Challenges and Solutions

Multi-modal Integration in Bangalore

Topics Commuter choice criteria for travel mode

Snapshot of current multi-modal integration -- the BYP example Problem areas/The Integration score card

Potential remedies

Panel Discussions Addressing multi-modal integration systemically

Can solutions be retrofitted?

What can be done in the future?

Commuter Choice Process

Commuter choose between available travel modes based on the following attributes:

Economics (monetary cost)

Total travel time (access, waiting, transit and journey times)

Convenience and comfort (last mile connectivity, ease of negotiating interchanges within and between modes of travel, travel comfort and availability of seating, protection from the elements/pollution, safety etc.)

To lure commuters away from the private mode with its point-to-point convenience to public modes requires that all three attributes are addressed in some way

Since a majority of public transportation (PT) commutes will require multiple modes, a seamless integration between modes will contribute significantly to the perceived higher utility of PT and therefore the choice of this form.

Commuting -- Definitions

Modes:

The various available means of transportation

E.g. walk, cycle, para-transit, bus, metro, comuuter rail.

Zones:

The coverage of modes

Zone 1: 0 to 1 Km = Walk

Zone 2: 0 to 3 km = Bicycle

Zone 3: 0 to 5 km = Feeder services, paratransit etc.

Zone 4: 0 to 30 km = long bus routes, commuter rail, personal transportation etc.

Multi-modal Integration Dimensions

Physical Integration (ease of access)

Informational Integration (availability of information/signage on

access, schedules etc.)

Network Integration (coordinated timing/schedules across

modes)

Fare Integration (modes honoring each others’ tickets, single-fare

across multiple modes etc.)

The BYP Example

We chose BYP for the following reasons:

It is a greenfield development and so represents the best case scenario

It represents a point where multiple modes (bus, metro, commuter rail etc.) intersect

Has a large catchment area that includes various malls, tech parks, residential areas etc.

Representative of several other transit points that will appear in the future

Multi-modal integration solutions can be prototyped here

The satellite view of BYP

BYP – The multi-modal “integration gaps”

Zone 1/Zone 2 Integration No proper footpath/sidewalk around

station entry/exit A for pedestrians

No bicycle path

No over/under pass across Old Madras

Road (OMR); it is extremely hazardous

to cross the road in front of the station.

BYP – The multi-modal “integration gaps”

Zone 3 (Autos)

Haphazard parking

Integration is essentially a fend for oneself negotiation exercise with auto drivers – i.e. business as usual

You can see commuters bargaining with drivers (and walking away, as can be seen in the next slide!)

No effort made to ease the transition ( such as what one would see at the Cantonment Rly station, for example)

BYP – The multi-modal “integration gaps” Zone 3 (Metro Feeders)

BMTC integration is poorly executed Less than optimum physical infrastructure

for bus parking (picture shows the “bus bays”)

Non-existent informational and network integration

Fare integration still in concept stage

MF services completely unreliable (poor frequency, complete lack of schedule information even with on-site BMTC staff, lack of adherence to schedules and even routes)

(You can also see the family that failed to negotiate a reasonable auto fare walking away to find the nearest bus stop, which probably is several hundred meters away)

BYP – The multi-modal “integration gaps”

Zone 4 (Regular/long distance BMTC

services)

Many routes touch this transit point but

access from bus stop to metro entry/exit

A is very inconvenient

Many buses stop across OMR at a

distance of ~ 100 meters on either side.

Crossing OMR is hazardous

Lack of signage/ information regarding

location of bus stops

BYP – The multi-modal “integration gaps”

Zone 4 (Personal/private

Transportation)

Private transportation integration is

reasonable but could have been executed

better

Inconvenient parking access

It would be hard to retrofit a better access

solution now since the parking lot is

boxed in between tracks, other properties

etc.

BYP – The multi-modal “integration gaps”

Zone 4 (Commuter Rail)

integration poorly thought through

Engineering/logistical/administr-ative challenges in retrofitting a bridge across SWR tracks to the “C” exit/entrance now under construction

Physical interface to SWR will be a challenge

Not sure if there are any plans for network and information integration

Fare integration – even if cannot integrate SWR and BMTC fares, should at least provide facilities for easy ticket purchase

BYP – The “integration gaps”

Zone 4 (KSRTC)

Integration has not been fully

thought through

KSRTC passengers transferring to

BMRC will have a steep gradient and

a non-existent sidewalk

Integration Score Card for Metro @ BYP Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4

Physical 1 1 2 2

Informational N/A N/A 0 0

Fare N/A N/A 0 0

Network N/A N/A N/A 0

On a scale of 5: 1 = worst, 5= best

Integration Score Card for Metro @ BYP

With

BMTC

With

SWR

With

KSRTC

With

paratransit

With

private

With

pedestrians

Total

Physical 3 1 1 3 3 1

Informational 1 0 0 0 N/A N/A

Fare 0 0 0 0 N/A N/A

Network 0 0 0 N/A N/A N/A

On a scale of 5

Potential Remedies Physical Integration

• Zone 1 / 2: Pedestrian overpass across OMR in front of gate A

Pedestrian overpass across SWR tracks to “C” entry/exit and continuing on to KSRTC with landings for SWR tracks.

Pedestrian sidewalks for at least 0.5 km radius on all sides

Pedestrian crossings at signals

Safe bike lanes along identified routes

Zone 3:

- Auto parking stands, prepaid counter etc.

- Private shuttle-buses organized by tech parks/office complexes during specific time period/peak hours.

- Feeder Services by Metro/BMTC – but smaller buses

• Zone 4: Proper diagonal bus bays for BMTC ( a la BIAL)

A rational MF routing scheme and a schedule that is adhered to

Proper paving of the parking lot and better parking configuration

Potential Remedies Informational integration is probably the easiest to fix in the short

term Have clear directions/signs and information at all exit/entry points on

BMTC timings, SWR arrivals/departures, KSRTC arrivals/departures, typical auto fares etc.

Addressing MM Integration systemically

Since integration is a “cross-modal” issue, an independent

organization/ team needed ( a la DIMTS)

An integration audit of all new multi-modal transit points (e.g.

YPR, Malleshwaram) should happen now, well before these

facilities are opened to the public

Pedestrian and Vehicular Accessibility, Circulation and Parking

plans prepared as part of the Station Area Plan and reviewed

before approval and implementation

A commitment to open a facility only when it is 100% done

Panel Discussion Points

What do the stakeholders feel about whether integration is currently working

or not?

What are the challenges encountered in implementing tighter multi-modal

integration?

Considering that each mode will attempt to maximize its own performance,

what is the incentive to pay attention to integration with other modes?

Will free market decide integration or will governmental intervention be

needed to ensure integration?

Who will oversee integration?

Who will determine the type of feeders (size, and type of vehicle, operation)

and the quality of service (frequency, timeliness etc.) factors?

Who will provide the feeder services?