KOLAR CITY BUS SERVICE
EVALUATION REPORT
DIRECTORATE OF URBAN LAND TRANSPORT
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Kolar City Bus Service Evaluation Report 2013
Table of Contents 1.1 Introduction ...... 2 1.2 Kolar City ...... 3 1.3 Demographics of Kolar City ...... 3 1.4 Vehicular composition in Kolar ...... 4 1.5 Kolar city Bus service...... 4 2.1 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION ...... 6 2.1 Public transport facilities – Kolar City ...... 6 2.1.1 Presence of organized public transport system in urban area (%) ...... 6 2.1.2 Extent of supply availability of public transport ...... 7 2.1.3 Service coverage of public transport in the city ...... 7 2.1.4 % of fleet as per Urban bus specification ...... 8 2.1.5 Level of comfort in public transport ...... 8 2.1.6 Average waiting time for public transport users (mins) ...... 8 2.2 Financial Sustainability of public transport - Kolar ...... 9 2.2.1 Extent of Non fare Revenue (%) ...... 9 2.2.2 Staff /bus ratio ...... 9 2.2.3 Operating Ratio ...... 9 2.3 Facts and Findings – Route Wise...... 10 2.3.1 Route 301/302/303/304 ...... 10 2.3.2 Route 305/306AB ...... 12 2.3.3 Route 307/308 ...... 13 2.3.4 Route 309/310 ...... 15 3.1 CONCLUSION ...... 17 EVALUATION OF CITY BUS SERVICE (Kolar) ...... 0
Directorate of Urban Land Transport 1
Kolar City Bus Service Evaluation Report 2013
1.1 Introduction
Urbanization in India has never been as rapid as it is in the recent times. The urban population in India is currently growing at around 2.3 per cent per annum. The tier II and III cities are growing very fast and in the coming 20 years would contribute enormously to the city population. Proper urban transportation system in most of the cities has been absent, leading to dependence on personalized vehicles and also on IPTs. The problem of pollution, safety and inefficiency have reached an alarming level in most of the major cities in India due to the unabated growth of population - both people and motor vehicles. Thus, there is an immediate need to improve the performance of bus system to retain the passengers and discourage the use of private vehicles. One of the critical challenges most small towns and medium-sized cites face is the lack of a dedicated city transport service. Due to which, people have to rely on Para transit and personalized modes of transport.
Public Transport can operate over existing roadway facilities with minimum construction cost, offer transit services at a much lower cost per passenger. Furthermore, buses provide the greatest flexibility in service routes to meet the current transport demand. Thus, improved performance of urban bus service could essentially contribute to improved environmental conditions in medium sized cities by shifting mobility from private modes towards more efficient environmental-friendly and safer travel modes. However, improvement in City bus system is not an easy task due to the fact that city bus systems are affected by socio-economic, financial, environmental, and political factors along with technological factors and physical problems. Performance of a bus system is affected by several criteria, such as increase in the number of buses, bus stops, and passengers, and changes along roadways and in land uses. Therefore, the various issues causing inefficient operation of bus services needs to be identified and also appropriate techniques/measures should be formulated to resolve these issues.
In this regard, The Government of Karnataka created the Directorate of Urban Land Transport (DULT) under the Urban Development Department to integrate and coordinate all land transport matter in the State. Directorate of Urban Land Transport (DULT), Government of Karnataka, took up the initiative of supporting the introduction of city bus services in Tier II cities. As a part of this initiative Performance evaluation was conducted for the newly introduced City Bus Service partly funded from State Urban Transport Fund through DULT for Kolar City.
This study identifies some of the important issues related with the performance of newly introduced bus system in Kolar and also suggests some solutions for improvement in the performance of the City bus system. Rapidly rising operating cost in the City bus services have placed increasing emphasis on improved management and better utilization of existing facilities.
Directorate of Urban Land Transport 2
Kolar City Bus Service Evaluation Report 2013
It is required to evaluate how well the existing city bus system is providing services to the public. Therefore, new techniques to assist the evaluation of performance of City bus services are needed. It is expected that this study will be useful to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of bus system in urban area.
1.2 Kolar City
Kolar town, headquarters of Kolar district and one of the 29 districts of Karnataka bordering the neighboring states of Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu, benefits economically due to its proximity to the State capital – Bangalore city. The national 2011 census reported the town’s population as 138,553. The town plays an important economic role since it is one of the major silk cocoon markets and silk reeling centers of the state, in addition to being a major supplier of milk and vegetables to Bangalore city.
The district is bounded by the Bangalore Rural district in the west Chikballapur district in the north, Chittoor District of Andhra Pradesh in the east and on the south by Krishnagiri and Vellore district of Tamil Nadu.
It is located at a distance of about 70 kilometers from Bangalore and 32 kilometers from Kolar Gold Fields. The nearest railway junction is Bangarpet at a distance of about 15km. It is situated on the Bengaluru - Chennai National Highway-4. Kolar is also the gateway for Tirumala Via National Highway 4.
1.3 Demographics of Kolar City
The city had a population of 138553 during the 2011 census. With the City Municipal Council (CMC) jurisdiction of 26.56 sq. km, the population was 5216 persons per square kilometer. As per 2011 census Kolar district had a total population of 1540231 with an area of 4012 sq. km, the population density was 384 persons per sq. km. Figure 1 illustrates the growth of population in Kolar District from 1901 to 2011 based on Census of India statistics.
Directorate of Urban Land Transport 3
Kolar City Bus Service Evaluation Report 2013
Figure 1: Population Trend
1.4 Vehicular composition in Kolar
A cursory look at the status of vehicle composition in Kolar is very alarming. Table 1 illustrates the automobile composition in the city as per the recent statistics available from the Regional Transport Office. It can be seen that while the vehicular population in the city stood at 65,849 of which 46,015 came from motorcycles alone.
Table 1: Vehicular Growth
No. of Vehicle Type Vehicles Two wheelers 46,015
Cars & Jeeps 4,036 Cabs 265 Auto-Rickshaw 3,844 Omni buses 150 Tractors & Trailers 7,046 Goods vehicles 2,796 Private buses - Others 1,650 Total 65,849
1.5 Kolar city Bus service
The Government of Karnataka created the Directorate of Urban Land Transport (DULT) under the Urban Development Department to integrate and coordinate all land transport matter in the State. Directorate of Urban Land Transport (DULT), Government of Karnataka, took up the initiative of supporting the introduction of city bus services in Tier II cities.
Directorate of Urban Land Transport 4
Kolar City Bus Service Evaluation Report 2013
In this regard, a proposal for the induction of 15 buses were proposed by Karnataka state Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) and sent to Government of Karnataka (GoK) seeking financial assistance. Considering the need and demand of the city for a dedicated city service to cater the need of the urban population in Kolar, 50% of the cost of the rolling stock requirement for city bus services was sanctioned. The remaining 50% of the amount was born by KSRTC. Hence, the funding was done for the augmentation of the rolling stock through Directorate of Urban Land Transport (DULT), UDD, Gok, as per the “Scheme of utilisation of State Urban Transport Fund”. Based on the key nodes of commuter transit, 3 initial routes were proposed. These routes connected one end of the city to another running through the periphery to periphery passing through the city centre and certain nodes.
The origin and destination of the bus routes operating within the city are as shown in Table 2.
Table 2: Route Details
Route No. Route Route Length From To
301 Kolar Vadagur Gate 10 302 Kolar Vadagur Gate 10 303 Kolar Vadagur Gate 10 304 Kolar Vadagur Gate 10 305 Kolar Sangondhalli 2.9 306 AB Kolar Sangondhalli 2.9 307 Kolar Bangarapet 18 308 Kolar Bangarapet 18 309 Kolar Pooja Kalyana Mantapa 4.5 310 Kolar Pooja Kalyana Mantapa 4.5
Directorate of Urban Land Transport 5
Kolar City Bus Service Evaluation Report 2013
2.1 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
The growing challenges of the urban sector in India requires a system which can measure the performance of urban transport activities and also address the performance monitoring for internal decision making. With this perspective, Ministry of Urban Development (MoUD) framed a standard set of performance benchmarks which can help Urban Local Bodies (ULBs) and other agencies in identifying performance gaps and suggesting improvements through the sharing of information and best practices, ultimately resulting in better services to the people. Accordingly all JnNURM mission cities are advised to undertake the process of service level benchmarking. Service level performance indicators have been identified for various areas like Quality and financial sustainability of public transport, Pedestrian / NMT safety and infrastructure facilities, ITS facilities in a city to name a few, by the Ministry of Urban Development (MoUD).
The Service level benchmarks (as per MoUD) for public transport system indicate the city wide LOS provided by public transport system during peak hours. This would require indicators such as presence of organized public transport system; bus route coverage, service frequency, and percentage fleet as per urban bus specifications as far as the city perspective is concerned. Therefore the parameters as per the MoUD guidelines to assess the service initially were analysed for KGF.
The service level benchmarks for the Public transport consists of two categories:
1 Public transport facilities. 2 Sustainability of Public transport.
2.1 Public transport facilities – Kolar City
LOS 1 Presence of 2.1.1 Presence of organized public transport system in urban area (%) Organized PT 1 >= 60 Currently 10 buses are operated by Karnataka State Road 2 40 - 60 Transport Corporation in Kolar. 3 20 - 40 4 < 20 A = Total Number of Buses in the City – 10 buses.
B = Total Number of Buses under the ownership of STU/SPV - 10 buses
Directorate of Urban Land Transport 6
Kolar City Bus Service Evaluation Report 2013
Presence of Public Transport System in Urban Area (%)
= (B/A)*100
=100%,
Therefore, LOS1 = 1.
2.1.2 Extent of supply availability of public transport
The Population of Kolar city is 1, 38,553. LOS 2 Extent of supply availability of A = Total Number of Buses in the City – 10 buses public transport
B = Total Population of the city (2011 Census) - 1,38,553. 1 >= 0.6 2 0.4 – 0.6
Availability of Public Transport / 1000 Population 3 0.2 – 0.4
= A/ (B/1000) = 0.07 4 < 0.2
Therefore, LOS 2 = 4
2.1.3 Service coverage of public transport in the city
A = Total Route length of the corridors on which the PT systems LOS 3 Service coverage of public transport ply in the city = 252 (in Road Kilometers). 1 >= 1 B = Area of the Urban Limits of the City = 26.56 (in Square 2 0.7 - 1.0 Kilometers) 3 0.3 – 0.7 4 < 0.3 Service Coverage = (A/B) = 9.49
Therefore, LOS 3 = 1.
Directorate of Urban Land Transport 7
Kolar City Bus Service Evaluation Report 2013
2.1.4 % of fleet as per Urban bus specification
A = Total Number of Buses in the City – 10buses
B =Total number of buses as per the Urban Bus LOS 4 % of fleet as per specifications in the city – 10buses urban bus specification 1 75 - 100 % of fleet = (B/A)*100 2 50 - 74 = (10/10)*100 = 100%, 3 25 - 49 4 <=25 % of fleet as per urban bus specification is 100%,
Therefore, LOS 4 = 1.
2.1.5 Level of comfort in public transport LOS 5 Level of comfort in public transport B = Passenger count on bus at key identified routes. 1 <=1.5 C = Seats available in the bus is taken based on its type. 2 1.5 – 2.0
Passenger comfort – Load factor (passengers per seat) 3 2.0 – 2.5
=B/C 4 >2.5
=277.33/ (17*43)
=0.38
Therefore, LOS 5 = 1.
LOS 6 Average waiting time 2.1.6 Average waiting time for public transport users (mins) for public transport 1 <=4 The Average LOS of the Waiting time for Public transport is 2 4 - 6 20 min. 3 6- 10 4 > 10 Therefore, LOS 5= 4.
Directorate of Urban Land Transport 8
Kolar City Bus Service Evaluation Report 2013
2.2 Financial Sustainability of public transport - Kolar
2.2.1 Extent of Non fare Revenue (%)
From the collected secondary data, Operational performance and financial performance of
KSRTC had been calculated. LOS 1 Extent of Non fare Revenue (%) A =Revenue collections per annum from non-fare related 1 >40 sources (From August 2012 to July 2013) (i.e. 2 40 – 20 excluding tariff box collections) – Rs. 7.61 3 20 – 10 B = Total revenue per annum from all the sources – Rs.12.5 4 <=10 Lakhs (From August 2012 to July 2013).
Extent of non-fare revenue (%)
= A/B * 100
= 60.88 %, Therefore LOS 1 = 1.
2.2.2 Staff /bus ratio LOS 2 Staff /bus ratio
A = Total staff of bus operation and maintenance – 1 <=5 2 5.5 – 8 B = Total number of buses – 10 (in number). 3 8 – 10 Staff / Bus Ratio = A/B= 4.89 4 >10
Therefore, LOS 2 = 1.
LOS Operating Ratio 2.2.3 Operating Ratio 3 A = Cost/ vkm = Rs. 42.17 1 <0.7 B = Earning/vkm = Rs.17.87 2 0.7 – 1.0
Operating Ratio (ratio) = A/B = 2.36. 3 1.0 - 1.5 4 >=1.5 Therefore, LOS 3 = 4.
Directorate of Urban Land Transport 9
Kolar City Bus Service Evaluation Report 2013
2.3 Facts and Findings – Route Wise
In the above section, an overall evaluation of the city bus service has been made through the computation of level of service prescribed by MoUD. In addition to this, a route wise performance evaluation has been carried for Kolar which is necessary to understand the travel constraints in each route. This is essential as the constraint of one route may vary from the other.
The following section lists out the route wise analysis (both with respect to passenger and operators) for the better understanding of the overall operational efficiency of each route.
2.3.1 Route 301/302/303/304
This route is operated between Kolar to Vadagur Gate to a total route length of 10 km.
A. Operational Efficiency-Passengers Observations:
1. 44% of the commuters are in the age group of 15-30 years. 2. Along this route, most of the trips made are either for Shopping (37%) or Work (36%) followed by Education (27%). 3. 45% of the commuters spend ₹ 600-800 on an average for their monthly commute. 4. The average income of the commuters in Kolar is about Rs.5000-10000. 5. 97% of commuters use city bus service for their daily commute.
Directorate of Urban Land Transport 10
Kolar City Bus Service Evaluation Report 2013
Issues:
1. About 51% of the commuters need to walk more than 15-30 min to reach their nearest bus stop. 2. About 48% & 27% of commuters would prefer to use IPT or private buses as their next preferential mode respectively as they feel that the current city bus services are not reliable and unavailable when required. 3. 48% of the commuters have to wait for 15-30 min at the bus stop for the arrival of the next bus indicating a lower frequency. 4. 65% of the commuters are not satisfied with the current bus fare system.
B. Operational Efficiency-Operators Observations: 1. Cost of operation: The cumulative earning and cost of operations for this route was found to be 16.62 and 42.17 respectively. 2. Load Factor: The highest load factor of 64% has been recorded. 3. Trips per day: The approximate number of trips made is 17 trips /day.
C. Inference The EPKM is comparatively very low compared to the CPKM. As the above route ply through small industries (bricks factory) and agriculture land, work trip is more but revenue generated due to work trip is less. The presence of large number of shared auto rickshaws plays a major role in the medium sized city like Kolar as they provide last mile connectivity and thus attracts more passengers. This has affected the city bus service ridership along the route. Directorate of Urban Land Transport 11
Kolar City Bus Service Evaluation Report 2013
It is suggested to increase the trips per bus from 17 to 25 per day.
2.3.2 Route 305/306AB
This route is operated between Kolar to Sangondhalli to a total route length of 2.9 km.
A. Operational Efficiency-Passengers Observations:
1. 39% of the commuters are in the age group of 15-30 years. 2. 71% of the commuters make work trips and rest 29% are made by educational trips every day. 3. About 38% of the commuters demand the requirement of bus passenger information at the bus stops followed by 31% demanding for lighting facility and bus shelters. 4. 50% of the commuters spend Rs 500-700 on an average for their monthly commute.
Issues:
1. About 50% of the commuters walk 10-15 min to reach their nearest bus stop. 2. 89% of the commuters are willing to use IPT as their intermediate mode of travel in the absence of Public transit. 3. 39% of the commuters wait for 5-10 min for the arrival of the next bus. 4. 89% of the commuters are not satisfied with the existing fare system.
Directorate of Urban Land Transport 12
Kolar City Bus Service Evaluation Report 2013
B. Operational Efficiency-Operators Observations: 1. Cost of operation: The cumulative earning and cost of operations for this route was found to be 18.79 and 42.17 respectively. 2. Load Factor: The highest load factor of 72.2% has been recorded. 3. Trips per day: The approximate number of trips made is 42 trips /day. C. Inference Majority of the commuters along this route are in the age group of 15-30 years commuting with passes. Despite a load factor of 73%, the city bus service is found to incur a loss of ₹ 23.38/Km; this may be due to the fact that the shared autos run with ₹ 2 less in comparison to the city bus service fare along this route. It is suggested to adopt a comparative fare structure so as to attract more commuters. Trip length should be increase by another 1.5km so as to attract commuters from the suburbs.
2.3.3 Route 307/308
This route is operated between Kolar to Bangarapet to a total route length of 18 km.
A. Operational Efficiency-Passengers
1. 52% of the commuters are in the age group of 15-30 years. 2. 59% of the trips made are work trips followed by 33% educational trips. 3. 96% of commuters use city bus service for their daily commute.
Directorate of Urban Land Transport 13
Kolar City Bus Service Evaluation Report 2013
Issues:
1. 48% of the people need to walk 15-30 min. to reach the nearest bus stop. 2. 44% of the commuters need to wait for 10-15 min for the
next bus. 3. 45% of the commuters prefer private bus as their next mode of travel after city bus service. 4. 67% of the commuters are not satisfied with current bus fare system.
5. 52% of the commuters believe that a reduction in fare will increase the PT patronage within the city. 6. 50% of the commuters feel the need of bus shelters and bus route information at the bus stop.
B. Operational Efficiency-Operators Observations: 1. Cost of operation: The cumulative earning and cost of operations for this route was found to be 23.49 and 42.17 respectively. 2. Load Factor: The highest load factor of 90.3% has been recorded. 3. Trips per day: The approximate number of trips made is 13 trips /day.
C. Inference Maximum number of commuters along this route is captured from the railway station. In comparison to other routes, the difference in CPKM and EPKM seems to be comparatively less which could be further minimised by increasing the fleet strength along this route and also by synchronising the schedule timings with the railway time table as well as with the
Directorate of Urban Land Transport 14
Kolar City Bus Service Evaluation Report 2013
intra city bus service. A highest load factor of 90.3% has been observed along this route and hence an increase in fleet strength will be the best option.
2.3.4 Route 309/310
This route is operated between Kolar to Pooja Kalyana Mantapa to a total route length of 4.5 km.
A. Operational Efficiency-Passengers 1. 49% of the commuters are in the age group of 15-30 years. 2. 59% of the trips made are work based followed by 38% educational trips. 3. 89% of commuters use city bus service for their daily commute.
Issues:
1. 44% of the commuters need to walk for 15-30 min to reach the nearest bus stop. 2. About 65% of commuters would prefer to IPT as their next preferential mode due lack of sufficient number of bus stops and poor frequency of the city bus services both during peak and off peak hours. 3. Around 84% of the commuters are not satisfied with the current bus fare. 4. 45% of the commuters feel the need of Bus Shelter and Route Information at the bus stop.
Directorate of Urban Land Transport 15
Kolar City Bus Service Evaluation Report 2013
Operational Efficiency-Operators
Observations: 1. Cost of operation: The cumulative earning and cost of operations for this route was found to be 15.74 and 42.17 respectively. 2. Load Factor: The highest load factor of 60.5% has been recorded. 3. Trips per day: The approximate number of trips made is 27 trips /day.
B. Inference The presence of Agriculture Market Yard (AMY) along this route attracts large number of people to commute between AMY to Kolar bus stand. However the buses are not scheduled to the needs of the market peak operational hours. As such the city buses are not full/optimally utilised. This is evident from the maximum difference observed between EPKM and CPKM along the route.
Directorate of Urban Land Transport 16
Kolar City Bus Service Evaluation Report 2013
3.1 CONCLUSION
Small city transit not only helps connect people with the places as well as opens up economic opportunities for local residents and businesses, enables students to get to school or college classes, and helps the elderly stay independent. It gives rural populations access to jobs, retail centres, health care and social services. In short, transit enhances the quality of life and economic vitality of small cities and town. As per the city bus service evaluation conducted for Kolar, the following observations have been drawn:
1. The public patronage of the city bus services at Kolar has been slowly gaining its prominence. However, it is suggested that the Regional Traffic Office (RTO) should regularly check as well as enforce rules on over loading and overcrowding of shared auto, as it is found along route number 305/306AB, as stated in above chapter. 2. The city bus fare has to be monitored regularly so that the fares are comparable with other modes and is affordable for common people/ commuter. 3. Early hours of city bus operation is suggested especially along route 309/310 so as to capture the commuters travelling to APMC yard during the early hours. 4. It is suggested to increase the route length by 1.5 Km along 305/306AB. To attract commuters from nearby small industries/villagers. 5. An increase in fleet strength is required in all the operational routes (as listed in chapter 1) in order to increase the frequency of buses along these routes. This can potentially minimise the gap between EPKM and CPKM.
Directorate of Urban Land Transport 17
EVALUATION OF CITY BUS SERVICE (Kolar)
PASSENGER OPINION SURVEY: Questionnaire for users (ಬಳಕೆದಾರರಿಗೆ ಪ್ರಶ್ೆೆ):
1. Name (ಹೆಸರು):...... 2. Age (ವಯಸುು):......
:(ಗ): Male (ಪ್ುರುಷ): Female (ಸ್ತ್ರೀﲂGender (ಲ .3
4. Origin ( ಸಥಳ): ………………………………Destination ( ಸಥಳ): …………...………
5. Travel distance from Origin to Destination ( ): ………………………………………………………………………………………. 6. Do city Buses Arrive/Depart on scheduled time? (ಈ ಆ /
)? Yes No
7. Is there a proper Bus Stop/Shelter? ( )? Yes No
8. What other facilities you need in the bus stop: ( )? Bus shelter ( ) Route Information ( ) Lighting ( )
9. How much time do you wait for the bus at the bus stop? (
) ? < 5min 5-10min 10-15 min 15-30 min :(ಡಕಟ샍 / ಚಾಲಕ ನಡವಳಿಕೆﲂBehaviour of Bus Conductor / Driver: (ಬ ಕ .10 Ranking Very good Good Normal Bad Very bad ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
11. How often do you use Public Transport? ( ,
)?
Every day (ಪ್ರ邿颿ನ) Weekdays (ವಾರದ 颿ನಗಳು ಮಾತ್ರ) occasionally
( )
12. Would you like any Routes to be added to the existing system? (
)? ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 13. What is the purpose of your travel? (ನಿಮ್ಮ ಪ್ರಯಾಣದ ಉದೆದೀಶ )?
(峍) others (ಇತ್ರೆﲂWork (ಕೆಲಸ) Education (�ಕ್ಷಣ) Shopping (ಶ್ಾಪ
14. If not Public Transport, which is your next preferential mode of transport? (
) ? Auto Private Bus Others
15. What do you think must be done to increase the patronage of city bus service? (
)?
Satisfied ( ) Reduction in fare ( ) Reliability ( )
Infrastructure facility ( ) Increase in route coverage ( )
Increase in no. of buses ( ) others ( )
16. How many minutes do you walk to reach the Bus Stop: (
): < 5min 5-10min 10-15 min 15-30 min
17. Reason for using Public Transport: (ಸಾವವಜನಿಕ ಸಾರಿಗೆ ಉಪ್ಯೀ岿ಸಲು ಕಾರಣ):
Reasons(ಕಾರಣಗಳು)
Comfort (ಆರಾಮ್ದಾಯಕ)
Safety (ಸುರಕ್ಷತೆ)
Cost Saving ( )
Time Saving ( )
Directness of Service ( )
18. If not walking, which mode do you choose to reach bus stop: ( , ಆಯ್ಕೆ ): Two wheeler Auto Cycle Private Bus Walk others
19. Number of Vehicles Owned (ಮಾಲೀಕತ್ವದಲಿರುವ ವಾಹನಗಳು ಎಷುಟ): Type of Cycles Scooters/MCs/Mopeds Cars/Vans/Jeep Auto rickshaws Other Vehicles Vehicle (owned) (pl.specify) ಸೆೈಕಲ್ಸು ಸಕೆಟ샍 ಕಾರುಗಳು
ವಾಹನ ಆಟೆಕೀ ರಿಕ್ಷಾಗಳು ಇತ್ರೆ ವಾಹನಗಳು
(ಗಳು (ಪ್ರಸುುತ್ﲂAverage Travel Expenses / Month (at present): ಸರಾಸರಿ ಪ್ರಯಾಣ ವೆ棍ಚ / 邿 .20 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 21. Are you satisfied with the Current Bus fare system? ( ? Yes No 22. If not, select the improvement required ( ಆ ) Reduction in fare ( ) Reduction in monthly pass fare ( ) Others ( ) :(ಗಳುﲂAverage Income of the person (per month): (ವಯಕ್ತುಯ ಸರಾಸರಿ ವರಮಾನ) (ಪ್ರ邿 邿 .23 1000-5000 5000-10000 10000-25000 25000- 50000 24. Any other suggestions / Comments about the bus service/ ( / )
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
ANNEXURE II
Total Eff. Kms Per bus held * no. of buses held * no of days % Fleet Utilisation (Average no. of buses on-road / Average no. of buses held) * 100 Pass. Kms. (Lakhs) Traffic Revenue(in Lakhs) / .85 Seat Kms. (Lakhs) 42(no of seat) * Total Eff. Kms.(in Lakhs) % Load Factor (Pass. Kms. (Lakhs) / Seat Kms. (Lakhs)) * 100 Pass. Carried/bus on road/day Passanger Carried / no of bus on road / no of days Gross Kms.(Lakhs) Total Eff. Kms + Total Dead Kms Staff on Workshop & Maintenance 0.9 * Average no. of buses held Staff on Administration & 0.1 * Average no. of buses held Accounts Staff per bus on-road Total Staff / Average no. of buses on-road Eff.kms per staff per day Total Eff. Kms.(in Lakhs) * 100000 / no of days / Total Staff Passenger Tax(in Lakhs) Traffic Revenue(in Lakhs) * 0.056 Total Revenue Traffic Revenue + Other Revenue (paise/km) (Total Revenue (in Lakhs) / Total Eff. Kms.(in Lakhs)) * 101 % Cancel Kms (Cancel Kms / Schedule Kms) * 100 EPKM Traffic Revenue / Eff. Kms Passenger per bus Total passengers / Schedule Load Factor EPKM / 42(no of seat) / 0.85 * 100 Operational effeciency Eff. Kms / Schedule KMPL Gross Kms / Hour Schedule per day(HSD) CPKM Cost / Eff. Kms Total Cost per Vehicle Kms CPKM / no. of vehicles HSD Cost HSD * 45.7 Spare 0.28 * Eff. Kms Tyres and Tubes 0.70 * Eff. Kms Lubricants 0.10 * Eff. Kms Others 0.06 * Eff. Kms Dep on vehicle 2.81 * Eff. Kms MV Tax Traffic Revenue * 0.056 Recondition 0.05 * Eff. Kms Staff 1900 * Operation schedule Dep / other assests 0.15 *Eff. Kms Central overhead 0.50 * Eff. Kms Interest 0.23 * Eff. Kms Mact 0.10 * Eff. Kms Miscellaneous 1.45 * Eff. Kms Cost HSD Cost + Spare + Tyres and Tubes + Lubricants + Others + Dep on vehicle + MV Tax + Recondition + Staff + (Dep/other assests) + Central overhead + Interest + Mact + Miscellaneous Margin Traffic Revenue - Cost
Net Profit (Total Revenue - Total Cost) / Eff. Kms Turnover/Capital Total Revenue / (14.75(Cost of bus) * no of bus) Vehicle Kms performed litre of fuel Gross Kms / KMPL Scheduled Kms/day Per bus held * no of buses Operated Kms/day Eff. Kms / no of days Vehicle utilization (effective) Per bus held Vehicle utilization (Gross) Dead Kms per day + Eff. Vehicle utilisation
ANNEXURE III: SLBs for Urban Transport- MoUD, Government of India
Level 1. Presence of 2. Extent of 3. Service 4. Average 5. Level of 6. % of Fleet as of Organized Supply Coverage of waiting Comfort in per Urban Bus Service Public Availability Public time for Public Specification Transport of Transport in Public Transport System in Public the Transport Urban Area (%) Transport city users (mins) 1 >= 60 >= 0.6 >= 1 <=4 <= 1.5 75 - 100 2 40- 60 0.4 - 0.6 0.7- 1 4 - 6 1.5 - 2.0 50 - 75 3 20 - 40 0.2 - 0.4 0.3 - 0.7 6 - 10 2.0 - 2.5 25 - 50
4 < 20 < 0.2 < 0.3 > 10 >2.5 <= 25
Overall Calculated Comments LOS LOS 1 < 12 The City has a good public transport system which is wide spread and easily available to the citizens. The system provided is comfortable. 2 12 - 16 The City has public transport system which may need considerable improvements in terms of supply of buses/ coaches and coverage as many parts of the city are not served by it. The frequency of the services available may need improvements. The system provided is comfortable. 3 17 - 20 The City has a public transport system which may need considerable improvements in terms of supply of buses / coaches and coverage as most parts of the city are not served by it. The frequency of the services available needs improvements. The system provided is not comfortable as there is considerable over loading. 4 21-24 The city has very poor/no organized public transport system.
ANNEXURE IV: Financial Sustainability of Public Transport, MoUD, Government of India.
Level of Service 1. Extent of Non fare Revenue (%) 2. Staff /bus ratio 3.Operating Ratio
1 > = 40 < = 5.5 <= 0.7
2 20 - 40 5.5 - 8.0 0.7 - 1 3 10- 20 8 - 10 1 - 1.5
4 < 10 > 10 > 1.5
Overall Calculated Comments LOS LOS 1 < = 4 The public transport of a city is financially sustainable. 2 5 - 7 The public transport of a city is financially sustainable but needs some improvements. 3 8- 9 The public transport of a city is financially sustainable but needs considerable improvements. 4 10 - 12 The public transport of a city is not financially sustainable.