KGF CITY BUS SERVICE

EVALUATION REPORT

DIRECTORATE OF URBAN LAND TRANSPORT

URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
 KGF City Bus Service Evaluation Report 2013

Table of Contents
1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 2
1.1 KGF City ..................................................................................................................... 3
1.2 Demographics of KGF City ........................................................................................ 4
1.3 Vehicular composition in KGF ................................................................................... 5
1.4 KGF city Bus service .................................................................................................. 5
2 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION .................................................................................... 6
2.1 Public transport facilities KGF City ......................................................................... 6
2.1.1 Presence of organized public transport system in urban area (%) ....................... 6
2.1.2 Extent of supply availability of public transport.................................................. 7
2.1.3 Service coverage of public transport in the city................................................... 7
2.1.4 % of fleet as per Urban bus specification ............................................................ 8
2.1.5 Level of comfort in public transport .................................................................... 8
2.1.6 Average waiting time for public transport users (mins) ...................................... 8
2.2 Financial Sustainability of public transport - KGF ..................................................... 9
2.2.1 Extent of Non fare Revenue (%) .......................................................................... 9
2.2.2 Staff /bus ratio ...................................................................................................... 9
2.2.3 Operating Ratio .................................................................................................... 9
2.3 Facts and Findings Route Wise .............................................................................. 10
2.3.1 Route 201/202/203/204/205/206 ....................................................................... 10
3 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 12
EVALUATION OF CITY BUS SERVICE (KGF) .......................................................... 13

Directorate of Urban Land Transport 1

 KGF City Bus Service Evaluation Report 2013

1 Introduction

The demand for urban transport in India is determined by trends such as substantial increase
in urban population, household incomes and industrial and commercial activities. With the
economy growing today at a rapid pace this demand has only increased and public
transportation systems have not been able to keep pace with the rapid and substantial increase
in demand. Public transport is the primary mode of transport in the bigger cities and metros.
This includes anywhere between 22-46% of the total trips for travel in cities with population
> 80 lakhs. City bus transport is the most common and predominant form of public transport
in cities with population greater than 1 million. Cities with a poor public transportation
system have a higher availability of para-transit and private modes. Intermediate public
transport systems like tempos, autos and cycle rickshaws assume importance to meet the
travel demand in mid-level cities.

Bus services in particular have deteriorated and passengers have turned to personalized
modes and intermediate public transport (IPT) (such as auto rickshaws, jeeps, taxi, tempos,
mini buses etc.), adding to traffic congestion which impacted on bus operations to a large
extent.

The legislation available to regulate bus operations in Indian cities i.e. Motor Vehicle Act
1988, modified by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994 does not lay enough
emphasis on Public Private Partnership (PPP) operations. Accordingly in most states, the
State Transport Undertakings (STUs) continue to dominate the road transport sector.
However, with their priorities set towards inter state and inter city operations, in most cases
city bus operations have taken a backseat and STUs either do not provide service or only
offer limited services or provide service with buses which are not considered fit for long
distance operations. Besides, city bus operations are considered to be loss making and hence
claim least priority. Further, in medium and small size cities, fleet availability by STUs has
steadily declined with a sharp decline in patronage. The vacuum created by is being filled by
IPT modes, which are fragmented and poorly regulated private sector operations.

In this regard, The Government of Karnataka created the Directorate of Urban Land
Transport (DULT) under the Urban Development Department to integrate and coordinate all
land transport matter in the State. Directorate of Urban Land Transport (DULT), Government
of Karnataka, took up the initiative of supporting the introduction of city bus services in Tier
Directorate of Urban Land Transport 2
 KGF City Bus Service Evaluation Report 2013
II cities. As a part of this initiative Performance evaluation was conducted for the newly
introduced City Bus Service partly funded from State Urban Transport Fund through DULT
for KGF (Kolar Gold Fields) City.

This study identifies some of the important issues related with the performance of newly
introduced bus system in KGF and also suggests some solutions for improvement in the
performance of the City bus system. Rapidly rising operating cost in the City bus services
have placed increasing emphasis on improved management and better utilization of existing
facilities. It is required to evaluate how well the existing city bus system is providing services
to the public. Therefore, new techniques to assist the evaluation of performance of City bus
services are needed. It is expected that this study will be useful to improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of bus system in urban area.

1.1 KGF City

The KGF is a mining city in Bangarpet taluk, in

the Kolar District of Karanataka state, India. The
city is located at a distance of about 100 km from
the state capital, Bangalore. KGF is the state
border city adjoining the states of Tamilnadu and
Andrapradesh. The city also has an Engineering,
Dental and law college. KGF also has the National
Institute of Rock Mechanics (NIRM) which is run
by the ministry of mines. It manufactures a variety
of heavy equipment used for earth moving,
transportation and mining. The Bharat Earth
Movers Limited (BEML) a Public Sector
Undertaking under the Ministry of Defense has also set up a large manufacturing unit in
KGF. The major source of employment are agriculture, dairy and sericulture and due to
which the city is known as the land of Silk, Milk and Gold. Farmers in Kolar are totally
dependent upon bore-well water for irrigation and drinking. The Gold Fields was closed in
2003 due to reducing gold deposits and increasing cost of production.

There are few famous temples and tourist destinations in and around the city like Mulbagal,
Guttahalli, Kotilingeshwara, Antara Gange, Kolar Gold Fields and Bangarapet etc.

Directorate of Urban Land Transport 3

 KGF City Bus Service Evaluation Report 2013
The road pattern in KGF city is a combination of radial and grid pattern with arterial roads.
The municipal bus stand is the focal point from where most roads lead to outer areas of the
city.

1.2 Demographics of KGF City

The city had a population of 1, 62,230 during the 2011 census. CMC, Robertsonpet, KGF is
handling the administration of the city which is the biggest municipality among the district
occupying 58.12 Sq. Km of area. Figure 1 illustrates the growth of population in KGF city
from 1901 to 2011 based on census of India statistics. It can be clearly seen that population of
KGF is on a significant growth trend in the last few decades.

Directorate of Urban Land Transport 4

 KGF City Bus Service Evaluation Report 2013
1.3 Vehicular composition in KGF

A cursory look at the status of vehicle

Vehicle Type No. of Vehicles
composition in KGF is very alarming. Two wheelers 44,520
Table 1 illustrates the automobile Cars & Jeeps 3,269
composition in the city as per the Cabs 78
Auto-Rickshaw 1,406
recent statistics available from the
Omni buses 120
Regional Transport Office. It can be Tractors & Trailers 3,426
seen that while the vehicular Goods vehicles 1,976
Private buses 89
population in the city stood at 55,274
Others 390
of which 44,520 came from Total 55,274
motorcycles alone.

1.4 KGF city Bus service

Considering the need, necessity and demand for public Transport in KGF city, KSRTC took
up the initiative of providing the sustainable city bus transport operations in KGF. 3 routes
with 15 schedules were proposed by KSRTC, out of which 1 route with 6 schedules were
found to be operating in KGF. The route details are as given below.

Route No. Route Route Length

From To
201 KGF Bangarapet 14
202 KGF Bangarapet 14
203 KGF Bangarapet 14
204 KGF Bangarapet 14
205 KGF Bangarapet 14
206 KGF Bangarapet 14

Directorate of Urban Land Transport 5

 KGF City Bus Service Evaluation Report 2013

2 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

The growing challenges of the urban sector in India requires a system which can measure the
performance of urban transport activities and also address the performance monitoring for
internal decision making. With this perspective, Ministry of Urban Development (MoUD)
framed a standard set of performance benchmarks which can help Urban Local Bodies
(ULBs) and other agencies in identifying performance gaps and suggesting improvements
through the sharing of information and best practices, ultimately resulting in better services to
the people. Accordingly all JnNURM mission cities are advised to undertake the process of
service level benchmarking. Service level performance indicators have been identified for
various areas like Quality and financial sustainability of public transport, Pedestrian / NMT
safety and infrastructure facilities, ITS facilities in a city to name a few, by the Ministry of
Urban Development (MoUD).

The Service level benchmarks (as per MoUD) for public transport system indicate the city
wide LOS provided by public transport system during peak hours. This would require
indicators such as presence of organized public transport system; bus route coverage, service
frequency, and percentage fleet as per urban bus specifications as far as the city perspective is
concerned. Therefore the parameters as per the MoUD guidelines to assess the service
initially were analysed for KGF.

The service level benchmarks for the Public transport consists of two categories:

1 Public transport facilities.

2 Sustainability of Public transport.

LOS 1 Presence of
2.1 Public transport facilities KGF City
Organized PT
2.1.1 Presence of organized public transport system in 1 >= 60
urban area (%)
2 40 - 60
Currently 6 buses are operated by Karnataka State Road 3 20 - 40
Transport Corporation in KGF. 4 < 20

Directorate of Urban Land Transport 6

 KGF City Bus Service Evaluation Report 2013
A = Total Number of Buses in the City 6 buses.

B = Total Number of Buses under the ownership of STU/SPV - 6 buses

Presence of Public Transport System in Urban Area (%)

= (B/A)*100

=100%,

Therefore, LOS1 = 1

2.1.2 Extent of supply availability of public transport

The Population of KGF city is 1, 62,230. LOS 2 Extent of supply

availability of
A = Total Number of Buses in the City 6 buses
public transport
B = Total Population of the city (2011 Census) - 1,62,230. 1 >= 0.6
2 0.4 0.6
Availability of Public Transport / 1000 Population
3 0.2 0.4
= A/ (B/1000) = 0.04 4 < 0.2

Therefore, LOS 2 = 4

2.1.3 Service coverage of public transport in the city

A = Total Route length of the corridors on which the PT systems LOS Service

ply in the city = 14 (in Road Kilometers). 3 coverage of

public transport
B = Area of the Urban Limits of the City = 58.12 (in Square
1 >= 1
Kilometers)
2 0.7 - 1.0

Service Coverage = (A/B) = 0.24 3 0.3 0.7

4 < 0.3
Therefore, LOS 3 = 4

Directorate of Urban Land Transport 7

 KGF City Bus Service Evaluation Report 2013
2.1.4 % of fleet as per Urban Bus Specification
A = Total Number of Buses in the City 6buses

B =Total number of buses as per the Urban Bus specifications

in the city 6buses LOS 4 % of fleet as
per urban bus
specification
% of fleet = (B/A)*100 1 75 - 100
2 50 - 74
= (6/6)*100 = 100%,
3 25 - 49

% of fleet as per urban bus specification is 100%, 4 <=25

Therefore, LOS 4 = 1.

2.1.5 Level of comfort in public transport

B = Passenger count on bus at key identified routes.

C = Seats available in the bus is taken based on its type. LOS 5 Level of comfort
in public
Passenger comfort Load factor (passengers per seat) transport
1 <=1.5
=B/C 2 1.5 2.0
3 2.0 2.5
=668.93/ (19*43)
4 >2.5
=0.82

Therefore, LOS 5 = 1.

2.1.6 Average waiting time for public transport users (mins)

The Average LOS of the Waiting time for Public transport is LOS Average waiting
15 min. time for public
6
transport
Therefore, LOS 5= 4. 1 <=4
2 4-6
3 6- 10
4 > 10

Directorate of Urban Land Transport 8

 KGF City Bus Service Evaluation Report 2013
2.2 Financial Sustainability of public transport - KGF

2.2.1 Extent of Non fare Revenue (%)

From the collected secondary data, Operational

LOS 1 Extent of Non fare
performance and financial performance of KSRTC had
Revenue (%)
been calculated.
1 >40
A =Revenue collections per annum from non-fare related
2 40 20
sources (From August 2012 to July 2013) (i.e.
3 20 10
excluding tariff box collections) Rs. 10.76
4 <=10
B = Total revenue per annum from all the sources
Rs.22.24 Lakhs (From August 2012 to July 2013).

Extent of non-fare revenue (%)

= A/B * 100

= 48.38 %, Therefore LOS 1 = 1.

2.2.2 Staff /bus ratio LOS 2 Staff /bus ratio

A = Total staff of bus operation and maintenance 1 <=5

B = Total number of buses 6 (in number). 2 5.5 8

3 8 10
Staff / Bus Ratio = A/B= 4.43
4 >10

Therefore, LOS 2 = 1.

LOS 3 Operating Ratio

2.2.3 Operating Ratio
A = Cost/ vkm = Rs. 33.5 1 <0.7
2 0.7 1.0
B = Earning/vkm = Rs.25.53
3 1.0 - 1.5
Operating Ratio (ratio) = A/B = 1.31
4 >=1.5

Therefore, LOS 3 = 4.

Directorate of Urban Land Transport 9

 KGF City Bus Service Evaluation Report 2013
2.3 Facts and Findings Route Wise

In the above section, an overall evaluation of the city bus service has been made through the
computation of level of service prescribed by MoUD. In addition to this, a route wise
performance evaluation has been carried for KGF which is necessary to understand the travel
constraints in each route. This is essential as the constraint of one route may vary from the
other.

The following section lists out the route wise analysis (both with respect to passenger and
operators) for the better understanding of the overall operational efficiency of each route.

2.3.1 Route 201/202/203/204/205/206

This route is operated between KGF to Bangarapet to a total route length of 14 km.

A. Operational Efficiency-Passenger
1. 43% of the commuters are in the age group of 30-45
years.
2. 55% of the trips along this route are work trips.
3. 80% of commuters use city bus service for their daily
commute.
4. 44% of the commuters make through trips everyday i.e., from KGF to Bangarapet.

Directorate of Urban Land Transport 10

 KGF City Bus Service Evaluation Report 2013

B. Issues:
1. 45% of the commuters feel the need of route information
at the bus stop followed by 31% demanding bus shelters.
2. 44% of the commuters need to walk for 15-30 min. to
access the nearest bus stop.
3. 73% of the commuters are not satisfied with the current
bus fare.

Operational Efficiency-Operators

Observations:
1. Cost of operation: The cumulative earning and cost
of operations for this route was found to be 25.45 and
33.5 respectively.
2. Load Factor: The load factor of 72.6% has been
recorded.
3. Trips per day: The approximate number of trips
made is 18 trips /day.

A. Inference

As this route required more buses as there is no IPT running on this route. There is a huge
demand of city buses as commuters prefer to catch city buses. The difference of EPKM and
CPKM are lesser, which can be improved by inducting more buses.

Directorate of Urban Land Transport 11

 KGF City Bus Service Evaluation Report 2013

3 CONCLUSION

The quality of city bus services should be improved by working with city bus agencies to
introduce best practices in service planning operations and performance monitoring, thus
making city bus service the preferable alternative to private vehicle use.

In the case of KGF there is a high demand of buses on the entire route as commuter are
opting for city bus service to commute and there is no IPT runs on that route. it is suggested
to increase number of fleet on routes stated above in the chapter 1.

Directorate of Urban Land Transport 12

EVALUATION OF CITY BUS SERVICE (KGF)

PASSENGER OPINION SURVEY: Questionnaire for users ( ):

1. Name ():.......................................................... 2. Age ():......................

3. Gender (): Male (): Female ():

4. Origin ( ): Destination ( ):
...
5. Travel distance from Origin to Destination (

): .

6. Do city Buses Arrive/Depart on scheduled time? (

/ )?
Yes No

7. Is there a proper Bus Stop/Shelter? ( )? Yes No

8. What other facilities you need in the bus stop: (

)?
Bus shelter ( ) Route Information ( ) Lighting (

9. How much time do you wait for the bus at the bus stop? (

)?
< 5min 5-10min 10-15 min 15-30 min
10. Behaviour of Bus Conductor / Driver: ( / ):
Ranking Very good Good Normal Bad Very bad
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

11. How often do you use Public Transport? ( ,

)?

Every day () Weekdays ( ) occasionally

( )

12. Would you like any Routes to be added to the existing system? (

)?


13. What is the purpose of your travel? ( )?

Work () Education () Shopping () others

()

14. If not Public Transport, which is your next preferential mode of transport? (

, )?
Auto Private Bus Others

15. What do you think must be done to increase the patronage of city bus service? (

)?

Satisfied ( ) Reduction in fare ( ) Reliability

( ) Infrastructure facility ( ) Increase in

route coverage ( ) Increase in no. of buses ( )

others ( )

16. How many minutes do you walk to reach the Bus Stop: (

):
< 5min 5-10min 10-15 min 15-30 min

17. Reason for using Public Transport: ( ):

Reasons()
Comfort ()
Safety ()
Cost Saving ( )
Time Saving ( )
Directness of Service ( )

18. If not walking, which mode do you choose to reach bus stop: ( ,
):
Two wheeler Auto Cycle Private Bus Walk
others

19. Number of Vehicles Owned ( ):

Type of Cycles Scooters/MCs/Mopeds Cars/Vans/Jeep Auto Other
Vehicle rickshaws Vehicles
(owned) (pl.specify)



20. Average Travel Expenses / Month (at present): / ()

21. Are you satisfied with the Current Bus fare system? ( ?
Yes No
22. If not, select the improvement required ( )
Reduction in fare ( ) Reduction in monthly pass fare (
)
Others ( )
23. Average Income of the person (per month): ( ) ( ):
1000-5000 5000-10000 10000-25000 25000-
50000
24. Any other suggestions / Comments about the bus service/ ( /
)
ANNEXURE II

Total Eff. Kms Per bus held * no. of buses held * no of days
% Fleet Utilisation (Average no. of buses on-road / Average no. of buses held) *
100
Pass. Kms. (Lakhs) Traffic Revenue(in Lakhs) / .85
Seat Kms. (Lakhs) 42(no of seat) * Total Eff. Kms.(in Lakhs)
% Load Factor (Pass. Kms. (Lakhs) / Seat Kms. (Lakhs)) * 100
Pass. Carried/bus on road/day Passanger Carried / no of bus on road / no of days
Gross Kms.(Lakhs) Total Eff. Kms + Total Dead Kms
Staff on Workshop & 0.9 * Average no. of buses held
Maintenance
Staff on Administration & 0.1 * Average no. of buses held
Accounts
Staff per bus on-road Total Staff / Average no. of buses on-road
Eff.kms per staff per day Total Eff. Kms.(in Lakhs) * 100000 / no of days / Total Staff
Passenger Tax(in Lakhs) Traffic Revenue(in Lakhs) * 0.056
Total Revenue Traffic Revenue + Other Revenue
(paise/km) (Total Revenue (in Lakhs) / Total Eff. Kms.(in Lakhs)) * 101
% Cancel Kms (Cancel Kms / Schedule Kms) * 100
EPKM Traffic Revenue / Eff. Kms
Passenger per bus Total passengers / Schedule
Load Factor EPKM / 42(no of seat) / 0.85 * 100
Operational effeciency Eff. Kms / Schedule
KMPL Gross Kms / Hour Schedule per day(HSD)
CPKM Cost / Eff. Kms
Total Cost per Vehicle Kms CPKM / no. of vehicles
HSD Cost HSD * 45.7
Spare 0.28 * Eff. Kms
Tyres and Tubes 0.70 * Eff. Kms
Lubricants 0.10 * Eff. Kms
Others 0.06 * Eff. Kms
Dep on vehicle 2.81 * Eff. Kms
MV Tax Traffic Revenue * 0.056
Recondition 0.05 * Eff. Kms
Staff 1900 * Operation schedule
Dep / other assests 0.15 *Eff. Kms
Central overhead 0.50 * Eff. Kms
Interest 0.23 * Eff. Kms
Mact 0.10 * Eff. Kms
Miscellaneous 1.45 * Eff. Kms
Cost HSD Cost + Spare + Tyres and Tubes + Lubricants + Others +
Dep on vehicle + MV Tax + Recondition + Staff + (Dep/other
assests) + Central overhead + Interest + Mact + Miscellaneous
Margin Traffic Revenue - Cost
Net Profit (Total Revenue - Total Cost) / Eff. Kms
Turnover/Capital Total Revenue / (14.75(Cost of bus) * no of bus)
Vehicle Kms performed litre of Gross Kms / KMPL
fuel
Scheduled Kms/day Per bus held * no of buses
Operated Kms/day Eff. Kms / no of days
Vehicle utilization (effective) Per bus held
Vehicle utilization (Gross) Dead Kms per day + Eff. Vehicle utilisation
ANNEXURE III: SLBs for Urban Transport- MoUD, Government of India

Level 1. Presence of 2. Extent of 3. Service 4. 5. Level 6. % of Fleet

of Organized Supply Coverage Average of as
Service Public Availability of Public waiting Comfort per Urban
Transport of Transport time for in Bus
System in Public in the Public Public Specification
Urban Area Transport city Transport Transport
(%) users
(mins)
1 >= 60 >= 0.6 >= 1 <=4 <= 1.5 75 - 100
2 40- 60 0.4 - 0.6 0.7- 1 4-6 1.5 - 2.0 50 - 75
3 20 - 40 0.2 - 0.4 0.3 - 0.7 6 - 10 2.0 - 2.5 25 - 50

4 < 20 < 0.2 < 0.3 > 10 >2.5 <= 25

Overall Calculated Comments

LOS LOS
1 < 12 The City has a good public transport system which is wide spread
and easily available to the citizens. The system provided is
comfortable.
2 12 - 16 The City has public transport system which may need considerable
improvements in terms of supply of buses/ coaches and coverage as
many parts of the city are not served by it. The frequency of the
services available may need improvements. The system provided is
comfortable.
3 17 - 20 The City has a public transport system which may need considerable
improvements in terms of supply of buses / coaches and coverage as
most parts of the city are not served by it. The frequency of the
services available needs improvements. The system provided is not
comfortable as there is considerable over loading.
4 21-24 The city has very poor/no organized public transport system.
ANNEXURE IV: Financial Sustainability of Public Transport, MoUD, Government of
India.

Level of 1. Extent of Non fare Revenue 2. Staff /bus 3.Operating

Service (%) ratio Ratio
1 > = 40 < = 5.5 <= 0.7
2 20 - 40 5.5 - 8.0 0.7 - 1
3 10- 20 8 - 10 1 - 1.5
4 < 10 > 10 > 1.5

Overall Calculated Comments

LOS LOS
1 <=4 The public transport of a city is financially sustainable.
2 5-7 The public transport of a city is financially sustainable but needs
some improvements.
3 8- 9 The public transport of a city is financially sustainable but needs
considerable improvements.
4 10 - 12 The public transport of a city is not financially sustainable.