You are on page 1of 20

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

However. In this regard. The vacuum created by is being filled by IPT modes. 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. autos and cycle rickshaws assume importance to meet the travel demand in mid-level cities. Accordingly in most states. which are fragmented and poorly regulated private sector operations. in medium and small size cities. 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.e. with their priorities set towards inter state and inter city operations. Directorate of Urban Land Transport (DULT). the State Transport Undertakings (STUs) continue to dominate the road transport sector. mini buses etc. Motor Vehicle Act 1988. Bus services in particular have deteriorated and passengers have turned to personalized modes and intermediate public transport (IPT) (such as auto rickshaws. city bus operations are considered to be loss making and hence claim least priority. took up the initiative of supporting the introduction of city bus services in Tier Directorate of Urban Land Transport 2 . tempos. 1994 does not lay enough emphasis on Public Private Partnership (PPP) operations. Intermediate public transport systems like tempos. Cities with a poor public transportation system have a higher availability of para-transit and private modes. Government of Karnataka. adding to traffic congestion which impacted on bus operations to a large extent. jeeps. 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. taxi. Further. Public transport is the primary mode of transport in the bigger cities and metros. Besides. 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. fleet availability by STUs has steadily declined with a sharp decline in patronage.). household incomes and industrial and commercial activities. The legislation available to regulate bus operations in Indian cities i. City bus transport is the most common and predominant form of public transport in cities with population greater than 1 million. This includes anywhere between 22-46% of the total trips for travel in cities with population > 80 lakhs. modified by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act.

dairy and sericulture and due to which the city is known as the land of “Silk. 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. India.1 KGF City The KGF is a mining city in Bangarpet taluk. Therefore. Milk and Gold”. 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. The Gold Fields was closed in 2003 due to reducing gold deposits and increasing cost of production. new techniques to assist the evaluation of performance of City bus services are needed. KGF also has the National Institute of Rock Mechanics (NIRM) which is run by the ministry of mines. The city is located at a distance of about 100 km from the state capital. transportation and mining. It is expected that this study will be useful to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of bus system in urban area. KGF is the state border city adjoining the states of Tamilnadu and Andrapradesh. It manufactures a variety of heavy equipment used for earth moving. Dental and law college. The city also has an Engineering. It is required to evaluate how well the existing city bus system is providing services to the public. KGF City Bus Service Evaluation Report 2013 II cities. Kotilingeshwara. Directorate of Urban Land Transport 3 . Kolar Gold Fields and Bangarapet etc. Rapidly rising operating cost in the City bus services have placed increasing emphasis on improved management and better utilization of existing facilities. in the Kolar District of Karanataka state. Bangalore. 1. Farmers in Kolar are totally dependent upon bore-well water for irrigation and drinking. Guttahalli. 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. Antara Gange. There are few famous temples and tourist destinations in and around the city like Mulbagal. The major source of employment are agriculture.

Robertsonpet. It can be clearly seen that population of KGF is on a significant growth trend in the last few decades. KGF City Bus Service Evaluation Report 2013 The road pattern in KGF city is a combination of radial and grid pattern with arterial roads.2 Demographics of KGF City The city had a population of 1. Directorate of Urban Land Transport 4 . Figure 1 illustrates the growth of population in KGF city from 1901 to 2011 based on census of India statistics. CMC.12 Sq. Km of area. 1.230 during the 2011 census. The municipal bus stand is the focal point from where most roads lead to outer areas of the city. KGF is handling the administration of the city which is the biggest municipality among the district occupying 58. 62.

Route No.274 Others 390 of which 44. Two wheelers 44.269 composition in the city as per the Cabs 78 Auto-Rickshaw 1.520 came from Total 55.406 recent statistics available from the Omni buses 120 Regional Transport Office. 1.4 KGF city Bus service Considering the need. 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 . KSRTC took up the initiative of providing the sustainable city bus transport operations in KGF.976 Private buses 89 population in the city stood at 55. KGF City Bus Service Evaluation Report 2013 1. necessity and demand for public Transport in KGF city. out of which 1 route with 6 schedules were found to be operating in KGF.520 Table 1 illustrates the automobile Cars & Jeeps 3. It can be Tractors & Trailers 3. The route details are as given below.426 seen that while the vehicular Goods vehicles 1. 3 routes with 15 schedules were proposed by KSRTC.3 Vehicular composition in KGF A cursory look at the status of vehicle Vehicle Type No.274 motorcycles alone. of Vehicles composition in KGF is very alarming.

With this perspective. bus route coverage. The service level benchmarks for the Public transport consists of two categories: 1 Public transport facilities. Accordingly all JnNURM mission cities are advised to undertake the process of service level benchmarking. 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. and percentage fleet as per urban bus specifications as far as the city perspective is concerned.40 Transport Corporation in KGF. 2 Sustainability of Public transport. The Service level benchmarks (as per MoUD) for public transport system indicate the city wide LOS provided by public transport system during peak hours.1 Presence of organized public transport system in 1 >= 60 urban area (%) 2 40 . ITS facilities in a city to name a few.1 Public transport facilities – KGF City Organized PT 2. This would require indicators such as presence of organized public transport system. 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. LOS 1 Presence of 2. ultimately resulting in better services to the people. by the Ministry of Urban Development (MoUD). Pedestrian / NMT safety and infrastructure facilities.1. service frequency. Therefore the parameters as per the MoUD guidelines to assess the service initially were analysed for KGF. Service level performance indicators have been identified for various areas like Quality and financial sustainability of public transport.60 Currently 6 buses are operated by Karnataka State Road 3 20 . 4 < 20 Directorate of Urban Land Transport 6 .

1. KGF City Bus Service Evaluation Report 2013 A = Total Number of Buses in the City – 6 buses. LOS 2 = 4 2.4 – 0. 1 >= 0.1.6 2 0. Therefore.4 = A/ (B/1000) = 0.230.1.3 Therefore.12 (in Square 1 >= 1 Kilometers) 2 0.2 Extent of supply availability of public transport The Population of KGF city is 1. 62.3 – 0. LOS 3 = 4 Directorate of Urban Land Transport 7 . 3 coverage of public transport B = Area of the Urban Limits of the City = 58.6 buses Presence of Public Transport System in Urban Area (%) = (B/A)*100 =100%.24 3 0. B = Total Number of Buses under the ownership of STU/SPV .2 – 0.230. 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) .7 .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).04 4 < 0.6 Availability of Public Transport / 1000 Population 3 0.1. LOS1 = 1 2.2 Therefore.0 Service Coverage = (A/B) = 0.62.7 4 < 0.

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. C = Seats available in the bus is taken based on its type.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 . 1 <=4 2 4-6 3 6.93/ (19*43) 4 >2.5 =B/C 2 1.5 Level of comfort in public transport B = Passenger count on bus at key identified routes.5 – 2.5 =0.74 = (6/6)*100 = 100%.49 % of fleet as per urban bus specification is 100%.0 – 2.100 2 50 . LOS 5 Level of comfort in public Passenger comfort – Load factor (passengers per seat) transport 1 <=1.10 4 > 10 Directorate of Urban Land Transport 8 . time for public 6 transport Therefore. 2.1.82 Therefore.1. 2.0 3 2. 4 <=25 Therefore.5 =668. 3 25 . LOS 5= 4. KGF City Bus Service Evaluation Report 2013 2. LOS 4 = 1. LOS 5 = 1.

5 – 8 3 8 – 10 Staff / Bus Ratio = A/B= 4. Therefore LOS 1 = 1.5 Operating Ratio (ratio) = A/B = 1.25.1.2.22.2. LOS 3 Operating Ratio 2. Operational LOS 1 Extent of Non fare performance and financial performance of KSRTC had Revenue (%) been calculated. LOS 2 = 1.76 4 <=10 B = Total revenue per annum from all the sources – Rs.1 Extent of Non fare Revenue (%) From the collected secondary data.53 3 1.3 Operating Ratio A = Cost/ vkm = Rs.2 Financial Sustainability of public transport .5 1 <0.38 %.5 Therefore. 2 5. 1 >40 A =Revenue collections per annum from non-fare related 2 40 – 20 sources (From August 2012 to July 2013) (i.7 – 1. 10.KGF 2. 33.0 . 3 20 – 10 excluding tariff box collections) – Rs.e.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).0 B = Earning/vkm = Rs.31 4 >=1. KGF City Bus Service Evaluation Report 2013 2. Extent of non-fare revenue (%) = A/B * 100 = 48.43 4 >10 Therefore.7 2 0.24 Lakhs (From August 2012 to July 2013).2. Directorate of Urban Land Transport 9 . 2. LOS 3 = 4.

This is essential as the constraint of one route may vary from the other. 2.e.3. In addition to this. 44% of the commuters make through trips everyday i. 3. A. Directorate of Urban Land Transport 10 . 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. a route wise performance evaluation has been carried for KGF which is necessary to understand the travel constraints in each route.3 Facts and Findings – Route Wise In the above section. 2. 4. 80% of commuters use city bus service for their daily commute. KGF City Bus Service Evaluation Report 2013 2.. 43% of the commuters are in the age group of 30-45 years.1 Route 201/202/203/204/205/206 This route is operated between KGF to Bangarapet to a total route length of 14 km. Operational Efficiency-Passenger 1. 55% of the trips along this route are work trips. an overall evaluation of the city bus service has been made through the computation of level of service prescribed by MoUD. from KGF to Bangarapet.

2. to access the nearest bus stop. KGF City Bus Service Evaluation Report 2013 B. 3. There is a huge demand of city buses as commuters prefer to catch city buses. Cost of operation: The cumulative earning and cost of operations for this route was found to be 25. Inference As this route required more buses as there is no IPT running on this route. Trips per day: The approximate number of trips made is 18 trips /day. 2.5 respectively. Issues: 1. A.6% has been recorded. which can be improved by inducting more buses.45 and 33. 44% of the commuters need to walk for 15-30 min. 3. 45% of the commuters feel the need of route information at the bus stop followed by 31% demanding bus shelters. 73% of the commuters are not satisfied with the current bus fare. Load Factor: The load factor of 72. Operational Efficiency-Operators Observations: 1. The difference of EPKM and CPKM are lesser. Directorate of Urban Land Transport 11 .

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. thus making city bus service the preferable alternative to private vehicle use. it is suggested to increase number of fleet on routes stated above in the chapter 1. 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. Directorate of Urban Land Transport 12 .

............ Age (ವಯಸುು):. Origin ( ಸಥಳ): ………………………………Destination ( ಸಥಳ): …………...EVALUATION OF CITY BUS SERVICE (KGF) PASSENGER OPINION SURVEY: Questionnaire for users (ಬಳಕೆದಾರರಿಗೆ ಪ್ರಶ್ೆೆ): 1. 6...... )? Every day (ಪ್ರತಿದಿನ) Weekdays (ವಾರದ ದಿನಗಳು ಮಾತ್ರ) occasionally ( ) 12. Do city Buses Arrive/Depart on scheduled time? (ಈ ಆ / )? Yes No 7..... Travel distance from Origin to Destination ( ): ………………………………………………………………………………………................... 3... Gender (ಲಿಂಗ): Male (ಪ್ುರುಷ): Female (ಸ್ತ್ರೀ): 4. Would you like any Routes to be added to the existing system? ( )? ……………………………………………………………………………………………… … ......... How often do you use Public Transport? ( ..... What other facilities you need in the bus stop: ( )? Bus shelter ( ) Route Information ( ) Lighting ( ) 9..... Name (ಹೆಸರು):........ 2. How much time do you wait for the bus at the bus stop? ( )? < 5min 5-10min 10-15 min 15-30 min 10....……… 5... Behaviour of Bus Conductor / Driver: (ಬಸ್ ಕಿಂಡಕಟರ್ / ಚಾಲಕ ನಡವಳಿಕೆ): Ranking Very good Good Normal Bad Very bad ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 11.. Is there a proper Bus Stop/Shelter? ( )? Yes No 8.........

)? Auto Private Bus Others 15.13. of buses ( ) others ( ) 16. Number of Vehicles Owned (ಮಾಲೀಕತ್ವದಲಿರುವ ವಾಹನಗಳು ಎಷುಟ): Type of Cycles Scooters/MCs/Mopeds Cars/Vans/Jeep Auto Other Vehicle ಸೆೈಕಲ್ಸು ಸಕೆಟರ್ ಕಾರುಗಳು rickshaws Vehicles ವಾಹನ (owned) (pl. If not Public Transport. 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. What is the purpose of your travel? (ನಿಮ್ಮ ಪ್ರಯಾಣದ ಉದೆದೀಶ )? Work (ಕೆಲಸ) Education (ಶಿಕ್ಷಣ) Shopping (ಶ್ಾಪಿಂಗ್) others (ಇತ್ರೆ) 14. which is your next preferential mode of transport? ( .specify) ಆಟೆಕೀ ಇತ್ರೆ . which mode do you choose to reach bus stop: ( . How many minutes do you walk to reach the Bus Stop: ( ): < 5min 5-10min 10-15 min 15-30 min 17. ಆಯ್ಕೆ ): Two wheeler Auto Cycle Private Bus Walk others 19. If not walking. Reason for using Public Transport: (ಸಾವವಜನಿಕ ಸಾರಿಗೆ ಉಪ್ಯೀಗಿಸಲು ಕಾರಣ): Reasons(ಕಾರಣಗಳು) Comfort (ಆರಾಮ್ದಾಯಕ) Safety (ಸುರಕ್ಷತೆ) Cost Saving ( ) Time Saving ( ) Directness of Service ( ) 18.

select the improvement required ( ಆ ) Reduction in fare ( ) Reduction in monthly pass fare ( ) Others ( ) 23. ರಿಕ್ಷಾಗಳು ವಾಹನಗಳು 20. If not. Average Travel Expenses / Month (at present): ಸರಾಸರಿ ಪ್ರಯಾಣ ವೆಚ್ಚ / ತಿಿಂಗಳು (ಪ್ರಸುುತ್) …………………………………………………………………………………………… ………… 21. Average Income of the person (per month): (ವಯಕ್ತುಯ ಸರಾಸರಿ ವರಮಾನ) (ಪ್ರತಿ ತಿಿಂಗಳು): 1000-5000 5000-10000 10000-25000 25000- 50000 24. Are you satisfied with the Current Bus fare system? ( ? Yes No 22. Any other suggestions / Comments about the bus service/ ( / ) .

05 * Eff.06 * Eff.10 * Eff.70 * Eff. of buses on-road / Average no. Kms Lubricants 0. Kms Central overhead 0. Kms Dep on vehicle 2.056 Recondition 0. (Lakhs) 42(no of seat) * Total Eff. Kms Total Cost per Vehicle Kms CPKM / no. (Lakhs) Traffic Revenue(in Lakhs) / . of vehicles HSD Cost HSD * 45. (Lakhs)) * 100 Pass. (Lakhs) / Seat Kms. Kms. Kms Passenger per bus Total passengers / Schedule Load Factor EPKM / 42(no of seat) / 0.45 * Eff.056 Total Revenue Traffic Revenue + Other Revenue (paise/km) (Total Revenue (in Lakhs) / Total Eff.28 * Eff. Kms Per bus held * no. Kms.7 Spare 0.(Lakhs) Total Eff. Kms. Kms Others 0. of buses held Accounts Staff per bus on-road Total Staff / Average no. Kms Mact 0.85 Seat Kms. Kms. Kms.85 * 100 Operational effeciency Eff. Carried/bus on road/day Passanger Carried / no of bus on road / no of days Gross Kms. Kms Tyres and Tubes 0. of buses on-road Eff. Kms / Schedule KMPL Gross Kms / Hour Schedule per day(HSD) CPKM Cost / Eff.1 * Average no. 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 .50 * Eff.(in Lakhs) % Load Factor (Pass. Kms MV Tax Traffic Revenue * 0.23 * Eff. Kms + Total Dead Kms Staff on Workshop & 0.(in Lakhs)) * 101 % Cancel Kms (Cancel Kms / Schedule Kms) * 100 EPKM Traffic Revenue / Eff.ANNEXURE II Total Eff.(in Lakhs) * 100000 / no of days / Total Staff Passenger Tax(in Lakhs) Traffic Revenue(in Lakhs) * 0. of buses held * no of days % Fleet Utilisation (Average no.15 *Eff.10 * Eff. Kms Interest 0. of buses held Maintenance Staff on Administration & 0. Kms Miscellaneous 1.9 * Average no.kms per staff per day Total Eff. Kms Staff 1900 * Operation schedule Dep / other assests 0.81 * Eff. of buses held) * 100 Pass.

Kms / no of days Vehicle utilization (effective) Per bus held Vehicle utilization (Gross) Dead Kms per day + Eff.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. Vehicle utilisation . Kms Turnover/Capital Total Revenue / (14.Cost Net Profit (Total Revenue .Total Cost) / Eff.Margin Traffic Revenue .

100 2 40. 4 21-24 The city has very poor/no organized public transport system. The system provided is comfortable.7 6 .5 . The system provided is comfortable.0.2.20 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.6 0. 3 17 .7.4 . Service 4. Extent of 3.60 0. The frequency of the services available needs improvements.2 . % 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 >= 0.5 75 .6 >= 1 <=4 <= 1.50 4 < 20 < 0.4 0. 5. .2. 2 12 . Government of India Level 1.MoUD. The frequency of the services available may need improvements. Presence of 2.ANNEXURE III: SLBs for Urban Transport.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.75 3 20 .0.3 > 10 >2. The system provided is not comfortable as there is considerable over loading.2 < 0.10 2.16 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.5 25 . Level 6.3 .40 0.0 .0.0 50 .1 4-6 1.

.9 The public transport of a city is financially sustainable but needs considerable improvements.10 1 .ANNEXURE IV: Financial Sustainability of Public Transport.5 . MoUD. 3 8. 4 10 .8.7 . Staff /bus 3.12 The public transport of a city is not financially sustainable.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. Level of 1.40 5.20 8 . Extent of Non fare Revenue 2.0 0.5 <= 0.7 2 20 .1.5 4 < 10 > 10 > 1.Operating Service (%) ratio Ratio 1 > = 40 < = 5.1 3 10. Government of India.