developments of policies, strategies guidelines for goods movements in urban areas - dr s...

8/6/2019 Developments of Policies, Strategies Guidelines for Goods Movements in Urban Areas - Dr S Gangopadhyay

1/30

Developments of Policies, Strategies

& Guidelines for Goods Movements inUrban Areas

By

Dr S Gangopadhyay,Director

Central Road Research InstituteNew Delhi

Urban Mobility India Conference & Exhibition- 2009

4th Dec. 09


2/30

Classification of Urban Goods Movement

External Internal

Spatial Pattern of Goods Movements by

Commodity Type and Consignment

Consignment

Household based

consignment

ConsignmentPick up & Delivery

Urban Goods Movement

Interindustry MovementDirect Consignment

Freight Terminal


3/30

Issues in Urban Goods Transport

Heterogeneous mix of goods vehicles.

Insufficient road geometrics.

Movement during peak hours.

Movement of garbage / waste materials.

Overloading.

Inadequate terminal facilities.

Parking problems.

Air & Noise pollution.


4/30

Various Types ofGoods Vehicles


5/30


6/30


7/30


8/30

Animal & HumanPowered


9/30

Ill Managed Terminal Area


10/30

Inadequate Road Geometrics


11/30

Inadequate Parking Facilities


12/30

Moving DuringPeak Hours


13/30Composition of Traffic 1991 and 2002 (Delhi)

In 1991 In 2002

Inner Area

Cars

26.7%

SMV

10.1%

Trucks

0.3%

Buses

6.0%

TwoWheelers

33.4%

Auto/Taxi23.5%

Inner Area

SMV

4.0%

Trucks

2.0%Buses

5.0%

TwoWheelers

32.0%

Auto/Taxi

19.0%

Cars

38.0%

Middle Area

Cars

30.7%

SMV

7.7%

Auto/Taxi

17.2%

Two

Wheelers

37.8%

Buses

5.6%

Trucks

1.0%

Middle Area

Cars

44.0%

SMV

3.0%

Trucks

3.0%Buses

6.0%

Two

Wheelers

31.0%

Auto/Taxi

13.0%

Outer Area

Cars

23.3%

SMV

22.0%

Trucks

3.6%

Buses

4.6%

Two

Wheelers

31.7%Auto/Taxi

14.8%

Outer Area

Cars

32.0%

SMV

16.0%

Auto/Taxi

8.0%

Two

Wheelers

32.0%

Buses

5.0%

Trucks

7.0%


14/30

Pattern of External Traffic, 2009


15/30

4.89

8.58

9.23

7.91

7.49

8.08

7.19

5.83

11.40

11.91 1

4.86

12.02

8.28 1

0.56

16.21

15.55

0

4

8

12

16

20

Delhi

Mumbai

Kolkata

C

hennai

Ba

ngalore

Hyd

erabad

Kanpur

Agra

M

eanAge(yrs.) Observed Registered

Goods Vehicles

Average Age of Vehicles in Different Cities, 2002( Observed & Registered )


16/30

0%

10%

20%30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Delhi

Mum

bai

Kolk

ata

Chen

nai

Bangalore

Hyderabad

Kanpur

A

gra

Percen

tageofVeh-km

Bus_Diesel

Bus_CNG

HCV

LCV

Auto_Petrol

Auto_CNG

Two Wheelers

Taxis

Cars / Jeeps /

Vans

*Veh-km In Lakhs

+ The buses and taxis plying on CNG could

not be easily identified on road side

792.37* 305.35* 230.99* 249.3* 326.24* 256.77* 48.15* 27.50*

Shares of Traffic Loads by Vehicle Type in Various

Cities


17/30

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Delhi Mumbai Kolkata Chennai Bangalore Hyderabad

Percentage

ShareofCO

Private Vehicles I P T Public Transport Goods Vehicles

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Percentage

ShareofNOx


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Percen

tageShareofHC


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


PercentageShareofPM


Estimated Shares of Pollutants by Different Vehicle Types

(in tonnes per day as per the Surveys in Feb / Mar.2002)

Emissions Estimated by Fuel Type in Delhi


18/30

Emissions Estimated by Fuel Type in Delhi

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

CO HC NOx PM

Petrol Diesel CNG

Emissions(gram/Km

)

Pollutant

Petrol

78%

Diesel16%

CNG6% CO

Petrol

53%

Diesel

4%

CNG43%

HC

Petrol

34%

Diese

l45%

CNG21%

NOx

Petrol

46%

Diesel

47%

CNG7% PM

Petrol

66%

Diesel

18%

CNG16%

VKT

Petrol fuel used VKT is 66 % of total VKT, contributed 78%CO, 53% HC, 34% NOx, and 46% PM.

Diesel fuel used in 18 % of total VKT, & contributes in16% CO, 4% HC, 45% NOx, and 47% PM.

CNG fuel used VKT is 16 % of total VKT, contributed 6% CO,

43% HC, 21% NOx, and 7% PM.

2009


19/30

Total VKT = 4.67 Billion

Intra City VKT =2.01 Billion Goods VKT = 0.08 Billion (4%)

2009

Characteristics of Goods Vehicles Movements

Ch i i f G d V hi l M


20/30

Metropolitan Cities has 0.81 Billion VKT ,about 40 % of total intra city VKT.

Urban Goods Vehicle Movement 0.3 Billion VKT

Characteristics of Goods Vehicles Movements

Popu

lation

(Lakhs)


21/30

Annual Loss of Fuel Due to Idling of Vehiclesat Signalized Intersections in Delhi

Inter

Section CNG Diesel Petrol

Low 69 8.4 1.4 7.6 504.1

Medium 118 17.7 5.0 18.1 1215.5

High 413 109.7 41.0 122.1 8224.9

Total 600 135.9 47.4 147.8 9944.6

No. of

Intersections

In million litres

million Rs.


22/30

Estimation of Short Haul Urban &Suburban Freight Traffic

Objectives

To study the short haul urban and suburban freight

transport characteristics. To evolve a rational basis for a realistic

quantification of road based goods transport flowsin the urban and suburban areas of the country.


23/30

1. Delhi

2. Yamuna Nagar

3. Agra

4. Ajmer

5. Ahmedabad

6. Indore

7. Nasik

8. Nagpur

9. Adoni

10.Chickballapur

11.Vishakhapatnam

12.Bhubaneshwar

13.Asansol

14.Samastipur

15.Darjeeling.


24/30

Salient Findings

The goods traffic entering the cities varied from 70014000 veh. Per day and mostly consisted of trucks.

In smaller cities slow moving vehicles were sizable innumber.

Internal movements are dominated by smallerconsignments carried by slow moving vehicles.

In bigger cities more than 50% of the goods is movedby trucks and tempos.

Food products and building materials were the

dominant commodities flowing into the cities. Quantum of goods flow exhibited no correlation with

the size of city in terms of population.

Comparison of Policies


25/30

Point ofComparison

Australia France UK Sweden US Japan India

Two MainPolicy

Objectives

1. Provision ofgood level ofservice forusers

2. Enhanceurbanlivability

1. Reductionof freighttraffic andshoppingtrips

2. Reductionof localemissions

1. IntegratedTransport

2. Sustainabletransport

1. Safety2. Sustainable

transport

1.Inclusionwithinmetropolitanplanningprocess

2.Improveefficiency

1. EfficiencyImprovement

2. Decrease inenvironmental burden

Not Defined

Underlyingproblems

1.Passengerand freightgrowth are

high2.Congestion is

becoming abiggestconcern

1.Lack ofenforcementregulations

2.Congestion3.Environment

al problems

1.Congestionand

2.Air quality in

urban areas.

1.Air quality2.Congestion

1.Notperceivedas major

problem2.Freight

community reluctanttoparticipate

1.Congestionand

2.Environmen

tal Problems

NotIdentified

LicensingandRegulations

1. Streetaccessrestrictions

2. Night curfewfor trucks oncertainmajor routes

1.Implementation of timewindows and

size andweightrestrictions

2.Experimentingtemporaryclosingwhenpollutionlimitsexceeded.

1. Implementation of timewindows

and sizeand weightrestrictions

2. Lowemissionzonefeasibilitystudies,loading timerestrictions

1. Environmental zones

2. Use of

stickers3. Time

windows4. Other local

regulations

1. Implementationof time

windows andsize andweightrestrictions

1. Implementation ofWeight

restrictions

2. Obligationto verifytheparkingspace

3. Restrictiontravellingindesignated areas.

1. Implementation oftime

restrictions




26/30

Point ofComparis

on

Australia France UK Sweden US Japan India

Freightcenters

1. Independentlyowneddistributioncenters

2. Local govtwill zonetheselocations

1. Implementation offreightvillages

1. PrivateandPublic/Privatemultimodalfreightcenters

1. Privatemultimodal freightcenters

None 1. Implementation ofdifferenttypes offreightcenters

Notplannedproperly

Lowemissionvehicles

1. Introductionof Euro-3 and4

2. Assistanceforconversion ofto LPG orCNG

1. Experimenting withelectrictrucks

1. Experiments

2. Taxincentives

3. Grants

1. Taxincentives

2. Subsidies

3. DemoProjectsand

research

Noexperimentsyet

1. Subsidizing lowemissionvehicles

1. Introduction ofBS-3and BS4

Consultation

Federal andstate levelconsultationsis extensive,local govt

level less so.

Nationalandregionalconsolation

programs

Nationaland localconsolationsprograms

National Localonly

National andlocalconsolationsprograms

NoConsultations



27/30

Policies for Goods Traffic

Intercity goods traffic needs to be bypassed.

Conversion by Fuel Type , to more efficient fuel in termsof emission.Road Geometrics to cater to large goods vehicle sizes.Payload capacity.

Uniformity in vehicle size and dimension.Multi modalism to be encouraged for speedier handlingand movement of goods.Terminal Facilities at the periphery of Urban centers.Modernization of terminal facilities.

Planning for SMVs.


28/30

Broad Guidelines for Freight Movement

Segregation by Time and space.Road Infrastructure

Air & Noise Pollution

Movement of Hazardous Goods.

Traffic Management Measures at Goods Terminals.

Inland Urban Water Transportation.

Optimization of Octroi Collection Time.


29/30

Integrated Freight Complex

Four integrated freight complexes areproposed in MPD 2001

IFC Gazipur.

IFC, Narela IFC, Madanpurkhadar

IFC, Dwarka


30/30

Good Usage of Goods Vehicle !!!

Thanks

developments of policies, strategies guidelines for goods movements in urban areas - dr s...

Documents