Sunteți pe pagina 1din 13

Service level benchmarking of urban transport

for a medium sized city


Jasti Pradeep Chaitanya,
Asst. Engineer (Highway
,
Designs)
# 5-121-60/1/8, BS Layout,
Seethammadhara - vizag
Andhra Pradesh, 530013, India
e-mail: jastipradeep@gmail.com
Abstract ID: 11
Abstract. This paper evaluates the performance of urban transportation system for a medium sized city like Patiala. At first
this work of benchmarking has been started based on the service level benchmarks (SLB) developed by ministry of urban
development (MoUD). Later it was found that there are few limitations in the benchmarks such as its only applicable for the
metropolitan cities like Delhi, Mumbai, Hyderabad, Bangalore, Chennai and Kolkata. But, the benchmarking is not only for
the developed cities but also for the developing medium and small sized cities like Patiala as they have the need to understand,
evaluate, manage and plan the transportation system for the future development. So, the ministry of urban developments
benchmarks have been altered by fixing the limitations of it. The modified SLBs have also been derived with an intention that
they must be applicable to any medium sized city in India. A final report card has been derived quantifying the performance of
urban transportation system of the Patiala city based on which the short, medium and long-term measures has been suggested
to improve the transportation systems performance and make it eligible for benchmarking with the current SLBs given by
MOUD, which is only possible for Metropolitan cities.

Introduction and Need for Service Level Benchmarking


In order to make available data on a standardized framework for performance monitoring of basic
urban services, MoUD (Ministry of Urban Development) has brought out a Handbook of Service
Level Benchmarks. But, some drawbacks has been identified in these service level benchmarking
process for which an attempt has been made to fix and make these SLBs more effective in rating the
performance of urban transportation and make it suitable for all medium and large sized cities in India.
The SLB can be defined as The process of determining how effectively and efficiently the present
Transportation system is performing in the existing situation or simply The quantification of
qualitative aspects in urban transportation Benchmarking basically helps us to understand how our
transportation system is performing as a whole and in which sectors it was lagging along with its
severity, so that we can have a clear plan for the future development. So, benchmarking of urban
transport has to be made as an Integral part of CTTS (Comprehensive Traffic and Transportation
Studies) or CMP (Comprehensive Mobility Plan) and to be considered while suggesting the future
action plan or long term measures.[1].

Objective and Methodology


The ultimate objective of this work is to make the SLB process more flexible in such a way that it is also
applicable to all medium sized cities which has to be concentrated most in order to avoid the future
problems. This work attempts for the same.
Methodology serving all the objectives of the study has been shown in Figure No.1 [1].

Figure No. 1: Flow chart showing the methodology of the current study.

Literature Review
The process of benchmarking is in the initiation stage in India. So, the Benchmarking process suggested
by MoUD has been reviewed thoroughly and identified the drawbacks of it. With the help of the HCM
(Highway Capacity Manual 2000) and grouping few other qualitative performance judging techniques, a
new SLBs have been developed, strengthening the Benchmarking process and making it more flexible.

Drawbacks of Conventional Service Level Benchmarking


Service Level Benchmarking is biased towards metro cities and may not be a right approach for
medium-sized cities for the performance monitoring. Drawbacks of the conventional benchmarking
process have been listed as below in the Table No. 1[1].
Table 1: Drawbacks of Conventional Service Level Benchmarking.
S. No. Segment
Drawback
1
Public Transportation System
Almost absent in most of the Indian cities.
2
Pedestrian Facilities
Foot over bridges (FOBs) were not at all
considered,
Pedestrian delay judged based on the
signal phase which exists very rarely.
3
Non Motorized Vehicles (NMV) Almost absent in most of the Indian cities.
4
Usage of ITS
Almost absent in most of the Indian cities.
5
Intermediate Public Transport
Not at all considered, being predominant
(IPT)
mode of travel in all the Indian cities.
6
Parking Spaces
Strictly encourages on street paid Parking.
7
Financial Sustainability of Public Most of the cities dont have a public
Transport by Bus
transportation facility; hence it has to be
made flexible for consideration.
8
Delay at Intersections
Not at all considered.
9
Pavement Condition
Not at all considered.
2

About the Study Area, Patiala


Patiala with its population of 6, 58,667 is the fourth largest city of Punjab, and also it is one of the
counter magnets considered outside National Capital Region (NCR). The total area of Patiala
Municipal Corporation is 50.11sq.km. With a population of 4,07,951 as per the latest census. It is well
connected with major urban centers of Punjab by the network of national highway, state highways and
district roads. It extends from 30012' N to 30027' N Latitude and 76011' E to 76032' E Longitude.
The current study area has been restricted to the urban limits of Patiala city as this study is about urban
transportation benchmarking. [4].

Data Collection
Data collection for Benchmarking is shown in the Table No. 2 Below.
Table 2: Data Collection for Benchmarking
DATA
Public Transportation and IPT
Facilities
Pedestrian, Travel Speeds,
Intersection performances,
Parking and Pavement
Condition
Accident Data
Land Use Details

TYPE
Secondary

Secondary
Secondary

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

Pollution Levels

Secondary

CPCB, Patiala

Primary

SOURCE
District Transport Officials (DTO), Patiala
By Conducting Trail runs & Surveys

Benchmarking of Modified SLBs


The benchmarking has been done with the modified SLBs as the study area taken for benchmarking is a
medium sized city like Patiala, for which the conventional SLB cannot be applied directly. The modified
SLBs have been developed with such an intention that they should be applicable to all the medium sized
Indian cities where as the combination of both must make the process of benchmarking more suitable for
all the metro cities in India. With the same intention maximum effort has been made to integrate all the
segments which make a significant impact on urban transportation. The evaluation of SLB has been
shown only for the altered parameters in the modified SLBs along with the LOS criteria shown form the
table 2 to table 5. Whereas the evaluation of unaltered SLB have been done by following the MoUDs
parameters.

IPT Facilities
The formulation for EBUs (Equivalent Bus Units) per 1000 population with the EFs (Equivalency
Factor) has been shown in the equation 1.
EBU/1000 population = EF*BUS+ EF*AUTO + EF*MAXI CAB + EF*CYCLE RICKSHAW/
Population in 1000s (Equation 1)
EBU = (1)* 21+ (0.1)* 3223 + (0.35)*14+ (0.05)*1214/408 = 1.002, CLOS = 3

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


Level of Comfort in IPT = 2.5 (Rated as 2.5 on a scale of 4 based on the stated preference
survey) CLOS (Calculated Level of Service) = 2
Average Speed of IPT along the Key Corridors = 32.95 Kmph, CLOS = 1
The CLOS and OLOS (Overall Level of Service) criteria is shown in Table 2 below.
CLOS or
OLOS
1
2
3
4

Table 2: CLOS &OLOS Criteria for EBUs & Speed for IPT.
Overall
EBUs/1000
Speed (Kmph) Average Waiting
Time
(min)
Score
Population
>= 1.5
>= 20
<= 2
<=7
< 1.5 > 1
15 - 20
2-5
8-10
<1 > 0.75
10 - 15
5 - 10
11-15
<= 0.75
<10
> 10
16-20

Availability of Pedestrian Facilities


The evaluation of pedestrian facilities has been done by incorporating the footpaths &
altering the approach towards obtaining pedestrian delay at signalized intersections by
Representative Sample Technique (ft/Sec) = 3.9, CLOS = 2 as shown in Table 3. [2].
Table 3: CLOS & OLOS Criteria for Pedestrian.
Overall Score
CLOS or OLOS
Pedestrian Speed
Coverage of FOBs
1
>= 4.25
> = 0.5
<=4-6
2
>3.75 - <4.25
< 0.5 > 0.25
7-9
3
>2.5 - < 3.75
< 0.25 > 0.1
10-12
4
<= 2.5
<= 0.1
13-16
Availability of Street Lighting (LUX) = 4.5, CLOS = 3
Percentage of city covered with Foot Paths = 33.11%, CLOS = 3
Extent of Coverage of FOBs (Nos/Road Network in Km) = 0.0224, CLOS = 4

Performance of Intersections
Signalized Intersections to Intersections ratio = 18/27 = 0.6667 CLOS = 3
Avg. Controlled Delay at Unsignalized Intersections = 43 Sec (HCM 2000) CLOS = 3
Avg. Controlled Delay at Signalized Intersections = 28 Sec (HCM 2000) CLOS = 2
CLOS and OLOS criteria for intersection performance have been shown in the Table 4.
Table 4: CLOS &OLOS Criteria for Intersection Performance.
CLOS or OLOS Ratio
Avg Controlled Delay at
Avg Controlled Delay
Unsignalized Xn
at Signalized Xn
1
<= 2
>= 1.5
>= 20
2
2-5
< 1.5 > 1
15 - 20
3
5 - 10
<1 > 0.75
10 - 15
4
> 10
<= 0.75
<10

Overall
Score
<=7
8-10
11-15
16-20

Pavement Condition along the Major Corridors


The pavement condition along the major corridors is a crucial aspect affecting the
mobility. It was evaluated based on the Pavement Quality Index (PQI) as shown below.
4

The PQI is calculated from the RQI and SR as shown in the equation 2 and the CLOS &
OLOS criteria has been shown in the Table 5. [3].
PQI = RQI *SR. (Equation 2)
Table 5: CLOS &OLOS Criteria for Pavement Quality Index.
CLOS or OLOS
RQI
SR
PQI Rating (Score)
1
0 1.5
0 1.5
=1
2
1.6 2.5
1.6 2.5
>1 <2
3
2.6 4.0
2.6 4.0
>2 <3
4
4.1 5.0
4.1 5.0
>= 4

Comparison of Conventional and Modified Benchmarking


Methodology of SLB
The comparison between the conventional & modified benchmarking along with the
formulation & CLOS (Calculated LOS) has been shown in the below table 6. The
calculation and the LOS criteria have been followed as per the MoUDs benchmarking
procedure except for those who were added additionally for the modified benchmarking.
[1].

Segment
No.
1.)

2.)

Conventional SLBs
Public Transportation
Facilities
Presence of Organized
Public Transport System
Extent of Availability of
Public Transport per 1000
population
Service Coverage (route
Kms / sq. km)

Table 6: Comparison and results of SLBs for the city of Patiala.


Modified SLBs
Quantification of KPIs

Formulation

Result CLOS

Public Transportation Facilities


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

A = No of Buses/ train coaches


(A/B) to
available in a city on any day
Compute LOS
B = Total Population of the city
1
A = Total length in route kms of the
(A/B) to
corridors on which public transport
Compute LOS
systems ply in the city
2
B = Area of the urban limits of the
city (sq. kms )
Average waiting time for
Average waiting time for
Calculate the average waiting time
Compute LOS
Public Transport users
Public Transport users
(In min) of passengers for each
3 by Avg.
route
waiting time
Level of Comfort in
Level of Comfort in Public
A= Passenger count on bus at key
(A/B) to
Public Transport
Transport
identified routes
Compute LOS
B= Seats available in the bus
4
% of Fleet as per Urban
% of Fleet as per Urban Bus A= Total number of buses in the
(A/B)*100 to
Bus Specifications
Specifications
city
Compute LOS
B= Total number of buses as per
5
urban bus specifications in the city
CLOS1 + CLOS2 + CLOS3 + CLOS4 + CLOS5 = 14 OLOS =3
Availability of Pedestrian
Availability of Pedestrian Facilities
Facilities
Signalized intersections
Signalized intersections
5 No. of trails has to be taken by
Compute LOS
Delay (%)
Delay by Representative
representative sampling technique
1 based on

0.25

0.757

6.3

1.75

16.66

3.9
ft/Sec

Availability of Street
Lighting
Percentage of city covered

3.)

Availability of NMV
Facilities
Network covered (%)

Sample Technique (ft/Sec)

in which the time taken to cross a


major and a minor leg is measured

Availability of Street
Lighting
Percentage of city covered
with Pedestrian Facilities

Calculate lux level


(10 samples /km)
A= Total length of road network
B = Total length of footpath in the
city
A = Total no. of Foot over Bridges
B = Total length of road network

Extent of Coverage of
Foot Over Bridges
(Nos/Km)
CLOS1 + CLOS2 + CLOS3 + CLOS4 = 12 OLOS =3
IPT Facilities
Equivalent Bus Units
(EBUs)/1000 Population

EBUs has to be developed for all


the modes of IPT.

Encroachment on NMV
roads by Vehicle Parking

Service Coverage (route


Kms / sq. km)

NMT Facilities at
Interchanges (%)

Average waiting time for


Public Transport users

A = Total length in route kms of the


corridors on which public transport
systems ply in the city
B = Area of the urban limits of the
city (sq. kms )
Calculate the average waiting time
(In min) of
passengers for each route

Level of Comfort in IPT


Average Travel speed of
7

A= Passenger count on bus at key


identified routes
B= Seats available in the bus
5 No. of Trails has to be taken along

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

4.5

33.2

0.022

Compute LOS
1 based on
EBUs
(A/B) to
Compute LOS
2

1.002

0.359

Compute LOS
3 based on
Avg. waiting
time
(A/B) to
Compute LOS
4
Compute LOS

7.74

2.5

32.95

IPT along key corridors


(Kmph)

4.)

Level of Usage of
Intelligent Transport
System (ITS) facilities

each corridor and LOS has to be


5 based on
rated based the average speed
Avg. Speed
attained on all corridors.
CLOS1 + CLOS2 + CLOS3 + CLOS4 + CLOS5 = 13 OLOS =3
Level of Usage of Intelligent Transport System (ITS) facilities

Availability of Traffic
Surveillance System

Passenger Information
System (PIS)
Usage of Global Positioning
System
Signal Synchronization

Integrated Ticketing System


5.)

Availability of Traffic
Surveillance System

A = total no. of major bus stops,


terminals, metro stations and (%)
signalized intersections having
CCTVs.
B = total no. of major bus stops,
terminals, metro stations and
signalized intersections.

(A/B)*100 to
Compute LOS
1

0.1

A= No. of signals which are


synchronized
B = Total no. of signalized
intersections

(A/B)*100 to
Compute LOS
4

33.03

--------------------------------------------------------Signal Synchronization

---------------------------CLOS1 + CLOS2 = 8 OLOS =4


Travel Speeds Along Major Corridors

Travel Speeds Along


Major Corridors
Average Travel speed of
Average Travel speed of
Personal vehicles along key Personal vehicles along
corridors (Kmph)
key corridors (Kmph)

5 No. of Trails has to be taken along


each corridor and LOS has to be
rated based on this average speed

Compute LOS
1 based on
Avg. Speed

Average Travel speed of


Public Transport along key
corridors (Kmph)
6.)

7.)

8.)
9

attained.
5 No. of Trails has to be taken along Compute LOS
each corridor and LOS has to be
2 based on
rated based on this average speed
Avg. Speed
attained.
CLOS1 + CLOS2 = 3 OLOS =2
Availability of Parking Spaces

Average Travel speed of


Public Transport along
key corridors (Kmph)

Availability of Parking
Spaces
Availability of on street paid Availability of on street
Total no. of paid ECS has to be
public parking spaces
paid public parking spaces obtained within the city.

Difference in Maximum and Ratio to On street and Off A = ECS of off Street
Minimum Parking Fee in
Street Parking
B = ECS of on-Street
the City
CLOS1 + CLOS2 = 3 OLOS =2
Road Safety
Road Safety
Fatality rate per lakh
Fatality rate per lakh
A= Total number of fatalities
population
population
recorded within city limits in the
given calendar year
B= Population of the urban
agglomeration in that year
Fatality rate for pedestrian
Fatality rate for pedestrian A= Total number of pedestrian &
and NMT (%)
and NMT (%)
NMT fatalities recorded within city
limits in the given calendar year
B= Total number of fatalities
recorded in road accidents within
city limits in the given calendar year
CLOS1 + CLOS2 = 6 OLOS =3
Pollution Levels
Pollution Levels

18

Compute LOS
1 based on
paid parking
slots
(A/B) to
Compute LOS
2

12.75

(A*100,000/B)
to compute
LOS 1

27

(A/B)* 100 to
compute LOS
2

32.43

0.163

Annual Mean Concentration


Range (g/m3)

9.)

10

Annual Mean
Concentration Range
(g/m3)

Obtain the Annual Mean


Concentration Range from CPCB

Rate LOS
based on
annual mean
concentration
range
SO2 + NO2 + SPM +RSPM = CLOS1 + CLOS2 + CLOS3 + CLOS4 = 4+2+1+1 = 8 OLOS = 2
Integrated LanduseIntegrated Landuse-Transport System
Transport System
Population Density
Population Density
A = Area of the city in Hact
(B/A) to
B = Population of current year
compute LOS1
Mixed Land-use Zoning
Mixed Land-use Zoning
A = Total developed area
(B/A)*100 to
along the Transit Corridors
along the Major Corridors B = Total non residential area
compute LOS
2
Intensity of Development Intensity of Development Obtain the FSI of outer growth from Compute LOS
Citywide
Citywide
the master plan
3
Intensity of Development
Intensity of Development A = FSI along major corridors
(B/A) to
along Transit Corridors
along Major Corridors
B = FSI of the city
compute LOS
4
Road network Pattern and
Road network Pattern and Based on existing & proposed
Compute LOS
Completeness
Completeness
network recognize/identify major
based on the
roads and pattern along with their
road pattern
extent of completeness
completeness
Area under Roads Density
Area under Roads Density A= Measure overall developed area (B/A)*100 to
B = Measure overall area under
compute LOS
roads
6
% Network with Exclusive
% Network with
A= Total road network with ROW > (B/A)*100 to
ROW for transit (for > 1
Exclusive ROW > 30m
30m
compute LOS
million population as per
B = Total road network
6
2001 census)
CLOS1 + CLOS2 + CLOS3 + CLOS4 + CLOS5 + CLOS6 + CLOS7 = 21 OLOS =4

SO2+
NO2+
SPM+
RSPM

44.03

28

1.75

1.5

Some
what
clear

2.31

24.32

10.)

Financial Sustainability of
Public Transport By Bus
Extent of Non-fare Revenue
Staff /bus ratio
Operating Ratio

11.)

Performance of Intersections
Signalized Intersections to
Intersections ratio

A = No. of signalized intersections


B = No. of intersections

(B/A)*100 to
compute LOS
6
Compute LOS
based on delay
Compute LOS
based on delay

Average Delay at
Compute by the delay study at
Signalized Intersections
Signalized intersections
Average Delay at
Compute by the delay study at
Unsignalized Intersections Unsignalized intersections
CLOS1 + CLOS2 + CLOS3 = 8 OLOS =3
Pavement Condition along the Major Corridors
Road Quality Index (RQI) Compute the average roughness
Compute LOS
along major corridors
by roughness
Surface Rating (SR)
Compute the average distress along Compute LOS
major corridors
by distress
RQI *SR = 3*2 = 2.44 OLOS = 3

0.667

28

43

Performance of Patiala city in the urban transportation sector is = 3+3+3+4+2+2+3+2+4+3+3 = 32/11 = 2.90
The overall Score Achieved by the Patiala city is 2.90 which indicate its poor performance in the Urban Transportation. The improvisation strategy
has to be developed by using the performance report card in which the present OLOS and the targeted OLOS will be presented, so that each and
every sector will be developed upto the desirable extent and if once the target is achieved, the cycle has to be repeated once again increasing the
desirable LOS.

Performance Report Card


The performance report card shown in the Table.6 below clearly summarises the present performance of the Patiala city along with the targeted
performance and the action plan to achieve it in the next five years.

11

S.
No
1
2
3

5
6

8
9

12

Table 6: Urban Transportation Performance Report Card for the city of Patiala.
OLOS
OLOS
Action Plan to achieve Target
Achieved Targeted
Public Transport facilities
3
2
Organized Public Transportation system has to be started
along the main routes of the city within next 3 years.
Pedestrian Infrastructure facilities
3
2
Installation of FOBs, Assigning Pedestrian Signal phase at
Major Intersections within next 2 & 3 years respectively.
IPT Facilities
3
2
Increasing its frequency in non peak times and making it
available in all routes which could not be covered by public
transport, by offering some tax relaxations & making the route
permit free within the next 2 years.
Level of usage of Integrated Transport System
4
2
Surveillance cameras have to be fixed at all major junctions
(ITS) facilities
within next 2 years.
All signals along the major corridor have to be Synchronized
with in next 2 years.
Travel speed along major corridors
2
1
Utmost care has to be taken such that the improvisation of PT
& IPT facilities must not make any negative impact on private
transport.
Availability of Parking facilities
2
1
Off street parking needs to be encouraged rather than On
street.
Multi level parking needs to be introduced at Dharampura
Bazaar within next 5 years.
Road Safety
3
2
Black spots within the city needs to be identified and
geometrically improved within next 5 years.
Road Safety Audit (RSA) has to be carried out throughout the
city and road marking & signages have to be improved within
the next 2 years.
Pollution levels
2
1
Pollution levels have to be dropped down by decreasing the
NO2 level in the city within next 5 years.
Land Use Transport Integration
4
2
Town planning department has to be made as one of the
Modified SLB

10
11

Performance of Intersections
Pavement Condition along the Major Corridors

3
3

1
2

approver for all the traffic &transportation studies.


Major intersections have to be signalized within next 1 years
Regular maintenance of pavement must be made mandatory
prior and after the monsoon within next 1 year.

Conclusions
The drawbacks of conventional SLB have been identified and modified by making the SLB process more stronger than before and making it
applicable for the large and medium sized cities. The process of SLB has to be made mandatory in all CMPs and CTTSs as it determines how
effectively and efficiently the present Transportation system is performing in the existing situation and in which sectors its lagging behind, so that
it can be improved easily with the future targeted LOS.

References
1.
2.
3.
4.

13

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