Monitoring BRT Performance, Quality By Sam Zimmerman

Monitoring BRTPerformance, Quality

BySam Zimmerman

Francesco LayGoogle Earth

Presentation outline

• Monitoring and linkage to system planning, operations and management

• Selection of criteria, examples • Ahmedabad case study• Lessons learned

Why Monitor Quality and Performance?

• PT is a business with products, industrial processes and customers; Need management information to meet objectives

• BRT is an integrated system, but may be operated by different entities (e.g., service provider, fare collector, facility and infrastructure maintainer), with oversight and management by a public entity/SPV– Need quantitative basis for management, payment

for services rendered, etc.• BRT services are inherently flexible; monitoring

can provide data for planning service adjustments and other enhancements

Issues in Selection of Performance Monitoring Criteria

• Utility of criteria– Need to link criteria to specific performance objectives for

system

• Complexity, cost of collection– Need to collect on an ongoing basis– Need to be consistent over time in definition of criteria and

collection methodologies

• Not just academic exercise; Need Linkage to action– Need linkages among criteria, causes of problems and

corrective actions

Different Performance Monitoring Perspectives

• Industrial/Supply: – What is the quality of the offering

(product) in all aspects?– How efficient is the system in

providing planned service?

• Customer: – How effective is the BRT system

in providing safe, secure, fast and reliable public transport?

– Does the system meet customer needs and expectations?

Typical Industrial/Supply Criteria• Revenue V. Km., Hours• Reliability• Travel times (e.g., total end-to-end, station dwell times• Mean Km. between service disruptions • Percentage of scheduled trips started, completed• Vehicle/infrastructure/facility cleanliness, state of repair• Condition of fare collection, passenger information, other IT

Systems and equipment• Operating & maintenance costs, labor loadings• Fuel consumption, emissions (e.g., particulate matter)• Degree of integration, e.g. docking accuracy at stations

and terminals• Driving

Typical Criteria: Customer• Ridership related

– Total, Max. load point/peak hour/peak direction, by route and corridor

– By purpose, gender, income, time of day and week– Trip lengths, travel volumes among key O/D pairs– Length of time using system, former mode, frequency of use– Degree of crowding– Mode of access/egress

• Safety, security– Incidents by type

• Satisfaction with:– Operating staff, services, vehicles, facilities– Access provisions– Passenger information– Fares and fare payment

Applications of Data• City to city benchmarking is best used to

determine whether quality and performance is unusual (better or worse than peers)

• Need more detailed information to determine causes of problem and identify and evaluate what to do to fix them

• Within city comparisons over time and from one corridor or line to another can be helpful in more detailed analysis and planning

Vrs. Vrs.

Naroda village

Odhav

Bopal

Narol

Kalupur Rly. Stn.

Maninagar Rly. stn.

RanipSola RoB

Shivranjani Nehrunagar

AECNaroda

Soni ni chaali

Ahmedabad Airport.

Naroda GIDC

Odhav Industrial estate

Vatva Industrial estate

Gandhigram Rly. stn

Sabarmati Rly. stn

Gujarat University

Ahmedabad JANMARG Case Study*

RTO

Geeta Mandir

RTO to Maninagar loop–(22.5 kms.) – 33 bus stops

Danilimda to Naroda

(16.4 kms.) – 28 bus stops

Danilimda

BRT corridor operational – 45 kms.

BRT corridor under implementation – 41 kms.

Total no. of Bus stations –67

Total Buses operational –83 (incl 11 AC buses)

Daily ridership – 1,20,473

Phase 2 corridors – under implementation

(41kms.)

Bhavsar hostel – Delhi darwaja

(4.5 kms.) – 6 bus stops

Delhi darwaja

Ahmedabad information taken from JANMARG’s 25th Monthly Report; Provided by

CEPT University, Ahmedabad

City of A

Statistics At GlanceNetwork Length

45 Km

Number of Stations67

Operational Timings 6:00 AM to 11:30 PM

Peak Hour 8:00 AM – 12:00 PM ; 5:00 PM – 9:00 PM

Bus operated during Peak 83 ( 75 on Diwali Festival)

Total Fleet 88 (11 No. AC Buses included)

Average Daily Round Trips530

Average Daily Ridership 1,20,473

Average Daily Collection 7,44,384

Ave. Daily Operational Km. 19579 Km. (Schedule Km = 21096)

* Op. Cit, JANMARG, CEPT University

Ahmedabad BRT• “Janmarg” Limited Corp., SPV in charge of

fully integrated BRT system– Operating, fare collection, facility/infrastructure,

maintenance contractors• Monthly reports• Analysis highlights changes over time• Open, transparent dissemination• Results used for oversight and

management of contractors• Results provided to newspapers,

radio, TV and made available on website

Ahmedabad Surveys Conducted Monthly

• Bus Docking Survey

• System Operator’s driving Check and bus Check

• Bus stop Checklist including cleanliness

• Average BRTS Speed Check

• User Feedback Surveys


Use of Output in Benchmarking• Two main applications

1. comparisons of past Ahmedabad BRT quality and performance with current Ahmedabad quality and performance

2. Comparison of performance of one corridor/line or operating contractor with others

• Peer-to peer comparisons across cities much more difficult to do correctly, but EMBARQ/Volvo BRT Center of Excellence effort likely to be highly useful

System Indicators and Comparison (CEPT U.) Month/ Year

13rd Month (Previous Year) 24nd Month 25th Month

(16 Oct– 15 Nov ’10) (15 Sept’11- 14 Oct’ 11) (15 Oct ’11- 14 Nov’ 11)

Route

R.T.O-Man., RTO to CN R.T.O-Man., R.T.O to Naroda R.T.O-Man., R.T.O to Naroda

Anjali – Naroda .,Narol to Naroda Anjali – Naroda, N to N,RTO-SLP Anjali – Naroda, N to N,RTO-SLP

Operation Timings 6:00 AM - 11:30 PM 6:00 AM - 11:30 PM 6:00 AM - 11:30 PM

Total Kms/day 13800 KM 20208 KM 19579 KM

Total Pax. 2538618 (373%) 4040794 (593.71%) 3730308

Total fare collection (INR) 14352963 (471%) 23318700 (765.22%) 23052197

Avg. pax/day 81,891 (373%) 1,34,693 (613.50 %) 1,20,473

collection/day (INR) 463,000 (471%) 804093 (817.99 %) 814170

Avg. Pax./bus/day 1678 (74%) 1721 ( 177.75 %) 1462

Avg. Collectn/bus/day 9468 (110%) 10274.23 ( 232.70 %) 9035

Avg. Trip Length

Week day 6.74 7.6 6.6

Weekend 6.64 7.05 6.2

fppk

Week day 0.88 1.044 1.1

Weekend 0.88 0.94 0.96

Operating Ratio for Bus Operator

1.09 0.89 1.1

Breakdown/ 10000 km 2.01 2.3 2.04

Accidents / 100000 Km 0.72 1.65 1.53Avg.Speedof BRTS 24.2 Km/Hr 24.0 Km/Hr 23.58 Km/Hr

Modal Shift* Sample Size: 472

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

39.9%

0.314564755838643

4.1%

9.6%

2.8%

0.0912951167728239

AMTS Shared Rickshaw Rickshaw 2-Wheeler 4-wheeler Cycle Walk Drop


JANMARG Miss Trips/ Incidents Analysis*

Accele

rato

r pro

blem

Dashe

d with

sen

sor

Engine

pro

blem

Late

Com

ing

Miss

the

stat

ion

Out o

f fue

l

Truck

is d

ashe

d with

railin

g

Tyre

burs

t

Road

block

Stear

ing p

roble

m

Driver

abs

ent

Autom

atic

door

not

wor

king

Broke

n

Air pr

oblem

Senso

r pro

blem

Whe

el pr

oblem

Brake

pro

blem

Accide

nt

Clutch

pro

blem

Heatin

g pr

oblem

Starti

ng T

roub

le

Techn

ical p

roble

m

Mec

hanic

al pr

oblem

Tyre

punc

ture

0

4

8

12

16

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 24 5 6 6 6

8 9 1012 12 13 13

15 16

Pro

ble

m N

o.

Total Schd. Kms.

Total Run Kms.

Total Km. Loss

% of loss Km.

Loss Due To S.O. staff

% Loss Due To Traffic %

Loss Due To

Accidents%

Loss Due To Bus Defect

% Extra kms

24th Month 632885 628174 5423 0.86% 1578.4 29.11% 1014.7 18.71% 315.9 5.83% 2513.8 46.36% 636.9

25th Month

Total No. Of Miss Trip During Last month :147 ,Out of that following are the major cause for that:-

Total No. Of Miss Trip During this month :139 ,Out of that following are the major cause for that:-

Bunch

ing

Bus D

ashe

d

LED p

roble

m

Other

veh

icle

accid

ent

Senso

r pro

blem

Side M

irror

Pro

blem

Stear

ing p

roble

m

Whe

el pr

oblem

Oil Pipe

Lick

age

Out o

f fue

l

Air pr

oblem

Heatin

g pr

oblem

Brake

pro

blem

Broke

n

Starti

ng T

roub

le

Accide

nt

Mec

hanic

al pr

oblem

Clutch

pro

blem

Techn

ical p

roble

m

Door p

roble

m

Tyre

punc

ture

0

5

10

15

20

25

1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

17

22 22


Route Line Speed (KMPH)

RTO-Maninagar 1 23.47

Anjali - Naroda 2 25.60

RTO-Naroda 3 24.08

RTO - SLP 4 22.56

Speed Analysis* on Route based on ITS Real Time information dated 9th Nov. 2011

Janmarg System Average Speed for all the routes are 23.58 Km/Hour


Bus Docking Survey (Morning)* Samples: 4 per bus

6912 1242 5823 8172 9172 9466 9302 8001 9072 4365 9109 43020.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

100.00%

Perfect Almost Perfect Slighty far Far


Sex and Occupation Distribution of BRTS Users* Occupation DistributionSex Distribution Sample Size: 472

Private Vehicle OwnershipAverage Household Monthly income (in Rs.)

48%

11%

41%

2-Wheeler 4-Wheeler N/A

14%

35%39%

9%

3%

Less than 7,500

7500- 20,000

20,000-40,000

40,000- 80,000

Greater than 80,000

N/A

64%

36%Male

Female

28%

7%

13%

42%

3%7% Sevice

Business/Professional

Casual Worker

Student

Housewife

Retied


JANMARG User Feedback Survey (Opinion of BRTS Users)*24th Month

25th Month

Safe to cross road

Good frequency

Clean buses

Driven safely

Behaviour of driver is good and helpful

Behaviour of staff is good and helpful

Service is reliable and comfortable

Prices fair

Stops clean

Ticket payment easy

Staff in Uniform

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Yes No

Safe to cross road

Good frequency

Clean buses

Driven safely

Behaviour of driver is good and helpful

Behaviour of staff is good and helpful

Service is reliable and comfortable

Prices fair

Stops clean

Ticket payment easy

Staff in Uniform

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Lessons Learned• Public transport is, in effect, a business;

– Cannot run well without information on;• product quality, efficiency of business processes• customer number/characteristics/satisfaction

• Monitoring of particular importance for BRT:– Integrated high quality system sensitive to

performance of a number of elements– Usually operated/maintained by several separate

entities with a single independent system integrator/manager

• Most important use of information is internal city specific benchmarking

• Credibility and customer good will are enhanced by transparency and openness

Thank You

Monitoring BRT Performance, Quality By Sam Zimmerman

Technology

Transcript of Monitoring BRT Performance, Quality By Sam Zimmerman