SLB_PradeepKr

8/2/2019 SLB_PradeepKr

1/21

CORRIDOR MANAGEMENTCORRIDOR MANAGEMENT

USINGUSING

SERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKSSERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKS(A CASE STUDY OF VISAKHAPATNAM CITY)(A CASE STUDY OF VISAKHAPATNAM CITY)

PRADEEP KUMAR D

Under the Guidance of

Dr. C S R K Prasad

NIT Warangal

Urban Mobility India Research Symposium December 3Urban Mobility India Research Symposium December 3rdrd, 2011, 2011


2/21

IntroductionIntroduction Urban corridors - congestion - additional time, fuel cost.

Conflict, confusion and irritation

Large number of accidents.

Innovative traffic engineering and management measures for urban roads are

to be implemented.

Because of these challenges, corridor management is necessary.

Transport Corridor: A broad geographic band, connecting population and

employment center, served by various transportation modes, within which

passenger and freight travel, land use, topography, environment and other

characteristics are evaluated for transportation purposes.

The term corridor management refers to the practice of identifying and

implementing a mutually supportive set of strategies to maintain andenhance access, mobility, safety, economic development, and environmental

quality along the transportation corridor

2Urban Research Symposium- Dec 3 2011


3/21

Service Level BenchmarkingService Level Benchmarking

Service level benchmarking is an exercise to facilitate

comparison between cities and changes in performance over

time. The performance levels are monitored against designated

benchmarks.

Benchmarks, their definitions, means of measurement, frequency Standard set of performance parameters (Benchmarks)-

commonly understood and used by all - to improve the quality

of urban transport

Benchmarking is an important mechanism - identifying

performance gaps and effecting improvements - ultimately

resulting in better services to people.



4/21

Service level Benchmarks (Ministry of Urban Development)Parameters in Service Level Benchmarking

1. Public Transport in a city

2. Pedestrian Infrastructure facilities

3. Non Motorized Transport facilities

4. Usage of Integrated Transport System (ITS) facilities

5. Travel speed along major corridors

6. Road Safety7. Availability of Parking facilities

8. Pollution levels

9. Land Use Transport Integration

10. Financial Sustainability of Public Transport



5/21

Study AreaStudy Area Visakhapatnam City Core area is selected as the study area.

Majorly 8 key public transport corridors, 14 major roads, and several arterials

connecting these corridors were identified.

Bus transport is the major public transport with modal share of 20% Three seated autos acting as the Para transit contributing to nearly 15% of the

transport demand.

Private vehicles comprising two and four wheelers.

Physical inventory of the corridors in the study area

Traffic data collection, Secondary Data Collection

Evaluating the Corridor using Service Level Benchmarks By MoUD

Performance Report for all the parameters chosen

Suggest the best Management Measures

Study MethodologyStudy Methodology



6/21

Data CollectionData Collection

Primary Surveys:

Journey Speeds & Level of Comfort of Public Transport. (By physically

travelling through buses in Peak and Non-Peak hours in all routes)

Speeds of Private Transport - ( By Moving Car Method )

Waiting Time for Passengers at Bus stops (Frequency Distribution of

passengers waiting at different times at different bus stops in the city)

Physical Inventory Data (Foot path Condition and Existence)

Parking Spaces Count (Parking Allowance in the city and fees)

Waiting time for pedestrians at intersections (Video graphic Surveys at

intersections)

Secondary Data

Pollution Level Data (AP Pollution Control Board) Accident Data from police records (Police Station)

Public Transport Details (APSRTC depot)

Land Use and Population Data (GVMC, Visakhapatnam)



7/21

Service Level Benchmarking, MoUDService Level Benchmarking, MoUD-- Public TransportPublic Transport

Level of

Service

1. Presence of

Organized

Public

Transport (%)

2.

Availability

of Public

Transport

3. Service

Coverage of

Public Transport

in the city

4. Averagewaiting time for

Public

Transport users

(mins)

5. Level of

Comfort in

Public

Transport

6. % of Fleet

asper Urban

BusSpecification

1 >= 60 >= 0.6 >= 1 10 30 >2.5


8/21

Indicator Value LOS

Presence of Organized Public Transport System in Urban

Area- (GovtUndertaking/ Total)80.11 % 1

Extent of Supply Availability of Public Transport (Bus Avail.

Per 1000 population0.35 3

Service Coverage of Public Transport in the city (km/ sq.km) 0.78 2

Average Waiting Time of Public Transport 19.24 min 2

Average Level of Comfort in Public Buses( Occupancy) 0.93 1

% of Fleet as per Urban Bus Specification 100.00 1

Calculated LOS of Public Transport 10

Overall LoS Of Public Transport city wide 1

Public TransportationPublic Transportation



9/21

Pedestrian InfrastructurePedestrian Infrastructure

Indicator Value LOS

Signalized Intersection Delay (%) 36% 2

Street Lighting (Lux) 7.5 Lux 2

% of City covered with footpaths 43.58% 3

Calculated LOS of Pedestrian Facilities 7

Overall LOS of Pedestrian Facilities 2

Non- Motorized Tracks and Intelligent Transport System

Facilities are not available in Visakhapatnam.

Hence , LOS can be considered as 4, the worst case



10/21

Travel Speeds of Personal Vehicles & Public transport vehicles:

Arterial Speed In Kmph = Length of the Corridor in kms/ Journey Time in hr

Travel Speeds of Public Transport vehicles:

Level of Service for each Corridor is to be found and weightages are to be givento each corridor based on share of their length to total length. The weightedaggregate of LOS of vehicles is w1* LOS1 + w2*LOS2+------- . where w1, w2are weightages based on their length, LOS1 , LOS2 are LOS obtained for thatspeeds

Travel Speeds along Major CorridorsTravel Speeds along Major Corridors

Indicator Value LOS

Travel Speeds of Motorized Vehicles 28.87 2

Travel Speeds of Public Transport Vehicles 18.30 2

Calculated LOS of travel Speeds along Major Corridors 4

Overall LOS of travel Speeds along Major Corridors 2



11/21

Overall LOS of Parking Spaces.

Indicator Value LOS

Availability of on street paid public parking spaces 36.70 % 3

Difference in Maximum and Minimum Parking Fee in the

City2 2

Calculated LOS of Parking Availability 5

Overall LOS of Parking Availability 3

Road Safety

Indicator Value LOS

Fatality Rate for Lakh Population14

persons

4

Fatality Rate for Pedestrians and N MT users 35.78% 2

Calculated LOS of Road Safety 6

Overall LOS of Road Safety 311Urban Research Symposium- Dec 3 2011


12/21

Air Pollution levelsAir Pollution levels

Financial Sustainability of Public TransportFinancial Sustainability of Public Transport

LocationGnanapu

ram

Seethamma

dhara

Police

BarracksAuto N agar

Average of the

City (g/ m3)LOS

SO2 14.6 7.2 9.5 9.7 10.25 1

NO2 26 18.7 23.5 18.7 21.725 1

SPM 200.3 176.3 196.4 144.7 179.425 1

RPM 99.6 88.8 89.7 72.7 87.7 3

Calculated LOS of Pollution Levels City Wide 6

Overall LOS of Pollution Levels City Wide 2

Indicator Value LOS

Extent of Non fare Revenue (other than ticket fares) 1.27 % 4

Staff / bus ratio 5.44 1Operating Ratio 1.02 3

Calculated LOS of Financial Sustainibility of Public Transport 8

Overall LOS of Financial Sustainibility of Public Transport 3



13/21

Integrated Land Use TransportationIntegrated Land Use Transportation

Indicator Value LOS

Population Density 53.31 4

Proportion of Non-Residential Area along major Transit Corridors 15 % 2

Intensity of Development Citywide 1.00 3

Intensity of Development along major Corriodrs 1.75 3

Road Network Pattern and Completenes Radial 2

Percentage of Area under Roads 13 % 2

Percentage of Road N etwork having Exclusive ROW 0% 4

Calculated LOS of Integrated Land Use Transportation 20

Overall LOS of Integrated Land Use Transportation 3



14/21

Performance ReportPerformance ReportIndicator LOS Acheived LOS Targeted

Public Transport 1 2

Pedestrian Infrastructure 2 2NMT facilities 4 2

ITS facilities 4 2

Travel Speeds 2 2

Avaiability of Parking Spaces 3 2

Road Safety 3 2

Pollution Levels 2 2

Integrated Landuse Transportation 3 2

Financial Sustainability of PT 3 2



15/21

Observations & Management MeasuresObservations & Management Measures

Availability of Bus per 1000 population is 0.35. -Bus fleet

Waiting Times of Passengers at Bus stops is found to be high in the routes

17B (Old Post office to Bheemili), 540(MVP to Simhachalam), 38J, 38D, 52V

(Sagar Nagar to Collector Office), and 52S which is more than 30 minutes.

Commuters using Public Transport are only 20%. It can be increased by

attracting people to Public Transport by installing A/ C, video coaches and

maintaining perfect schedules.

Low Non- Fare Revenue. Advertising on buses etc, reduces the ticket fare.

Equipping with GPS, Integrated ticketing system.

Inadequate Foot Path coverage.

The existing footpaths are in poor condition and needs replacement,

especially, at VUDA Children Complex, Waltair Depot to Appughar,Jagadamba to Complex needs new footpaths.



16/21

Waiting Time of Pedestrians at Signalised intersections

Construction of Subways or foot over bridges. - crossings on NH5, Jagadamba Jn, and

Asilmetta Jn.

Travel Speeds of Motorized Vehicles -30 kmph.Lane Discipline - Proper signage Proper markings.

Daba Gardens Road, Jagadamba to Complex Roads carry vehicles with speeds less

than 20kmph. Hence, Carriageway widths are to be increased.

Travel Speeds of Public Transport are around 20kmph.

Exclusive Lanes for Buses is a better option to increase the speeds of the buses.

On- Street Parking fare is to be increased to discourage the use of personal vehicles. N

onstreet parking. Parking fee - hourly basis - high fare at CBD areas. At Jagadamba Jn,

Complex, CMR central and busy commercial centres.

It is important that road accidents are to be reduced by 50 %. It is observed that

accidents are increased from 1217 (2009) to 1312 (2010). Strict Enforcement is to be

implemented to make the road users follow the traffic rules.

Contd..Contd..



17/21

Comments on Service Level BenchmarkingComments on Service Level Benchmarking

MOUD Service Level Benchmarking - biased towards metro cities and

changes required for medium-sized cities for the performance monitoring.

In Public Transport System, Organised Public Transport- Bus Stops

SpacingsService Coverage of Public Transport - high density areas to low density

areas- demand. The whole city is considered as a single unit.

The main mode is Intermediate Public Transport (autos) cannot be neglected

in low density areas. Improvement in one of the Service may affect other parameter.

Width of footpaths- pedestrian flows

Ignoring Pedestrain conflict points with traffic

Quality, Maintenance of foot paths were not considered. NMV Tracks,

CCTVs, GPS, PIS Integrated Ticketing System pertains to only metro cities

and not commonly seen in India.



18/21

Contd.. More concentrated over Signalized Intersections.

Unsignalized Intersections and roundabouts where still traffic is being controlled

were ignored. Only the figures of the fatality rate were taken into consideration.

Reasons are to be identified and necessary measures are to be implemented.

Delays at the Intersections to the vehicles are not considered.

Higher parking charges at CBDs and higher parking charges for bigger vehicles

should be implemented.

Journey Speed is the only performance measure for motor vehicles. Extensive

surveys are required to be done. An authority is to be set up to completely monitoreach city from time to time.

Average Bus Stop Spacing, Commuters using Public Transport, Commuters using

Autos, Street Lighting, Condition of Footpath, Volume Capacity Ratio, Accident

Rate are the parameters that are to be introduced for better understanding of the

corridor.

Including all the neglected parameters in the service level benchmarks and

redesigning them would give better understanding of the urban transport

performance level of the city.



19/21

ConclusionsConclusions

The results obtained with service level benchmarks gives a better idea of complete

monitoring of the performance of urban transport in a city.

A complete monitoring from time to time should take place to know thedeficiencies in the urban corridors.

The measures that are to be taken to overcome the deficiencies in present

transportation system are discussed.

Therefore, SLB concept can be an effective tool in identifying the performancegaps in Urban Transport.

All the JNNURM Cities should take up the Service level benchmarking exercise.

Finding the LOS of each parameter individually for each corridor and summing up

to the whole city enable to manage the corridor effectively.



20/21

ReferencesReferences

Dixon, B Linda., Bicycle and Pedestrian Level of Service Performance Measuresand Standards for Congestion Management Systems, Transportation Research

Record, Delaware Department of Transportation.

Erik, A., Vigina, L., Hamed, B., Ban and Liaun, C., (2007) An Integrated

Methodology for Corridor Management Planning, TRB Journal, Vol No.08-2362,

pp27.

Garson, S B., and David, A J., (2006), A Strategic Approach to Developing Livable

and Sustainable Arterial Corridors in Auckland City, New Zealand, ITE Journal,

Vol No.76, pp30-36.

ITE Technical Council Committee, (1976) Levels of Service Provided By UrbanTransportation Systems Journal of Traffic Engineering, pp30-35.

Taylor , W., and John, B., (1978), Level of Service Concepts in Urban Bus

Transportation, Michigan Transportation Research Program.

Urban Mobility (2009), Service Level Benchmarks for Urban Transport,Ministry of Urban Development, Govt. of India.

Pradeep, C, J,. (2010) Urban Corridor Management for Heterogenous Traffic

Conditions, Urban Mobility India 2010.

Vermont Corridor Management Handbook, Vermont Agency of Transportation,

(2005).20Urban Research Symposium- Dec 3 2011


21/21

ThankYou

ThankYou


Documents

SLB_PradeepKr