bus-bike integration final nov2009

8/13/2019 Bus-Bike Integration FINAL Nov2009

1/42

Project Number:Final Report November 2009

On bus-bike integration

This publication was prepared and compiled by the Interface for Cyc ling Expertise, and theDepartment of Urban and Regional Planning and Geo-information Management, ITCInternational Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (www.itc.nl) in

their capacity as member of the Cycling Academic Network (CAN) and as part of theiractivities under the Sustainable Urban Mobility in Asia (SUMA) Program of the Clean AirInitiative for Asian Cities Center. SUMA is supported by the Asian Development Bankthrough a grant from the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida).

Final Consultants Report


2/42

22

On bus-bike integration

October 2009


3/42

33

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................... 5

1 Introduction and rationale ......................................................................................................... 6

2 The transport system ................................................................................................................. 8

2.1 Defining multi-modal trips, access and egress .................................................................... 9

2.2 Mode integration ............................................................................................................. 11

3 Measuring integration developing an indicator framework ........ .............. .............. ...... ........ . 13

3.1 Trip-making characteristics (mobility and accessibility)............. ...... ........ ........ .............. .... 14

3.2 Urban system indicators (area and network) .............. .............. ...... ........ .............. ........ .... 15

3.3 Using the indicators ......................................................................................................... 16

4 How to integrate cycling and public transport? ................................ .............. .............. ............ 17

4.1 The systems approach to integration ............................................................................... 17

4.2 Integration at the facility level .......................................................................................... 18

4.3 Integration at the system level ......................................................................................... 20

4.4 Integration at the urban level ........................................................................................... 23

5 How to promote integration? .................................................................................................. 25

6 What planners need to look at ................................................................................................. 27

6.1 Guiding principles by which transportation plans or policy can be judged .................... .... 27

6.2 Unlocking latent cycling demand by improving inter-modal integration .......................... . 27

7 The integrated NMT - PT model ............................................................................................... 29

7.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 29

7.2 The NMT-PT process from a modelling perspective ................................ ........ .............. .... 29

7.3 The GI Modelling process ................................................................................................. 30

7.3.1 GIS and GIS data Models........................................................................................... 30

7.3.2 Modeling Public transport - the network routing problem .............. .............. ............ 32

7.3.3 The ArcGIS Network Analyst ..................................................................................... 33

7.4 What can the model do? .................................................................................................. 34


4/42

44

7.5 Some examples of analysis and application of indicators ........................ ........ ...... ........ .... 34

7.5.1 Access model............................................................................................................ 35

7.5.2 Accessibility model ................................................................................................... 39

8 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................. 39

References ...................................................................................................................................... 41


5/42

55

Acknowledgements

This project has been undertaken by the Interface for Cycling Expertise (I-CE) within its Bicycle

Partnership program and the SUMA program. The primary executors of the project were

Department of Urban and Regional Planning and Geo-information Management, ITC International

Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (www.itc.nl) in their capacity as

member of the Cycling Academic Network (CAN).

SUMA (Sustainable Urban Mobility in Asia) program is supported by the Asian Development Bank

through a grant from the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA). SUMA is

implemented by the Clean Air Initiative for Asian Cities Center (www.cleanairnet.org/caiasia), in

partnership with EMBARQ the World Resource Institute Center for Sustainable Transport

(http://embarq.wri.org), GTZ Sustainable Urban Transport Project (www.sutp.org), Interface for

Cycling Expertise (www.cycling.nl), Ins titute for Transportation and Development and United Nations

Center for Regional Development (www.uncrd.or.jp/est).

The authors wish to specifically acknowledge Mr. Frans van den Bosch (ITC) and Mr. Srikanth

Shrastry (University of Twente) for their contribution to extending the modeling framework, GIS

modelling and data handling.

Authors:

Dr Mark Zuidgeest (ITC & CAN)

Mark Brussel (ITC & CAN)

Dr Anvita Arora (I-CE)

Sriram Bhamidipati (ITC)

Dr Sherif Amer (ITC)

Flavia de Souza (CAN)Tom Godefrooij (I-CE)

Picture on the cover, courtesy: Jerry de Brie


6/42

66

1 Introduction and rationaleThe role of Non Motorised Transport (NMT) - cycling and walking in particular - as a cheap and

environmentally fr iendly transport mode is increasingly being recognised as of great potential

importance to reduce emissions and create more sustainable urban environments. This potential is

frustrated by the fact that the size of many cities and the associated trip patterns and trip lengths

prohibit NMT modes from being appropriate for entire trips. Opportunities ar ise however when

these modes are considered in their integration into multi-modal transport chains, particularly with

public transport modes, resulting in potentially more efficient and environmentally sustainable

overall trips.

Public transport and cycling can be complementary. Cycling has a high spatial penetration rate

(virtually every location can be reached by bike), bicycles can be used throughout the day, and is a

fast and efficient means of transport particularly at the short distances. However, the bicycle only

has a re latively short distance range. The contrary holds for public transport. Public transport can

move large groups of people over medium and long distances. At the shorter distances it is rather

inefficient with a low spatial penetration rate and is also less flexible given its usual dependency on a

time table. Integration can cancel out the negatives of both systems and provide efficient and

sustainable door-to-door service to the commuter.

In many cities in India, particularly medium sized cities, cycling levels are high, but under threat.

Cycling and walking are vital modes in themselves, but are also important feeders in urban transport.

Integration of these modes has the potential to make multi-modal travel chains more seamless and

thus attractive to (potential) trip makers. The integrated system is as good as its weakest link. For

public transport trips this is often the access and egress trip. Good access and egress facilities can

enlarge the catchment area for public transport, hence improve on the competition with other

modes such as the motor cycle and car. As such, integration may contribute to a more sustainable

transport system.

While walking is already a primary mode of access for bus-based public transport in Indian c ities,

cycling to bus stops has never been a necessity. The public transport systems in the metropolitan

cities are usually dense enough to make the transit stations accessible by walking; and there are no

facilities for cycle parking at bus stops. However, with the increasing investments in mass transit

systems like the metro and the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) systems, the public transport system design

is changing. These systems are typically lower density systems requiring feeder services to increase

their influence zone and to attract the requisite ridership. The investments in these systems are very

high and further investment in feeder services escalates the cost of the system. On the other hand,

the user also has to pay for the access tr ip, making the journey unaffordable. Integrating cycle basedfeeder trips, then, will bring down the cost of the system for both the service provider and user

without compromising the efficiency of the system, and ensuring the environmental sustainability of

the system.

Cycle based feeder trips can be designed in three ways:

- The access and parking o f private bicycles at transit stations


7/42

77

- Integration of public bicycle or rent-a-bicycle scheme with the transit stations

- Integration of the cycle-rickshaw (3-wheeled cycle taxi) as organized feeder service to the

public transit system

While the focus of the theory and the model developed on the integration of NMT and BRT is on

facilitating access of the private cycles, the indicators can be expanded to assess the efficacy of theintegration of public bicycle and cycle rickshaws with public transport as well.

The Bicycle Infrastructure Design Manual for the Indian Sub-continent, under the aegis of SUMA,

originally did not discuss integration of cycling with other transport systems explicitly. This study on

integrated mode strategies is performed to provide a better understanding on how integration of

walking and cycling (as feeder modes) with public transport (PT) modes can be defined,

conceptualized and analyzed; to serve as an input in cycling policy planning and design and will be

finally integrated in the manual.

In this introductory section of the report, the main concepts from literature that have been used in

the development of a multi-modal model for Pune are discussed and defined.


8/42

88

2 The transport systemTo be able to understand the discussions and concepts of the chapter we provide some background

on the definitions of transport systems and their components to arrive at a definition that is applied

to the study and that will serve as a main basis for the modelling and analysis. In addition, we will

look at some of the characteristics of transport systems that apply to the multi-modal systems understudy in particular and that help explain the modelling approach taken.

Several definitions exist of transport systems, a couple are given in this section, from rather general

to more specific. According to Cascetta (2001), a transportation system can be defined as the

combination of elements and their interactions, which produce the demand for travel within a given

area and supply of transportation services to satisfy this demand. The same author describes

transport system as a complex system, that is , a system made up of several elements with non-linear

interactions and several feedback cycles Cascetta (2001).

Hensher and Button (2001) also describe the transport system as a complex system. They state that

there is no simple definition of what constitutes a transport system, because it depends on the

perspective. The transport system can be seen by modes of transportations perspective, by

infrastructure systems perspective or operators point of view or by the users point of view.

Tolley and Turton (1995) provide a rather more pragmatic definition of a transport system as the

assemblage of components associated with a specific means of transport. These components are:

network, routes, nodes and terminals. The network is defined as the framework of routes within a

system while a route is simply a single link between two points which is a part of a larger

network.

Further important concepts related to transport networks that play an important role in the

discussion of system integration are nodes and terminals that are defined as points on a network

where several routes converge, and often act as the focus of transport services or for the exchange

of traffic between two modes of transport (Tolley and Turton ,1995).

From this last definition it is possible to identify that each specific mode represents a sub-system of

the whole transport system. Each of these modes have their own network and routes and they can

have contact points or exchange points at the nodes or terminals where it is possible for people to

change from one mode (or sub-system) to another.

Considering the definitions mentioned above and the complexity of the transport system, the work

definition for the present study will be the one given by Tolley and Turton (1995): the assemblage

of components associated with a specific means of transport, since this definition addresses both

the modes of transportation and the infrastructure perspectives cited by Hensher and Button (2001),and defines not only the transport system but also its main components such as routes, networks

and nodes which play an important role when it comes to an integrated transport system for NMT

and PT.

In order to be able to deal with the issue of integration, the concept of transport network hierarchy

is also d iscussed here. According to this concept, within a transport network functionally different

network levels can be distinguished (Van Nes, 2002) that are able to accommodate specific trip


9/42

99

types, with characteristics such as access density, network density and network speed. Transport

system integration can be considered a characteristic of the transport system as a who le, however, it

operates at the different functional network levels. The concept of network hierarchy is central in

dealing with NMT PT integration and in the development of the multi-modal NMT-PT model and

analysis performed for this study.

Figure 1.Proposed mass transit options and their integration in Bangalore, India (Source: Praja.in)2.1 Defining multi-modal trips, access and egressWhen one refers to integration of two or more modes (PT and NMT), the concept of multimodal

trips emerges. Therefore, before d iscussing NMT-PT integration further, first the concept of multi-

modality is discussed and defined.

According to Van Nes (2002) a multimodal trip is when two or more d ifferent modes are used for a

single trip between which the traveller has to make a transfer.

Figure 2.Multimodality in Denmark and in The Netherlands

According to Hoogendoorn-Lanser et al.(2006) a multimodal trip is a trip when it involves at least

one transfer between not necessarily different mechanized modes.


10/42

1010

It is interesting to have a look at the position of walking in these definitions. Van Nes (2002) assumes

that walking is a universal component at the start and at the end of any trip and therefore a trip in

which walking is the mode for access and egress is not considered a multimodal trip. Hoogendoorn-

Lanser et al.(2006) only consider mechanised modes in their study neglecting not only walking but

also cycling as access and egress modes.

Walking however, is not only a mode of transport in itself, but it is also an important complementary

mode of all motorised modes. In many developing countries people walk long distances and walking

has a high share in modal split (Vasconcellos, 2001). Even private modes require people to walk to

their vehicles and PT trips often require considerable walking at the access and/or egress end.

Rietveld et al.(2000) in a discussion on multimodality note that The typical way to report data on

multimodal chains is to focus on the `main transport mode. This leads to an underestimate of the

other parts of these chains. In his paper he builds an argumentation that walking needs to be

included as an element of the whole transport chain, as it is the most important mode in terms of

the number of moves.

Considering walking as a transport mode could potentially make all trips multimodal, as always some

walking is involved. This would render a definition that is pretty useless as a universal definition. In

the current study, we are looking at NMT and PT systems in particular. Here, the importance of

walking in combination with cycling and PT in integrated transport chains compels us to include it as

a separate mode. For the purpose of this study, walking is therefore considered a transport mode in

itself. A tr ip that involves walking can therefore be considered a multi-modal trip.

As a further refinement, since the role of walking, and consequently the role of access and e gress

trips are not well defined in literature, it will be necessary to establish what can be considered

access and egress trips so that multimodal trip can be more precisely defined.

According to Hoogendoorn-Lanser et al.(2006) the access trip is the trip part from the origin to the

boarding ra ilway station whereas the egress trip is the trip part from the alighting railway stationto the destination. It is evident that these definitions consider the train as the main mode in the

transport chain and are as such not useful for our purpose.

Notwithstanding the above, the complexity o f analysing and modeling multi-modal travel

necessitates a more universal and more flexible definition regardless o f the main mode used. The

definitions used in this study for access and egress trip are as follows:

The access trip of the multi-modal transport chain is the trip part from the trip origin to the first entry

point of the public transport system.

&

The egress trip is then defined as the trip part from the point of alighting the last public transport leg

to the final destination.

It is therefore also implied that within the PT system, different modes may occur, such as bus and

Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). This distinction is necessary, in order to model the transport chains correctly

at a later stage.


11/42

1111

The notion of main mode is not necessarily made explicit, as this presents no further benefits in the

modelling stage. This brings us to the concept of trip chain.

A useful definition for trip chain is provided by Rietveld et al.(2001) who defines a trip chain as an

ordered sequence of trips where the endpoint of each trip is equal to the starting point of the

subsequent trip in the chain. The s tarting point of the first trip is the starting point of the chain, and

the endpoint of the last trip equals the endpoint of the chain.

However, in most multi-modal travel no intermediate activities are performed, which is why we

cannot speak of multiple trips (since a tr ip is defined as a movement from an origin to a destination

to engage in an activity at the destination) and therefore also not of a trip chain. We prefer to use

transport chain instead, unless separate trips can be identified and chained.

Based on these definitions, the concept of the multi-modal transport or trip chain as used in this

study is illustrated in figure 1. This concept forms the basis of the modelling that is carried out to

analyse NMT PT integration in Pune.

Figure1.

Figure 3.Multimodal transport chain, access and egress trips representation2.2 Mode integration

Mode integration in urban trip chains deals with increasing the ease of ridership through the

establishment of intermodal facilities and connections that ideally would allow people to reach theirdestination quicker, with more comfort and at less cost. Given the above, the potential for the

integration of NMT systems into urban trip chains is considered to be highest in their integration to

Public Transport (PT) systems. Policies to promote the use of b icycles as an access mode to PT may

generally be targeted at a variety of groups, depending on the local context: (i) current PT users, that

would potentially benefit from an improved quality of their trip. (ii) current cyclists, that would

potentially benefit from increased opportunities to reach more trip destinations at different

distances/travel times, within their travel time budget. (iii) current car users, aiming at providing an

attractive trip chain that will induce them to switch to cycling and PT, (iv) potential users of PT that

are us ing other motorised modes such as motorcycles, scooters etc. and (v) pedestrians, that may

shift to bicycles in case favourable conditions are created.

Integration can be studied at different levels of spatial and system hierarchy (both in terms of

facilities at nodal points, the network structure and their interchanges, as well as positioning of the

networks in the urban system). In the framework of this study, a spatial analytical framework and

model for quantifying and qualifying these levels of integration has been developed.

Bicyclebus BRT - other

Leg 1..n on mode 1..m egressaccess

time

trip part

modeBicycle


12/42

1212

According to Ibrahim (2003), four types of integration can be distinguished:

1. physical integration: seamless trips with transfer facilities continuously improved and

provided

2. network integration: different h ierarchical levels have to be integrated, and also the various

modes must be connected as well

3. fare integration: provision of integrated ticketing system which enables passenger to use

one ticket for any mode

4. information integration: information on almost all aspects of travelling in every mode is

available

In addition to these types of integration, operational integrationcan be included. This means that

the operation of different PT modes should enhance their integration. For instance, an urban bus

service should be integrated with urban or regional rail services, in the sense that when a train

arrives it must have bus services available within a short time and vice versa.

Figure 4.Example of physical integration with bicycling on board of a train (Courtesy: Syntus.nl)

Private modes, including cycling and walking, simplify the operational integration s ince these modes

are flexible and exclusively controlled by the user enabling the passenger to be at the PT

station/stop whenever it is necessary. In this case, information becomes an essential element as the

passenger benefits from knowing exactly the frequency and the timetable of a given service in order

to minimise waiting time and make the whole journey faster and more attractive.

Despite the importance of all these aspects of transport system integration, this study will deal

mainly with physical integration and network integration, however also operational and fare

integration aspects can easily be considered as well in the modelling and analysis of the NMT PT

system.


13/42

1313

3 Measuring integration developing an indicator frameworkIn order to assess integration, it is necessary, firstly, to establish suitable measures for each of those

levels which are capable to reflect the degree of integration between bicycle/walking and bus

systems. Several indicators could theoretically be applied to evaluate the performance of the

integrated multi-modal transport system.

Table 1 shows a perspective of public transit system requirements that is suitable in understanding

the different perspectives on their performance. The requirements indicated in table 1 operate at

the system level, whereas in addition to this level we also have the facility level and the urban level.

Transit System Requirements

Passengers Operator Community

Availability Area coverage Service qual ity

Frequency Reliability Passenger attraction

Punctual ity Cycle speed System cost

Speed / Travel time Capacity Reliability in emergencies

Comfort Flexibil ity Social objectives

Convenience Safety and security Environmental impact

Security and safety Costs Energy consumption

User cost Passenger attraction Long-range impacts

Side effects

Table 1: Transport systems are complex and can be looked at from different perspectives, adapted (Vuchic,

2005)

It is clear that in order to understand the potential for cycling in integrated transport chains, a set o f

indicators need to be developed to evaluate the performance of the integrated NMT-PT system at

the different levels (facility, system and urban) and throughout the entire chain. Enabling the

evaluation of potential policies and interventions necessitates not only viewing the aggregated

performance at the urban level (full integration) but also the assessment of all levels in isolation. All

links of the transport chain need to be evaluated because the chain as a whole is only as strong as its

weakest link. To do this, a versatile set of indicators is needed that helps quantify and evaluate

current and future (potential) performance.

The following list gives an overview of the indicators that may be used for evaluating integration at

the different levels. The indicators can describe the trip making characteristics or systemic


14/42

1414

characteristics how people use the system and what the system is. For each indicator, a short

definition is provided.

Basically there are two ways to measure or operationalise the indicators given. These are generally

through a primary survey or as a modelled indicator. In subsequent chapters the model developed

for Pune is being discussed with a number of examples of how indicators can be modelled. An

example of a primary survey dealing with travel behaviour in an integrated transport chain is added

in the annex.

3.1 Trip-making characteristics (mobility and accessibility)The trip-making indicators describe the different parts of the multimodal trip the main line haul

(MLH), the access or egress (A/E) trip, and the transfers between them, see Table 2.

Parameters Primary Indicators Combined Indicators Integration Indicators

Trip Segments Number of Transfers

Number primary A/E Trips

Number secondary A/E T rips

Number of MLH Trips

-Percentage share of A/E Trip

in Total Trip

-Ratio of A/E and MLH trip

- Percentage share ofsecondary A/E trips in all A/E

trips

Change in number of

transfers with

different options of

access

Distance

(travel)

-Total Trip Length

-Length of primary A/E Trip

-Length of secondary A/E T rip

-Length of MLH

-Percentage share length o f

all A/E Trip in Total Trip

-Ratio of length a ll A/E and

MLH trip

- Percentage share of length

of secondary A/E trips in all

A/E trips

Difference in total

travel distance with

walk-PT, bike-PT,

walk-rented bike-PT,

only cycling

Time

(travel)

-Total Travel Time

-Time of primary A/E Trip

-Time of secondary A/E Trip

-Time of MLH

-Percentage share t ime of all

A/E Trip in Total Trip

-Ratio of time all A/E and

MLH trip-Percentage share of time of

secondary A/E trips in all A/E

trips

Difference in total

travel time with walk-

PT, bike-PT, walk-

rented bike-PT, onlycycling

Time (transfer) -Time taken to procure Secondary

A/E mode

-Time taken to park bike at transit

station

-Waiting Time at transit station

Difference in total

transfer time with

walk-PT, bike-PT,


only cycling

Cost

(travel)

-Total Travel Cost

-Cost of primary A/E Trip

-Cost of secondary A/E Trip

-Cost of MLH Trip

-Percentage share cost of all

A/E Trip in Total Trip

-Ratio of cost of all A/E and

MLH trip

- Percentage share of cost of

secondary A/E trips in all A/E

trips

Difference in total

travel cost with walk-

PT, bike-PT, walk-

rented bike-PT, only

cycling

Comfort /

convenience

/satisfaction

(travel)

- of Total Travel

-of Primary A/E Trip

-of Secondary A/E Trip

-of MLH trip

Difference in total

travel Comfort /

convenience

/satisfaction with

walk-PT, bike-PT,


only cycling


15/42

1515

Comfort /

convenience

/satisfaction

(transfer)

-availability of rental bike and

rickshaw

-availability of b ike-parking at

transit station

-ease of parking bike

- connectivity between parking

and s tation

Difference in total

transfer Comfort /

convenience

/satisfaction with

walk-PT, bike-PT,


only cycling

Table 2: Trip-making indicators for different parts of the mu lti-modal trip

3.2 Urban system indicators (area and network)

The urban system is has both area and network characteristics that influence multimodal trips. The

indicators for both are listed below.

Service area related indicators

1. Service area of bus stop or transfer station [km2]

The service area of a bus stop or transfer station or a combination of bus stops and

transfer stations [km2].

2. Population in the service area [population]

The population in the service area of a bus stop or transfer station or a combination

of bus stops and transfer stations [no. of people].

3. No of trips generated in the service area [trips]

The total number of trips that originate in a given service area of a bus stop, transfer

station or a combination of bus stops and transfer stations [no. of trips].

4. Travel time within service area [min]

Accumulated A/E travel time for a PT facility within its service area.

Cycling network related indicators

5. Cycling network length [km]

The total length of the cycling network in a given network (area or city based) [km].

6. Percentage of network that is cycle friendly [%]

The percentage of a network (length) that is cycling friendly as a proportion to the

whole network length [%].

7. Cycling network density [km bike lane/km

2

]

The density of the cycling network expressed as the total length of the cycling

network divided by the area it serves (defined by a polygon).

8. Cycling network connectivity


16/42

1616

In case of a contiguous network a connectivity index such as the Gamma index is

used:

(1)

where 0

bus-bike integration final nov2009

Documents