Does Park and Ride Solving Congestion in Putrajaya

Research Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology 3(5): 434-439, 2011 ISSN: 2040-7467 © Maxwell Scientific Organization, 2011 Received: March 24, 2011 Accepted: May 10, 2011 Published: May 25, 2011

Prediction of Traveling Behavior in Putrajaya, Malaysia

Muhamad Nazri Borhan, Riza Atiq Abdullah O.K. Rahmat, Amiruddin Ismail and Rozmi Ismail Sustainable Urban Transport Research Centre, Department of Civil and Structural Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Built Environment, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Selangor, Malaysia

Abstract: Putrajaya as a new federal administrative of Malaysia has led to a further increase in private car ownership and much higher land prices in the city centre. With jobs concentrated in the city centre, the commuting patterns of the trip makers tend to be that of morning/evening peak hours and this has led to congestion on some of the major highways leading into and out of the city. One possible way to reduce the use of cars is to replace commuter trips by car with other modes of transport, such as a combination of car and public transport called Park & Ride (P&R). The preliminary observation and survey has been carried out among of private car users in Putrajaya. The observations of P&R users show that only two percents parking lots were occupied from 320 parking lots were provided. A random of 50 respondents were interviewed. The findings were discussed about the reason why the car users are refused to use P&R facilities. Analyses about relation between factors such as bus frequency and parking fees at worksite have been made to answer research questions. Logistic regression has been used to analyse the factors that influence users to switch their trips mode to shift to P&R.

Key words: Congestion, park and ride, private car, putrajaya

INTRODUCTION P&R have been applied in many countries and cities as a means of transportation demand management and Putrajaya as a new federal administrative of Malaysia have achieved some results. P&R main purpose is to has led to a further increase in private car ownership and encourage the transfer of transportation mode, and to much higher land prices in the city centre. Combined with attract travelers shift from car users to bus passengers by improvements in transport infrastructure connecting the providing good service. suburbs and Putrajaya and relatively cheaper housing in Looked on objectively P&R seams to be a good the outskirts of Putrajaya, there exists a mismatch alternative to the car however very few commuters use between residential and employment concentration. With P&R. Then the question arises: how can frequently jobs concentrated in the city centre, the commuting private car users are transferred to P&R? patterns of the trip makers tend to be that of Whether the P&R mode is chosen or not depends on morning/evening peak hours and this has led to many factors, such as the supply of public transport, the congestion on some of the major highways leading into quality of the parking lot and parking conditions and out of the city. (Turnbull, 1995). Other factors influencing the choice are One proposed solution related with traffic problems time and cost savings compared with driving a car for the could be to replace long car trips with a combination of whole trip. This supported by previous finding by car and public transport, consisting of one short car trip Bos et al. (2004), the willingness of car drivers to use and one longer trip by public transport (hereinafter called P&R increases if the travel time when using P&R is low. P&R). P&R could be an alternative for those having To offering low travel time by P&R, the introducing errands on the way or where the local bus is not frequent exclusive bus lane to the city and enabling efficient enough. P&R could be either used in less densely transfer at the P&R facility could produce this low travel populated areas, where public transport is not profitable time. Meanwhile, Hamid et al. (2008) concluded, there because of the lower demand, or it could be located closer need to be cost savings as well as time savings in the use to the city centre on the main routes where congestion of the P&R scheme compared to other alternative mode of starts. In the same time, the government tried to reducing transportation. the number of accident involved by private cars with Besides, Whitfield and Cooper (1998) stressed that in introducing P&R scheme for car users. their finding, to maximize attractiveness, services should

Corresponding Author: Muhamad Nazri Borhan, Sustainable Urban Transport Research Centre, Department of Civil and Structural Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Built Environment, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Selangor, Malaysia 434 Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol., 3(5): 434-439, 2011 be as efficient as using a private car (including 9000000

e interchange times), hence the need to consider service l 8000000 c i 7000000 h frequency and bus priority measures. Also a study in the e 6000000

d 5000000 UK found that 81% of potential bus users thought that a e

e 4000000

‘turn up and go’ level of frequency (defined to be at least i 3000000

e 2000000 once every 10 min) was necessary to attract them to use R 1000000 0 the service (TAS, 2001). The objective of this study is to s rs s ts s er a le r le h C c o ic t identify the factors affecting travelers’ choice of the P&R y sp h O te rc n e a to ra V use. Two alternatives were considered, implementing the iv o T l r c ia P M li c b er u parking charges at work-site parking and increasing bus P m m o frequency departs from P&R station. In this study, a C binary logit model structure was proposed and the use of the model was explained using a case study. Fig. 1: The number of registered vehicles in Malaysia from 2005 to 2009 Background of Study: Putrajaya, which is situated 25 km south of the capital city of Malaysia (Kuala Lumpur), occupies a total area of 4,932 ha and is divided into 20 precincts. When fully developed in 2012, Putrajaya is expected to have a night-time population of 330,000 and provide 254,000 job opportunities (Putrajaya Corporation, 2011). The Putrajaya P&R station is located 5 km from the city of Putrajaya and is managed by Putrajaya Corporation (Parking Division). Located in the north east of the city and the station had its first Fig. 2: The current modal split in Putrajaya commercial operation in September 2006. The station was providing 320 parking lots and the bus services served by Public transport in Putrajaya: In the local situation, Nadi Putra with a flat fare of 0.50 MYR (0.15 USD) per although public transport development has always been trip with interval time every 30 min. The rate for the use characterized by the government's efforts to adapt to the of its P&R facilities is free of charge. The duration of this needs of national development, the essence of public service from 7.00 am to 7.00 pm for every day. transportation development, as in other developing countries, has always need to be improve to provide better The popularity of car: The private car use is the second services. However, the extent of the development for the major mode of personal transport in Malaysia, because it improvement of public transportation is always is relatively affordable and reliable compare to other questionable. Nor et al. (2006) were reported, the current transport mode. As such, about 40% of the registered modal in Putrajaya was dominated by private cars. The vehicles in this country are private car. In addition, for the current modal split between public and private transport last decade or so, the number of registered private cars has shown in Fig. 2. There are currently 70 buses increased from 6.5 million in 2005 to 8.5 million in 2009 servicing the city, 15 of which are fitted with special (Road Transport Department, 2011). The number of lifters for disabled people. The Nadi Putra buses are registered vehicles in Malaysia has shown in Fig. 1. With running empty most of the time although they provide the the society becoming more affluent and with the sales of connection between the major residential areas and the locally-manufactured cars being at relatively affordable city centre. prices, the nation recorded a high increase in the ownership of private vehicles. METHODOLOGY There are many reasons why peoples use car as a primary transport to make a travel. For example, it is a There two methods were used for data collection in convenient and comfortable way to travel. Other than this, this study. The first method is observational on P&R the driver and passengers can travel with their privacy, usage among car users in daily activity especially for undisturbed and feel secure. Furthermore, car will make working activity. The observation activity was carried out more easy door-to-door travel and car journey saves time. at Putrajaya P&R station at precinct one. A week of In addition, car also has cultural and symbolic values. survey was carried out within 7.00 am until 3.00 pm. The Other reason make car is so popular and dominance in second method, face-to-face approach was employed to passengers transport is that the quality of car travel has each car driver and asked them to filled-up a self considerably increased relative to public transport administrated questionnaires form. Face-to-face (Cameron et al., 2004). interviews were used to complete the questionnaire for

435 Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol., 3(5): 434-439, 2011

increased accuracy. If the respondent refuses to answer, Table 1: The frequency of the buses at Putrajaya P&R station another respondent were approached to answer. Data were Time Interval (min) ------collected by a team of 3 members over a week at Weekday administrative areas of Putrajaya from 10 am to 3 pm. The ------questionnaire was designed with four sections; Section A Route Peak hour Normal Weekend 100 15 20 20 about respondents’ background, Section B about 101 30 30 30 respondents’ trip information, Section C about knowledge 102 30 30 30 and attitude about P&R usage and Section D about 300 30 30 30 general information for P&R. 301 30 30 30 400 30 30 30 401 30 30 30 Model structure: The logistic regression was used to 600 30 30 30 determine the odds that an event will or will not occur. In 601 30 30 30 the present research (shift to P&R occurrence) was 5 framed as a binary variable. That is, “1” was scored if a

s r 4

shift had occurred and “0” if no shift had occurred. The s

dependent variable is a logit, which is the natural log of R 3

the odds, that is: f 2

N 1 P log(odds )== log it ( p ) ln( ) (1) 0 y y y y y y a a a a a a ay 1− P d sd d d id d d n e es rs r r n o u n u F tu u M T d h a S e T S W So a logit is a log of odds and odds are a function of P, the probability of a 1. In logistic regression, was find: Fig. 3: The number of P&R users at Putrajaya P&R station logit(P) = " + $X, during observation

logit(P)=" + $X facilities in one week during observation. The maximum number of user on Wednesday with five peoples were where, used this facilities. It shows less than ten people were P : probability used this facility per day. This is because, a lot of parking " : constant space was providing at government offices area and the parking is free of charge. Nor et al. (2006) were reported, $ : coefficient of Xi Then, convert the odds to a simple probability: the main contributing to the domination of private transport as the preferred mode of travel in Putrajaya include the provision of a high quality road network with P ln =+αβX (3) generous road space, the availability of ample parking 1− P spaces provided free of charge, and the generally modest cost of owning and operating private vehicles. In addition, P poor public transport services further encourage the use of = eαβ+ X (4) 1− P private vehicles. Table 1 shows the frequency of the buses at P&R station was served by Nadi Putra. From the table below, αβ+ X e the frequency of the buses between peak hour and after P = (5) 1− eαβ+ X peak hour are same. The frequency for the buses between weekdays and weekend is same. The average interval time 1 for almost all route are same within 30 min except for route 100 with the interval time during peak hour is 15 P = −+()αβX (6) 1+ e min and after peak hour is 20 min. From 50 respondents were observed, only one RESULTS AND DISCUSSION respondent is P&R user and the rest were used private car to go their work place. Seventy-six percents of The preliminary observations at Putrajaya P&R respondents age less than 40 and more than half (74%) of station show that only two percent parking lots are respondents are male. Meanwhile, more than 90% of occupied and 98% of the parking lots at P&R station are respondents have completed their education with tertiary not used from 320 parking lots were provided. Figure 3 level (skill certification, diploma or degree level) and represent the numbers of peoples were used P&R more than two-third of them (64%) work as semi

436 Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol., 3(5): 434-439, 2011

Table 2. Probability to switch to P&R for survey and logit model results Parking charge Survey Result (P) Modeling Result (P) 1 MYR 0.74 0.748485904 2 MYR 0.88 0.865117319 3 MYR 0.96 0.932539306 4 MYR 0.98 0.967525060 5 MYR 1 0.984665231

Survey Results Modeling Results

c Fig. 4: The average monthly income of the respondents i

o 0.8

0.6

f b

b g Switch No switch 0.4

100 o

0.2

c 80

R w 60 0

& 0123 4 5 6

l o Parking Cost (MYR)

r 0

P 12345 Fig. 6: P&R switching probability between survey and Parking cost (MYR) modeling result

Fig. 5: P&R switching percentages with increase in parking cost Switch No switch

100

professional worker. All of the respondents are employees h 80

earned about 1000 MYR (Malaysia Ringgit) and above. w

Figure 4 shows the income of respondents which 26% P

t 40

a earned 1000 to 2000 MYR and 36% earned 2001 to 3000

MYR. Those two ranges of income can be considered as P in middle income range. Meanwhile, 38% of respondents 0 51015 20 25 30 had income more than 3000 MYR, (1 USD = 3 MYR). Bus frequency (minutes) The respondents were asked about the parking charges at worksite parking, all the respondent answering Fig. 7: P&R switching percentages with increase in bus no parking charges were implemented. In this moment, no frequency parking charges were imposed to the car users in Putrajaya CBD area. It found that, providing free of travel cost. According to Seik (1997), the parking charges charge parking at worksite actually subsidizes car use in in the CBD area has been substantial enough for car users CBD area. The respondents were asked if a parking to switch P&R. Seik (1997) also concluded that, 76% of charge will implemented would shift them to use P&R. the users cite ost saving as a main reason to switch P&R. Parking fees of 1 MYR will be adequate to shift 75% from respondents to using P&R mode, while 99% the 1 respondents will prefer to use P&R if the parking charge P = −+(.0 3226 0 . 7679 Park Cost ) (7) being 5 MYR (Fig. 5). 1+ e Table 2 shows the result for different parking cost and the probability of prediction p-values. Prediction (P) Most of the people like the car because they can feel values for modeling results are derived from Eq. (6) freely to do whatever they want. They can transfer from which involves constant and coefficient values to verify place to other place in safety way and it will takes a few the logistic prediction model for this study. By using the times to transport without waste their time to waiting the constant (") and the coefficient ($) values, the model bus/train to make a travel. In this study, the respondents achieved the significant value (p) equal to 0.055 which is were asked what the suitable of the bus frequency would acceptable to be significant (p<0.10) as shown in Eq. (7). shift them to use P&R if parking charges (1 MYR/h) will Thus, the result of logistic function has shown in Table 2 implemented at worksite parking. Figure 7 shows the and Fig. 6. Therefore, with introduce parking charge will percentages of the respondent to shift to P&R for every make car user pay more and will increasing their travel each bus frequency. It found that, the accepted bus cost. This was confirmed by a recent study by frequency was 15 min. If the bus frequency every 15 min, Hole (2004), was pointed out in her study, one way to 75% of the respondent will switch to P&R. On the other reduce the number of cars travel to CBD area with hand, less people will switch to P&R if the bus frequency introducing the parking charges at worksite. Meanwhile, increases to every 30 min. Shoup (1997) finds that with introduce parking charge Table 3 shows the probability of prediction (P) for will make car user pay more and will increasing their bus frequency departs from P&R station. Prediction (P)

437 Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol., 3(5): 434-439, 2011

Table 3: Probability to switch to P&R results for survey and logit fee shall be an important factor in contributing to the model results success of P&R use. Increasing parking charges would Bus frequency Survey result Modeling result (min) (P) (P) cause a decrease in term of private cars travel into the 5 1 0.969553895 CBD area. It is noticeable that a free parking provided at 10 0.98 0.917431972 worksite one of the factor why P&R is unpopular among 15 0.76 0.794951371 an employees in Putrajaya. This study also reveals that, 20 0.28 0.574958648 25 0.10 0.320644731 the longer waiting time for the buses is the one of the 30 0.04 0.161397307 major factor why people refused to use P&R facilities. Increasing the bus frequency from 30 min to 15-10 min Survey Model will directly affect the use of the P&R facility. 1

b 0.8 a ACKNOWLEDGMENT

o r 0.6

i The authors would like to thank Ministry of Higher

o 0.4

C Education of Malaysia for sponsoring this research and

e 0.2

o Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia who provide all the

M 0 0 5101520 25 30 35 facilities for this research. Bus Frequency (minutes) REFERENCES Fig. 8: P&R switching probability between survey and modeling result Cameron, S., T.J. Lyons and J.R. Kenworthy, 2004. Trends in vehicle kilometres of travel in world cities, values for modeling results are derived from Eq. (6) 1960-1990: Underlying drivers and policy responses. which involves constant and coefficient values to verify Transp. Policy, 11: 287-298. the logistic prediction model in this study. By using the Hamid, N.A., J. Mohamad and M.R. Karim, 2008. Travel constant (") and the coefficient ($) values, the model behavior of the Park and Ride users and the factors achieved the significant value p = 0.023 which is influencing the demand for the use of the Park and acceptable to be significant (p<0.05) as shown in Eq. (8). Ride facility. EASTS International Symposium on Thus, the result of the prediction models has shown in Sustainable Transportation incorporating Malaysian Table 3 and Fig. 8. As a result, the longer waiting time for Universities Transport Research Forum Conference the buses is the one of the major factor why people 2008 (MUTRFC08). Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. refused to use P&R facilities. This reason was supported Hole, A.R., 2004. Forecasting the demand for an by Ying and Xiang (2009) on their study. According to employee Park and Ride service using commuters’ the survey, Ying and Xiang (2009) concluded the stated choices. Transp. Policy, 11: 355-362. travelers who will take P&R are willing to accept the bus Bos, I.D.M., R.E.C.M. Van der Heijden, E.J.E. Molin and H.J.P. Timmermans, 2004. The choice of park and frequency departs from P&R station within 10 min. ride facilities: an analysis using a context-dependent Meanwhile, Lam et al. (2001) were reported the non-park- hierarchical choice experiment. Environ. Plann. A., and-ride users stated that their primary reason for not 36: 1673-1686. using the facility is that they cannot save time. Lam, W.H.K., M.H. Nicholas and H.P. Lo, 2001. How Reasonable arrangements for bus departure and reduce the Park-and-Ride schemes can be successful in eastern waiting time of passengers can promote P&R. Asia. J. Urban Plann. Dev., 127(2): 63-78. Nor, N.G., A.R. Nor and A.Z. Abdullah, 2006. Predicting 1 P = (8) the impact of demand- and supply-side measures on 1+ e−−(.2 8567 + 0 . 2106 BusFreq ) bus ridership in Putrajaya, Malaysia. J. Public Transp., 9(5): 57-70. CONCLUSION Putrajaya Corporation, 2011. Background of Putrajaya. Retrieved from: http://www.ppj.gov.my, (Accessed In this paper, effectiveness of P&R facilities at on: 30 September, 2010). Putrajaya area was studied. To switching private car users Seik, F.T., 1997. Experiences from Singapore’s park-and- to P&R will be relative low unless if we can make park- ride scheme (1975-1996). J. Habitat ITNL., 21(4): on-site less attractive to cars users and less waiting time 427-443. at P&R station or increasing bus frequency. Generally, the Shoup, D., 1997. The high cost of free parking. J. Plann. buses were served in Putrajaya P&R station has poor Educ. Res., 17(1): 3-20. service frequency with an average of two per hour, even TAS, 2001. Quality Bus Partnerships - Good Practice during the peak periods. It is concluded that the parking Guide. TAS Partnership, Preston.

438 Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol., 3(5): 434-439, 2011

Road Transport Department (JPJ), 2011. Retrieved from: Ying, H. and H. Xiang, 2009. Study on Influence Factors http://portal.jpj.gov.my/. and Demand Willingness of Park and Ride. Second Turnbull, K.F., 1995. Effective Use of Park-and-Ride International Conference on Intelligent Computation Facilities, Washington, D.C., Transportation Technology and Automation, pp: 664-667. Research Board, National Cooperative Research Program Synthesis No 213. Whitfield, S. and B. Cooper, 1998. The travel effects of park and ride. Public Transport Planning and Operations, European Transport Conference, pp: 69-80.

439