service level benchmarking of urban transport for a medium & small sized city

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE on

Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, India 12-14 December, 2012

Transportation Systems Engineering Group

Department of Civil Engineering

IIT Bombay, Powai, Mumbai - 400 076, INDIA.

Tel. : +91 22 2576 4348/7308/7329

Fax : +91 22 25767302

Email : [email protected]

Website : http://www.civil.iitb.ac.in/tpmdc

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING & IMPLEMENTATION METHODOLOGIES FOR DEVELOPING COUNTRIES:

TPMDC 2012

1st November 2012.

Acceptance Letter

Dear Mr.Pradeep Chaitanya Jasti,

We are glad to inform you that your paper with following details has been accepted for the

presentation at the International Conference on Transportation Planning and Implementation

Methodologies for Developing Countries (TPMDC) being organized by the Transportation

Systems Engineering Group at Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai during 12-14

December 2012.

Paper ID: 72

Paper Title: Service Level Benchmarking of Urban Transportation System for a Medium Sized

City

We are inviting you to attend the conference and present your paper. For more details, including

registration, accommodation, and program, please visits http://www.civil.iitb.ac.in/tpmdc/.

We hope that you will join us at IIT Bombay in December to participate in this international event

and help us to make this three-day deliberation meaningful and enjoyable.

Thanking you,

Prof. S L Dhingra Prof. K V Krishna Rao Prof. Tom V. Mathew (Patron, TPMDC-2012) (Chairman, TPMDC-2012) (Vice-Chairman, TPMDC-2012)

SERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKING OF URBAN TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM FOR

LARGE AND MEDIUM SIZED CITIES

Pradeep Chaitanya Jasti

Deputy Transport Planner

Transport & Communications Division

Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA).

Phone Number: +91-9908743745

Email ID: [email protected]

Number of Figures: 02

Number of Tables: 08

Number of Words: 7,498

Pradeep Chaitanya Jasti 1

Abstract

India Being a Developing Country the Travel Demand keeps on Increasing Day by Day, So in

order to meet the demand of the existing scenario of road traffic particularly in urban areas, one

need to evaluate the performance of the existing transportation system of a city. Every sector has

some few key Performance indicators, similarly in Urban Transport Sector too. This

phenomenon of identifying these key performance indicators and evaluating the performance of

Urban Transportation for any City is known as Service Level Benchmarking, which can also be

defined as “The process of determining how effectively and efficiently the present

Transportation system is performing in the existing situation”. The concept of Benchmarking is

relatively new which enables the performance measurement and also helps in understanding the

lacunae in the existing system.

In the present study the benchmarking has been done for the city of Patiala based on the

Service Level Benchmarks given by Ministry of Urban Development in the year 2010 in which a

total number of Ten Key performance indicators have been taken such as Public Transport

Facilities, Pedestrian Facilities , Travel speeds along the major corridors, Usage of Intelligent

Transportation System etc… and finally a “Performance Report Card” for Patiala City has been

derived which shows that the current city is lacking in Public Transport facilities, usage of

Intelligent Transportation System, Non Motorized Transport, Road safety etc… and performing

in a better way in the areas of Speeds along the Corridors. The short, medium & long term

measures have been suggested to improve its performance in urban transport sector keeping in

view the future development of Patiala city for next twenty years.


INTRODUCTION AND NEED FOR SERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKING

Road traffic in India has been growing at a tremendous pace due to the combined effect of

population growth, increase in vehicle ownership and individual mobility which results in

congestion, delays, accidents etc. In order to control these problems one need to understand the

Urban Transportation System of the city clearly by evaluating it’s performance by creating some

Key Performance Indicators (KPI’s) followed by Fixing the targets to achieve for each and every

KPI for next two or three Decades. In this way an Urban Local Body (ULB) will have a Clear

Idea of the Infrastructure Demand by Time for their City. The Whole Sequence is named as

Service Level Benchmarking (SLB)

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 (SLB) 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. Benchmarking is now well recognized as an important

mechanism for introducing accountability in service delivery. It can help Urban Local Bodies

(ULBs) in identifying performance gaps, ultimately resulting in better services to people.

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 qualitative aspects in urban transportation” Benchmarking basically helps us to

understand how our transportation 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.

India’s urban population is expected to increase from 286 million in 2001 to 534 million in 2026

(38%).The present transportation infrastructure is inadequate to cater to the increasing traffic,

hence forming a gap between demand and supply. 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. One such attempt has been made on the city of Patiala making the

modification to the existing SLB’s issued by MoUD. It’s a structured approach to identify

actions that lead to superior performance.

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.

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. Despite of the huge projects like CMP’s and CTTS’s benchmarking

can give a clear picture of the cities performance in various sectors of urban transportation. So

it’s a better option for all ULB’s to get an understanding on their cities transportation

performance in a short time and less cost. Keeping this as key objective an attempt was made to

develop these benchmarks such that, they can be applied directly to all large & medium sized

cities in India.


Methodology serving all the objectives of the study has been shown in Figure No.1

FIGURE 1: Flow chart showing the methodology of the current study.

Detailing of Methodology

The Detailing of the present study has been presented below segment wise.

Review of Conventional SLB’s suggested by MoUD

MoUD had released the SLB’s in December 2009 for the first time in India and later modified the

same in December 2010. The concept of benchmarking is completely concentration upon the

Developed cities rather that Developing cities and the present process was not at all suitable to

evaluate the performance of medium or small sized city. So it’s clear that the SLB’s are not tailor

made for all the cities and needs to be altered for each and every city individually. So here is an

attempt made to minimize the effort by making more flexible and easily adaptable SLB’s by

altering the KPI’s.

Identifying Limitations & Drawbacks of Conventional SLB’s

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


TABLE 1 Drawbacks of Conventional Service Level Benchmarking

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 Bus

Most 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.

Study Area Identification

The study area has been identified by Punjab Municipal Infrastructure Development Company

(PMIDC) for the preparation of Comprehensive Mobility Plan. 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 Municipal Corporation is

50.11sq.km. With a population of 4,07,951 as per the latest census. city as this study is about

urban transportation benchmarking.

The Existing Road Network for the City of Patiala has been developed in TransCAD with

the help of supporting tools like Open Street Map and Global Mapper etc and it was clearly

understandable that the city’s road network was Radial as shown in the Figure 2 below.


FIGURE 2: Existing Road Network of Patiala City Developed in TransCAD.

Checking the Adaptability of Conventional SLB’s to the Present Study Area

The adaptability of conventional SLB’s to the present study area of Patiala has been verified and

found as unadaptable since the KPI’s like ITS, NMV were too high for the medium sized cities

to benchmark the Urban Transportation System. So the conventional SLB’s cannot be adapted

directly and necessary alterations need to be done.

Making the SLB’s Flexible & Adaptable for all Indian Cities

It’s a tedious thing to make an SLB for each and every city individually so keeping all Indian

medium sized cities in view a standard SLB framework had been developed by adding and

removing few KPI’s to the Conventional SLB. The added KPI’s are Delay at Intersections,

Intermediate Public Transport and Pavement Condition. Similarly the KPI’s like Financial

Sustainability of Public Transport by Bus, NMV & ITS were removed.

Evaluating the Performance of Existing Urban Transportation System

The evaluation of the new KPI’s has been shown from Table No:3 to Table No:6, where as the

unaltered KPI’s evaluation was done based on the conventional techniques suggested by MoUD.

Identifying the Poor Performing Sectors & improving them to the Mark

After completing the evaluation process we can easily identify the urban transportation sectors

which are not performing up to the mark. So we can set the target benchmarks for those sectors

and suggest the measures for ULBs to achieve target benchmark thus making the city perform

better in urban transportation sector.

DATA COLLECTION AND EXTRACTION

Apart from the Primary Data such as Link Volumes, Speed & Delay etc.. One needs to have the

Secondary Data also such as Accidents; Bus Route Permits, Pollution Details etc. Data collection

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


TABLE 2 Data Collection for Benchmarking

DATA TYPE SOURCE

Public Transportation and IPT

Facilities

Secondary District Transport Officials

(DTO), Patiala

Pedestrian, Travel Speeds,

Intersection performances, Parking

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 public transport systems of the developing world is the combination of conventional forms

like Buses and Rails and non conventional forms called the Intermediate Public Transport. To

Indian conditions, these forms of Intermediate Public Transport are Auto rickshaws, Cycle

rickshaws and Share Cabs etc... These forms of transport play a vital role in the urban Public

Transport scenario. Unfortunately the conventional traffic and transportation theories relate only

to the modern transport vehicles and little was done to understand the behavioural characteristics

of the Intermediate forms of transport vehicles. But whenever a medium sized city was taken

into consideration, one cannot ignore the impact of IPT on the Urban Transportation System. So

in order to evaluate the performance of IPT, the concept of Equivalent Bus Units available for

1000 Population was followed as explained below.

The formulation for EBU’s (Equivalent Bus Units) per 1000 population with the EF’s

(Equivalency Factor) has been shown in the equation 1 in which the EF’s were taken based on

the occupancy relationship between bus and the corresponding mode. Say a bus occupancy as 30

for which the auto EF would be 0.1 indicates an auto can carry 3 passengers which is 0.1 of Bus.

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

Service Coverage = 0.359, CLOS = 3; Average Waiting Time = 7.74, CLOS = 3

Level 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) = 2

Average Speed of IPT along the Key Corridors = 32.95 Kmph, CLOS = 1

The CLOS and OLOS (Overall Level of Service) criteria is shown in Table 3 below.

TABLE 3 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 <=7

2 < 1.5 > 1 15 - 20 2-5 8-10

3 <1 > 0.75 10 - 15 5 - 10 11-15

4 <= 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 replacing it by

Representative Sample Technique (RST) (ft/Sec). Since all signalized intersections doesn’t have

an individual phase for pedestrians we cannot evaluate the pedestrian delay precisely, whereas

this RST can be applied even at Unsignalized Intersections too by considering the walking speed

instead to delay.

TABLE 4 CLOS & OLOS Criteria for Pedestrian

CLOS or OLOS Pedestrian Speed Coverage of FOB’s Overall

Score

1 >= 4.25 > = 0.5 <=4-6

2 >3.75 - <4.25 < 0.5 > 0.25 7-9

3 >2.5 - < 3.75 < 0.25 > 0.1 10-12

4 <= 2.5 <= 0.1 13-16

Pedestrian Speed at Intersection = 3.9 (ft/Sec), CLOS = 2 as shown in Table 4. [2].

Availability of Street Lighting (LUX) = 4.5, CLOS = 3


Percentage of city covered with Foot Paths = 33.11%, CLOS = 3

Extent of Coverage of FOB’s (No’s/Road Network in Km) = 0.0224, CLOS = 4

Performance of Intersections

Delays at intersections have to be taken into consideration, since it would have an impact on the

travel time of all the corridors which are approaching that intersection.

Signalized Intersections to Intersections ratio = 18/27 = 0.6667 CLOS = 3

Avg. Controlled Delay at Unsignalized Intersections = 43 Sec (HCM 2000) CLOS = 3

Avg. Controlled Delay at Signalized Intersections = 28 Sec (HCM 2000) CLOS = 2

CLOS and OLOS criteria for intersection performance have been shown in the Table 5.

TABLE 5 CLOS &OLOS Criteria for Intersection Performance

CLOS or OLOS Ratio Avg Controlled Delay at

Unsignalized Xn

Avg Controlled Delay

at Signalized Xn

Overall

Score

1 <= 2 >= 1.5 >= 20 <=7

2 2-5 < 1.5 > 1 15 - 20 8-10

3 5 - 10 <1 > 0.75 10 - 15 11-15

4 > 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.

The PQI is calculated from the RQI (Road Quality Index) and SR (Surface Rating) as

shown in the equation 2 and the CLOS & OLOS criteria has been shown in the Table 6.

PQI = √RQI *SR……….............................................................................................. (Equation 2)

TABLE 6 CLOS &OLOS Criteria for Pavement Quality Index

CLOS or OLOS RQI SR PQI Rating (Score)

1 0 – 1.5 0 – 1.5 = 1

2 1.6 – 2.5 1.6 – 2.5 >1 – <2

3 2.6 – 4.0 2.6 – 4.0 >2 – <3

4 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 7. 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.

TABLE 7 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 day

B = Total Population of the city

(A/B) to

Compute LOS

1

0.25 3

Service Coverage (route

Kms / sq. km)


Kms / sq. km)

A = Total length in route kms of

the corridors on which public

transport systems ply in the city

B = Area of the urban limits of the

city (sq. kms )

(A/B) to

Compute LOS

2

0.757 2

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

Public Transport

Level of Comfort in Public

Transport

A= Passenger count on bus at key

identified routes

(A/B) to

Compute LOS

1.75 2


B= Seats available in the bus 4

% of Fleet as per Urban

Bus Specifications

% of Fleet as per Urban Bus

Specifications

A= Total number of buses in the

city

B= Total number of buses as per

urban bus specifications in the city

(A/B)*100 to

Compute LOS

5

16.66 4

CLOS1 + CLOS2 + CLOS3 + CLOS4 + CLOS5 = 14 OLOS =3

2.) Availability of Pedestrian

Facilities

Availability of Pedestrian Facilities

Signalized intersections

Delay (%)


Delay by Representative

Sample Technique

(ft/Sec)

5 No. of trails has to be taken by

representative sampling technique

in which the time taken to cross a

major and a minor leg is measured

Compute LOS

1 based on

Avg. time

taken to cross

an intersection

3.9

ft/Sec

2

Availability of Street

Lighting

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 network

B = 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 =3

3.) Availability of NMV IPT Facilities


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


Kms / sq. km)

A = Total length in route kms of

the corridors on which public

transport systems ply in the city

B = Area of the urban limits of the

city (sq. kms )

(A/B) to

Compute LOS

2

0.359 3

NMT Facilities at

Interchanges (%)



Calculate the average waiting time

(In min) of

passengers 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 routes

B= Seats available in the bus

(A/B) to

Compute LOS

4

2.5 3

Average Travel speed of

IPT along key corridors

(Kmph)

5 No. of Trails has to be taken

along each corridor and LOS has to

be rated based the average speed

attained on all corridors.

Compute LOS

5 based on

Avg. Speed

32.95 1

CLOS1 + CLOS2 + CLOS3 + CLOS4 + CLOS5 = 13 OLOS =3

4.) Level of Usage of

Intelligent Transport

System (ITS) facilities

Level of Usage of Intelligent Transport System (ITS) facilities


Availability of Traffic

Surveillance System

Availability of Traffic

Surveillance System

A = total no. of major bus stops,

terminals, metro stations and (%)

signalized intersections having

CCTVs.

B = total no. of major bus stops,

terminals, metro stations and

signalized intersections.

(A/B)*100 to

Compute LOS

1

0.1 4

Passenger Information

System (PIS) -----------------------------

Usage of Global

Positioning System -----------------------------

Signal Synchronization Signal Synchronization A= No. of signals which are

synchronized

B = Total no. of signalized

intersections

(A/B)*100 to

Compute LOS

4

0 4

Integrated Ticketing

System ----------------------------

CLOS1 + CLOS2 = 8 OLOS =4

5.) Travel Speeds Along

Major Corridors

Travel Speeds Along Major Corridors


Personal vehicles along

key corridors (Kmph)


Personal vehicles along




be rated based on this average

speed attained.

Compute LOS

1 based on

Avg. Speed

33.03 1


Public Transport along key


Public Transport along



Compute LOS

2 based on

18 2


corridors (Kmph)


be rated based on this average

speed attained.

Avg. Speed


6.) Availability of Parking

Spaces

Availability 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

obtained 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 Street

B = ECS of on-Street

(A/B) to

Compute LOS

2

0.16 4


7.) Road Safety Road Safety

Fatality rate per lakh

population

Fatality rate per lakh

population

A= Total number of fatalities

recorded within city limits in the

given calendar year

B= Population of the urban

agglomeration 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 year

B= Total number of fatalities

recorded in road accidents within

city limits in the given calendar

(A/B)* 100 to

compute LOS

2

32.43 2


year


8.) Pollution Levels Pollution Levels

Annual Mean

Concentration Range

(μg/m3)

Annual Mean

Concentration Range

(μg/m3)

Obtain the Annual Mean

Concentration Range from CPCB

Rate LOS

based on

annual mean

concentration

range

SO2+

NO2+

SPM+

RSPM

8

SO2 + NO2 + SPM +RSPM = CLOS1 + CLOS2 + CLOS3 + CLOS4 = 4+2+1+1 = 8 OLOS = 2

9.) Integrated Landuse-

Transport System

Integrated Landuse-Transport System

Population Density Population Density A = Area of the city in Hact

B = Population of current year

(B/A) to

compute 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


along Transit Corridors


along Major Corridors

A = FSI along major corridors

B = FSI of the city

(B/A) to

compute LOS

4

1.5 3

Road network Pattern and Road network Pattern and Based on existing & proposed

network recognize/identify major

Compute LOS

based on the

Some

what

3


Completeness Completeness roads and pattern along with their

extent of completeness

road pattern

completeness

clear

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

B = 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

Exclusive ROW > 30m

A= Total road network with ROW

> 30m

B = Total road network

(B/A)*100 to

compute LOS

6

24.32 2

CLOS1 + CLOS2 + CLOS3 + CLOS4 + CLOS5 + CLOS6 + CLOS7 = 21 OLOS =4

10.) Financial Sustainability of

Public Transport By Bus

Performance of Intersections

Extent of Non-fare

Revenue

Signalized Intersections to

Intersections ratio

A = No. of signalized intersections

B = No. of intersections

(B/A)*100 to

compute LOS

6

0.667 3

Staff /bus ratio Average Delay at

Signalized Intersections

Compute by the delay study at


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 =3

11.) 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+4+3+2+4+3+3 = 34/11 = 3.0

The overall Score Achieved by the Patiala city is 3.00 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 up to 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.8 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.

TABLE 8 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 4 2 Surveillance cameras have to be fixed at all major junctions


(ITS) facilities 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 4 2 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

approver for all the traffic &transportation studies.

10 Performance of Intersections 3 1 Major intersections have to be signalized within next 1 years

11 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 study concludes the following:

There are few drawbacks in the SLB’s proposed by MoUD such as Pedestrian Facilities, NMV, ITS etc. Which cannot be considered for

Benchmarking of Medium Sized Cities. MoUD had not considered the aspects such as IPT, Delay at Intersections and Pavement Condition etc. which were the Key parameters in

rating the Urban Transportation System.

New SLB’s have been created by counter acting the drawbacks of conventional SLB’s and also making the concept of SLB more flexible

and adaptable for all Large & Medium sized Indian Cities.

The city of Patiala is performing very poor in the segments such as Land Use Transport Integration, Level of usage of Integrated Transport

System, Availability of Parking facilities.

Similarly Patiala is performing Good in the Segments such as Travel speed along major corridors, Pollution Levels. 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.

http://www.dot.state.mn.us/materials/pvmtmgmtdocs/Rating_Overview_State.pdf

service level benchmarking of urban transport for a medium & small sized city

Documents

existing transportation

present transportation

existing system

key performance indicators

urban transport sector

performance measurement

urban areas

countries tpmdc