mmti literature review

8/3/2019 MMTI Literature Review

1/39

FORMULATION OF FRAMEWORKAND GUIDELINES FOR MULTIMODALTRANSPORT HUB

Study Area: Sealdah Interchange, Kolkata

Literature Review

Gargi Ghosh10 AR 60 R08

Under the guidanceof:Prof. Debapratim


2/39

MULTIMODAL TRANSPORT HUB

FORMULATION OF FRAMEWORK & GUIDELINES FOR MULTIMODAL TRANSPORT HUB: Study Area: Sealdah Interchange, Kolkata

INTEGRATION

OF MODES

INTERCHANGE

BETWEEN MODES

A multimodal transport hub facilitates-

A multimodal journey:

R a i l f a c i l i t i e s

B u s f a c i l i t i e s

W a t e r f a c i l i t i e s

A i r f a c i l i t i e s

P a s s e n g e r w a i t i n g a r e a

C o m m e r c i a l f a c i l i t i e s

T i c k e t i n g o f f i c e s

P a r k i n g f a c i l i t i e s V e r t i c a l a n d h o r i z o n t a l

p a s s e n g e r l i n k .


3/39

MULTIMOD AL HUB : Issues in Kolkata scenario

TOLLYGUNJ BUS DEPOT

TOLLYGUNJ TRAM DEPOT

TOLLYGUNJ METRO

AUTO STANDS

TOLLYGUNJ METRO

FORMULATION OF FRAMEWORK & GUIDELINES FOR MULTIMODAL TRANSPORT HUB: Case Study East West Metro Corridor, Kolkata


4/39

OBJECTIVES

To enable the establishment of quality focused multimodal transport system to provide

a single journey experience i.e. to plan for seamlesstravel

To co-coordinate the use of different modes and their proper integration to decongest

road, reduce journey time, enhance environment, provide greater convenience for

commuters & for efficiency and cost effectiveness.



5/39

LITERATURE REVIEW



6/39

BASIC TYPOLOGY OF EXISTING RESEARCH:

Study on interchange site and catchment area

Parameters of interchange Barriers of interchange

Prioritizing and ranking of parameters

PRELIMINARYAPPROACH :

EVALUATION

LEVEL OF

SERVICEAPPROACH

SENSITIVITYANALYSISAPPROACH

Gap analysis ofopinionsArrive at stablepriorities for

development

Recommendation ofguidelines for transportinfrastructure and planning

Methodology for

planning process

LOS values Estimation of demand responsefor variation in interchange

factors/barriers

Design standards /recommendation

LEVEL OF SERVICE APPROACH SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS APPROACH



7/39

BASIC ASPECTS OF LITERATURE REVIEW:

1 DEFINITIONS

2 THEORY OF INTERCHANGE

3 INTERCHANGE AND UTILITY OF TRAVEL

4 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF INTERCHANGE

PARAMETERS

5 STUDY OF SURVEYS UNDERTAKEN

6 STUDY OF DATA ANALYSIS PROCEDURES

6 METHODOLOGY OF WORK

P a r a m e t e r s t o b e s t u d i e d

S u r v e y s t o b e u n d e r t a k e n

D a t a a n a l y s i s m e t h o d o l o g y

D o m a i n o f w o r k



8/39

LITERATURE REVIEWED:

Group for Urban Interchanges Development and Evaluation (GUIDE)URBAN INTERCHANGES - a good practice guide:

Study on Mobility, Intermodality and Interchanges (MIMIC)

Study confined tointerchange area

Europeancontext

Lists out thebarriers tointerchangethrough expert

opinion andliterature study

Ways ofimproving

interchangeexperience

Cost effectiveinterchange level

proposals

Study oninterchange

and catchmentarea 30European

interchanges offour scales

Classification,ranking of

interchangebarriers

survey at theinterchange

site

Estimation ofdemand

responselogit model

Interchangespecific

proposals


9/39


Multi Modal Transportation System Planning and Design- unpublished PhD Thesis

PIRATE:

Study oninterchange

and catchmentareaa sampleof 22 Europeaninterchanges

Lists out theparameters ofinterchangebased on EU

transport policy

Derives valuesfor LOS fromusers and

operatorssurvey at the

22 interchangesites

Providesmethodologyfor planningapproach

Study on Delhi MMTSinterchange as a

component

Lists out the

parameters of MMTS

Provides methodology

for planning approach



10/39


An analysis of Transport Interchanges in west rail unpublished dissertation work MAKSteven Chi Fai:

A study of intermodal transport Coordination and its contribution to Sustainableurban transportation In Hong Kong: unpublished dissertation ,Lui Kwok Wai, William

Study oninterchange and

catchment area Hong Kong context

Public transportpolicies in Hong

Kong

Derives values forLOS for public

transportinterchanges

Recommendationsfor intermodalitycontributing tosustainability

Study on interchangeand west rail network Hong Kong

Specifies evaluationprocess forinterchanges

Evaluatesinterchanges in westrail link



11/39

DEFINING AN INTERCHANGE:

The word interchanges can have with two meanings:

It can describe the action of interchanging, as undertaken by passengers as

part of a journey (sometimes termed transfer)

But it can also mean a location where interchange takes place.Source GUIDE

Public Transit Interchange is a location where passengers transfer from one mode of transport to

another, or between two services of the same mode. An interchange can mean three things:

the act of changing between mode interchange

the place where one changes between modes interchange zone

a purpose-built facility to improve interchange quality interchange facility

Source: The Intermodal Transport Interchange for London - Best Practice Guidelines (Tfl et al, January 2001



12/39

We regard the utility of having to interchange (Uint) as having three principal components:

a requirement to interchange (I) which has a penalty associated with it ()independent of the amount of time spent interchanging

the time spent transferring between vehicles (TT) with a weight

the time spent waiting for the connection (W) with a weight

Expressed as a linear-additive function, this utility of interchange is:

U= I+TT+ w +0

THEORY OF INTERCHANGE:

Public transport works by concentrating passengers onto selected corridors, and inevitably this leavessome journeys without a direct connection. So interchange is a necessary evil when it comes toproviding comprehensive linkages within an urban area.



13/39

UTILIT Y EQUATION:

So utility of travel can be expressedas:

Urestdenotes the utility associated with the travel attributes which influence choice other than those

contained in Uint

If Urest is considered to be a function of simply in-vehicle time and cost, then utility of travel can be

expressed as :

Ui= Uint+ Urest +

Ui=Ii +TTi + Wi +Ci +Ti+1



14/39

UTIL ITYEQUATION:

(i) Interchange penaltyI

=0 +1 E(W)+2E(A)+3PJ+4NL +5 TC

0 = Fixed level of penalty

E(W), E(A) = additional waiting time

PJ = position in journey whereinterchange occurs

NL= non linear effects

TC= transaction cost of interchange

(ii) Transfer Time Value

TT

Amount of transfer time

Nature of transfer

Transfer environment

(iii) Wait Time Value W

Security of interchange

Ability to engage inworthwhile

activities

(iii) Cost Value C

Cost of a single mode

journey

Cost to interchange

(iii) In-vehicle time Value

T

amount of time in vehicle

cost of travel


Ui=Ii +TTi + Wi +Ci +Ti+1


15/39

COMPARATIVE STUDY OF

PARAMETERS



16/39

COMAPARATIVE STUDY OF PARAMETERS:

L O C A L P L A N N I N G A N D L A N D U S E1

L O G I S T I C S A N D O P E R AT I O N A L2

P H Y S I C A L D E S I G N3

I N F O R M A T I O N4

O V E R A L L P E R F O R M A N C E5

The parameters of study have been catergorised under the following heads:



17/39


PARAMETERS PIRATE MIMICHONGKONG

STUDYUTILITY

FUNCTION DELHI MMTSPARAMETERS FOR

STUDY

LOCALPLANNINGANDLANDUSE

Location andoverall

accessibility Pedestrian linkages

Rail- street

movement ease Accessibility local roads Entrance accessibility

entranceaccessibility

Existence of Cycletracks

rail-PTImovement ease movement pattern

Legibility of interchangzone

No conflictingvehicular andpedestrian flows

PTI- railmovement ease Ease of access

Rail-street movemenease

Cycle storagefacility

Street- streetmovement ease Ease of egress Rail-PTI movement ea

Reliable feederservices

Catchment area< 500m

passenger flow adequate capacity

Street- streetmovement ease

High density pickup points

Parkingavailability parking location

Pedestrian linkage tocatchment area

Cab & taxi services

Segregation ofBus &passengers Conflict among mode

Parking areassegregation ofmodes

Walking distance inside & outside

interchange



18/39



19/39


PHYSICALDESIGN

SecurityEquipment Functionality

Single levelservices

Interchangeenvironment subways

Connectivitybetween levels

Surveillance Aesthetic design Toilets Designing forsecurity transfer facilities legibility of layout

Ticketing Walking Distances Seating areas waiting areas

Automatedticket vendingmachines

Protectedwalkways ease of access

Commercial

facilities Level change

Overall lighting

of 120-15o lux ease of egressshoppingfacilities Ramp availability

transfer betweenlevels

Car & bikerentals

Elevatoravailability

Ticket vendingmachines

waiting facilities Lift availability Disabled access

waiting rooms Safety waitingareas queuing space

toiletsguide routes forblinds

catering Disabled access

PARAMETERS PIRATE MIMIC HONGKONG STUDY UTILITY FUNCTION DELHI MMTS

PARAMETERS FOR

STUDY




20/39


PARAMETERS PIRATE MIMICHONGKONG

STUDYUTILITY

FUNCTION DELHI MMTSPARAMETERS FOR

STUDY

OVERALL

PERFORMANCE Safety & security

Integratedinterchange

management Integrated safety

real time

information Integration

personal safetyImage ofinterchange capacity

passengerperception ofcomfort pedestrian safety Efficiency

property safety Urban Setting

Minimizewalkingdistance Property safety

Efficiency Functionality Safety Functionality

coordination CleanlinessPassengerfacilities

Integrated

interchangemanagement

EfficiencyShops and retailservices

Securitypersonnel Easy layout

operation Cost of travel Pedestrian safety

Information Urban setting

PlacementShops and retailservices

Legibility



21/39


PARAMETERS PIRATE MIMIC

HONGKONG

STUDY UTILITY FUNCTION DELHI MMTS

PARAMETERS FOR

STUDY

Multi level carparking stacking areas

Weather protectelink

Drop off areapedestrianpathways Drop off area

no conflictamong modes Parking areas

loading areas Peripheral bus baWalkingdistance lessthan 500m

Bus stop

performance

weatherprotected link

peripheral saw-toothed bus

bay

C. INFORMATIONReal timeinformation

Pre- tripinformation CCTV Pre-trip information

Total Traveltime

Real timeinformation Maps

Travel timeinformation


PARAMETERS UNDER SCOPE OF


22/39

PARAMETERS UNDER SCOPE OFSTUDY:LOCAL PLANNING AND

LANDUSELOGISTICAL AND

OPERATIONAL PHYSICAL DESIGNOVERALL

PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Entrance accessibilityNetwork connectivity

between modesConnectivity between

levelsIntegration with urban

setting Pre-trip information

Legibility

Time synchronisedoperation between

modes legibility of layoutEfficiency ofinterchnage Travel time information

Rail-street movement Frequency of service waiting areas Property safety

Rail PTI movement waiting time ease of access Functionality

Street- street movement Unified ticketing system ease of egressIntegrated interchange

management

Pedestrian linkage tocatchment area feeder services transfer between levels Easy layout

conflict among modes Peak utilization of modesTicket vending

machines Pedestrian safety

Walking distance Distribution network Disabled access Urban setting

Weather protected link queuing spaceShops and retail

services

Drop off area

Parking areas

Peripheral bus bay

Bus stop performanceFORMULATION OF FRAMEWORK & GUIDELINES FOR MULTIMODAL TRANSPORT HUB: Study Area: Sealdah Interchange, Kolkata


23/39

DOMAIN OF WORK


BROAD STUDY DOMAINS


24/39

BROAD STUDY DOMAINS

BUILT FACILITY DESIGN TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE TRANSPORT PLANNING

EFFICIENT DESIGN INTEGRATED INFRASTRUCTURE MGMT FEEDER ROUTES

PROPERTY SAFETY PRE- TRIP INFORMATION TIME SYNCHRONISEDOPERATION

LEGIBILITY OF LAYOUT REAL TIME INFORMATION NETWORK CONNECTIVITYBETWEEN MODES

DISABLED ACCESS PEDESTRIAN LINKAGE TO CATCHMENTAREA

FREQUENCY OF SERVICE

ENTRANCE ACCESSIBILITY PARKING/DROP OFF AREA PEAK UTILIZATION OF MODES

RETAIL SERVICES BUS BAYS DISTRIBUTION NETWORK

WEATHER PROTECTED LINK UNIFIED TICKETING SYSTEM PEDESTRIAN FLOWS

TICKET VENDINGMACHINES

INTEGRATION

WAITING AREA VOLUME OF INTERCHANGE

QUEUING SPACE TRANSFER STAGE

EASE OF ACCESS/EGRESS LINE HAUL STAGE

CONNECTIVITY BETWEENLEVELS



25/39

STUDY TOOLS&

DATA ANALYSIS PROCESSES


STUDY TOOLS:


26/39

STUDY TOOLS:MIMIC

INTERCHANGE SITE &CATCHMENT AREA

BARRIERS OFINTERMODALITY

DELINEATION OFCATCHMENT AREA

CHANGE IN DEMANDRESPONSE FORVARIATION IN FACTORS

COST EFFECTIVE SOLUTIONSFOR EACH BARRIER CATEGORY

USER & EXPERTSURVEY for

Trip factors

Individual factorsInterchangefactors

INTERCHANGEDECONSTRUCTION

MICRO

SIMULATIONON SITE SURVEY

Questionnaireon catchmentarea

GIS mapping

NESTEDLOGITMODEL

CLASSIFICATION OFBARRIERS


STUD Y ON D ATA ANALYSIS P ROC ESSE S: G A P


27/39

A N A L Y S I S

AIM TOOLS

BARRIERIDENTIFICATION

marking ranking forimportance

USER AND EXPERT SURVEYon

Trip factors Interchange factors

Individual factors

INTERCHANGEDECONSTRUCTION

visual profiling matrices

energy, distance, time matrices

MICROSIMULATION MODEL

1 95

Totallyunimportant

Extremelyimportant

ModeratelyImportant

Calculation of mean marks:

m(i) =Mj(i)nni

Mj(i) is the mark given to factor i by individual j;i = 1,...,K is the generic factor considered, with Kthe total number of door-to-door factors listed inthe questionnaires;

j = 1,...,n is the generic individual interviewed,with n the total number ofinterviewees;ni is the number of interviewees who circled anNin the question referring to factor i.

DATA ANALYSIS


STUDY ON DATA ANALYSIS


28/39

PROCESSES: I n t e r c h a n g e D e c o n s t r u c t i o n TIME, ENERGY, DISTANCE MATRICESVISUAL PROFILING MATRICES

R ramps B barriersH handrails P - Pavement obstacle

Dist(m)

Speed(m/s)

Time(s)

Energy (J)

Horizontalwalking (outside)

200 1.34 149.2 52.1

Horizontalwalking (inside)

50 1.34 37.3 13.0

Horizontalwalking (platformdistance)

10 1.34 7.5 2.6

Stairs (up) 3.5 .30 11.7 10.9

Stairs(down) .34 12.1 6.0


STUDY ON DATA ANALYSIS


29/39

PROCESSES : M I C R O S I M U L A T I O N

It looks at the interaction of individual

"units" such as people or vehicles

AGENT BASED APPROACH

Each unit is treated as an autonomousentity and the interaction of the units is

allowed vary depending on stochastic

(randomized) parameters

each unit is represented by a record

containing a unique identifier and a set of

associated attributes e.g. a list of

vehicles with known origins, destinations

and o erational characteristics

A simulation is a technique for using computers to imitate, or simulate, the

operations of various kinds of real-world facilities or processes.


STUDY TOOLS: PIRATE


30/39

STUDY TOOLS: PIRATE

INTERCHANGE AREA

PerceivedQoS

Desired QoS DeliveredQoS

TargetedQoS

Minimum QoS

GAP ANALYSIS

PROPOSAL FORINTERCHANGEIMPROVEMENT

Operatorperspecti

ve

Userperspecti

ve

PARAMETR SELECTION

QUALITY OF SEVRVICE

PRIORITISING THEPARAMETERS

Establishing Stablepriorities using SD

and mean mark

Priority ratingby user group

Priority ratingby expert

group

Demand Supply

analysis


STUD Y ON D ATA ANALYSIS P ROC ESSE S: L O S


31/39

PRIORITISATIONOF PARAMETERS

USER GROUPSURVEY:

INTERCHANGEPERFORMANCE UG 1: W+R, P+R,R+R, C+R

perceived quality ofservice

UG2: Non users

delivered quality of

service

desired quality ofservice

EXPERT GROUPSURVEY

targeted quality ofservice

PG1: operators

min acceptablequality of service

PG2:Planners andadministrativemachinery

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0 2 4 6 8 10

Importance

Perceived LOS

1 95

Totallyunimportant

Extremelyimportant

Totallydispleased

Verypleased

OVER PROVISIONED

UNDER PROVISIONED

ModeratelyImportant

Moderatelysatisfied

I>LOS = Under provisionI


32/39

A N A L Y S I S USER GROUPS EXPERT GROUPS

Age wise Gender wise

Mode wise

Operator - planner

Priority, Perceived QoS, Expected QoS

,Minimum QoS

Delivered QoS, Targeted QoS

Gap in mean value for parameter priority

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

feeder routes Walking distance Unified Ticketing waiting time

UG1

UG2

PG1

PG1

Consistently high mean value for priority= More stable a candidate fordevelopment

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

PG1-UG1 PG1-UG1 UG1-UG2 PG1-PG2 PG2-UG1 PG2-UG2

feeder routes

Walking distance

High SD = less probability of the issue tobe solved

Gap in SD value between groups for parameter priority


STUD Y ON D ATA ANALYSIS P ROC ESSE S: G A PA N A L Y S I S


33/39

MINLOS

PERCEIVEDLOS (USER)

DESIREDLOS (USER)

TARGETEDLOS (OPERATOR)

G A P

perceived LoS

delivered LoS

desired LoS

targeted LoS

min acceptable LoS

? WILLINGNESS TO PAY USER? SUBSIDIES - GOVERNMENT

GUIDELINES & FRAMEWORK

A N A L Y S I S

OPTIMUM VALUES OF LOS



34/39


INFERENCES RELEVANT TOSTUDY AREA


GUIDELINE FORMATION:


35/39

STUDY

FORMATIONOF

GUIDELINES

IMPLEMENTATIONOFGUIDELINES

To derive the LOS values for interchange, user and expertsurvey would be conducted at:

D U M D U M I N T E R C H A NG E

Suburban railway, bus, metro line, paratransit &pedestrian flow

T O L LY G U N J I N T E R C H A N G E

Terminal metro station, bus, pedestrian &paratransit flows

S E A L D A H I N T E R C H A N G E

Terminal suburban railway station, bus,pedestrian, paratransit flow & future metro


INFERENCE:M t h d l

SHORTLISTING OF PARAMETERS


36/39


M e t h o d o l o g y ( BARRIERS & ATTRACTION) underTRANSPORT INFRA. & PLNG

SURVEY FORSATISFACTION

(USER + EXPERT)

SURVEY FOR

PRIORITISATION OFPARAMETERS ( USER+

EXPERT)

SURVEY OFOPERATORS FOR

CATCHMENT AREA

DERIVING LEVEL OF SERVICEVALUES

GAP ANALYSIS

USER SURVEY FORWILLINGNESS TO

PAYARRIVING AT OPTIMUM LEVELSFROM DEMAND SUPPLY & COST

BENEFIT ANALYSIS

GENERAL FRAMEWORK ANDGUIDELINES

perceived LoS

delivered LoS

desired LoS

targeted LoS

min acceptableLoS

SEALDAH INTERCHANGE


37/39

Transport modes at the interchange:

1 . S U B R U R B A N R A I L W AY S 2 . B U S TR A N SI T

3 . PA R AT R AN S I T 4 . M E T R O (upcoming)

Major issues at the interchange:

Conflict of flows Congestion

Pedestrian safety Parking space

Application of the formulated guidelines

Detailed planning of selected parameters


REFERENCES


38/39

REFERENCES

1. Terzis, G (2000) GUIDE: Group for Urban Interchanges Development and Evaluation , MVA

Consultants

2. Coccia Enzo (2002), PIRATE

3. Wardman Mark, Hine Julian, Stradling Stephen (2001), Interchange and Travel Choice, Vol-1, Vol-2.,

DETR

4. South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive (2001), MIMIC: Mobility, Intermodality and

Interchange, EU Commission under Transport

5. A study of intermodal transport Coordination and its contribution to Sustainable urban transportation

In Hong Kong (2001), Lui Kwok Wai, William, unpublished dissertation work.

6. Singh Y.P. (2002), Performance of Kolkata Metro railway: A case study. CODATUX Pa., 337 342.

7. KMDA. Master Plan for Traffic & Transportation for Kolkata Metropolitan Area -2025, Report.

8. C. Jotin Khisti, B. Kent Lall, Prentice Hall of India Private Limited, Transportation Engineering AnIntroduction



39/39

END..


mmti literature review

Documents