgrade and development of secondary road
network, minor road improvement, intersection improvement and upgrading of
public transport. This is crucial to alleviate the current disorderly traffic situation
in central Lahore.
 Primary and secondary arterial roads. Particularly missing links in east-west

direction in central Lahore, access roads to Lahore Ring Road and roads
necessary to guide sound urbanization in the south-west quadrant should be
given priority.
8.1.4 LUTMP 2020 Action Plan – Core Programs 1 and 2
A number of transport projects have been proposed in the Master Plan (previous) chapter
of this report. Among those projects, there are many projects that need immediate
government action due to urgent needs of the citizen. These projects are categorized as
follows:
1. Trunk public transport system - RMTS and BRT; (Core Program-1).
2. Traffic management in central Lahore; particularly around the Walled City, by a

combination of minor road improvement, junction re-design, parking
management, pedestrian/ bicycle paths development and other cost effective
traffic management measures (Core Program-2).
These projects may be considered as the core program of the LUTMP Action Plan 2020.
Other cost effective projects to supplement the projects mentioned above may be included
in the core program.
8-2
8.2 Trunk Public Transport System – Core Program-1
8.2.1 Proposed Trunk Public Transport System
In the Action Plan period (2012-2020), one RMTS line (Green) and seven BRT lines are
proposed. Later by 2030, two BRT lines (Orange and Blue) will be upgraded to RMTS.
Table 8.2.1 illustrates the RMTS and BRT performance in 2020. It can be seen that
Orange Line would be virtually operating at capacity by 2020.
Table 8.2.1 RMTS and BRT Proposed Core Program-1 Systems Performance
2020 System Performance
System
Route/ Line Daily Max. Line
2020
Boarding Load (PPHPD)
PT06 RMTS Green Line 759,000 17,200
PT07 BRT Orange Line 510,000 9,500
PT08 BRT Blue Line 270,000 5,600
PT09 BRT Purple Line 129,000 1,800
PT10 BRT Line – 1 88,000 2,100
PT11 BRT Line – 2 109,000 1,500
PT12 BRT Line – 3a 161,000 3,200
PT13 BRT Line – 3b 167,000 2,700
Figure 8.2.1 broadly defines the corridor location of these projects, and the forecast 2020
travel demand on RMTS/ BRT lines is shown as volume along the alignment in Figure
8.2.2.
8-3
Figure 8.2.1 Route Alignment of RMTS/ BRT Lines for 2020
8-4
Figure 8.2.2 Estimated RMTS/ BRT Travel Demand for 2020
8-5
8.2.2 Required Actions for Truck Public Transport System
To launch a transport development project, a series of actions are needed. These are, in
general, as follows:
1. PC-1 or PC-2: This process is required for government agencies to launch a

project (PC-1 for construction and PC-2 for studies, equipment and so on). For
each action described below, PC-1 or PC-2 should be prepared and PDWP
approval obtained in a timely manner.
2. Feasibility Study (FS): For Green Line, FS was completed in 2006. Other lines
need FS. Note that FS was also completed for Orange Line in 2007. However,
this was done as an RMTS line, not as a BRT. Therefore Feasibility Studies of
Orange, Blue, Purple lines, and other four BRT Lines (1, 2, 3a and 3b) are
required.
3. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA): EIA is necessary for all proposed

projects. Both GoPb and international funding organizations require EIA of their
own standards.
4. Detailed Design (DD): Green Line reference design was completed in 2008, DD
is still required. All other projects need DD as well.
5. Land Acquisition and Resettlement Plan (LARP): Land should be acquired

before construction starts. But some international funding organizations require
earlier land acquisition as one of their requirement to provide finance. Relocation
of affected people should be duly conducted according to the rules.
6. Relocation of Utilities: In the case of Green Line, it was estimated that utility
removal/ relocation would take 18 months, at cost of over PKR 5 billion. This
process must be completed before the land is handed over to contractors for
construction.
7. Procurement of General Consultant (Transaction Adviser, etc.): The General

Consultant plays an important role in assisting GoPb to prepare tenders as well
as detailed design project. The GC should be selected right after financing
perspective becomes clear.
8. Tendering: In large-scale projects such as RMTS Green Line, international

tender is required. The process from call for tender to selection of the winner
requires 9 months at least. Moreover, prior to the tender, well elaborated tender
documents should be prepared as a joint effort of General Consultant and GoPb.
This process will take 6-12 months in general.
8-6
9. Construction: In the case of Green Line, the construction period is estimated at

5 years. Procurement of tunnel boring machine takes 12 months. Thus the
construction of Green Line should be commenced before 2016 if it can open for
service in 2020. In the case of BRTs, construction period is about 2-3 years, and
since project cost is less than RMTS (roughly 1/ 10 per km) the works stated
above can be simplified or shortened.
10. Operation: Green Line RMTS will start operation in 2020. Among BRTs, Orange
Line BRT is proposed to start operation by 2016 while others by 2020 or earlier.
In Pakistan, there have been cases that project plan and finance should have to be largely
changed from the original plan due to the delay in the actions mentioned above. Table
8.2.2 summarizes the actions needed by 2020.
Table 8.2.2 Necessary Actions to Construct Trunk Public Transport System

Route/ Line System Actions Needed
EIA, detailed design, land acquisition, utility
RMTS Green relocation and procurement of transaction adviser
PT06 RMTS
Line are needed immediately. Tender and financial
arrangement by 2015. Completion by 2019/20.
Reference Design is needed urgently to firm up
RMTS Orange
PT07 BRT costs for budgeting, land acquisition etc. Other
Line
actions (EIA etc.) by 2015.
PT08 RMTS Blue Line BRT FS is needed by 2015. Other actions by 2019.
PT09 BRT Purple Line BRT All actions by 2019.
PT12 BRT Line – 3a BRT All actions by 2019.
PT13 BRT Line – 3b BRT All actions by 2019.
8.2.3 Financing Arrangements for Core Program-1
1) RMTS Green Line
The study for RMTS was first completed in 2006. The study proposed a rail based mass
transit prioritised network of four lines of about 97 km, with 82 stations. The study also
completed the feasibility study of the 1st priority (Green) line in 2007. Again Ferozepur
road corridor was proposed for the priority line envisioned to be completed by 2015/16.
GoPb taking on-board the recommendations started work in earnest on the

implementation of the system, by seeking funding from the Asian Development Bank
(ADB). In parallel the GoPb also commissioned consultants to proceed with the reference
design of the Green Line, and also the feasibility of the 2nd priority (Orange) line. These
studies were completed in 2008 and 2007 respectively. The feasibility studies concluded
that the mass transit lines are economically viable, and should be implemented as
planned in approximately one line after every five years.
8-7
ADB conducted independent assessment of the feasibility studies, agreed to fund the
RMTS project in phases, and approved to provide a multi-tranche loan of USD one billion
towards the capital cost of the Green Line. However, since 2008 negotiation with the ADB
has been suspended. The GoPb from its ADP cannot afford to fund the project capital cost.
As a result the project remains suspended until some form of capital cost funding could be
secured.
GoPb, recently negotiated the project with Chinese company “NORNICO” who showed
willingness to obtain the buyers’ credit from Chinese financing institutions including China
Exim Bank to provide 85% of the contract amount; whereas GoPb would be responsible
for effecting 15% advance payment. NORINCO had to do detail design and build Green
Line; whereas LTC to engage an operator for the subsequent operation of the system. No
further details are available to the JICA Study Team for further progress in this regard. The
GoPb should do its maximum effort, assisted by the federal government, to ensure the
finance for the project
2) Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Lines
Unlike RMTS, financial condition for BRT projects is generally favourable. This is due to
the lower cost (roughly 1/ 10 of RMTS per km), and profit from BRT business can be
expected. Owing to the “profitability”, the private sector can be involved, or PPP scheme
could be applied for less profitable lines. Therefore, the role of GoPb is primarily to seek
for reliable service suppliers. After feasibility study is conducted for each line, the projects
should be announced to the public based on the proposed financing scheme (e.g. purely
private or PPP), and tender shall be called on competitive basis.
8.2.4 Intermodal Integration with Public Transport Trunk System
1) Development of Feeder Services
RMTS Green Line will have a significant impact on people’s travel behaviour. As the new
system offer faster and more reliable services than existing wagon, bus, rickshaw and
Qingqi, considerable number of passengers will shift from these conventional/ paratransit
modes to RMTS and BRTs. In other words, the operators of conventional public transport
will be affected by RMTS and BRTs. The impact of RMTS Green Line was estimated in its
feasibility study that Buses would lose 30-50 % passengers by 2021 along Ferozepur
Road corridor, and in the north across Ravi.
In order to alleviate this negative impact on bus/ wagon, and to ensure quick smooth
transfers between modes, well-coordinated feeder services should be provided. Buses
and wagons could be used as feeder services for the trunk public transport system; RMTS
and BRTs. This is modal integration of conventional public transport and RMTS/ BRTs. For
8-8
buses/ wagons feeder service is an expansion of their market, and for RMTS/ BRTs it
offers an opportunity to increase their patronage. Various actions are needed to promote
this integration. Rerouting plans of bus/ wagon should be formulated prior to the operation
of RMTS/ BRTs.
In addition, common (electronic/ smart card type) ticketing system needs investigation for
future application under the initiative of Transport Department and LTC.
2) Multi-modal Terminals
At present, relocation of the congested bus terminal at Badami Bagh is planned. The
relocation sites are three; Shahdara, Thokar Niaz-baig and Ferozepur Road near Hudiara
Drain. These bus terminals serve as interchange facilities of intercity and intra-city buses.
These bus terminals will function as multi-modal terminals if transfer facility is provided
between bus terminal and RMTS/ BRT station.
Among these three terminals - Shahdara is to be located north of Ravi Bridge (adjacent to
GL Terminal, as planned in the GL design studies), will play the most important role as the
interface between intercity and intra-city bus/ wagon and RMTS/ BRTs of Lahore. By this
project, all the available public transport modes will be integrated at one location to offer
integrated services to passengers. Similarly an integrated bus terminal is planned at the
Green Line South Depot/ Station (Shadab Colony), about 4km north of Hudiara Drain. A
similar location should be considered as a priority option, when conducting Feasibility
Studies for the southern multi-modal bus terminal along Multan Road. For other terminals,
similar concepts should be applied.
8.2.5 Preparatory Actions for RMTS System
1) Staff Training for Opening the RMTS Green Line
The railway differs entirely from other transport modes such as road, aviation and shipping.
In case of road, after completion, some bus companies operate buses and some transport
companies operate trucks and private cars use the road. Purchase of vehicles and training
of drivers are in the transport companies, and private cars are used by individuals under
their own responsibility.
However, Railway Company should do all the necessary works themselves, including
construction of infrastructure, purchase of rolling stock, training of drivers, conductors
maintenance staff, daily operation works, and safety treatment of level crossing and so on.
Therefore, to establish a good railway company is not an easy task. Of particularly
importance is the training of railway staff that will be responsible for all the work necessary
for railway operation. This is a point often overlooked in railway development and
planning.
8-9
Long period of time will be required for training drivers to operate urban trains safely. For
the operation of the RMTS Green Line, about 350 staffs will be needed as per Japanese
railway standard. Since operation of the RMTS Green Line is proposed to start in 2020,
preparatory works should start as soon as possible, and not later than 2016.
Table 8.2.3 Estimated Number of Staff for RMTS Green Line Operation
Staff Position / Task Number
Conductor / Driver 50
Conductor Administration/Station Staff 180
Electrical / Signal Staff 40
Track Works 40
Rolling Stock Maintenance Staff 40
Total 350
Source JICA Study Team
In Japan, seven to eight years are usually required for the training of train drivers and
other auxiliary staff as illustrated in Figure 8.2.3.
8-10
Figure 8.2.3 Typical Training of Train Drivers in Japan
Employed by Railway Company 【High school graduates at 18 years old】

↓
Work as Station Staff for 2 years
↓
Appointment examination for train conductor/ Passing
↓
Training Center:
・Subject to study, 3 weeks
↓
Termination exam./ Passing
↓
・Practices Training：7 weeks
↓
↓
Work as Train Conductor for 2 years
↓
Appointment examination for train driver/ Passing
↓
Training Center
・Subject to study 4 months：（By using driving Simulator）
↓
↓
・Practices Training：4 months：Enforcement training in actual railway
↓
・Termination exam./ Passing in training center (Act as Govt. Duty)
↓
・Get Government certificate issued (Mail later from Government）
↓
Work as Urban Railway Driver
↓
Re-education in Training Center shall be required as follows;

(After 1-year, 2-years, 3-years, and 10 years from the star of working as a Driver

All the trained staff should be ready to work before the opening day. As a reference, Line-1
in Hanoi, Vietnam, while the opening year is set at 2018, first driver trainees have already
been sent to Japan, and training has already started. As the income for Railway Company
is zero before railway service is commenced, special financial assistance from the
government is required.
8-11
Figure 8.2.4 Proposed Staff Training Program to Open RMTS Green Line
Civil works Elecric works Signal/ Telecom. Works
Purchase of rolling stock
Prior Training Establish Railway Company
Assistance by Foreighn
Regulation in the firm Professinal Engineer
Prepare for establish (organization etc) Study
Make manual
Train Drivers to all staffs
study
Train control Make manual
to all staffs
Study
Conductor/Station staff Make manual
to all staffs
Maintenance cars OJT training

(w/ Assist of Maker） Test run
Green Line
Opening
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Green Line Prior preparation Preparation under Railway Company
To learn the basics of railway engineering, it is desired that training will be executed by
Pakistani natives. Therefore, after establishment of a training center, the core staffs i.e.
teachers in each field should be appointed at first, and they prepare textbooks and
manuals, then excellent railway engineer and staffs shall be trained by On-the-Job
Participation (OJP).
2) Compensation for Relocation and Resettlement
The Green Line project involves relocation of shop, commercial buildings and residential
buildings along the alignment. The number of affected families and people is
approximately 400 and 2,800, respectively. The railway is planned almost on the central
part of existing roads, i.e. Government land, but stations and depots need private land of
approximately 33,500m 2. This land acquisition is crucial for early completion of Green Line.
This compensation for the land including of the following items:
a) Compensation for Loss of Land
b) Compensation for Loss of Trees
c) Compensation for Relocation and Resettlement
For the BRT projects, this compensation is not expected though feasibility studies are
needed to establish land requirement and integration of access arrangements to the
adjacent amenities.
8-12
8.3 Core Program-2 – Traffic Management (TM) Projects
8.3.1 Selection of Areas for Priority Traffic Management Projects
The selection of project areas for the LUTMP 2020 Action Plan, Core Program-2 is based
on detailed analysis, evaluation, and prioritisation of projects as described in Sections 7.4
and 7.5 of this report. In addition, it is also influenced by the in depth knowledge of the
area gained from traffic and transport condition surveys by the Study Team, about the
special/ specific needs of the citizens of certain areas.
The core of the city urgently needs proper planning, and network connectivity, operation of
its road network in hierarchical fashion and state-of-the-art junction design equipped with
modern centrally controlled signal system. The transport network should accommodate all
types of users according to the local condition. Non-motorized traffic (pedestrians and
bicycles) is to be given priority, where possible, as the most vulnerable and neglected
group in the existing transport system. LUTMP HIS survey results showed that there are
about 45% of all travel either by walk or cycle in the Study Area.
Provision of planned parking facilities both on-street and off-street are one of the most
important component of transport system of the city, but it is poorly managed and
uncontrolled. Proper parking arrangement can help in removing illegal parking, temporary
encroachments and improve traffic circulation and the environment. Travel behaviour
issues are also needed to be seriously addressed, which is the major factor in the
worsening of traffic situation and traffic safety. The main reasons are lack of traffic
education, poor signage, and very week enforcement of traffic rules and regulations.
Developed countries in the world are preserving their environment and heritage by limiting
the traffic access in central areas through various traffic demand management measures.
This factor is also given a high priority, in addition to those mentioned above, in the
selection of action plan areas. However, certain areas have been identified to need
immediate attention and action, because of the dire state of the traffic and environment in
these areas. These areas have been given high priority in the Action Plan, irrespective of
the small differences in the MCA evaluation results of these projects in these areas.
1) Lahore CBD Area for Priority TM Projects
The Walled city and surrounding area is considered to be the city centre of Lahore,
because of its location and outward expansion in a radial pattern. Areas surrounding the
walled city have been poorly developed without: road network planning, traffic
management, and land use control. Areas of concern include: Ravi, Data Gunj Baksh,
and Samanabad towns, and also parts of Iqbal and Gulberg towns. This area is
considered as the Central Business District (CBD) of the Lahore. It is the major
8-13
commercial ‘hub’ not only of the Lahore city/ district, but also of the whole of the Punjab
province. It includes markets, different types of service sector businesses, small cottage
industries, all major provincial and local government offices, recreational areas, and most
of the historical/ heritage places. In the Study this area is considered to be the CBD area
of Lahore, and it is broadly shown in Figure 8.3.1. The chaotic traffic situation and poor
living environment in this area is evident from the picture depicted as Figure 8.3.2.
This CBD area totally lacks facilities for pedestrians and cyclists, limited public transport
which is mostly Para-transit based, and it infiltrated by illegal Qingqis. Other major issues:
include encroachment of already scarce public spaces; roads and footpaths by legal and
illegal parking, lack of parking provision, uncontrolled commercialization, and poor traffic
circulation arrangements. These result in traffic chaos and bottlenecks, noise and air
pollution and poor environment. Legal and illegal intercity and intra-city public transport
stops/ terminals are operating in this area without any check and control, causing traffic
mayhem and unsafe passenger/ pedestrian environment. Specifically, acidic rain from air
pollutants of the Badami Bagh bus terminal is causing an irreparable damage to the
marble exterior of the of the Badshahi mosque – a world heritage site.
Figure 8.3.1 Lahore CBD Area for Action Plan Projects
8-14
Figure 8.3.2 Traffic on Fleming Road in Lahore CBD Area
2) Lahore City Area – North of Canal to Ravi
This area of Lahore city is locally called as ‘old Lahore’. It includes CBD area, and an
illustrative map is given below Figure 8.3.3. The area is more compact compared to the
south and south-western areas of Lahore District. The general situation in this area is
worsening rapidly due to uncontrolled traffic situation and lack of planning and land use or
development density control. This lack of urban development planning and control has
resulted in uncontrolled commercialization; which is mostly approved without any traffic or
development impact assessment. No traffic planning has been applied to manage the
generated traffic/ travel demand from these commercial centres and mix developments.
This has converted the area traffic in to uncontrolled mix of motorized and non-motorized
traffic. Traffic situation is further aggravated by the lack of public transport; and illegal
Qingqi and wagon operations. Legal and illegal intercity bus operation and trucking on the
Bund Road East are the major factors in worsening the traffic situation in the area and
along Multan Road.
Area to the east of the Walled city has the biggest steel market of Lahore, but it is without
any direct access or egress to any trunk road like G.T. Road or Lahore Ring Road. Trucks
and heavy tractor-trailers (commonly and illegally) are used for movement of heavy goods
and containers. Situation is worsened by the limited capacity local roads, unplanned and
illegal truck stands, and unplanned fruit market in the area. These are the major
impediments to the smooth traffic flow and also for the poor local living environment.
8-15
Figure 8.3.3 Lahore City Action Plan Area – North of Canal to South of Ravi
8.3.2 Selection of TM Priority Projects – Core Program-2
In total thirty one (31) Traffic Management projects (TM01-TM31) have been proposed
and assessed in the LUTMP 2030. Eleven (TM01-TM11) of these Traffic Management
projects are the committed Government projects, and some of these are on-going or at
various stages of implementation. Therefore these projects are not included or further
discussed here under the LUTMP 2020 Action Plan, Core Program-2.
An outline description and scope of each of the remaining twenty (TM12-TM31) projects
have been given in Section 7.3.3. A comprehensive Multi Criteria Assessment (MCA) and
prioritisation of these projects has been presented in Sections 7.4 and Table 7.4.17. The
implementation schedule in the context of budget envelope, and agencies responsible for
the project implementation have been discussed in Section 7.5 and presented in Tables
7.5.1 and 7.5.2 of this Report.
The implementation schedule as proposed in Table 7.5.1 suggests that most of these
traffic management projects need to be implemented either in the Short or Medium term
time frame. In order to further prioritise these projects for their implementation, it was
estimated that the six of the short term projects (TM14, TM21, TM22, TM27-TM29) are
8-16
mostly low cost (USD 1~6 million) ‘soft’ – limited scale feasibility/ initial studies and could
be implemented in the earlier years of the Action Plan 2020 timeframe, without burdening/
disrupting the budget envelope. Therefore, for the implementation of these studies, ToR
should be prepared based on the outline project description and scope of work as given in
Section 7.3.3. It is recommended that TD should proceed with these projects as soon as
possible, along with the committed projects.
In addition, Government should also start the process for the medium term projects like
[TM15] ‘Public Transport in Rural Areas’, as soon as the condition of the public transport in
the city is improved. Whereas, medium term project like [TM13] ‘Existing Junction Design
and Network Improvement’ would have wait for the completion of short study [TM12] prior
to its implementation.
The remaining eight Short (5) and Medium (3) term traffic management projects are
included in the LUTMP 2020 Action Plan 2020 Core Program-2. Further detailed
description and scope of work of these projects is illustrated in the following two Sections
8.4 and 8.5 respectively, as summarised in the following Table 8.3.1.
The table also includes three (R44, R45 and R57) of the road sub-sector projects included
in the Action Plan 2020. These projects under MCA evaluation did not score so high to be
recognised as Short Term projects. However, the local traffic and environment situation in
these areas is dire. It demands that high priority should be given to the improvement of
roads/ junctions, general traffic situation, and pedestrian environment in the areas of
projects R44 and R45.
The road sub-sector project R57 is listed here as, it is part of the LDA/ TEPA on-going
projects. It involves new housing developments in the south-west of Lahore. LDA/ TEPA
are responsible for the development or road network to sustain the developments either
by upgrading the existing roads or by building new roads in conjunction with the private
sector/ developers, as part of old Lahore Master Plan 2021.
Table 8.3.1 LUTMP 2002 Action Plan Projects – Core Program-2

Project Report
Project Description Implementation
No. Section
TM12 A.1 Junction Design and Traffic Signal Improvement – CBD 8.4.1 Short Term
TM18 B.4 Linking Communities - Smart Roads 8.4.2 Short Term
TM23 C.3 Pedestrian and Bicycle Path Network 8.4.3 Short Term
TM24 D.1 Comprehensive Parking System Development 8.4.4 Short Term
TM31 H.1 Local Standards and Guide Lines Development 8.4.5 Short Term
TM16 B.2 Traffic Circulation System Design and Implementation 8.5.1 Medium-term
TM17 B.3 Public and Freight Transport Terminals 8.5.2 Medium-term
TM19 B.5 Feasibility Study for Traffic Demand Management Measures 8.5.3 Medium-term
R44 and Shadbagh Area (Roads - R44) and Samanabad Area (Roads R45) –
8.6.1 Urgent Action
R45 Secondary Road Network Development
Construction and Remodeling of Secondary roads - south of LRR in the On-Going
R57 8.6.2
south-western quadrant between Ferozepur Road and Multan Road Developments
8-17
8.4 Core Program-2 – Short Term Traffic Management Projects
8.4.1 [TM12] Junction Design and Traffic Signal Improvement – CBD Area
1) Introduction
Lahore CBD area road junctions are poorly designed, if at all. It is clear that their layout is
not based on any traffic data, traffic engineering design principles, safety considerations
and they lack even the basic concept of time and space segregation of vehicles of
conflicting movements. This result in unnecessary and avoidable delays, poor and unsafe
environment for all the road users and local area communities. A typical example, Lohari
Gate junction layout is given below in Figure 8.4.1 and it is further illustrated by pictures of
various cross-sections of roads in Figure 8.4.2. At the junction five streets have access/
egress. It is not at all clear which movement has priority over the other. It is ‘free-for-all’
situation. There is no provision for pedestrians to even cross the main Circular Road.
Five streets are directly entering the main traffic stream without any merging, diverging
lanes. This results in congestion, which often locks the junction during peak periods.
Figure 8.4.1 Existing Situation Lohari Gate Junction – Poor

Junction Design
8-18
Figure 8.4.2 Lohari Gate Junction – Pictures at Marked Sections
Section: A-A’ Section: B-B’
Section: C-C’ Section: D-D’
This situation is common throughout the CBD area. It is further exacerbated by mix land
use and uncontrolled development, without due consideration to the impact of
development on the traffic. Lack of parking spaces, legal and illegal parking on the
footpaths (thereby making the pedestrians to walk in the road) limits the already scarce
road space. Strewn street furniture like garbage containers, not to mention the ever
present hawkers interrupt the traffic flow endlessly. The solution is comprehensive traffic
management study of the area, scope of which should include, but not be limited to the
following components.
2) Project Area and Components
The proposed project area has already been defined as the CBD area of Lahore, which is
described above in Section 8.3.1 and the map is shown Figure 8.3.1. The major project
components are as follows:
 Urban planning and street design in the context of the land use in area;
 Road network and junction operational assessment, design and improvements;
 Traffic signal system design according to the junction and network requirements;
 Planning and design of a pilot central traffic control system;
 Traffic circulation system design and pilot implementation;
 Parking facilities planning and design;
8-19
 Pedestrian paths and road crossing facilities design;

 Bicycle paths and network planning and design;
 Pedestrianization of certain areas, and associated traffic circulation plan; and
 Capacity building and training of local traffic engineers through OJP.
3) Implementation Strategy and Schedule
It is suggested that international consultant with considerable experience of such projects

should be commissioned. They should be supported by local consultants and TPU staff to
gain necessary experience. The project should involve network simulation techniques to
achieve the best design for the CBD area as whole. This project should be executed by
TEPA with the involvement of TPU as the overseeing authority.
This project is of high priority as established by the MCA evaluation process, and the
implementation of a number of projects depends upon the successful completion of the
project as soon as possible. This project is proposed to start immediately, and should be
implemented by year 2014. Tentative implementation schedule of various project
components is given in Table 8.4.1. The estimated project cost is USD 4.0 million,
including the implementation of the pilot scheme.
Table 8.4.1 Tentative Implementation Schedule of TM12
Project Activities 2012 2013 2014

Conduct of traffic surveys, and identify major issues (Comprehensive
problem statement)
Planning and design based on the identified problems and issues
Proposed designs/ improvements implementation under the supervision of
consultant or contractor
8.4.2 [TM18] Linking Communities – Smart Roads
1) Introduction
Under this approach it is ensured that most effective use is made of the scarce road space
for the most suitable and sustainable transport mode(s). It should recognize the
importance of activities in areas these take place, such as places to live, work and enjoy.
Under this plan, certain routes will be managed to perform better for cars, and other will be
best suited for public transport or pedestrians as shown in Figure 8.4.3.
Public would be encouraged to walk and cycle by making places more environment
friendly by ensuring that the cyclists have improved access to activity centers and other
public transport services. This project is important to shift the emphasis from building new
expensive transport infrastructure to effectively and efficiently manage the operation of
existing road network.
8-20
Figure 8.4.3 Smart Road Concept – Activity Centers Network in Operation
Cars and Other Vehicles
Pedestrian and Public Transport

Priority
Figure 8.4.4 Pedestrians, Public Transport and Private Traffic
2) Project Components and Area Description
This project relies upon road network operational efficiency improvement through traffic
management and planning techniques. However, local transport related agency has to
work with broad range of relevant stakeholders in developing and implementing this
concept in the city effectively. This needs extensive consultation within government
departments and agencies, and also with relevant stakeholders in the private sector.
The project components may be broadly defined as follows:
8-21
 Road Use Hierarchy by Time Period
 Network Operation Plans by Time Period
 Evaluation of Network Operation
 Using Smart Roads Effectively
This proposed project area where it would be most suited to is shown above, with possible
road usage hierarchy as a pilot, and then it could be extended to the other areas of Lahore
District. However, on the other hand the concept implementation may be less restrictive/
easy in the south of Lahore (South of Canal). Implementation in the Old Lahore area
would be tedious due to high density and limited options of alternative routes for different
modes of transport.
It is suggested that an international consultant would be commissioned with extensive

traffic modelling/ simulation, local area modelling, pedestrian planning and design
experience. Consultant should help design the above mentioned system as a pilot project
of considerable size area where benefits of the scheme could be quantified and realised
by public at large. TEPA should prepare the project ToR for specific area following the
above guidelines.
As the project would be implemented from the concept stage to its implementation TEPA
should use this as capacity building exercise, and commit their staff as counterpart to work
with international consultants as an OJP training exercise, so that similar schemes could
be implemented in other parts of the Study Area. TEPA staff should also be able to monitor
the project performance as ‘before’ and ‘after’ study comparison. A tentative
implementation schedule is given below in Table 8.5.3. The project is to be implemented
by TEPA, and estimated cost is USD 4.0million.
Table 8.4.2 [TM18] Tentative Implementation Schedule

Project Activity 2015 2016 2017 2018
Project Preparation and Consultant Engagement
Adopt LUTMP Model for Local Area
Define Road Use Hierarchy
Network Operation Plans
Evaluation of Alternative Network Operations
Using Smart Roads – In Operation and Monitoring
8-22
8.4.3 [TM23] Pedestrian and Bicycle Path Network
1) Introduction
Developed and developing countries are moving toward the development of sustainable
urban transport system, to revitalize the central urban areas, by incorporating pedestrian
and cycling facilities in the design as high priority, and even replacing the existing
dependence on motor vehicle. Pedestrian and cycling facilities are incorporated as an
integral component of the modern urban fabric. Some examples of sidewalks with bicycle
path are depicted in Figure 8.4.5.
Figure 8.4.5 Side-walk Photos in Fukuoka Japan

Currently there is no transport policy or strategy to move the city towards such sustainable
transport system for the city. The Study HIS survey showed that; about 41 % of the trips in
the Study Area are by walk and 5 % by bicycle and rest of the 54 % are by all other modes.
This is an asset of the city that shows the importance of walk and cycling, and should not
be squandered in favour of motorisation. Figure 8.4.6 Pedestrian Endeavor to Cross
Gulberg Main Boulevard
Pedestrian Facilities
In the recently developed areas of Johar Town,

DHA and also in older areas like Gulberg, and
Model Town; walk culture is limited and it is
discouraged, as there are absolutely no
footpaths in these areas. Walking is only
possible in the main carriageway, even in
cases where there are service roads, walking is
hazardous among parked vehicles and other Source: JICA Study Team
street furniture. This causes most nuisances in the commercial areas without walking
facilities, as result shoppers tend to park their vehicle nearest to the shop of their choice.
Road crossing is serious hazard, as can be seen above in Figure 8.4.6. Road crossing
8-23
facilities are either not provided at all, or if available, are ignored by motorists. This also
hampers the access to public transport (bus stops etc.). In some parts of Lahore attempts
have been made to create better pedestrian environment, but designs are poor, and
compliance is limited.
It has been observed that Old Lahore area severely lacks proper provisions for
pedestrians, footpaths and road crossing facilities. Examples of poor facilities in several
residential, commercial and other mix areas are shown in Figure 8.4.7 and are outlined
below which need urgent attention:
 Shadbagh area - small scale industries and biggest steel market of Lahore;
 Walled city area congested by commercial activities and truck stands,
 Badami Bagh bus terminal without any waiting areas, walkways, access to local
transport stands, and parking facilities, and
 Niazi bus terminal along Bund Road East and Babu Sabu area bus stands lack
pedestrian facilities and is most dangerous for passengers to cross the busy roads.
Figure 8.4.7 Badami Bagh Bus Terminal – No Pedestrians/ Passengers Facilities
Cycling In Lahore!
There is no provision at all for cyclists on the entire road network of Lahore. The level of
cycling is common and it is (from LUTMP Travel Demand Model) illustrated in Figure 8.4.8.
This shows that how much cycling is common in the entire Lahore City area, and on some
roads daily cycle volume is in thousands (2010 volumes). Some of these roads are
primary, while others are secondary and local streets. Cycling on most major roads is
hazardous and dangerous, accidents/ fatalities are common, and the root cause is lack of
clearly planned, designed and marked provision of cycling facilities. There is also no
regard for cyclists by the motorists – a common driving misbehaviour problem, as cycling
rights are not spelled out officially. Therefore, it is essential that due consideration be
given to cycling as a mode of transport, and this can be best achieved through planning,
design and implementation of cycling facilities in the Lahore City area.
8-24
Design concepts of integrated walkways and cycling facilities are illustrated in the
following Figures 8.4.9 to 8.4.13 along with the maps of Lahore areas depicting where
such concepts should be applied to provide safe and better environment.
Figure 8.4.8 Daily Bicycle Demand in 2010
Source: JICA Study Team (LUTMP Model)
8-25
Figure 8.4.9 Integrated Design Concept for Walkways, Bicycle Lane and Parking
Figure 8.4.10 Application of Integrated Pedestrian and Cycling Design in Central Lahore
8-26
Figure 8.4.11 Concept Design of Mid-block Safe Pedestrian Road Crossing
Figure 8.4.12 Some Street of Central Lahore Identified for Pedestrianization
Note: Al-Hadeed and Lanada Bazar Areas

8-27
Figure 8.4.13 Data Darbar Area for Pedestrianization
Note: Highlighted Junctions Needs Special Junction Design

2) Project Components and Priority Areas
This project includes comprehensive pedestrian and cycle path planning and design study
for the Old Lahore area. The study scope should include detail design of pedestrian and
bicycle path network based on demand, and also local area traffic management plans
where Pedestrianization is proposed.
Areas south of the Canal should be also studied, but are not a high priority as Old Lahore
area, where pedestrian and cycle volumes are relatively much higher. Traffic calming
measures for secondary and local roads should be an integral part of the network. In
addition special commercial areas should be given high priority for Pedestrianized areas
similar to Liberty Market, but with better segregation of traffic and pedestrians, and also
with full traffic circulation plan around the area. Areas to be given priority could be: Sadar
Bazar, Model Town Link Road Market, Moon Market Iqbal Town. Major components of the
projects are as follows:
 Non-Motorized traffic demand and interview surveys;

 Topographic surveys of the road sections for design of walkways and bicycle path
network;
 Removal of permanent as well as temporary encroachments;
 Bicycle and pedestrian path network plan, design and construction;
 Traffic circulation plans for the pedestrianized zones;
 Pedestrian planning of major commercial areas with their traffic circulation plans
and parking facilities;
 Traffic calming measures for Secondary roads associated with Pedestrianization
8-28
and Cycle path network;

 Improved and mandatory pedestrian crossing facilities in all commercial areas.
This project is proposed to start from year 2014 after completion of Junction design project
[TM12]. TEPA should be the executing agency. It is proposed that TEPA should carry out
the projects with its local resources, with limited help from international consultants.
LUTMP database could be used to calculate pedestrian and bicycle demand by area and
road network. However, supplementary localized pedestrian and bicycles demand and
interview survey would need to be required and should be conducted in a manner that
data could be incorporated in the LUTMP model for network-wide analysis and forecast
purposes. The project is proposed to last three years from 2014 to 2016. Some of the key
project activities with timescale are given in Table 8.4.3. The project cost is estimated at
USD 5 million, but depend upon the size of area.
Table 8.4.3 [TM23] Pedestrian and Cycling - Tentative Implementation Schedule

Project Activity 2014 2015 2016
Planning, design and construction of Pedestrian path network
Planning, design and construction of Bicycle path network
8.4.4 [TM24] Comprehensive Parking System Development
1) Introduction
CDGL has provided small scale parking stands along 32 major roads in Lahore for
motorcycles and cars; which are neither planned nor designed for such activity. The roads
already lack capacity, and parking is a major encroachment of the road space. There is no
signage for Parking or No Parking, legal and illegal parking is common, and enforcement
of legal parking is non-existent. CDGL is only authority who is providing on-street parking
facilities; however they do not have technical capability to plan, design and manage
parking at any level. They simply contract out a section of road (often including footpath)
to be used as ‘legal parking’, and the contract amount is the revenue for CDGL without
any specific expenditure against this income.
Parking facilities: on or off-street, planning, design, implementation and enforcement

should the responsibility of a single competent agency. It is already under TEPA, but due
to various historical reasons and lack of local planning laws it is also in the domain of
CDGL. This makes the situation unnecessarily complex, and has left this area of traffic
management completely without direction and control. As a result there is no concept of
parking demand and required/ necessary supply quantification, strategies to provide
parking or restrain it? Recent trend is to build multi-storey parking plaza objective is that it
8-29
would reduce congestion, whereas basic transport planning suggests that it would
increase traffic demand to the area, and worsen congestion. The result of total ineffective
control and lack of planning is evident from the picture in Figure 8.4.14.
Figure 8.4.14 Discriminate Parking at Panorama Shopping Centre – The Mall
There are only three car parking plazas in the whole of Lahore, parking integral to large
development often ends up as commercial space (like Panorama Shopping Centre
basement) due to lack of building control. Encroachment of local road network was
observed during the LUTMP surveys and is illustrated in Figure 8.4.15 with the aid of
LUTMP model. The Figure also gives the level of demand as percentage of the street
section is occupied by legal/ illegal parking.
Figure 8.4.15 On-street Legal/ Illegal Parking in Lahore – LUTMP Surveys
8-30
2) Project Components and Study Area
There is no local institution with capacity to plan, design and manage the parking in the
city. Development of an institution responsible for such a task is essential. Setup of a
company for the Development of Parking Management is a step in the right direction.
However, the main components of the project are briefly described as:
 Institutional planning study leading to development of Parking Management

Company prior to the starting of the parking system study.
 Capacity building of parking management company would be the major part of
the institutional development exercise.
 Comprehensive parking demand surveys needs to be conducted; this need to
be supported with details of the associated land use of the area to estimate
parking demand by volume and time period.
 Commercial activity centres would be identified and studied in detail for their
parking demand and provisions.
 On-street parking facilities would be planned and designed based on demand,
and supply, possibly with parking restraint as a policy. The strategies should be
proposed based on the environmental impact of parking provision in the area.
 Off-street parking facilities feasibility study should be conducted according to
demand and impact on the local road network and the associated
environmental impacts.
 Pilot off-street parking facility detail design as a capacity building exercise for
the parking management company and TEPA.
 Comprehensive parking policy and strategy would be formulated based on the
existing parking demand analysis and parking behaviour in the city.
 This study should lead to the development of Parking Design Guidelines for
both on-street and off-street facilities.
This proposed project area includes the Old Lahore (as described above in Section 8.3.1
and shown in Figure 8.3.3), and the areas south of Canal including Model Town, Iqbal
Town, Gulberg, and DHA as mapped out below in Figure 8.4.15.
It is suggested that a local and/ or international consultant could be engaged; who have
extensive experience of institutional development and conduct of such studies in the
developing countries. This exercise can effectively be utilized by TEPA and Parking
Management Company as capacity building exercise. Parking Management Company
could also be made responsible for planning, designing, development, and management
8-31
of all parking facilities in Lahore. Tentative implementation schedule of the project is given
below in Table 8.4.4, and project cost is estimated at USD 2.5 million.
Figure 8.4.15 [TM24] Parking Study – Proposed Project Area

Table 8.4.4 [TM24] Parking Study Tentative Implementation Schedule
Project Components/ Activity 2012 2013 2014
Institutional Study
Parking Management Company Development
Parking Planning Study
Parking Design Study
Capacity Building of TEPA
Project Implementation
8.4.5 [TM31] Local Standards and Guide Lines Development
1) Introduction
Currently no standards or guidelines exist for transport planning and traffic engineering in
Pakistan. Previous attempts by NTRC (National Transport Research Center) and other
provincial institutions failed to produce documents of international standards, which could
be adopted as Standards/ Guidelines. Even the documents which exist do not fully reflect
the local conditions.
The Urban Unit recently prepared a ‘Punjab Traffic and Transport Manual’ which includes
traffic signs in English language only and does not include the signs recently used (on
8-32
LRR). Hence, it completely lacks the local context, in terms of ability of local totally
illiterate drivers to understand these signs in English or its use for signage in Punjab, at
least new roads. However, this manual could be used as starting point for this study. It
would need to be completely revised in the local area context. Its legal status needs to be
ascertained and reasons for lack of its implementation needs to be determined. This is a
serious concern, as enforcement would be the key issue for the implementation and
conformity to such a document. This project is considered as a core project for all traffic
management and traffic engineering design work; and can bring conformity to the design
of transport facilities.
2) Project Components and Area of Implementation
Different transport facilities design standards and guidelines would be developed under
this project. The proposed standards and guidelines documents needed to be produced
are briefly outlined below:
1. Road Geometric Design Standards
2. Parking Facilities Design Manual
3. Traffic Control Devices Manual
4. Traffic Signal System Design Manual
5. Development or Traffic Impact Assessment Guidelines
These guidelines would be designed in the local context, and should be applicable in the
whole of Pakistan. These standards and guidelines should be applicable to all major cities
and towns. However, if the situation demands (to be ascertained by the study), these
standards and guidelines may be relaxed for rural or outlying areas. This relaxation should
be clearly documented, and where possible supplementary guidelines would need to be
prepared for such areas.
TEPA or other transport sector institutions should have full technical involvement with the
project, and must have technical capacity to formulate such comprehensive document of
standards or guidelines. Project should be executed by commissioning international
consultants with full involvement of all stakeholders. The standards and guidelines thus
developed are mandatory on all transport sector concerned agencies.
Table 8.4.5 [TM31] Development of Guidelines and Standards Tentative Schedule

Standards and Guidelines 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
1. Road Geometric Design Standards Project Review/
2. Parking Facilities Design Manual Implementation Period
3. Traffic Control Devices Manual Involving Other
4. Traffic Signal System Design Manual On-Going Traffic
5. Development or Traffic Impact Assessment Guidelines Management Project.
8-33
8.5 Core Program-2 – Medium Term Traffic Management Projects
There are in total five (5) medium traffic projects in the LUTMP 2030, and two of these
have been included in Core Program-2. These projects are deemed to be essential as the
start of implementation is vital for the city’s traffic management system, as explained
below under each project description.
8.5.1 [TM16] Traffic Circulation System Design and Implementation
1) Introduction
In a large metropolis an effective traffic circulation system is essential to get the best
operational efficiency from its road network. The traffic circulation design concept is
commonly used in the developed countries to improve the functional and operational
efficiency of road network as whole. Under this concept a carriageway is made one-way
(sometimes for peak periods only) to reduce conflicts along its length to improve its
capacity. It should be understood that a 1-way carriageway has 30 % more capacity than a
2-way undivided carriageway of the same width. Conversely, if a 1-way carriageway is
turned into 2-way operation, there would be a loss of up to 30~50 % of its total capacity.
Similarly, junction capacity in a 1-way system is also enhanced, and this further improves
the network operational efficiency. On the other hand 1-way system does increase the trip
length over a limited area, hence its implementation needs to be carefully planned, and
evaluated before implementation.
Lahore has many dual carriageways, very wide roads and often with service roads along
most of their length, which often extend right into the city centre. Sadly this available road
capacity is simple wasted away due to total lack of directional control of traffic. Most
service roads operate 2-way, without any provision of such contra-flow movements at
junctions. This causes total chaos at junction, when vehicle end up travelling in the
contra-flow direction. Such 2-way operation of service roads is not only inefficient, but
dangerous and is major cause of junction blockage, accidents, sometime serious and fatal.
Major advantage of this concept is to effectively minimize the severity and minimize the
number of conflicting movements at the junctions. The chaos caused by conflicting
movements by not having clearly defined efficient traffic flow system is shown in the
following Figures 8.5.1 to 8.5.4.
Currently, LUTMP road network traffic circulation is very inefficient from the reasons
outlined above; specifically where it could be implemented without much investment – an
example is to enforce 1-way use of service roads, or at least at the junctions. This simple
measure would improve junction efficiency and link capacity, not only of the service roads
8-34
but also of the main carriageways, due to reduction of conflicts at the carriageway
junctions.
Figure 8.5.1 Poor Traffic Circulation at Qurtaba Chowk – Note Conflicting Movements
Figure 8.5.2 Dual Carriageway Ferozepur Road – Note Traffic in Contra-flow Direction
8-35
Figure 8.5.3 Poor Gyratory System Design without Traffic Channelization
Figure 8.5.4 Secretariat Junction – 2-way Junctions are Too Close
8-36
2) Project Components
For this project network simulation model would be required, which could initially be setup
using a ‘window approach’ to the LUTMP strategic model, for local area data extraction.
Traffic circulation system need to be designed on an area-wide network basis and not for
streets / roads in isolation to get the best performance from the road network. The project
would include the following major components, but not limited to:
 New simulation model would need to be developed, whereas the LUTMP strategic
model would provide the area-wide traffic cordon flows.
 The simulation model need to be based on state-of-the-art software, and would

require calibration for the area of application.
 Topographic survey, and other related transport and traffic surveys of the local area
road network as input data to the simulation model;
 Pilot traffic circulation system design could be broadly evaluated using a smaller/
local area version of the LUTMP transport model.
 All new schemes of road and traffic management should be assessed and evaluated,
initially in the LUTMP model then through the simulation model prior to
implementation.
 Junctions should then be designed as modelled, including traffic signals, and control
devices as per plan and design of the scheme.
 Capacity building of traffic police is needed to effectively enforce such traffic

circulation system, and not interfere with the system, unless in case of an emergency.
3) Area Description
This project should be initially planned, designed and implemented as pilot project at
location/ for an area where enforcement is not a major challenge. It should then be
implemented in stages, to cover the CBD area, and other stand-alone independent areas
like Gulberg Market areas and the adjacent network.
TPU/ TEPA do not have technical capacity to fully comprehend and modify the LUTMP
model, and develop traffic simulation model for this project. Therefore, it is suggested that
international consultant should be commissioned with experience in such detailed traffic
modelling, both at strategic and simulation levels. TPU/ TEPA should prepare the project
ToR with the above components as a ‘must be’, and with proposals for a pilot area. The
project should be used as capacity building exercise for both TPU/ TEPA staff.
8-37
This project is designed to efficiently manage existing road network operation, and would
enhance the network capacity without major investment in road building and grade
separation. Table 8.5.1 provides a tentative implementation schedule for the whole project
within the LUTMP Core Program-2. Project should be executed by TPU, in conjunction
with TEPA and should take account of other on-going short term projects. Estimated
project cost is USD 20million, less than a single grade separation cost, but would yield far
more benefits
Table 8.5.1 [TM16] Traffic Circulation Project Tentative Implementation Schedule

Project Activity 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Project Preparation and Consultant Appointment
Development of Simulation Model
Pilot Project Implementation
Old Lahore Area Traffic
South of Canal Areas Circulation System Design
The Study Area wide Application of Concept
Traffic Control Devices Installation and Implementation
Traffic Police Capacity Development
8.5.2 [TM17] Public and Freight Transport Terminals
1) Introduction
District Regional Transport Authority (DRTA) is responsible for planning, issuing permits,
and overall operation of inter-city bus terminals in Lahore. DRTA has approved eleven ‘D’
class bus stands which are operational. In addition there are main bus terminals like
Badami Bagh, Daewoo, Multan Road (near M-2), and Niazi Bus Terminals. Locations of
these terminals are shown in Figure 8.5.5.
Bus Terminals
Badami Bagh bus terminal is the largest and oldest of all. It was planned to be an inert-city
bus terminal and was built to shift the inter-city bus operation from the Lahore Railway
Station area in late 1960’s. It was a well-planned, designed terminal, with integrated
intra-city travel facilities at that time. However, now it’s nothing more than a slum area and
a collection of bus stands without any order or planning of amenities for passengers. Its
location is ideal for passengers, as it is located in the city centre, but it is a serious
environmental hazard for the heritage sites. The bus terminal has been unlawfully
expanded to areas adjacent to the Lahore Fort, which is a serious environmental issue.
Location of the heritage sites and the bus terminal traffic circulation is shown in Figure
8.5.6. The CDGL bus terminal on Bund Road East is better planned, and functions well
8-38
compared to the other bus stands in that area, which are mostly located and operated at
the convenience of the bus operators.
Truck Terminals
Existing truck terminals condition is worse than the bus terminals. Most of these are
located in the dense urban areas and use road-side for loading and unloading. There is
usually no off-road designated parking space or other facilities, for overnight parking and
maintenance for the owner-operators. It should be noted that most of the trucking fleet is a
single truck owner-operators. Therefore road space is often used for parking and
maintenance. Condition and plight of some of the trucking areas so called the ‘truck
stands’ is evident from the pictures in Figure 8.5.7.
8-39
Figure 8.5.5 Location of Public Transport and Truck Facilities in Lahore
8-40
Figure 8.5.6 Bus Terminal Operation around Heritage Sites
Figure 8.5.7 Condition of Existing Truck Stand/ Terminal at Sabzazar
The area shown in Figure 8.5.8 is the Cottage Steel Industry, which is located in the centre
of the CBD area, a totally inappropriate location for such commercial activity. This attracts
trucking activity, but has no space and associated road network to function efficiently. As a
result the ‘steel market’ activity is a traffic nuisance and the industrial/ commercial activity
is a serious environmental and safety hazard for the local community.
8-41
The relocation of the whole of the ‘steel market’ industrial/ commercial activity is essential
for the trucking activity to be limited in the area. This would be a major challenge to
relocate the steel industry/ market to and industrial estate, and regenerate this inner CBD
area of Lahore, just like the Dockland in London. It is a project, with many facets, and
could not be done over-night, by ad-hoc decisions. It needs careful land use planning, and
a phased implementation, and may take the rest of this decade to be fully implemented.
This LUTMP proposal is being put forward with a ‘vision’ of Lahore as city of gardens.
Figure 8.5.8 Steel Industry/ Commercial Activity in CBD Area
2) Project Components – Public Transport Terminals
For such a complex project, it is nearly impossible to list out all the project components, it
requires a comprehensive understanding of the subject, which should be done in house by
TPU/ LDA/ TEPA to ascertain how to handle this mega-project, and then proceed with
caution. Following points give a brief list of components which are must, and cannot be
ignored.
 A detailed feasibility study should be conducted to fully understand and realise the
existing intercity and intra-city terminal operation, estimate future travel demand
requirement for the additional terminals in medium to long term.
 The choice of terminal location should take account of the terminals proposed as part
of the RMTS development program, and the planned/ designed bus terminals located
8-42
at the end of these BRT/ RMTS lines, and integrated with their respective depot sites.
 Based on the feasibility study recommendation; detail design study should be
conducted for the proposed terminals;
 Construction and operation of bus terminals in the specified locations with all
requirements necessary for a modern multi-modal transport interchange.
 For operation PPP options should be explored to reduce the financial burden on the
public.
 Traffic management studies should be conducted as part of the feasibility study, to
facilitate all traffic movement necessary for such terminal operation taking account of
the trunk and secondary road network.
3) Project Components – Freight Terminals
It is recommended that the project should include the Following key/ vital components on
board.
 Comprehensive freight planning study should be conducted for Lahore; which should
accommodate current demand and supply, and future needs of the city.
 The study outcome/ recommendation should be the feasible locations of the truck
terminals, conceptual designs, freight distributary network, local delivery system, and
long term plan based on the industrial growth;
 Account should also be taken of Rail-freight terminals/ ‘dry-ports’ proposed or
operated by Pakistan railways. This component is essential, as it is far more
economical to transport bulk/ container freight over long distances by rail than road;
e.g. goods movement between Lahore and Karachi.
 Design study should follow the feasibility study recommendations and design truck
terminal facilities;
 Construction and operation of truck terminal facilities;
 For operation PPP options should be explored to reduce the financial burden on the
public.
 Traffic management study should be conducted as part of the location feasibility study
to take account of trunk and primary road network. Due attention should be given to
day time truck ban in the inner city area. Therefore access to the secondary road
network may need to be developed for the distribution of goods by smaller vehicles
during the day.
4) Project Components – Steel Industry/ Market Relocation
Following are the main recommendations for the relocation project, but would need
stakeholder involvement at the outset.
8-43
 Detailed assessment of exiting industrial and marketing activity to ascertain, what is

really going on.
 Feasibility study to seek alternative location(s), their evaluation and stakeholder’s
views of these sites.
 Plan and design industrial area, this may be equivalent to the size of Sundar
Industrial estate, or even larger.
 The relocation study, should be conducted taking account of the location of truck
terminals, otherwise both relocation of trucking and steel Industry/ market would be a
failure.
 The detailed lay out design of the industrial estate development at the proposed
locations with access roads to secondary and trunk road system.
 Account should also be taken of labour/ workers in this regard; their housing and
need for other amenities should be incorporated. This is because the current industry
is a family business and has been going on for generations.
 An urban regeneration study of the existing area, its effective use should be
conducted involving the current stake holders/ owners, so that they also benefit from
the gains of relocation.
It is suggested that an international consultant in urban planning, transport planning and

industrial development design should be commissioned for a strategic study for the whole
project. They should then set up the three further studies for bus terminals/ freight centres,
and relocation of steel industry/ market coupled with regeneration study of existing area.
Only after the completion of these studies, individual projects should go out to tender.
The project has to be handled involving many provincial and local departments and
agencies. It is proposed that the project initially should be started by LDA under P&D
Department, and with close liaison with Transport department, TEPA, CDGL and LTC.
Transport Department deals with inter-city public transport terminals, LDA/ CDGL with
freight and local industries, LTC with intra-city operations and facilities, and TEPA for traffic
engineering components. In addition, as the scope of the project is extensive, it would be
appropriate to have an overall general consultant commission at the outset, and would be
responsible for the project until its implementation and operation.
A tentative project implementation schedule is outlined in Table 8.5.2, with key project
components and activities, essential for its success. Project cost is estimated at USD100
million.
8-44
Table 8.5.2 Bus and Freight Terminals Project – Tentative Implementation Schedule
Year, 2000+
Project Components/ Activities
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Prepare Master Plan of all Projects and Commission General
Consultant to Oversee the Complete Project
Public Transport Terminals
Feasibility study for public transport terminal relocation
Design study for public transport facilities detailed design
Construction of proposed terminals
Operation of proposed terminals
Traffic management planning and design study of terminals
Freight Terminals
Comprehensive freight planning study
Detail design study for the freight terminals
Construction of freight terminal facilities
Operation of freight terminal facilities
Traffic management planning and design study of terminals
Steel Industry/ Market Relocation
Feasibility and Design study for shifting the steel market
Development of Industrial area
8.5.3 [TM19] Feasibility Study for Traffic Demand Management Measures
1) Introduction
Traffic/ transport/ travel demand management (TDM) is a general term for various
strategies that increase transport system efficiency. TDM treats mobility as a means to an
end, rather than an end in itself. It emphasizes the movement of people and goods, rather
than motor vehicles, and so gives priority to more efficient modes (such as walking,
cycling, car-pooling, and public transit), particularly under congested traffic conditions. It
prioritizes travel based on the value and costs of each trip, giving high value trips and
lower cost modes priority over, lower value high cost travel, in doing so increase overall
system efficiency.
The TDM is ‘carrot and stick approach’, and would fail if adequate alternative transport is
not available. For example, restricting cars into the city centre during peak periods could
only be implemented if alternative public transport is reliable, efficient and comfortable,
coupled with direct access to amenities through integrated station design. Therefore,
following projects are assumed to be completed and operational prior to study/
implementation of TDM project;
 Rail mass rapid transit system (Green line) and some of the bus rapid transit lines
should be operational;
 Connecting communities (smart roads) and traffic circulation system design, and
8-45
public and freight transport terminals traffic management projects would have been
completed;
Presently, there is no concept of TDM in Lahore; however its need would be evident as the
congestion increases over time, and ad-hoc solutions of spot problem fixing are no longer
have impact. This will put extra strain over the scarce road space and poorly managed
network of Lahore through mode growth (car ownership growth is estimated to be 45 % by
2030). This vehicle growth cannot be stopped due to increase in income levels and local
culture. But the rate of growth could be reduced by sustainable management of the people
and goods movement in the city’s network. This would require some tough decisions in
limiting vehicle ownership, and parking restraint policies, totally contrary to the current
trends of trying to meet traffic demand at all cost. This will also require tough political
decisions, contrary to current belief that we can build our way out of congestion – no
nation has done it, how we could do - That is where and when TDM will come in, so we
should prepare for it now.
Individual TDM strategies can only affect a small portion of total travel, and their benefits
would appear modest with respect to any particular problem, however, overall impacts are
cumulative and have synergy. When all benefits and costs are considered, TDM programs
are the most cost effective way to improve travel condition for all and for the overall benefit
of the community. Key steps involved in the development and implementation of TDM
measures could be summarized as follows, and some of the commonly applied traffic
demand management measures practiced in the developed and developing countries are
listed in Table 8.5.3.
Policy and Planning Reforms
More funding for alternative modes, increased support for TDM programs, changes in land
use planning practices etc.
Changes in Travel Options and Incentives
Improved walking and cyclcing facilities, improved bus and and public transit services,
more compact and mixed land use development, increased parking fees, road user
charges for peak periods, reduced transit fares.
Travel Pattern Changes
Shifts in travel time, destination, mode, route choice, and frequency.
Outcomes of TDM Measures
Reduced traffic congestion, accrued revenue from and parking charges and road user
charges, accident reductions, energey conservation, pollution emission reductions,
8-46
improved mobility for non-vehicle owners, and most of better environment.
Table 8.5.3 Traffic Demand Management Strategies

Improves Land Use Policies and
Incentives
Transport Options Management Programs
Bike/ Transit Location-efficient Campus transport
Parking pricing
integration development management
Commuter financial Commuter trip
Car sharing Car free planning
incentives reduction
Freight transport
Flex-time Distance-based fares New urbanism
management
Guaranteed ride home Fuel tax increases Parking management Least-Cost planning
Non-motorized
HOV Priority Smart growth Market reforms
encouragement
Non-motorized Pay-as-you-drive Performance
Traffic calming
improvements vehicle insurance Evaluation
Transit oriented
Rideshare programs Road pricing TDM marketing
development
Taxi improvements TDM Programs
Better land values near
Telework Compact development Tourist transport
transit nodes
Transit improvements management
The proposed feasibility study is to be conducted in the medium term timeframe. Its key
objectives are to prepare comprehensive TDM program for Lahore for next 20 years. The
project objectives are to review and develop various TDM options/ strategies in order to
improve the available transport options for travelers in Lahore under local conditions.
Some provide incentives to change trip time, route choice, mode selection, or even
alternative destination, while others reduce the need to travel at all through more efficient
land use practices. Most individual TDM strategies affect small portion of total travel; so
this study should develop a comprehensive TDM program of a number of measure to be
implemented collectively; which would have significant effects on travel behavior, and the
measureable social and environmental benefits. The TDM program should cover the
following;
 Congestion Reduction
 Reduces traffic congestion delays and associated travel costs
 Road User Charges and Parking Fees
 Increased revenue to support public transport costs
 Consumer Savings (Vehicle Cost)
 Consumers capital cost saving for not owning a car/ motorcycle
 Transport Choice
 Improved travel options, particularly for non-vehicle available group
8-47
 Road Safety
 Reduced accidents, and less social cost due to fewer fatalities
 Environmental Protection
 Reduced air, and noise pollution, and better environmental
 Efficient Land Use
 Supports land use strategies, compact development requiring less green
filed sites and less urban sprawl, short trips.
 Community Livability
 Improved environment quality for the community as whole.
 Economic Development
 Supports community’s economic objectives, such as increased
productivity, employment, and increase property values, more equitable.
 Physical Fitness and Health
 More physical activities, through increased walking and cycling
This is assumed that TPU would have achieved technical capacity in transport planning,
and traffic management planning by the year 2015 to be able to implement such a project.
However, it is recommended that international consultant should be commissioned to work
with TPU staff for preparing this feasibility study due to its complex and advance scope of
multi-disciplinary traffic demand management tasks.
This project could be used as capacity building exercise, and selected transport planners
and traffic engineers should work as counterpart staff to the international consultant for
OJP. After, the study local staff should have enough training to improve, modify and
implement the TDM strategies in as the implementation starts in earnest. The tentative
project implementation schedule is outlined in Table 8.5.4.
Table 8.5.4 [TM19] TDM Project Tentative Implementation Schedule
Project Activity/ Components 2016 2017

Project Preparation and Commissioning of International Consultant
Feasibility Study for TDM measures
8-48
8.6 Core Program-2 – Road Sub-sector Projects
8.6.1 [R44 and R45] Shadbagh and Samanabad Areas – Secondary Roads
Development
1) Introduction
As discussed, road network hierarchy is essential for the overall road network
performance. This has been the essence of LUTMP 2030 Road Sub-sector development.
The road network hierarchy, particularly development of secondary and local road network
is non-existent in these two dense urban areas of Lahore. The result is total traffic chaos,
road blocks, bottlenecks due to encroachments or narrowing of roads, junction grid-lock
due to lack of proper priority junctions, or signalized junction control. These areas have
been given priority for the improvement of the road network, overall better traffic
conditions and social and environmental benefits, rather than just as simple high EIRR of
the projects.
2) Shadbagh and Samanabad Areas
Shadbagh and Samanabad areas are part of old Lahore area, and its community and the
urban fabric is a compact mix of land use and activities. Shadbagh area can be regarded
as land locked between Lahore Ring Road, G.T. Road, Ravi Link Road and the Pakistan
Railways in the east. The access to the area is limited, and has no links with the Trunk or
Primary road network. Traffic access to this area is mostly ‘Ek-Moria pull’ a four-lane
underpass to cross the railway track, with no channelization or area based traffic
circulation system in place. The numbers of railway crossings are limited, and have not
been increased in line with increase in population and commercial activity in the area
since 1947. Figure 8.6.1 illustrates the area, and the constraints to internal traffic
circulation and access issues.
Figure 8.6.1 Shadbagh Area Lack of Access and Issue of Internal Traffic Circulation
8-49
Samanabad area has three main secondary roads Gulshan-e-Ravi, Bund Road East, and
Outfall Road which extends to Multan Road. There is lack of access from these major
trunk and primary roads, and the inter-connectivity of secondary roads is also limited. This
results in traffic convergence on to Multan Road and Ferozepur Road junctions to access
the area, which also has limited internal secondary road network for local distribution of
traffic from the external primary network. Figure 8.6.2 below illustrates these network
deficiencies in the Samanabad area.
Figure 8.6.2 Samanabad Area Lack of Internal Secondary Roads and External Linkages
8-50
This project includes improvements (remodeling/ re-construction, and construction of

small sections of new roads to improve connectivity/ linkages) of internal roads to a
uniform secondary and local road standards, as described in Chapter 7, Section 7.1.2 of
this report. The identification of these roads was the outcome of LUTMP model
assignment process, which detailed the roads/ sections with capacity deficiencies. The
road sections identified through LUTMP modelling are defined below under two project
headings; namely Roads ‘R44’ for Shadbagh area, and ‘R45’ for Samanabad area. As a
result, and through local area surveys it was decided to propose linkages between the
primary roads, by the development of secondary road network to increase the overall road
network performance. Shadbagh and Samanabad area are especially focused to handle
extra traffic demand in future from external zones to inner area of Lahore.
Proposed secondary road network development is shown in Figure 8.6.3. The secondary
road network to be developed should either adopt the standards specified, in section 7.1.2
or due to local area land constraints may adopt the cross section outlined in Figure 8.6.4
and further illustrated in Figure 8.6.5. Bus bays should be designed and implemented by
giving proper access to pedestrians as shown in Figure 8.6.6. Whereas, street concept
designs for dense urban areas are depicted in Figures 8.6.7 and 8.6.8. These figures
show that how well designed urban streets can be environment friendly and can co-exist
with traffic, pedestrians, cyclists, and even at-grade public transit system.
Figure 8.6.3 Proposed Secondary Roads (R44 and R45) Development
8-51
Figure 8.6.4 Proposed Urban Secondary Road Cross Section
Figure 8.6.5 Urban Secondary Concept Design
Figure 8.6.6 Bus Bay Concept Design for Secondary Roads
8-52
Figure 8.6.7 Urban Street Concept Design for Dense Populated Area
Figure 8.6.8 Urban Street Concept Design, Pedestrians, Cars, Buses and at-Grade LRT
Coexist, in Pleasant Urban Environment
4) Project Implementation Strategy and Schedule
TEPA should review each link improvement proposed in the project for its potential
improvement or new construction following the above cross sectional design guidelines.
Each secondary road link should be classified in to secondary, urban secondary or local
road. Urban secondary should be designed by giving more priority to pedestrians, cyclists
and community activities; whereas secondary roads would be prioritized for traffic. Local
street network should be similar to urban secondary roads, with additional provision for
access to adjacent facilities.
TEPA should do detailed study of all these proposed roads, and prepare their feasibility
study or studies for the approval of project from GoPb. TPU should be the project
monitoring authority, and would be responsible for further prioritisation of road sections
included in the two projects within the scope of the LUTMP 2030 overall project
8-53
prioritization. The project is expected to take up rest of the decade, and should be
implemented in stages. Cost estimates for both projects are given in Chapter 7, Section
7.5, along with project evaluation results at macro level. A tentative schedule is given
below in Table 8.6.1
Table 8.6.1 [R44 and R45] Tentative Implementation Schedule

Year 2000+
Project Activity
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Project preparation
Road Re-modelling and Construction
8.6.2 [R57] Development of Secondary Roads in South-west Lahore
1) Introduction
LUTMP 2030, proposed and committed road sub-sector projects have been discussed in
Chapter 7, Section 7.1.2, and details are presented in Annex-1. The committed projects
included all on-going, planned, committed and proposed projects by the relevant
government departments and agencies, mostly by the C&W and LDA/ TEPA. The Study
also reviewed and included projects from other studies. In the past development of Lahore
transport infrastructure was guided by the 1991 Lahore master plan, prepared by JICA.
This was followed by the LDA Lahore 2021 master plan. Both of these master plans had
proposed extensive urban development in the south-west quadrant of Lahore. This urban
development was supported by road network.
The LDA 2021 master plan proposed road network is without hierarchy, and is not
supported by the corresponding travel demand analysis. It also does not take account of
the recent major transport infrastructure developments in the area, like LRR, RMTS along
Ferozepur Road. LUTMP 2030, after taking these factors into account has proposed major
road network developments in the south-west. Most of the proposed projects involve
upgrading of exiting local roads to primary or secondary standards, to support the trunk
road network of LRR, Ferozepur Road, Raiwind Road, Multan Road, and M-2 Motorway.
However, LDA/ TEPA required inclusion of some new secondary roads and upgrade of
existing road to secondary standards, based on the commitments from private sector to
develop the area in the near future. LUTMP 2030 is not rigid, and it is only a framework for
the development of transport infrastructure. Building of new secondary roads/ or
remodeling exiting roads to higher standards would be appropriate under the LUTMP
2030, provided the primary and truck road network could support such upgrades. The
LDA/ TEPA proposed upgrades/ re-modelling and new roads were reviewed, majority of
the proposed roads were already in the LUTMP 2030, but needed upgrades. Inclusion of
proposed new links was also reviewed; and those links which fully supported the network
8-54
structure, hierarchy and enhanced connectivity have been included in LUTMP 2030. The
proposed upgrades and new roads under this project ‘R57’ are shown in the following
Figure 8.6.9.
Figure 8.6.9 [R57] Development of Secondary Roads in South-west Lahore
Road sub-sector project R57 total length is 93.6 km, and each of the eight (8) section
length is given below in Table 8.6.2. No project costing or evaluation has been carried out,
as the Project R57 is considered as committed, and would be supported by the private
sector developments in the area.
Table 8.6.2 [R57] Road Section Details

R57 – Section Length (km)
Section New Construction Remodelling Total
1 13.9 - 13.9
2 - 7.1 7.1
3 6.5 - 6.5
4 12.7 4.8 17.5
5 16.2 12.2 28.4
6 8.8 - 8.8
7 4.6 - 4.6
8 6.8 - 6.8
Total 69.5 24.1 93.6
3) Project Implementation Strategy and Schedule
LDA/ TEPA would review each link its importance and contribution of the private sector
towards its implementation, only then it should be implemented. The project timeframe is
set as the LDA 2021 master plan, i.e. Completion by 2020.
8-55
8.7 Action Plan 2020 – Implementation
8.7.1 Implementation Schedule and Responsible Agency
1) Implementation Schedule
Indicative implementation schedule of the committed and LUTMP proposed projects to be

implemented by 2020 is given in Tables 8.7.1 to 8.7.3 for the Public Transport, Road
Sub-sector and Traffic Management projects respectively, together with the investments
required by year. This schedule was determined based on the result of overall
Multi-criteria Assessment (MCA) evaluation of projects.
All committed projects were allocated to short-term (2012-15) and medium-term

(2016-2020). Among proposed projects, RMTS Green Line and seven (7) BRT lines are
proposed as Core Program-1 of the Action Plan to be implemented by 2020. Particularly
for RMTS Green Line and BRT Orange Line (to be converted to RMTS by 2030), the first
investment should be done in the short-term (by 2015).
Road Sub-sector Projects
All committed projects are scheduled for implementation in the short and medium term
similarly to the public transport projects. Proposed road projects for implementation during
the Action Plan period are mostly less expensive, requiring remodelling of existing roads
coupled with the proposed traffic management measures to improve the much needed
network efficiency.
Most of the committed and proposed projects are allocated for short and medium term.
This is due to the urgency and low-cost features of these projects.
2) Responsible Agency
Tables 8.7.4 to 8.7.6 show the responsibility allocation of project implementation among
existing government agencies for public transport, roads and traffic management projects
respectively. Note that this allocation assumes the present organizational/ institutional
setup. If this changes in the future, the responsibility goes automatically to the redefined
agency. However, Transport Department (TD) oversees and monitors implementation of
these projects.
8-56
Table 8.7.1 Indicative Implementation Timetable for Public Transport Projects
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Project Project Cost Period
Project Description
No. (USD Million) (Year)
Committed Projects
PT001 C.1 - 2
Terminals in Lahore
PT002 C.2 0.01 2
Bus System
PT003 C.3 Up-gradation of Bus Stands - 2
PT004 C.4 Integrated Bus Operation 80.1 3
PT005 C.5 - 4
LUTMP 2020 Proposed Projects
PT006 RMS1 LRMTS Green Line 2,583.0 5
PT007 RMS2 LRMTS Orange Line (as a BRT) 74.5 8
PT008 RMS3 LRMTS Blue Line (as a BRT) 58.6 8
PT009 BRT1 BRT Purple Line 40.8 3
PT010 BRT2 BRT Line 1 30.7 3
PT011 BRT3 BRT Line 2 30.5 3
PT012 BRT4 BRT Line 3a 28.7 3
PT013 BRT5 BRT Line 3b 35.3 3
Table 8.7.2 Indicative Implementation Timetable for Road Sub-sector Projects

2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Project Description
Committed Projects
R01 Construction of LRR (Airport – Ferozepur Road) 113.0 3
R02 Construction of Kalma Chowk Flyover 17.5 3 Completed 2012
R03 Construction of Canal Bank Road Flyover 17.1 3
R04 Remodeling of Canal Bank Road 43.8 3 Completed 2012
R05 Remodeling of Barki Road (LRR – Green City) 2.0 3
R06 Remodeling of Kala Khatai Road 10.8 3
R07 Remodeling of Allama Iqbal Road 16.1 3
R08 Remodeling of Multan Road 46.4 3 Completed 2012
R09 Remodeling of Thokar Niaz Baig Road 4.8 3
R10 Remodeling of Lahore Ferozepur Road 17.5 3
R11 Barki Road (Green City – BRB Canal) 17.0 3
R12 Bedian Road (DHA – LRR – Ferozepur Road) 142.0 5
Shabir Usmani Road
R13 6.9 3
(Barkat Market – Maulana Shaukat Ali Road)
R14 Link Peco Road – Ferozepur Road 6.7 3
R15 (Completion of link between Ferozepur and 5.3 3
Multan Road)
R16 Old Ravi Bridge and Road (Bridge 0.5km) 5.3 3
G.T. Road
R17 6.3 3
College Road
R18 14.0 3
Structure Plan Road
R19 35.0 3
(Shahrah Nazria-e-Pakistan – Defence Road)
8-57
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Project Description

R20 29.9 3
(Khayban-e-Jinnah – Kahna Kacha Station)
Main Boulevard PIA Society Road (Baig Road –
R21 4.0 3
Ittehad Road)
Raiwind Road
R22 (Lahore Ring Road Southern Loop – Raiwind 52.5 3
City)
R23 Madrat-e-Millat Road - Defence Road 10.9 3
R24 (Canal Bank Road – Noor-ul-Amin Road through 6.0 3
Punjab University)
Kamahan Lidher Road
R25 26.4 3
Sua Asil Road
R26 130.7 5
R27 (Kahna Kacha Approach Road – Raiwind City 91.7 3
along Railway Line)
Kahna Kacha Road
R28 29.9 3
Sharaqpur Road
R29 (Lahore Ring Road – Saggian Walla Bypass) 202.0 5
(Bridge 0.7km)
R30 20.4 3
(Saggian Walla Bypass – G.T. Road)
R31 (Ring Road – Sharaqpur Road) 43.4 3
(Bridge 0.6km)
R32 16.2 3
(Sharaqpur Road – Lahore-Sheikhupura Road)
Ferozepur Road
R33 57.6 3
(Khyaban-e-Jinnah Road – Defence Road –
Ferozepur Road)
Manga-Raiwind Road
R34 43.5 3
R35 57.0 3
R36 19.7 3
R37 73.3 3
(Raiwind City – Boundary of the Study Area)
Raiwind Road
R38 54.2 3
(Thokar – Lahore Ring Road Southern Loop)
Defence Road
R39 60.1 3
R40 (Defence Road – Lahore Ring Road Sothern 20.8 3
Loop)
R41 121.9 5
R42 201.2 5
R43 Secondary Roads in Dharampura Area 38.9 3
R44 Secondary Roads in Shadbagh Area 102.5 5
R45 Secondary Roads in Samanabad Area 115.0 3
Lahore Bypass
R46 41.0 3
R47 (Lahore-Sheikhupura Road – Boundary of the 89.0 3
Study Area) (Bridge 0.6km)
8-58
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Project Description

R48 64.6 3
N-5- Multan Road
R49 (Lahore Ring Road Sothern Loop – Boundary of 109.7 5
the Study Area)
Sharif Complex Road
R50 (Defence Road – Manga Raiwind Road – Bhai 116.1 5
Pheru Kot Rada Kishan Road)
R51 (Sharaqpur Road – Lahore-Sheikhupura Road – 118.3 5
G.T. Road)
R52 284.4 5
(G.T. Road – M-2)
Link G.T. Road
R53 (Sharaqpur Road – Lahore-Sheikhupura Road – 22.9 3
G.T. Road)
R54 Link Kala Shah Kaku – Lahore-Sialkot Motorway 25.1 3
R55 128.0 5
(Bridge 0.8km)
R56 Link G.T. Road Lahore-Sialkot Motorway 2.2 3
Construction and remodeling of Secondary roads
R57 Tentative Program Defined by LDA/
- south of LRR in the south-western quadrant N/A 10
(Optional) TEPA and Development Based
between Ferozepur Road and Multan Road
Table 8.7.3 Indicative Implementation Timetable for Traffic Management Projects

2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Project Description
Committed Projects
Establishment of Centralized Driver Licensing
TM01 N/A 3
Authority
TM02 Parking Management Company N/A 3
TM03 Traffic Education Center N/A 2
TM04 Traffic Control Plan of City N/A 3
TM05 Vehicle Inspection and Certification System (VICS) N/A 4
TM06 Construction of New Parking Plazas 207.1 6
TM07 Construction of Pedestrian Bridges 1.8 3
TM08 Improvement of 52 Junctions 30.5 7
TM09 Ferozepur Road Pilot Project 28.3 3
Conversion of Two Stroke Rickshaw into CNG
TM10 12.4 4
Fitted Four Stroke Rickshaw
TM11 Remodeling of Inner and Outer Circular Road 14.1 3

TM12 4.0 3
Improvement – CBD
TM13 30.0 4
Improvement
A.3 Road Function and Capacity Improvement
TM14 2.0 2
Program
B.1 Low Occupancy Vehicles Planning for Outskirt/
TM15 5.0 2
Rural Areas
TM16 20.0 5
Implementation
TM17 B.3 Public and Freight Transport Terminals 100.0 8
8-59
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Project Description
TM18 B.4 Linking Communities - Smart Roads 4.0 4

TM19 2.5 2
Management Measures
TM20 1.5 2
Management
C.1 Planning and Design Study for Non-Motorized
TM21 1.5 3
Traffic
TM22 C.2 Non-Motorized Traffic Facilities Implementation 6.0 4
TM23 C.3 Pedestrian and Bicycle Path Network 5.0 3
TM24 D.1 Comprehensive Parking System Development 2.5 3
TM25 D.2 Parking Facilities Implementation 60.0 6
TM26 D.3 Park and Ride Facilities Development 75.0 6
TM27 E.1 Traffic Enforcement Strengthening Programme 3.0 3
TM28 F.1 Traffic Calming 6.0 2
TM29 F.2 Traffic Safety Education Improvement 1.0 2
TM30 G.1 Intelligent Transportation System Development 38.0 5
TM31 H.1 Local Standards and Guidelines Development 1.5 5
Table 8.7.4 Public Transport Project – Responsible Agency

Assumed
Project Description Year in
No. Code (USD Million) by: Agency
Operation
Public Transport – Committed Projects

PT01 C.1 - 2014 TD TD
Terminals in Lahore
PT02 C.2 0.01 2014 TD TD
Bus System
PT03 C.3 Up-gradation of Bus Stands - 2015 TD TD
PT04 C.4 Integrated Bus Operation 80.1 2015 LTC LTC
PT05 C.5 - 2017 TD TD
Public Transport – LUTMP 2020 Proposed Projects

PT06 RMS1 LRMTS Green Line 2,583.0 2020 TD TD
LRMTS Orange Line
PT07 RMS2 74.5 2015 LUTMP LTC
(as a BRT)
LRMTS Blue Line
PT08 RMS3 58.6 2020 LUTMP LTC
(as a BRT)
PT09 BRT1 BRT Purple Line 40.8 2020 LUTMP LTC
PT10 BRT2 BRT Line 1 30.7 2020 LUTMP LTC
PT11 BRT3 BRT Line 2 30.5 2020 LUTMP LTC
PT12 BRT4 BRT Line 3a 28.7 2020 LUTMP LTC
PT13 BRT5 BRT Line 3b 35.3 2020 LUTMP LTC
8-60
Table 8.7.5 Road Sub-sector Projects – Responsible Agency

Assumed
Cost Proposed Responsible
Project No. Project Description Year in
(USD Million) by: Agency
Operation
Road Sub-sector – Committed Projects
Construction of LRR
R01 113.0 2015 C&W C&W
R02 Construction of Kalma Chowk Flyover 17.5 2015 C&W C&W
R03 Construction of Canal Bank Road Flyover 17.1 2015 C&W C&W
R04 Remodeling of Canal Bank Road 43.8 2015 TEPA TEPA
R05 2.0 2015 C&W C&W
R06 Remodeling of Kala Khatai Road 10.8 2015 C&W C&W
R07 Remodeling of Allama Iqbal Road 16.1 2015 C&W C&W
R08 Remodeling of Multan Road 46.4 2015 C&W C&W
R09 Remodeling of Thokar Niaz Baig Road 4.8 2015 C&W C&W
R10 Remodeling of Lahore Ferozepur Road 17.5 2015 C&W C&W
Road Sub-sector – LUTMP 2020 Proposed Projects

Barki Road
R11 17.0 2020 LUTMP C&W
Bedian Road
R13 6.9 2021 TEPA TEPA
Shabir Usmani Road
R14 (Barkat Market – Maulana Shaukat Ali 6.7 2021 LUTMP TEPA
Road)
R15 Link Peco Road – Ferozepur Road 5.3 2021 TEPA TEPA
R16 (Completion of link between Ferozepur and 5.3 2018 TEPA TEPA
Multan Road)
R17 6.3 2019 TEPA TEPA
(Bridge 0.5km)
G.T. Road
R18 14.0 2020 TEPA TEPA
College Road
R19 35.0 2018 TEPA TEPA
Structure Plan Road
R33 (Shahrah Nazria-e-Pakistan – Defence 57.5 2022 LUTMP TEPA
Road)
R35 (Khayban-e-Jinnah – Kahna Kacha 57.0 2022 TEPA TEPA
Station)
R36 19.7 2022 TEPA TEPA
Raiwind Road
R39 (Lahore Ring Road Southern Loop – 60.1 2022 LUTMP C&W
Raiwind City)
R43 Madrat-e-Millat Road - Defence Road 38.9 2018 LUTMP TEPA
R44 (Canal Bank Road – Noor-ul-Amin Road 102.5 2018 LUTMP TEPA
Kamahan Lidher Road
Sua Asil Road
R46 41.0 2022 LUTMP NHA
R47 (Kahna Kacha Approach Road – Raiwind 89.0 2022 LUTMP NHA
Kahna Kacha Road
R48 64.6 2022 LUTMP NHA
Sharaqpur Road
(Lahore Ring Road – Saggian Walla
R52 284.4 2031 LUTMP C&W
Bypass)
(Bridge 0.7km)
8-61
Assumed
Cost Proposed Responsible
Project No. Project Description Year in
(USD Million) by: Agency
Operation
R53 22.9 2027 LUTMP C&W
(Saggian Walla Bypass – G.T. Road)
R54 (Ring Road – Sharaqpur Road) 25.0 2022 C&W C&W
(Bridge 0.6km)
R56 (Sharaqpur Road – Lahore-Sheikhupura 2.2 2022 C&W C&W
Road)
2012
R57 Ferozepur Road
N/A To LDA/ TEPA LDA/ TEPA
(Optional) (Khyaban-e-Jinnah Road – Defence Road
2020
– Ferozepur Road)
Table 8.7.6 Traffic Management Projects – Responsible Agency

Assumed
Project Year in
No. (USD Million) by: Agency
Operation
Traffic Management – Committed Projects
TM01 - 2016 TD TD
Licensing Authority
TM02 Parking Management Company - 2018 TEPA TEPA
TM03 Traffic Education Center - 2014 Traffic Police Traffic Police
TM04 Traffic Control Plan of City - 2015 Traffic Police Traffic Police
Vehicle Inspection and Certification System
TM05 - 2021 TD TD
(VICS)
TM06 Construction of New Parking Plazas 207.1 2020 TEPA TEPA
TM07 Construction of Pedestrian Bridges 1.8 2016 TEPA TEPA
TM08 Improvement of 52 Junctions 30.5 2021 TEPA TEPA
TM09 Ferozepur Road Pilot Project 28.3 2022 TEPA TEPA
Conversion of Two Stroke Rickshaw into
TM10 12.4 2019 TD TD
CNG Fitted Four Stroke Rickshaw
Remodeling of Inner and Outer Circular
TM11 14.1 2015 TEPA TEPA
Road
Traffic Management – LUTMP 2020 Proposed Projects
TM12 4.0 2015 LUTMP TEPA
Improvement – CBD
Improvement
TM14 2.0 2015 LUTMP TEPA and CDGL
Improvement Program
B.1 Low Occupancy Vehicles Planning for
TM15 5.0 2017 LUTMP LTC
Outskirt/ Rural Areas
Implementation
TM17 B.3 Public and Freight Transport Terminals 100.0 2021 LUTMP TEPA and CDGL
TM18 B.4 Linking Communities - Smart Roads 4.0 2019 LUTMP TEPA
Management Measures
Management
C.1 Planning and Design Study for
Implementation
TM23 C.3 Pedestrian and Bicycle Path Network 5.0 2017 LUTMP TEPA
D.1 Comprehensive Parking System
Development
8-62
Assumed
Project Year in
No. (USD Million) by: Agency
Operation
TM25 D.2 Parking Facilities Implementation 60.0 2024 LUTMP TEPA
TM27 D.3 Park and Ride Facilities Development 3.0 2015 LUTMP Traffic Police
E.1 Traffic Enforcement Strengthening
Programme
Traffic Police and
TM29 F.1 Traffic Calming 1.0 2018 LUTMP
1122
TM31 F.2 Traffic Safety Education Improvement 1.5 2017 LUTMP TEPA
8.7.2 Action Plan Projects – Investment Plan
1) Proposed Investment Program
Table 8.7.7 shows investment summary of LUTMP for the Action Plan period. Public
transport projects share about 75% of the total, while road and traffic management share
17 % and 8 %, respectively.
The budget envelope estimated in Chapter 5 of this report is USD 2.3~6.9 billion for the
Action Plan period (2011 to 2020). The planned investment falls in this range. However,
the percentage of the investment to Lahore’s GDP is on the high side at 2.6 % for the
action plan period. This is about 3 times of the current level of investment. Private sector
finance should be sought for these projects and measures to raise government revenue
should be taken. However, level of the proposed investment on transport infrastructure is
not considered too high. In Thailand, during the high-growth period, this investment level
reached 7-8 % of the GDP.
Table 8.7.7 Planned Investment Summary (USD million)

Period Short Term Medium Term
Total
(Year) 2012-2015 2016-2020
Public Transport 1,499 3,021 4,520
Road Sub-sector 450 570 1,020
Traffic Management 146 363 509
Total 2,095 3,954 6,049
Possible reduction of public investment has been estimated assuming PPP scheme on
the proposed RMTS/ BRT projects. This was done assuming a percentage of contribution
from the private sector as shown in Table 8.7.8. The reduction was estimated at about
USD 751.5 million equivalent to 26% of the total investment. Although investment amount
is small compared to RMTS, BRT seems to be hopeful to curtail the cost to the
government by attracting private funding or some form of PPP for the proposed public
transport projects.
8-63
Table 8.7.8 Cost Reduction by Applying PPP Scheme to RMTS/ BRT Projects
Project Cost
Project EIRR FIRR Private Cost to Gov’t
Project Description (USD
No. (%) (%) Sector (%) (USD million)
million)
PT06 RMTS Green Line 2,583.0 12.1 7.1 20 2,066.4
PT07 Orange Line (as a BRT) 74.5 18.8 21.0 100 0.0
PT08 Blue Line (as a BRT) 58.6 16.7 17.9 80 11.7
PT09 BRT Purple Line 40.8 15.5 16.1 50 20.4
PT10 BRT Line 1 30.7 37.6 24.9 100 0.0
PT11 BRT Line 2 30.5 43.6 26.5 100 0.0
PT12 BRT Line 3a 28.7 50 14.4
20.4 16.3
PT13 BRT Line 3b 35.3 50 17.7
Total 2,882.1 26.1 2130.5
2) Cost Recovery from Urban Development Benefit
This should be taken into account to implement RTMS in Lahore. RTMS projects are
economically feasible in general, while financial viability is low and its financing becomes a
critical issue.
Traditionally, private railway companies have constructed railways on the understanding

that capital costs would be recovered through fare revenues. Recently, however, railway
development has become increasingly complicated due to the change of passengers’
demand, stricter regulation on safety, more sophisticated equipment, social/
environmental requirement and so on. Thus the required cost has soared to the extent
that it needs government support. This may be a direct subsidy from the government to
railway companies. However, if the government funding capability is limited, other revenue
sources should be sought for, under the permission and institutional arrangements of the
government. Some of the initiatives that could be expanded further in Lahore, are not
limited to, but could include the following:
(a) Property Assessment Taxes: In addition to land taxes, many cities also impose
property assessment taxes. These taxes constitute a major portion of the revenue of
cities. For example in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, it constitutes 62 % of the operating
revenue of the city. Property assessments are based on the annual rental value of a
property. Differential assessment rates are determined based on the type of property,
e.g. residential, industrial, commercial, vacant land, utility or government land.
Assessments are collected twice a year by the city from all property owners in the city.
Key to establishing such a system in Lahore will depend on establishing a
comprehensive valuation list of all properties in the city.
(b) Betterment Charges: Betterment charges are imposed to compensate for the
improved value that is accrued to the property owners as a result of constructing a
8-64
public facility, such as railway stations, access roads and drainage facility in the area.
The landowners who benefit from the facility will be required to pay a betterment
charge to the city. However, for this to be effective an equitable formula for
determining betterment charges has to be derived that would be acceptable to the
affected community. For example, landowners who gain access to a newly
constructed urban railway could be assessed proportionately to also pay a part of the
compensation cost for the removed houses. Similarly, landowners who lose a portion
of their land to railway construction projects should be compensated only after taking
into account the improved land value of the remaining portion of their land. The
introduction of land development techniques, such as land readjustment, where
betterment values are equitably incorporated in the land re-plotting exercise is an
effective method of practically applying these charges.
(c) Development Charges: Development charges are applied as an urban planning tax
that is imposed on the developer at the time of applying for development permission
from LDA. Development charges constitute about 6% of the operating revenue in the
case of Kuala Lumpur. The development charge includes payment for the improved
value of land as a result of rezoning or increased densities given to the landowner as a
result of revisions / amendments to the authorized plan. Development charges are
also collected by the city as in lieu payments for the non-provision of facilities, such as
car parking areas and school sites, as required under the planning standards. The
funds are used by the city to provide the necessary facilities in a coordinated manner.
Although application of these initiatives needs careful examination before these are
implemented, the revenue potential is huge, presumably at an order of several tens of
billion rupees. It is recommended for GoPb to investigate the possibility in relation to LDA’s
land use rules and regulations.
8.7.3 Institutional Reform
Institutional reform is critical for urban transport sector development of Lahore as

mentioned in Chapter 5 of this report. The following actions are needed immediately.
(1) To Set Up a Preparatory Committee for Institutional Reform
A large scale institutional reform plan was suggested in this Master Plan, aiming at
integration of transport-related organizations into self-sustainable agencies. It may
take a time to reach a consensus for the reform. As an action plan, establishment of a
preparatory committee for the reform is strongly recommended. This committee shall
be an inter-departmental one, operated under the initiatives of the Transport
Department.
8-65
(2) To Set Up a Professional Group for Preparation of PPP Projects
There are many projects expected to be implemented by applying a PPP scheme. In

GoPb, as well as the central Government, however, no professional agency deals
with such projects. The world’s experiences show a successful PPP project will be
never brought about without the initiative of the public side. In this sense, a PPP study
group should be set up under the Transport Department, possibly in TPU. Some
expertise for demand forecast is required for the relevant studies.
(3) To Study Legal Arrangement for the Urban Planning Determination
Non-stopping urbanization is in progress with non-stop in the suburban area.

Therefore, it is undoubtedly an urgent need to stop new construction in the
designated right of way of the future roads in the Master Plan. An effective legal
arrangement should be taken and the preparatory works should be immediately
started.
8-66
Volume-I – Annex-I
LUTMP PROPOSED ROAD

SUB-SECTOR PROJECTS
FINAL REPORT
ANNEX I – LUTMP PROPOSED ROAD SUB-SECTOR PROJECTS
ANNEX 1 - LUTMP Proposed Road Sub-sector Projects

LUTMP Proposed Road Sub-sector projects are described in Section 7.3.2 of Chapter 7
and listed in Table 7.3.2 and 7.3.3. Figures in this appendix show the geographical
location of these projects. The following table gives the page number where project
alignment is shown.
Project Project Page

Project Description
No. Code No.
Barki Road
R11 20002 A-4
Bedian Road
R12 20003 A-4
Shabbir Usmani Road
R13 20004 A-5
(Barkat Market – Maulana Shaukat Ali Road)
R14 20005 Link Peco Road – Ferozepur Road A-5
R15 20006 A-5
(Completion of link between Ferozepur and Multan Road)
R16 20007 A-5
(Bridge 0.5km)
G.T. Road
R17 20008 A-5
College Road
R18 20010 A-4
Structure Plan Road
R19 20011 A-4
(Shahrah Nazria-e-Pakistan – Defence Road)
R20 20020 A-4
(Khayban-e-Jinnah – Kahna Kacha Station)
R21 20021 Main Boulevard PIA Society Road (Baig Road – Ittehad Road) A-4
Raiwind Road
R22 20023 A-4
(Lahore Ring Road Southern Loop – Raiwind City)
R23 20024 Madrat-e-Millat Road - Defence Road A-4
R24 20027 A-5
(Canal Bank Road – Noor-ul-Amin Road through Punjab University)
Kamahan Lidher Road
R25 20041 A-4
Sua Asil Road
R26 20043 A-4
R27 20044 A-4
(Kahna Kacha Approach Road – Raiwind City along Railway Line)
Kahna Kacha Road
R28 20046 A-4
Sharaqpur Road
R29 20049 (Lahore Ring Road – Saggian Wala Bypass) A-6
(Bridge 0.7km)
R30 20049 A-5
R31 20050 (Ring Road – Sharaqpur Road) A-5
(Bridge 0.6km)
R32 20050 A-5
(Sharaqpur Road – Lahore-Sheikhupura Road)
A-1
Project Project Page

Project Description
No. Code No.
Link Thokar Niaz Baig Canal Bank Road – Ferozepur Road
R33 20052 A-4
(Khyaban-e-Jinnah Road – Defence Road – Ferozepur Road)
Manga-Raiwind Road
R34 20053 A-7
R35 20054 A-4
R36 20055 A-4
R37 20056 A-7
(Raiwind City – Boundary of LUTMP Study Area)
Raiwind Road
R38 20057 A-4
(Thokar – Lahore Ring Road Southern Loop)
Defence Road
R39 20060 A-4
R40 20061 A-4
(Defence Road – Lahore Ring Road Sothern Loop)
R41 20081 A-4
R42 20082 A-4
R43 20091 Secondary Roads in Dharampura Area A-5
R44 20092 Secondary Roads in Shadbagh Area A-5
R45 20093 Secondary Roads in Samanabad Area A-5
Lahore Bypass
R46 30002 A-8
R47 30002 (Lahore-Sheikhupura Road – Boundary of LUTMP Study Area) A-8
(Bridge 0.6km)
R48 30002 A-8
N-5- Multan Road
R49 30004 A-7
(Lahore Ring Road Sothern Loop – Boundary of LUTMP Study Area)
Sharif Complex Road
R50 30005 A-7
(Defence Road – Manga Raiwind Road – Bhai Pheru Kot Rada Kishan Road)
R51 30006 A-8
(Sharaqpur Road – Lahore-Sheikhupura Road – G.T. Road)
R52 30008 A-8
(G.T. Road – M-2)
Link G.T. Road
R53 30010 A-8
(Sharaqpur Road – Lahore-Sheikhupura Road – G.T. Road)
R54 30028 Link Kala Shah Kaku – Lahore-Sialkot Motorway A-8
R55 30028 A-8
(Bridge 0.8km)
R56 30028 Link G.T. Road Lahore-Sialkot Motorway A-8
Construction and remodelling of Secondary roads - south of LRR in the
R57 Optional A-9
south-western quadrant between Ferozepur Road and Multan Road
A-2
Figure 1 LUTMP Proposed Road Sub-sector Projects
A-3
A-4
A-5
A-6
A-7
A-8

102 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

102 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

102 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JAPAN INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION AGENCY (JICA)

A GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB PROJECT

THE PROJECT FOR

In response to a request from the Government of the Punjab in the Islamic

The project was composed of two phases; i) Phase I to conduct a Home

Finally, I wish to express my sincere appreciation to the officials concerned of

SUMARRY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..........................................S-1

URBAN TRANSPORT MASTER PLAN FOR LAHORE

1.1 Study Background ....................................................................................... 1-1

2. CURRENT TRANSPORT SITUATION, PROBLEMS AND ISSUES

2.3.7 Household Income ................................................................. 2-79

3. URBAN DEVELOPMENT CONTEXT

3.1 Alternative Urban Development Scenarios ................................................. 3-1

4. TRANSPORT DEMAND CONTEXT

4.1 Future Transport Demand ........................................................................... 4-1

5. TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY

5.1 Overall Transport Policy .............................................................................. 5-1

6. ONGOIND AND PROPOSED PROJECTS

6.1 On-Going Projects ....................................................................................... 6-1

7. MASTER PLAN 2030

7.1 Transport Network Planning ........................................................................ 7-2

8. ACTION PLAN 2030

8.1 Development of Action Plan ........................................................................ 8-1

8.5.1 [TM16] Traffic Circulation System Design and

Annex-1 LUTMP PROPOSED ROAD SUB-SECTOR PROJECTS

Table 1.6.1 Members of the Pakistani Side ......................................................................................... 1-6

Table 2.6.5 Frequency of Bus Use .................................................................................................. 2-126

Table 6.1.2 List of Other On-going Projects - A Summary ................................................................. 6-12

Table 8.4.1 Tentative Implementation Schedule of TM12 .................................................................. 8-20

Figure 2.4.9 Gazetted Bus Route Coverage in Lahore ..................................................................... 2-100

Figure 7.3.5 Location Map of RMTS Blue Line Alignment................................................................... 7-50

ABBREVIATIONS & ACRONYMS

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

MTDF Medium Term Development Framework

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

(iii) To provide assistance to strengthen the administrative capacity of the

2. Worsening Transport Situation – Threat to Sustainability

Source: JICA Study Team

Source: JICA Study Team

surpass the road capacity by 2030, if no countermeasures are taken.

3. Constraints and Opportunities

Constraints: - Influencing transport sector development include insufficient institutional

4. Master Plan 2030

3) Infrastructure is expensive and requires proper management and operation. Traffic

Investment Summary and Project List

PT09 BRT Purple Line 40.8 2020 LUTMP LTC

5. LUTMP Action Plan 2020

Immediate action to commence work on trunk public transport system such as

Proposed Core Program-1

Proposed Core Program-2

Project No. Project Description Implementation

Figure S.3 Location of RMTS/ BRT Lines for 2020

Source: JICA Study Team

2) Allocate implementation responsibilities by project clearly to government agencies.

3) Establish new organizational setup to make decisions on various transport projects.

Figure S.4 New Establishment for Transportation Development

Punjab Urban Transport Planning and

Source: JICA Study Team

Table S.9 Necessary Actions to Construct Trunk Public Transport System