URBAN MOBILITY INDIA Research Symposium th December 2013...

IIT ROORKEE 1

EFFICIENCY ASSESSMENT OF MULTIMODALTRANSPORTATION

Presented By:

Mansha Swami

Research ScholarIIT-ROORKEE

TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING GROUPDEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY ROORKEEROORKEE – 247 667, UTTARAKHAND, INDIA

URBAN MOBILITY INDIAResearch Symposium

4th December 2013

IIT ROORKEE 2

Urban agglomerates and metropolisesare the hub of industrial, financial andeconomic growth. They are imperativeconstituents of an economy.

So what exactlydo we call amultimodal

urban publictransit trip?

Almost all the public transportationtrips are multimodal in nature andhence they require an evaluation in themultimodal perspective.

A multimodal urban public transit trip is basically anintegration of two or modes of travel used for a trip

where a transfer is necessary.

A multimodal urban public transit trip is basically anintegration of two or modes of travel used for a trip

where a transfer is necessary.

INTRODUCTION

IIT ROORKEE 3

All public transit trips are segregated intothree parts which are1. Access part2. Line –Haul part3. Egress part

The phenomena of leaving one mode and taking upanother is called “transfer”.

Together the access stage, line haul or mainmode stage , egress stage and the transferstage comprise of the structural elements ofthe multimodal public transport system(MMTS) as illustrated in figure 1.

Since all the public transit trips aremultimodal in nature i.e. they require useof more than one mode of travel, we havetrip in three stages as mentioned.

The locations where a change between these modes occur arecalled the transfer stations /stops /switch stops /stations .

IIT ROORKEE 4

RESEARCH ISSUES

This Research ventures intothe scope of evaluating theefficiency of MMTS in the

context of travel timerelated parameters and tries

to figure out what canminimize the travel timeand maximize the ease of

travel for a commuter

In previous researches suchas those of Sabyasachee

Mishra, Avishai Cedar , N.Van Oort, David Hensher etal., the evaluation of variousaspects of the efficiency ofpublic transit modes and

networks have been studied

This research aims at developing amechanism to evaluate theperformance efficiency of a

Multimodal Public Transit System.

Fig 1: Schematic Outline of Multimodal Public TransportIIT ROORKEE 5

AccessServices

EgressServices

TransferPoints

ORIGIN•Walking•Cycle Rickshaw•Car•Auto•Feeder Bus•DTC•Two - Wheeler

METRO (Main mode/ Line- Haul mode)

DESTINATION•Walking•Cycle Rickshaw•Car•Auto•Feeder Bus•DTC•Two - Wheeler

PROXIMITY, CONNECTIVITY & INTERCONNECTIVITY

• Proximity (ability to reach the transfer locations from origin and destinationlocations),

• Connectivity (ability to travel between different transfer locations) and• Interconnectivity (ability to reach the desired destination from a specific

origin).

IIT ROORKEE6

Figure 2: Concepts of Proximity, Connectivity and Interconnectivity.

DESTINATION

ORIGIN

INTERCONNECTIVITY

CONNECTIVITY

PROXIMITY

Catchment Area

Urban Centre

Train/Bus/Tram/Metro Stations

Railway Network

PERFORMANCE MEASURES

IIT ROORKEE 7

1.Travel Time Ratio

(TTR)

Between a particular origin anddestination TTR shall be the ratio of thetravel time by public transport to thetravel time by personal mode such as car.

Ratio range 1-5 (formost trips).

2. Level of Service (LOS)Ratio of out vehicle travel time to the Invehicle travel time. It estimates the weightof OVTT compared to IVTT.

Ratio range 1.2-5 (formost trips).

3.Interconnectivity Ratio

(IR)It is the ratio of Access and egress timetaken together to the total trip travel time.

Ratio falls between 0to 1 .

4.Passenger Waiting

Index (PWI)Ratio of mean passenger waiting time tothe frequency of the transport service.

PWI value can befixed between 0 and 1.

5. Running Index (RI) Ratio of total service time to the totaltravel time.

RI can be fixedbetween 0 and 1.

STUDY AREA

IIT ROORKEE 8Fig 3: Metro Network in Delhi of Phases I and II (Source: www.delhimetrorail.com)

STUDY AREA

IIT ROORKEE9

Fig 4: Red Line Metro Network(Source: www.delhimetrorail.com)

Feeder Bus AvailableInterchange Stations

At-grade Stations

STUDY WORK

The study is divided into 2 parts.

IIT ROORKEE 10

• Study of Travel Time Elements(Access, Line-haul, Egress, Transfer,Waiting) in Multimodal context.

1.

• The influence of Travel Time Elementson the performance of TransportationSystems.

2.

COMMUTER TRAVEL SURVEY

IIT ROORKEE 11

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, ROORKEETRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING GROUP

CIVIL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT

PhD. THESIS -: Operational and spatial effectiveness of metropolitan transportation

This study is taken upto opublic transportation planning in multimodal context. It is hereby assumed that the data collected would be utilised for academic purpose only.

Part A :- Socio Economic Data Date:- Time:-

Commuter Survey for study of multimodal Transport Characteristics in Delhi

Age Group 0─9 10─19 20─29 30─39 40─49 50─59

Gender Male Female

Monthly Income (Rs) <5000 5001─15000 15001─35000 35001─50000 50001─75000 >75000

Empolyoment Status Gov. Job Pvt. Service Self Empolyed Not Empolyed

Vehicle Ownership Car Two Wheeler Bicycle

Household size 1 2 3 4 5 >5

Frequancy of trips Once Twice Thrice Fourth

No of co-passenger 0 1 2 3 >3

Expenditure on daily Travel (Rs)0─20 20─50 50─80 80─120 >120

Trip Purpose Education Office Work Shopping Cinema personal other

Trip Distance

What Changes Would you like to Suggest ?

Access Distance (Km) 0─0.5 0.5─1 1─2 2─3

Egress Distance (Km) 0─0.5 0.5─1 1─2 2─3

"Thanks for your good time"Have good day. Keep Smiling

IIT ROORKEE 12

Origin Time -: Zone IdDestination Date-: Zone Id

Trip Distance

Mode taken frm home/origin? Walk Cycle 2W 4W Auto Rickshaw TaxiAccess time from origin

Transfer location 1Place Metro Station Bus Station Feeder Station Auto/Rickshaw Stand

Transfer timewait time

In vehicle time



In vehicle time



In vehicle time



In vehicle time



In vehicle timeHow do you find Metro Service?

Very poor Poor Satisfactory Good Very goodIf given an option, would you travel with any other mode?

Yes maybe No onl if other mode is betterIs Metro Cheap or Costaly?

Very Cheap Cheap Reasonable Costly VerycostlyHow fast do you find Metro?

Very slow Slow Reasonble Fast Very fastDo you get seating in Metro?

Always Sometimes Very few times Never"Thanks for your good time"Have good day. Keep Smiling

IIT ROORKEE 13

Metro Stations No of Samples Feeder Bus Min Transfer (Mins.)

Rithala 22 NA 2Rohini West

27A 2

Rohini East NA 2Pitampura

33A 2

Kohat Enclave NA 2Netaji Subash Place

25A 2

Keshav Puram NA 2Kanhaiya Nagar

26NA 2

Inderlok NA 1Shastri Nagar

29NA 2

Pratap Nagar NA 2Pul Bangash

32NA 2

Tis Hazari NA 2Kashmiri Gate

30NA 4

Shastri Park A 2Seelampur

27NA 2

Welcome NA 2Shahdara

28NA 2

Manasarovar Park NA 2Jhilmil

31NA 2

Dilshad Garden NA 2Table 1: Survey Details at Each Station of the Study Area (Red Line)

IIT ROORKEE 14Fig 6(a): Pictures Showing Transfer Facilities Inside Metro

IIT ROORKEE 15Fig 6(b): Pictures Showing Transfer Facilities Inside Metro

ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

• Purpose of Trip:Nearly, 72% of trips consistsof routine trips like education,office, and work.Routine trips dominating theinfrequent trips.

IIT ROORKEE 16

Fig 7 Percentage Trip Purposes

Education,15%

Office, 36%Work, 21%

Shopping,6%

Personal,17%

Other, 5%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2 stage 3 stage 4 stage 5 stage

OtherPersonalShoppingWorkOfficeEducation

IIT ROORKEE 17

Figure 4. Study Area – Red Line Delhi Metro

IIT ROORKEE 18Figure 5. PuT Demand Matrix after Execution

IIT ROORKEE 19

Mode

Modal Split (%)

2011 2021

Initial Minimum Mean Maximum Initial Minimum Mean Maximum

Public

Transit71 65 63 52 79 69 62 56

Personal

Modes29 35 37 48 21 31 38 44

Table 3: Simulated Mode Shares for Horizon Years (Rounded %)

IIT ROORKEE 20

Figure 6. Cumulative Frequency Distribution of Access Times of Motorized and Non-Motorized Modes

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

3.5 6.5 9.5 12.5 15.5 18.5 21.5 24.5 27.5 30.5

Cum

ulat

ive

Fre

quen

cy (

%)

Access Time (mins.)Motorized Non Motorized

IIT ROORKEE 21

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

3.5 6.5 9.5 12.5 15.5 18.5 21.5 24.5 27.5 30.5

Cum

ulat

ive

Fre

quen

cy (

%)

Egress Time (mins.)

Motorized Non Motorized

Figure 7. Cumulative Frequency Distribution of Egress Times of Motorized and Non-Motorized Modes

IIT ROORKEE 22

6.67

6.03

4.54

7.54

4.91

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Speed Cost Comfort Reliability Ease of Transfer

Fig 12 Commuter Satisfaction Scale

Commuter Satisfaction

Prediction of Modal Shares

IIT ROORKEE 23

TWT,5.755

TTRT,8.316

IVTT,24.122

OVTT,20.194

Fig 16 Travel Time Elements

The term Penalty means thesum of waiting time andtransfer time.

The penalties influence themodal share of public transportand private transport.

The penalties play adiscouraging role for people tocome forward and use thepublic transit system .

The average penalties arenearly 24% of the averagetravel time.

CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSIONS

The present study draws the following conclusions:

• Personal interview with the passenger or commuter in a stated preferencesurvey proforma serves best as a survey technique which is suitable formetropolitan cities like Delhi.

• Multimodal transportation is only an attractive option if the access and egressdistance is not too large. Hence it is appropriate for longer distance trips only.The combination of longer trip lengths and of seamless transfers is necessary tomake multimodal transport more attractive than unimodal transport.

• The analysis showed that slow modes, in particular walking, has a strongdistance decay function with the result that users drop off significantly after 2.5kilometres (approximately the maximum walking distance). It is obvious thatmany travellers substitute the two-wheeler or private car for walking, bus orauto. Walking is a much slower and distance constrained mode than the cyclerickshaw, whereas bus and auto involves added economic cost in the form offares. In addition, these modes also involve transfer and waiting time, againadding to overall journey time.

IIT ROORKEE 24

CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSIONS

• Commuters are unwilling to use public transit after reachingmaximum threshold of access and egress. As a planning measureboth access and egress distance should be considered in planningmultimodal transportation, as unacceptable distances willdrastically reduce the potential to use multimodal transportation.OVTT & transfer times can be reduced by improving access &egress facilities, transfer facilities, and providing park & ridefacilities, card access at public transit systems.

• Access time, transfer time, waiting time and egress time are themost important and complex travel time elements that transportsystems should consider improving its efficiency and modal share.Access, egress & transfer times can be reduced by bringingaltogether different modes at one location called interchangewhich represents an Integrated MMTS.

IIT ROORKEE25

REFERENCES

• Advani, M., Tiwari, G. & Programme, I.P., 2005. EVALUATION OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT SYSTEMS : CASESTUDY., pp.1–8.

• Anon, 2010. PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT OF URBAN BUS SYSTEM : ISSUES AND SOLUTION. , 2(9),pp.4759–4766.

• Badami, M.G. & Haider, M., 2007. An analysis of public bus transit performance in Indian cities. , 41, pp.961–981.

• Barnum, D.T., 2008. Comparing the Performance of Urban Transit Bus Routes after Adjusting for the Environment ,Using Data Envelopment Analysis. , (April).

• Basu, D. & Maitra, B., 2010. Stated Preference Approach for Valuation of Travel Time Displayed as Traffic Informationon a VMS Board. , (September), pp.214–224.

• Bellei, G. & Gkoumas, K., 2010. Transit vehicles ’ headway distribution and service irregularity. , pp.269–289.

• Celikoglu, H.B. & Cigizoglu, H.K., 2007. Public transportation trip flow modeling with generalized regression neuralnetworks. Advances in Engineering Software, 38(2), pp.71–79.

• Chang, J.S., 2010. Assessing travel time reliability in transport appraisal. Journal of Transport Geography, 18(3),pp.419–425.

• Diana, M., 2012. Measuring the satisfaction of multimodal travelers for local transit services in different urban contexts.Transportation Research Part A, 46(1), pp.1–11.

• Edvardsson,

• Sreehari, P.M.N., Report on Performance Evaluation Of Bmtc Buses And Measures To Improve The Ridership.

• Strathman, J., Kimpel, T.J. & El-geneidy, A., 2005. Evaluation Of Innovative Uses Of Advanced Public Evaluation OfInnovative Uses Of Advanced Public.

• Sun, L., Rong, J. & Yao, L., 2010. Measuring Transfer Efficiency of Urban Public. , pp.314–319.

• Yaliniz, P. et al., 2011. Evaluation of urban public transportation efficiency in Kutahya , 20, pp.885–895.

• Yang, M. et al., 2010. Modeling Destination Choice Behavior Incorporating Spatial Factors , IndividualSociodemographics , and Travel Mode. pp.800–810.

• Yannis, G., Kopsacheili, A. & Klimis, P., 2012. Estimating the Adequacy of a Metro Network. , (December), pp.286–292.

IIT ROORKEE 26

REFERENCES• Krygsman, S., Activity and Travel Choice ( s ) in Multimodal Public Transport Systems.• Kumar, P., Ctrans, P.D.S. & Roorkee, I.I.T., 2009. Pedestrian Safety in Multi Modal Public

Transport : A Way forward to Create Safer City. , pp.1–9.• Kumar, P., Kulkarni, S.Y. & Parida, M., Design Approach for Multi Modal Transport System.

, (December 2009), pp.26–33.• Litman, B.T., 2011. Introduction to Multi-Modal Transportation Planning. , pp.0–16.• Oort, N. Van, Service Reliability and Urban Public Transport Design Service Reliability and.• Rao, C.S., Parida, M. & Jain, S.S., 2011. Performance Evaluation of the Intelligent Transport

System in Delhi. , (September), pp.1–14.• Rastogi, R., 2011. Promotion of non-motorized modes as a sustainable transportation option :

policy and planning issues.• Rastogi, R. & Krishna Rao, K.V., 2003. Defining transit accessibility with environmental

inputs. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 8(5), pp.383–396.• Rietveld, P., Bruinsma, F.R. & Vuuren, D.J. Van, 2001. Coping with unreliability in public

transport chains : A case study for Netherlands. , 35.• Sreehari, P.M.N., Report on Performance Evaluation Of Bmtc Buses And Measures To

Improve The Ridership.• Strathman, J., Kimpel, T.J. & El-geneidy, A., 2005. Evaluation Of Innovative Uses Of

Advanced Public Evaluation Of Innovative Uses Of Advanced Public.• Yang, M. et al., 2010. Modeling Destination Choice Behavior Incorporating Spatial Factors ,

Individual Sociodemographics , and Travel Mode. pp.800–810.• Yannis, G., Kopsacheili, A. & Klimis, P., 2012. Estimating the Adequacy of a Metro Network.

, (December), pp.286–292.

IIT ROORKEE 27

IIT ROORKEE 28

URBAN MOBILITY INDIA Research Symposium th December 2013...

Documents

Transcript of URBAN MOBILITY INDIA Research Symposium th December 2013...