INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE

on

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING & IMPLEMENTATION METHODOLOGIES FOR DEVELOPING COUNTRIES: TPMDC 2012
Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, India 12-14 December, 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
(Patron, TPMDC-2012)

Prof. K V Krishna Rao
(Chairman, TPMDC-2012)

Prof. Tom V. Mathew
(Vice-Chairman, TPMDC-2012)

Transportation Systems Engineering Group Department of Civil Engineering IIT Bombay, Powai, Mumbai - 400 076, INDIA.

Tel. Fax Email Website

: +91 22 2576 4348/7308/7329 : +91 22 25767302 : tpmdc@civil.iitb.ac.in : http://www.civil.iitb.ac.in/tpmdc

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: jastipradeep@gmail.com

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 b een 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.

Pradeep Chaitanya Jasti

2

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.

Pradeep Chaitanya Jasti

3

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

Pradeep Chaitanya Jasti

4

TABLE 1 Drawbacks of Conventional Service Level Benchmarking No. Segment 1 2 Public Transportation System Pedestrian Facilities Drawback Almost absent in most of the Indian cities. Foot over bridges (FOB’s) were not at all considered, Pedestrian delay judged based on the signal phase which exists very rarely. 3 4 5 Non Motorized Vehicles (NMV) Usage of ITS Intermediate (IPT) Public Almost absent in most of the Indian cities. Almost absent in most of the Indian cities. Transport Not at all considered, being predominant mode of travel in all the Indian cities. Strictly encourages on street paid Parking.

6 7

Parking Spaces

Financial Sustainability of Public Most of the cities don’t have a public transportation facility; hence Transport by Bus it has to be made flexible for consideration. Delay at Intersections Pavement Condition Not at all considered. Not at all considered.

8 9

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.

Pradeep Chaitanya Jasti

5

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.

Pradeep Chaitanya Jasti

6

TABLE 2 Data Collection for Benchmarking DATA Public Transportation Facilities and TYPE SOURCE Officials

IPT Secondary District Transport (DTO), Patiala

Pedestrian, Travel Speeds, Primary Intersection performances, Parking and Pavement Condition Accident Data Land Use Details

By Conducting Trail runs & Surveys

Secondary SP Office, Patiala Town Planning Secondary District Department, Patiala and Master Plan Patiala Secondary CPCB, Patiala

Pollution Levels

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)

Pradeep Chaitanya Jasti

7

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 OLOS 1 2 3 4 or EBU’s/1000 Population >= 1.5 < 1.5 > 1 <1 > 0.75 <= 0.75 Speed (Kmph) Average Overall Score Waiting Time (min) <= 2 2-5 5 - 10 > 10 <=7 8-10 11-15 16-20

>= 20 15 - 20 10 - 15 <10

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 1 2 3 4 Pedestrian Speed >= 4.25 >3.75 - <4.25 >2.5 - < 3.75 <= 2.5 Coverage of FOB’s > = 0.5 < 0.5 > 0.25 < 0.25 > 0.1 <= 0.1 Overall Score <=4-6 7-9 10-12 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

Pradeep Chaitanya Jasti

8

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 1 2 3 4 Ratio <= 2 2-5 5 - 10 > 10 Avg Controlled Delay at Avg Controlled Delay Overall Unsignalized Xn at Signalized Xn Score >= 1.5 < 1.5 > 1 <1 > 0.75 <= 0.75 >= 20 15 - 20 10 - 15 <10 <=7 8-10 11-15 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 1 2 3 4 RQI 0 – 1.5 1.6 – 2.5 2.6 – 4.0 4.1 – 5.0 SR 0 – 1.5 1.6 – 2.5 2.6 – 4.0 4.1 – 5.0 PQI Rating (Score) =1 >1 – <2 >2 – <3 >= 4

Pradeep Chaitanya Jasti

9

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. 1.) Conventional SLB’s Public Transportation Facilities Presence of Organized Public Transport System Extent of Availability of Public Transport per 1000 population Service Coverage (route Kms / sq. km) ------------------------Modified SLB’s Quantification of KPI’s Public Transportation Facilities Formulation Result CLOS

Extent of Availability of Public Transport per 1000 population Service Coverage (route Kms / sq. km)

A = No of Buses/ train coaches available in a city on any day B = Total Population of the city 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 1 (A/B) to Compute LOS 2

0.25

3

0.757

2

Average waiting time for Public Transport users Level of Comfort in Public Transport

Average waiting time for Public Transport users Level of Comfort in Public Transport

Calculate the average waiting time (In min) of passengers for each route A= Passenger count on bus at key identified routes

Compute LOS 3 by Avg. waiting time (A/B) to Compute LOS

6.3

3

1.75

2

Pradeep Chaitanya Jasti

10

B= Seats available in the bus % of Fleet as per Urban Bus Specifications % of Fleet as per Urban Bus A= Total number of buses in the Specifications city B= Total number of buses as per urban bus specifications in the city CLOS1 + CLOS2 + CLOS3 + CLOS4 + CLOS5 = 14 OLOS =3 2.) Availability of Pedestrian Facilities Signalized intersections Delay (%) Signalized intersections Delay by Representative Sample Technique (ft/Sec) Availability of Street Lighting Availability of Pedestrian Facilities

4 (A/B)*100 to Compute LOS 5 16.66 4

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 Calculate lux level (10 samples /km)

Compute LOS 1 based on Avg. time taken to cross an intersection Compute LOS 2 based on lux (B/A)*100 to Compute LOS 3 (A/B)* to Compute LOS 4

3.9 ft/Sec

2

Availability of Street Lighting Percentage of city covered

4.5

3

Percentage of city covered A= Total length of road network with Pedestrian Facilities B = Total length of footpath in the city Extent of Coverage of Foot Over Bridges (No’s/Km) A = Total no. of Foot over Bridges B = Total length of road network

33.2

3

0.022

4

CLOS1 + CLOS2 + CLOS3 + CLOS4 = 12 OLOS =3 3.) Availability of NMV IPT Facilities

Pradeep Chaitanya Jasti

11

Facilities Network covered (%) Equivalent Bus Units (EBU’s)/1000 Population Service Coverage (route Kms / sq. km) EBU’s has to be developed for all the modes of IPT. 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 ) NMT Facilities at Interchanges (%) Average waiting time for Public Transport users Calculate the average waiting time (In min) of passengers for each route Level of Comfort in IPT A= Passenger count on bus at key identified routes B= Seats available in the bus 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 3 based on Avg. waiting time (A/B) to Compute LOS 4 Compute LOS 5 based on Avg. Speed 7.74 3 Compute LOS 1 based on EBU’s (A/B) to Compute LOS 2 1.002 3

Encroachment on NMV roads by Vehicle Parking

0.359

3

2.5

3

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

Pradeep Chaitanya Jasti

12

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 Average Travel speed of Personal vehicles along key corridors (Kmph) Average Travel speed of Public Transport along key Average Travel speed of Personal vehicles along key corridors (Kmph) Average Travel speed of Public Transport along

Travel Speeds Along Major Corridors 5 No. of Trails has to be taken along each corridor and LOS has to be rated based on this average speed attained. 5 No. of Trails has to be taken along each corridor and LOS has to Compute LOS 1 based on Avg. Speed Compute LOS 2 based on 33.03 1

18

2

Pradeep Chaitanya Jasti

13

corridors (Kmph)

key corridors (Kmph)

be rated based on this average speed attained.

Avg. Speed

CLOS1 + CLOS2 = 3 OLOS =2 6.) Availability of Parking Spaces Availability of on street paid public parking spaces Availability of Parking Spaces Availability of on street Total no. of paid ECS has to be paid public parking spaces obtained within the city. Compute LOS 1 based on paid parking slots (A/B) to Compute LOS 2 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

0.16

4

CLOS1 + CLOS2 = 8 OLOS =4 7.) Road Safety Fatality rate per lakh population Fatality rate per lakh population Road Safety A= Total number of fatalities recorded within city limits in the given calendar year B= Population of the urban agglomeration in that year Fatality rate for pedestrian and NMT (%) Fatality rate for pedestrian A= Total number of pedestrian & NMT fatalities recorded within city and NMT (%) 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 (A*100,000/B) to compute LOS 1 27 4

Pradeep Chaitanya Jasti

14

year CLOS1 + CLOS2 = 6 OLOS =3 8.) Pollution Levels Annual Mean Concentration Range (μg/m3) Annual Mean Concentration Range (μg/m3) Pollution Levels Obtain the Annual Mean Concentration Range from CPCB Rate LOS based on annual mean concentration range SO2+ NO2+ SPM+ RSPM SO2 + NO2 + SPM +RSPM = CLOS1 + CLOS2 + CLOS3 + CLOS4 = 4+2+1+1 = 8 OLOS = 2 9.) Integrated LanduseTransport System Population Density Population Density Integrated Landuse-Transport System A = Area of the city in Hact B = Population of current year Mixed Land-use Zoning along the Transit Corridors Intensity of Development – Citywide Intensity of Development along Transit Corridors Road network Pattern and Mixed Land-use Zoning along the Major Corridors Intensity of Development – Citywide Intensity of Development along Major Corridors Road network Pattern and A = Total developed area B = Total non residential area Obtain the FSI of outer growth from the master plan A = FSI along major corridors B = FSI of the city Based on existing & proposed network recognize/identify major (B/A) to 44.03 compute LOS1 (B/A)*100 to compute LOS 2 Compute LOS 3 (B/A) to compute LOS 4 Compute LOS based on the 28 4 8

2

1.75

2

1.5

3

Some what

3

Pradeep Chaitanya Jasti

15

Completeness Area under Roads Density

Completeness

roads and pattern along with their extent of completeness

road pattern completeness (B/A)*100 to compute LOS 6 (B/A)*100 to compute LOS 6

clear 2.31 4

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

% 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

24.32

2

CLOS1 + CLOS2 + CLOS3 + CLOS4 + CLOS5 + CLOS6 + CLOS7 = 21 OLOS =4 10.) Financial Sustainability of Public Transport By Bus Extent of Non-fare Revenue Staff /bus ratio Operating Ratio Signalized Intersections to A = No. of signalized intersections Intersections ratio B = No. of intersections Average Delay at Signalized Intersections Compute by the delay study at Signalized intersections (B/A)*100 to compute LOS 6 Compute LOS based on delay Compute LOS based on delay 0.667 3 Performance of Intersections

28 43

2 2

Average Delay at Compute by the delay study at Unsignalized Intersections Unsignalized intersections 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

Pradeep Chaitanya Jasti

16

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 1 2 3 Modified SLB Public Transport facilities Pedestrian Infrastructure facilities IPT Facilities OLOS OLOS Achieved Targeted 3 3 3 2 2 2 Action Plan to achieve Target Organized Public Transportation system has to be started along the main routes of the city within next 3 years. Installation of FOB’s, Assigning Pedestrian Signal phase at Major Intersections within next 2 & 3 years respectively. 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. Surveillance cameras have to be fixed at all major junctions

4

Level of usage of Integrated Transport System

4

2

Pradeep Chaitanya Jasti

17

(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. 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.

6

Availability of Parking facilities

4

2

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 9 10 11

Pollution levels Land Use Transport Integration Performance of Intersections Pavement Condition along the Major Corridors

2 4 3 3

1 2 1 2

Pollution levels have to be dropped down by decreasing the NO2 level in the city within next 5 years. Town planning department has to be made as one of the approver for all the traffic &transportation studies. Major intersections have to be signalized within next 1 years Regular maintenance of pavement must be made mandatory prior and after the monsoon within next 1 year.

Pradeep Chaitanya Jasti

18

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 pres ent 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. 2. 3. 4. Service level benchmarks for urban transport at a glance, released by MoUD, Urban mobility India conference 2009. Singh k, Methods of assessing pedestrian level of service, Journal of Engineering Research and Studies, Vol. II, 2011, pp.116-124. http://www.dot.state.mn.us/materials/pvmtmgmtdocs/Rating_Overview_State.pdf, last accessed August 31, 2011. Inception Report, CMP Patiala submitted by M/s Egis India Consulting Engineers Pvt. Ltd to PMIDC, November 2010.