Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
Transfer location 2Place Metro Station Bus Station Feeder Station Auto/Rickshaw Stand
Transfer timewait time
In vehicle time
Transfer location 3Place Metro Station Bus Station Feeder Station Auto/Rickshaw Stand
Transfer timewait time
In vehicle time
Transfer location 4Place Metro Station Bus Station Feeder Station Auto/Rickshaw Stand
Transfer timewait time
In vehicle time
Transfer location 5Place Metro Station Bus Station Feeder Station Auto/Rickshaw Stand
Transfer timewait 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