Urban Transport Service Level Benchmarking in Urban ... · Along NH-29 Martyrs Park to PWD office...

Ministry of Urban Development Government of India, New Delhi Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport

Urban Transport Service Level Benchmarking in Urban

Transport for Indian Cities Ahmedabad | Bhubaneswar | Hubli-Dharwad | Kohima | Mysore | Surat

Presented by Prof. H.M. Shivanand Swamy

An Initiative of the Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India

Ministry of Urban Development Government of India, New Delhi

Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport 2

Urban Transport Service Level Benchmarking

• A comprehensive framework to measure and monitor urban

transport performance in India - established in 2011 by the Ministry

of Urban Development, GOI

• Identifies problem areas and areas of excellence

• An ongoing process

• Collects data for comparative purposes

• Review of best practice in the activity to form basis for

defining level of service



Urban Transport Service Level Benchmarking

• A mechanism for introducing accountability in service delivery of

urban transport comparing service performance levels against set

targets or good practices.

• Useful for assessing performance trends and setting targets

• Inputs to land use transport strategy formulation

• Assessing investment outcomes

• To showcase achievements / good practice

• Envisaged as an annual activity to be presented as a annual

budgeting exercise



Mark the Municipal limits of the city- (a)

Mark the village / town boundaries in Urban Development Authority area (b)

Digitize the contiguous built-up area adjoining the municipal limits (c)

Select the villages/ towns that correspond to step 1. (b & c= d)

Define the Study area i.e. Municipal area + Area selected in step 4 (a + d)

1

2

3

4

5

3

1 2

Bhubaneswar Study area :179 sq.km

Preparatory Study for Benchmarking

Study Area Delineation



Digitization of roads

Classification of road into four levels

Arterial and sub arterial and all roads

where PT is plying

Preparatory Study for Benchmarking

Selection of network inventory



Preparatory Study for Benchmarking Selection of Public Transport – Routes

•Less than 10 min- Survey all the routes

•10-20 minutes- 25% of the randomly selected routes

•20-60 min- 25% of the randomly selected routes

Identification of corridors with Headways<60mins –

All routes that ply on the selected road for inventory

1

2



Preparatory Study for Benchmarking Selection of Public Transport –Stops

Out of the total number of bus stops (N), a sample of (n) bus stops (depending on city size) is selected to calculate the avg. waiting time :- 1. > 4 million - 10% 2. 1 . 4 million -25% 3. <1 million-50%

A reco survey was conducted in Ahmedabad. it was observed that waiting

time is not always half of headway

2

Relation between headways and waiting time was established through this surveys for 1. <10 mins 2. 10-20mins 3. 20-60 mins

3

Selection of bus stops for calculating average waiting time

1

Headways Constant

<10 0.40

10-20 0.40

>20 - 60 0.29


Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport

• Data sources like annual reports, websites, etc for secondary data collection

• Focus of data collection was on updated information for the indicators using data that is dynamic in nature.

• Necessity to cross check data – to avoid misinterpretation and to identify valid reason for change in number

10

Data collection

Secondary Data Collection

Primary Data Collection

• Road inventory Survey

• Level of Comfort Surveys

• Speed and Delay Surveys

• NMT Facilities at Transit Stations

• Lux Survey

• Land use along Transit corridor



Adapting Indicators for Hill Cities

Why do we need to look at Hill Cities differently?

Geographical constraints

• Steep slopes, landslides, heterogeneity of climate, land use pattern and scarcity of buildable land

Scale and Size

• Size of these cities maybe smaller but the scale is much larger as it is driven by both residents and visitors

Functionality

• specific features of these areas tend to reflect on the different time frame for the local mobility , economy and also the social characteristics



Adapting Indicators for Hill Cities

• Service Coverage of public

transport is defined by:

- Network length

- Area covered at 500 m

• Cannot take coverage as 500m

from stops due to topography

*it takes 6 minutes for 500m @ 5km/hr

(Naismith rule)

1. 500 m in plain cities is equivalent to what in hill cities?

Issues Reasoning



Adapting Indicators for Hill Cities Research background methodology to compute basis for Hill Cities

Developing a base Survey required for computation

1. Contours 2. Generate Elevation from

Contours 3. Generate Slopes from

Elevation. 4. Using Path distance tool

and applying Tobler’s hiking function (vertical factors) to calculate the cost in terms of time.

Base information required to collect for all hill cities

1.Public transport user survey 2. Average walking speed

Interpretation of 500m buffer



Adapting Indicators for Hill Cities Computation

Sample size 1% of ridership-220nos

75% of bus users use walk as an

access and egress mode

45 % of the bus users are walking

10 minutes

23% of the bus users are willing

to walk upto 2o minutes to a bus

stops

Average walking speed is 2.3

km/hr

1. 500m = 230 m i.e. It takes 6 minutes to walk

230m in hill areas 2. Willingness to walk = 20 mins = 750m i.e. Coverage of public transport

is 750m instead of 500m because people walk more on hilly areas.

Result from survey Calculation for computation



Adapting Indicators for Hill Cities Pedestrian Infrastructure facilities

• Presence of high number of

footsteps that provides

connectivity

• An important means of access

particularly for areas that are not

accessible by road.

• Footpath along the road may not always be possible because of limited right of way.

• 2.Therefore, footsteps become important to consider somewhere in the benchmarking process as these are important access points and are also considered as local roads.

Issues Reasoning

Modified Indicator within Focus Areas Pedestrian Infrastructure facilities – Hill Cities

Methodology Survey required for

computation

Step 1:

• Identify steps that connect to PT stops @ 250 metre length either side of the stops – Survey 75%

Step 2:

• Identify steps that connect level 1 & level 2 roads(connecting commercial and Institution and residential) - Survey 50%

Step 3:

• Identify steps that provide connectivity to more than 10 households- survey 25%

Classification of footsteps 1. Footstep survey

1. Quality of footsteps 2. Pedestrian interview

Sample 70 nos



Paved footsteps

Near NST Station High School Near Red cross building



Unpaved footsteps

Along NH-29 Martyrs Park to PWD office Along NH-29



1. Public Transport 3. Pedestrian Infrastructure

Facilities

4. Non-Motorized Transport Facilities

5. Application of Intelligent Transport

Facilities

6. Road Network Performance

7. Parking Management

8. Road Safety 9. Environment

10. Integrated Land Use -Transport

System

2. Financial Sustainability of Public Transport

11. Intermediate Public Transport*

MoUD’s Service Level Benchmarks (SLBs)

Focus Areas:

* Additional Focus Area suggested by CoE

21



“Availability”

1. Presence of Organized Public

Transport System in Urban Area (%)

2. Extent of Supply - Availability of

Public Transport

“Coverage/Access”

11. Service Coverage of Public

Transport in the city

12. Transit Access Area- (% built-up area

within 500m of PT plying) *

13High frequency transit accessible

area (% area with transit access 10min

or less headway) *

14. Total boarding/ population*

“Quality (Attractiveness)”

3. Level of Comfort in Public

Transport (Crowding)

4. % fleet size as per urban bus

specification

5. Affordability of public transport

6. Interchanges with Multimodal

Facility

“Efficiency”

7. Average waiting time for Public

Transport users (min)

8. Average Travel speed of public

transport (KMPH)**

9. Breakdown of Public Transport

10. Vehicle Utilization of Public

Transport

Indicators - Public Transport



Indicators Computation Level of service 1

Presence of Organized Public Transport System

in Urban Area (%)

Total number of buses operating on road =(a) 141 ( 99 city bus+42 BRTS) Total number of buses under the ownership of STU/SPV or under concession agreement = (b) 141 Presence of Organized Public Transport System in Urban Area (%) =( b/a)*100 =100% (Source: SMC, 2015)

Range LoS

1

> = 60% 1

40 – 60% 2

20 – 40% 3

< 20% 4

Indicators Computation Level of service 2

Extent of Supply- Availability of Public

Transport (Vary with population

size class)

No of Buses available in a city on any day = (a) 141 Total Population of the study area = (b) 5465566 ( estimated population 2015) Availability of Public transport /1000 population = (a/b) (141/5465566)*1000=.02

Range* LoS

4

> = 0.6 1

0.4 – 0.6 2

0.2 –0.4 3

< 0.2 4

“Availability”



1. Public Transport Facilities

3.Pedestrian Infrastructure Facilities


5.Application of Intelligent Transport Facilities


Focus Areas:


8. Road Safety

9. Environment

10. Integrated Land Use -Transport System



1. Presence of Organized Public Transport System in Urban

Area

2. Extent of Supply/Availability of Public Transport

3. Service Coverage of Public Transport in the study area

4. Transit accessible area (% built up area within 500 m of

PT plying)

5. High frequency transit accessible area (% transit area

with headway of ≤10 minutes)

6. Average waiting time for Public Transport users

7. Level of Comfort in Public Transport

8. Percentage fleet size as per urban bus specification

9. Total boarding / 1000 Population

10. Average Travel speed of Public Transport along key

corridors

11. Affordability of Public Transport

12. Breakdown of Public Transport

13. Vehicle Utilization of Public Transport

14. Interchanges having Multi modal Facilities

Composite LoS = (LoS1 + LoS2 +

LoS3 + LoS4 + LoS5 +

LoS6….+LoS14) and identify

overall LOS

Overall LoS Calculated LoS

1 14

2 15-28

3 29-42

4 42-56

1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1

Target Set




3. Pedestrian Infrastructure Facilities


5. Application of Intelligent Transport Facilities


Focus Areas:


7. Road Safety

9. Environment




Calculated LoS = (LoS1 + LoS2 + LoS3) and

identify overall LOS

1. Extent of Non-Fare Revenue

2. Staff per Bus Ratio

3. Operating Ratio


1 3

2 4-6

3 7-9

4 10-12

1 2 1

Target Set








Focus Areas:


8. Road Safety

9. Environment




Calculated LoS = (LoS1 + LoS2 + LoS3+LoS4)

and identify overall LOS


1 4

2 5-8

3 9-12

4 13-16

1. Availability of Signalized intersection

2. Signalized Intersection Delay

3. Percentage City Covered with

Footpath

4. Street Lighting (Lux level)

2 2 2

2

Target Set








Focus Areas:


8. Road Safety

9. Environment







1 3

2 4-6

3 7-9

4 10-12

1. NMT Coverage (% Network covered)

2. Encroachment on NMT roads by Vehicle

Parking

3. NMT Parking Facilities at interchanges

3

3 3

Target Set








Focus Areas:


8. Road Safety

9. Environment




Calculated LoS = (LoS1 + LoS2 + LoS3…+LoS5)



1 5

2 6-10

3 11-15

4 16-20

1. Availability of Traffic Surveillance System

2. Passenger Information System

3. Global Positioning System/AVLS

4. Signal Synchronization

5. Integrated Ticketing System

1

1 1 1 1

Target Set








Focus Areas:


8. Road Safety

9. Environment







1 6

2 7-12

3 13-18

4 19-24

1. Average Travel Speed of Personal Vehicles

2. Average Travel Speed of Public Transport

3. Road Density

4. Percentage of Higher Order roads

5. Street Lightening (LUX) on Roads

6. Percentage of Developed Area Under

Roads

1 - - -

2 -

Target Set








Focus Areas:


8. Road Safety

9. Environment




Calculated LoS = (LoS1 + LoS2) and identify

overall LOS


1 2

2 3 – 4

3 5 – 6

4 7 – 8

1. Availability of Parking Spaces

2. Ratio of Maximum and Minimum

Parking Fee In The City

2 2

Target Set








Focus Areas:


8. Road Safety

9. Environment







1 3

2 4-6

3 7-9

4 10-12

1. Fatality Rate per Lakh Population

2. Fatality Rate for Pedestrian & NMT

users

3. Serious Injuries per Lakh Population

1 2 -

Target Set








Focus Areas:


8. Road Safety

9. Environment




Calculated LoS = (LoS1 + LoS2 + LoS3+LoS4) and



1 4

2 5-8

3 9-12

4 13-16

1. Annual Mean Concentration of SO2 (μg/m3) 2. Annual Mean Concentration of NO2 (μg/m3) 3. Annual Mean Concentration of SPM (PM10)

(μg/m3) 4. Annual Mean Concentration of RSPM (PM2.5)

(μg/m3)

1 1 1 1

Target Set








Focus Areas:


8. Road Safety

9. Environment







1 6

2 7-12

3 13-18

4 19-24

1. Population Density

2. Mixed Land Use Zoning (% of area under

non residential use)

3. Intensity of Development

4. Intensity of development along transit

corridor

5. Road network pattern and completeness

6. Percentage network covered with

exclusive ROW

- - - - - - -

Target Set








Focus Areas:


8. Road Safety

9. Environment







1 3

2 4-6

3 7-9

4 10-12

1. Presence of IPT Vehicles per 1000

population

2. IPT Vehicles with ITS Facilities/GPS

3. Average Speed of IPT

- - -

Target Set

Ministry of Urban Development Government of India, New Delhi Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport 35

Report Card

Ministry of Urban Development Government of India, New Delhi Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport 36

Report Card: Surat

Sr. No Benchmarks

Level of Service for Urban

Transport

LoS for 2015 LoS for 2012

1 Public Transport Facilities 3 4

2 Financial Sustainability of Public Transport 4 4

3 Pedestrian Infrastructure Facilities 3 3

4 Non-Motorized Transport Facilities 3 3

5 Application of ITS Facilities 3 4

6 Road Network Performance 2 2

7 Parking Management 2 3

8 Road Safety 3 3

9 Environment 1 1

10 Integrated Land Use Transport System 2 3

11 Intermediate Public Transport 3 3

Legend - Change Colour Code Legend – LoS Colour Code No Change LoS 1

Positive Change LoS 2

Negative Change LoS 3

LoS 4



Development of PublicTransport in Surat



• Surat with NO Public Transport – 2004

SURAT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM



• Surat with limited Public Transport – 2009




• Surat with Bus Rapid Transit System – 2014




• Bus Rapid Transit System-2014

Development of transport in surat

SLB | Ahmedabad Ministry of Urban Development Government of India, New Delhi Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport

Bus Rapid Transit System-2016

SLB | Ahmedabad Ministry of Urban Development Government of India, New Delhi Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport

Ministry of Urban Development Government of India, New Delhi Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport

1. Public Transport Facilities Overall

LoS

Sr. No Public Transport Facilities Target

LoS*

Surat Indicator Value - PT Facilities Surat LoS -PT Facilities

2018#

2015 2012 2018#

2015 2012

1

Presence of Organized Public

Transport System in Urban Area

(%)

1 100% 100% 100% 1 1 1

2

Extent of Supply-Availability of

Public Transport (PT per 1000

population)

2 0.26 0.026 0.023 2 4 4

3 Service Coverage of Public

Transport in Study Area (km/km2) 2 1.43 0.42 0.31 1 3 3

4 Transit Access Area (% built-up

area within 500 m of PT plying) 2 72% 48% 46% 1 3 3

5

High Frequency transit accessible

area (% area with transit access

10 min or less headway)

2 72% 26% 10% 1 4 4

6 Average Waiting Time for Public

Transport Users (minutes) 2 4 6 12 1 1 4

7 Level of Comfort in Public

Transport (passenger/seat) 3 1.2 1.8 2.5 1 2 3

8 Percentage Fleet Size as per

Urban Bus Specification (UBS) (%) 3 100% 26% 0% 1 3 4

9 Total Boarding per 1000

population 2 12 15 4 4

10 Average Travel Speed of Public

Transport (kmph) 2 22 24 1 1

11 Affordability of Public Transport (%

expenditure on transportation) 2 17% 14% 1 1

12 Breakdown of Public Transport

(per 10,000 km) 3.05 NA 1 4 4

13 Vehicle Utilization (km per day) 205 165 166 2 4 4

14 Interchanges having Multimodal

Facilities (%) 72% 17% 0% 1 4 4

Total Score 39 44

Overall LoS – 3 3 4

45


Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport (COE) CEPT University, Ahmedabad

BENCHMARKING 46 URBAN TRANSPORT

Thank you

Contact: [email protected]

www.utbenchmark.in


Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport (COE) CEPT University, Ahmedabad

BENCHMARKING 47 URBAN TRANSPORT

• Mobility Security (Example from Janmarg-Ahmedabad)

Strategy for mobility security

People moved : 180 Area occupied – 84 sq. m Queue length – 24 m.

People moved :91 Area occupied – 850 sq. m. Queue length - 85 m.

Janmarg Mixed traffic Vehicle Number

of vehicles

People

Four wheeler

14 21

Rickshaw 11 20

Two wheeler

29 43

Cycle 7 7

Vehicle

Number of vehicles

People

BRTS 2 180

Urban Transport Service Level Benchmarking in Urban ... · Along NH-29 Martyrs Park to PWD office...

Documents

Transcript of Urban Transport Service Level Benchmarking in Urban ... · Along NH-29 Martyrs Park to PWD office...