Assessment of Transit Transfer Experience: Case of Bangalore Christy Ann Cheriyan Prof. Shalini Sinha Contents

oIntroduction oNeed for the study oObjectives oTransfers: Level of transfers oMethodology oCase Study- Bangalore oAnalysis-Transfer Users & Non-Transfer Users oComparison & Recommendations

2 Introduction

Public Rapid pace of Transfers: Integration: urbanization physical and Single journey & increasing need systems to integration plays experience for support the a role need for travel

3 Need for the Study o Transfers are a necessary evil o Passengers dislike transferring but agencies forced to do transfer o No. of studies related to transfers are limited o Limited studies are done in India o NUTP’s focus on Integrated in Indian cities o Cities investing in mass transit systems o First step to study transfers: analyze the factors underlying transfers and passengers’ perception

4 Objective o To evaluate the role of transfers in public transport journey for passengers

Research Questions

1. What are the factors contributing to transfer experience in Indian Scenario? 2. How transfer experience varies for passenger groups and transfer levels? 3. What are the needs of non-transfer users to make transfer process easy for them?

5 Transfers

“ A process in which passengers’ transfer/change from one service/mode to another”

Transfer station-A place where transfer process occur

Transfer Users: Passengers who change their mode/service during Public Transport Journey

Non-Transfer Users: Passengers who use Public Transport but do not transfer

6 Levels of Transfers

Intermodal Terminal Regional transport

Transit Center Urban transport mode 1

Urban transport mode 2 Transit Stations 7

Source: Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual – 2nd edition TCRP Transfer Process

Transit Transfer Transit Origin Destination stop station stop

Walk In vehicle In vehicle Walk

Walk Wait Ticketing

Walk time Wait time Ticketing time

Perceived walk time Perceived wait time Ticket cost

8 Factors affecting transfer behavior

•Age Trip factors •Gender •Trip purpose •Employment •Trip time •Income •Mode •HH Size •Ticket type factors Personal •Vehicle Ownership •Frequency •Familiarity

•Type •Distance

Headway Service • factors •Number of platforms •Reliability •Information availability •Schedule factors •Associated Infrastructure •Fare structure •Safety •Route structure This research• Comfortwill study the transfer experience for different transfer levels (at LU selected stationsStation • of a metropolitan city in India) by analyzing the factors affecting Rush in the station • the transfer experience

9 Methodology for transfer users

Importance Structural - Factor Equation Satisfaction Analysis Modelling Analysis Satisfaction Levels Reduces the Identifies variables Identifies major to a the variables smaller significance which require set of of each attention factors factor which are significant 10 Transfer Users Analysis Framework

IS Analysis Intermodal term Gender

Factor Analysis Transit station Frequency

Age

Transit center SEM

11 Bangalore

PT mode share : Urban One of the 38.5% Transport eleven Road length of PT trip length: mainly Road METROPOLITAN 6000 km in cities in India 10.8 km based with 8005sq.km of with population PT trip rate: extensive BMR of 8.5 million 0.39 service by BMTC

12

Picture Courtesy: Sarath K T Source: CTTS 2010, Bangalore Case Stations

1. Intermodal Terminal Majestic 3 Majestic: • & KSRTC 2 •BMTC & Proposed Metro

1 2. Transit Center Mantri Square

Mantri square: •BMTC buses & Metro

3. Transit Station Yeshwantpur

CASE STATIONS YeshwantpurBus Station: BMTC buses • 13 Comparison- Transfer Levels

Majestic Mantri Square Yeshwantpur Transfer type Intermodal Terminal Transit center Transit station Modes RR, RB, Metro, Bus Metro, Bus Bus Facilities hierarchy Traffic Transit Management Bus stop BMTC TTMC Centers (TTMC) Platforms Information on routes Waiting Restrooms Facilitated transfer Help desks 14 Intermodal Terminal- Majestic

KEMPEGOWDA KSRTC BUS STAND

KEMPEGOWDA BUS STATION

CITY BUS ROAD GUBBI THODAPPA ROAD THODAPPA GUBBI

KSRTC REGIONAL BUS STAND

15 PROPOSED Transfer Experience-Majestic

TRAIN-BUS Walk-15 min Wait-5-60 min

KSRTC-BMTC Walk-5-10 min Wait-5-60 min

BMTC-BMTC Walk-5 min Wait-5-60 min 320m

240m 190m 140m

CITY BUS ROAD 570 m/ 15min 8-10 min 130m/5-10min

16 Transfer Data- Majestic

Total 87 samples 22% 320m 240m 78%190m 140m

CITY BUS ROAD

17 Majestic

18 Components

Facility Design Service Information •Distance to walk between services • Availability of sign boards and maps •Easiness to walk •Help desks •Access to station •Information on routes and services •Lighting facilities at the station •Vertical circulation elements Amenities Service Characteristics •Waiting areas •Time to wait for next service •Comfortable environment •Timely arrival of next service •Cleanliness •Availability of restrooms, ATMs, etc •Easy access to amenities

Ticketing Safety and security •Money to be paid for transferring •Safety during day and night •Time for ticketing •Presence of security guards

19 IS Analysis-Majestic

• Safety during day and night •Lighting Facilities • Presence of security guards • Availability of information • Cleanliness of the station Most Important • Presence of adequate stairs • Availability of amenities • Comfortable environment • Timely arrival of vehicle 2 1 Very Very Dissatisfied Satisfied 4 3 •Access to amenities •Availability of signboards & maps •Presence of help desks •Short distance to walk •Transfer ticket fare •Safety and security•Easiness to walk •Cleanliness•Easiness to access •Ticketing time •Reliability of services•Waiting time 20 Need immediate attention•Waiting areas Not Important Factor Analysis-Majestic Component Variables 1 2 3 4 5 FD1- Short distance to walk between services -.095 .780 .033 .034 .228 FD2- Easiness to walk .017 .676 .363 .192 .161 FD3 – Lighting facilities at station .516 .571 .200 .217 -.250 FD4 –Easiness to reach station .257 .764 -.021 -.032 -.007 SR1 –Less time to wait .051 .116 .135 .867 .056 SR2 –Timely arrival of bus .264 -.099 .086 .742 -.145 FC1 – Less money to be paid .106 .165 .261 .541 .465 FC2 –Less time to take ticket .078 .191 .008 .013 .785 I1 –Availability of signboards and maps .096 .277 .758 .069 .208 I2 –Presence of help desks .422 -.011 .638 .183 .061 I3 –information on routes/services .377 .103 .726 .116 -.157 A1 –Adequate waiting areas .494 -.037 .698 .144 -.020 A2 –Comfortable environment .640 .001 .323 .146 -.124 A3 –Cleanliness .762 .052 .160 .147 -.140 A4 –Availability of amenities .787 -.151 .197 .203 .244 A5 –Access to amenities .701 -.093 .300 .182 .272 SS1 –Safety during day and night .834 .287 .059 .005 .015 SS2 –Security facilities .780 .148 .254 -.031 .048 FD5 –Adequate vertical circulation 21 elements .146 -.633 -.002 .321 -.531 SEM-Majestic

Ticketing Comfort & time safety Transfer satisfaction

Information 0.36 Facility & waiting design

Service & Fare integration Comfort, safety, information and waiting are significant for transfer satisfaction 22 SEM Passenger Groups-Majestic

0.8 0.7 . 0.6

Coeff 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 Regular Regression 0.1 Occasional 0

For regular users, facility design is thrice significant and integration of services is twice significant than occasional users. For occasional users, information and amenities are significant 23 SEM Passenger Groups-Majestic

0.7 0.6 0.5 coeff 0.4 0.3 Male 0.2 Regression Female 0.1 0

•Comfort and safety twice significant for female transfer users than male users and 20 times more significant than short and easy distance to walk, whereas for male users all the components are equally significant. 24 SEM- Transfer Levels

0.8 0.7

. 0.6

Coeff 0.5 0.4 0.3 Majestic Regression 0.2 Yeshwantpur 0.1 Mantri 0

•Comfort, safety, information and waiting are significant for transfer users at all transfer levels •Significance of service integration towards transfer experience is higher at lower level transfer stations. 25 Non Transfer Users

Least likely

Most likely

Rank Variable Percentage 1 If you get next service within 1 minute 70% 2 If the next service arrives on time 43% 3 If you feel safe and secure during day and night at station 43% 4 If you don’t have to pay for changing services 35% 5 If there are adequate security facilities at the station 35% Service Integration : Less time to wait and reliability of services are important for non- transfer users Comparison

Variable Transfer user Non-transfer Proposed Plans 1. Safety All transfer levels and •TTMC s attempt to provide safe, all passenger groups comfortable environment at the station 2. Comfort All transfer levels and all passenger groups •Identified need of safe access and waiting areas at Mantri square 3. Amenities For Mantri square 4. Service For transit center- Integration station, females Extremely important 5. Fare Integration • •Need immediate attention 6. Information All transfer levels and all passenger groups 7. Waiting All transfer levels and • Identified need of more waiting areas all passenger groups at Mantri. Dissatisfaction at TTMCs 8. Facility design Interchange within a • For upcoming projects, identified need building preferred of transfers within a building 27 Recommendation

1 Comfortable, clean, safe environment and adequate waiting and access facilities at the transfer stations. •Easy and safe access to the station •Shaded walking and waiting facilities •Maintain the cleanliness at the station •Safe adequate waiting areas 2 Integration of services and maintaining the reliability of these services. •Less time to wait for next service •Availability of next service on time 3 Adequate, accurate information on routes, services, platforms etc. at transfer stations •Information on routes and services •Information on platforms •Adequate signboards and maps •Presence of adequate helpdesks 28 Thank You…..

29