Surat Municipal Corporation Sustainable Urban Transport .... SUTI in Surat_India.pdf · Developing Non – Motorised Transportation and ... (Para Transit) and Institutional Buses

Dr. Rajesh J PandyaDeputy Municipal Commissioner

Sustainable Urban Transport IndexS U R AT

Surat Municipal Corporation

September 12th , 2018Dhaka

2

Sustainable Urban Transport Index ‐ SUTI

• A comprehensive framework to measure and monitor urban transport performanceWRT

SDG

• Defines the status of the city transport WRT Indicators

• Comparison with other cities in the Asia – Pacific Region

• Monitor Progress

• An ongoing process – periodically to be carried out

• Collects data for comparative purposes

• Enables Identification of deficiencies

• Set targets

• Enables to identify good practices & lessons

• To receive feedback on indicators, Max‐Min limits, Data base, Strategies

Presentation Structure

City Overview

Current Status of Urban Transport and Services

Approach for SUTI Data Collection for Indicators

SUTI Indicators Calculation

Analysis of indicator

Conclusion

Draft‐ not to be quoted

City OverviewSurat Municipal Corporation (SMC) :

326.52 Sq. km area7 Zones89 Wards

Population (2016)*: 52 lakhs

Density (2016) : 376 pph

Employment (2016)*: 25 lakhs

WorkForce Participation Ratio (WPR) (2016): 40%

Registered Vehicles (2016)** : 27.70 lakhs

* Estimated based on household survey, 2016** RTO data, 2016

City Overview

40,000 auto rickshaws operating like public transport!

Surat that depended on IPT...before 2007

City Overview

Introduction of City Bus services in 2007Challenge for Surat to create Sustainable High Quality Public Transport

Surat with Limited Public Transport…2007

City Overview

Integrated Multimodal Public Transport System..2018

BRTS City Bus High Mobility Corridor

City OverviewSurat with Limited Public Transport…2007

Current Status of Urban Transport & Services

Major Road Network – 664 km Major Road Network congested – 14% (72 km)

Public Transport (PT) Network ‐ 376 km

• BRTS : 102 km |City bus: 274 km

Intermediate Public Transport (Auto) Network • 38000 registered auto• 8.6 lakh trips • 52 shared auto routes

Average Travel Speeds• 2 wheeler 30 kmph• 3 wheeler 25 kmph• PT 20 kmph

Accidents – 273 Fatal| 327 Serious | 190 Minor

Air Quality ‐ 0.18 tonnes/year Per capita GHG emission

PT Network coverage ‐ 87% (SMC)

Approach for SUTI Data Collection

•Extent to which transport plans cover public transport, intermodal facilities and infrastructure for active modes

Indicator

• Modal share of active and public transport in commuting

Indicator

• Convenient access to public transport in commuting

Indicator

• Public transport quality and reliability

Indicator

• Traffic fatalities per 1,00,000 inhabitants

Indicator

• Affordability –travel costs as share of income

Indicator

• Operational costs of the public transport system

Indicator

• Investment in public transportation systems

Indicator

• Air quality (PM 10)

Indicator

• Greenhouse gas emissions from transport

Indicator

1 2 3

10

4 5

6 7 8 9

1Extent to which transport plans cover public transport, intermodal facilities and infrastructure for active modes

Materials to derive the indicator:

Comprehensive Mobility Plan ‐ Surat 2046, prepared in 2018 , Surat Municipal Corporation and COE‐CRDF CEPT

Comprehensive Mobility Plan ‐ Proposals

Improving Street Network1

Integrated Multi Modal Public

Transport System2

Transit Oriented Development3

Pedestrians and Cyclists

Safety and Security

Urban Freight Management

Fiscal Measures

4

5

7

6

ProposalsVision for Surat 2046 – ‘ SARAL ’“Safe Accessible Reliable Advanced and Low‐carbon mobility in Surat”

Strategic Goals & Policy Directions

Proposal 1: Improving Street Network

Road widths >=18m are proposed as “Transit Streets” with central bus stops and public transport given priority along the network.

Sr. no. Proposed Character Values

1 Street Network (in Kms)

New Network 513

Improved Existing Network 308

2 River Bridges (in numbers) 7

3 Rail Over cum Under Bridges (in numbers)37

4 Transit Streets (>=18 m) (in Kms) 889

Figure 1: Proposed Road Network

Proposal 2: Integrated Multi Modal Public Transport System

Figure 2: Proposed Public Transport Network

A. City Bus and BRTS B. BRTS

• Existing city bus network 274 km andadditional 430 km by 2046

• All roads 18 m and above to bedeveloped as transit streets.

• Existing BRT 102 km another 100 kmproposed as a part of the Plan.

• This will increase the accessibility totransit by 23% thereby predicting apublic transit ridership of 36 lakhs perday by 2046.

C. Surat Metro D. High Mobility Corridor

E. Feeder System F. Fare Integration

A 73 Km of metro network is beingproposed connecting the existing andproposed major economic centers. Thealternative analysis identifies threepotential corridors as metro corridors.a) Dream City to Kamrej (28.9 Km)b) Bhesan to Umbhel (26.3 Km)c) Majuragate to Karamala (15.8 Km)

A 12‐km. high mobility corridor is alsoproposed along the inner ring road ofSurat, with BRT/LRT as the preferredmode to cater to the high mobilitydemand of the core area of the city.

An initial fleet of 40 rickshaws knownas “Pink Autos”, which are operated bywomen are deployed as feeder systemin the old city.

An Integrated Fare system allows thetransfer between multiple publictransport modes with a single ticket

Proposal 3: Transit Oriented Development

• Plan focusses to improve walkability in transit area thereby encouraging the use of public transport

• TOD corridor width of 200m long on either side of the public transport will bring about 140sq.km of area within 72 TOD zones.

• A sensitive Local Area Plan (LAP) can incentivize the redevelopment within TOD

• A properly designed Local Area Plan of TOD zones will make the 140 sq.km of area within 2.5 mins of walkable distance from the transit corridor.

• TOD allows increased Value Capture from development along the transit corridors

• FSI of 4 (1.8 base and 2.2 chargeable FSI) is provided in the Transit Zones of Surat

• It is estimated that Rs 20,000 to 30,000 crores will be generated through TOD by 2046.

Enhance the use of Public Transport by investing in Transit Oriented Development

Proposal 4: Pedestrians and Cyclists

Developing Non – Motorised Transportation and encouraging transit network with ‘complete street’

pedestrian facilities and public plazas

• The plan proposes 488 Kms of footpaths above 1.8m and 288 Km of cycle network is identified with lane marking.

• High priority has been assigned to accident‐prone areas and streets with high pedestrian volumes.

• The street network with adequate width but lacking walkability in the city must be renovated.

• The plan proposes introduction of bicycle sharing systems with 1600 cycles, at old city having 40 bike docking points points while the Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of Technology (SVNIT) has eight major docking stations.

• Awareness campaigns and initiatives that help propagate the idea of walking and bicycling in the city is to be taken up.

Proposal 5: Safety

1. Design improvement and Junction Signalisation:

A total of 257 junctions have been identified (79 for improvement and

178 for signalisation).

2. Setting up of speed limits for the city:

To reduce the road fatalities, it is proposed that National Highways

have a speed limit of 65 kmph whereas in the case of urban city roads,

all major roads should have a limit of 55 kmph, sub‐arterial and

collector roads 45 kmph. In the case of the old city, local streets and

gamtal areas, the speeds are further reduced to 30 kmph.

3. Accident Monitoring Cell:

The Traffic Police Department needs to institute a GIS based accident

management cell which would look at analysing accidents, monitoring

and devise strategies to reduce the same.

As part of the mobility management measures proposed, accident management is a key one.

Figure 1: Phasing of Junction Improvement

Proposal 6: Urban Freight Management

Figure 1: Textile Corridor

• New outer ring road for through freight and vehicular traffic

• ‘Textile corridor’ with logistic park proposed near Palsana to help reduce freight vehicle intrusion into the city

• Entry‐Exit restrictions for freight vehicles (HCVs and MCVs): It is recommended to allow freight vehicles (HCVs and MCVs) from 9pm to 6am only.

• Parking regulations: Strict enforcement for regulating on‐street parking

• Provisioning for farm to market: strengthen the linkages between the farm and the market new location of APMC Market closer to DFC Corridor.

The objective of freight management in context ofthis plan is to “Improve freight mobility within theoverall transport sector priorities of facilitatingurban mobility and public safety”.

Proposal 7: Fiscal Measures

Figure 1: Congestion Charging Zone

Economic measures such as taxation, fare regulation, value capture,parking charges and congestion charging have been suggested as part ofthe CMP.

• Environment Improvement Tax: As per GPMC Act, Clause No. 127and 129 transport user charge can be levied in integration withproperty tax. It is proposed to levy the transport users’ chargenamed as ‘Environment Improvement Tax’.

• Value capture: As mentioned earlier as a part of the TOD proposalabout 20,000 ‐30,000Cr could be generated as a part of the same.

• Fare regulations: Automated fare revisions are also proposed to betaken up at regular intervals for the transit systems to operateefficiently.

• Congestion Pricing: An area‐based congestion pricing is proposed asmedium and long‐term proposal for the old city area. In area‐basedpricing, all the roads that come under the old city area will be liableto be taken congestion pricing.


PROPSOSED CATEGORIES/TABLE FOR CALCULATING THIS INDICATOR (SEE SECTION 3.1 IN THE GUIDELINE)

Aspects Explanation Score

I) walking networks(*) (418km)

The goals are ambitious, with much designation over city. The Comprehensive mobility plan ‐2046 for Surat city do envisages increased walking networks with secured new funding 3

II) cycling networks(**) (288 km)

Cycling networks are existing in present scenario, and plan foresees greater networks along major corridors allocated with phasing and have realistic budget 3

III) Intermodal transfer facilities(***)(36 Interchanges)

Seamless mobility has been a priority of the plan and factors leading to intermodal transfers like interchanges, integration of modes, fares and feeder services are given due consideration with secured new funding 4

IV) public transport (****) (213km of rapid transit corridor and 899 km city bus network)

Present public transport mode share is not predominant and thus ambitious goals are indeed set with increased mode share and greater investments with secured funding is proposed in the plan 4

Total (sum) 14

* As mentioned in section 9.5.5 of CMP 2046 - Surat (2018)* * As mentioned in section 9.5.4 of CMP 2046 - Surat (2018)* * * As mentioned in section 9.3.7 of CMP 2046 - Surat (2018)* * * * As mentioned in section 9.3 of CMP 2046 - Surat (2018)

References

RESULTS

Sr. No. IndicatorsNatural

WeightsNormalization

units MIN MAX


0 ‐ 16 scale 0.1 0 16

2Modal share of active and public transport in commuting



Total 13,563 Household Survey (2016) (1.09% sample)

Considering auto rickshaws(Para Transit) and Institutional Buses in Public Transport share as they act as formal

Public Transport in Surat

2

Remarks:* Includes BRTS, Bus and GSRTC services* * Includes Three-Wheeler, Company Bus, School Van, School/ College bus,

School Rickshaw* * * Includes Private buses and Others

Modal share of active and public transport in commutingMethod 1

Final vehicle ownershipSurat

Cycles 2‐wheelers cars30.8 44.3 8.7

HHs 100 100 100Population 460 460 460Veh/1kpopn 67 96 19Nos 299083 430175 84481

PURPOSECOMMUTING

(WORK AND EDUCATION)MODE Trip Rate Trips

a. Scheduled bus and minibus (*) 0.017 89975b. Train, metro, tram 0.005 24544

c. Ferry 0.000 0.000d. Other public 0.000 0.000

e. Public transport 0.022 114520f. Walking 0.3006 1567377g. Bicycle 0.0329 171607

h. Active transport (f+g) 1738985i. Passenger car 0.0322 167689

j. Taxi 0 0k. Motorcycle 0.5542 2889045

l. Scooter/moped 0 0m. Para transit (unscheduled) (**) 0.2833 1476768

n. Other motorized (trucks,etc) (***) 0.0021 10973o. Individual motorized (i+j+k+l+m+n) 4544476

p. Total (e+h+o) 6397981

q. Public and active (e+h) 1853505

r. Modal share of active and public transport 29.0Sr. No. Indicators

NaturalWeights

Normalizationunits MIN MAX

2 Modal share of active and public transport in commuting

% of trips 0.1 10 90

Household Survey (2016) – (work and education)Census Travel diary (2011) – Work trips

Modal share of active and public transport in commutingMethod 2 (Considering auto rickshaws(Para Transit) and Institutional Buses in Public Transport share

as they act as formal Public Transport in Surat) 2

Remarks:• Includes BRTS, Bus, GSRTC services, Three-wheel auto

rickshaws(Para Transit) and Institutional Buses as they act as formal Public Transport

* * Individual Motorized include the Passenger car and two wheeler

PURPOSECOMMUTING

(WORK AND EDUCATION)MODE Trip Rate Trips

a. Scheduled bus and minibus (*) 0.303 1577124b. Train, metro, tram 0.005 24544

c. Ferry 0.000 0.000d. Other public 0.000 0.000

e. Public transport 0.307 1601668f. Walking 0.3006 1567377g. Bicycle 0.0329 171607

h. Active transport (f+g) 1738985i. Passenger car 0.0322 167689

j. Taxi 0 0k. Motorcycle 0.5542 2889045

l. Scooter/moped 0 0m. Para transit (unscheduled) 0 0n. Other motorized (trucks,etc) 0.0001 593o. Individual motorized (**) (i+j+k+l+m+n) 3057328

p. Total (e+h+o) 6397981q. Public and active (e+h) 3340653

r. Modal share of active and public transport 52.2



units MIN MAX

2 Modal share of active and public transport in commuting

% of trips 0.1 10 90

Final vehicle ownershipSurat

Cycles 2‐wheelers cars30.8 44.3 8.7

HHs 100 100 100Population 460 460 460Veh/1kpopn 67 96 19Nos 299083 430175 84481

Census Travel diary (2011) ‐Work tripsHousehold Survey (2016) – (work and education)

3Convenient access to public transport in commutingMaterials to derive the indicator:

Performance Assessment of Public Transport in Surat – Quarterly reports 6 (on going)

3

Network Length(km)

Coverage area with a buffer of 500m on

either side(Km2)

Pop. Density(inh/km2)

Inhabitants#

604 118.0 40901 48,25,717

Total Population (2016) 52,13,426

% within 500m buffers 92.56

Methodology

1. Taz wise Population estimated from Householdsurvey (2016)

2. 604 Operational Stop location (2018) ;

3. Build buffer of 500m around the stop/stations

4. Calculated the % of population within the bufferof 500 m for SMC area

Results

Convenient access to public transport in commuting



units MIN MAX

3 Convenient access to public transport service

% of population 0.1 20 100

4Public transport Quality and ReliabilityMaterials to derive the indicator:

Performance Assessment of Public Transport in Surat – Quarterly reports 5

Public transport Quality and Reliability 4APPROCH

Methodology

1. As per the indicator mentioned survey should have alteast 30% of

women composition. (1000 respondents with 35.2% women

composition)

2. All the major boarding bus stations have been included for the

survey with proportionate samples

3. The time of survey is at peak hours of 8‐11am, 5‐8pm, 30% off peak

hour is also included

4. The survey is done at both station and on board.

Results

1. The overall rating of BRTS system is 8 for Quarter 5 and thatof City Bus System is 8.24

Public transport Quality and Reliability 4Dissatisfied Satisfied

Dimension RESP SATISF

Frequency of the service 181 819 1000 81.90

Punctuality (delay) * 18 982 1000 98.20

Comfort and cleanliness of vehicles 72 928 1000 92.80

Safety of vehicles 27 973 1000 97.30

Convenience of stops/stations 4 996 1000 99.60

Availability of information 339 661 1000 66.10

Personnel courtesy 11 989 1000 98.90

Fare level 172 828 1000 82.80

Responses 824 7176 8000 89.70Remarks:* For the parameter "Punctuality", the survey data

for "Breakdowns" were available , therefore in the

satisfy column respondents disagreed to breakdown

has been considered.

Sr. No. Indicators Natural Weights Normalizationunits MIN MAX

4 Public transport quality and reliability % satisfied 0.1 30 95Note: Decimal points used to allow reproduction in US format for report

RESULTS

5Traffic fatalities per 1,00,000 inhabitants



Traffic Police Department, 2018

Traffic fatalities per 1,00,000 inhabitants 5Fatalities Number

Road transport 239

Railway transport 0

Tram 0

Ferryboats 0

Other 0

Total 257

Inhabitants 5213426

Fatalities/100,000 inhabitants 4.6

Status of Fatalities and Serious Injuries over the period


5 Traffic fatalities per 100.000 inhabitants # fatalities 0.1 0 35Note: Decimal points used to allow reproduction in US format for report

Years Fatalities Serious Injuries

2011 249 453

2012 196 460

2013 203 462

2014 222 457

2015 291 444

2016 283 462

2017 239 584

Year 2017 fatalities

6Affordability – travel costs as share of incomeMaterials to derive the indicator:

Performance Assessment of Public Transport in Surat – Quarterly reports 5 (2018)

Household Survey, 2016 (15777 household surveyed )

Affordability – travel costs as share of income 6DISTRIBUTION OF HH ACCORDING TO INCOME

GROUPPERCENTAGE OF INCOME SPENT ON TRANSPORTATION

• The average expenditure on transport is around 8% of the household income in the study area

• Around 17% of households having income less than 15,000 per month, end up spending about 15% or more of their income on public transportation. This indicates that affordability could be an issue in case of poor households

Income Category in Rs. Number of sample HH Percentage

<7500 96 0.67501 – 15000 2194 13.915001 – 20000 3220 20.420001 – 30000 3882 24.630001 – 40000 3236 20.540001 – 50000 2021 12.850001 – 75000 775 4.975001 – 100000 239 1.5100001 – 150000 97 0.6

>150000 17 0.1Grand Total 15777 100%

Affordability – travel costs as share of income 6Services Monthly Ridership Market shares Single ticket price Monthly cost

(60 tickets)Weighted monthly

cost

City Bus 2415771 47.0 8 480 225

BRT 2726978 53.0 12 720 382

Total 5142749 100 0 607

Mean household income, 2016 (considering income level below 15000 i.e. 14% household) 10,900

Affordability 5.6

Source: Surat Sitilink Ltd


6 Affordability – travel costs as share of income

% of income 0.1 35 3.5

Note: Decimal points used to allow reproduction in US format for report

7Operational costs of the public transport systemMaterials to derive the indicator:

Performance Assessment of Public Transport in Surat – Quarterly reports 5 (2018)

Revenue and Expense sheet, Surat Sitilink Ltd.

Operational costs of the public transport system 7Services Fare Revenue Expenses Fare box ratio Daily

Passenger share (%)

City bus 22,419,279 43,761,059 51% 86762 50

BRT 23,950,878 41,061,366 58% 86460 50

Total 46,370,157 84,822,425 54.77 173222 100

Source: Surat Sitilink Ltd


7 Operational costs of the public transport system

Cost recovery ratio

0.1 22 175


8Investment in public transportation systemsMaterials to derive the indicator:

https://www.suratmunicipal.gov.in/Departments/Accounts/Budget

Surat Municipal Corporation (SMC)

Investment in public transportation systems 8


8 Investment in public transportation systems % of total invest‐ment 0.1 0 50


INVESTMENTS BY THE CITY 13‐14 14‐15 15‐16 16‐17 17‐18 average

PUBLIC TRANSPORT FACILITIES (Rs in Cr)

93.53 17.74 462.50 291.26 222.47 217

TOTAL TRANSPORT (Rs in Cr) 810.60 775.76 712.76 619.93 513.38 686

SHARE (in %) 32

9Air quality (PM 10)Materials to derive the indicator:

GPCB Annual Report 2016‐17


Air quality (PM 10) 9Sr. No. Station location

PM10 (yearlymean)

Population (in area) Population (%)

1 SVR College 85 796138 15.272 GIDC Pandesara 100 766524 14.70

3 BRC, Udhana(Darshan Processors) 100 766524 14.70

4 Air India Building 96 961413 18.445 Delhi Gate Police Chowki 102 961413 18.44

6 Hi‐Choice Processers, Sachin 105 961413 18.44

Total city population 5213425 100Population weighted concentration 98.26

Sr. No. Indicators Natural Weights NormalizationUnits MIN MAX

9 Air quality (pm10) μg/m3 0.1 150 10Note: Decimal points used to allow reproduction in US format for report

Methodology1. Air monitoring station location given in GPCB reports were

considered

2. Zoning area were defined based on the wind direction inthe city considering SMC zone boundary and wardboundary

3. Population covered within the individual zones werecalculated

Zoning Map


10Greenhouse gas emissions from transportMaterials to derive the indicator:

Goods vehicles estimates from activity survey (I‐I) and RSI surveys at cordons (I‐E/E‐I), 2016

Passengers vehicles details and average trip length estimations from Household surveys, 2016

Report on “Emission Factor development for Indian Vehicles”, ARAI Pune Report 2008

CPCB and Toolkit for Comprehensive Mobility Plan (CMP) Revised 2014.

Greenhouse gas emissions from transport 10Mode

Trip length (km) Total Veh. VKT 2016 Emissions (tons/day)

CO CO2

2Wh (Petrol) 5.8 3008248 17447838 20.56 735.953Wh (CNG) 6.1 611416 3729635 7.42 244.254Wh 7.9 558528 4412369 6.65 623.83

Petrol 5.24 413.95Diesel 0.97 158.91CNG 0.44 50.96

Buses (Deisel & Electric) 10.3 143 28611 0.18 14.64

Company Bus/ Pvt. Bus/ School‐College Buses

8 17014 136109 0.86 69.66

3w Goods 27.1 1508 40919 0.11 5.39LCV (4W Temp) 6.8 268429 1834693 5.72 752.22

HCV (Multi axle trucks, tractor) 28.0 29632 830286 10.55 500.00

Total 52.04 2945.94

Househ

old Survey

Activ

ity su

rvey

and RSI survey

Year 2016 Total (tons/day)

Modes CO CO2

Pass. Vehicles 35.66 1688.33

Goods Vehicles 16.37 1257.61

HCV 10.55 500.00

LCV 5.83 757.61

Total 52.04 2945.94

GHG Emissions (CO+Co2)

Total Vehicle(Passenger + Freight)

Tons/day 2997.98

Tons/year (per capita) 0.18


10 Greenhouse gas emissions from transport Tons/cap 0.1 2.75 0Note: Decimal points used to allow reproduction in US format for report

Greenhouse gas emissions from transport 10APPROCH

External Traffic CompositionE‐I and I‐E Good Demand from

Cordon and RSI Survey Locations (2016)

Mode 1986 1991 1996 India 2000 BS-II BS-III BS-IV

2Wh (Petrol) 10% 60% 30%3Wh (CNG) 10% 60% 30%4Wh 10% 50% 40%

Petrol ( 60% ) 8% 40% 20%Diesel ( 40% ) 2% 10% 10%

CNG 10%Electric

Buses (Deisel & Electric) 20% 80%

Company Bus/ Pvt. Bus/ School-College Buses

20% 80%

3w Goods 20% 80%LCV (4W Temp) 20% 80%

HCV (Multi axle trucks, trucks, tractor)

20% 80%

Total

InputsSr. No. Indicators Natural Wei

ghtsRange

units MIN MAX VALUE YEAR COMMENTS ABOUT DATA SOURCES OR ISSUES RELEVANT FOR INTERPRETATION

1

Extent to which transport plans cover public transport, intermodal facilities and infrastructure for active modes

0 ‐ 16 scale 0.1 0 16 14.00 2046 Comprehensive Mobility Plan ‐ Surat 2046, prepared in 2018 , Surat Municipal

Corporation and COE‐CRDF CEPT

2 Modal share of active and public transport in commuting % of trips 0.1 10 90 29.0 2016

Comprehensive Mobility Plan ‐ Surat 2046, prepared in 2018 , Surat Municipal Corporation and COE‐CRDF CEPT ; Total 15777 Household Survey (2016) (1.15% sample)

3 Convenient access to public transport service

% of population 0.1 20 100 92.56 2016 Calculated for SMC area not considered the routes connecting the suburban

region

4 Public transport quality and reliability % satisfied 0.1 30 95 89.70 2018 Performance Assessment of Public Transport in Surat – Quarterly reports 5

(2018)

5 Traffic fatalities per 100.000 inhabitants # fatalities 0.1 35 0 4.58 2015 Service level Benchmarking for Indian Cities, 2016 CoE‐UT, CEPT

6 Affordability – travel costs as share of income

% of income 0.1 35 3.5 5.57 2018 Performance Assessment of Public Transport in Surat – Quarterly reports 5

(2018) ; Household Survey, 2016 (average household income within SMC)

7 Operational costs of the public transport system

Cost recovery ratio

0.1 22 175 54.77 2018 Performance Assessment of Public Transport in Surat – Quarterly reports 5 (2018) ; Revenue and Expense sheet, Surat Sitilink Ltd.

8 Investment in public transportation systems

% of total invest‐ment

0.1 0 50 31.68 2014‐18 sources: https://www.suratmunicipal.gov.in/Departments/Accounts/Budget

9 Air quality (pm10) μg/m3 0.1 150 10 98.26 2016‐17 GPCB Annual Report 2016‐17

10 Greenhouse gas emissions from transport Tons/cap 0.1 2.75 0 0.18 2016 GHG emissions were calculated for study area

MUST SUM TO 1 0.0

0.0010.0020.0030.0040.0050.0060.0070.0080.0090.00100.00

1. Extent to which transport planscover public transport, intermodal

facilities and infrastructure for activemodes

2. Modal share of active and publictransport in commuting

3. Convenient access to publictransport service

4. Public transport quality andreliability

5. Traffic fatalities per 100.000inhabitants

6. Affordability – travel costs as part of income

7. Operational costs of the publictransport system

8. Investment in publictransportation systems

9. Air quality (pm10)

10. Greenhouse gas emissions fromtransport

With Paratransit Without Paratransit

Outputs

SUTI INDEX RESULTGeometric mean – 60.50

C1 RESULT SPIDER DIAGRAM With Paratransit

Without Paratransit


87.50 87.50

2 Modal share of active and public transport in commuting 52.77 23.71

3 Convenient access to public transport service 90.70 90.70

4 Public transport quality and reliability 91.85 91.85

5 Traffic fatalities per 100.000 inhabitants 86.90 86.90

6 Affordability – travel costs as part of income 93.42 93.42

7 Operational costs of the public transport system 21.42 21.42

8 Investment in public transportation systems 63.37 63.37

9 Air quality (pm10) 36.96 36.96

10 Greenhouse gas emissions from transport 93.29 93.29

0.0010.0020.0030.0040.0050.0060.0070.0080.0090.00

100.00

1. Extent to which transportplans cover public

transport, intermodal…2. Modal share of active and

public transport incommuting

3. Convenient access topublic transport service

4. Public transport qualityand reliability

5. Traffic fatalities per100.000 inhabitants

6. Affordability – travel costs as part of income

7. Operational costs of thepublic transport system

8. Investment in publictransportation systems


10. Greenhouse gasemissions from transport

Comparison with Other Cities

0.0010.0020.0030.0040.0050.0060.0070.0080.0090.00

1. Extent to whichtransport planscover public…

2. Modal share ofactive and public

transport in…3. Convenientaccess to publictransport service

4. Public transportquality andreliability

5. Traffic fatalitiesper 100.000inhabitants

6. Affordability –travel costs as part

of income

7. Operationalcosts of the publictransport system

8. Investment inpublic

transportation…

9. Air quality(pm10)

10. Greenhousegas emissions from

transport

Kathmandu

Surat

Greater Jakarta

0.0010.0020.0030.0040.0050.0060.0070.0080.0090.00

100.00



transport in…

3. Convenientaccess to publictransport service




of income

7. Operational costsof the public

transport system


transportation…


10. Greenhouse gasemissions from

transport

Hanoi

0.0020.0040.0060.0080.00

100.00120.00



transport in…

3. Convenientaccess to publictransport service




of income

7. Operational costsof the public

transport system


transportation…


10. Greenhouse gasemissions from

transport

Western Region Sri Lanka

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

1. Extent to whichtransport plans…

2. Modal share ofactive and public…

3. Convenientaccess to public…

4. Public transportquality and…

5. Traffic fatalitiesper 100.000…

6. Affordability –travel costs as …

7. Operationalcosts of the…

8. Investment inpublic…


10. Greenhousegas emissions…

Geometric mean: 47.80 Geometric mean: 52.51 Geometric mean: 32.19

Geometric mean: 32.7 Geometric mean: 60.50

Perspectives

Draft- not to be quoted

Index 2. Low Public Transport Ridership ‐ Current efforts of SMC (Surat Municipal Corporation) to

promote public transport through bus procurement, metro rail building etc., are justified

Index 4. Operational Cost Recovery – Surat is making efforts to build market for formal public transport in

the city of Surat. Recovery levels are likely to increase with increase in ridership. It may also be noted that

some gap in the revenue expenditure is likely to remain. This needs to be filled up from other sources

including the viability gap of the state government.

Index 9. GHG emissions‐ from the transport sector is low, because of shorter motorized trips and higher

share of active mobility trips. This is likely to be maintained as cities mobility plan integrates land use

transport and focusses on multimodal public transport and active modes. With the manufacturing as

economic base, high levels of PM10 is on the expected line. Contribution from transport sector is low as

trip lengths are shorter. Efforts are underway to introduce electric mobility in the city.

Perspectives

Draft- not to be quoted

• City’s vision towards sustainability mobility is very well articulated in its

Comprehensive Mobility Plan.

• Though, Fatality rates are lower, plans to bring down further through

management and educational measures as well as introduction of technology

are being implemented.

• The city government is committed towards development of public transport

and active mobility, which may be seen in high levels of public transport

investment share.

THANK YOU

Documents

Surat Municipal Corporation Sustainable Urban Transport .... SUTI in Surat_India.pdf · Developing Non – Motorised Transportation and ... (Para Transit) and Institutional Buses