Impact Oftransit Corridor on Nmt : a Case of Ahmedabad Brts
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
IMPACT OF TRANSIT CORRIDOR ON NMT : A CASE OF AHMEDABAD BRTS Sarath KT Dr. Talat Munshi Contents 1. Introduction to NMT – Indian Scenario 2. Objectives, research question 3. Study area Case corridor 4. Analysis 5. Conclusion 6. Way forward NMT – Indian scenario Introduction • NMT- ideal last mile connectivity • Socially and politically dormant captive users o The participation in planning processes is negligible o The plans come out often non- inclusive • Lack of infrastructure, – safety concerns and convenience factor • Accidents - 42 % cases, the victims were cyclists and 19 % were pedestrians • The Transit system impart mode shifts (AMC, AUDA and CEPT University, 2008). Methodology Preliminary study and identification of Find the need for the study topic of interest Define aim and objectives On site Frame research questions reconnaissance survey Literature review Questionnaire survey SP, RP DATA collection Primary Method selection Survey format Secondary Study area delineation Pilot survey Previous studies Check if the research Inference answers the questions Analysis 5 Objectives • To evaluate the impact a mass transit corridor has on NMT – 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, convenience factors 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 Express Gandhinagar Ahmedabad) (upcoming) Janmarg BRTS -91km , 10 routes and 230 buses (2015) (CEPT) Source : COE, CEPT (2015) Mode share- Ahmedabad city PT 2 4 Mode Walk Bicycle Auto (AMTS, wheeler wheeler BRTS) % 13.2 18.8 9.1 15.0 35 8.9 Mode NMT PT PRIVATE % 31.3 23.8 43.9 32.0 % 24.1 % 43.9 % *Source: AMC, CEPT and Wilbur Smith Associates As quoted by AMC, 2008 (Detailed Project report for BRTS Phase -2) Narol NarodaCorridor BRTS corridor selection • 13.2 km , NH-8 • Busiest corridor in Ahmedabad, in terms of boarding and alighting • Highest number of bicyclists Section of the Narol Naroda corridor bicycle tracks of 2.5 m width is provided on both sides. Then a service lane (3.5m) and a footpath and shoulder is provided Survey Locations 1) Naroda Patiya 2) Dhanushdhari 3) Krishna Nagar 4) Bapu Nagar approach 5) Virat Nagar 6) Soni ni chali 7) CTM 8) Express high way Jn. 9) Ghodasar 10) Isanpur 11) Narol Data collection • 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 Analysis Sociodemographics • High number of lower middle income group (5000- 10000 INR per month) (40% of the samples) • Average income - 12165 INR Vehicle Ownership Percentage Bicycle 53 Two wheeler 39 Four wheeler 7 Auto 0.9 Others 0.1 – High potential for shift towards NMT Source : Primary survey Mode usage Mode split in Ahmedabad city * NMT PT PRIVATE PT (AMTS, Mode Walk Bicycle Auto 2 wheeler 4 wheeler BRTS) % 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 • It reveals high 2 wheeler mode share followed by bicycles (26.4%).The mode split for 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. *Source: AMC, CEPT and Wilbur Smith Associates (2013) Overall mode usage comparison Comparison of overall mode usage (%) before BRTS (2009) and present (walk, bicycle) 53 before present 31 26 21 13 12 12 14 8 5 3 3 0 0 (auto, two wheeler) walk bicycle AMTS auto BRTS 2 wheeler 4 wheeler 66 Before Present • There is an increase in PT but there is no subsequent increase in 34 33 34 the NMT mode usage 17 17 NMT PT PRIVATE Source : Primary survey Trip length 90.00 80.00 The average trip length 70.00 4.8 km 60.00 50.00 NMT trip length is around 3.5km 40.00 percentage 30.00 20.00 10.00 0.00 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 trip length (km) • Most of the correspondents are in the less than 10km category Source : Primary survey Mode shift • NMT users continue in their previous modes- Mode shift (%) captive users in the area NMT – NMT 32.2 NMT – Private 19.8 • High percentage of the samples have not Private – Private 14.0 shifted to other modes. 56% of the NMT – PT/IPT 12.4 correspondents have continued in their Others – PT 9.9 earlier modes. Auto – Auto 9.1 Other – NMT 1.7 Modal shift from NMT to other modes are • Other 0.8 high and the shift from other modes to NMT is minimal • The NMT modes are not attractive to other mode users. Source : Primary survey Mode shift (no of samples) BRTS AFTER BEFORE 38 24 12 2 15 2 10 3 1 5 AMTS 19 Source : Primary survey Mode shift (%) BRTS AFTER BEFORE 50 32 15 3 1 89 10 1 75 24 1 17 82 AMTS 20 Shift from other modes to NMT is very Source : Primary survey less (3%) Why continued in NMT mode Percentage Affordability , NMT mode is more affordable 35% NMT mode is more convenient for multiple 31% destinations NMT facilities availability 13% Ned for mobility 13% No Obstructions in the route to work 8% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% Source : Primary survey Why shifted from NMT to Motorized modes Percentage Concern due to increased traffic 18.6 current mode has less generalised cost 15.8 Management issues (police, maintenance, amenities) 12.8 Narrow lanes due to construction of BRT lanes 11.4 Need for faster mode 11.4 Obstructions in the route 11.4 NMT facilities not available 5.8 Dust & smoke 5.8 Increase in income 5.8 Poor lighting / surveillance 1.4 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 Source : Primary survey What is the attraction in Auto modes and why not other modes? Percentage samples Easy availability of auto 20.70 Narrow lanes due to construction of BRT lanes 16.71 Need for mobility 16.71 Affordability 16.71 Current mode is more convenient for multiple 12.47 destinations Safety 8.23 Concern due to increased traffic 4.24 Current mode is cheaper (value for money) 4.24 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 Source : Primary survey ISSUES for NMT users Percentage Heavy Traffic and safety concern 63 Crossing 22.5 Smoke and Dust 9.5 Obstruction 7.5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Source : Primary survey ISSUES - induced by ROW changes •The shoulders which were unused by motorized traffic was rearranged to allow BRT corridor •Less space in service lanes Issues for NMT users Bicyclists forced to use the main road due to obstructions in the bicycle track Service lane Illegal parking Main road Bicycle track Issues for NMT users Increased Parking on service roads Encroached bicycle track Service lane Bicycle track Issues for NMT users Source : Primary survey Issues for NMT users Issues for NMT users Issues in air quality CO2 emission ASIF Matrix Air quality issue- CO2 emission Before BRTS •This ASIF matrix shows the CO2 emission before the 6.176 implementation of BRTS was around 2.822 tonnes per day 2.822 After BRTS .The CO2 emission at present is Before BRTS Present around 6.176 tonnes per day. •Emission levels have increased by around 3.21 tonnes CO2 per day that is around 1.2 times the earlier emission levels. • The impact on traffic is coupled with the increase in vehicle registrations every year Source : Primary survey CO2 emissions –Calculation fuel fuel use mode distance % distance efficiency (litres) CO2 (tonnes) 2 wheeler 13875 30.6 60 231.25 0.55315 4 wheeler 1500 3.3 14 107.14 0.256286 walk 3375 7.4 0 handicapped (bicycle) 375 0.8 0 BRTS 5250 11.6 3 1750.00 4.186 CO2 emission auto 9375 20.7 19 493.42 1.180263 Fuel bicycle 11625 25.6 0 (gm/litre) total 45375 2581.81 6.175699 Petrol 2392 Diesel 2252 CNG 2252 Conclusion Conclusion • The overall impact of the BRTS on the mode choice is negative towards the environment considering the increased CO2 emissions and issues faced by the NMT users • 32% of the NMT users have continued in the same mode due to issues like affordability and convenience factors it offer to them • Shift towards the BRTS is marginally less(22.3%), The expected shift from AMTS to BRTS has not happened. • A high percentage (89%)of Private vehicle owners are unaffected by the BRTS corridor except for some issues like congestion and safety concerns. And the NMT infrastructure was not attractive to them due to similar reasons. Way forward • There is a need for more involvement of NMT users while planning and implementing BRTS corridors. • The ideal mode shifts should be in such a way that the NMT users increase in number along with the PT users and shift away from Private modes • Infrastructure provision alone cannot make a change. It should be supported with proper management regarding illegal parking and encroachment and conscious planning considering NMT – The parking encroachment on the bicycle tracks need to regulated and monitored to ensure continuity in tracks.