Final Consultants Report

Project Number: Final Report November 2009

On bus-bike integration

This publication was prepared and compiled by the Interface for Cycling Expertise, and the 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) and as part of their activities under the Sustainable Urban Mobility in Asia (SUMA) Program of the Clean Air Initiative for Asian Cities Center. SUMA is supported by the Asian Development Bank through a grant from the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida).

On bus-bike integration

October 2009

Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................... 5 1 2 Introduction and rationale ......................................................................................................... 6 The transport system ................................................................................................................. 8 2.1 2.2 3 Defining multi-modal trips, access and egress .................................................................... 9 Mode integration ............................................................................................................. 11

Measuring integration developing an indicator framework ................................................... 13 3.1 3.2 3.3 Trip-making characteristics (mobility and accessibility)..................................................... 14 Urban system indicators (area and network) .................................................................... 15 Using the indicators ......................................................................................................... 16

How to integrate cycling and public transport? ........................................................................ 17 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 The systems approach to integration ............................................................................... 17 Integration at the facility level.......................................................................................... 18 Integration at the system level ......................................................................................... 20 Integration at the urban level........................................................................................... 23 3

5 6

How to promote integration? .................................................................................................. 25 What planners need to look at................................................................................................. 27 6.1 6.2 Guiding principles by which transportation plans or policy can be judged ........................ 27 Unlocking latent cycling demand by improving inter-modal integration ........................... 27

The integrated NMT - PT model ............................................................................................... 29 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.3.1 7.3.2 7.3.3 7.4 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 29 The NMT-PT process from a modelling perspective .......................................................... 29 The GI Modelling process ................................................................................................. 30 GIS and GIS data Models........................................................................................... 30 Modeling Public transport - the network routing problem ........................................ 32 The ArcGIS Network Analyst ..................................................................................... 33

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

7.5 7.5.1 7.5.2 8

Some examples of analysis and application of indicators .................................................. 34 Access model............................................................................................................ 35 Accessibility model ................................................................................................... 39

Conclusions ............................................................................................................................. 39

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

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), Institute 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) 5

Picture on the cover, courtesy: Jerry de Brie

1 Introduction and rationale

The role of Non Motorised Transport (NMT) - cycling and walking in particular - as a cheap and environmentally friendly 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 arise 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 relatively 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 cities, 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 trip, making the journey unaffordable. Integrating cycle based feeder 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 of private bicycles at transit stations

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 the integration 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.

2 The transport system

To 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 under study 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 discussed 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

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 whole, 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 egress

When one refers to integration of two or more modes (PT and NMT), the concept of multimodal trips emerges. Therefore, before discussing NMT-PT integration further, first the concept of multimodality is discussed and defined. According to Van Nes (2002) a multimodal trip is when two or more different 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.

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. HoogendoornLanser 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 trip 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 egress 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 railway station whereas the egress trip is the trip part from the alighting railway station to 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 of analysing and modeling multi-modal travel necessitates a more universal and more flexible definition regardless of 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. 10

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 starting 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 trip 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. Bicycle or walking access
Fi gur e 1.

bus BRT - other

Bicycle or walking

mode time trip part 11

Leg 1..n on mode 1..m

egress

Figure 3. Multimodal transport chain, access and egress trips representation

2.2 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 their destination 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 bicycles 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 using 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.

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 hierarchical 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 integration can 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.

12
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 since 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.

3 Measuring integration developing an indicator framework

In 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 Availability Frequency Punctuality Speed / Travel time Comfort Convenience Security and safety User cost Operator Area coverage Reliability Cycle speed Capacity Flexibility Safety and security Costs Passenger attraction Side effects Table 1: Transport systems are complex and can be looked at from different perspectives, adapted (Vuchic, 2005) Community Service quality Passenger attraction System cost Reliability in emergencies Social objectives Environmental impact Energy consumption Long-range impacts

13

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

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 Trip Segments Primary Indicators Number of Transfers Number primary A/E Trips Number secondary A/E Trips Number of MLH Trips Combined Indicators -Percentage share of A/E Trip in Total Trip -Ratio of A/E and MLH trip - Percentage share of secondary A/E trips in all A/E trips -Percentage share length of all A/E Trip in Total Trip -Ratio of length all A/E and MLH trip - Percentage share of length of secondary A/E trips in all A/E trips -Percentage share time 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 Integration Indicators 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 Trip -Length of MLH

Difference in total travel distance with walk-PT, bike-PT, walk-rented bike-PT, only cycling

14

Time (travel)

-Total Travel Time -Time of primary A/E Trip -Time of secondary A/E Trip -Time of MLH

Difference in total travel time with walkPT, bike-PT, walkrented bike-PT, only cycling

Time (transfer)

Cost (travel)

-Time taken to procure Secondary A/E mode -Time taken to park bike at transit station -Waiting Time at transit station -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 transfer time with walk-PT, bike-PT, walk-rented bike-PT, only cycling Difference in total travel cost with walkPT, bike-PT, walkrented 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, walk-rented bike-PT, only cycling

-availability of rental bike and rickshaw -availability of bike-parking at transit station -ease of parking bike - connectivity between parking and station Table 2: Trip-making indicators for different parts of the multi-modal trip

Comfort / convenience /satisfaction (transfer)

Difference in total transfer Comfort / convenience /satisfaction with walk-PT, bike-PT, walk-rented bike-PT, only cycling

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 [km 2] The service area of a bus stop or transfer station or a combination of bus stops and transfer stations [km 2]. 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 15

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

e 3(v 2)

(1)

where 0 < < 1 (where 1 is for a perfectly connected network) and where e = the number of links (segments) in a network and = the number of nodes in a network. In the case of a non-contiguous (disconnected) network the following indicators may be used: 8 a. The number of fragmented (isolated) network patches in a cycling network [-]. 8 b. The average shortest distance between network patches in the network [km].

3.3 Using the indicators

The desegregated indicators listed above can be used and combined to generate spatial measures which become planning support indicators for urban transport systems. Some examples are listed below: 1. Access to work and service location centres such as schools, health services, etc.: The door to door travel time from residence to the location of work schools, health services etc. [In minutes] would be used. 2. Infrastructure based accessibility indicators: The actual performance of the components (individual and combined) of the integrated system can be measured. 3. Activity-based accessibility measures: Indicating the range of available opportunities with respect to their distribution in space and the travel impedance between origins and destinations using the integrated system. 4. Utility-based accessibility measures: Indicating the benefits individuals derive from the integrated transport system. GIS systems can be used to calculate these indicators using door-to-door travel times by public transport (including access and egress) to a grid of points around the point of interest, resulting in a set of isochrones - journey time contours - within which the number of workplaces, households or residents can be calculated using for example census data. 16

4 How to integrate cycling and public transport?

4.1 The systems approach to integration
Mobility that we observe on our streets, i.e. the bicycles, cars, rickshaws, trains, is not an end in itself. Its users differ in their personal and motivational characteristics, as do their reasons to travel. Mobility is derived from a complex set of choices users make when deciding to travel from one location to another (or even decide not to go). These choices are influenced to a large extend by the structure, availability and affordability of different services provided through the traffic and transport system (i.e. the roads, routes, private and public modes, rules and regulations). Integration of these systems and services plays a big role in making the system efficient, a/os allowing for smooth transitions from one mode to another, from one hierarchical system to another. The traffic and transport system provides the supply side of this complex between system and its users (the demand side). To get a better understanding of integration between different modes of transport, distinction can be made between integration at the (see also Figures 5 and 6): a. Facility level: the nodal interchanges b. Systems level: the integrated transport system c. Urban level: the land-use transport system 17

Figure 4. The traffic and transport system is built-up of nodes (stops and stations), modal links (roads and rail) and land uses (locations of households and shops).

Figure 5. (l) map with bicycle parking locations (NYC) at the facility level, (m) map with bike rail 0integration points (Toronto) at the systems level, (r) map with current land uses versus location of infrastructure (Cleveland)at the land-use transport system level.

Each level of integration will be discussed here.

4.2 Integration at the facility level

At the facility level the integration between public transport and cycling is studied at the level of stops and stations (systems interchanges). Planning, design and management of bus stop and/or station locations and the consequent seamlessness of the integration between the modes is very important. In their choice of transport mode users distinguish several factors as time, cost, comfort and convenience of the total (door to door) trip. The service level of the main haul trip (i.e. the bus or train trip) is very important in the trip chain as well. Equally important are the possibilities for smooth access and egress of the public transport system by bicycle. The quality of such parking and storage facilities for bicycles (both at bus stops and stations) are determining the perception of stop quality of the users to a great extend. Most important factors that apply to stops and stations are: time that can be attributed to the transfer of modes: o o walking distance from parking to the bus or train average time needed to park and pay (if applicable) for the bicycle storage.

costs that can be attributed to the transfer of modes: o costs to park the bicycle possibly part of a fare integration deal (park and ride). 18

service, safety and comfort: o o o o security and safety for both the bicycle as well as the users availability of the parking facility in terms of service around the clock service from before to after the scheduled departure and arrival times of bus and trains stairs (if applicable) to enter or exit the facility with a bicycle and from the bike parking to the platform (if applicable) quality of storage (racks, bicycle maintenance service, additional services) bicycle renting possibility for example for the egress part of the trip. attractiveness visual appearance and convenience of the bicycle parking facility as well as its direct surroundings

o o o

See Figures 6 8 for examples of measures that can be taken to improve integration at the facility level.

Figure 6. (l) unguarded bicycle parking at station Den Bosch, The Netherlands, (m) bicycle maintenance service at guarded bicycle parking at a station in Amsterdam, The Netherlands; (r) bicycle parking facility at station Groningen, The Netherlands.

Figure 7. (l) bike rental in The Netherlands, (m) guarded bicycle parking in The Netherlands; (r) unguarded bicycle parking at bus stop in The Netherlands.

19 Road infrastructure is another important issue. Safe and fast passages and routes to stops and stations for bicycles is a prerequisite for bus-bike integration. Priority in design of infrastructure and traffic management can enhance the status for bicycles as an access or egress mode. Such routes should also comply with the general route quality standards for bicycle networks (see also chapter 4 on design requirements and development process in this manual) (adapted from Bach, 2006): 1. Consistency: the cycle infrastructure should be an uninterrupted consistent whole, connecting the points of departure and destination of cyclists. 2. Directness: cycle tracks are preferably the shortest possible routes between points of departure and the destinations (minimizing detours to less than 20% of the straight line, Euclidian, distance). 3. Attractiveness: lighting, shelter, traffic signs, intersection priorities etc. should be well designed and operational. 4. Road safety: smooth pavements, lighting and removal of dangerous junctions (accident hotspots) should be part of the development of safe routes to the bus stops and stations. 5. Convenience: the cyclist traffic flow should be smooth and convenient. This means preventing steep slopes, dangerous curves, open drainages, street hawkers and parked vehicles.

Figure 8. (l) bike path in The Netherlands, (m) cycling in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, (r) bicycle parking at home.

Last but not least, the storage facility at the home and non-home end of the trip is very important. Bicycle sheds at home, school and public places enable people to consider the bicycle as an access or egress mode for their public transport trip in the first place. To overcome availability of bicycles many cities are experimenting with bicycle rent schemes. These schemes come in different shapes: 1. Public bike schemes. Bikes can be rented and dropped at various locations in the city, see Figure 9. Payment is usually done electronically through subscription to the scheme and the use of smart cards. 2. Bicycle rent schemes integrated with public transport systems (Figure 8(l)) where users use and return their bikes to the same rental location near a bus or train station.

20

Figure 9. Velib public bike scheme in Paris.

4.3 Integration at the system level

The planning of networks for cycling and public transport (effectively the locations of bus stops and stations) should go hand in hand. The combination bicycle-bus can provide a serious alternative to motorized trips by motor cycle or car. In the European context (e.g. Belgium and The Netherlands) about 5% of the people lives within walking distance from a station location, while 48.1% of the people lives within a cycleable distance from a station location. In other words the combination bicycle-train expands the user catchment area with a factor 10 (Mobiel Vlaanderen, 2005). According to Krygsman et al. (2004) the propensity for use of public transport deteriorates with increase in access/ egress time. From their illustration of the probability curves (see Figure 10) for access/egress the time for up to 85% probability of walking and bicycling to access public transport is 15 min. At a walking speed of 4 Km/hr, this equals to an access/egress distance of 1 Km. For a cycling trip of say 15 Km/hr, this would already be close to 4 Km. Actually, for cycling access trips it may be assumed that there is also a minimum distance threshold for bike access, as most people would prefer to walk the very short distance rather than to cycle.

Figure 10. Probability curves for access and egress trips in The Netherlands (Krygsman et al. (2004)).

As said before the bicycle can be complementary to public transport systems and as such be an alternative to for example the car. However, especially for short trips the bicycle can be a competitor to the bus. This is mainly because the bus is not that much faster than a bicycle for short distances as well as that integrating a long access bike ride with a short bus main haul trip is usually not a viable option given the cost and time factors involved. In other words, cycling potential is a function of the public transport network lay-out and structure. Bike access trip are probably better accommodated in public transport system s with a relatively low bus stop density, while walking access is better accommodated in public transport systems with a high bus stop density. The first type of system is usually seen in the citys periphery, or in the case of a Bus Rapid Transit system. Public transport networks typically come in these two forms, i.e. (adapted Van Nes (2002)): 1. Connecting networks: linking busy points of origin and destination. The stops and stations for connecting transport are located at spots with a high demand for travel. 2. Access networks: penetrating deeply into areas/zones and city centers. This type of transport comprises of traditional bus services based on a surface area cover with a relatively small stop radius, e.g. of around 500 meters. See Figure 11.

21

Figure 11. (l) access versus (r) connecting public transport networks

Bus stop density for connecting public transport networks is typically lower than for access networks. Access networks can be typified by their higher bus stop density and shorter line haul distance. Bus bike integration aims at offering an alternative to (for example) cars. This is typically done with connecting network structures aimed at providing a fast, reliable and comfortable alternative to the car at medium to long distances. As said before, for access networks the bicycle can even be a competitor to the bus system, because at short distances the bicycle is faster than the bus.

When considering access to facilitated bus stops (meaning that a bus stop has appropriate facilities for storage of the bicycle), Figure 11 (r ) could also be seen as an access network with a limited number of facilitated bus stops, typically near areas with a large potential demand. A well integrated bus bike system at the system level is one where the bicycle access to the main haul public transport line or feeder bus stop is well planned, designed and engineered. The routes towards the bus stops and/or stations comply with the general quality requirements for bus routes (as stated above ), see Figure 12.

22

Figure 12. A well integrated bus bike system increases the catchment of potential users of the integrated system.

4.4 Integration at the urban level

At the highest level of integration the bus-bike system (supply) is compared to demand (potential) locations. Here spatial locations of people, companies, services (activity locations), the actual origins and destinations, come in to the picture. The catchment area of the integrated bus-bike system gets quantified in the number of (potential) passengers. Here socio-economic characteristics, perception and motivational aspects determine whether trip makers are (potential) users of the system or not. At the urban level a GIS or public transport travel demand model can be used to calculate the likeliness of certain trips to be made. The different utilities of the integrated bus-bike trip are compared to other integrated trips such as walking bus trips or for example the utility of a unimodal trip by car. Using a probability function that depicts the likeliness of an integrated bus-bike trip to be made (having a parabolic shape) the bus-bike trip catchment can be calculated. Such integrated bus-bike distribution functions have not been estimated (yet). Hypothetically the function reads as follows, see also Figures 14 and 15. When the access distance is short it is unlikely that users bike to the facilitated bus stop, but choose to walk instead; here the trade-off between the walking time versus cycling time, including parking time, out of pocket costs and convenience is important. This threshold is likely to be 1 to 1.5 kilometers (context dependent). Same applies to the longer distances between the trip origin and the facilitated bus stops. From say 6 to 7.5 kilometers (context dependent) it becomes very likely that people opt for another access mode, e.g. a feeder bus, to the main haul service. Obviously, local circumstances, such as fare integration systems and parking provisions etc., as mentioned above, may influence the shape of the function considerably. 23

Figure 13. Hypothetical distribution curve of bicycle access trips in integrated bus-bike system

Figure 14. Passenger catchment areas for integrated bus-bike trips are influenced by the distance of the origin to the main haul line based on hypothetical distribution curve (green: bus-walking catchment, purple: bus-bicycle catchment, orange: bus-feeder bus catchment).

In summary, combining these three levels of integration we can define a well integrated bus-bike (or PT NMT) system as consisting of: 1. Multi-modal transfer facilities (at interchanges or stops) that are fast, cheap, accessible, safe and convenient. 2. A connecting public transport network, implying low density of stops and stations (system), or an access public transport network with a low density of facilitated bus stops and stations. 3. An integrated bus - bicycle network (system), i.e. access bike network linked to the connecting public transport network, and/or; 4. An access public transport network (public transport feedering system) with a bus stop density complementing the bicycle as an access mode. 5. Integration points (lines and stops) well located as per the optimal catchment of potential users (of the integrated bicycle-bus system) in the urban area. 24

5 How to promote integration?

In the previous discussion emphasis has been put on the supply side of the traffic and transport system. Integration options have been discussed at the facility, system and urban levels, while various indicators to measure integration have been given as well. Obviously these levels are highly dependent and integration can only be achieved by looking holistically at the whole system, that is looking at the supply as well as demand levels. Integration both at the access as well egress station may be promoted through (partly adapted from Schiefelbusch and Dienel (2009)): 1. Accessibility of parking spaces, station platform 2. Availability of parking spaces, availability of information on the services provided 3. Safety and security (presence of guards, surveillance, lighting) 4. Comfort and convenience (cleanliness, availability, smoothness of services) 5. Customer service (friendliness of personnel, complaint management) 6. Good quality routes to the bus stops and stations (following the requirements of quality bicycle routes) and obviously all these account also for the bus system, which requires also: 7. Punctuality of the service 8. Ensuring connections These quality criteria can be achieved by offering incentives at all three levels of integration, i.e.: 25

At the facility level

1. Capacity a. Capacity fits bicycle parking demand b. Integrated ticketing systems c. Integrated fares d. Frequent traveler incentives (parking subscription) e. Priority parking (for frequent travelers, women) 2. Seamless access between parking and platform a. Good station design b. Good accessible bicycle parking

c. Shortcut from bicycle parking to platform 3. Service levels a. Opening hours of guarded bicycle parking from before the first service till after the (delayed) last service b. Bicycle maintenance, puncture service c. General supplies shop

At the system level

1. Bicycle network a. Complying with route quality criteria (consistency, directness, attractiveness, road safety) b. Bicycle network integrated with public transport network (particularly at the most important public transport stops) 2. Bus route network a. Bus route network integrated with bicycle network (particularly at the most important public transport stops)

At the ur ban level

The integrated bus-bike network is planned as such to optimize the catchment of bus-bike users. So, the transport system is situated close enough to activity centers and residential locations, both as an origin as well as destination.

26

6 What planners need to look at

6.1 Guiding principles by which transportation plans or policy can be judged
Transport planners are involved in a variety of activities that shape the future of communities. Their prime goal is to provide a transportation system that (i) adequately serves the mobility needs of all citizens and (ii) meets the challenges of preserving and improving the quality of life and the environment. The purpose of transportation plans and policy, thus, is to provide society with the benefits of transportation services while minimizing their direct and indirect costs as much as possible (Wachs and Kumagai, 1974). Achieving a balance between benefits and costs requires consideration of effectiveness, efficiency, and equity and the trade-offs between them. Effectiveness refers to how well the transport system meets its intended objectives. The effectiveness of an investment in transportation is proportional to its capacity to deliver service. Efficiency refers to how much a transportation investment costs in relation to the benefits it provides. Resources are always limited and where more service is provided per unit of expenditure society is better off. Equity refers to the fairness with which benefits are delivered and costs imposed on society. If some segments of the population obtain a disproportionate share of benefits while others carry the monetary or environmental costs such disparities intensify inequality (Hanson and Giuliano, 2004). The above clearly demonstrates that transport planning is inevitably tied up with issues of resource allocation, distribution and priority setting. Decisions have to be made about the amount and nature of transport infrastructure and services to be provided and how these are best distributed amongst the members of society. Obviously these are questions of an economic and political nature but these questions also have a geographic dimension since transportation facilities will have to be provided at particular locations in geographical space. In the following we present a methodology that enables to guide the allocation of scarce transportation resources in geographic space.

27

6.2 Unlocking latent cycling demand by improving inter-modal integration

The discussions in this chapter in the manual focus on the potential of integrating Non Motorised Transport (NMT) - cycling in particular with Public Transport (PT). Its underlying rationale is that improved integration (at facility, system and urban level) will make a multi-modal travel chain more attractive to prospective trip makers and so contribute to a more effective and sustainable transport system. The methodology is designed as a what if type of approach that can support planners to (i) appraise an existing transport system and detect its spatial deficiencies, (ii) explore how latent cycling mobility can best be unlocked by proposing and prioritizing alternative spatial arrangements of transport infrastructure and facilitated bus stops (including level of facilitation) and (iii) estimate the expected impacts of such alternative interventions on transport system performance. In doing so an approach will be presented here that illustrates how more sophisticated GIS-based modeling and

analysis techniques can be usefully applied in support of strategic spatial planning of transportation infrastructure at facility, system and urban level. To appraise the existing transport system and detect its spatial and system deficiencies a modeling is presented that goes through the following steps: 1. Inventory of existing transport facilities (at facility, system, urban level) 2. Inventory of the spatial distribution of (potential cycling) demand 3. Quantify the bus-bike integration indicator 4. Indentify shortfall (and possibly surplus) by comparison of supply and demand To explore and prioritize which (combination of) interventions will most enhance performance it is necessary to 1. Identify spatial concentrations of potential integrated cycling - PT demand. 2. Allocate limited resources in a way that unlocks most of the potential integrated cycling - PT demand This requires an iterative, computationally intensive approach that will be presented here.

28

7 The integrated NMT - PT model

7.1 Introduction
Analysing the integration of PT and MT system requires an analytical modelling framework that is capable to represent the real life transport system and the use that travellers make of it. In the following section the development of the integrated Geographic Information (GI) based model is discussed, starting from a discussion on the NMT process, the GI modelling process, the main capabilities of the model and some examples of outputs.

7.2 The NMT-PT process from a modelling perspective

A combined NMT - PT trip is a sequence of events that takes place in time and in geographic space. A number of definitions that have been described in the earlier paragraphs are key in understanding this sequence of these events: The access trip and its characteristics such as mode, duration, etc., the transfer process and its characteristics such as waiting time and comfort, the PT process with its characteristics such as mode(s), travel time and comfort, transfers and the egress trip with its characteristics such as travel time. Typically an integrated NMT- PT trip takes place over a combination of transport networks, the road network and/or the bicycle network and the different public transport networks (main haul and feedering systems), each consisting of a set of routes. The concept of route in transport modelling has a double meaning. In a general sense it refers to the sequence of network elements that are being travelled between an origin and a destination. In this sense a person may travel from home to an activity via a route. In a narrower sense, when modelling PT particularly, it may refer to the (formalised) PT routes that are operated in a (formal) public transport system. In modelling, both concepts are used interchangeably. In the case of Pune, we are addressing the integration of the potential of NMT trips with the bus public transport. The narrative of a typical NMT PT trip is as follows: A person is leaving his/her house, either walking or by bicycle. In the case of walking, typically the person will walk to the nearest but stop, although this is not necessarily the case as other motivations such as the lack of fare integration can play a role in the choice of which bus route to ride. The person will experience a certain waiting time before the bus arrives and he/she can board. In the case of cycling, the person will take the bicycle and ride to a suitable bus station, a station that is accessible via a good quality cycling infrastructure and that offers a suitable service level with for example the provision of a safe bicycle parking facility. This person will require time to park the bike and go to the location where the bus can be boarded, in addition to the average waiting time before the bus arrives. After boarding the bus, the person will travel the bus route either directly to the destination, or, in case a change is needed to another bus route, to a location where a transfer is made from one route to the next. Typically such location is determined by the location of the closest bus stop to the intersection of the two routes concerned. This process can be repeated several times, depending on the way the bus system is structured, however, normally people tend to economise on making transfers as transfers involve a disutility in terms of accumulated waiting time and (in the case of Pune) the need to make another payment of the bus fare. After the final bus stop has been reached, the egress trip will take place, which will typically be a walking trip (but could as well be a cycling trip), particularly in case the bus network density is high, which is often the case in centres of employment such as CBDs.

29

The typical trip described above can be visualised as follows: NMT Access Trip (Walk or bike) Home Nearest suitable bus stop or transfer station and ticket purchase

Figure 15. Modelling a multi-modal trip.

7.3 The GI Modelling process

Waiting Time

7.3.1 GIS and GIS data Models A GIS is a spatial database that is capable of storing, analyzing and visualizing spatial data. Typically these spatial data are representing some real life phenomenon in the form of either a point, line or a polygon. E.g. a typical representation will be a line, whereas a bus Transferof a building is a polygon, a road Boarding stop would be represented by a point. The GIS allows for the storing of particular characteristics of these objects, (the so called attribute data) in attribute tables that are directly linked to the graphical object. An important concept in GIS model application is the data model. Goodchild (1998), defines a data model as the set of entities and relationships used to create a representation of some real phenomenon. This broad definition implies that whenever some feature or object is represented, Bus Line travel time data modelling must occur. The data model or range of data models that together form a system determine the applications and functions that are possible with that system. Whichever analysis we do in GIS, there is always a data model behind it. A central data model in almost all infrastructure data models is the so-called basic network data model. This data model represents networks by line No is defined by its start and end node and its segments and their interconnected nodes. A line segment Is the final Destination direction. Segments can carry attributes; these can be different for different directions. Typical reached? examples of segments in infrastructure networks are pipes, stretches of road, electricity cables and many more. Nodes define the topological relation (connectivity) and canYes also carry attributes. Examples of nodes in infrastructure networks are crossings in a road network, valves in a water network and switch boxes in an electricity network. Typically GIS network representations are 2dimensional (able to represent planar networks), whereby a provision is made to allow for the Alighting modelling Work of non-planarities such as bridges, underpasses etc. In the following figure, taken from Trip Goodchild (1998), a simple representation of a road network is Egress by Walking given with its associated segment and node attribute tables. The information in the segment table ensures topologic connectivity. An additional table is a so called turn table that is used to prohibit particular turns in a transport network.

30

5 d 1 a 6
N 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 5 5 5 5 6 6

Permissible flow Digitising direction

3 c


c 1 5 6 3 5 4 6 2 3 5 1 2 3 4 2 3

Node_Segment topology table Segment_ID F_node T_node 1 d a

a a

Segment attribute table Segment_IDStreet_nameLanes 1 High Street 2 2

31


Figure 16. Basic representation of a topological road network and associated tables

7.3.2 Modeling Public transport - the network routing problem The development of a data model that is able to deal with the movement of public transport is complex. Such model requires a line layer which can be built with impedances along each arc (edge/ link) that creates a connected network, but this network also needs to be flexible. Typically GIS data models are 2-dimensional, which implies that they are able to handle only one layer at a time. Movement is modelled over the road network, whereas the routes that are possible need to be modelled as separate entities, because the model needs to be able to distinguish one route from the other. Therefore a route analysis from A to B that might require a change of mode at C, from road to rail for example, cannot be carried out with a basic GIS network model. Some GIS data structures however, such as the ArcGIS geodatabase structure, allow for the movement and interaction among its constituent layers (such as routes) and therefore are able to overcome the limitations of the 2D network model. In the Pune NMT-PT model, a solution is chosen to model the underlying road transport with the different bus stops and bus routes in 3 dimensions. Each bus route is assigned an elevation and is therefore disconnected physically from the road network. Switching from one route to the next is done through so-called connectors that are carrying the impedances that are associated with the transfers, particularly the waiting time for that transfer. The following chart shows a 2-dimensional and 3 dimensional representation of the main network of Pune, whereby the 3-dimensional representation offers clear benefits in visualizing the number of bus routes on a given link. 32

Figure 17. The bus route system in Pune in a 3D representation

As indicated above, the 3D representation allows for the attachment of impedances on the elements that are used for the modelling of transfers between routes. These are the so-called false connectors that are connecting to the false bus stops. The figure below shows a visualization of the final 3D modelling structure with its key components. Similar structures are used for the access and the egress part of the trips.

Figure 18. The final 3D modelling structure with its key components

33

Figure 19. A schematic concept of the integrated NMT PT model

7.3.3 The ArcGIS Network Analyst The model applied to Pune has been developed in the ArcGIS software environment. However, the same modelling can be done in other GIS software packages (available commercial and as freeware). This environment allows for the development of connected networks on which a number of network analytical operations can be performed. The most important ones are: Shortest or optimal path finding In transport networks people tend to move to activity locations seeking to reduce the friction that needs to be overcome in terms of travel time and cost. A shortest path algorithm basically allows for the calculation of all route options and is able to select the most optimal. This is a key algorithm in modeling transport and in assessing the integrated transport system. Nearest facility

When finding closest facilities, it is possible to specify how many facilities need to be found and whether the direction of travel is toward or away from them. Once you've found the closest facilities, you can display the best route to or from them, return the travel cost for each route, and display directions to each facility. Service areas ArcGIS Network Analyst allows finding service areas around any location on a network. A network service area is a region that encompasses all accessible streets within a certain threshold. For instance, the 5-minute service area for a point includes all the streets that can be reached within five minutes from that point using a particular transport mode. OD cost matrix ArcGIS Network Analyst allows creating an origindestination (OD) cost matrix from multiple origins to multiple destinations. An OD cost matrix is a table that contains the network impedance from each origin to each destination.

7.4 What can the model do?

After having established and built the model and after the development of the route structures in 3D the model has been filled with the required attribute data for the links and the bus stops. Based on the current data model, in combination with the analytical tools in the GIS software the following are its capabilities. Trace the complete travel path used by a commuter from each trip origin to each trip destination Identify the bus stops where the commuter makes a change of mode/ or a transfer. Restrict a commuter to change from a slow bus line to an express bus line with the same ticket based on the fare system. Restrict a commuter to change from Mode A to Mode B while the commuter is eligible for only one of them. Provide different wait times for different bus lines at all stations or at each station. Calculate the travel times and travel costs for entire routes, or particular sections thereof, e.g. the access part, or part of a main haul trip. Calculate the number of transfers for each trip and the transfer duration. Calculate the time spent in access and egress with respect to the total travel time. 34

7.5 Some examples of analysis and application of indicators

In this paragraph a number of examples are given that demonstrate some of the above mentioned functionality of the model. These examples are limited in view of the scope of the SUMA guidelines and serve only as an illustration of the model capability. As discussed earlier in the chapter, in order to assess integration, it is necessary to establish suitable measures to analyse the degree of integration between the bicycle/walking and bus system and evaluate how integration affects the characteristics of the overall trip and the system as a whole.

Several indicators could theoretically be applied to evaluate the performance of the integrated multi-modal transport system. For the current chapter a few indicators are presented that operate at the level of the access trip, and at the level of the integrated system as a whole. 7.5.1 Access model In the access model, the main focus of interest is the determination of catchment areas and the associated number of people who can access a bus stop or transfer station. The catchment area can be seen as the area of influence of the bus stop or transfer station. The access can be visualized as a region around the bus stop from where people can access it within a given time or distance, depending on the impedance factors used in the analysis. In order to model a catchment, a number of assumptions need to be made. A starting assumption is that all stops in the network are potential bus-bike stops. Furthermore, information on the maximum time that people are willing to travel with a given mode is needed. In the case of Pune it is assumed that people who walk to a bus stop will want a bus stop within 5 minutes and those that cycle do not want if further away than within 15 minutes. In terms of distances, based on the used travel speeds for Pune of 4 and 15 km/hr for walking and cycling respectively, these thresholds translate to 800 m for walking and 3 km for cycling. These are obviously variables that have to be fine tuned for different cities by carrying out field studies. It is further assumed that all people within a 5 minutes range of the bus stop will prefer to walk, and those further away, but within 15 min will prefer to cycle. Figure 20 shows the service area for bus stops in zone 71. Zone 71 is chosen because in the data provided, that zone has the maximum number of trip productions. 35

Figure 20. Service areas for bus stops in zone 71

Such analysis can be repeated for all bus stops simultaneously, which gives a good indication of the level of access in the PT system. In the map below, the overview of the service areas for all bus stops is given. An interesting product in a next step is to generate data for estimating the catchment area of all bus stops and present the results in tabular form. This analysis combines the catchment area analysis with disaggregated census data that has been derived from a transport study at the level of Transport Analysis Zones (TAZ). As the zones are quite large they are further sub-divided into regular hexagonal tessellations of 200m side length. The total number of people in a zone is now equally divided into the tessellations per zone. Any person walking/cycling to a bus stop is assumed to make

the trip from the hexagonal centroid to the nearest point on the road network. Hence when finding the closest facility, the start locations are the hexagonal centroids and the facilities are the bus stops. After the analysis has been performed for each hexagon, the closest bus stop will be obtained. Since we know the population for each hexagon, we can obtain the population of the entire catchment for each bus stop by summation of the hexagon populations in the catchment. Table 3 shows the population catchment of a few bus stops. It can be seen that some stops attract a lot more travel than others. This shows that they are candidates for the upgrading of the bicycle infrastructure in their service catchment and in the stop locations, as their potential to attract bike but integrated trips will be highest.
Ca tch me nt Po p 2 S t o p Ca tch me nt Po p 48 S t o p Ca tch me nt Po p 10 8

 1730 472577 106 915 2303648 581108795 3 6685497466 109

1

3 0 3 6 6 6 8 5 2 8 0 9 1 2 2 9 5 3 9 7 4 1 9 9 2 0 7 2 6 4

5 8 1 7 4 6 6 6 9 8 0 3 9 0 2 7 9 3 5 3 5 5 5 1 5 7 2 9 5 9

795

49

10 9

165

36
11 0 3952

50

51

11 1

4514

56

11 2

3413

57

11 3

4008

11

58

11 4

5405

12

59

11 5

2864

13

14

15

16

18

6 2 0 5 4 4 8 5 5 5 3 8 4 6 0 1 3 8 4

61

2 6 7 8 9 9 0 7 1 3 3 3 5 6 1 0 4 3 7 2 3 1 6 5 4 6 3 5 0 2 2 2 3 0 8 2 4 2 6 4 2 8 1 8 0 8 8

11 6

1211

62

11 7 11 8

1590

64

19621

65

11 9

1727

66

12 0

5036

19

20

21

2 4 7 7 9 0 3 1 5 8 5 3 1 2 8 5 3 5 1 4 3 4 2 0 9 8

67

12 1

18927

37
12 2 845

68

69

12 3

748

31

70

12 4

2977

32

73

12 5

1650

33

74

12 6

38829

34

7 1 8 5 2 8 2 9 9 8 5 1 6 1 9 7 1 4 1 0 1 3 6 7 7 1 7 2 9 1 8 9 9 7 1 7

76

35

78

1 2 1 5 4 7 5 7 3 6 6 7 1 4 5 3 8 2 3 8 0 7 5 8 9 1 4 9 4 2 9 2 6

12 7

117

12 8

6575

36

79

19 3

1264

37

80

19 4

2444

38

81

19 5

4306

39

82

21 9

7189

38

40

83

22 0

743

42

84

22 1

8747

1 22 5902 5 3 3 3 9 45 1 88 1 22 14184 4 4 5 0 7 9 2 4 Table 3. Catchment areas (in number of potential passengers) by bus stop in the case study city Pune.

43

85

7.5.2 Accessibility model An interesting measure to analyse is accessibility calculated in terms of travel time. In the model, the travel time from an origin to a destination is considered to be from a hexagonal centroid (origin) to a TAZ zonal centroid (destination) as this seriously reduced calculation time. An OD cost matrix has been calculated that gives the travel cost in terms of minutes (travel time) for each OD pair. As a result, this tool can be used to obtain the travel cost for each travel between any origin and any destination in the network. A trip from a hexagonal centroid can be calculated by dividing the distance covered by the travel speed of the mode (cycling or walking). The egress trip is always considered to be done by walking to the zonal centroid. The three travel times are added up to obtain the total travel time. This travel time can be determined for both the walk-bus combination and the bike-bus combination. Out of the comparison of the two, the relative gain in travel time of using the bike-bus combination over the walk-bus combination can be evaluated. This comparison can be instrumental in identifying which areas have the most potential for bus-bike integration and where therefore investments should be directed. Figure 21 shows the results of such an analysis for zone 23. Zone 23 is chosen because it has the highest number of trip attractions according to the available data. The results show quite a dramatic potential, where for many areas in the city considerable travel time gains are possible!

39

Figure 21. Potential savings in travel time.

Many more kinds of analysis are possible with the integrated NMT PT model, depending on the particular question posed by the planners and policy makers. The model is being further developed and made accessible online in the near future.

8 Conclusions
This chapter has outlined theory and practice of bike-bus integration. The bicycle can play an important role in both access and egress trips to the public transport system in a multi-modal trip. The attractiveness of an integrated bike-bus trip is highly dependent on the level and quality of integration between the modes. Integration can be achieved in various ways and at various spatial levels such as facility, system and network. This study has developed a model that allows us to evaluate the efficacy of different types of integrated systems and benefits accrued to the user with integrated systems vs. without integration. This tool can be used by planners to optimize investments in infrastructure which parts of the city

should get priority in the development of infrastructure. Developing optimally located cycling facilities with public transport stations increases potential ridership of the system. This is particularly relevant for two scenarios - for low density lines in radial cities like BRT and Metro systems and for maximizing the reach (catchment) of public transport systems with minimum investment.

40 -/-

References
Bach, B. (2006), Urban design and traffic: a selection from Bachs toolbox , CROW, Ede, The Netherlands Cascetta, E. (2001). Transportation Systems Engineering: Theory And Methods. Kluwer Academic Publishers. The Netherlands Hanson S. and G. Giuliani Eds. (2004). The geography of urban transport. Third edition. The Guilford Press, New York. Hensher, D and Button, K.J. (2001). Handbook of Transport Systems and Traffic Control, Chapter 1, Elsevier Science. Hoogendoorn-Lanser. S, Van Nes, R., Hoogendoorn, S.P. (2006). Modeling Transfers in Multimodal Trips: Explaining Correlations. Transportation Research Record 1985, pp. 144-153 Ibrahim, F.M. (2003). Improvements and integration of a public transport system: the case of Singapore, Cities . 20 (3), pp. 205-216 Mobiel Vlaanderen (2005).Vademecum Fietsvoorzieningen, HTML: http://www.mobielvlaanderen.be/pdf/vademecum/, accessed 19 September 2009 [in Dutch]. Goodchild, M. (1998). Geographical Information Systems and disaggregate transportation modeling. Geographical Systems , 5, pp. 19-44. Rietveld, P. (2000). The accessibility of railway stations: the role of the bicycle in The Netherlands. Transportation Research Part D, 5, pp. 71-75. Rietveld, P., Bruinsma, F. R. and van Vuuren, D. J. (2001). Coping with unreliability in public transport chains: A case study for Netherlands. Transportation Research Part A , 35 (6), pp. 539-559. Schiefelbusch, M. and Dienel, H-L. Eds. (2009). Public Transport and its Users, Ashgate, Surrey, England Tolley, R. and Turton, B. (1995). Transport systems, policy and planning: a geographical approach. Longman, Essex, England. Krygsman, S., Dijst, M. and Arentze, T. (2004). Multimodal public transport: an analysis of travel time elements and the interconnectivity ratio. Transport Policy, 11, pp. 265275. Murray T.A. and Wu, X. (2003) Accessibility tradeoffs in public transit planning, Journal of Geographical Systems , 5(1), pp. 93-107. Vasconcellos, E. A. (2001). Urban transport, environment and equity - the case for developing countries. Earthscan, UK. Van Nes, R. van (2002). Design of multimodal transport networks: a hierarchical approach, T2002/5, The Netherlands TRAIL Research School, TRAIL Thesis Series, The Netherlands

41

Vuchic, V. R. (2005) Urban Transit: operations, planning and economics. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons. Wach M. and Kumagai, T.G. (1973). Physical accessibility as a social indicator. Socio Economic Planning Sciences, 7 (5), October, pp. 437-56. Wikipedia (n.d.a), Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PTA, accessed 21 September 2009. Wikipedia (n.d.b), Pune, India , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pune, accessed 22 September 2009. Wu, B.M. and Hine, J.P. (2003) A PTAL approach to measuring changes in bus service accessibility, Transport Policy, 10(4), pp. 307-320.

42