You are on page 1of 39

SURABAYA MASS RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM PROJECT

TRAVEL DEMAND MODEL UPDATE AND
RIDERSHIP ANALYSIS STUDY
RESULTS REPORT

By
Dr. Eric P. Ho
Prof. Ahmad Munawar
Ms. Synthia Angelina

November, 2013

Presentation Contents
Introduction
Technical approach
Data collection method
Regional travel demand
Ridership Analysis
Conclusions

Study Objectives
Upgrade the regional travel demand model for
travel demand forecasts, traffic and ridership
analyses of major investment transport projects
Performed ridership analysis for the purposed
Surabaya Rapid Rail System project, for
Alternative alignment analysis
Project component prioritization analysis
Supporting engineering plan and design
Supporting economic and financial analysis

Study Boundary
City of Surabaya and
surrounding areas
8 external road
segments to represent
traffic entering city of
Surabaya

TECHNICAL APPROACH

Technical Approach

Technical Approach
Travel demand modeling technique
Multi-modal considering both vehicle and passenger
travel
Based on collected travel and traffic data
Based on project socio-economic conditions in the
region
Used transport model software EMME3

Travel Demand Model
A set of mathematic formulations for analyzing the
travel demand pattern in a region and to project
the traffic volumes on transport network
Used for major investment projects with regional
travel demand impacts
Not for local improvement projects like road
segment widening or intersection improvement
projects

4-Step Travel Demand Model Process

Major Model Improvement for Rail
Ridership Forecasting
Two-level modal split structure

Motorcycle

Transit

Bus
Major variables considered:
-Travel time (in-vehicle, walk, wait)
-Travel cost (fare, operation cost)
- Transfers or not
- Trip type (work, school, other)
- Car ownership

Car

Rail

Major Model Data Forms
Zonal/District Data
Trip table data
Travel time/cost matrix data
Transport Network data
Traffic flow and transit ridership data

Traffic Zone Definition

- 209 Internal zones - 8 External zones - 31 Districts

Desire Line Diagram of Internal
Motorized Trips

Model Encoded Road Network

Model Encoded Transit Network

DATA COLLECTION EFFORT

Major Source of Data for Travel
Demand and Ridership Analyses
Previous Surveys
Home Interview Survey
Road Segment Traffic Count Study
Bus Operation Survey

Additional Surveys
Road Segment Traffic Count Study
External Station Origin/Destination Survey
External Terminal Passenger Interview Survey

Other available Inventory and survey data
Demographic data
Land use data

Household Travel Survey Data
Core data source for updating the travel demand
model
Major travel characteristic in the region
Trip rates
Origins/Destinations of trips (trip tables)
Modal shares

Major parameters of the model

Trips / Person

Daily Person Trip Rates
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

Non-Car HHs
Car HHs
1

2

3

4

5

Household Size

Desire Line Diagram of Internal
Motorized Trips

Existing Travel Mode Shares
Percents Percents of
of All
Motorized
Numbers
of Trips
Trips
Trips
362,700
7.1%
10.7%

Travel Mode
Private Car
Other passenger
vehicle*
Motorcycle
Transit
Non-Motorized**
All Modes

119,800
2,645,100
262,500
1,722,600
5,112,800

All Motorized Modes

3,390,200

2.3%
51.7%
5.1%
33.7%
100.0%

3.5%
78.0%
7.7%
--100.0%
Private Car
7.10%

NonMotorized
33.70%
Transit
5.10%

Traffic Volume Count Data
Sources of data
24 previous classified count locations (2011)
8 additional classified count locations (2013)

Use of the traffic count data
Use to validate the model and trip tables
Derive adjustment factor for the models

Other
passenger
vehicle
2.30%

Motorcycle
51.70%

Observed Traffic Volumes on Road Network
Daily Car Volumes

Daily Motorcycle Volumes

External Station Origin/Destination Survey
Survey Procedure
8 external road segments
8-hour interview survey during AM, Mid-day and PM
periods
8-hour classified vehicle count survey
Inbound traffic only

Use of survey data
Derive the “external-internal” trip tables
By mode (motorcycle, car, bus, truck)
By trip purpose (commuter or non-commute)

Desire Line Diagram of External-Internal Trips

REGIONAL TRAVEL DEMAND

Existing Land Use Map

Existing Population Distribution

Distribution of Trip Destinations

Desire Line of Daily Motorized Trips

Desire Line Diagram of ExternalInternal Trips

Planned Land Use Map

Regional Population Growth
Population
City
2008

2009

2010

2011

Average
Annual %
Growth

Surabaya

2,736,000 2,751,000 2,765,000 2,781,000

0.55%

Sidoarjo

1,864,000 1,904,000 1,941,000 1,952,000

1.55%

Mojokerto 1,003,000 1,015,000 1,025,000 1,031,000

0.92%

Lamongan 1,181,000 1,180,000 1,179,000 1,186,000

0.14%

Gresik

1.18%

Bangkalan

1,143,000 1,161,000 1,177,000 1,184,000
887,000

897,000

907,000

912,000

Surabaya Population Projection
2013: 3,059,000
2025: 3,248,000

Population Growth by District

0.93%

Motorized Vehicle Projection
Vehicle Type
Motorcycle
Passenger Car
Public
Private

Year
2010 (unit) 2011 (unit) 2012 (unit)
1,213,457 1,274,660 1,402,190
8,638
270,478

9,388
266,542

Private Car Projection

2012

Number of Private Cars

9,996
284,784

2025

285,000 375,000

Cars/1000 people

95

120

Projected Regional Trips
Trip Type

Yr 2013

Yr 2025

Home Based Work

2,416,000 2,962,000

% Growth
22.6%

Home Based School

607,000

656,000

8.2%

Home Based Other

830,000

907,000

9.3%

Non-Home Based

402,000

430,000

7.0%

All

4,254,000 4,955,000

Note:
1) Motorization trips only
2) Including external/internal trips
3) Assuming 15% increase of labor participation rate

16.5%

Regional Growth of Motorized Person Trips
6.000.000
5.000.000
4.000.000
3.000.000
Yr 2013
Yr 2025

2.000.000
1.000.000
0

Home Based Home Based Home Based Non-Home
Work
School
Other
Based

All

Growth of Person Trips by District

Distribution of 2025 Person Trips

RAIL RIDERSHIP FORECASTS

Uses of Travel Demand Model for
Ridership Analysis
Evaluate ridership potentials of travel corridors
Examine various project design options
Prioritize project implementation plan
Assess the risk of an urban rail project (variation of the
ridership estimates)
Support the cost/benefit analysis and financial
analysis of the project

Ridership Characteristics of Tram and
Monorail Corridors

Ridership Characteristics of the Tram
and Monorail Corridors
Tram Corridor
Well developed corridor passing through the core
business and commercial districts
Most of provincial and city government offices
located
Substantial non-commute, non-home based travel
markets

Ridership Characteristics of the Tram
and Monorail Corridors
Monorail Corridor
Comprise two separate segments – east and west
Interaction between the east and west segments are
relatively low
The two segments serve mid/high income new
development areas
West segment is relatively short, but easily be
extended its service area to outskirt districts through
feeder bus service

Ridership Characteristics of the Tram
and Monorail Corridors
Monorail Corridor
The east segment may also extend to the
north/south coastal new resort and high-end
residential areas planned to be developed
The east segments also passing through the center
city area

Ridership Characteristics of the Tram
and Monorail Corridors
Interaction of the two rail route corridors
Mostly complement with each other with service
extended to north, east and west of the city
Possible overlapping service in city center area

Potential Travel Markets Served by Rail System

Potential Travel Markets Served by Rail System
Corridor 1 – Main north-south tram corridor
Corridor 2 – Western monorail corridor (travel within the
western segment and travel to the center city)
Corridor 3 – Southwest area (through convenient feeder bus
routes to connect to the extended western monorail)
Corridor 4 – North-western transit corridor (through trunk
line feeder bus service to connect the tram corridor)
Corridor 5 – Eastern Monorail corridor
Corridor 6 – Southern corridor (through feeder bus to the
rail lines)

Travel Market Potentials of the Rail System
Travel
Corridor
1
2
3
4
5
6
Total

Year 2011
Daily Motorized Trips
289,000
115,000
51,000
71,000
164,000
39,000
729,000

* Based on the 2011 household travel survey data

Ridership Assessment of Alternative Alignments

West-River Alignment

East-River Alignment

Ridership Assessment of Alternative Alignments

Cross-Over Alignment - 1

Cross-Over Alignment - 2

Basic Assumptions of Ridership
Forecasts
Rail fare the same as existing bus fare (3000 Rps)
Rail operation speeds 50 km/hr
Operation frequency
10 minutes for tram line
15 minutes for monorail line

Keep existing bus service

Year 2025 Daily Ridership Estimates

West-River

Tram Boardings
Monorail
Boardings
Total Boardings
Total Rail
Passengers

East-River Cross-Over -1 Cross-Over - 2

138,000

133,000

151,000

135,000

162,065

182,780

142,022

178,757

300,000

316,000

293,000

314,000

262,000

281,000

244,000

263,000

Rail Passenger Flow Diagrams
West-River

East-River

Cross-Over - 1

Cross-Over - 2

Station Boarding Diagrams
West-River

East-River

Cross-Over - 1

Cross-Over - 2

Ridership Analysis of Alternative Alignments
Daily rail system ridership in the range of 244,000
– 281,000
East-River alignment has the highest ridership
More stations than the West-River alignment
Less overlapping with the tram line
Covering more area in the river east region
West-River Alignment is slightly lower than the EastRiver Alignment

Ridership Analysis of Alternative
Alignments
The Cross-Over - 1 Alignment has the least ridership
Not cover well the core business center area (e.g.,
for paxs in west corridor to city center)
Only one interchange station with the Tram Line
Highest tram ridership (because of no overlapping
in city center area)

The Cross-Over -2 Alignment has similar
ridership as that of West-River Alignment

Ridership Analysis of Alternative
Alignments
The ridership on western monorail
segment is substantial
The ridership on eastern end of monorail
line is relatively low, in particular the
segment along the coast

Ridership Increment Analysis
Analyze the change of ridership by building the rail
system incrementally
To evaluate the contribution of ridership of each
individual segments
5 Scenarios being analyzed
Tram only
Extended tram to the western monorail segment (EXTENDED
TRAM)
Tram + eastern monorail segment (TRAM + EAST
MONNRAIL)
Extended Tram + eastern monorail segment (TRAM + EAST
MONORAIL)
Full Build (West-River Alignment)

Rail Segments for Incremental Analysis

Ridership Estimates of Incremental Analysis
TRAM +
TRAM +
FULL BUILD
TRAM ONLY
WEST
EAST
(WEST-RIVER
MONORAIL MONORAIL ALIGNMENT)
Tram Boardings
Monorail Boardings

145,000

143,000

--

66,000

159,000

138,000

71,000 162,000

Total Boardings

145,000

210,000

230,000

300,000

Total Rail Passengers

141,000

189,000

190,000

262,000

Additional Rail Paxs
from Tram Only Scenario

--

48,000

49,000 121,000

Ridership Increment Analysis
FULL BUILD (WEST-RIVER
ALIGNMENT)

262.000

TRAM + WEST MONORAIL + EAST
MONORAIL

238.000

TRAM + EAST MONORAIL

190.000

TRAM + WEST MONORAIL

189.000
141.000

TRAM ONLY
-

100.000

200.000

300.000

Major Findings of Ridership Increment Analysis
Ridership of Tram Line alone is substantial
Ridership increment of adding the west monorail
segment is similar to that of adding the east monorail
segment
West segment is quite effective of serving the
passengers from west corridor to the center city
Effectiveness of east segment may be limited by the
circuitous alignment
Tram line ridership decreases in the full build
scenario, indicating the overlapping of service between
tram line and the monorail line in the center city area

Sensitivity Analysis
Examine the change of ridership with
respect to change of major parameters:
Transit fare and operation cost
Service level of road network
Travel demand to city center
Integrated bus operation

Use the “East-River” Alignment as the
baseline condition

Ridership Impacts of Fare and Cost
East-River
(Base
Condition)

Value
Tram
Boardings
Monorail
Boardings
Total
Boardings
Total Rail
Passengers

City Center
Parking Cost
Rail Fare 100%
Increase
100% Increase
Free Transfer
%
%
%
Change
Change
Change
from
from
from
Base
Value
Base
Value Base Value

133,000

96,000 -27.8% 161,000 21.1% 135,000

1.5%

183,000

134,000 -26.8% 212,000 15.8% 186,000

1.6%

316,000

229,000 -27.5% 372,000 17.7% 321,000

1.6%

281,000

214,000 -23.8% 321,000 14.2% 285,000

1.4%

Ridership Impacts of Fare and Cost
The fare level and fare structure would like major
impact on ridership
Ridership would be 25% lower with fare increase
from 3000 Rps to 6000 Rps
Free transfer between bus&rail and rail&rail would
increase rail ridership by 15%
Impact of the parking cost is small as the current
parking cost level is very low

Ridership Impacts of Road Network Operation and
Travel Demand in City Center
Center City
Business/
Car/Motorcycle
Commercial
Travel to City
East-River Road Network
(Base
Operation Speed Development 20 Center 20%
% Increase
Condition) 50% Reduction
Decrease
%
%
%
Change
Change
Change
from
from
from
Value
Value Base Value Base Value Base
Tram
Boardings
Monorail
Boardings
Total
Boardings
Total Rail
Passengers

133,000

154,000 15.8% 141,000 6.0% 159,000 19.5%

183,000

209,000 14.2% 194,000 6.0% 218,000 19.1%

316,000

364,000 15.2% 335,000 6.0% 377,000 19.3%

281,000

321,000 14.2% 297,000 5.7% 349,000 24.2%

Ridership Impacts of Road Network Operation
and Travel Demand in City Center
The operation condition of road network would
affect rail ridership by up to 15%
Travel demand management measures to reduce
road traffic in center city would have major impact
to rail ridership
Increase of the business/commercial development
density would have moderate impact to ridership

Rail Ridership Impact of Feeder Bus Plan
East-River
New Feeder Bus Plan New Feeder Bus Plan
(Base Condition)
Alone
+ Limited Local Bus
Value
Tram Boardings
Monorail
Boardings
Total Boardings
Total Rail
Passengers
Total Transit (Bus
and Rail)
Passengers

Value

% Change
from Base

Value

% Change
from Base

133,000

135,000

1.5%

133,000

0.0%

183,000

194,000

6.0%

192,000

4.9%

316,000

329,000

4.1%

323,000

2.2%

281,000

319,000

13.5%

309,000

10.0%

703,000

581,000

-17.4%

653,000

-7.1%

Bus Ridership Impact Feed Bus Plan
Bus System
Scenario
Ridership
2013 No Build
350,000
2025 No Build
460,000
2025 Rail + Existing Bus System
425,000
344,400
2025 Rail + Feeder Bus Plan Only
• Overall bus system ridership will decrease with
only rail routes and feeder bus routes
• Still need some local bus/angkot routes to provide
short haul services to local communities

Feeder Bus Plan

Existing Bus Network

Impact of Feeder Bus Plan
The implementation of feed bus plan would increase
rail ridership 10% or more
The feeder bus plan should be supplemented by local
bus routes to provide short-haul services to local
communities
A comprehensive bus operation plan (with integration
with the rail system) needs to be developed to
maximize the overall effectiveness of the transit
system

Conclusions
A upgraded Surabaya Travel Demand Model was
implemented using latest collected travel and traffic
data
The upgraded model was applied to develop ridership
forecasts of the purposed Mass Rapid Transit System in
Surabaya
The model is ready to be transferred to the city for
transport planning studies and other major investment
transport projects
The city needs to acquires necessary resources and
professional staff to apply and update the model in
the future

Conclusions
The study demonstrated the use of the travel
demand model for following types of ridership
analysis:
Alternative rail alignment options
Ridership build-up of rail segments
Sensitivity analysis to examine the risk factors that
would impact ridership of the rail system

The model can also be used to support:
Engineering design of the rail project
Financial and economic analysis

Conclusions
The ridership analysis reveals that:
The purposed rail system will have substantial ridership in the
range of 240,000 to 280,000 passenger daily
The tram line corridor alone will generate up to 150,000
ridership daily
The tram ridership will depend heavily on its operation speed
in order to compete with motorcycle
The west segment and east segment of the monorail will generate
similar level of the ridership on top of the tram line
The alignment and extend of the east monorail segment needs
further examined to maximize it effectiveness

Conclusions
Rail ridership depends on following factors:
Competitive fare level
Competitive operation speed as compared with
motorcycle and car
Integrated with feeder bus + local bus/angkot system
Travel demand management measures to reduce road
traffic in city center area

End of Presentation
Thank You!!