Service level benchmarking of urban transport for a medium sized city

Jasti Pradeep Chaitanya,Asst. Engineer (Highway Designs) ,

# 5-121-60/1/8, BS Layout,Seethammadhara - vizag

Andhra Pradesh, 530013, Indiae-mail: jastipradeep@gmail.com

Abstract ID: 11

Abstract. This paper evaluates the performance of urban transportation system for a medium sized city like Patiala. At first this work of benchmarking has been started based on the service level benchmarks (SLB) developed by ministry of urban development (MoUD). Later it was found that there are few limitations in the benchmarks such as it’s only applicable for the metropolitan cities like Delhi, Mumbai, Hyderabad, Bangalore, Chennai and Kolkata. But, the benchmarking is not only for the developed cities but also for the developing medium and small sized cities like Patiala as they have the need to understand, evaluate, manage and plan the transportation system for the future development. So, the ministry of urban development’s benchmarks have been altered by fixing the limitations of it. The modified SLB’s have also been derived with an intention that they must be applicable to any medium sized city in India. A final report card has been derived quantifying the performance of urban transportation system of the Patiala city based on which the short, medium and long-term measures has been suggested to improve the transportation system’s performance and make it eligible for benchmarking with the current SLB’s given by MOUD, which is only possible for Metropolitan cities.

Introduction and Need for Service Level Benchmarking

In order to make available data on a standardized framework for performance monitoring of basic urban services, MoUD (Ministry of Urban Development) has brought out a Handbook of Service Level Benchmarks. But, some drawbacks has been identified in these service level benchmarking process for which an attempt has been made to fix and make these SLB’s more effective in rating the performance of urban transportation and make it suitable for all medium and large sized cities in India. The SLB can be defined as “The process of determining how effectively and efficiently the present Transportation system is performing in the existing situation” or simply “The quantification of qualita-tive aspects in urban transportation” Benchmarking basically helps us to understand how our trans-portation system is performing as a whole and in which sectors it was lagging along with its severity, so that we can have a clear plan for the future development. So, benchmarking of urban transport has to be made as an Integral part of CTTS (Comprehensive Traffic and Transportation Studies) or CMP (Comprehensive Mobility Plan) and to be considered while suggesting the future action plan or long term measures.[1].

Objective and Methodology

The ultimate objective of this work is to make the SLB process more flexible in such a way that it is also applicable to all medium sized cities which has to be concentrated most in order to avoid the future problems. This work attempts for the same.Methodology serving all the objectives of the study has been shown in Figure No.1 [1].

1

Figure No. 1: Flow chart showing the methodology of the current study.

Literature Review

The process of benchmarking is in the initiation stage in India. So, the Benchmarking process suggested by MoUD has been reviewed thoroughly and identified the drawbacks of it. With the help of the HCM (Highway Capacity Manual 2000) and grouping few other qualitative performance judging techniques, a new SLB’s have been developed, strengthening the Benchmarking process and making it more flexible.

Drawbacks of Conventional Service Level Benchmarking

Service Level Benchmarking is biased towards metro cities and may not be a right approach for medium-sized cities for the performance monitoring. Drawbacks of the conventional benchmarking process have been listed as below in the Table No. 1[1].

Table 1: Drawbacks of Conventional Service Level Benchmarking.S. No. Segment Drawback

1 Public Transportation System Almost absent in most of the Indian cities. 2 Pedestrian Facilities Foot over bridges (FOB’s) were not at all

considered,Pedestrian delay judged based on the signal phase which exists very rarely.

3 Non Motorized Vehicles (NMV) Almost absent in most of the Indian cities.4 Usage of ITS Almost absent in most of the Indian cities.5 Intermediate Public Transport

(IPT)Not at all considered, being predominant mode of travel in all the Indian cities.

6 Parking Spaces Strictly encourages on street paid Parking.7 Financial Sustainability of Public

Transport by BusMost of the cities don’t have a public transportation facility; hence it has to be made flexible for consideration.

8 Delay at Intersections Not at all considered.9 Pavement Condition Not at all considered.

2

About the Study Area, Patiala

Patiala with its population of 6, 58,667 is the fourth largest city of Punjab, and also it is one of the counter magnets considered outside National Capital Region (NCR). The total area of Patiala Munici-pal Corporation is 50.11sq.km. With a population of 4,07,951 as per the latest census. It is well con-nected with major urban centers of Punjab by the network of national highway, state highways and district roads. It extends from 300‐12' N to 300‐27' N Latitude and 760‐11' E to 760‐32' E Longitude. The current study area has been restricted to the urban limits of Patiala city as this study is about urban transportation benchmarking. [4].

Data Collection

Data collection for Benchmarking is shown in the Table No. 2 Below.

Table 2: Data Collection for BenchmarkingDATA TYPE SOURCE

Public Transportation and IPT Facilities

Secondary District Transport Officials (DTO), Patiala

Pedestrian, Travel Speeds, In-tersection performances, Park-ing and Pavement Condition

Primary By Conducting Trail runs & Surveys

Accident Data Secondary SP Office, Patiala

Land Use Details Secondary District Town Planning Department, Patiala and Master Plan Patiala

Pollution Levels Secondary CPCB, Patiala

Benchmarking of Modified SLB’s

The benchmarking has been done with the modified SLB’s as the study area taken for benchmarking is a medium sized city like Patiala, for which the conventional SLB cannot be applied directly. The modified SLB’s have been developed with such an intention that they should be applicable to all the medium sized Indian cities where as the combination of both must make the process of benchmarking more suitable for all the metro cities in India. With the same intention maximum effort has been made to integrate all the segments which make a significant impact on urban transportation. The evaluation of SLB has been shown only for the altered parameters in the modified SLB’s along with the LOS criteria shown form the table 2 to table 5. Whereas the evaluation of unaltered SLB have been done by following the MoUD’s parameters.

IPT Facilities

The formulation for EBU’s (Equivalent Bus Units) per 1000 population with the EF’s (Equivalency Factor) has been shown in the equation 1.EBU/1000 population = EF*BUS+ EF*AUTO + EF*MAXI CAB + EF*CYCLE RICKSHAW/ Population in 1000’s … (Equation 1)EBU = (1)* 21+ (0.1)* 3223 + (0.35)*14+ (0.05)*1214/408 = 1.002, CLOS = 3

3

Service Coverage = 0.359, CLOS = 3; Average Waiting Time = 7.74, CLOS = 3Level of Comfort in IPT = 2.5 (Rated as 2.5 on a scale of 4 based on the stated preference survey) CLOS (Calculated Level of Service) = 2Average Speed of IPT along the Key Corridors = 32.95 Kmph, CLOS = 1The CLOS and OLOS (Overall Level of Service) criteria is shown in Table 2 below.

Table 2: CLOS &OLOS Criteria for EBU’s & Speed for IPT.CLOS or OLOS

EBU’s/1000 Population

Speed (Kmph) Average Waiting Time (min)

Overall Score

1 >= 1.5 >= 20 <= 2 <=72 < 1.5 > 1 15 - 20 2-5 8-103 <1 > 0.75 10 - 15 5 - 10 11-154 <= 0.75 <10 > 10 16-20

Availability of Pedestrian Facilities

The evaluation of pedestrian facilities has been done by incorporating the footpaths & altering the approach towards obtaining pedestrian delay at signalized intersections by Representative Sample Technique (ft/Sec) = 3.9, CLOS = 2 as shown in Table 3. [2].

Table 3: CLOS & OLOS Criteria for Pedestrian.CLOS or OLOS Pedestrian Speed Coverage of FOB’s Overall Score

1 >= 4.25 > = 0.5 <=4-62 >3.75 - <4.25 < 0.5 > 0.25 7-93 >2.5 - < 3.75 < 0.25 > 0.1 10-124 <= 2.5 <= 0.1 13-16

Availability of Street Lighting (LUX) = 4.5, CLOS = 3Percentage of city covered with Foot Paths = 33.11%, CLOS = 3Extent of Coverage of FOB’s (No’s/Road Network in Km) = 0.0224, CLOS = 4

Performance of Intersections

Signalized Intersections to Intersections ratio = 18/27 = 0.6667 CLOS = 3Avg. Controlled Delay at Unsignalized Intersections = 43 Sec (HCM 2000) CLOS = 3Avg. Controlled Delay at Signalized Intersections = 28 Sec (HCM 2000) CLOS = 2CLOS and OLOS criteria for intersection performance have been shown in the Table 4.

Table 4: CLOS &OLOS Criteria for Intersection Performance.CLOS or OLOS Ratio Avg Controlled Delay at

Unsignalized XnAvg Controlled Delay

at Signalized XnOverall Score

1 <= 2 >= 1.5 >= 20 <=72 2-5 < 1.5 > 1 15 - 20 8-103 5 - 10 <1 > 0.75 10 - 15 11-154 > 10 <= 0.75 <10 16-20

Pavement Condition along the Major Corridors

The pavement condition along the major corridors is a crucial aspect affecting the mobility. It was evaluated based on the Pavement Quality Index (PQI) as shown below.

4

The PQI is calculated from the RQI and SR as shown in the equation 2 and the CLOS & OLOS criteria has been shown in the Table 5. [3].

PQI = √RQI *SR………. (Equation 2)

Table 5: CLOS &OLOS Criteria for Pavement Quality Index.CLOS or OLOS RQI SR PQI Rating (Score)

1 0 – 1.5 0 – 1.5 = 12 1.6 – 2.5 1.6 – 2.5 >1 – <23 2.6 – 4.0 2.6 – 4.0 >2 – <34 4.1 – 5.0 4.1 – 5.0 >= 4

Comparison of Conventional and Modified Benchmarking Methodology of SLB

The comparison between the conventional & modified benchmarking along with the formulation & CLOS (Calculated LOS) has been shown in the below table 6. The calculation and the LOS criteria have been followed as per the MoUD’s benchmarking procedure except for those who were added additionally for the modified benchmarking. [1].

5

Table 6: Comparison and results of SLB’s for the city of Patiala.Segment

No.Conventional SLB’s Modified SLB’s Quantification of KPI’s Formulation Result CLOS

1.) Public Transportation Facilities

Public Transportation Facilities

Presence of Organized Public Transport System

-------------------------

Extent of Availability of Public Transport per 1000 population

Extent of Availability of Public Transport per 1000 population

A = No of Buses/ train coaches available in a city on any dayB = Total Population of the city

(A/B) to Com-pute LOS 1

0.25 3

Service Coverage (route Kms / sq. km)

Service Coverage (route Kms / sq. km)

A = Total length in route kms of the corridors on which public transport systems ply in the cityB = Area of the urban limits of the city (sq. kms )

(A/B) to Com-pute LOS 2

0.757 2

Average waiting time for Public Transport users

Average waiting time for Public Transport users

Calculate the average waiting time (In min) of passengers for each route

Compute LOS 3 by Avg.

waiting time

6.3 3

Level of Comfort in Pub-lic Transport

Level of Comfort in Public Transport

A= Passenger count on bus at key identified routesB= Seats available in the bus

(A/B) to Com-pute LOS 4

1.75 2

% of Fleet as per Urban Bus Specifications

% of Fleet as per Urban Bus Specifications

A= Total number of buses in the cityB= Total number of buses as per ur-ban bus specifications in the city

(A/B)*100 to Compute LOS

5

16.66 4

CLOS1 + CLOS2 + CLOS3 + CLOS4 + CLOS5 = 14 OLOS =32.) Availability of Pedestrian

FacilitiesAvailability of Pedestrian Facilities

Signalized intersections De-lay (%)

Signalized intersections Delay by Representative

5 No. of trails has to be taken by representative sampling technique

Compute LOS 1 based on

3.9 ft/Sec

2

6

Sample Technique (ft/Sec) in which the time taken to cross a major and a minor leg is measured

Avg. time taken to cross an intersection

Availability of Street Light-ing

Availability of Street Lighting

Calculate lux level (10 samples /km)

Compute LOS 2 based on lux

4.5 3

Percentage of city covered Percentage of city covered with Pedestrian Facilities

A= Total length of road networkB = Total length of footpath in the city

(B/A)*100 to Compute LOS

3

33.2 3

Extent of Coverage of Foot Over Bridges (No’s/Km)

A = Total no. of Foot over Bridges B = Total length of road network

(A/B)* to Compute LOS

4

0.022 4

CLOS1 + CLOS2 + CLOS3 + CLOS4 = 12 OLOS =33.) Availability of NMV Facil-

itiesIPT Facilities

Network covered (%) Equivalent Bus Units (EBU’s)/1000 Population

EBU’s has to be developed for all the modes of IPT.

Compute LOS 1 based on EBU’s

1.002 3

Encroachment on NMV roads by Vehicle Parking

Service Coverage (route Kms / sq. km)

A = Total length in route kms of the corridors on which public transport systems ply in the cityB = Area of the urban limits of the city (sq. kms )

(A/B) to Com-pute LOS 2

0.359 3

NMT Facilities at Inter-changes (%)

Average waiting time for Public Transport users

Calculate the average waiting time (In min) ofpassengers for each route

Compute LOS 3 based on

Avg. waiting time

7.74 3

Level of Comfort in IPT A= Passenger count on bus at key identified routesB= Seats available in the bus

(A/B) to Com-pute LOS 4

2.5 3

Average Travel speed of 5 No. of Trails has to be taken along Compute LOS 32.95 1

7

IPT along key corridors (Kmph)

each corridor and LOS has to be rated based the average speed at-tained on all corridors.

5 based on Avg. Speed

CLOS1 + CLOS2 + CLOS3 + CLOS4 + CLOS5 = 13 OLOS =34.) Level of Usage of Intelli-

gent Transport System (ITS) facilities

Level of Usage of Intelligent Transport System (ITS) facilities

Availability of Traffic Sur-veillance System

Availability of Traffic Surveillance System

A = total no. of major bus stops, ter-minals, metro stations and (%) sig-nalized intersections having CCTVs.B = total no. of major bus stops, ter-minals, metro stations and signal-ized intersections.

(A/B)*100 to Compute LOS

1

0.1 4

Passenger Information Sys-tem (PIS)

-----------------------------

Usage of Global Positioning System

-----------------------------

Signal Synchronization Signal Synchronization A= No. of signals which are syn-chronizedB = Total no. of signalized intersec-tions

(A/B)*100 to Compute LOS

4

0 4

Integrated Ticketing System ----------------------------CLOS1 + CLOS2 = 8 OLOS =4

5.) Travel Speeds Along Ma-jor Corridors

Travel Speeds Along Major Corridors

Average Travel speed of Personal vehicles along key corridors (Kmph)

Average Travel speed of Personal vehicles along key corridors (Kmph)

5 No. of Trails has to be taken along each corridor and LOS has to be rated based on this average speed

Compute LOS 1 based on Avg. Speed

33.03 1

8

attained. Average Travel speed of Public Transport along key corridors (Kmph)

Average Travel speed of Public Transport along key corridors (Kmph)

5 No. of Trails has to be taken along each corridor and LOS has to be rated based on this average speed attained.

Compute LOS 2 based on Avg. Speed

18 2

CLOS1 + CLOS2 = 3 OLOS =26.) Availability of Parking

SpacesAvailability of Parking Spaces

Availability of on street paid public parking spaces

Availability of on street paid public parking spaces

Total no. of paid ECS has to be ob-tained within the city.

Compute LOS 1 based on

paid parking slots

12.75 4

Difference in Maximum and Minimum Parking Fee in the City

Ratio to On street and Off Street Parking

A = ECS of off StreetB = ECS of on-Street

(A/B) to Com-pute LOS 2

0.163

CLOS1 + CLOS2 = 3 OLOS =27.) Road Safety Road Safety

Fatality rate per lakh popu-lation

Fatality rate per lakh pop-ulation

A= Total number of fatalities recorded within city limits in the given calendar yearB= Population of the urban agglom-eration in that year

(A*100,000/B) to compute

LOS 1

27 4

Fatality rate for pedestrian and NMT (%)

Fatality rate for pedestrian and NMT (%)

A= Total number of pedestrian & NMT fatalities recorded within city limits in the given calendar yearB= Total number of fatalities recorded in road accidents within city limits in the given calendar year

(A/B)* 100 to compute LOS

2

32.43 2

CLOS1 + CLOS2 = 6 OLOS =38.) Pollution Levels Pollution Levels

9

Annual Mean Concentration Range (μg/m3)

Annual Mean Concentra-tion Range (μg/m3)

Obtain the Annual Mean Concentra-tion Range from CPCB

Rate LOS based on an-nual mean con-centration range

SO2+

NO2+SPM+RSPM

8

SO2 + NO2 + SPM +RSPM = CLOS1 + CLOS2 + CLOS3 + CLOS4 = 4+2+1+1 = 8 OLOS = 29.) Integrated Landuse-

Transport SystemIntegrated Landuse-Transport System

Population Density Population Density A = Area of the city in HactB = Population of current year

(B/A) to com-pute LOS1

44.03 4

Mixed Land-use Zoning along the Transit Corridors

Mixed Land-use Zoning along the Major Corridors

A = Total developed area B = Total non residential area

(B/A)*100 to compute LOS

2

28 2

Intensity of Development – Citywide

Intensity of Development – Citywide

Obtain the FSI of outer growth from the master plan

Compute LOS 3

1.75 2

Intensity of Development along Transit Corridors

Intensity of Development along Major Corridors

A = FSI along major corridorsB = FSI of the city

(B/A) to com-pute LOS 4

1.5 3

Road network Pattern and Completeness

Road network Pattern and Completeness

Based on existing & proposed net-work recognize/identify major roads and pattern along with their extent of completeness

Compute LOS based on the road pattern completeness

Some what clear

3

Area under Roads Density Area under Roads Density A= Measure overall developed areaB = Measure overall area under roads

(B/A)*100 to compute LOS 6

2.31 4

% Network with Exclusive ROW for transit (for > 1 million population as per 2001 census)

% Network with Exclu-sive ROW > 30m

A= Total road network with ROW > 30mB = Total road network

(B/A)*100 to compute LOS 6

24.32 2

CLOS1 + CLOS2 + CLOS3 + CLOS4 + CLOS5 + CLOS6 + CLOS7 = 21 OLOS =410.) Financial Sustainability of Performance of Intersections

10

Public Transport By BusExtent of Non-fare Revenue Signalized Intersections to

Intersections ratioA = No. of signalized intersectionsB = No. of intersections

(B/A)*100 to compute LOS 6

0.667 3

Staff /bus ratio Average Delay at Signal-ized Intersections

Compute by the delay study at Sig-nalized intersections

Compute LOS based on delay

28 2

Operating Ratio Average Delay at Unsignalized Intersections

Compute by the delay study at Unsignalized intersections

Compute LOS based on delay

43 2

CLOS1 + CLOS2 + CLOS3 = 8 OLOS =311.) Pavement Condition along the Major Corridors

Road Quality Index (RQI) Compute the average roughness along major corridors

Compute LOS by roughness

3 3

Surface Rating (SR) Compute the average distress along major corridors

Compute LOS by distress

2 2

√RQI *SR = √3*2 = 2.44 OLOS = 3

Performance of Patiala city in the urban transportation sector is = 3+3+3+4+2+2+3+2+4+3+3 = 32/11 = 2.90The overall Score Achieved by the Patiala city is 2.90 which indicate its poor performance in the Urban Transportation. The improvisation strategy has to be developed by using the performance report card in which the present OLOS and the targeted OLOS will be presented, so that each and every sector will be developed upto the desirable extent and if once the target is achieved, the cycle has to be repeated once again increasing the desirable LOS.

Performance Report Card

The performance report card shown in the Table.6 below clearly summarises the present performance of the Patiala city along with the targeted performance and the action plan to achieve it in the next five years.

11

Table 6: Urban Transportation Performance Report Card for the city of Patiala.S. No

Modified SLB OLOS Achieved

OLOS Targeted

Action Plan to achieve Target

1 Public Transport facilities 3 2 Organized Public Transportation system has to be started along the main routes of the city within next 3 years.

2 Pedestrian Infrastructure facilities 3 2 Installation of FOB’s, Assigning Pedestrian Signal phase at Major Intersections within next 2 & 3 years respectively.

3 IPT Facilities 3 2 Increasing its frequency in non peak times and making it available in all routes which could not be covered by public transport, by offering some tax relaxations & making the route permit free within the next 2 years.

4 Level of usage of Integrated Transport System (ITS) facilities

4 2 Surveillance cameras have to be fixed at all major junctions within next 2 years.All signals along the major corridor have to be Synchronized with in next 2 years.

5 Travel speed along major corridors 2 1 Utmost care has to be taken such that the improvisation of PT & IPT facilities must not make any negative impact on private transport.

6 Availability of Parking facilities 2 1 Off street parking needs to be encouraged rather than On street.Multi level parking needs to be introduced at Dharampura Bazaar within next 5 years.

7 Road Safety 3 2 Black spots within the city needs to be identified and geometrically improved within next 5 years.Road Safety Audit (RSA) has to be carried out throughout the city and road marking & signages have to be improved within the next 2 years.

8 Pollution levels 2 1 Pollution levels have to be dropped down by decreasing the NO2 level in the city within next 5 years.

9 Land Use Transport Integration 4 2 Town planning department has to be made as one of the

12

approver for all the traffic &transportation studies.10 Performance of Intersections 3 1 Major intersections have to be signalized within next 1 years11 Pavement Condition along the Major Corridors 3 2 Regular maintenance of pavement must be made mandatory

prior and after the monsoon within next 1 year.

Conclusions

The drawbacks of conventional SLB have been identified and modified by making the SLB process more stronger than before and making it applicable for the large and medium sized cities. The process of SLB has to be made mandatory in all CMP’s and CTTS’s as it determines how effectively and efficiently the present Transportation system is performing in the existing situation and in which sectors its lagging behind, so that it can be improved easily with the future targeted LOS.

References

1. Service level benchmarks for urban transport at a glance, released by MoUD, Urban mobility India conference 2009. 2. Singh k, Methods of assessing pedestrian level of service, Journal of Engineering Research and Studies, Vol. II, 2011, pp.116-124. 3. http://www.dot.state.mn.us/materials/pvmtmgmtdocs/Rating_Overview_State.pdf, last accessed August 31, 2011.4. Inception Report, CMP Patiala submitted by M/s Egis India Consulting Engineers Pvt. Ltd to PMIDC, November 2010.

13