impact oftransit corridor on nmt : a case of ahmedabad...
TRANSCRIPT
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
Source : Primary survey
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
Source : Primary survey
• 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
Source : Primary survey
BEFORE
BRTS
24 1238
15 2
2
10 3
1 5
19
AFTE
R
Mode shift (no of samples)
Source : Primary survey
AMTS
BEFORE
BRTS
32 1550
89 10
3
75 24
17 82
20
AFTE
R
Mode shift (%)
Source : Primary survey
AMTS
1
Shift from other modes to NMT is veryless (3%)
1
1
Why continued in NMT mode
Source : Primary survey
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
Source : Primary survey
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
Source : Primary survey
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
Source : Primary survey
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
Issues for NMT users
Encroached bicycle trackIncreased Parkingon service roads
Service lane
Bicycle track
Source : Primary survey
Issues for NMT users
Issues for NMT users
Issues for NMT users
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
Source : Primary survey
• 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 !!