(A CASE STUDY OF VISAKHAPATNAM CITY)

CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT USING SERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKS

PRADEEP KUMAR D
Under the Guidance of

Dr. C S R K Prasad NIT Warangal

Urban Mobility India Research Symposium December 3rd, 2011

Introduction
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 and enhance access, mobility, safety, economic development, and environmental quality along the transportation corridor

Urban Research Symposium- Dec 3 2011

Service 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.
Urban Research Symposium- Dec 3 2011 3

Service level Benchmarks (Ministry of Urban Development)

Parameters in Service Level Benchmarking
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Public Transport in a city Pedestrian Infrastructure facilities Non Motorized Transport facilities Usage of Integrated Transport System (ITS) facilities Travel speed along major corridors Road Safety Availability of Parking facilities Pollution levels Land Use Transport Integration Sustainability of Public Transport

10. Financial

Urban Research Symposium- Dec 3 2011

Study Methodology
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 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.
Urban Research Symposium- Dec 3 2011 5

Data 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)
Urban Research Symposium- Dec 3 2011 6

Service Level Benchmarking, MoUD- Public Transport

1. Presence of Organized Level of Public Service Transport (%) 1 2 3 4 >= 60 40- 60 20 - 40 < 20 4. Average 2. 3. Service waiting time for Availability Coverage of Public of Public Public Transport Transport users Transport in the city (mins) >= 0.6 >= 1 10 0.4 - 0.6 0.2 - 0.4 < 0.2 0.7- 1 0.3 - 0.7 < 0.3 10-20 20-30 > 30 5. Level of Comfort in Public Transport <= 1.5 1.5 - 2.0 2.0- 2.5 >2.5 6. % of Fleet asper Urban BusSpecification 75 - 100 50 - 75 25 - 50 <= 25

Overall Level of Service of Public Transport facilities City wide Calculated LoS = (LoS1 + LoS2 + LoS3 + LoS4 + LoS5 + LoS6) and identify overall LoS as mentioned below Overall Calculated Comments LoS LoS 1 2 < 12 12 - 16 The City has a good public transport system which is wide spread and easily available to the citizens. The system provided is comfortable. The City has public transport system which may need considerable improvements in terms of supply of buses/ coaches and coverage. The frequency of the services available may need improvements. The system provided is comfortable. The City has a public transport system which may need considerable improvements in terms of supply of buses / coaches and coverage. The frequency of the services available needs improvements. The system provided is not comfortable as there is considerable over loading. The city has very poor/no organized public transport system.
Urban Research Symposium- Dec 3 2011 7

3 4

17 - 20 21-24

Public Transportation
Indicator Presence of Organized Public Transport System in Urban Area- (GovtUndertaking/Total) Extent of Supply Availability of Public Transport (Bus Avail. Per 1000 population Service Coverage of Public Transport in the city (km/sq.km) Average Waiting Time of Public Transport Average Level of Comfort in Public Buses( Occupancy) % of Fleet as per Urban Bus Specification Calculated LOS of Public Transport Overall LoS Of Public Transport city wide Value 80.11 % 0.35 0.78 19.24 min 0.93 100.00 10 1
Urban Research Symposium- Dec 3 2011 8

LOS 1 3 2 2 1 1

Pedestrian Infrastructure
Indicator Signalized Intersection Delay (%) Street Lighting (Lux) % of City covered with footpaths Calculated LOS of Pedestrian Facilities Overall LOS of Pedestrian Facilities Value 36% 7.5 Lux 43.58% LOS 2 2 3 7 2

Non- Motorized Tracks and Intelligent Transport System Facilities are not available in Visakhapatnam. Hence , LOS can be considered as 4, the worst case

Urban Research Symposium- Dec 3 2011

Travel Speeds along Major Corridors

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 given to each corridor based on share of their length to total length. The weighted aggregate of LOS of vehicles is w1* LOS1 + w2*LOS2+------- . where w1, w2 are weightages based on their length, LOS1 , LOS2 are LOS obtained for that speeds
Indicator Travel Speeds of Motorized Vehicles Travel Speeds of Public Transport Vehicles Calculated LOS of travel Speeds along Major Corridors Overall LOS of travel Speeds along Major Corridors Value 28.87 18.30 4 2
Urban Research Symposium- Dec 3 2011 10

LOS 2 2

Overall LOS of Parking Spaces.

Indicator Availability of on street paid public parking spaces Difference in Maximum and Minimum Parking Fee in the City Calculated LOS of Parking Availability Overall LOS of Parking Availability Value 36.70 % 2 5 3 LOS 3 2

Road Safety
Indicator Fatality Rate for Lakh Population Fatality Rate for Pedestrians and NMT users Calculated LOS of Road Safety Overall LOS of Road Safety Value 14 persons 35.78% 6 3
Urban Research Symposium- Dec 3 2011 11

LOS 4 2

Air Pollution levels

Location SO2 NO2 SPM RPM Gnanapu Seethamma Police Average of the Auto Nagar City (g/m3) ram dhara Barracks 14.6 7.2 9.5 9.7 10.25 26 18.7 23.5 18.7 21.725 200.3 176.3 196.4 144.7 179.425 99.6 88.8 89.7 72.7 87.7 Calculated LOS of Pollution Levels City Wide Overall LOS of Pollution Levels City Wide LOS 1 1 1 3 6 2

Financial Sustainability of Public Transport

Indicator Extent of Non fare Revenue (other than ticket fares) Staff /bus ratio Operating Ratio Calculated LOS of Financial Sustainibility of Public Transport Overall LOS of Financial Sustainibility of Public Transport Value 1.27 % 5.44 1.02 8 3
12 LOS

4 1 3

Urban Research Symposium- Dec 3 2011

Integrated Land Use Transportation

Indicator Population Density Proportion of Non-Residential Area along major Transit Corridors Intensity of Development Citywide Intensity of Development along major Corriodrs Road Network Pattern and Completenes Percentage of Area under Roads Percentage of Road Network having Exclusive ROW Calculated LOS of Integrated Land Use Transportation Overall LOS of Integrated Land Use Transportation Value 53.31 15 % 1.00 1.75 Radial 13 % 0% 20 3 LOS 4 2 3 3 2 2 4

Urban Research Symposium- Dec 3 2011

13

Performance Report
Indicator Public Transport Pedestrian Infrastructure NMT facilities ITS facilities Travel Speeds Avaiability of Parking Spaces Road Safety Pollution Levels Integrated Landuse Transportation Financial Sustainability of PT LOS Acheived 1 2 4 4 2 3 3 2 3 3 LOS Targeted 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Urban Research Symposium- Dec 3 2011

14

Observations & 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.

Urban Research Symposium- Dec 3 2011

15

Contd..
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.

Urban Research Symposium- Dec 3 2011

16

Comments 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 Spacings Service 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.

Urban Research Symposium- Dec 3 2011

17

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 monitor each 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.
Urban Research Symposium- Dec 3 2011 18

Conclusions
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 the deficiencies 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 performance gaps 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.

Urban Research Symposium- Dec 3 2011

19

References
Dixon, B Linda., Bicycle and Pedestrian Level of Service Performance Measures and 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 Urban Transportation 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).
Urban Research Symposium- Dec 3 2011 20

u o Y nk ha T
Urban Research Symposium- Dec 3 2011 21