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