performance indicators for a sustainable design of intercity bus terminal 1 prof. dr. tanvir iqbal...

1

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS FOR A SUSTAINABLE DESIGN OF INTERCITY BUS TERMINAL

Prof. Dr. Tanvir Iqbal Qayyum, Associate Dean Civil Engineering, University of South Asia, Lahore. Engr. Saba Ikhlaq, Transport Planner, Transport Planning Unit, Transport Department Government of Punjab,

Lahore.National Conference PAKISTRAN 18-19 12 2015

2

Contents

Problem Definition, Objectives and Research Methodology

Lahore Road Network and Intercity Bus Terminals Bus Terminals, Sustainability and Performance Indicators Data Collection, Analysis, Discussions and Outcomes General Guide Lines, Conclusions and

Recommendations Proposed Future Work

3

Problem Definition

Urbanization resulted in intense pressure on transportation demand

In-efficiency of intercity bus terminals increased problems on transportation infrastructure

Non-Standardization of intercity bus terminals

Increase in higher vehicular intercity trips

Lahore City is Selected for the analysis Purposes

4

Objectives

Assess/Review the existing situation of Intercity bus terminals

Evaluate Performance Indicators for a sustainable intercity bus terminal

Make general guidelines for design of efficient and a sustainable intercity bus terminal

5

Research Methodology

Research Methodology

Review of Existing Situation

Quantitative Data

Qualitative Data

Analysis on Collected Data

Final Thesis Report and Presentation

Conclusions and Recommendations

Secondary Data

Assessment of Prevailing System

Primary DataField Surveys

Interview Survey

Improvements Based Upon

•Surveys•Field Observations•Engineering Judgments

Ph

ase

1P

has

e 2

Ph

ase

3

Ph

ase

4

6

Lahore Road Network and Intercity Bus Terminals

7

Bus Terminals

“Bus terminal is a structure where intra or intercity buses/trains stop to pick up and drop off passengers” (Nicholas, 2009)

Intra City Bus Terminal

Intercity Bus Terminals

8

Classification of Bus Stands

Stands Class Definition Minimum Area

DStands, being company stands. The regional transport authority may in consultation with the local authority having jurisdiction in the area concerned

4 Kanal to 50 Kanal (Depending upon the Different Zones of the

city)

C

Stands, being general stand administered by City District Government, a District Government, and a Town Municipal Administration or through the agency of a contractor

6 Kanal to 50 Kanal (Depending upon the Different Zones of the

city)

B

Stands, being general stand entrusted for management, under arrangement made by Regional Transport Authority, to provide person or company

_

A Stands, being general stand administered by officials of Government

_

Source: Motor Vehicle Rules (1969)

9

D-Class Bus Stands

10

C-Class Bus Stands

11

B-Class Bus Stands

Ittefaq Hospital ParkingIT Tower , Parking

12

A-Class Bus Stands

LDA Plaza, Egerton RoadTPU, Egerton Road

13

Sustainability and Sustainable Development

Sustainability

“Meeting the reasonable needs of the current generation while enhancing the lives and systems of future generations” ( Pollalis, 2012)

Sustainable Development

“Humanity has the ability to make development sustainable - to ensure that it meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (Brundtland, 1987)”

14

Components of Sustainable Development

15

Performance Indicators

1. Safety and Security

2. Access

3. Information

4. Connection and Reliability

5. Environment

6. Facilities

16

Performance Indicators, Measuring Parameters

Sr. # Performance Indicators Measuring Parameters

1 Safety & Security

1. Adequate lighting2. Security guards3. Emergency communication devices4. Way for me to get help in emergency5. Closed-circuit television camera (CCTV)6. Monitoring cell / command & control center7. Entrance Security:a) Manual checking Maleb) Manual checking Femalec) Metal detectorsd) Walk troughse) Automatic camera’s for still photosf) Trained dogsg) Scanners8. Exit Security:h) Security guardsi) Turnstile / Electronic Barriers

17

Performance Indicators, Measuring Parameters

Sr. # Performance Indicators Measuring Parameters

2 Access

1. Linkage to nearby road2. Linkage to connecting bus adda3. Access of people with disabilities4. Transfer vehicles facility

3 Information

1. Reception2. Appropriate signage inside the terminal:a) Variable message signsb) Display boards1. Appropriate signals inside the terminal2. Marking on pavement for bus bays3. Schedule information4. Printed guided material (i-e Route and Terminal layout

information)5. Telephone enquiry (operator)6. Website information

18

Performance Indicators, Measuring Parameters

Sr. # Performance Indicators Measuring Parameters

4 Connection and Reliability

1. Buses leaves on times2. Buses arrives on times3. Bus halt at fix stand or not

5 Environment

1. Landscaping2. Waste disposal3. Proper drainage4. Air circulation5. Cleanliness in the terminal area6. Encroachment inside7. Encroachment outside8. Noise

19

Performance Indicators, Measuring Parameters

Sr. # Performance Indicators Measuring Parameters

6 Facilities

1. Shelter2. Waiting Area/ (A/C) Waiting Area /Fan facility3. Seating arrangements for passengers4. Ticketing booths5. E-Ticking booking via remote access6. Restaurants7. Telephone facility8. Mosque9. Masalah10. Bank11. ATM facility12. Parking Area13. Separate boarding (departure) and alighting (arrival) area14. Combined boarding (departure) and alighting (arrival) area15. Tuck shops16. Toilets (Male/Female)17. Hotels18. Internet facility19. Proper pedestrian’s facilities exist?20. Traffic circulation for private vehicles (e.g cars, motorcycles etc.) 21. Ample luggage storage space22. Bus wash bays23. Maintenance /Repair area24. Parking angel25. Maneuvering space26. Depot27. Traffic circulation for buses28. Fleet management

Facilitie

s for Pa

ssen

gers &

D

rivers

Facilitie

s for

Driv

ers

20

Questionnaire survey

Passenger Perception Survey Driver Perception Survey Intercity Bus Terminal

Administrator Survey Check Lists for Intercity

Bus Terminals

Conduction of Passenger and Driver survey with a sample of 2657 passengers and 1241 Drivers with 90% Confidence Level, 5 % error and 50% Response Distribution

21

Data Analysis

Data Reliability Basic Travelers Demographics Trip Properties of Users Evaluation of Performance Indicators Ranking of Intercity bus terminals on CSI Ranking of Performance Indicators

22

Data Reliability

Cronbach's Alpha Value

Intercity Bus TerminalsPassenger

Perception

Driver

Perception

Rahber Travels 0.93 0.76

Niazi Express Lahore 0.93 0.97

Daewoo Lahore 0.85 0.63

Abdullah Express 0.66 0.75

Skyways Lahore 0.86 0.66

Ahmad Travels 0.71 0.88

Mian Travels 0.74 0.94

Mokal Travels 0.55 0.56

General Bus Stand 0.72 0.81

City Terminal Band Road 0.86 0.76

Jinnah Terminal Thokar Niaz Baig 0.73 0.74

23

Travelers Demographics

75%

25%

Passenger Gender

Male Female

<10 Years

10-20 Years

20-30 Years

30-40 Years

40-50 Years

Above 50 Years

1.2

6.4

47.6

32.5

9.4

2.9

Passenger Age

24

Travelers Demographics

20-30 Years

30-40 Years

40-50 Years

Above 50 Years

8.7

33.0

43.4

14.9

Driver Age

< 5000 5000-10000

10000-20000

20000-40000

More than 50,000

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

11%8%

30%

39%

13%

Household Income

Income in PKR

No.

of

Respondent

25

Trip Properties of Users

26

Trip Properties of Users

27

Trip Properties of Users

< 15 minutes 15-30 minutes 30-45 minutes 45-60 minutes More than 60 minutes

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

10%

34%

25%

28%

2%

Expected WaitingTime Before Leaving/ Departure

Time

No. of Respondent

28

Users Willingness about Extra Services

6%

73%

15%

5%

1%

Willingness for Provision of Extra Services in Future

Strongly agree Agree UncertainDisagree Strongly Disagree

6%

36%

18%

17%

23%

Willingness to Pay for Extra Services

Strongly agree Agree UncertainDisagree Strongly Disagree

29

Measuring Scale

5-Point Likert Scale

Very Bad Bad Average Good Very Good

1 2 3 4 5

30

Evaluation of Performance Indicators

Rahber Travels

Niazi ExDress Lahore

Daewoo Lahore

Abdullah ExDress

SkyWays Lahore

Ahmad Travels

Mian Travels

Mokal Travels

General Bus

Stand

City Terminal

Band Road

Jinnah Terminal Thokar Niaz Baig

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

2.9 2.9

3.5

2.82.6

3.1

2.4

1.6

2.1

2.7 2.82.7

2.5

3.5

2.7 2.6

2.9

2.0

1.4

2.12.2

2.2

Safety & Security

Drivers Perception

Passengers Perception

Intercity Bus Terminals

Rat

ing

Scal

e

31

Evaluation of Performance Indicators

Rahber Travels

Niazi ExDress Lahore

Daewoo Lahore

Abdullah ExDress

SkyWays Lahore

Ahmad Travels

Mian Travels

Mokal Travels

General Bus

Stand

City Terminal

Band Road

Jinnah Terminal Thokar

Niaz Baig

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

3.63.5

3.8 3.83.6

2.83.0

2.8

3.1

3.6

2.5

3.3

2.8

3.6

2.8

3.2

2.9

2.7

2.4

3.03.2

2.2

Access

Drivers Percep-tion

Passengers Perception

Intercity Bus Terminals

Rat

ing

Sca

le

32

Evaluation of Performance Indicators

Rahbe

r Tra

vels

Niazi

ExDre

ss La

hore

Daewoo

Laho

re

Abdul

lah

ExDre

ss

SkyW

ays L

ahor

e

Ahmad

Tra

vels

Mian

Trav

els

Mokal

Tra

vels

Gener

al B

us S

tand

City T

erm

inal

Ban

d Roa

d

Jinna

h Te

rmin

al T

hoka

r Nia

z Bai

g1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

2.6

3.0

3.7

2.92.7

2.9

2.4

1.8

2.1

2.5

2.9

2.6 2.6

3.6

2.8

2.4 2.5

2.01.7

2.3 2.2

2.7

Information

Drivers Percep-tion

Passengers Perception

Intercity Bus Terminals

Rat

ing

Scal

e

33

Evaluation of Performance Indicators

Rahbe

r Tra

vels

Niazi

ExDre

ss La

hore

Daewoo

Laho

re

Abdul

lah

ExDre

ss

SkyW

ays L

ahor

e

Ahmad

Tra

vels

Mian

Trav

els

Mokal

Tra

vels

Gener

al B

us S

tand

City T

erm

inal

Ban

d Roa

d

Jinna

h Te

rmin

al T

hoka

r Nia

z Bai

g1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

4.24.4

4.7

4.2

3.83.6 3.6

2.8

3.6

4.0 4.14.03.8

4.3

3.6

4.0

3.0 3.0 2.9

3.5 3.5

3.9

Connection and Reliability

Drivers Percep-tion

Passengers Perception

Intercity Bus Terminals

Rat

ing

Scal

e

34

Evaluation of Performance Indicators

Rahber Travels

Niazi ExDress Lahore

Daewoo Lahore

Abdullah ExDress

SkyWays Lahore

Ahmad Travels

Mian Travels

Mokal Travels

General Bus

Stand

City Terminal

Band Road

Jinnah Terminal Thokar

Niaz Baig

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

3.33.4

4.1

3.4

3.1

3.8

3.1

2.5

2.9

3.4

3.9

3.5

2.9

3.7

3.3 3.23.1

3.0

2.32.4

3.2 3.3

Environment

Drivers Perception

Passengers Percep-tion

Intercity Bus Terminals

Rat

ing

Scal

e

35

Evaluation of Performance Indicators

Rahbe

r Tra

vels

Niazi

ExDre

ss La

hore

Daewoo

Laho

re

Abdul

lah

ExDre

ss

SkyW

ays L

ahor

e

Ahmad

Tra

vels

Mian

Trav

els

Mokal

Tra

vels

Gener

al B

us S

tand

City T

erm

inal

Ban

d Roa

d

Jinna

h Te

rmin

al T

hoka

r Nia

z Bai

g1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

3.3

3.0

3.33.2

3.0

3.3

2.6

1.5

2.62.9 2.9

3.0

2.6

3.7

3.03.2

3.0

2.11.9

2.72.9 3.0

Facilities

Drivers Percep-tion

Passengers Perception

Intercity Bus Terminals

Rat

ing

Scal

e

36

Summary of Results

Sr. No. Intercity Bus Terminals Min. Score Rate Need Improvements

1 Daewoo Lahore 3.3 Average-Good Facilities

2 Abdullah Express 2.7 Bad-Average Safety and Security

3 Rahber Travels 2.6 Bad-Average Information

4 Niazi Express Lahore 2.5 Bad-Average Safety and Security

5 Ahmad Travels 2.5 Bad-Average Information

6 Skyways Lahore 2.4 Bad-Average Information

7 Jinnah Terminal 2.2 Bad-Average Safety and Security & Access

8 City Terminal 2.2 Bad-Average Safety and Security & Information

9 General Bus Stand 2.1 Bad-Average Safety and Security

10 Mian Travels 2.0 Bad Safety and Security & Information

11 Mokal Travels 1.4 Very Bad-Bad Safety and Security

37

Ranking of Intercity bus terminals on CSI

Where, LSk= Means of user’s satisfaction rates

Wk = Importance weighted rates ,Specifically, is the ratio between the mean

of the importance rates expressed by users on the k attribute and the sum of the average importance rates of all the service quality attributesHere,

38

Ranking of Intercity bus terminals on CSI

Overall Satisfaction Index

Intercity Bus Terminals CSI Ranking Rate

Daewoo Lahore 3.81 1 Average- Good

Abdullah Express 3.19 2 Average- Good

Skyways Lahore 3.14 3 Average- Good

Rahber Travels 3.08 4 Average- Good

City Terminal Band Road 2.94 5 Bad-Average

Jinnah Terminal 2.85 6 Bad-Average

Niazi Express Lahore 2.83 7 Bad-Average

Ahmad Travels 2.68 8 Bad-Average

General Bus Stand 2.59 9 Bad-Average

Mian Travels 2.14 10 Bad-Average

Mokal Travels 2.11 11 Bad-Average

39

Ranking of Intercity bus terminals on CSI

Rahbe

r Tra

vels

Niazi

Expr

ess L

ahor

e

Daewoo

Laho

re

Abdul

lah

Expr

ess

SkyW

ays L

ahor

e

Ahmad

Tra

vels

Mian

Trav

els

Mokal

Tra

vels

Gener

al B

us S

tand

City T

erm

inal

Ban

d Roa

d

Jinna

h Te

rmin

al T

hoka

r Nia

z Bai

g0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

3.082.83

3.81

3.19 3.14

2.68

2.14 2.11

2.592.94 2.85

Ranking of Intercity Bus Terminals on CSI

40

Existing Conditions of Daewoo Express (1)

41

Existing Conditions of General Bus Stand (9)

42

Existing Conditions of Mokal Travels (11)

43

Ranking of Performance Indicators

Ranking of Performance Indicators

Performance Indicators Mean Value Ranking

Safety & Security 4.57 1

Access 4.33 2

Connection & Reliability 4.32 3

Facilities 4.30 4

Information 4.12 5

Environment 4.10 6

Safe

ty &

Sec

urity

Acces

s

Info

rmat

ion

Conne

ctio

n & R

elia

bilit

y

Envi

rom

ent

Facil

ities

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.004.57

4.334.12

4.324.10

4.30

Ranking of Performance Indicators

44

General Guidelines

Guidelines Performance Indicators

1. Security arrangements Safety & Security

1. Sufficient Parking2. Facilities for Handicaps

Access

1. Buses leaves on times2. Buses arrives on times

Connection and Reliability

1. Public Information System Information

45

General Guidelines

Guidelines Performance Indicators

1. Planned destination/s waiting Areas2. Commercial areas/zones

accommodating shops, restaurants and mosque, etc

3. Passenger facilities• ATM’s• Gender specific Rest Rooms

4. Baggage Check in system5. Public Address System6. Driver Rest Area and Lodges7. Ticket Booking/Reservation etc.8. Separate Departure & Arrival Areas9. Ticketing & display of fare table

Facilities

1. Proper Waste disposal2. Proper drainage3. Cleanliness in the terminal area

Environment

46

Conclusions

Private own intercity bus terminals are better than Government owned

Safety and security is most important

Absence of well defined regulations and guidelines

47

Recommendations

Public Private Partnership Monitoring and performance evaluation should be

based upon Performance Indicators Performance Indicators evaluated ranking must be

considered for planning and designing of intercity bus terminals

GPS based ticketing system must be implemented for collection of accurate real time data

48

Recommendations

Information regarding time schedules and route plans must be available on web sites (online help desk portal) and through PIS boards at Terminals

Amendment in Motor Vehicles Rules 1969 Provision of park and ride facility Sufficient space for accommodate intra city buses/

routes to facilitate integration

49

Proposed Future Work

This study is indicative and detailed studies should be carried out for specific terminal

Public Transport Design manuals must be developed

Feasibility studies of intercity bus terminals with reference to location analysis of intercity bus terminals studies should be carried out

50

ReferencesAlliance, W. Y. Statement on Sustainable Development [Internet], Available from: <

www.wya.net/SustainableDevelopmentStatement.pdf> [Accessed 13 May 2014].Arif, M. (2007) The Manual of Motor Vehicle Laws in Pakistan. Lahore, Manzoor Law Book House, pp. 304-308.Blakie, N. (2010) Designing Social Research. 2nd Ed. UK, MPG Books Group.Brundtland. (1987) World Commission on Environment and Development. United Nations, pp. 8.Carol, T. & Gibbon, F. (1990) BERA Dialogues. England, WBC Print Ltd. Bistrol.Department of Transport. (2003) Guidance on the Methodology for Multi-Modal Studies. [Internet], (Vol.1) Available from: <

http://www.persona.uk.com/A47postwick/deposit-docs/DD90.pdf> [Accessed 17 May 2014]. Eboli, L., & Mazzulla, G. (2009) A New Customer Satisfaction Index for Evaluating Transit Service Quality. Journal of Public

Transportation, Vol. 12, No. 3.EPA, United States Environment Protection Agency. [Internet], Available from: < http://www.epa.gov/sustainability/basicinfo.htm>

[Accessed May 10 2014]. Gadermann, A. M., Guhn, M., & Zumbo, B. D. (2012). Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation. [Internet], Available from: <

http://pareonline.net/pdf/v17n3.pdf> [Accessed May 31 2014]. Hashmi, Q. N. (2012) Development of Relationships among Vehicular and Driver's Characteristics with Traffic Accidents. Ph.D.

thesis, University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore. Iseki, H., Miller, M., Ringler, A., Smart, M., & Taylor, B. D. (2007) Evaluating Connectivity Performance at Transit Transfer Facilities.

Los Angeles.Jason, F. (2004) The Philosophy of Sustainable Design. Kansas, Ecotone.JICA. (2012) Lahore Urban Transport Master Plan. Lahore, Almec corporation oriental consultants Co. Ltd.MVA Asia, L. (2006) Lahore Rapid Mass Transit System Feasibility Study. Lahore, Government of the Punjab, Transport Department,

pp. 2-1.Nicholas J. Garber, L. A. (2009) Traffic and Highway Engineering. Fourth Ed. Toronto, Brooks/Cole, pp. 13-17.Oppenheim, A. (1992) Questionnaire Design, Interviewing and Attitude Measurement. London, Printer Publishers.Pollalis, S. et al. (2012) Infrastructure Sustainability and Design. UK, Routledge, pp. 1.Punjab, G. o. Motor Vehicle Rules (1969).Sutton, P. (2004) What is sustainability? The journal of the Victorian Association for Environmental Education, Eingana.Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011) Making Sense of Cronbach’s Alpha. [Internet], Available from: <

http://www.ijme.net/archive/2/cronbachs-alpha.pdf > [Accessed 31 May 2014].The Urban Unit. (2007) Assessment of Institutional Arrangement for Urban Land Development and Management in Five

Large Cities of Punjab. Lahore, pp.10.Vukan, R., & Kikuchi, S. (1974) Design of Outlying Rapid Transit Station Areas. Transportation Research Board, National Research

Council.

Thank You

Q & A