Effect of Transit corridor on Non motorized transport users

IMPACT OF TRANSIT CORRIDOR ON NMT :A CASE OF AHMEDABAD BRTS

Sarath KTDr. Talat Munshi

Contents

1. Introduction to NMT – Indian Scenario2. Objectives, research question3. Study area Case corridor

4. Analysis5. Conclusion6. Way forward

NMT – Indian scenario

Introduction• NMT- ideal last mile connectivity• Socially and politically dormant captive

userso The participation in planning

processes is negligibleo The plans come out often non-

inclusive• Lack of infrastructure,

– safety concerns and convenience factor

• Accidents - 42 % cases, the victimswere cyclists and 19 % werepedestrians

• The Transit system impart mode shifts

(AMC, AUDA and CEPT University, 2008).

MethodologyPreliminary study and identification of

topic of interest Find the need for the study

Define aim and objectives

Frame research questions

Literature review

DATA collectionPrimary

SecondaryMethod selection Survey format

AnalysisInferenceCheck if the researchanswers the questions

Study area delineation

Questionnairesurvey SP, RP

Previousstudies

Pilot survey

On sitereconnaissance survey

5

Objectives

• To evaluate the impact a mass transit corridor has onNMT– To identify and quantify the different modal shifts occurring

with the intervention of a Mass Transit System– To understand the relation of the travel characteristics,

socio economic background, safety factors, conveniencefactors and other situational variables

Study Area

Ahmedabad City

Study Area-Ahmedabad City

• Population 6.35 million• Area of 464 Sq. km• AMTS (Ahmedabad Municipal

Transport Services) &Janmarg BRTS (operational)

• MEGA (Metro link ExpressGandhinagar Ahmedabad)(upcoming)

Janmarg BRTS -91km , 10 routes and 230 buses (2015)(CEPT)

Source : COE, CEPT (2015)

Mode share- Ahmedabad cityMode Walk Bicycle Auto

PT(AMTS,BRTS)

2wheeler

4wheeler

% 13.2 18.8 9.1 15.0 35 8.9

Mode NMT PT PRIVATE

% 31.3 23.8 43.9

*Source: AMC, CEPT and Wilbur Smith Associates

32.0 % 24.1 % 43.9 %

As quoted by AMC, 2008 (Detailed Project report for BRTS Phase -2)

Corridor selection

Section of the Narol Naroda corridorbicycle tracks of 2.5 m width is provided on both sides. Then a service lane (3.5m)and a footpath and shoulder is provided

• 13.2 km , NH-8• Busiest corridor in Ahmedabad, in

terms of boarding and alighting• Highest number of bicyclists

Narol Naroda BRTS corridor

Survey Locations

1) Naroda Patiya2) Dhanushdhari3) Krishna Nagar4) Bapu Nagar approach5) Virat Nagar6) Soni ni chali7) CTM8) Express high way Jn.9) Ghodasar10) Isanpur11) Narol

• Revealed Preference Survey– Socio demographics– Travel Characteristics

• Current mode• Mode used before BRTS

trip length– Reasons for shifting/ not shifting– Issues faced

• Stated preference survey– Future infrastructure utilization

• Factors which can be linked to the BRTS introduction and NMT usage• Change in emission level (CO2) - ASIF matrix

Data collection

Analysis

Sociodemographics

• High number of lower middle income group (5000- 10000 INR permonth) (40% of the samples)

• Average income - 12165 INR

– High potential for shift towards NMT

Vehicle Ownership PercentageBicycle 53Two wheeler 39Four wheeler 7Auto 0.9Others 0.1

Source : Primary survey

Mode usage

• It reveals high 2 wheeler mode share followed by bicycles (26.4%).The mode splitfor BRTS is 11.6%.

• The share of walking is 7.4%. , share of NMT is 33.8%• The mode split for auto is 20.7% which is quite high.

Mode split in Ahmedabad city *

NMT PT PRIVATE

Mode Walk Bicycle Auto PT (AMTS,BRTS) 2 wheeler 4 wheeler

% 13 18.3 8.8 15 35 8.9

31.3 23.8 43.9

Mode split in the study area

% 7.4 26.4 20.7 11.6 30.6 3.3

33.8 32.3 33.9

*Source: AMC, CEPT and Wilbur Smith Associates (2013)

Overall mode usage comparison

(walk, bicycle)

(auto, two wheeler)

13

53

512

0

14

38

26

0

21

12

31

3

walk bicycle AMTS auto BRTS 2 wheeler 4 wheeler

Comparison of overall mode usage (%)before BRTS (2009) and present

before present


66

17 17

34 33 34

NMT PT PRIVATE

Before Present• There is an increase in PT but

there is no subsequent increase inthe NMT mode usage

Trip length

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

perc

enta

ge

trip length (km)

The average trip length 4.8 kmNMT trip length is around 3.5km

• Most of the correspondents are in the less than 10km category


• NMT users continue in their previous modes-captive users in the area

• High percentage of the samples have notshifted to other modes. 56% of thecorrespondents have continued in theirearlier modes.

• Modal shift from NMT to other modes arehigh and the shift from other modes to NMTis minimal

• The NMT modes are not attractive to othermode users.

Mode shiftMode shift (%)NMT – NMT 32.2

NMT – Private 19.8

Private – Private 14.0

NMT – PT/IPT 12.4Others – PT 9.9

Auto – Auto 9.1Other – NMT 1.7

Other 0.8


BEFORE

BRTS

24 1238

15 2

2

10 3

1 5

19

AFTE

R

Mode shift (no of samples)


AMTS

BEFORE

BRTS

32 1550

89 10

3

75 24

17 82

20

AFTE

R

Mode shift (%)


AMTS

1

Shift from other modes to NMT is veryless (3%)

1

1

Why continued in NMT mode


8%

13%

13%

31%

35%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

No Obstructions in the route to work

Ned for mobility

NMT facilities availability

NMT mode is more convenient for multipledestinations

Affordability , NMT mode is more affordable

Percentage

1.4

5.8

5.8

5.8

11.4

11.4

11.4

12.8

15.8

18.6

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0

Poor lighting / surveillance

Increase in income

Dust & smoke

NMT facilities not available

Obstructions in the route

Need for faster mode

Narrow lanes due to construction of BRT lanes

Management issues (police, maintenance, amenities)

current mode has less generalised cost

Concern due to increased traffic

Percentage

Why shifted from NMT toMotorized modes


What is the attraction in Automodes and why not other modes?

4.24

4.24

8.23

12.47

16.71

16.71

16.71

20.70

0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00

Current mode is cheaper (value for money)

Concern due to increased traffic

Safety

Current mode is more convenient for multipledestinations

Affordability

Need for mobility

Narrow lanes due to construction of BRT lanes

Easy availability of auto

Percentage samples


ISSUES for NMT users

7.5

9.5

22.5

63

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Obstruction

Smoke and Dust

Crossing

Heavy Traffic and safety concern

Percentage


ISSUES - induced by ROW changes

•The shoulders which were unused bymotorized traffic was rearranged toallow BRT corridor

•Less space in service lanes

Issues for NMT users

Service lane

Bicycle track

Main road

Bicyclists forced touse the main roaddue to obstructionsin the bicycle track

Illegal parking


Encroached bicycle trackIncreased Parkingon service roads

Service lane

Bicycle track





Issues in air qualityCO2 emissionASIF Matrix

Air quality issue- CO2 emission

After BRTSThe CO2 emission at present isaround 6.176 tonnes per day.•Emission levels have increasedby around 3.21 tonnes CO2 perday that is around 1.2 times theearlier emission levels.

Before BRTS•This ASIF matrix shows the CO2emission before theimplementation of BRTS wasaround 2.822 tonnes per day


• The impact on traffic is coupled with the increasein vehicle registrations every year

2.822

6.176

Before BRTS Present

CO2 emissions –Calculation

FuelCO2 emission

(gm/litre)Petrol 2392Diesel 2252CNG 2252

mode distance % distancefuel

efficiencyfuel use(litres) CO2 (tonnes)

2 wheeler 13875 30.6 60 231.25 0.553154 wheeler 1500 3.3 14 107.14 0.256286

walk 3375 7.4 0handicapped

(bicycle) 375 0.8 0BRTS 5250 11.6 3 1750.00 4.186auto 9375 20.7 19 493.42 1.180263

bicycle 11625 25.6 0total 45375 2581.81 6.175699

Conclusion

• The overall impact of the BRTS on the mode choice is negative towards theenvironment considering the increased CO2 emissions and issues faced by theNMT users

• 32% of the NMT users have continued in the same mode due to issues likeaffordability and convenience factors it offer to them

• Shift towards the BRTS is marginally less(22.3%), The expected shift from AMTS toBRTS has not happened.

• A high percentage (89%)of Private vehicle owners are unaffected by the BRTScorridor except for some issues like congestion and safety concerns. And the NMTinfrastructure was not attractive to them due to similar reasons.

Conclusion

• There is a need for more involvement of NMT users while planning andimplementing BRTS corridors.

• The ideal mode shifts should be in such a way that the NMT users increase innumber along with the PT users and shift away from Private modes

• Infrastructure provision alone cannot make a change. It should be supportedwith proper management regarding illegal parking and encroachment andconscious planning considering NMT

– The parking encroachment on the bicycle tracks need to regulated and monitored toensure continuity in tracks.

– There is need to increase the NMT usage by multimodal integration practices, continuousand safe designs, bike sharing schemes etc.

Way forward

From here,

Photograph by Sarath KT

To here.

THiNK !!

Technology

Effect of Transit corridor on Non motorized transport users