Multi-Modal Integration in Bangalore Rev1.2
-
Upload
sathya-sankaran -
Category
Documents
-
view
514 -
download
0
Transcript of Multi-Modal Integration in Bangalore Rev1.2
Challenges and Solutions
Multi-modal Integration in Bangalore
Topics Commuter choice criteria for travel mode
Snapshot of current multi-modal integration -- the BYP example Problem areas/The Integration score card
Potential remedies
Panel Discussions Addressing multi-modal integration systemically
Can solutions be retrofitted?
What can be done in the future?
Commuter Choice Process
Commuter choose between available travel modes based on the following attributes:
Economics (monetary cost)
Total travel time (access, waiting, transit and journey times)
Convenience and comfort (last mile connectivity, ease of negotiating interchanges within and between modes of travel, travel comfort and availability of seating, protection from the elements/pollution, safety etc.)
To lure commuters away from the private mode with its point-to-point convenience to public modes requires that all three attributes are addressed in some way
Since a majority of public transportation (PT) commutes will require multiple modes, a seamless integration between modes will contribute significantly to the perceived higher utility of PT and therefore the choice of this form.
Commuting -- Definitions
Modes:
The various available means of transportation
E.g. walk, cycle, para-transit, bus, metro, comuuter rail.
Zones:
The coverage of modes
Zone 1: 0 to 1 Km = Walk
Zone 2: 0 to 3 km = Bicycle
Zone 3: 0 to 5 km = Feeder services, paratransit etc.
Zone 4: 0 to 30 km = long bus routes, commuter rail, personal transportation etc.
Multi-modal Integration Dimensions
Physical Integration (ease of access)
Informational Integration (availability of information/signage on
access, schedules etc.)
Network Integration (coordinated timing/schedules across
modes)
Fare Integration (modes honoring each others’ tickets, single-fare
across multiple modes etc.)
The BYP Example
We chose BYP for the following reasons:
It is a greenfield development and so represents the best case scenario
It represents a point where multiple modes (bus, metro, commuter rail etc.) intersect
Has a large catchment area that includes various malls, tech parks, residential areas etc.
Representative of several other transit points that will appear in the future
Multi-modal integration solutions can be prototyped here
The satellite view of BYP
BYP – The multi-modal “integration gaps”
Zone 1/Zone 2 Integration No proper footpath/sidewalk around
station entry/exit A for pedestrians
No bicycle path
No over/under pass across Old Madras
Road (OMR); it is extremely hazardous
to cross the road in front of the station.
BYP – The multi-modal “integration gaps”
Zone 3 (Autos)
Haphazard parking
Integration is essentially a fend for oneself negotiation exercise with auto drivers – i.e. business as usual
You can see commuters bargaining with drivers (and walking away, as can be seen in the next slide!)
No effort made to ease the transition ( such as what one would see at the Cantonment Rly station, for example)
BYP – The multi-modal “integration gaps” Zone 3 (Metro Feeders)
BMTC integration is poorly executed Less than optimum physical infrastructure
for bus parking (picture shows the “bus bays”)
Non-existent informational and network integration
Fare integration still in concept stage
MF services completely unreliable (poor frequency, complete lack of schedule information even with on-site BMTC staff, lack of adherence to schedules and even routes)
(You can also see the family that failed to negotiate a reasonable auto fare walking away to find the nearest bus stop, which probably is several hundred meters away)
BYP – The multi-modal “integration gaps”
Zone 4 (Regular/long distance BMTC
services)
Many routes touch this transit point but
access from bus stop to metro entry/exit
A is very inconvenient
Many buses stop across OMR at a
distance of ~ 100 meters on either side.
Crossing OMR is hazardous
Lack of signage/ information regarding
location of bus stops
BYP – The multi-modal “integration gaps”
Zone 4 (Personal/private
Transportation)
Private transportation integration is
reasonable but could have been executed
better
Inconvenient parking access
It would be hard to retrofit a better access
solution now since the parking lot is
boxed in between tracks, other properties
etc.
BYP – The multi-modal “integration gaps”
Zone 4 (Commuter Rail)
integration poorly thought through
Engineering/logistical/administr-ative challenges in retrofitting a bridge across SWR tracks to the “C” exit/entrance now under construction
Physical interface to SWR will be a challenge
Not sure if there are any plans for network and information integration
Fare integration – even if cannot integrate SWR and BMTC fares, should at least provide facilities for easy ticket purchase
BYP – The “integration gaps”
Zone 4 (KSRTC)
Integration has not been fully
thought through
KSRTC passengers transferring to
BMRC will have a steep gradient and
a non-existent sidewalk
Integration Score Card for Metro @ BYP Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4
Physical 1 1 2 2
Informational N/A N/A 0 0
Fare N/A N/A 0 0
Network N/A N/A N/A 0
On a scale of 5: 1 = worst, 5= best
Integration Score Card for Metro @ BYP
With
BMTC
With
SWR
With
KSRTC
With
paratransit
With
private
With
pedestrians
Total
Physical 3 1 1 3 3 1
Informational 1 0 0 0 N/A N/A
Fare 0 0 0 0 N/A N/A
Network 0 0 0 N/A N/A N/A
On a scale of 5
Potential Remedies Physical Integration
• Zone 1 / 2: Pedestrian overpass across OMR in front of gate A
Pedestrian overpass across SWR tracks to “C” entry/exit and continuing on to KSRTC with landings for SWR tracks.
Pedestrian sidewalks for at least 0.5 km radius on all sides
Pedestrian crossings at signals
Safe bike lanes along identified routes
Zone 3:
- Auto parking stands, prepaid counter etc.
- Private shuttle-buses organized by tech parks/office complexes during specific time period/peak hours.
- Feeder Services by Metro/BMTC – but smaller buses
• Zone 4: Proper diagonal bus bays for BMTC ( a la BIAL)
A rational MF routing scheme and a schedule that is adhered to
Proper paving of the parking lot and better parking configuration
Potential Remedies Informational integration is probably the easiest to fix in the short
term Have clear directions/signs and information at all exit/entry points on
BMTC timings, SWR arrivals/departures, KSRTC arrivals/departures, typical auto fares etc.
Addressing MM Integration systemically
Since integration is a “cross-modal” issue, an independent
organization/ team needed ( a la DIMTS)
An integration audit of all new multi-modal transit points (e.g.
YPR, Malleshwaram) should happen now, well before these
facilities are opened to the public
Pedestrian and Vehicular Accessibility, Circulation and Parking
plans prepared as part of the Station Area Plan and reviewed
before approval and implementation
A commitment to open a facility only when it is 100% done
Panel Discussion Points
What do the stakeholders feel about whether integration is currently working
or not?
What are the challenges encountered in implementing tighter multi-modal
integration?
Considering that each mode will attempt to maximize its own performance,
what is the incentive to pay attention to integration with other modes?
Will free market decide integration or will governmental intervention be
needed to ensure integration?
Who will oversee integration?
Who will determine the type of feeders (size, and type of vehicle, operation)
and the quality of service (frequency, timeliness etc.) factors?
Who will provide the feeder services?