Appraisal of Public Transport - Vijayawada, MTIP - Sem II Studio

APPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT A CASE OF VIJAYAWADA CITY STUDIO CO-ORDINATOR: ASST. PROF. DR. PRASHANTH VARDHAN ASST. PROF. NAINA GUPTA DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN.(TIP) 1ST YEAR 2ND SEMESTER

SCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) - II SEM LITERATURE STUDY 1 Animesh22006000412200600037DashVaishnawiAPPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE OF VIJAYAWADA CITY • Public transportation includes all vehicle services designed to transport commuters on local and regional routes. • Public transport systems will only include rail, or organized bus based systems. • Public transport systems are characterized by fixed origins and destinations, fixed routes and schedules, fixed stoppage points and fixed fares. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION: ROAD TRANSPORTATIONBASEDSYSTEMBRTSPROJECT CITY BUS SYSTEM PT INFRASTRUCTURE LIKE BUS STATION, TERMINAL, TRANSIT & CENTERSCONTROL RAIL BASED TRANSPORTATIONPUBLICSYSTEM METRO RAIL, LIGHT RAIL, LRTS MONO RAIL, SUBURBAN RAIL IMPACT OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION: • Because of its intensive use of infrastructures, the transport sector is an important component of the economy and a common tool used for development. • When transport systems are efficient, they provide economic and social opportunities and benefits that result in positive multiplier effects such as better accessibility to markets, employment, and additional investments. FACTORS AFFECTING PUBLIC TRANSPORT: Frequency of Service SpeedServiceof PassengerLoad Reliability Accessibility VehiclesComfortLevel Safety Level of Passengerthe Delays of Busses to Bus Stops Real AvailabilityTimeoftheVehicles ADVANTAGES OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT: IncreasedEfficiencyFuel Less PollutionAir CongestionReducedTraffic MoneySaves AlternativeGoodforTourists TransportationLowerCosts Transport Improvements Capacity Efficiency Reliability Increased Productivity CommodityMarket IncreasedEconomicCompetitivenessGrowth ShorterTimesTransit Business Expansion Labour Market

SCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) - II SEM LITERATURE STUDY 2V.2200600041VaishnawiBhargava2200600054 • Road transport is the most significant contributor to greenhouse gas emissions from the transport sector in India, with about 90 % of emissions. • Greenhouse gas emissions from this sector mainly involved burning fossil fuels by on-road vehicles. • 72 % of air pollution in Delhi is caused by vehicular emission (CPCB). GHG EMISSIONS FROM TRANSPORT SECTOR INDIA: MODAL SHARE OF PT IN INDIAN CITIES: Source: Review of Urban Transportation in India 2015 90% 6%3% 1% GHG EMISSION Road Transportation Civil Aviation Railway Other Public and Non motorized transport modal share account for between 25-75% of all trips. • Vijayawada has a population of around 1 million. So it require high capacity bus system, rail based public transport. • Vijayawada has average trip length between 3 5 km. Trip (km)length Desired travel modes 0 2 Walk, bicycle, two wheeler, cycle rickshaw 2 5 Bicycle, two wheeler, car, cycle rickshaw 5 – 10 Bicycle, two wheeler, car, three wheeler, bus, taxi 10 15 Car, bus, taxi, metro/rail based >15 Car, express bus, metro/rail based system, taxi Source: INRM Policy Brief No. 1 DESIRED TRANSPORT MODES FOR DIFFERENT CITY SIZES & TRIP LENGTHS: City size (Mill pop) Desired Modes of travel 0.1 0.25 Non motorized vehicles, motorized IPT, 0.25 0.5 Non motorized vehicles, motorized IPT, public bus systems 0.5 1.0 Non motorized vehicles, motorized IPT, public transport (buses) 1.0 5.0 Non-motorized vehicles, motorized IPT, high-capacity bus system, rail based public transport >5.0 Non motorized vehicles, motorized IPT, and taxi systems, high capacity bus system, rail based system serving intercity trips. APPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE OF VIJAYAWADA CITY

SCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) - II SEM LITERATURE STUDY 3 MANOJKUMARSELVA 2200600043 POLICIES BY INDIAN GOVERNMENT TO IMPROVE PUBLIC TRANSPORT . National 2006.TransportUrbanPolicy Jawaharlal nehru national urban missionrenewal(JNNURM) 2005 2005 2006 2016 scheme publicstrengthenfortransport 2010 National Road Safety Policy 2013 The ElectricNationalMobility Mission Plan 2020 JAWAHARLAL NEHRU NATIONAL URBAN RENEWAL MISSION (JNNURM) JnNURM aims at creating ‘economically productive, efficient, equitable and responsive Cities’ by a strategy of upgrading the social and economic infrastructure in cities NATIONAL URBAN TRANSPORT POLICY2006. The objective of this policy is to ensure safe, affordable, quick, comfortable, reliable and sustainable access for the growing number of city residents to jobs, education, recreation and such other needs within the cities. NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICY •In order to achieve a significant improvement in road safety •Raise Awareness about Road Safety Issues THE NATIONAL ELECTRIC MOBILITY MISSION PLAN •This is a culmination of a comprehensive collaborative planning for promotion of hybrid and electric mobility in India •policies aimed at gradually ensuring a vehicle population of about 6 7 million electric/hybrid vehicles in India by the year 2020 SCHEME FOR STRENGTHEN PUBLIC TRANSPORT To provide latest technologies such as GPS / GSM based vehicle tracking system, computerized reservation system, electronic ticket vending machines, passenger information system etc. for services covering inter city and mofussil areas sustainable Urban Transport Policies SUSTAINABLE URBAN TRANSPORT POLICIES •Increasing the ridership of public Transport buses •Reduction of pollutants such as CO2, CO through reduced vehicular emission APPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE OF VIJAYAWADA CITY

•

STUDYTHEFORNEED

Vehicles registration in the city shows that 74% comprises of 2-wheeler, whereas buses shares only 2%, which may lead to congestion. (Vehicle registered in 2016)

Low journey speed resulting in long journey time: The journey speeds on city road are found to be in the range of 20-25 kmph; passing out side city is observed to be in the range of 50-80 kmph. (CMP Vijayawada 2017)

•

AIM: To improve the performance of the public transportation at the city level, Vijayawada.

The model building exercise is done considering IPT model share also which has 23% of total modal share in Vijayawada city. There are some data gaps from the secondary sources due to the constraining of the online mode of study.

Objective 3: Develop the model to understand the PT operation of Vijayawada city Objective 4: To improve the performance of the PT & IPT infrastructure along with integrated PT solutions for the Vijayawada city.

SCOPE & LIMITATION:

SCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) - II SEM BACKGROUND STUDY 42200600041ChaudharyVaishnawiAPPRAISAL

Current share of Public Transport in Vijayawada City is 22.2% (CMP 2017) whereas Desirable PT share for metropolitan cities must be 50-60% (Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India, New Delhi. 1998) OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE OF VIJAYAWADA CITY

•

Objective 1: To assess the existing scenario of PT infrastructure availability & socio economic characteristics of population in Vijayawada city.

Objective 2: To compare the existing Physical and Financial performance of APSRTC with other planned cities

The model building exercise has been carried out only for the intra city bus routes of Vijayawada city.

Increasing dependency on private vehicles (private vehicle growth: 56% from 2011 to 2016) generates traffic and environment related issues. (annual avg. ambient air quality deteriorated 83 to 99 (standard value: 60)in the year of 2015 to 2017: APPCB)

•

AIRWAY: Vijayawada Airport is 18km from the main city. The nearest International Airport is Hyderabad INTERNATIONAL Airport which is 263km far from Vijayawada.

RAILWAY: Vijayawada Junction is situated in the South Coast Railway Zone of Indian Railway. The Two major commuting Northern to Southern India & Eastern to Southern India at Vijayawada

•

•

•

450k 670km m 350k m 275k m 72km • NH-65: 4 Lane divided connecting Hyderabad to Machalipatnam Port (926 km.) • SH-236: 4 Lane divided: which Vijayawadaconnects to Nuzvidu: 46 km. SCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) - II SEM CITY PROFILE 62200600041ChaudharyVaishnawiAPPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE OF VIJAYAWADA CITY

lines, connecting

REGIONAL SETTING: 275k m • Vijayawada, is a flourishing town in the Krishna District of coastal Andhra Pradesh. • It is 2nd largest city in the state of Andhra Pradesh and 34th largest Urban Agglomeration in the country. REGIONAL CONNECTIVITY: WATERWAY: • Machilipatnam Port is the nearest port which is 72km to the east of Vijayawada. • The Inland Waterways Authority of India is developing National Waterway-4 adjacent to Vijayawada. State : Andhra Pradesh District : Krishna UA Area : 261.80 sq km. VMC Area : 61.88 sq km. Wards : 78 Jurisdiction: VMC • It lies on the banks of River Krishna surrounded by the hills of Eastern Ghats known as Indrakeeladri Hills in Krishna District. • Vijayawada Metropolitan area is delineated covering an area of 104.8 sq.km. • The city can be categorised as Tier-I and Metropolitan city. INDIA ANDHRA PRADESH KRISHNA DISTRICT APMDA VMC CAPITALAREACITY VMC & OUT GROWTH VMC AREA OUTGROWTH ROADWAY: • NH-16: 4 Lane divided road connecting Chennai to Kolkata (1711 km). it is also part of The Golden Quadrilateral Project, The East Coast Economic Corridor. So it is well connected to other states by this road.

, intersects

Junction.

STUDY AREA MAP: SCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) - II SEM CITY PROFILE 72200600046P.KRISHNAGAUTAMIAPPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE OF VIJAYAWADA CITY

WARD POPULATIONPOPULATION:DENSITY: HIGH WARDS:DENSITY 4,6,7,8,9,11,16,1 7,21,23,24,30,34, 3,64,67,70,7335,36,53,57,58,6 DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE: Over 35% of the total population comprises of the city work force and the occupational pattern of city indicates that it is a major centre for tertiary activities. There has been a decline in the proportion of workers in the secondary sector from 27.57% to 21.64% during 1991 and 2001 respectively YEAR POPULATION DECADAL GROWTH GROWTH RATE 1951 161198 1961 230397 69199 42.93% 1971 317258 86861 37.70% 1981 461772 144514 45.55% 1991 701827 240055 51.99% 2001 845217 143390 20.43% 2011 1041628 196411 23.24% • The population of Vijayawada Municipal Area was 10,41,628 in 2011 and projected population 12,40,020 for 2021. • SEX RATIO: 997/1000 LITERACY RATE: 81.35% VEHICULAR GROWTH & COMPOSITION : VEHICLE REGISTEREDIN2016 1981 1991 2001 2011 MAIN 137334 212238 255880 332386 MARGINAL 2373 496 16187 46480 WORKERNON 322065 489093 573150 642940 137334212238255880332386 23734961618746480 322065489093573150642940 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2011200119911981 MAIN MARGINAL NON-WORKER WORKE FORCE PARTICIPATION: POPULATION FORECASTING: YEAR POPULATION 2011 1041628 2015 1118909 2021 1240020 2025 1306054 2031 1455710 2035 1546830 2041 1668281 VMC Population in 2041 projected as 16,68,281. The VMC area is expected to grow very fast due to new proposed capital city and upcoming investments at nearby. Hence, Incremental increase method is considered for the projection. The population projection had been done for the VMC area till year 2041 at every 5 year interval. 1750000155000013500001150000950000750000550000350000150000 1951 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 2011 2021 2031 2041 POPULATION 74% 10%4%6% 2%4%0%0% Tractor/BusGoodsAutoCar/Taxi/Van2-WheelersRikshawsCarriagesTrailer780917345968818648648603894259 504797461872420594377712550082586335 680594636120582888535331489412442576 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 201620152014201320122011 TRANSPORT NON-TRANSPORT TOTAL SCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) - II SEM CITY PROFILE 82200600041ChaudharyVaishnawiAPPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE OF VIJAYAWADA CITY

• Vijayawada is a major commercial hub for products like automobile spare parts, textiles and furniture. MAP:

ECONOMIC PROFILE: ECONOMY INDUSTRY (Two Industrial Estates: Auto Nagar Industrial Estate & Kondapalli Industrial Estate) TRADE & COMMERCE (The city has trading and exporting markets for agriculture and industrial goods)

Agriculture (60.81% of the total area), Residential (13.18 % of the total area) and Forest areas (9.34% of the total area). By 2018 these classes remained as the most dominant with some slight changes. For instance, the Residential and the Forest area classes increased to 14.32% and 9.47% respectively.

MORPHOLOGY

• Vijayawada serves majorly in a marketing center for Agricultural produce like rice, pulses and oil seeds.

• Due to better connections industries began growing in Vijayawada.

Further information on the class disaggregation and area coverage is presented in graphically epochs 2003 and 2018 respectively.

INFERENCE: Agriculture (60.81% of the total area), Residential (13.18 % of the total area) and Forest areas (9.34% of the total area). By 2018 these classes remained as the most dominant with some slight changes. For instance, the Residential and the Forest area classes increased to 14.32% and 9.47% respectively.

CITY OUTGROWTH : SCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) - II SEM CITY PROFILE 9SELVAMANOJKUMAR2200600043APPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE OF VIJAYAWADA CITY

Vijayawada metropolitan area covering an area of 104.8 sq.km. New outgrowth villages are: 1. Nidamanuru, 2. Kanuru, 3. Enikapadu, 4. Poranki, 5. Prasadampadu, 6. Penamaluru, 7.Ramavarapadu.

By 2018 several trends were observed in the class distribution and the area coverage. For instance, the Agriculture class decreased by 1.77% for the period 2003 2018, by losing 16.82 km2 from its initial area of 580.69 km2 in 2003.

LAND USE MAP: Existing (2015) URDPFI standard's Land CategoryUse Area (Sq.km) Percentage Percentage Remarks Residential 33.30 53.82 35 40 excess Commercial 2.73 4.42 4 5 balanced Industrial 1.51 4.11 12 14 deficit Institutional 4.05 6.55 14 16 deficit Recreational 1.76 2.86 20 25 deficit Transport 7.99 12.93 15 18 deficit Waterbodies 7.17 11.59 balance balanced Total 61.88 100 Class Area in hectares Change in percentage area 1973 1990 2001 2009 19731990 19902001 20012009 19732009 Built up area 617.63 2057.19 2800.15 2916.99 +233.07% +26.53% +4.17% +372.28% Agriculturalfields 1951.35 1075.09 706.81 679.86 44.90% 34.25% 3.81% 65.16% Vegetation/shrubs 408.07 2066.77 762.09 961.47 +406.47% 63.12% +26.16% +135.61% Water 189.09 182.18 187.26 126.27 3.65% +2.78% 32.57% 33.22% Barren land 2602.77 320.27 1223.17 1015.38 87.69% +281.91% 16.99% 60.98% Land use statistics of Vijayawada city, 1973-2009 LAND USE/LAND COVER IMAGES Source: CDMP 2015 Comparison of existing land us map with URDPFI Standards ▪ Land-use composition in Vijayawada covering 61.88 Sq. Km comprises 37.53 Sq. Km as developed area and 24.35 Sq. Km in undeveloped area. ▪ Vijayawada has been primarily growing towards east, west and north along NH 65 and NH 16. ▪ The growth pattern of Vijayawada between 1973 and 2009 which is radial form in all the three directions except on south. ▪ The region towards south did not develop further owing to the physical barrier Krishna River. LU/LC classified image of 1990LU/LC classified image of 1973 LU/LC classified image of 2001 LU/LC classified image of 2009 (Source: K. Sundarakumar et al. / IJEST) SCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) - II SEM CITY PROFILE 102200600049SAMALAAKHILAPPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE OF VIJAYAWADA CITY

AB 0.5km0 1.0km 2.0km ROAD HIERARCHY: • About 41% of the roads in Vijayawada have ROW 30 40M, while only 3% of the roads have ROW less than 10m. 1% 3% 33% 41% 15%1%RIGHT6%OF WAY <10M 10-20M 20-30M 30-40M 40-50M 50-60M >60M 10% 29% 60% CARRAIGEWAY1% WIDTH <2 Lane 2-4 Lanes 4-6 Lanes >6 Lanes 16%52%15% ROAD17% MATERIAL Cement Road BT Road Metal Road Other Road • 60% of the roads have carriageway with more than 4 lanes, whereas only 10% with less than 2 lanes. • The VMC is keen on improving the road infrastructure so 52% of the total roads are BT road. • 55% of the roads of Vijayawada has carriagewaydivided. • 86.5% of road length in Vijayawada has no footpaths. • Streetlights are present along 94% of the road length. ARTERIAL ROAD (55.24 KM) SUB ARTERIAL ROAD (46.84 KM) COLLECTOR ROAD (57.22 LOCALKM)ROAD 55% 45% MEDIAN PRESENT ABSENT 14% 5%81%FOOTPATH PRESENT (<1.8M) PRESENT (>1.8M) ABSENT 94% STREET6%LIGHTING UNAVAILABLEAVAILABLE Source: CMP VIJAYAWADA 2017 SCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) - II SEM NETWORK CHARACTERISTICS 112200600041ChaudharyVaishnawiAPPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE OF VIJAYAWADA CITY

average waiting time for 85% of the households is less than 15min. It is observed that 68% of the households can access the bus stops within 0 30 min of time. SCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) - II SEM NETWORK CHARACTERISTICS 122200600049SAMALAAKHIL Source: CMP VIJAYAWADA 2017 NMT TransportPublic26%Trips22%2 Wheeler40% Cars2% RickshawAuto10% Modal Split Of Vijayawada Car1% Two Wheeler72% Bicycle27% Vehicular Ownership Work54%ping/ReligioSocial/ShopEducation10%us/Recreation20%Health2%Others14% Distribution of Trips By Purpose Car2% BicycleMTW40%8%Auto10%Rickshaw1%Bus 22% Walk17% Distribution of Trips By Mode Per-capita Trip Rate: The per capita trip rate in Vijayawada is 1.30 including walk trips and 1.02 excluding walk trips. 17.90% 36.30% 23.80% 4.50%8.60%8.80% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% >=54-53-42-31-20-1 Households Distance(km) Distribution of Households by time taken to reach nearest bus stop 1.10%2.00% 12.40% 52.10% 22.60% 9.80% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 30-4515-3010-155-100-5>=45 Households Time(min) Distribution of Households by distance to nearest bus stop 6.20% 59.70% 14.70%19.40% 0.00% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 15-3010-155-100-5>=30 % of Households (min)TimeWaiting Average Waiting Time at Bus Stop Frequency of Public Transport Usage Present80% Absent20% Distribution Of Road Length Based On Significant On-street Parking Facility Two wheeler ownership is more compared to other modes It is observed that majority of trips made by 2 wheelers,bus and walk based trips. It is observed that majority of trips made by 2 wheelers,bus and walk based trips. It is observed that majority of the households can access the bus stops within 0 2 kms of distance. On street parking facility is seen on 80% of roads 73.10% 22.70%0%0.10%1.30%2.90% 20% 40% 60% 80% 1-2 9-106-83-5>10 % of Households WeekPerFrequency APPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE OF VIJAYAWADA CITY

The

SCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) - II SEM NETWORK CHARACTERISTICS 132200600049SAMALAAKHIL Lane Configuration : Parking : Off-Street Parking: From the table it is observed that most vehicles use the off street facilities forshort term parking Location Peak Time Peak AccumulationHour(ECS) ParkingIndex Bus Stand Entrance 8.00 9.00 5 2.05 Bus Stand Two Wheeler Stand 9.00 10.00 5 3.74 Bus Stand 2nd Parking 8.00 9.00 6.25 4.34 Railway Station Eluru Road Side 15.00 16.00 4.75 2.26 Railway Station East Side – 1 13:00 14:00 5 2.29 Railway Station East Side 2 9:00 10:00 5 3.06 Railway Station West Side 9.00 10.00 5.25 3.93 RailwayK.R.MarketStation 13.00 14.00 9.25 6.96 Location Peak Time Peak Hour Accumulation (ECS) K R Market Road 8:00 9:00 17 Eluru Road 8:00 9:00 42 Canal Road 10:00 11:00 54 On- Street Parking: Source: CMP VIJAYAWADA 2017 IPT Characteristics: INFERENCES: ▪ Average number passengers carried per trip, Auto 4, Taxi 3.6 and Tata Ace/Vikram 6.8 persons. ▪ Auto trips more for local i.e within city area from Bus Stand/ Railway Station to within the city area and vice versa. ▪ Majority of the Tata Ace/Vikram trips are towards Guntur. ▪ Taxi Trips are more for local tourist places like Sri Kanaka Durga Temple, Undavalli Caves, Bhavani Islland, etc. Mode Auto Taxi Tata Ace/ Vikram Average Operating Time 15 Hours/Day 15.5 Hours/Day 13.5 Hours/Day Average Annual Maintenance Cost (Rupees/Year) 6500 15000 10200 Average No. of Trips per Day 15 1 6.5 Average Kilometers Travelled per Day 215 89 262 Name of the Road Number of Lanes RunningSpeed(kmph) JourneySpeed(kmph) Bander Road 4 Lane Divided Carriageway 23.11 22.55 Bander Road 6 Lane Divided Carriageway 31.82 26.41 Eluru Road 4 Lane Divided Carriageway 24.30 22.60 Eluru Road 6 Lane Divided Carriageway 24.59 23.92 BRTS Road 6 Lane Divided Carriageway 23.13 22.08 Canal Road 4 Lane Divided Carriageway 33.44 29.35 Dr.B.R.Ambethkhar Road 4 Lane Divided Carriageway 33.95 33.95 Krishna Lanka Road 2 Lane with Paved Shoulder Divided Carriageway 26.76 26.38 NH-9 (Hyderabad Road) 4 Lane Divided Carriageway 28.57 25.19 NH-5 Road 4 Lane Divided Carriageway 25.45 21.61 Nunna Road 4 Lane Divided Carriageway 28.94 27.54 Nuzivid Road Single Lane Carriageway 34.63 34.63 Vidyadharapuram Road 2 Lane with Paved ShoulderUndivided 23.52 22.88 Vijayawada Bypaas Road 4 Lane Divided Carriageway 25.76 24.53 86% of the major roads are subjected to traffic regulations. Important traffic regulations are one way restrictions, restriction of freight vehicles/other vehicles. • In the city, only 42% of roads are found to be having visible pedestrian crossings. Present86% Absent14% Traffic Control Facilities Present43%Absent57% Pedestrian Crossing APPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE OF VIJAYAWADA CITY

ROAD DENSITY MAP: MAJOR ROAD DENSITY MAP: ROAD (M/SQM)DENSITY MAJOR ROAD DENSITY (M/SQM) • Majority of the study area is having road density between 3000 4000 m/sqm. • All major road (Arterial, Sub-Arterial & Collector) of Vijayawada having road density between 300 to 600 m/sqm. • The CBD area of Vijayawada city has dense road network (910-1500m/sqm) SCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) - II SEM NETWORK CHARACTERISTICS 142200600041ChaudharyVaishnawiAPPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE OF VIJAYAWADA CITY

METHODOLOGY

Shimbel index is expressed as: SI = σ��=1 �� ������ where SI is the Shimbel index, Dij indicates the shortest distance between i and j nodes and n represents the number of nodes.

INFERENCE Shimbel index is used to showing the nature of accessibility of this region. The peripheral region of the study area is having comparatively high shimbel index value compare to another region, which means central and core area of Vijayawada city has higher level of network accessibility.

Shimbel index is used to determine the accessibility of the network, which represents the summation of the length of all the shortest path distances among all points (nodes) in a network. Lower the value of shimbel index indicates higher the accessibility and vice versa.

Fig : IDW map for SHIMBEL INDEX

IDW Mapping For better understanding, maps are produced by using Inverse Distance Weighted (IDW) method in the ArcGIS platform and these maps are very efficient for identifying the most accessible and most efficient network zones in the study area

SCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYWADAARCHITECTURE SHEET NO NETWORK ACCESSIBILITY APPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE STUDY OF VIJAYWADA 15 HAYCELIN E 2200600040B NETWORK ACCESSIBILITY ANALYSIS SHIMBEL INDEX

Creation of IDW map based on SHIMBEL INDEX for visualization

Using spatial tool , the shortest path distance is computed. Computation of Shimbel Index

Nodal axial maps which represent road intersection as node and connection between them as links; the centerlines of city road network converted into links and place where two or more centerlines meet is considered as node.

Delineation of study area boundary. Creation of axial map(important links and nodes ) in ARC GIS

DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) - II SEM

Fig Steps for axial map preparation

Network Density (ND): Network density measures the territorial occupation of a transport. It is the length of the network per unit area. The higher the network Density, the more the network is developed. It is simply given by the formula:

villages

Connectivity Map

English

82.3%

connected. CONNECTIVITY INDICES NETWORK CONNCETIVITY APPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE OF VIJAYAWADA CITY

SCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) - II SEM NETWORK CHARACTERISTICS 162200600038AshutoshKumar

Beta Index (β):

Eta Index (η): Eta index gives the average link length. Complex networks will tend to have a lower eta value. One can as well imagine it as how frequently a node will appear on average. It is given by the formula:

transport network. The

Gamma Index (γ): A measure of connectivity that considers the relationship between the number of observed links and the number of possible links. The value of gamma is between 0 and 1 where a value of 1 indicates a completely connected network and would be extremely unlikely in reality. on of Alpha index there is of connectivity study of Bazar The value of beta index is 1.71 which indicate a complex value of gamma index (57%) is average which depicts the regions are moderately

Study Area =61.5 SQKM. Arterial Road Length =55.24KM No. of Nodes = 183 Sub Arterial Road Length =46.48 KM No. of Links =312 Collector Road Length =57.22KM Total Length =158.94 KM �� = 158.94 312 =0.51 ���� = 158.94 61.5 =2.58 β = 312 183 =1.71 γ = 312 3(183 2) =0.57 Inference Based

Block.

in the

Beta index is the ratio of Number of edges to that of vertices. Trees (graphs which have no loops in them) and simple networks have Beta value of less than one. A connected network with one cycle has a value of 1. More complex networks have a value greater than 1. Consider graphs with fixed number of nodes. the higher the number of links, more the paths are possible.

▪ 3 Major Bus routes identified ➢ MG road – (Route-1) – 11 kms ▪ Familiar as Bandar road (PNBT Bustand –Poranki) ▪ Both City & Mofussil Service operation ▪ Avg Bus stops Spacing >500 mtrs ▪ 4Lane Divided ▪ Good Supportive Infrastructure ▪ Major Commercial Axis road ➢ Eluru road- (Route-2) – 8kms ▪ (PNBustand to Ramavarapadu Ring) ▪ Both City & Mofussil Service operation ▪ Avg Bus stops Spacing <500 mtrs ▪ 4Lane Divided ▪ Good Supportive Infrastructure ▪ Major Commercial Axis road ➢ Beasant road (Route-3) – 7kms ▪ (PNBT Bustand – Ramesh Hospital & Gurunanak colony) ▪ City Service operation ▪ Avg Bus stops Spacing <300 mtrs ▪ 2Lane Undivided ▪ Narrow Road Network 1. City Level Bus Stop Located - Eluru Road Merits : • Shaded Shelter • Weather Resistive 2. City Level Bus Stop Located - MG Road Merits : • Shaded Shelter • Weather Resistive • Route Information Available 3. City Level Bus Stop Located on MG Road Merits : • Shaded Shelter • Weather Resistive • Air conditioning ➢ Improvements of Existing Bus Stops ➢ Planned and Proper Signage Info ➢ Display of Route Information & LED Enabled Lighting fixtures ➢ PPP model for revenues through Advertisements ➢ CCTV Surveillance with command control Demerits : • Curb-Side Bus stop • infrastructureNon-Friendly for Old age & Physically Challenged Demerits : • Route Information Lacking • Curb-Side Bus stop • Unhygienic environment • Non-Friendly infrastructure for Old age & Physically Challenged Demerits : • Curb-Side Bus stop • Non-Friendly infrastructure for Old age & Physically Challenged 1. 2. 3. SCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) - II SEM PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION IN THE CITY 17 MADHU2200600042TAYIKIRANAPPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE OF VIJAYAWADA CITY

▪

▪

▪ The primary modes of intra city public transport are city buses and auto rickshaws. Apart from these, other means of transport are motorcycles, cycle rickshaws, and bicycles. ▪

CoverageService Ratio 94% as per CMP 2017 SCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) - II SEM PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION IN THE CITY 182200600042KIRANMADHUTAYIAPPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE OF VIJAYAWADA CITY

The Pandit Nehru Bus Station and the Vijayawada Junction railway station are the major transport infrastructure for road and rail transport. 15,16V,16RR,48V,54,55,55S,77M,77S,77C5,5G,5HG,5SG,5U,7B,7R,7S,7ST,8B,11,14S,&100 1,1P,1S,IR,2J,2K,7A,10,10K, 41V,47V,48KR,48N,49,49M,99,101B,103A,112A,116K,116,131J,31K,33J,14E/S,23A,23H,23K,23P, 21,122,123,141,144,145,145P,150,152,188,201A,201C,201O G,201T,203C,203K,208,208E,209,209A,209C,211S,212,212P,212S,215P,215S,218,220,222,222A,222C,222G,222I,222K,222P,222S,222SK,223M,226,234,239,241,250T,250V,252,252B,252S,266N,257,266,301,302,305M,307,307K,308,309,309J,309R,333,333D,333G,333K,333M,333MG,333N,333P,338,345,350,350A,350U

2 Mofussil 108 81%

The City Division of APSRTC operates close to 450 buses over 115 routes with an average of 2 Lakh daily commuting passengers The city buses ply in major routes of Besant Road, Eluru Road, MG Road and to the city outskirts of Ibrahimpatnam, Kondapalli and Nunna.

(2018) ▪

The Pandit Nehru bus station is the administrative headquarters of APSRTC, which is ranked as the fourth largest and busiest bus terminals in the country.

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION (BUS ROUTES): Sr.no Service Type No Routesof Coverag%e Routes (As on Feb 2020) 1 City Level 26 19% 3, 3D,3U,

SCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPOTARTION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) - II SEM PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION IN THE CITY 192200600046P.KRISHNAGAUTAMIAPPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE OF VIJAYAWADA CITY

▪ Around 76 Bus Shelters are observed in the VMC study area across 78 wards of VMC Area ▪ Standard buffer distance of 400 meters is considered for the assessment of coverage ▪ Around 70% of the VMC area is under Bus stops coverage SCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) - II SEM PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION IN THE CITY 202200600046P.KRISHNAGAUTAMIAPPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE OF VIJAYAWADA CITY

SCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) - II SEM PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION IN THE CITY 212200600042KIRANMADHUTAYI FLEET CAPACITIES & OPERATIONS: Bus Routes - Trip Length Sr.no Service Type MinlengthTrip (kms) MaxLengthTrip (kms) tripAverageLength (kms) 1 City Level 2 24 13 2 Mofussil 12 114 39 Operating Depots No of Buses City-level Mofussil Total Governor pet 1 14 54 68 Ibrahimpatnam 6 63 69 Governor pet 2 15 75 90 Vidyadaripuram 56 55 111 Auto Nagar 18 71 89 Gannavaram 0 47 47 Vuyuru 0 51 51 Total 109 416 525 Service Type Trips % City Level 1715 31% Mofussil 3675 69% Total 5481 100% Route No Trip Length (kms) Frequency (mins) 3 10 7 3D 12 35 3U 12 5 16 10 5G 10 15 5HG 17 16 5SG 10 15 5U 17 35 7B 12 40 7R 12 35 7S 10 7ST 12 17 8B 12 11 23 12 14S 24 14 15 10 60 16V 10 18 16RR 10 14 48V 16 54 16 12 55 12 16 55S 12 16 77M 15 77s 10 15 77C 10 30 100 2 10 Bus Trip composition ▪ Bus Route No – 3 : KABELA GOVT.PRESS (via) Chittinagar & Apsara is serving with Good frequency with an average of 7 mins ▪ Bus Route No -15 : MADHURANAGAR AUTONAGAR (Via ) ELURU ROAD is serving with a poor frequency of around 60 mins City Level Bus Routes Trip & frequency details APPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE OF VIJAYAWADA CITY

SCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) - II SEM PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION IN THE CITY 222200600046P.KRISHNAGAUTAMIAPPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE OF VIJAYAWADA CITY

SCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) - II SEM PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION IN THE CITY 232200600042KIRANMADHUTAYI MOFUSSIL BUS ROUTES TRIP & FREQUENCY DETAILS: Route No Trip(kms)Length Frequency(mins) Route No LengthTrip(kms) Frequency(mins) Route No LengthTrip(kms) Frequency(mins) 1 32 10 201C 30 90 266 40 180 1P 32 20 201OG 50 266N 54 1S 34 201T 38 120 301 52 20 1R 34 203C 26 80 302 53 2J 15 203K 28 45 305M 50 2K 12 208 50 40 307 50 7A 13 45 208E 37 307K 58 10 15 8 209 42 45 309 64 10K 23 70 209A 28 85 309J 64 14E/S 26 160 209C 28 309R 114 23A 20 60 211S 26 80 333K 55 23H 23 16 212 42 350 44 22 23K 23 70 212P 34 105 350 A 52 23P 16 212S 38 220 350 18 31 J 17 7 215P 30 120 99 50 31K 22 215S 19 100 101B 23 60 33J 24 218 44 45 116 25 12 41V 22 60 220 29 40 150 44 40 47V 19 8 222A 48 188 50 35 48KR 16 6 222G 58 50 218 44 70 48N 20 140 222C 40 222 32 20 49 14 222I 56 252B 45 15 49M 18 125 222K 52 252S 45 60 103A 21 222P 53 301 54 15 112A 25 20 222S 32 30 308 65 20 116 25 15 222SK 59 333 46 15 116 K 57 15 223M 34 333D 58 121 26 30 226 31 333G 60 122 26 30 234 36 333M 60 60 123 44 239 26 333P 67 141 24 70 241 16 20 333MG 71 144 34 20 250T 36 333N 58 145 39 20 250V 40 338 70 145P 40 252 45 35 345 28 152 26 80 252B 45 45 350 44 22 201A 33 257 28 90 350 U 112 ▪ Bus Route No – 48KR : KANDRIKA/RAJIV NAGAR AUTONAGA (V) MG Rd (17+1 HB) is serving with Good frequency with an average of 6 mins ▪ Bus Route No -212S : KR MARKET GANNAVARAM (Via) Savari Gudem is serving with a poor frequency of around 220 mins APPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE STUDY OF VIJAYAWADA

SCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) - II SEM PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION IN THE CITY 242200600046P.KRISHNAGAUTAMI MOFUSSIL BUS ROUTES BUS ROUTES : Name 208203K203C201T201OG201C201B1S1R188(M.Exp)16V16RR152150(M.Exp)1514E/S145P145144141123122121116K116(M)116112A1110K103A101B(M.Exp)100101P141V48N48KR49M4947V 145P14514414114E/S15150(M.Exp)15216RR16V188(M.Exp)1R1S201B201C201OG201T203C203K208208E209209A209C211S212212P212S215P215S218218(M)220222(M.Exp)222A222C222G222K222P222S222SK223M22623923A23H23K23P 218(M)218215S220222(M.Exp)222A222C222G222K222P222S222SK223M22623923A23H23K23P250T250V252252B252B(M.Exp)252S(M.Exp)257266266N2J2K3301301(M)305M307308(M.Exp)309309J309R31J31K333333D(M.Exp)333K333M.Exp)333N333P 33J338333P333N333M.Exp)333K333D(M.Exp)33331K31J309R309J309308(M.Exp)307305M301(M)30132K2J350350U350(M)350A99(M.Exp) APPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE OF VIJAYAWADA CITY

BUS STOPS COVERAGE – RESIDENTIAL LANDUSE • Deficit coverage observed in residential land use when compared to commercial segment. • Especially ward no 19,20,42,43,44,49,77&78 observed with low density bus stop coverage. • Even though higher residential density observed in ward no 41 & 61 of VMC area, no dedicated bus stops made available. SCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) - II SEM PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION IN THE CITY 252200600042KIRANMADHUTAYIAPPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE OF VIJAYAWADA CITY

▪ Around 4500 commercial properties are accounting with an area of 2.87 Sqkms. And 1165 industrial units with 1.55 Sqkms ▪ Potential PT trips from both Inter City & intra City Zones . ▪ In the core CBD Areas, Bus stops coverage seems to be satisfactory for the commercial units. ▪ Where as for the Industrial, there is a deficit in Bus stop Coverage especially with Autonagar Industrial Area – ward no 54,55 & 56 BUS STOPS COVERAGE – COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL SECTOR: SCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) - II SEM PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION IN THE CITY 262200600042KIRANMADHUTAYIAPPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE OF VIJAYAWADA CITY

Population Density per hectare (pph) varies from 3 - 1302 The Core CBD area housing for more commercial activities, in turn resulting with less population densities Ward no 6,7 falls in core old CBD area, observed to have a limited size of dwelling units housing for more family sizes. Rest all ward no 30 & 67 observed to have a max population density varies from 764 to 1302 pph. Due to vacant land availability in the periphery of the city limit ward areas and with strict compliance and enforcement of planning regulations, the population densities observed to be 3 142 pph. CASE VIJAYAWADA CITY

APPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A

•

SCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) - II SEM PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION IN THE CITY 272200600042KIRANMADHUTAYI BUS STOP COVERAGE W.R.T. POPULATION DENSITY MAP •

•

•

OF

SCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) - II SEM PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION IN THE CITY 282200600042KIRANMADHUTAYI BUS STOPS COVERAGE – WARD WISE PREDOMINANT LAND USE: APPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE OF VIJAYAWADA CITY

ZDP MASTER PLAN FOR VIJAYAWADA: LAND USE (AS PER ZDP 2021) URDPFI 2015 ZDP 2021 Remarks RESIDENTIAL 35 40 % 53.82% 51.20% Excess COMMERCIAL 4 5 % 4.42% 5.00% Balanced INDUSTRIAL 12 14% 4.11% 2.00% High deficit PUBLIC & SEMI PUBLIC 14 16% 6.55% 6.10% Deficit TRANSPORT 15 18 % 12.93% 13.30% Min Deficit RECREATIONAL & CONSERVATION 20 25% 2.86% 3.80% High deficit WATER BODIES Balance 11.59% 18.60% Excess • Industrial & Recreational land uses are observed be in a severe deficit condition w.r.t to URDPFI standard and norms • In transport a minimum deficit of around 2 3% is observed. • The deficit Transport land use need to be revived as per the URDFPI norms SCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) - II SEM PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION IN THE CITY 292200600042KIRANMADHUTAYIAPPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE OF VIJAYAWADA CITY

SCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) II SEM APSRTC Profile APPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE OF VIJAYAWADA CITY 2200600038AshutoshKumar 30 OVERVIEW OF APSRTC AT STATE LEVEL The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC ) is the major public bus transport owned by the state government which runs buses connecting different parts of the state. APSRTC was formed on 11 January 1958 as per Road Transport Corporations Act 1950. Head office shifted from HYDERABAD to VIJAYAWADA on 27 - 06 - 2016. Vijayawada City comes under VIJAYAWADA ZONE of KRISHNA REGION having: STUDY AREA: VIJAYAWADA 1 DEPOTS 7 2 TOTAL FLEET HELD 602(568+34) 3 TOTAL STAFF 6399 4 KMS Lakhs)OPERATED(In 277(267+10) 0 2 4 6 8 10 AustraliaChinaFranceRussia SouthThailandAfricaUSA IndiaUK Andhra… Vijayawada Comparison of Vehicular Penetration (Buses per 1000 Population) 1 ZONES 4 2 REGIONS 12 3 DEPOTS 128 4 ZONAL STAFF TRAINING COLLEGE(ZSTC) 4 5 ZONAL WORKSHOP(ZWS) 4 6 TIRE RETREADING SHOP(TRS) 4 7 TRANSPORT ACADEMY(TA) 1 8 TOTAL FLEET HELD 11432(9128+2304) 9 TOTAL STAFF 51400 10 KMS OPERATED(In Lakhs) 6166(5623+543)

SCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) II SEM APSRTC Profile APPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE OF VIJAYAWADA CITY 2200600038AshutoshKumar 31 OVERVIEW OF APSRTC AT STATE LEVEL 114001120011000 11600 122001200011800Numbers Avg fleet held Avg fleet held 700006000050000400003000020000100000Numbers Staff Strength Staff Strength 4.00 4.20 4.40 4.60 4.80 5.00 5.20 Staff/Bus Ratio Staff/Bus Ratio 3,115 3,167 3,822 3,828 3,605 3,091 2,966 4,432 8,063 24 201 610 6 4,458-2,000-4,000-6,000 0 10,0008,0006,0004,0002,000 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 Paisain EPK vs CPK Earning per Km(EPK) Cost per Km(CPK) Net Profit/Loss per Km -4,00,000 -2,00,000 0 2,00,000 4,00,000 6,00,000 8,00,000 10,00,000 2016-172015-162014-152013-142012-13 2017-18 2020-212019-202018-19 Financial Performance Net Profit/Loss (Rs. Lakh) Total Cost (Rs. Lakh) Total Revenue (Rs. Lakh)

SCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) II SEM Introduction To Service Level Benchmarking: Public Transport APPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE OF VIJAYAWADA CITY 32

Benchmarking is process of comparing performance levels against set targets or best practice cases. It helps in identifying the gaps and problems in existing situation.

❑

Benefits of benchmarking can be perceived in two folds;

BENEFITS OF BENCHMARKING:

comparability performanceComparewiththatofothers Identify policies that account for (caseperformancebetterstudies) Adapt, Transfer andgoodImplementpractice The process of TransportUrban Benchmarking Abhijit2200600035Sahani A. Vaishnavi 2200600036

1. Direct Benefits of the study are ✓ It will provide a platform to discuss and debate transport issues at local level ✓ It will lead to creation for city level database on transport which will help set targets for plan formulation

❑

INTRODUCTION

common interest

Monitor

BENCHMARKING PROCESS: OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY: benchmarkingMethodologyforcollectingdatafor Additionalindicators Base thecollecteddataforrespectiveindicators Level of measuredservice SERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKING: PUBLIC TRANSPORT

objectivespolicyandassociatedindicatorsAdjustresultsto

Create

It is important that the basic minimum standard set of performance benchmarks are commonly understood and used by all stakeholders. Depending on the specific needs of a city, performance parameters can be defined and used to improve the quality of urban transport. To develop and test, benchmarking framework for urban transit system, focusing primarily on public transport by using selected key performance indicators. To develop operational guidelines for undertaking benchmarking using MoUD’s Service Level Benchmarks.

2. Indirect Benefits perceived from these studies are ✓ Help in promoting National Urban Transport Policy ✓ It will also help in creating a competitive environment within and between cities. Performance a group with in a given performancearea Agree on ensure

SCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) II SEM SLB (Urban Transport) India Vs International Case Studies APPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE OF VIJAYAWADA CITY 33 AFFORDABILITY 2. ❖ Review MoUD benchmarks. ❖ Review NUTP. ❖ Case studies. ❖ Identification of additional indicators. Literature review Assessingsituation.present Identifying gaps. Setting up future targets ❖ Selection of methodology (facts & process). ❖ Data collection. ❖ Analysis to arrive at LOS. Benchmarking process ❖ Level of service for each indicator. ❖ Combining LOS to arrive at a composite LOS for each benchmarking. ❖ Validation checks. Level of service AVAILABILITY EFFICIENCY ACCESSIBILITY QUALITY COVERGAE AFFORDABILITY SAFETY SUSTAINABILITYFINANCIAL 1. PUBLIC TRANSPORT FACILITIES - INDIA SLB (URBAN TRANSPORT) INDIA VS INTERNATIONAL CASE STUDIES PUBLIC TRANSPORT FACILITIES – European commission PUBLIC TRANSPORT FACILITIES - Thessaloniki, Greece SUSTAINABILITYFINANCIAL 2. PEDESTRIAN FACILITY 3.3. NMT FACILITY 4. INTERMEDIATETRANSPORTPUBLIC 5. ROAD SAFETY FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY 1. MoUD, India 2. Frame work for urban benchmarking world bank 3. European commission on energy and transport 4. Thessaloniki, Greece benchmarking in PT ❑ Other indicators are land use transport integration; travel speed along major corridors; parking facility; pollution levels; average speed. Case studies PUBLIC TRANSPORT FACILITIES - world bank Abhijit2200600035Sahani

SCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) II SEM SLB as Per the MoUD Guidelines APPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE OF VIJAYAWADA CITY 34 Presence of Organized Public Transport System in Urban Area (%) Extent of Supply Availability of Public Transport Service Coverage of Public Transport in the City Average waiting time for Public Transport users (min) Level of Comfort in Public Transport (Crowding) % fleet size as per urban bus specification IndicatorsFacilityTransportPublic-SLBs Transit Access Area - (% built-up area within 500m of PT playing)* High frequency transit accessible area (% area with transit access 10min or less headway)* Total boarding/ population Breakdown of Public Transport vehicles (on-board reliability of buses Vehicle (bus) Utilization Affordability of public transport Average Travel speed of public transport Additional SLBs CITY BUS SERVICES AND ROUTE NETWORK Since the service level benchmarks measure performance of the urban area, delineation could be considered as city boundary of Vijayawada. Total area Built up Bus route length 61.88 sq.km 54.71 158.61 km SLB as per the MoUD guidelines Abhijit2200600035Sahani

ROAD DENSITY = TOTAL LENGTH / AREA Road density ( includes arterial, sub arterial & collector roads) for each zone is calculated by using the total length of the roads in that zone and area of that zone . It has a minimum of 1.55 km/sqkm and a maximum of 32.5 km/sqkm .Zones connecting all the roads in the center of the city has high road density. The study area served by the buffer of 500m walkable distance around the public transport network is 43.75 Sq.km. which is approximately 79.67% of total study area. It can be observed from the map above that most part of study area is covered under the walkable buffer for availing bus services, as most the routes in this area have service covered through all the wards. Abhijit2200600035Sahani

PUBLIC TRANSPORT NETWORK AND ITS COVERAGE ❑

SCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) II SEM Road Density and Public Transport Network & Its Coverage APPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE OF VIJAYAWADA CITY 35 ROAD DENSITY OF BUS ROUTES

❑

SCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) II SEM Assessment of Physical Performance APPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE OF VIJAYAWADA CITY 36 Sl no. source 1. Total number of buses i) Fleet ii) on road Bus operators APSRTC 2. N0. of Buses in city No. of buses as per Urban Bus specification Bus operators APSRTC 3. Total number of Bus stops Bus operators APSRTC 4. No of terminals / interchanges Bus operators APSRTC 5. Total Number of routes Bus operators APSRTC 6. Area of the city CMP, Vijayawada 7. Total length of public transport corridor Secondary data GIS 8. Total population of the city Population projection 9. Level of comfort CMP, Vijayawada Presence of organized public transport SNo. Data required for calculating the indicator Unit value a Calculate the total number of buses in the city a No. 602 b Calculate the total number of buses under the ownership of STU/SPV or under concession agreement. b No. 568+34 = 602 c Presence of Public Transport System in Urban Area (%) = [b / a]*100. % 100 LOS RANGE 1 >= 60 2 40 60 3 20 40 4 <20 ➢ Based on the above, the corresponding LoS value for the indicator ‘Presence of Organized Public Transport System in Urban Area’ is 1. All the buses are operated by APSRTC in Vijayawada. Extent of Supply / Availability of Public Transport System: S.No. Data required for calculating the indicator Unit Value a No of Buses available in a city on any day No. 602 b Total Population of the city No. 12,40,020 c Availability of Public transport /1000 population. Ratio 0.49 LOS RANGE 1 >= 0.6 2 0.4- 0.6 3 0.2 0.4 4 <0.2 ▪ The corresponding LoS value for the indicator ‘Extent of Supply/Availability of Public Transport System’ is 2. ▪ This indicates that Vijayawada has a deficiency in supply of organized public transport, i.e. the number of buses has not increased proportionally to the increase in population, and hence new buses will have to be procured. Service Coverage of Public Transport in the City: LOS RANGE 1 >= 1 2 0.7 1 3 0.3 0.7 4 < 0.3 S.No. Data required for calculating the indicator Unit Value a Total length in road kms of the corridors on which public transport systems ply in the city. kms 98 b Area of the urban limits of the city. kmsSq. 61.88 c Service Coverage = a/b Ratio 1.4 The corresponding LoS value of 1 indicates that coverage of public transport network is adequate in Vijayawada city. Pranjal A.2200600047SinghVaishnavi 2200600036

SCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) II SEM Assessment of Physical Performance APPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE OF VIJAYAWADA CITY 37 Pranjal A.2200600047SinghVaishnavi 2200600036 LOS RANGE 1 75 100 2 50 - 75 3 25 50 4 <25 Percentage of Fleet as per Urban Bus Specifications S.No. Data required for calculating the indicator Unit value a Total number of buses in the city No. 602 b Total number of buses as per urban bus specifications in the city. No. 315 c % of Fleet as per Urban Bus Specifications = (b/a)* 100 % 52.34 the corresponding LoS value for the indicator ‘Percentage of Fleet as per Urban Bus Specifications’ is 2. This indicates that more buses should adhere to the urban bus specifications. Average waiting time for Public Transport users SNo. Data required for calculating the indicator value a Identification of routes wise average headway in peak hours at identified bus stop b Average waiting time 9 min LOS RANGE 1 <= 4 2 4 6 3 6- 10 4 > 10 The corresponding LoS value for the indicator ‘Average Waiting Time for Public Transport Users’ is 3. This indicates that Public transport in Vijayawada city has somewhat low frequency, NoS.. Data required for calculating the indicator Unit value a Average trip length in the city. km. 4.4 b Average trip cost Minimum wage in the country Rs. 7.26 Rs. Rs 115 nth)(2990/mo c Total expenditure on trip=transportation((fare/km)*Averagelength))*52 (7.26 * 377.5)/2952=90 d. Affordability- (Total expenditure transportation/totalon Monthly income) *100 % 12.62 LOS RANGE 1 <=10 2 11 14 3 6 10 4 >20 Affordability of public transport* Transit Access Area- (Percentage built-up area within 500m of PT plying)* S.No. Data required for calculating the indicator Unit value a PT corridor length (500m buffer on either side)= Sq.km 43.75 b Total developed area 54.71 Sq.km Sq.km 54.71 c Transit access area = (a/b)*100 % 79.96 LOS RANGE 1 .>= 80 2 60 80 3 40 60 4 < 40 Additional Indicator – * marks refers to additionally added indicator to compute benchmarks. Refer map : Public transport network and its coverage CHENNAI 19% MUMBAI 23%

SCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) II SEM Overall Performance of Physical Indicators APPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE OF VIJAYAWADA CITY 38 Sr. no. Indicator Target LOS as per MoUD guidelines Cal. LOS additionalwithindicators A. Presence of Organized Public Transport System in Urban Area 1 1 B. Extent of Supply Availability of Public Transport /1000 population. 3 2 C. Service Coverage of Public Transport in the study area 1 1 D. Average waiting time for Public Transport users 3 3 E. Level of Comfort in Public Transport (as per CMP ) 2 1 F. % fleet size as per urban bus specification (UBS) 3 2 G. Transit Access Area (% built up area within 500m of PT plying)* 2 2 H. Affordability of public transport* 2 2 TOTAL LOS: 14 LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORT FACILITIES IN THE CITY : PHYSICAL INDICATOR Additional Indicator – * marks refers to additionally added indicator to compute benchmarks. 3.52.51.50.50123 A B C D E F G H Overall level of service Target LOS as per MoUD guidelines Cal. LOS with additional indicators Overall LOS Sum of LoS indicators Observation 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 average waiting time may need improvements. The system provided is comfortable. The city still needs more buses conforming to the urban bus specifications . 3. 17 20 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 Pranjal 2200600047Singh

SCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) II SEM Comparison Of Physical Performance Indicators And Case Studies APPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE OF VIJAYAWADA CITY 39 Comparison between Service Level Benchmarks with case studies NoS PerformanceMeasure indicators/Performanceserviceattributes Vijayawada Agra Dehradun Visakhapatnam 1 TransportPublicFacility Presence systemorganizedofPTinurbanarea(%) 1 1 2 1 Extent of availabilitysupplyofPT 2 3 4 4 Service coverage of PT in the city 1 4 3 3 % of fleet as per urban specificationbus 3 3 4 2 infrastructurePedestrianfacilities* Percentage of city coveredfootpathsby 4 4 4 4 3 Facilities*NMT Percentage of Network Covered 4 4 4 4 4 Level of Usage of Facilities*ITS InformationPassengerSystem 3 3 4 4 Global positioning system 4 4 4 4 International case studies Performance Indicators ✓ Travel mode ✓ Public transport patronage ✓ Travel time ✓ Catchment area ✓ Cost of travel ✓ Road safety ✓ Contextual data ❑ It was noted that the observations from the comparisons were consistent with the development process and initiatives associated with each country. For example, Beijing had targeted specific issues such as encouraging the use of public transport through subsidies and significant investment in safety improvements. Positive trends were observed that confirmed the relevance of some of these initiatives. ❑ The comparative analysis also confirmed that increased private vehicle ownership placed greater pressure on the public transport system and brought about reductions in patronage ❑ PT organisations following benchmarking are able to locate their strengths and weaknesses in an objective way through comparison with other agencies. ❑ It has been found that since a competitive environment has not been developed in many European countries, there is not enough motivation for PT agencies to improve their performance . ❑ Individual benchmarking efforts are recommended to start with existing partners or agencies that provide satisfactory information on their service so that some initial comparison are possible. BUCHAREST – ROMANIA Thessaloniki, Greece ✓ Percentage of households within walking distance of bus stops ✓ PT vehicles per hour ✓ Passenger per hour ✓ On departure/arrivalstime ✓ Average speed of vehicles on bus lanes ✓ Percentage of trips not served ✓ Price structure Performance Indicators 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 Presence of organized PT system in urban area (%) Extent of supply availability of ServicePTcoverage of PT in the city % of fleet as per urban bus specification Percentage of city covered by footpaths Percentage of CoveredNetwork PassengerGlobalSystemInformationpositioning system BENCHMARK COMPARISON Vijayawada Agra Dehradun Visakhapatnam Pranjal 2200600047Singh

SCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) II SEM Assessment Of Financial Performance APPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE OF VIJAYAWADA CITY 40 The overall level of Financial benchmarking is based on the level of service for the following indicators(As per MOUD Guidelines): Sl No. Indicators Computation LOS 1 Extent of Non fare Revenue Revenue collections per annum from non fare related sources =16,33,84,000(a) Total revenue per annum from all sources =95,38,01,000(b) Calculate = [a /b] * 100 =17.12% 3 2 Staff / bus ratio The total staff of bus operation and maintenance =3,699(a) The total number of Buses =602(b) Calculate = [a /b] =6.14 1 3 Operating Ratio Calculate cost / bus =46,66,488(a) Calculate earning/ bus =15,84,387(b) Calculate = [a /b] =2.94 4 Level Serviceof(LoS) 1. Extent of non-farerevenue 2. Staff per Bus ratio 3.OperatingRatio 1 >= 40 <=5.5 <=0.7 2 20 40 5.5 8.0 0.7 1 3 10 – 20 8.0 – 10.0 1 – 1.5 4 < 10 > 10 > 1.5 Indicator LOS 3 1 4 OverallLOS Sum of LoS of Indicators 1 <=4 2 5 7 3 8 – 9 4 10 - 12 Indicators Ahmedabad Surat Mysore Hubli Dharwad Bhubaneswar Kohima Vijayawada Extent of Non fare Revenue 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 Staff / bus ratio 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 Operating Ratio 4 4 3 3 2 3 4 Sum of LoS 11 9 8 8 7 8 9 OverallLoS Calculated LoS Comments/Recommendation by MOUD 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. Comparison with other Cities 2200600038AshutoshKumar

SCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) II SEM Recommendation for financial Sustainability of APSRTC APPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE OF VIJAYAWADA CITY 41 Staff Fuel Lubrica&nt TyresTubes& Spares Interest Depreciation PaymenttoHiredBuses compenAccidentssation Tax OtherCosts Mar'2021 61.27 16.20 0.72 1.72 5.81 1.67 2.68 0.00 2.50 7.42 Mar'2020 45.56 22.62 1.10 2.23 4.65 2.66 10.53 0.00 4.55 6.09 Mar'2017 51.54 28.88 1.44 1.51 5.18 3.09 0 0 8.36 0 70.0060.0050.0040.0030.0020.0010.000.00Percentage COMPARISON OF COST(%) Revenue1.Traffic Revenue2.Hired 3.Non-TrafficRevenue 4.Concessions Mar'2021 76.25 7.39 9.93 6.44 Mar'2020 63.61 17.91 7.86 10.61 Mar'2017 84.71 0.00 5.71 9.57 10.000.00 20.00 90.0080.0070.0060.0050.0040.0030.00Percentage COMPARISON OF REVENUE(%) Sl No. Indicators 2019-20 2020-21 1 Revenue Gap(profit/Loss) (lakhs)9688.67 lakhs)18554.3 2 Extent of Subsidy in Revenue 11.9% 8.3% 3 Ratio of own revenues to expenditures 0.73 0.34 4 Ratio of Subsidy and shared revenues to expenditures 8% 3% 5 Ratio of other revenues to expenditures 5% 3% Some Other Financial Indicators Revenue1.Traffic Revenue2.Hired 3.Non-TrafficRevenue 4.Concessions Mar'2020 350629.69 98747.31 43326.34 58500.00 Mar'2021 169499.98 16419.37 22079.84 14306.81 150000.00100000.0050000.000.00 200000.00 400000.00350000.00300000.00250000.00LakhsIn COMPARISON OF REVENUE Inferences: From the past data we know that APSRTC was running in profit between 2015 16 & 2016-17. Now, Here we have compared the composition of COST & REVENUE of 2017 with present and tried to find out the reason behind loss. Proposals: After analysing the cost and revenue data we can recommend to generate revenue from non-user beneficiary taxes for financial sustainability of APSRTC. 2200600038AshutoshKumar

• LUPTAI Land Use And Public Transport Accessibility Index. Measures the accessibility of a destination, which can be accessed from various origin within given constrain of maximum time / cost.

• Prioritizing

• Integrating

What is PTAL?? PTAL is a tool used to measure the accessibility of a public transport system potentially available at spatially separated locations.

• Improving

SCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYWADAARCHITECTURE SHEET NOPUBLIC TRANSPORT ACCESSIBILITY LEVEL APPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE STUDY OF VIJAYWADA 42 HAYCELIN E 2200600040B PUBLIC TRANSPORT ACCESSIBILITY LEVEL

• TTSAT – Time Based Transit Service Area Tool Measure the accessibility of POI with respect to number of destinations which can be reached within maximum travel time or cost.

• Understanding

Public transit is one of the vital urban infrastructure of a city, focused on providing equal opportunity to all the economic groups as well as it is a more sustainable form of transport. One way to enhance the performance of a public transport system is to improve the level of accessibility of the current system. Why PTAL??

Delineation of study area boundary Define POI by dividing the study area as per ward boundary Assumptions regarding walk speed, reliability, and peak hour factors POI to SAP distances is calculated Calculation of AI for each of the wards using the parameters Assign PTAL bands to AIs PTAL mapping using Data classification in ARCGIS For the study 128 bus stop and 135 routes are considered.

• The main justification of using PTAL in this study is because of the requirement of minimal data, computational simplicity and visualisation simplicity. The public transport accessibility levels (PTAL) concept addresses local accessibility, but indirectly also incorporates network accessibility by using route and frequency data. Applications public transport and NMT investments transport in the development/master plan (DP) the mobility needs of the urban poor residential location choice and optimizing supply of

affordable housing METHODOLOGY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) - II SEM

•

Alternatives to PTAL

SCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYWADAARCHITECTURE SHEET NOPUBLIC TRANSPORT ACCESSIBILITY LEVEL APPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE STUDY OF VIJAYWADA 43 HAYCELIN E 2200600040B POI to SAP distances were measured from ARCGIS using the OD matrix tool. Then, using the above parameters, calculations of AI for each of the ward units were carried out, per the steps outlined in LONDON PTAL methodology. Table 3 shows a sample format for calculating AI for a POI. Calculation formula AWT = 0.5*(60/f) + K , where f= hourly frequency and K = reliability factor TAT = WT +AWT EDF = 30/TAT AI = EDF max + 0.5 *���� POI ID SAP NAME ROUTE NO Distance (m) Frequency(perhr) Walk(min)time (min)SWT AVG WAITING TIME (min) TAT (min) EDF OFACCESSIBILITYPOI=10.39 75 Swathi Bus Stop 350 A 538 6 6.725 5 7 13.725 2.18579235 14S 538 4.285714286 6.725 7 9 15.725 1.907790143 14E/S 538 3.75 6.725 8 10 16.725 1.793721973 188 538 1.714285714 6.725 17.5 19.5 26.225 1.143946616 Bank Center Bus Stop 350 A 498 6 6.225 5 7 13.225 2.268431002 14S 498 4.285714286 6.225 7 9 15.225 1.97044335 14E/S 498 3.75 6.225 8 10 16.225 1.848998459 188 498 1.714285714 6.225 17.5 19.5 25.725 1.166180758 23H 498 3.75 6.225 8 10 16.225 1.848998459 11 498 3 6.225 10 12 18.225 1.646090535 5HG 498 3.75 6.225 8 10 16.225 1.848998459 Table 3 Sample format for accessibility calculation Sr No.. Data type Source 1 Vijayawada city base map Google earth 2 Study area boundary limits GIS shape file 3 APSRTC bus stops within study area boundary GIS shape file 4 APSRTC bus routes Digitized from google earth 5 Peak hour bus frequency APSTRC Report Parameter Units London value Vijayawada value Peak hour 8:15 am 9:15 am 9:30 am 10:30 am Walk speed Km /hr 4.8 4.8 Reliability (K) min 2 2 Max walk time min 8 10 Max distancewalk m 640 800 PUBLIC TRANSPORT ACCESSIBILITY LEVEL DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) - II SEM

44 SCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYWADAARCHITECTURE PUBLIC TRANSPORT ACCESSIBILITY LEVEL APPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE STUDY OF VIJAYWADA 44HAYCELIN E 2200600040B Population density Land use map PTAL MAPPING PUBLIC TRANSPORT ACCESSIBILITY LEVEL DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) - II SEM

• First step is to create a buffer of 500m,1000m using ArcGIS spatial tool along the bus stop locations.

• Low accessibility Low population density Ward no 2, 43,44,49,61,78. land use primarily is residential. Low accessibility justifiable due to low population density and the predominant land use of these areas are agriculture and is located towards the periphery of study boundary.

INFERENCE Accessibility to public transport is high in the core regions of the city and at some commercially developed areas. It becomes poorer as we move away from the city centre. When PTAL map is overlaid by the by population density, the low density in the peripheral region of study area justifies the low accessibility value. In regions with high population density and low accessibility more priority should be given for PT improvement and wards where population density is low and accessibility value is high re-routing of resources like staffs, fleet etc can be considered.

INFERENCE ❑ 39 % of population has access to public transport facility in a 500m walking. ❑ There is a need to facilitate planned para transit services since around 25% of population has to travel more than 1 km distance to access the nearest public transport bus stop. Being the first points of contact between the passenger and the transit service, access to public transport stops is an important factor affecting overall transit demand/ ridership.

TO PUBLIC TRANSPORT FACILITY – DISTANCE TO NEAREST BUS STOP

PUBLIC TRANSPORT ACCESSIBILITY LEVEL OBSERVATION DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) - II SEM

• Data source for population is obtained from a project called World POP. (population dataset in the form of (100x100m ) grided pixel.

• Using zonal statistic tool the population within respective buffer is computed.

SCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYWADAARCHITECTURE SHEET NOPUBLIC TRANSPORT ACCESSIBILITY APPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE STUDY OF VIJAYWADA 45 HAYCELIN E 2200600040B Distribution Of Population By Distance From The Nearest Bus stop (2011 Population Data) DISTANCE (m) % POPULATION 0-500 38.86144 500 1000 30.32186 1000 2000 18.16543 2000-3000 6.772083 3000-4000 1.981628 >4000 0.712653

• High accessibility High population density Wards with residential characteristics closer to the transport corridor and city core.

•

Methodology

• High accessibility Low population density Ward no 12,14,15,26,27,48,54,55 . Land use of these wards are mostly commercial and ward no 55 constitute industrial area.

ACCESSIBILITY

Low accessibility – High population density Ward no 4,5,10,19,20,42,41,67,71,70,73,77 and the land use of most of these wards fall under residential category.

To understand the current status of bus stop facilities in the city. Data collection Bus stop location layer, population dataset from a project called World POP.

➢ Access to all Bus Stops should be improved, the percentage of urban area within 500m of the Bus Stop location should be between 75% and 90%.

Suggested target set by SLB

❑ Percentage Fleet as per Urban Bus Specification: All metro cities to have at least 25% of their fleet as per urban bus specifications .

❑ Frequency of Public Transport Service: All million plus cities to maintain average waiting time for public transport users to be a maximum of 12 minutes or below.

SCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) II SEM Observation And Recommendation

RECOMMENDATION: ➢ Dedicated footpath facilities with a width of at least 1.5m on either side of the road. connecting origin to transit point and 2m wide adjoining cycle tracks, which will completely fit in the carriageway should be provided at the core part to promote NMT ridership.

➢ Bus Stops should be provided at every 450m to 500m. ➢ Frequency of the Buses should be increased from current 15 30 min to 5 10 min during peak hours (BRTS can be proposed at core to improve frequency).

Pranjal2200600035SahaniSingh2200600047

SOURCE:DFID, World Bank Abhijit

➢ Connectivity networks from origin to the transit point should be improved with focus on pedestrian and NMT as mode.

❑ Service Coverage of Public Transport in the city (Bus route network density): All mega cities to increase their public transit coverage at least supply to service level 3 or above.

➢ Vijayawada has organized public transportation system; the city has successful rapid transit system with extensive network. Performance of public transport is level 2, and needs some level of improvements.

APPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE OF VIJAYAWADA CITY 46

KEY OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Recommended priorites for KPI:

❑ Presence of Organized Public Transport System in Urban Area.

➢ Affordability and safety of commuters should be also be given priority, that eventually increase confidence of commuters to avail public transport services.

➢ Increase the city bus services would be considered by taking 50 buses per lakh population.

❑ Level of Comfort in Public Transport (Crowding): In all million plus cities, with in 2 years, the level of service should be 3 or above

SCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) II SEM PT DEMAND MODELLING APPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE OF VIJAYAWADA CITY 47 OBJECTIVE : To assess Existing PT Operations of Vijayawada. METHODOLOGY PUBLIC TRANSPORT SYSTEM IN VIJAYAWADA The predominant Public Transport modes in Vijayawada are, City Buses and Auto-rickshaws. Other private services like Ola, Uber, Rapido are also available with mode of 2 wheeler and cab services. • Delineation of traffic analysis zones in the study area to study the movement pattern of PT. • To develop base year PT Model for Vijayawada Bus Transport. • To calculate fleet size for Horizon year SUB OBJECTIVES : PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION LITERATURE REVIEW DATA COLLECTION ANALYSISDATACONCLUSIONS PTOD MATRIX CALIBRATIONPARAMETERIMPEDENCE CALIBRATION OF GRAVITY VARIABLES LANDUSE ASSIGNMENTTRIP CASE OUTCOMESSTUDIES RELEVANCE MODELLEDCOMPAREANDOBSERVEDOR PT ROUTES, BUS SCHEDULE, BUS STOPS, LINK, NODES, LINK ATTRIBUTES ONBOARD BOARDING ALIGHTING SURVEY OF 15 ROUTES OD PAIRS NETWORK DATA FROM BUSTRIPDEPOT PRODUCTION SKIM MATRIXSAMPLE OD MATRIX TAZ TRIP PRODUCTION AND ATTRACTIONSDISTRIBUTIONTLFDTRIP PT BASE YEAR MODEL FINALIZED ESTIMATE AND COMPARE FLEETSCENERIOREQUIREMENTBUILDING DETAILFORSCHEDULINGAROUTE PT ROUTES AND BUS STOPS : 2200600051Shashank

techniqueGeneticoptimization:routeAlgorithminArcGIS

To develop an interface between the urban transit routing problem and professional transport modelling software

Passengers average travel time and operators cost Requires a python algorithm to minimize errors and to maintain accuracy. Simple random technique: based on uniform probability distribution, Sequence based selection hyper heuristic: represents transitions between two selected models. Hyper heuristics use feedback mechanism to improve the selection of networks minimized the overall operator cost and the average passenger travel time. Local optimization reduced the load of private car users on selected street. (Pfullingen, Germany)

Bus stops information, route information, route wise time table information, coordinates of bus stops Demand forecasting (four stage modelling), Network modelling, PuT assignment New bus stops, shifting of few existing bus stops and re routing of existing line routes, create new line routes to improve existing bus route. The modeling can be performed in Visum without the need to write any algorithms.

To scale the available network to a point after which optimization can be applied Pre existing transport network and travel demand (vehicle frequency, time table, vehicle schedules and crew scheduling) Categorising adult & offspring population data, evaluation of route sets through combined population, generation of links through existing network, establishment of new routes and stops Modified scaled network through restricted route start and end points. Routes generated by the algorithm is not the most effective network for passengers or (Nottingham,operators.UK)

Modelling for optimization of urban system utility: a case study of Chennai To reduce the traffic congestion and the share of private car uses and increase the share of public transit Cost of travel, travel time and accessibility Desired characteristics of individual choice, application of Random Utility Theory, scenario’s development through Logit model and sensitivity analysis The estimated MRTS demand matrix obtained from mode choice analysis can be used for planning the feeder bus network. An adaptive scaled network for public transport

SCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) II SEM APPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE OF VIJAYAWADA CITY 48

Improvement of bus network in Hyderabad using PTV Visum

To improve existing bus network by providing better accessibility, travel time reduction, to develop local feeder bus service with regard to urban development.transportation

Public transport network optimization in PTV Visum using selectionheuristicshyper

Name of the Paper Objectives Parameters Procedure involved Outcomes

LITERATURE REVIEW PT DEMAND MODELLING BhushanKrushna 2200600045

Disaggregate Model

Nested logit structure allows estimation of proportions among selected sub modes prior to the estimation of proportions between modes.

Artificial Neural Network Model

intercept survey. Mode Choice Models: ❑ Aggregate and Disaggregate Mode Choice Models ❑ Statistical Mode Choice Models ▪ Multinomial Logit Models ▪ Nested Logit Models ▪ Multinomial Probit Model ▪ Generalized Extreme Value Model ❑ Soft Computing Mode Choice Models ▪ Artificial Neural Network Models ▪ Fuzzy Logic Based Models ▪ Hybrid Mode Choice Models SCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) II SEM LITERATURE REVIEW: MODE CHOICE MODELLING APPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE OF VIJAYAWADA CITY 2200600044MitradevSahoo 49

Multinomial Probit Model

Probit model is that the error terms follow a joint normal distribution with zero mean & covariance matrix with no prior restrictions on the correlation structure in distribution.

Aggregate

Hybrid Mode ModelChoice

Multinomial Logit Model

Model

In disaggregate approach Individual choice responses as a function of the characteristics of the & socio demographic attributes of each individual.

Statistical Mode choice Model

Generalized Extreme Value Model

Aggregate Model attempts to represent the average behaviour of a group of travellers instead of a single individual.

Nested Logit Model

A back propagation algorithm was used for the ANN architecture. The relative importance of inpit parameters was found out & objective oriented programming was used to implement ANN network. Fuzzy Logic Based Model Aggregate matrix was used to compare the varios alternative included in this matrix to select the best alternative.

The philosophy behind mode choice model is to effectively manage the transport demand and be able to provide for these demands by making changes in the existing system.Used to study the existing transportation system and forecast the future needs of the proposed transportation system as we get an insight to preferences and requirements of commuters. and Workplace and

Factors Affecting Mode Choice Behaviour: social, economic, cultural,

Soft Computing Mode Choice Model

& DisAggregate Model

environmental factors. Methods of Collecting Travel Behaviour Data: Household survey,

The random components of the utilities of the different alternatives are independent & identically distributed.Maintains homogeneity in responsiveness to attributes of alternatives across individuals. The Error variance covariance structure of the alternative is identical across individuals.

survey, Destination survey,

ModellingChoiceMode

It is a closed form distribution that allows for various levels of correlation among the unobserved part of utility across alternatives.

Fused neuro fuzzy architecture let ANN learning algorithms to determine the parameters of Fuzzy Inference System.NF system share data Structures & knowledge representation.

What is Mode Choice Modelling?

Aggregate

SCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) II SEM APPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE OF VIJAYAWADA CITY 50 • 50 intracity routes has been taken for base year modelling. • 78 wards has been clubbed into 28 TAZs, Zones considered are too big. • The outgrowths have not been considered but they have a huge dependency on our study area. • Lower occupancy ratio has been estimated due to above two mentioned reasons. • Modelled occupancy rate and observed occupancy rate are shown for the routes which have atleast 80% coverage within municipal boundary. • Trip Length Frequency Distribution curve is generated from the old survey data. • Total number of bus routes considered for PT modelling are 50 based on the frequency. • This is due to limitation of routes in the VISUM software. • Major service routes are along MG road, Eluru road and Basent road. LIMITATIONS OPERATIONAL PT ROUTES PT DEMAND MODELLING 22006000512200600054BhargavaShashank

SCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) II SEM APPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE OF VIJAYAWADA CITY 51 OVERLAPPED PT ROUTES PT DEMAND MODELLING 2200600054Bhargava

SCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) II SEM APPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE OF VIJAYAWADA CITY 52 PT SUPPLY : HEADWAY NO.S. ROUTENO ROUTE ( From - To ) LENGTHTRIP OFNUMBERTOTALTRIPS HEADWAY 1 1P IBRAHIMPATNAM PORANKI(v) Rly Stn & Mahathma Gandhi Rd 32 78 20 2 3 KABELA GOVT.PRESS (v) Chittinagar & Apsara 10 240 7 3 3D MILK PROJECT DEVINAGAR (v) Chittinagar 12 36 35 4 5 KABELA AUTONAGAR (v) Vdpm & Besent Road 16 128 10 5 5G K.R.MARKET AUTONAGAR via Besent Road 10 96 15 6 5HG H.B.COLONY AUTONAGAR via Besent Road 17 96 16 7 5SG RLY.STATION AUTONAGAR (v) Besent Road 10 96 15 8 5U URMILA NAGAR AUTONAGAR (v) Besent Road 16.5 96 35 9 7A K R MARKET/ PEDAPULIPAKA (v) MG.Road 13 36 45 10 7B K R MARKET YENAMALA KUDURU MAZID (v) MG.Road 12 40 40 11 7ST CITY BUS PORT TADIGADAPA (v) M.G.Road 12 100 17 12 10 RLY.STATION PENAMALURU (v) MG.Road 15 198 8 13 11 JNNURM COLONY AUTONAGAR (V) Elr Road 23 144 12 14 14S RWWS STPM COLONY MADURA NAGAR (v) Rly.Stn. 24 96 14 15 16V KR MARKET VOMBAY COLONY (v) Singh Nagar 10 76 18 16 16RR KR MARKET NEW RAJA RAJESWARI PET(v) Singh Nagar 10 120 14 17 23H H.B.COLONY PENAMALURU (V) Swathi & MG.Rd 23 102 16 18 31 J JNNURM COLONY AUTONAGAR (V) MG Rd 17 240 7 19 47V RLY.STN MANGALAGIRI (V) PNBS & Varadhi 19 168 8 20 54 RLY.STATION AUTONAGAR (V) Elr Road (6 +1 HB) 16 96 12 21 55 KR MARKET KANURU (V) MG.Road 12 100 16 22 55S RAILWAY STATION KANURU (V) MG.Road 12 100 16 23 77s RLY.STATION RAMAVARAPADU (V) Kristhuraj Puram 10 120 15 24 112A MUSTABADA K.R.MARKET (V) Nunna 25 24 20 25 116 K R MARKET GANNAVARAM (V) Rly Stn & Elr Rd 25 111 15 NO.S. ROUTENO ROUTE ( From - To ) LENGTHTRIP OFNUMBERTOTALTRIPS HEADWAY 26 121 RLY.STATION VANUKURU MADDURU(V) MG.Rd 26 36 30 27 122 KR.MARKET VANUKURU MADDURU (V) MG.Rd 26 36 30 28 144 KONDAPALLI AUTONAGAR (V) IBM & MG. Rd. 34 100 20 29 145 KONDAPALLI NIDAMANURU (V) IBM & ELR. Rd. 39 70 20 30 203K KR MARKET KUNDERU (V) MG.Rd,Kankipadu 28 36 45 31 208 KR MARKET NUZVID (V) Agiripalli & Nunna 50 18 40 32 209 VUYYURU KR MARKET THOTLAVALLURUVALLURUPALEM 42 46 45 33 218 PNBS MYLAVARAM (V) Milk Project,Velagaleru 44 56 45 34 220 KR MARKET TENNERU(V) Elr.Rd,Uppuluru 29 48 40 35 222S RAILWAY STATION VUYYURU via M.G.Road 32 60 30 36 241 PNBS GANNAVARAM KANKIPADU(v) Uppuluru 16 96 20 37 252 KR MARKET H. JUNCTION (v)ELR Road (HB) 45 56 35 38 48KR KANDRIKA/RAJIV NAGAR AUTONAGA (V) MG Rd (17+1 HB) 16 340 6 39 252B KR MARKET H.JUNCTION(v)MG Road,GVRM 45 49 45 40 301 PNBS AMARAVATHI(v)(3+1HB)Undavalli,Thulluru 52 32 20 41 350 VIJAYAWADAIbrahimpatnamMYLAVARAM(v) 44 66 22 42 116_Exp CITY TERMINAL GVRM(V) Rly.Stn & Elr Rd. 25 112 12 43 150 KONDAPALLI KANKIPADU (V) IBM & MG. Rd. 44 56 40 44 188 KONDAPALLI GANNAVARAM (V) IBM & ELR. Rd. 50 42 35 45 222 KR MARKET VUYYURU(V)MG.Rd,Kankipadu 32 64 20 46 252B_Exp KR MARKET H.JUNCTION(v)MG Road,GVRM 45 42 15 47 301_Exp PNBS AMARAVATHI(v) Undavalli,Thulluru 54 100 15 48 333 KR MARKET PAMARRU (v) Rly.Stn,Besant Rd 46 54 15 49 350_Ex p VIJAYAWADA MYLAVARAM(v) Ibrahimpatnam 44 120 22 50 7R K R MARKET YANAMALAKUDURU (v) MG.Road 12 40 35 PT DEMAND MODELLING 22006000452200600054BhargavaKrushna

SCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) II SEM APPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE OF VIJAYAWADA CITY 53 ZONING & PREDOMINANT LANDUSE • The purpose of zoning is to study the travel characteristics between the zones and the availability of bus stops falling in that zone. • Zones with its numbers and boundary are created on the basis of predominant land use of some wards. • total number of wards we have are 78. • Total number of zones created are 28. • Above map shows Bus Routes and zone wise Existing Predominant Land Use. • The areas which are far from the core part of the city with agriculture land use are not being served well with PT. PT DEMAND MODELLING 22006000502200600051ShashankSanskriti

SCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) II SEM APPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE OF VIJAYAWADA CITY 54 Population and Population Density are determinants of Public Transport Demand. Intensity of such determinants helps to gauge the intensity of demand for Public Transport , higher the population or population density or commercial land use will generate and attract more number of trips, to capture maximum trips to PT, Public Transport Supply. Should be governed by these Demand Determinants. BUS ROUTES & TOTAL POPULATION • Above map shows Bus Routes and zone wise distribution of population according to 2021 Census of Vijayawada Municipal Area. • Highly populated wards in northwest, center and southern have high route density, while populated north wards have less route density. PT DEMAND MODELLING 22006000512200600054BhargavaShashank

SCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) II SEM APPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE OF VIJAYAWADA CITY 55 • Above map shows Bus Routes and zone wise distribution of population density according to 2021 Census of Vijayawada Municipal Area. • Highly dense wards are located at core of city and have high route density and PT Accessibility BUS ROUTES & POPULATION DENSITY PT DEMAND MODELLING 22006000512200600054BhargavaShashank

• The TAZs 13, 9, 8, 17,and 20 have very good connectivity to the CBD of Vijayawada via public transport.

• Light colors represent the places with good PuT accessibility, from where you can reach the CBD quickly using the public transport.

• This is a concern especially for TAZ 28, where the population density is more than 400 PPH.

• The Isochrones was prepared using Visum, with the bus stops, bus routes, bus time table, nodes, links, TAZs, etc. as input.

ISOCHRONES MAP PT DEMAND

SCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) II SEM APPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION :

A CASE OF VIJAYAWADA CITY 56

• The Isochrones map represents the travel time required to reach the CBD of Vijayawada city from the various parts of the city when using public transport (bus).

• As per the map TAZ 26 and 28 have areas that are relatively less connected to CBD through public transport.

• The average speed of public transport is assumed to be 30 kmph. MODELLING

• TAZ 12 is taken as the CBD of Vijayawada city. This zone has a predominant commercial land use. Also, this zone contains 3 major bus depots of the city.

22006000452200600054BhargavaKrushna

SCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) II SEM APPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE OF VIJAYAWADA CITY 57 TRIP GENERATION: TAZ Wards 2021 (Base Year) Population Total Trips (PCTR - 1.02) PT Bus Bound Trips (31.5% of Total Trips) 1 56, 57 ,58,62 ,63, 64 ,65 ,66, 67 ,68, 69, 70,71,72, 73, 74 96,351 98,278 30,958 2 41, 61 125,392 127,900 40,288 3 54 ,55 28,969 29,548 9,308 4 35, 37, 39 14,499 14,788 4,658 5 40 30,430 31,038 9,777 6 59 21,866 22,303 7,025 7 60 5,997 6,117 1,927 8 34, 36, 38 9,141 9,323 2,937 9 13 970 989 312 10 33 7,402 7,550 2,378 11 45 ,51, 52 13,606 13,878 4,372 12 14,26, 27,28, 29 19,763 20,158 6,350 13 11, 12, 15 19,074 19,455 6,128 14 16, 17, 18 30,004 30,604 9,640 15 21 ,22, 23,25 101,486 103,516 32,607 16 32, 46,47, 50, 53 70,362 71,769 22,607 17 24, 30 ,31 71,773 73,208 23,061 18 48 16,153 16,476 5,190 19 20 42,711 43,565 13,723 20 4,9 87,614 89,366 28,150 21 1, 10,75 101,845 103,882 32,723 22 5, 6, 7, 8 113,708 115,982 36,534 23 42 86,690 88,424 27,854 24 19 21,301 21,727 6,844 25 2, 3, 76 91,708 93,542 29,466 26 44, 49 19,073 19,454 6,128 27 43 20,048 20,448 6,441 28 77,78 125,600 128,112 40,355 1,393,532 1,421,403 447,742 PT ModeBus share from CMP 2017 31.5% PCTR from CMP 2017 1.02 TAZ Wards Predominant Land Use % ProductioTripn2021 AttractioTripn2021 1 56, 57 ,58,62 ,63, 64 ,65 ,66, 67 ,68, 69, 70,71,72, 73, 74 residential 0.0293 30958 13105 2 41, 61 watercourse 0.0098 40288 4368 3 54 ,55 industrial 0.0780 9308 34946 4 35, 37, 39 residential 0.0488 4658 21841 5 40 residential 0.0683 9777 30577 6 59 residential 0.0293 7025 13105 7 60 public and semi public 0.0683 1927 30577 8 34, 36, 38 public and semi public 0.0683 2937 30577 9 13 public and semi public 0.0683 312 30577 10 33 residential 0.0195 2378 8736 11 45 ,51, 52 residential 0.0195 4372 8736 12 14,26, 27,28, 29 commercial 0.0976 6350 43682 13 11, 12, 15 commercial 0.0976 6128 43682 14 16, 17, 18 residential 0.0195 9640 8736 15 21 ,22, 23,25 residential 0.0293 32607 13105 16 32, 46,47, 50, 53 hilly and forest 0.0049 22607 2184 17 24, 30 ,31 residential 0.0293 23061 13105 18 48 residential 0.0293 5190 13105 19 20 agriculture 0.0049 13723 2184 20 4,9 hilly and forest 0.0049 28150 2184 21 1, 10,75 watercourse 0.0098 32723 4368 22 5, 6, 7, 8 residential 0.0098 36534 4368 23 42 residential 0.0293 27854 13105 24 19 residential 0.0195 6844 8736 25 2, 3, 76 industrial 0.0683 29466 30577 26 44, 49 agriculture 0.0049 6128 2184 27 43 agriculture 0.0049 6441 2184 28 77,78 residential 0.0293 40355 13105 1.0000 447,742 447742 • The ward wise projected population for the year 2021 was aggregated for the TAZs • The Per Capita Trip Rate (PCTR) of Vijayawada city (CMP 2017) was used to generate the total trips produced in each zone. • The mode share from CMP 2017 was used to find the PT trips from the total trips and this trip was taken as the Trips Produced (TP). PT DEMAND MODELLING 2200600039Darsan

SCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) II SEM APPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE OF VIJAYAWADA CITY 58 TRIP DISTRIBUTION: Trip Length (km) Sample number of trips Total trips accordingdistributedtosampledistribution % distribution Model - number of trips % distribution % Variations Intrazonal or 0 56 33078.5 0.0738 74493.35 0.1663 0.0925 0 2 100 59068.8 0.1319 102971.86 0.2299 0.098 2 4 299 176615.8 0.3944 160433.17 0.3583 0.0361 4 6 153 90375.3 0.2018 70827.83 0.1581 0.0437 6 8 115 67929.1 0.1517 32860.93 0.0733 0.0784 8 10 34 20083.4 0.0448 5983.1 0.0133 0.0315 10 12 1 590.6 0.0013 170.73 0.0003 0.001 758 447,742 1 447740.97 1 0.250.150.0500.10.2 0.3 0.450.350.4 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 (%)frequencyTrip Trip Length (km) PT-TLFD Curve Sample OD Modelled OD Average Trip Length Observed (Sample) 3.73 km Modelled 3.02 km As per CMP 2017 4.4 km Gravity Parameter:Calibration ❖ The observed TLFD was obtained from the sample from boarding alighting survey. ❖ The Modelled TLFD was constructed using: ❖ The skim matrix (distance) from visum network ❖ Modelled OD matrix ❖ Trip distribution was done using using gravity method in visum procedure which uses: ❖ TLFD ❖ Trip production and Trip Attractions ❖ Skim matrix (distance ❖ The output from the trip distribution was the Modelled PT OD Matrix • ‘Double constrained balancing by multi procedure’ feature was used In Visum PT DEMAND MODELLING 2200600039Darsan

SCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) II SEM APPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE OF VIJAYAWADA CITY 59 TAZs Z1 Z2 Z3 Z4 Z5 Z6 Z7 Z8 Z9 Z10 Z11 Z12 Z13 Z14 Z15 Z16 Z17 Z18 Z19 Z20 Z21 Z22 Z23 Z24 Z25 Z26 Z27 Z28 Z1 0.00 3.99 2.11 3.08 2.11 1.35 3.34 3.68 6.88 4.15 5.07 4.95 6.92 7.62 5.80 4.07 5.14 4.36 8.29 9.06 8.72 9.06 7.59 8.59 10.85 7.03 10.34 10.01 Z2 3.99 0.00 4.27 1.39 1.98 3.35 2.63 1.10 2.57 2.27 5.05 2.29 3.31 4.00 3.88 3.21 3.22 5.50 6.21 5.44 5.11 5.44 6.19 4.97 7.23 7.29 8.95 8.61 Z3 2.11 4.27 0.00 3.35 2.38 0.87 1.93 3.96 7.15 3.60 2.69 5.23 7.20 6.60 4.76 2.47 4.66 1.62 7.68 9.33 9.00 9.33 6.98 7.66 9.63 4.63 9.09 8.49 Z4 3.08 1.39 3.35 0.00 1.00 2.43 1.22 0.64 3.28 1.13 3.94 1.90 3.32 3.84 2.78 1.79 2.11 4.59 5.05 5.46 5.34 5.46 4.34 4.92 7.25 6.18 7.10 6.76 Z5 2.11 1.98 2.38 1.00 0.00 1.47 1.15 1.61 4.25 2.00 4.32 2.87 4.29 4.81 3.65 1.95 2.99 3.62 5.92 6.43 6.31 6.43 5.22 5.89 8.22 6.28 7.98 7.64 Z6 1.35 3.35 0.87 2.43 1.47 0.00 1.45 3.04 6.24 3.11 3.08 4.31 6.28 6.97 5.15 1.98 4.09 2.37 7.03 8.42 8.08 8.41 6.32 7.95 10.21 5.03 9.08 8.93 Z7 3.34 2.63 1.93 1.22 1.15 1.45 0.00 1.76 4.67 1.55 3.47 3.09 4.36 4.39 3.20 1.08 2.54 3.20 5.47 6.49 5.98 6.49 4.77 5.45 7.42 5.42 7.53 7.19 Z8 3.68 1.10 3.96 0.64 1.61 3.04 1.76 0.00 2.64 0.92 4.06 1.27 2.69 3.21 2.89 2.18 1.99 5.19 4.72 4.82 4.70 4.82 4.02 4.28 6.61 6.30 6.78 6.44 Z9 6.52 2.90 6.79 3.14 4.11 5.87 4.53 2.49 0.00 3.10 6.43 1.69 0.73 2.04 3.93 4.47 3.52 7.45 4.67 2.72 1.99 2.53 4.66 2.86 4.51 7.74 7.41 7.08 Z10 4.15 2.27 3.60 1.13 2.00 3.11 1.55 0.92 3.10 0.00 2.99 1.88 3.01 2.66 1.82 1.81 0.92 4.94 3.74 5.23 4.72 5.22 3.04 3.72 5.69 5.23 5.80 5.46 Z11 5.07 5.05 2.69 3.94 4.32 3.08 3.47 4.06 6.51 2.99 0.00 5.22 5.98 4.83 2.99 1.90 2.90 1.71 5.91 7.42 7.98 7.52 5.21 5.89 7.86 2.87 7.15 6.54 Z12 4.95 2.29 5.23 1.90 2.87 4.31 3.09 1.27 1.78 1.87 5.22 0.00 1.77 1.44 3.12 3.24 2.29 6.24 3.94 3.90 3.39 3.90 3.92 2.89 4.97 6.53 6.67 6.34 Z13 6.92 3.31 7.20 3.32 4.29 6.28 4.36 2.69 0.73 3.01 5.98 1.77 0.00 1.38 3.20 4.38 3.78 7.00 3.94 1.68 2.05 1.68 3.92 2.05 3.47 7.29 6.68 6.34 Z14 7.62 4.00 6.60 3.84 4.81 6.97 4.39 3.21 2.04 2.66 4.83 1.44 1.38 0.00 1.81 3.79 2.64 5.85 2.55 2.17 4.01 1.98 2.54 1.97 3.96 6.14 2.51 4.72 Z15 5.80 3.88 4.76 2.78 3.65 5.15 3.20 2.89 4.02 1.82 2.99 3.12 3.20 1.81 0.00 2.28 0.80 4.01 2.27 4.54 5.48 4.36 1.56 2.97 4.97 4.30 4.32 3.98 Z16 4.07 3.21 2.47 1.79 1.95 1.98 1.08 2.18 4.47 1.81 1.90 3.25 4.38 3.79 2.28 0.00 1.15 3.31 4.87 6.38 6.09 6.48 4.17 4.85 6.82 3.60 6.93 6.59 Z17 5.14 3.22 4.66 2.11 2.99 4.09 2.54 1.99 3.52 0.92 2.90 2.30 3.78 2.64 0.80 1.15 0.00 3.92 3.72 5.23 5.14 5.32 3.01 3.70 5.66 4.21 5.77 5.43 Z18 4.36 5.50 1.62 4.59 3.62 2.37 3.20 5.19 7.53 4.94 1.71 6.24 7.00 5.85 4.01 3.31 3.92 0.00 6.93 8.44 9.00 8.54 6.23 6.91 8.88 3.33 7.87 7.26 Z19 8.29 6.21 7.68 5.05 5.92 7.03 5.47 4.72 4.77 3.74 5.91 3.94 3.94 2.55 2.27 4.87 3.72 6.93 0.00 2.93 5.42 2.61 2.61 2.66 2.97 7.22 5.36 5.03 Z20 8.91 5.29 9.18 5.31 6.28 8.27 6.34 4.67 2.23 5.07 7.42 3.75 1.68 2.17 4.54 6.38 5.23 8.44 2.93 0.00 2.72 1.35 5.26 2.71 1.48 8.73 8.02 7.28 Z21 8.72 5.11 9.00 5.34 6.31 8.08 5.98 4.70 1.91 4.72 7.97 3.39 2.05 3.80 5.47 6.09 5.14 8.99 5.42 2.72 0.00 3.88 6.19 4.35 2.34 9.28 8.95 8.61 Z22 9.20 5.59 9.48 5.60 6.57 8.56 6.64 4.97 2.53 5.37 7.52 4.05 1.68 1.98 4.36 6.48 5.32 8.54 2.61 1.35 3.88 0.00 3.10 2.31 2.65 7.04 2.85 5.05 Z23 7.59 6.19 6.98 4.34 5.22 6.32 4.77 4.02 4.75 3.04 5.21 3.92 3.92 2.54 1.56 4.17 3.01 6.23 2.61 5.26 6.20 3.10 0.00 2.52 5.70 2.62 2.56 1.95 Z24 8.78 5.16 7.66 5.02 5.90 7.01 5.45 4.47 2.86 3.72 5.89 2.89 2.05 1.97 2.97 4.85 3.70 6.91 2.66 2.71 4.60 2.31 2.52 0.00 2.90 6.46 2.27 4.47 Z25 10.70 7.08 9.63 7.10 8.07 10.05 7.42 6.46 4.02 5.69 7.86 4.97 3.47 3.96 4.97 6.82 5.66 8.88 2.97 1.48 2.34 2.65 5.70 2.90 0.00 9.17 7.94 7.33 Z26 7.03 7.29 4.63 6.18 6.28 5.03 5.42 6.30 7.82 5.23 2.87 6.53 7.29 6.14 4.30 3.60 4.21 3.33 7.22 8.73 9.28 7.04 2.62 6.46 9.17 0.00 4.94 3.20 Z27 10.34 8.95 9.09 7.10 7.98 9.08 7.53 6.78 7.50 5.80 7.15 6.67 6.68 2.51 4.32 6.93 5.77 7.80 5.36 8.02 8.96 2.85 2.56 2.27 7.94 4.94 0.00 1.85 Z28 10.01 8.61 8.49 6.76 7.64 8.93 7.19 6.44 7.17 5.46 6.54 6.34 6.34 4.72 3.98 6.59 5.43 7.19 5.03 7.28 8.62 5.05 1.95 4.47 7.33 3.20 1.85 0.00 Skim Matrix (Distance): PT DEMAND MODELLING 2200600039Darsan

SCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) II SEM APPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE OF VIJAYAWADA CITY 60 TAZs Z1 Z2 Z3 Z4 Z5 Z6 Z7 Z8 Z9 Z10 Z11 Z12 Z13 Z14 Z15 Z16 Z17 Z18 Z19 Z20 Z21 Z22 Z23 Z24 Z25 Z26 Z27 Z28 TP Z1 11031 118 6247 1405 3502 2138 1915 1406 193 247 387 894 225 33 111 76 200 738 1 0 10 4 36 11 7 15 2 8 30960 Z2 815 3457 5348 2343 5840 2862 3193 2345 3431 412 645 2759 3809 285 183 126 277 1230 12 8 360 71 103 101 219 25 6 24 40289 Z3 155 19 4087 312 777 875 1005 312 43 84 404 198 50 14 48 44 65 770 0 0 2 1 13 6 3 16 1 5 9309 Z4 36 9 319 760 689 171 631 748 136 130 53 476 159 25 59 27 105 73 0 0 6 3 21 10 5 2 1 5 4659 Z5 127 31 1138 986 2498 609 1417 987 180 180 137 627 210 33 81 54 146 262 1 0 8 3 30 13 6 5 2 7 9778 Z6 120 23 1973 376 937 1029 972 376 52 81 207 239 60 9 30 43 66 396 0 0 3 1 13 6 2 8 1 3 7026 Z7 13 3 276 169 266 118 494 176 28 44 33 108 39 8 20 16 35 62 0 0 2 1 7 3 2 1 0 2 1926 Z8 17 4 150 352 325 80 308 668 122 93 32 424 142 22 35 14 72 35 0 0 5 2 16 7 4 0 1 4 2934 Z9 1 1 6 16 15 3 12 30 76 5 2 55 63 5 3 1 5 2 0 0 4 1 2 2 2 0 0 0 312 Z10 12 3 163 247 239 70 309 374 87 134 50 279 108 27 55 16 112 35 1 0 5 2 24 11 6 1 1 6 2377 Z11 29 7 1210 155 281 276 356 199 40 77 613 134 63 23 80 40 108 622 0 0 2 2 21 9 5 10 2 8 4372 Z12 22 10 196 460 424 105 390 871 474 143 44 2035 569 139 79 21 154 51 2 1 27 9 43 42 25 2 2 10 6350 Z13 10 24 89 279 257 48 255 528 1021 100 38 1031 1771 135 95 15 90 43 6 4 67 36 54 49 67 2 3 12 6129 Z14 14 17 241 423 390 66 497 800 783 237 134 2415 1290 725 384 39 322 153 9 6 48 34 216 183 99 11 48 56 9640 Z15 113 27 1986 2346 2267 544 2932 3019 1193 1168 1101 3276 2177 918 3124 271 2649 1263 18 12 73 68 1142 351 196 51 61 262 32608 Z16 132 32 3089 1860 2604 1329 4178 2085 455 565 927 1466 568 159 465 419 1061 867 3 2 26 13 144 64 36 18 8 33 22608 Z17 93 19 1218 1926 1861 546 2407 2800 901 1083 675 2905 943 351 1210 283 2331 775 7 5 51 28 317 141 80 16 17 73 23062 Z18 35 8 1465 136 340 334 431 136 29 35 395 97 46 17 59 23 79 1459 0 0 2 1 15 7 4 28 1 7 5189 Z19 11 25 195 305 281 52 402 578 1427 192 108 1514 2260 352 291 32 261 124 939 149 67 425 164 909 2494 23 24 118 13722 Z20 23 51 404 631 582 108 832 1195 2952 397 224 3132 4676 727 602 65 539 257 476 1537 139 880 339 1880 5159 48 50 244 28149 Z21 46 249 415 1155 1064 222 1293 2192 6496 486 158 5224 7212 540 347 71 524 181 23 15 2238 134 195 190 1990 9 10 45 32724 Z22 43 98 496 1210 1115 208 1108 2291 5660 487 275 4477 8964 892 738 80 661 315 283 184 267 1871 415 1120 3072 28 29 145 36532 Z23 65 27 917 1510 1460 428 1888 2433 1184 900 508 3126 2160 911 2015 148 1223 583 18 12 73 68 3667 637 194 411 218 1072 27856 Z24 8 10 165 271 262 77 339 450 468 161 91 1236 795 310 250 27 219 105 40 26 29 73 257 591 430 15 64 75 6844 Z25 14 58 241 376 347 65 496 713 1760 236 134 1867 2787 434 359 39 321 153 281 182 773 519 202 1109 15801 28 29 143 29467 Z26 30 7 1262 117 293 287 372 107 59 41 374 155 107 51 100 28 94 1176 3 2 4 5 454 40 30 751 31 150 6130 Z27 10 4 196 233 225 66 291 375 183 139 119 482 333 585 311 23 189 165 7 5 11 14 627 459 81 80 513 716 6442 Z28 64 26 1431 1477 1428 381 1847 2381 1158 880 867 3058 2113 1007 1971 145 1196 1205 54 35 71 101 4568 790 587 579 1059 9873 40352 TA 13089 4367 34923 21836 30569 13097 30570 30575 30591 8737 8735 43689 43699 8737 13105 2186 13104 13100 2184 2185 4373 4370 13105 8741 30606 2183 2184 13106 447746 TRIP DISTRIBUTION: Modelled PT-OD Matrix PT DEMAND MODELLING 2200600039Darsan

SCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) II SEM MODE CHOICE MODEL, METHODOLOGY APPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE OF VIJAYAWADA CITY SUNIL2200600052KUSHTGI 61 SuggestingMETHODOLOMODELGYfunctional relationship from the theory Estimation of choice model Refine model, goodness of fit, variable selection etc. Refine model, goodness of fit, variable selection etc. assumptionmodelWeathermetthe s? Implement if Appropriate Try specificationalternativeto the model YES NO General methodology in Mode choice equation The nested logit model allows the analyst to specify a structure that group alternatives which share some common characteristics into nest, where each alternative is allowed to belong to one and only nest. With in each nest, the un measured parts of the utilities are allowed to correlate, but not across the nest. Thus, it allows the IIA(independent of irrelevant alternatives ) property to hold with in nests, but not across nests. Scenario: We have collected the trips sample with mode preferences based on travel time, travel cost within the Vijayawada and following utility equation and probabilities we got using the Nlogit software. Utility equations: U(TW) = iTW*INC + ttTW *TT + tcTW *TC + CTW U(CAR) = iCAR*INC + ttCAR TT + tcCAR *TC + CCAR U(AUTO) = iAUTO*INC + ttAUTO*TT + tcAUTO *TC + CAUTO U(BUS) = iBUS*INC + ttBUS *TT + tcBUS *TC + CBUS Probabilities : P(TW)=eU(TW)/( eU(TW)+ eU(CAR)+ eU(AUTO)+ eU(BUS)) P(CAR)=eU(CAR)/( eU(TW)+ eU(CAR)+ eU(AUTO)+ eU(BUS)) P(AUTO)=eU(AUTO)/( eU(TW)+ eU(CAR)+ eU(AUTO)+ eU(BUS)) P(BUS)=eU(BUS)/( eU(TW)+ eU(CAR)+ eU(AUTO)+ eU(BUS)) Determinants from the choice equation: Determinants of the choice equation Accuracy squareR- RAdjusted-square Log likelihood 89% 0.65 0.622 28.268 variables coeff 2W iTW -0.401 ttTW 0.008 tcTW 0.094 CTW 1.715 CAR iCAR 1.640 ttCAR -7.277 tcCAR 0.745 CCAR 5.069 AUTO iAUTO 0.643 ttAUTO -0.213 tcAUTO 0.097 CAUTO 9.219 BUS iBUS 0.596 ttBUS 0.014 tcBUS 0.035 CBUS 2.435 MODE CHOICE MODELLING USING MULTINOMIAL LOGIT MODEL

The present Model is satisfied for all the conditions and it is statistically significant but the model is over estimating mode predictions that is may be due to biased samples hence the Mode share for PT is adopted from CMP Vijayawada 2017 as 31.6%(PT),

Statistical significance:

SCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) II SEM MODE CHOICE MODEL, RESULTS & FINDINGS APPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE OF VIJAYAWADA CITY SUNIL2200600052KUSHTGI 62 MODE CHOICE MODELLING USING MULTINOMIAL LOGIT MODEL RESULTS AND FINDINGS The tables are the various findings and results obtained from the model Scenario-3,4 & 5 are shifting two wheeler, car & auto rickshaw (IPT) users to BUS (PT) mode

Here negative coefficient of the variables indicates that, if that corresponding parameter value decreases then the probability of given respective mode increases.

SCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) II SEM APPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE OF VIJAYAWADA CITY 63 TRIP ASSIGNMENTImpedance: Parameters Coefficient Attribute 1 In vehicle time 1 PuT Aux ride time 5 Access time 5 Egress time 9 Walk time 1 Origin wait time 1 Transfer wait time 15min Number of transfers 0min Number of operator changes 0 Extended impedance Trip Assignment variant used in Visum : Time-Table based • The trip assignment was done using ‘PuT Assignment’ function is visum. • The modelling was performed using: • Modelled OD Matrix • PuT Timetable • Impedance Parameters • Network (links, nodes, bus stops, zones. Connectors) • The output were: • The PuT person trips map (on the right) • PuT Indicators such as Occupancy Ratio (OR), Passenger trips, Vehicle trips, Passenger km, etc • The PuT assignment method in visum assigns the PuT trips in such a way that minimize the impedances. The best route is chosen from the available options considering the impedances given below. PT DEMAND MODEL FOR BASE YEAR PT DEMAND MODELLING 22006000502200600039DarsanSanskriti

SCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) II SEM APPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE OF VIJAYAWADA CITY 64 Route Dir. Length Trips Serv. Km Base year - BAU 2021 Evaluation Pas. Km Pas. Trips Modelled OR Observed OR Perc Var. % 11 > 20.32 80.00 1625.28 121023.70 25154 86.99489 52 34.9949 11 < 20.10 80.00 1608.08 33683.36 12341 16RR > 7.38 66.00 487.34 4133.96 1619 35.6117 60 24.3883 16RR < 7.82 67.00 523.87 15672.13 4873 16V > 9.09 49.00 445.21 3603.36 1202 25.97647 49 23.02353 16V < 9.52 50.00 476.05 9558.77 3123 3 > 9.48 150.00 1421.25 92827.84 26544 102.8905 59 43.8905 3 < 9.42 153.00 1440.64 69126.09 20738 3D > 10.27 29.00 297.97 11291.58 6622 106.1659 53 53.1659 3D < 10.22 29.00 296.26 23406.67 8604 48RK > 12.12 184.00 2229.16 179598.46 41066 80.42798 62 18.428 48RK < 12.12 178.00 2156.47 14401.58 6704 54 > 13.72 95.00 1303.40 46151.73 11345 49.87634 56 6.12366 54 < 13.53 95.00 1285.35 24862.83 10103 5U > 16.02 28.00 448.67 43228.06 10526 104.9481 52 52.9481 5U < 15.96 31.00 494.91 11237.10 5845 7B > 8.34 21.00 175.18 11476.29 3939 134.9763 48 86.9763 7B < 8.78 21.00 184.32 15211.78 5399 7R > 8.34 23.00 191.87 12258.78 4128 136.5868 39 97.5868 7R < 8.78 23.00 201.87 17319.76 6347 BASE YEAR MODEL VALIDATION: PT DEMAND MODELLING 22006000502200600039DarsanSanskriti

SCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) II SEM APPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE OF VIJAYAWADA CITY 65 SCENARIO BUILDING: Year Mode Share Business As Usual (BAU) Scenario 1 (Desired Mode Share as per City Size, MoUD 1998) Scenario mode(Modelled2share) Base Year 2021 31.5 Horizon Year 2031 31.5 65 41 2041 31.5 65 41 TAZ Wards 2021 (Base Year) BAU 2031 BAU 2041 Pop. Total Trips (PCTR - 1.02) PT Bus Bound Trips (31.5% of Total Trips) Pop. Total Trips (PCTR - 1.02) PT Bus Bound Trips (31.5% of Total Trips) Pop. Total Trips (PCTR - 1.02) PT Bus Bound Trips (31.5% of Total Trips) 1 56, 57 ,58,62 ,63, 64 ,65 ,66, 67 ,68, 69, 70,71,72, 73, 74 96351 98278 30958 149182 152165 47932 246383 251311 79163 2 41, 61 125392 127900 40288 135936 138655 43676 146480 149410 47064 3 54 ,55 28969 29548 9308 45109 46011 14493 70362 71769 22607 4 35, 37, 39 14499 14788 4658 14982 15281 4814 15497 15807 4979 5 40 30430 31038 9777 35678 36392 11463 41832 42669 13441 6 59 21866 22303 7025 31090 31712 9989 44206 45090 14204 7 60 5997 6117 1927 7035 7176 2260 8073 8234 2594 8 34, 36, 38 9141 9323 2937 8493 8663 2729 7846 8002 2521 9 13 970 989 312 823 839 264 698 712 224 10 33 7402 7550 2378 8087 8249 2598 8835 9012 2839 11 45 ,51, 52 13606 13878 4372 18532 18902 5954 25372 25879 8152 12 14,26, 27,28, 29 19763 20158 6350 15641 15954 5025 11519 11749 3701 13 11, 12, 15 19074 19455 6128 17319 17665 5565 15565 15876 5001 14 16, 17, 18 30004 30604 9640 31058 31679 9979 32573 33225 10466 15 21 ,22, 23,25 101486 103516 32607 162157 165400 52101 273620 279092 87914 16 32, 46,47, 50, 53 70362 71769 22607 81864 83501 26303 93366 95233 29998 17 24, 30 ,31 71773 73208 23061 143755 146630 46188 348193 355156 111874 18 48 16153 16476 5190 32922 33581 10578 67102 68444 21560 19 20 42711 43565 13723 53996 55076 17349 65282 66587 20975 20 4,9 87614 89366 28150 96602 98534 31038 105591 107702 33926 21 1, 10,75 101845 103882 32723 120398 122806 38684 138951 141730 44645 22 5, 6, 7, 8 113708 115982 36534 151813 154849 48777 204243 208328 65623 23 42 86690 88424 27854 152602 155654 49031 268627 274000 86310 24 19 21301 21727 6844 37149 37892 11936 64788 66084 20816 25 2, 3, 76 91708 93542 29466 160255 163460 51490 281187 286810 90345 26 44, 49 19073 19454 6128 21646 22079 6955 24219 24703 7782 27 43 20048 20448 6441 22649 23102 7277 25251 25756 8113 28 77,78 125600 128112 40355 257117 262259 82612 538997 549777 173180 1393532 1421403 447742 2013889 2054166 647062 3174657 3238150 1020017 • Once the base year model was validated, 6 scenarios were constructed using the ;project’ feature in Visum, as per the table (right side) • The projected population for the year 2031 & 2041 was used together with PCTR from CMP 2017, to obtain the total trips. • Using the mode share according to the respective scenarios, PT trips were calculated. Scenarios: PT Trip estimation Horizon BAU: PT DEMAND MODELLING 22006000502200600039DarsanSanskriti

SCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) II SEM APPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE OF VIJAYAWADA CITY 66 PT DEMAND MODELLING SCENARIO PT DEMAND MODEL: BAU 2031: BAU 2041: 2200600039Darsan

SCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) II SEM APPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE OF VIJAYAWADA CITY 67 TAZ Wards 2021 (Base Year) Scenario 1 - 2031 Scenario 1 -2041 Pop. Total Trips (PCTR - 1.02) PT BoundBusTrips(31.5%ofTotalTrips) Pop. Total Trips (PTCR - 1.02) PT Bus Bound Trips (65% of Total Trips) Pop. Total Trips (PTCR - 1.02) PT Bus Bound Trips (65% of Total Trips) 1 56, 57 ,58,62 ,63, 64 ,65 ,66, 67 ,68, 69, 70,71,72, 73, 74 96351 98278 30958 149182 152165 98907 246383 251311 163352 2 41, 61 125392 127900 40288 135936 138655 90126 146480 149410 97116 3 54 ,55 28969 29548 9308 45109 46011 29907 70362 71769 46650 4 35, 37, 39 14499 14788 4658 14982 15281 9933 15497 15807 10275 5 40 30430 31038 9777 35678 36392 23655 41832 42669 27735 6 59 21866 22303 7025 31090 31712 20613 44206 45090 29309 7 60 5997 6117 1927 7035 7176 4664 8073 8234 5352 8 34, 36, 38 9141 9323 2937 8493 8663 5631 7846 8002 5202 9 13 970 989 312 823 839 546 698 712 463 10 33 7402 7550 2378 8087 8249 5362 8835 9012 5858 11 45 ,51, 52 13606 13878 4372 18532 18902 12286 25372 25879 16822 12 14,26, 27,28, 29 19763 20158 6350 15641 15954 10370 11519 11749 7637 13 11, 12, 15 19074 19455 6128 17319 17665 11482 15565 15876 10319 14 16, 17, 18 30004 30604 9640 31058 31679 20591 32573 33225 21596 15 21 ,22, 23,25 101486 103516 32607 162157 165400 107510 273620 279092 181410 16 32, 46,47, 50, 53 70362 71769 22607 81864 83501 54276 93366 95233 61902 17 24, 30 ,31 71773 73208 23061 143755 146630 95309 348193 355156 230852 18 48 16153 16476 5190 32922 33581 21828 67102 68444 44489 19 20 42711 43565 13723 53996 55076 35799 65282 66587 43282 20 4,9 87614 89366 28150 96602 98534 64047 105591 107702 70007 21 1, 10,75 101845 103882 32723 120398 122806 79824 138951 141730 92125 22 5, 6, 7, 8 113708 115982 36534 151813 154849 100652 204243 208328 135413 23 42 86690 88424 27854 152602 155654 101175 268627 274000 178100 24 19 21301 21727 6844 37149 37892 24630 64788 66084 42954 25 2, 3, 76 91708 93542 29466 160255 163460 106249 281187 286810 186427 26 44, 49 19073 19454 6128 21646 22079 14351 24219 24703 16057 27 43 20048 20448 6441 22649 23102 15016 25251 25756 16741 28 77,78 125600 128112 40355 257117 262259 170468 538997 549777 357355 1393532 1421403 447742 2013889 2054166 1335208 3174657 3238150 2104797 PT Trip estimation Horizon years Scenario 1: PT DEMAND MODELLING 22006000502200600039DarsanSanskriti

SCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) II SEM APPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE OF VIJAYAWADA CITY 68 PT DEMAND MODELLING SCENARIO PT DEMAND MODEL: Scenario 2031: Scenario 2041: 2200600039Darsan

SCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) II SEM APPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE OF VIJAYAWADA CITY 69 PT Trip estimation - Horizon years – Scenario 2: TAZ Wards 2021 (Base Year) Scenario 2 -2031 Scenario 2 -2041 Pop. Total Trips (PCTR - 1.02) PT Total(31.5%BoundBusTripsofTrips) Pop. Total Trips (PTCR - 1.02) PT Bus Bound Trips (41% of Total Trips) Pop. Total Trips (PTCR - 1.02) PT Bus Bound Trips (41% of Total Trips) 1 56, 57 ,58,62 ,63, 64 ,65 ,66, 67 ,68, 69, 70,71,72, 73, 74 96351 98278 30958 149182 152165 62388 246383 251311 103038 2 41, 61 125392 127900 40288 135936 138655 56848 146480 149410 61258 3 54 ,55 28969 29548 9308 45109 46011 18864 70362 71769 29425 4 35, 37, 39 14499 14788 4658 14982 15281 6265 15497 15807 6481 5 40 30430 31038 9777 35678 36392 14921 41832 42669 17494 6 59 21866 22303 7025 31090 31712 13002 44206 45090 18487 7 60 5997 6117 1927 7035 7176 2942 8073 8234 3376 8 34, 36, 38 9141 9323 2937 8493 8663 3552 7846 8002 3281 9 13 970 989 312 823 839 344 698 712 292 10 33 7402 7550 2378 8087 8249 3382 8835 9012 3695 11 45 ,51, 52 13606 13878 4372 18532 18902 7750 25372 25879 10610 12 14,26, 27,28, 29 19763 20158 6350 15641 15954 6541 11519 11749 4817 13 11, 12, 15 19074 19455 6128 17319 17665 7243 15565 15876 6509 14 16, 17, 18 30004 30604 9640 31058 31679 12988 32573 33225 13622 15 21 ,22, 23,25 101486 103516 32607 162157 165400 67814 273620 279092 114428 16 32, 46,47, 50, 53 70362 71769 22607 81864 83501 34236 93366 95233 39046 17 24, 30 ,31 71773 73208 23061 143755 146630 60118 348193 355156 145614 18 48 16153 16476 5190 32922 33581 13768 67102 68444 28062 19 20 42711 43565 13723 53996 55076 22581 65282 66587 27301 20 4,9 87614 89366 28150 96602 98534 40399 105591 107702 44158 21 1, 10,75 101845 103882 32723 120398 122806 50350 138951 141730 58109 22 5, 6, 7, 8 113708 115982 36534 151813 154849 63488 204243 208328 85414 23 42 86690 88424 27854 152602 155654 63818 268627 274000 112340 24 19 21301 21727 6844 37149 37892 15536 64788 66084 27094 25 2, 3, 76 91708 93542 29466 160255 163460 67019 281187 286810 117592 26 44, 49 19073 19454 6128 21646 22079 9052 24219 24703 10128 27 43 20048 20448 6441 22649 23102 9472 25251 25756 10560 28 77,78 125600 128112 40355 257117 262259 107526 538997 549777 225408 1393532 1421403 447742 2013889 2054166 842208 3174657 3238150 1327641 PT DEMAND MODELLING 22006000502200600039DarsanSanskriti

SCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) II SEM APPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE OF VIJAYAWADA CITY 70 PT DEMAND MODELLING SCENARIO PT DEMAND MODEL: Scenario-2 2031: Scenario-2 2041: 2200600039Darsan

SCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) II SEM APPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE OF VIJAYAWADA CITY 71 SCENARIO BUILDING: • Using the PT Trips as trip production, the total trips produced were distributed as trips attracted, according to the weightage assigned earlier as per predominant land use. • This was performed for all the scenarios • This output from trip generation was given as input(modifications) of respective scenarios • The procedure sequences from the base model was run for each of the scenarios and various PuT indicators were obtained as output. Trip generation: BAU Base year 2021 BAU 2031 BAU 2041 TAZ Wards Predominant Land Use % T.P. T.A. T.P. T.A. T.P. T.A. 1 56, 57 ,58,62 ,63, 64 ,65 ,66, 67 ,68, 69, 70,71,72, 73, 74 residential 0.0293 30958 13105 47932 18938 79163 29854 2 41, 61 watercourse 0.0098 40288 4368 43676 6313 47064 9951 3 54 ,55 industrial 0.0780 9308 34946 14493 50502 22607 79611 4 35, 37, 39 residential 0.0488 4658 21841 4814 31564 4979 49757 5 40 residential 0.0683 9777 30577 11463 44190 13441 69660 6 59 residential 0.0293 7025 13105 9989 18938 14204 29854 7 60 public and semi public 0.0683 1927 30577 2260 44190 2594 69660 8 34, 36, 38 public and semi public 0.0683 2937 30577 2729 44190 2521 69660 9 13 public and semi public 0.0683 312 30577 264 44190 224 69660 10 33 residential 0.0195 2378 8736 2598 12626 2839 19903 11 45 ,51, 52 residential 0.0195 4372 8736 5954 12626 8152 19903 12 14,26, 27,28, 29 commercial 0.0976 6350 43682 5025 63128 3701 99514 13 11, 12, 15 commercial 0.0976 6128 43682 5565 63128 5001 99514 14 16, 17, 18 residential 0.0195 9640 8736 9979 12626 10466 19903 15 21 ,22, 23,25 residential 0.0293 32607 13105 52101 18938 87914 29854 16 32, 46,47, 50, 53 hilly and forest 0.0049 22607 2184 26303 3156 29998 4976 17 24, 30 ,31 residential 0.0293 23061 13105 46188 18938 111874 29854 18 48 residential 0.0293 5190 13105 10578 18938 21560 29854 19 20 agriculture 0.0049 13723 2184 17349 3156 20975 4976 20 4,9 hilly and forest 0.0049 28150 2184 31038 3156 33926 4976 21 1, 10,75 watercourse 0.0098 32723 4368 38684 6313 44645 9951 22 5, 6, 7, 8 residential 0.0098 36534 4368 48777 6313 65623 9951 23 42 residential 0.0293 27854 13105 49031 18938 86310 29854 24 19 residential 0.0195 6844 8736 11936 12626 20816 19903 25 2, 3, 76 industrial 0.0683 29466 30577 51490 44190 90345 69660 26 44, 49 agriculture 0.0049 6128 2184 6955 3156 7782 4976 27 43 agriculture 0.0049 6441 2184 7277 3156 8113 4976 28 77,78 residential 0.0293 40355 13105 82612 18938 173180 29854 TOTAL 1 447742 447742 647062 647062 1020017 1020017 PT DEMAND MODELLING 2200600039Darsan

SCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) II SEM APPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE OF VIJAYAWADA CITY 72 Trip generation: BAU Base year 2021 Scenario 1 - 2031 Scenario 1 - 2041 TAZ Wards Predominant Land Use % T.P. T.A. T.P. T.A. T.P. T.A. 1 56, 57 ,58,62 ,63, 64 ,65 ,66, 67 ,68, 69, 70,71,72, 73, 74 residential 0.0293 30958 13105 98907 39079 163352 61604 2 41, 61 watercourse 0.0098 40288 4368 90126 13026 97116 20535 3 54 ,55 industrial 0.0780 9308 34946 29907 104211 46650 164277 4 35, 37, 39 residential 0.0488 4658 21841 9933 65132 10275 102673 5 40 residential 0.0683 9777 30577 23655 91185 27735 143742 6 59 residential 0.0293 7025 13105 20613 39079 29309 61604 7 60 public and semi public 0.0683 1927 30577 4664 91185 5352 143742 8 34, 36, 38 public and semi public 0.0683 2937 30577 5631 91185 5202 143742 9 13 public and semi public 0.0683 312 30577 546 91185 463 143742 10 33 residential 0.0195 2378 8736 5362 26053 5858 41069 11 45 ,51, 52 residential 0.0195 4372 8736 12286 26053 16822 41069 12 14,26, 27,28, 29 commercial 0.0976 6350 43682 10370 130264 7637 205346 13 11, 12, 15 commercial 0.0976 6128 43682 11482 130264 10319 205346 14 16, 17, 18 residential 0.0195 9640 8736 20591 26053 21596 41069 15 21 ,22, 23,25 residential 0.0293 32607 13105 107510 39079 181410 61604 16 32, 46,47, 50, 53 hilly and forest 0.0049 22607 2184 54276 6513 61902 10267 17 24, 30 ,31 residential 0.0293 23061 13105 95309 39079 230852 61604 18 48 residential 0.0293 5190 13105 21828 39079 44489 61604 19 20 agriculture 0.0049 13723 2184 35799 6513 43282 10267 20 4,9 hilly and forest 0.0049 28150 2184 64047 6513 70007 10267 21 1, 10,75 watercourse 0.0098 32723 4368 79824 13026 92125 20535 22 5, 6, 7, 8 residential 0.0098 36534 4368 100652 13026 135413 20535 23 42 residential 0.0293 27854 13105 101175 39079 178100 61604 24 19 residential 0.0195 6844 8736 24630 26053 42954 41069 25 2, 3, 76 industrial 0.0683 29466 30577 106249 91185 186427 143742 26 44, 49 agriculture 0.0049 6128 2184 14351 6513 16057 10267 27 43 agriculture 0.0049 6441 2184 15016 6513 16741 10267 28 77,78 residential 0.0293 40355 13105 170468 39079 357355 61604 TOTAL 1 447742 447742 1335208 1335208 2104797 2104797 PT DEMAND MODELLING 2200600039Darsan

SCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) II SEM APPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE OF VIJAYAWADA CITY 73 Trip generation: BAU Base year 2021 Scenario 2 -2031 Scenario 2 -2041 TAZ Wards Predominant Land Use % T.P. T.A. T.P. T.A. T.P. T.A. 1 56, 57 ,58,62 ,63, 64 ,65 ,66, 67 ,68, 69, 70,71,72, 73, 74 residential 0.0293 30958 13105 62388 24650 103038 38858 2 41, 61 watercourse 0.0098 40288 4368 56848 8217 61258 12953 3 54 ,55 industrial 0.0780 9308 34946 18864 65733 29425 103621 4 35, 37, 39 residential 0.0488 4658 21841 6265 41083 6481 64763 5 40 residential 0.0683 9777 30577 14921 57517 17494 90668 6 59 residential 0.0293 7025 13105 13002 24650 18487 38858 7 60 public and semi public 0.0683 1927 30577 2942 57517 3376 90668 8 34, 36, 38 public and semi public 0.0683 2937 30577 3552 57517 3281 90668 9 13 public and semi public 0.0683 312 30577 344 57517 292 90668 10 33 residential 0.0195 2378 8736 3382 16433 3695 25905 11 45 ,51, 52 residential 0.0195 4372 8736 7750 16433 10610 25905 12 14,26, 27,28, 29 commercial 0.0976 6350 43682 6541 82167 4817 129526 13 11, 12, 15 commercial 0.0976 6128 43682 7243 82167 6509 129526 14 16, 17, 18 residential 0.0195 9640 8736 12988 16433 13622 25905 15 21 ,22, 23,25 residential 0.0293 32607 13105 67814 24650 114428 38858 16 32, 46,47, 50, 53 hilly and forest 0.0049 22607 2184 34236 4108 39046 6476 17 24, 30 ,31 residential 0.0293 23061 13105 60118 24650 145614 38858 18 48 residential 0.0293 5190 13105 13768 24650 28062 38858 19 20 agriculture 0.0049 13723 2184 22581 4108 27301 6476 20 4,9 hilly and forest 0.0049 28150 2184 40399 4108 44158 6476 21 1, 10,75 watercourse 0.0098 32723 4368 50350 8217 58109 12953 22 5, 6, 7, 8 residential 0.0098 36534 4368 63488 8217 85414 12953 23 42 residential 0.0293 27854 13105 63818 24650 112340 38858 24 19 residential 0.0195 6844 8736 15536 16433 27094 25905 25 2, 3, 76 industrial 0.0683 29466 30577 67019 57517 117592 90668 26 44, 49 agriculture 0.0049 6128 2184 9052 4108 10128 6476 27 43 agriculture 0.0049 6441 2184 9472 4108 10560 6476 28 77,78 residential 0.0293 40355 13105 107526 24650 225408 38858 TOTAL 1 447742 447742 842208 842208 1327641 1327641 PT DEMAND MODELLING 2200600039Darsan

SCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) II SEM APPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE OF VIJAYAWADA CITY 74 Route LengthRoute Base Year 2021 Scenario 2 - 2041 Trips Vehicle Km Cycle Including(minutes)time10%aslayover Hours serviceregularof(inminutes) Headway(minutes) Fleetsize P. km direction)Serv.TargetKm(one NeededTrips(oneside) Vehiclekm HeadwayRequired requiredFleet Additionalfleetrequired 11 20.32 80 3233 88.91 888 12 8 328700.4 7968.4944 392 15853 2.26 40 32 11 20.10 80 108897.3 16RR 7.38 66 1011 33.44 840 14 3 15156.56 1558.2469 199 3030 4.21 8 5 16RR 7.82 67 64277.69 16V 9.09 49 921 40.93 880 20 3 12631.21 633.24111 67 1238 13.23 4 1 16V 9.52 50 26121.2 3 9.48 150 2862 41.56 1022 7 6 241644.6 6636.5548 700 13232 1.46 29 23 3 9.42 153 273757.9 3D 10.27 29 594 45.08 840 30 2 28501.87 2441.8251 238 4870 3.53 13 11 3D 10.22 29 100725.3 48RK 12.12 184 4386 53.30 1092 6 9 934535.1 22655.397 1870 45311 0.58 92 83 48RK 12.12 178 22921.61 54 13.72 95 2589 59.95 900 10 6 168278.2 4079.4726 297 8102 3.03 20 14 54 13.53 95 71171.61 5U 16.02 28 944 70.37 875 35 3 119376.1 2893.9655 181 5777 4.84 15 12 5U 15.96 31 22188.38 7B 8.34 21 359 37.66 765 45 1 29203.55 1100.888 125 2147 6.10 7 6 7B 8.78 21 45411.63 7R 8.34 23 394 37.66 800 40 1 34675.98 1245.1558 142 2429 5.64 7 6 7R 8.78 23 51362.68 Desired OR 0.75 Average Speed 30 Seating Capacity 40 Standing Capacity 15 Total Capacity 55 Example of scenario fleet calculation: PT DEMAND MODELLING ����ℎ������������ =Σ(��������������������ℎ ×����������) ������������������ �������� 10%�������������� = ������������������������������ℎ ������.���������� ×60������×11 ������������������������������(������������ )= ������������������������������������������������������������ ������������������×�������������������������� ����������������������(������������������������)= ������������������������������(������������������������) ��������������������ℎ(������������������������) �������������� = ����������������������������������������������������. �������������������������� �������������������������� = ������������������(��������.10%��������������) �������������� 2200600039Darsan

SCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) II SEM APPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE OF VIJAYAWADA CITY 75 FLEET ESTIMATION: Route Base year BAU 2021 BAU 2031 BAU 2041 P. Km V. Km Fleet P. Km P. km % inc. V. Km V. km % inc. Addl. Fleet P. Km P. km % inc. V. Km V. km % inc. Addl. Fleet 11 154707.1 3233 8 216336.6 139.8 8095 250 13 336202.3 217 12179 377 23 16RR 19806.1 1011 3 34007.2 171.7 1301 129 1 61028.9 4691 2328 230 4 16V 13162.1 921 3 18897.8 143.6 630 68 1 29774.9 4728 951 103 0 3 161953.9 2862 6 245678.8 151.7 6285 220 8 395981.3 6301 10166 355 16 3D 34698.3 594 2 57319.4 165.2 2050 345 4 99284.1 4843 3741 630 8 48RK 194000.0 4386 9 368445.7 189.9 17131 391 26 735609.3 4294 34812 794 62 54 71014.6 2589 6 106022.0 149.3 3469 134 3 183967.3 5303 6225 240 10 5U 54465.2 944 3 74694.0 137.1 2969 315 5 108763.1 3663 4439 470 9 7B 26688.1 359 1 37548.9 140.7 1053 293 3 57326.8 5443 1650 459 4 7R 29578.5 394 1 42243.4 142.8 1194 303 3 66103.4 5534 1866 474 5 Total 65 141 Route Base year BAU 2021 Scenario 1 - 2031 Scenario 1 - 2041 P. Km V. Km Fleet P. Km P. km % inc. V. Km V. km % inc. Addl. Fleet P. Km P. km % inc. V. Km V. km % inc. Addl. Fleet 11 154707.1 3233 8 446558.6 289 16712 517 34 693752.8 448 25132 777 55 16RR 19806.1 1011 3 70167.5 354 2685 265 5 125932.9 636 4803 475 10 16V 13162.1 921 3 38992.2 296 1299 141 1 61438.2 467 1962 213 2 3 161953.9 2862 6 506985.4 313 12973 453 22 817103.7 505 20977 733 40 3D 34698.3 594 2 118271.9 341 4230 712 10 204872.1 590 7720 1299 19 48RK 194000.0 4386 9 760349.5 392 35353 806 63 1517921.0 782 71834 1638 136 54 71014.6 2589 6 218827.4 308 7162 277 12 379615.9 535 12845 496 26 5U 54465.2 944 3 154179.2 283 6130 650 13 224432.0 412 9159 971 21 7B 26688.1 359 1 77472.1 290 2172 604 6 118292.7 443 3404 947 9 7R 29578.5 394 1 87157.4 295 2463 626 6 136403.1 461 3850 978 10 Total 172 328 PT DEMAND MODELLING Route Base year BAU 2021 Scenario 2 - 2031 Scenario 2 - 2041 P. Km V. Km Fleet P. Km P. km % inc. V. Km V. km % inc. Addl. Fleet P. Km P. km % inc. V. Km V. km % inc. Addl. Fleet 11 154707.1 3233 8 281581.8 182 10536 326 19 437597.7 283 15853 490 32 16RR 19806.1 1011 3 44263.2 223 1693 167 2 79434.2 401 3030 300 5 16V 13162.1 921 3 24596.7 187 820 89 0 38752.4 294 1238 134 1 3 161953.9 2862 6 319773.1 197 8180 286 12 515402.5 318 13232 462 23 3D 34698.3 594 2 74606.4 215 2668 449 5 129227.2 372 4870 819 11 48RK 194000.0 4386 9 479558.6 247 22297 508 36 957456.7 494 45311 1033 83 54 71014.6 2589 6 137997.5 194 4515 174 6 239449.9 337 8102 313 14 5U 54465.2 944 3 97220.9 179 3865 410 7 141564.5 260 5777 612 12 7B 26688.1 359 1 48872.9 183 1371 381 3 74615.2 280 2147 597 6 7R 29578.5 394 1 54983.3 186 1555 395 4 86038.7 291 2429 617 6 Total 94 193 2200600039Darsan

SCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) II SEM APPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE OF VIJAYAWADA CITY 76 DETAIL SCHEDULING FOR HORIZON SCENERIO Example: Req. Headway 0:07 min Run-time> 0:16 min < 0:17 min Cycle Time 0:34:09 min Min. Layover 0:03:25 min Total Cycle time 0:37:34 min Size of Fleet 5.3664 Size of Fleet (Rounded) 6 Excess Layover 0:04:26 min TOTAL Layover 0:07 min Layover 1 0:03 min Layover 2 0:03 min BUS PANJA (START) YANAMALA BUS YANAMALA(START) PANJA PANJA (START) 1 6:07 6:25 6:29 2 6:13 6:31 6:35 3 6:19 6:37 6:41 4 6:05 6:21 4 6:25 6:43 6:47 5 6:11 6:27 5 6:31 6:49 6:53 6 6:17 6:33 6 6:38 6:55 6:59 7 6:23 6:39 1 6:44 7:01 7:06 1 6:29 6:46 2 6:50 7:07 7:12 2 6:35 6:52 3 6:56 7:13 7:18 3 6:41 6:58 4 7:02 7:20 7:24 4 6:47 7:04 5 7:08 7:26 7:30 5 6:53 7:10 6 7:14 7:32 7:36 6 6:59 7:16 1 7:20 7:38 7:42 7 7:06 7:22 2 7:26 7:44 7:48 1 7:12 7:28 3 7:32 7:50 7:54 2 7:18 7:34 4 7:39 7:56 8:00 3 7:24 7:40 5 7:45 8:02 8:07 4 7:30 7:47 6 7:51 8:08 8:13 5 7:36 7:53 1 7:57 8:14 8:19 6 7:42 7:59 2 8:03 8:21 8:25 7 7:48 8:05 3 8:09 8:27 8:31 1 7:54 8:11 4 8:15 8:33 8:37 2 8:00 8:17 5 8:21 8:39 8:43 3 8:07 8:23 6 8:27 8:45 8:49 4 8:13 8:29 1 8:33 8:51 8:55 5 8:19 8:35 2 8:40 8:57 9:01 6 8:25 8:41 3 8:46 9:03 9:08 7 8:31 8:48 4 8:52 9:09 9:14 1 8:37 8:54 5 8:58 9:15 9:20 2 8:43 9:00 6 9:04 9:22 9:26 3 8:49 9:06 1 9:10 9:28 9:32 4 8:55 9:12 2 9:16 9:34 9:38 5 9:01 9:18 3 9:22 9:40 9:44 6 9:08 9:24 4 9:28 9:46 9:50 7 9:14 9:30 5 9:34 9:52 9:56 1 9:20 9:36 6 9:41 9:58 10:02 2 9:26 9:42 1 9:47 10:04 10:09 3 9:32 9:49 2 9:53 10:10 10:15 4 9:38 9:55 3 9:59 10:16 10:21 5 9:44 10:01 4 10:05 10:23 10:27 6 9:50 10:07 5 10:11 10:29 10:33 7 9:56 10:13 6 10:17 10:35 10:39 1 10:02 10:19 1 10:23 10:41 10:45 Route no 7B (PanjaKuduruYanamalamasjid) (Yanamala Kuduru Masjid - Panja) 6:05 6:50 6:50 7:35 7:35 8:30 8:20 9:15 9:05 10:00 9:50 10:45 10:35 11:30 11:20 12:15 12:05 13:00 12:50 13:45 13:35 14:30 14:20 15:15 15:05 16:00 15:50 16:45 16:35 17:30 17:20 18:15 18:05 19:00 18:50 19:45 19:25 20:10 20:20 21:05 21:00 21:50 Base Year Schedule: Scenario 2 – 2041 - Schedule: • The PuT indicators/attributes such as passenger km, route length, trip, etc. were used to calculate the fleet requirement for the selected 15 routes for all the horizon scenarios. • The detailed scheduling of buses was prepared for one selected route from one selected scenario. • The required headway for horizon scenarios were calculated considering a desired occupancy ratio of 75%. PT DEMAND MODELLING 2200600039Darsan

SCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) II SEM APPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE OF VIJAYAWADA CITY 77 BUS PANJA (START) YANAMALA BUS YANAMALA (START) PANJA PANJA (START) 2 10:09 10:25 2 10:29 10:47 10:51 3 10:15 10:31 3 10:35 10:53 10:57 4 10:21 10:37 4 10:42 10:59 11:03 5 10:27 10:43 5 10:48 11:05 11:10 6 10:33 10:50 6 10:54 11:11 11:16 7 10:39 10:56 1 11:00 11:17 11:22 1 10:45 11:02 2 11:06 11:24 11:28 2 10:51 11:08 3 11:12 11:30 11:34 3 10:57 11:14 4 11:18 11:36 11:40 4 11:03 11:20 5 11:24 11:42 11:46 5 11:10 11:26 6 11:30 11:48 11:52 6 11:16 11:32 1 11:36 11:54 11:58 7 11:22 11:38 2 11:43 12:00 12:04 1 11:28 11:44 3 11:49 12:06 12:11 2 11:34 11:51 4 11:55 12:12 12:17 3 11:40 11:57 5 12:01 12:18 12:23 4 11:46 12:03 6 12:07 12:25 12:29 5 11:52 12:09 1 12:13 12:31 12:35 6 11:58 12:15 2 12:19 12:37 12:41 7 12:04 12:21 3 12:25 12:43 12:47 1 12:11 12:27 4 12:31 12:49 12:53 2 12:17 12:33 5 12:37 12:55 12:59 3 12:23 12:39 6 12:44 13:01 13:05 4 12:29 12:45 1 12:50 13:07 13:12 5 12:35 12:52 2 12:56 13:13 13:18 6 12:41 12:58 3 13:02 13:19 13:24 7 12:47 13:04 4 13:08 13:26 13:30 1 12:53 13:10 5 13:14 13:32 13:36 2 12:59 13:16 6 13:20 13:38 13:42 3 13:05 13:22 1 13:26 13:44 13:48 4 13:12 13:28 2 13:32 13:50 13:54 5 13:18 13:34 3 13:38 13:56 14:00 6 13:24 13:40 4 13:45 14:02 14:06 7 13:30 13:46 5 13:51 14:08 14:13 1 13:36 13:53 6 13:57 14:14 14:19 2 13:42 13:59 1 14:03 14:20 14:25 3 13:48 14:05 2 14:09 14:27 14:31 4 13:54 14:11 3 14:15 14:33 14:37 5 14:00 14:17 4 14:21 14:39 14:43 6 14:06 14:23 5 14:27 14:45 14:49 7 14:13 14:29 6 14:33 14:51 14:55 1 14:19 14:35 1 14:39 14:57 15:01 2 14:25 14:41 2 14:46 15:03 15:07 BUS PANJA (START) YANAMALA BUS YANAMALA(START) PANJA PANJA (START) 3 14:31 14:47 3 14:52 15:09 15:14 4 14:37 14:54 4 14:58 15:15 15:20 5 14:43 15:00 5 15:04 15:21 15:26 6 14:49 15:06 6 15:10 15:28 15:32 7 14:55 15:12 1 15:16 15:34 15:38 1 15:01 15:18 2 15:22 15:40 15:44 2 15:07 15:24 3 15:28 15:46 15:50 3 15:14 15:30 4 15:34 15:52 15:56 4 15:20 15:36 5 15:40 15:58 16:02 5 15:26 15:42 6 15:47 16:04 16:08 6 15:32 15:48 1 15:53 16:10 16:15 7 15:38 15:55 2 15:59 16:16 16:21 1 15:44 16:01 3 16:05 16:22 16:27 2 15:50 16:07 4 16:11 16:29 16:33 3 15:56 16:13 5 16:17 16:35 16:39 4 16:02 16:19 6 16:23 16:41 16:45 5 16:08 16:25 1 16:29 16:47 16:51 6 16:15 16:31 2 16:35 16:53 16:57 7 16:21 16:37 3 16:41 16:59 17:03 1 16:27 16:43 4 16:48 17:05 17:09 2 16:33 16:49 5 16:54 17:11 17:16 3 16:39 16:56 6 17:00 17:17 17:22 4 16:45 17:02 1 17:06 17:23 17:28 5 16:51 17:08 2 17:12 17:30 17:34 6 16:57 17:14 3 17:18 17:36 17:40 7 17:03 17:20 4 17:24 17:42 17:46 1 17:09 17:26 5 17:30 17:48 17:52 2 17:16 17:32 6 17:36 17:54 17:58 3 17:22 17:38 7 17:42 18:00 18:04 4 17:28 17:44 8 17:49 18:06 18:10 5 17:34 17:50 9 17:55 18:12 18:17 6 17:40 17:57 10 18:01 18:18 18:23 7 17:46 18:03 11 18:07 18:24 18:29 1 17:52 18:09 12 18:13 18:31 18:35 2 17:58 18:15 13 18:19 18:37 18:41 3 18:04 18:21 14 18:25 18:43 18:47 4 18:10 18:27 15 18:31 18:49 18:53 5 18:17 18:33 16 18:37 18:55 18:59 6 18:23 18:39 17 18:43 19:01 19:05 7 18:29 18:45 18 18:50 19:07 19:11 1 18:35 18:51 2 18:41 18:58 3 18:47 19:04 Scenario 2 – 2041 - Schedule: PT DEMAND MODELLING 2200600039Darsan

78

SCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) II SEM ROAD CHARACTERISTICS APPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE OF VIJAYAWADA CITY Animesh2200600044Dash 79

SCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) II SEM APPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE OF VIJAYAWADA CITY 80 ROAD CHARACTERISTICS Animesh2200600044Dash

SCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) II SEM APPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE OF VIJAYAWADA CITY 81 ROAD CHARACTERISTICS Animesh2200600044Dash

Analyses the results if new mobility enterprises are piloted as last mile solutions at a metro station in Bangalore.

day. Land IntegrationTransportuse LessonsOrientedTransitDevelopment:fromIndianExperiences

Delhi Rutul Joshi Yogi KavinaJosephPatel Darji

Vishal

TransitDevelopmentOrientedAhmedabadBengaluru Leveraging innovation for last mile connectivity to mass transit BaiyappanahalliMetroStation,Bangalore Chaitanya

TITLE STUDY AREA AUTHOR OBJECTIVE PURPOSE Mode Choice Modelling of Work Trips KOLKATA Ram chandaa , Saptarshi senb , Sudip kumar roy To assess modal choice of the regular work trip makers of the city of Kolkata. ModeModellingChoice NMT integrated BRT system DELHI GeetamDeeptyTiwari,Jain Provide safe commuting for both NMT and bus users NMTWithIntegrationPT Density oriented public transport corridors: Decoding their influence on BRT ridership at station level Bogota Luis A. Guzman SantiagoGomez,Cardona

First & Last ConnectivityMile

Exploring the case of TODs planned or underway in three Indian cities & gives suggestions for Indian cities to achieve a development that is more oriented to transit than being adjacent to it. Kanuria, Krithi Venkata , Sudeept Maitia , Pawan Mulukutla

NMT as Green Mobility Solution for First/Last Mile Connectivity to Mass Transit Stations Delhi Chidambara

Evidence on two factors of the built environment affecting Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) demand at a station level throughout the

To examine the role of non motorized transport (NMT) as green mobility solutions in improving the last mile connectivity (LMC) to mass transit systems.

SCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) II SEM LITERATURE REVIEW APPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE OF VIJAYAWADA CITY Mitradev Sahoo 2200600044 82

TITLE METHOD/THEORY PARAMETER RESULT CONCLUSION Mode

orientedDensity-publictransportcorridors:DecodingtheirinfluenceonBRTridershipatstationlevel

Assess impacts of improving NMT infrastructure along the Delhi BRT corridor.

integratedNMT

The study provides a synergistic and direct relationship between densities and travel demand. A mixed and balanced land use pattern has a flattening effect on public transport ridership mainly at peak hours.

Different Cities require different strategy & Assessment for the success of the TOD. Density Diversity AccessibilityFundingHousingDesign TOD policy and EIA provision do not harmonize with each other

ModellingChoiceofWorkTrips

Travel Time (TT), Travel Cost (TC), Time),ConvenienceComfort,(WaitingReliabilityandDust&Noise.

82% of the work trip makers prefer transit,17% prefers paratransit, only 1% chooses personal vehicle It shows that personal vehicle users are giving maximum importance to comfort, dust & noise and waiting time. Whereas, the transit users try to minimize their travel cost and travel time

BicyclesWalking

Accessibility: Destinations catchment areas have increased the most for those using the bus service

Safety: Increases for both NMt & MV users Though a relatively small stretch has been installed with NMT infrastructure, the benefits achieved in terms of increased safety and accessibility are significant.

Assessing the impacts: Speed: Speeds of buses and bicycles have increased Travel time: Cyclists save the maximum time

SCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) II SEM APPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE OF VIJAYAWADA CITY 83 LITERATURE REVIEW Mitradev Sahoo 2200600044

To test how the land use patterns of the catchment areas around TM stations affect boarding. Average densities of employpopulation,mentbystationcatchmentarea

BRT system

Development of areas around TOD be planned or at least scientifically speculated as this would eventually increase transit ridership. Lack of NMT infrastructure around the BRT corridor hampering last mile connectivity. The TOD policy in Bengaluru mainly focuses on higher densities around the metro stations not across corridors.

The effects of job density , population density, and the interaction term are statistically significant in working days. In the case of Sundays, none of the coefficients have significance.statistical

Logit PreparationModel,OfUtilityEquationusingParameters

Transit -Oriented Development:LessonsfromIndianExperiences

TITLE METHOD/THEORY PARAMETER RESULT CONCLUSION innovationLeveragingforlastmileconnectivitytomasstransit The Station Access and Mobility Program (STAMP) Com 1: Rental Bike Com 2: Car Pooling Com 3: AggregatorParking Total No Of transaction, Transaction Per day, Average Trip Length, Average Size Of Inventory Avg. 10 Mint Time saving 43% shift from Private vehicle 48% Shift From Public Transport This finding shows the potential of new mobility services to induce a shift to mass transit, when deployed at scale. As almost equivalent numbers of users having shifted from public transport and personal vehicles. NMT as Green Mobility Solution for First/Last Mile Connectivity to MassStationsTransit Rapid assessment of the shortlisted stations was conducted in terms of last mile modes availability and quality and stations exhibiting varying quality of last mile Modes opted, Trip purpose, Average Trip Length, Cost and Time For shorter last mile trip lengths, there is greater tendency amongst commuters to opt for NMT. In absence of walking friendly environment or other NMT modes, higher percentage of polluting and unsustainable modes are used even for shorter distances. Inclusion of NMT in last mile planning has to be a non negotiable component, to achieve higher ridership , better journey experience and larger sustainability goals. SCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) II SEM APPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE OF VIJAYAWADA CITY 84 LITERATURE REVIEW Mitradev Sahoo 2200600044

85

86

SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) - II SEM APPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE STUDY OF VIJAYWADASCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE NEED FOR PUBLIC BICYCLE SHARING SYSTEM IN VIJAYAWADA T.S.GURURAJA2200600053 INTEGRATION OF PUBLIC BICYCLE SHARING & IMPROVING CYCLING INFRASTRUCTURE TO ENCOURAGE PUBLIC TRANSPORT RIDERSHIP & NMT Public Bicycle Sharing (PBS) is emerging as one of the most sustainable, popular and attractive public transport modes throughout the world. Bicycles are made available to multiple users (on a sharing basis) for short duration trips, offering an option of returning them at different destinations., posing maximum flexibility with minimum liability. Last mileTransit stopFirst mile TT 0.1 ECS X 10 1 ECS 56%-72% Of the trips in medium and large cities are short trips (<5km) When travelling in peak hour, it takes Bicycle reduces travel time to half 25 min 12 min & ConsumptionFuel MaintenancechargesTaxexpensesInfrastructurecost 1. FIRST & LAST MILE BENEFITSCONNECTIONSOFPUBLICBICYCLE SHARING SYSTEM NEED FOR THE PUBLIC BICYCLE SHARING SYSTEM: 2.SPACE SUFFICIENCY 3.ELIMINATE EXPENSES 5.REDUCE OVER CROWDING 6..AFFORDABILITYENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS ₹80 RICKSHAW ₹50 AUTO ₹20 SHARED AUTO ₹3 BICYCLE SHARING DEMAND ESTIMATION OF PBS SERVICE IN VIJAYAWADA TRIP DISTRIBUTION BASED ON MODE AND DISTANCE OF VIJAYAWADA: 100000500000 150000 250000200000 CYCLE WALK IPT BUS 2W CAR >8KM5-8KM3-5KM2-3KM1-2<1KMKM Source: CMP Vijayawada 1 5 km >1 km 1 3 km 0-3 km HIGHEST PROBABLE USERS This approach is based on the modal shift estimations i.e., probability of people who are likely to shift to the new system. In a PBS system short trip makers have the highest willingness to shift, considering distance and ranges that have the highest probability to shift to PBS over their existing mode of commuting. The first approach uses the optimum station density as the primary parameter for determining system size. This approach is intended to ensure a network coverage and density that increases the viability of using the system. Demand estimation based on PBS Guidance document (MoHUA) suggests: ➢ 10-15 stations per sq.km of PBS influence area with 10 Bicycles/Station ➢ 61.88 Sq.kms Vijayawada requires 621 PBS stations & 6200 cycles ➢ i.e. 5 Bicycles per 1000 population is derived by approach. Approach 1 – Minimum Station Density: Approach 2 – Minimum Mode Shift: Based on various insights from Successful PBS projects in India, the major demand assessment strategies followed are:. 87

SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) - II SEM APPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE STUDY OF VIJAYWADASCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE DEMAND ASSESSMENT OF PUBLIC BICYCLE SHARING SYSTEM T.S.GURURAJA2200600053 nosl PARAMETRE (SourceVALUE:CMP) ESTIMATEDDEMAND 1 Total Daily Trips (Population x per capita trip rate) 1240020*1.3 1612026 2 Total trips made by walk, cycle, IPT & Transit 17.5% + 7.7% +10.7% + 22.2% =58.1% 936587 3 Trips made by walk(>500m), Cycle, IPT & Public Transit that are shorter than 3km 55% 515123 4 Targeted Users (15-40 years age) 55% males & 28% females = 42% of whole 216352 5 Frequency of trips made daily 63% 136302 7 Peak Hour Demand (of Total Daily Trips) 9% 12267 PBS Full Demand of Vijayawada City 12267 ➢ Total Population 1240020/ PBS Demand of Whole City 12267 means ➢ i.e., 10 Bicycles per 1000 population is derived by this approach. 1.ESTIMATED PBS DEMAND IN VIJAYAWADA: 2.PHASED PBS DEMAND ESTIMATION FOR SELECTED STRETCHES: ► Emphasizing on Integration of PBS with Bus Transit, all the public bus stops are considered as primary Docking stations which can lodge 20 bicycles/docking station located for every 300 metres. Within 5.15 sq.kms of Service area, 81,797 population require 818 bicycles SERVICE AREA MAP OF PBS DOCKING STATIONS AT TRANSIT STOPS: Stretchname (inLengthkm) (~300m)servicearea Popula-tion demandBicyle Rounded offdemandBicycles Require DocksPBS Transit asstationsdocks Secondary docks to insidesite MG road 4.1 km 1.87 sq.km 30238 302 300 15 13 2 Eluru road 6.7 km 2.56 sq.km 41942 419 420 21 14 7 ITI road 1.2 km 0.72 sq.km 9617 96 100 05 4 1 5.15 sq km 81797 818 820 40 31 10 Determining Station Location Criteria: • 10 Cycles/1000 pop • 10 PBS stations per square km • 20 cycles/ station – (medium sized) • 300 400m gap as max. consecutive station distance • near transit stops & • near Intersections, 88

This map shows, the extent to where a PBS user can take his Cycle. Generally Trips less than 800m tend to walk, as High probability of potential cycle user are those who travel >1km to <3 5km. Hence feeder Sub PBS Dock stations and cycling infrastructure needs to be improvised in this zone. and Spoke model can be adaptive for future whole PBS

service in BZA. DETERMINING STATION DESIGN BASED ON LEVEL OF AUTOMATION Fully Automated: • constraints)Beam(spaceor bollard • Fixed or modular Semi- Automated: • station kiosk with cycle racks or caged • Fixed or modular Manual: • Station kiosk with cycle racks or caged • Fixed or modular Bicycle station Sign automatedin or Kiosk help Check Out Ride Check in 89

SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) - II SEM APPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE STUDY OF VIJAYWADASCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE PUBLIC BICYCLE SHARING DOCKING STATIONS ALLOCATION T.S.GURURAJA2200600053 Entrance/Exit of Transit stationsSpace requirement of docking. Adjacent to NMT infrastructure Transportation Infrastructure (Under Flyovers / Footbridges) Sidewalks near intersections On street parking spaces 3.STATION PLACEMENT ALONG SELECTED STRETCHES Source: PBS Guidance Document MoHUA 20 24 m (Medium size PBS) Through this, Public cycle sharing can play a key role in improving last mile connectivity as well as modal share of cycling in Vijayawada .Influence zoning finds areas to be ideal to improve NMT infrastructure. INFLUENCE AREA OF PUBLIC BICYCLE SHARING:

Hub

SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) - II SEM APPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE STUDY OF VIJAYWADASCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE DESIGNING OF CYCLING INFRASTRUCTURE T.S.GURURAJA2200600053 1. Corner refuge island 2. Forward stop line 3. Setback crossing by extending the curb Protected Cycle Facilities at Intersections 4. DESIGNING OF CYCLING INFRASTRUCTURE a. Conventional Bicycles b. Tricycles, Cycle-Rickshaws c. Cargo Bikes , Cycle Trucks VARIATIONS DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS Cycle Facilities at Transit Stops Cycle Track Behind Boarding Island Cycle Track on Bus Bulb Cycle Lane Behind Boarding Island SUITABILITY SUITABILITY SUITABILITY globaldesigningcities.orgSource: Clear unobstructed cycling zone at least of width 2m for one way movement and at least 3m for two way movement with vertical clearance of 2.4 m. Colored surface treatment is recommended to improve the visibility of the bicycle operating area. Proper gradient should be maintained with provision of storm water drains to avoid water logging. It is preferable that continuity of cycle tracks be maintained across road junctions by using appropriate techniques. Recommended Levels Footpath: Level +150 mm Cycle Track: Level +100 mm; Carriageway Level: 00mm NACTO&1962IRCSource:11 Cycle facilities should be designed for diverse vehicles and riders, for children on small tricycles, and people carrying goods in big cargo bikes, as well as cycle-rickshaws and pedicabs. 90

Average Service charge

.

.

Source: Vijayawada CMP Urban Street Design Guidelines

.

PUNE INTEGRATION OF INTERMEDIATE PUBLIC TRANSIT DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IPT STANDS ON SELECTED STRETCHES Mode % Person Trips CAR 1.6% 2 W 4.03% BICYCLE 7.7% AUTO 10.1% RICKSHAW 0.6% BUS 22.2% WALK 17.5% Distribution of Trips by Mode IPT IMPACT IN VIJAYAWADA: 91

Rickshaw stands should be preferably located–Within Multi Utility Zone wherever provided & Near bus stops and transit stations Near junctions but 50 m away from the intersection of local and feeder roads -Mid blocks on local streets, Rickshaw stands should be located alongside footpaths for safety of passengers at time of boarding. Space should be dedicated for auto stands near hospitals and commercial area at places of high footfalls

Average Operating Time 15 Hours/Day 15.5 Hours/Day 13.5 Hours/day

:

Parking and halting of auto rickshaws should be prohibited up to 50 meters prior to the bus stop and 20 meters after the bus stop Autos should not be parked on footpath or cycle tracks. Rickshaw stands should be located at road side with orientation along the traffic direction, 15 m away from raised pedestrian crossing. Not more than 7 Autos per each Auto Rickshaw stand.

Source:

. -

SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) - II SEM APPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE STUDY OF VIJAYWADASCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE INTEGRATION OF INTERMEDIATE PUBLIC TRANSIT T.S.GURURAJA2200600053 Intermediate Public Transport (IPT) or para transit, cover the space between private and mass public transport. IPT modes operate mainly in one of two ways. They can be hired by commuters for door-to-door trips or they can operate as informal public transport by carving out fixed routes and fares e.g. share cabs, mini buses. Average No. of Trips and Kilometers travelled per day: VIJAYAWADA CITY EXISTING IPT FLEET CHARACTERISTICS: Mode Auto Taxi Tata Ace/Vikram Average No. of Trips per Day 15 10 6.5 Average Kilometers Travelled per Day 215 89 262 Average number passengers carried per trip 4 3.6 6.8 TOTAL REGISTERED VEHICLES- 7,72,941 4 – wheelers - 60869 (9%) 2- wheelers - 505424 (75%) Others - 1,11,711 (16%) Non-Transport Vehicles - 6,78,004 (88%) Auto Rickshaws -27296 (29%) • Diesel Autos 23296 (85%) • CNG Autos-4000 (15%) Motor cabs – 5705(6%) Light Goods Carriages -9664(10%) Medium Goods Carriages -1786(2%) Heavy Goods carriages-19044(20%) Other -31,442(33%) Transport Vehicles - 94,937 (12%) Source: police.ap.gov.in/?page_id=21833http://vijayawada • In Vijayawada there are three types of IPT modes namely 1.Shared Auto rickshaw/Auto rickshaw, 2.Taxi , 3.Tata Ace/ Vikram • 8600 share auto rickshaws operate as stage carriages and popularly known as service autos. These auto rickshaws operate on all routes, and the fare charged is more or less the same as that of Bus system. • The auto Rickshaws carry about 2,50,000 passengers per day and • The ratio between bus and auto is 40:60 in the total volumes of the traffic carried in terms of passengers. • Additionally UBER, OLA & Rapido shared mobility services have started ride sharing facility to potentially capture larger stake in IPT. Mode Auto Taxi Tata Ace/Vikram

Average operating Time of Vehicles: On an average, a minimum fare of Rs. 15 and Rs. 9 charged for every km travelled for Auto Rickshaws where as Ride Sharing services charge Rs.4/km

BUS TERMINAL- VIJAYAWADA AREA DISTRIBUTION OF THE STATION AREA CITY TERMINAL 1276 SQ MT ARRIVAL BLOCK 8224 SQ MT DEPARTURE BLOCK 7666 SQ MT OPEN PARKING FOR BUSES 10823 SQ MT CYCLE / STANDSCOOTER 1500 SQ MT CAR PARKING 2085 SQ MT AUTO PARKING 933 SQ MT BUS DEPOT 9610 SQ MT TOTAL AREA – 28 ACRES ▪ No. of entry/exit for regional buses 1 entry & 2 exits ▪ No. of entry/exit for city buses 1 ▪ Average No. of regional buses 3120 ▪ Average No. of city buses 433 ▪ Average No. of passengers per day 408480 ▪ No. of platforms for regional bus terminal 62 ▪ (1 to 52 departure and 53 to 63 arrival platforms) ▪ No. of platforms for city bus terminal 10 There are three types of bus services provided. These includes City Ordinary, Metro Express and Metro Deluxe and Metro Luxury AC • City Ordinary These city buses are the cheapest mode of transport in the city and connect the city with its suburbs, exurbs and rural areas. • Metro Express and Metro Deluxe These city buses operate as superfast services on trunk routes connecting the important centers of the city with its suburbs, exurbs and rural areas. • Metro Deluxe AC and Metro Luxury AC These buses connect the city with the Vijayawada International Airport and the city of Guntur. Arrival Block Facilities: • Parcel office provided for courier by arrival buses • Y SCREENS CINEMA a theatre provided in Arrival block • ATM’s, Toilets, Lounge, Canteens and shops are provided Departure Block Facilities: • Central complaint cell • Ac Lounge for passengers is been provided • Bus stand Enquiry • ATM’s, Toilets, Canteens and shops are provided ENTRANCE / EXIT INTERNAL PARKING (BUS) EXTERNAL PARKING (PRIVATE VEHICLES) ADMINISTRATIVECLEANINGFUELLING/WASHINGMAINTAINANCESTORAGEFACILITY INFRASTRUCTURAL FACILITIES INSIDE DEPOT SCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) II SEM BUS TERMINAL EXISTING SITUATION APPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE OF VIJAYAWADA CITY Animesh2200600044Dash 92

SCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) II SEM APPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE OF VIJAYAWADA CITY BUS TERMINAL EXISTING SITUATION Animesh2200600044Dash 93

NMT integration in safety and security of the station is not considered in design aspects. Safety and security for passengers is not provided inside the station, thus a lot of passenger conflicts have been observed.

6. The travel distance between the boarding area and alighting area is more. This makes the pedestrians to walk on the road which makes the conflict between passengers and buses.

2. Merging conflicts between IPTs and 2 wheelers at bridge road.

2. Non elevated footpath when compared to right of way.

Conflicts

BUS TERMINAL- VIJAYAWADA / PROBLEMS AND CONFLICTS

5. Queue length of buses are more at the station due to the traffic present at the opposite side of the bridge road.

1. Five major conflicts have been observed throughout the entry and exit circulation. Reasons for the conflicts are due to road congestion and excess traffic observed on the roadway.

Entry for the passengers into the arrival and departure block is provided through the city bus

4. Separate entry and exit area for passengers is not included in the existing design.

4. Both merging and diverging conflicts with IPTs, 2 wheelers and Pedestrians at the ending of bridge road.

Problems

Problems

3. Merging conflicts between private vehicles and pedestrians are observed.

Conflicts are been observed in entry and exits.

1. Conflicts have been observed between buses at the alighting area and at bridge road.

1. The passenger boarding is happening on street. The boarding bay is not included in existing design which creates conflicts on road.

5. Conflict between passengers entering and exiting from station is observed.

3. Unauthorized 2 wheeler parking near the alighting area causes conflict between vehicles and buses.

Theseterminus.are the passenger conflicts observed at the entrance of the Departure block. Conflicts

BUS TERMINAL- PROPOSALS DESIGN PROPOSAL: VERTICAL HYDRAULIC PARKING SYSTEMS ❑ The vertical hydraulic parking system is developed for bikes in Pune. ❑ It has the capability of parking two bikes in a space used for parking one bike. ❑ This Provides total consulting such as demand forecasts, recommendation of a desirable parking system and design of safety measurements. ❑ Customized application suitable for various types of landscapes and buildings, structure available below and ❑ above ground. ❑ Reducing management cost through precise control and low power consumption. ❑ User’s easy control by soft touch on the operation panel screen. ❑ Simultaneous vertical and horizontal movement for short waiting periods. ❑ When a vehicle stops in front of the entrance, automatically door opens, trolley transfers the vehicle to parking cell TWO-WHEELER PARKING (EXISTING) PNBS has provided an authorized parking area for two wheelers, which includes bicycles, bikes and scooters ❑Allotted Area 1500 sqm ❑Vehicles that can be accommodated 1000 ❑Present passenger count - 408480 ❑Peak Hour 9 00 10 00 am STANDARDS Length 2.20 m Width 0.70 m Height 1.00 m Turning Radius 1.00 m Parking 2 ECS/100 sqm PRIVATE VEHICLE PARKING ▪ Structured Multilevel Parking with or without mechanical lifts 30 sqm/bay (without lift); 16 sqm/bay (with lift) • At Grade On hard surface or ground 23 sqm/bay • Shared Multilevel or at grade parking provision is combined with miscellaneous activities around the site SCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) II SEM APPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE OF VIJAYAWADA CITY BUS TERMINAL EXISTING SITUATION Animesh2200600044Dash 94

95

Eco-driving Service: Fastest route guidance: A shorter route reduces CO2 emissions Eco driving advice on a website : Displays on driver's fuel economy perform once record and ranking, and CO2 emission.

GPS Mobile ITS for Pedestrian Safety: This intelligent transport system cooperates with GPS mobile phones to detect pedestrians and it alerts drivers to the presence of pedestrians by using voice messages and icons on the car navigation monitor. It also helps to promote safer driving.

Interactive kiosk: An interactive kiosk is a computer terminal featuring specialized hardware and software that provides access to information and applications for communication, commerce, entertainment, or education.

School Zone Alerts: Depending on road conditions near primary schools, the day of the week, time of day, speed and position of brakes and accelerator, the system warns the driver about school zones.

To help preventing accidents using vehicle roadside communications: Using information from transmitters built into or along a road to the cars on it, the system works to help avoidance from dangers like a missed stop sign or signal or a dangerous intersections.

SCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) II SEM PROPOSAL: BUS STOP & I.T.S APPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE OF VIJAYAWADA CITY Mitradev2200600044Sahoo Bicycle docking System near the bus stop Electronic display showing Map & Useful Information Real Time display showing running Bus Information All Weather seating with Proper lighting Security Camera for safety of Passengers Clearly Visible Bus stop at night & Properly Visible Elements Bus Stop Design: Intelligent Transport System:

Opposite Direction Driving Prevention: A new computer application and detailed map data in the car navigation system will be combined with GPS data to help give the driver audio and visual warnings when the car is going the wrong way on a ramp near a service area or interchange.

SCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) II SEM STRATEGIES TO IMPROVE AVERAGE SPEED OF PT & TO REDUCE WAITING TIME APPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE OF VIJAYAWADA CITY SUNIL2200600052KUSHTGI 96 STRATEGIES TO IMPROVE AVERAGE SPEED OF PT & TO REDUCE WAITING TIME • Constructing separate bus lanes for Public transport • Real time updates of Public transport The existing Public Transport system is proposed to be improved through the following strategies: • Providing an app for the public transport user which share the following types of information a model like “Where is my train app”: • Trip updates - delays, cancellations, changed routes • Service alerts stop moved, unforeseen events affecting a station, route or the entire network • Vehicle positions information about the vehicles including location and congestion level Providing a separate bus lanes in order to increase average speed of buses by increasing width of the carriage way as per the IRC reccomondations “Image showing example showing existing real-time update app interface for IRCTC”

97

98

99

OF ROADPROPOSEDSECTIONBUS STOPS AND IPT STANDS OBJECTIVES: ▪ To create interconnectivity between PT and IPT . ▪ Easy to identify ▪ Provide safe and comfortable passenger waiting space. ▪ Conveniently located near street crossings. ▪ Do not obstruct pedestrian paths and cycle tracks. ON-STREET OBJECTIVESPARKING: ▪ To clearly designate parking spaces ▪ Easy to identify , managed and restricted in volume ▪ Enabling access to nearby properties without disturbing the flow of motor vehicles, pedestrians, and cyclists PROPOSED ROAD CROSSECTION & PLAN: ELURU ROAD: PEDESTRIAN FOOTPATH CYCLE TRACK CYCLE TRACK CYCLE DOCK CYCLE DOCK PEDESTRIAN FOOTPATH VEHICULAR RAMP VEHICULAR RAMP 9 m BUS STOP SCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) II SEM PROPOSALS: ROAD IMPROVEMENTS APPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE OF VIJAYAWADA CITY Animesh2200600037Dash 100

PROPOSED LOCATION FOR OFF STREET PARKING PROPOSED ROAD CROSSECTION & PLAN: M.G ROAD: GAP ANALYSIS OF EXISTNG & PROPOSED SCENARIO PROPSED ROAD CROSSECTION: PROPOSED ROAD PLAN FOR 200M STRETCH Speed tables are midblock traffic calming devices that raise the entire wheelbase of a vehicle to reduce its traffic speed. Speed tables are longer than speed humps and flat topped, with a height of 3 3.5 inches and a length of 22 feet. Specifications: Tensile strength: minimum 500 psi Shore hardness: minimum 70A Specific gravity: 1.1100% recycled synthetic and natural rubber PROPOSED MULTI LEVEL OFF PARKINGSTREET PEDESTRIAN FOOTPATH PEDESTRIAN FOOTPATH CYCLE TRACKCYCLE TRACK CYCLE TRACKCYCLE TRACK PEDESTRIANPEDESTRIANFOOTPATHFOOTPATHBUS BAY BUS BAY SERVICE ROAD SERVICE ROAD SERVICE ROAD SERVICE ROAD SCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) II SEM APPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE OF VIJAYAWADA CITY PROPOSALS: ROAD IMPROVEMENTS Animesh2200600037Dash 101

PROPOSED ROAD CROSSECTION & PLAN: ITI COLLEGE ROAD: PROPOSED ROAD PLAN FOR 200M STRETCH PROPSED ROAD CROSSECTION: GAP ANALYSIS OF EXISTNG & PROPOSED SCENARIO PROPOSED SPEED TABLE PRAISED DRIVE WAY AT BUILDING ENTRIES VEHICULAR RAMP VEHICULAR RAMP PEDESTRIAN FOOTPATH PEDESTRIAN FOOTPATH PEDESTRIAN FOOTPATH CYCLE TRACK CYCLE TRACK CYCLE DOCK CYCLE DOCKBUS STOP BUS STOP 9 m SCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) II SEM APPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE OF VIJAYAWADA CITY PROPOSALS: ROAD IMPROVEMENTS Mitradev2200600044Sahoo 102

ITI College Road runs through a densely populated area due to the presence of institutional buildings with residential facilities. This increases the average footfall per day and attracts more on street activities. As a result more pedestrian space is required. For this very reason, a footpath of 3 metres has been proposed keeping in mind the requirements and the safety of the users. It has been placed away from the carriageway in order to maintain a safe distance. It also aims to be kept near the on street activities such as food stalls and street vendors.

Multiple function zone With planting: Continuous planting zones are suitable for areas where pedestrian volumes are less and they need to be contained within the walking zone.Multifunctional Planting zones with native Street Trees and Plantation are Essential on every pavement to provide shade and climatic comfort. Planting zones can also double as Natural Storm Water catchments and filtration systems aiding in ground water recharge, preventing seasonal flooding and reducing the pressure on piped storm water infrastructure. Pedestrian corridor and Utility Easements must be placed separately from the Tree Planting Zone.

Street Light: Lighting needs of pedestrians are different from those of vehicular traffic and therefore need to be designed and integrated within the overall lighting strategy for the street. This would aid the safety of pedestrians on pavements after dark.

Tree planting zones with native street trees and plantation are essential for shade, lowering HIE and giving comfort to pedestrians. Tree planting zone should be CLEAR of the pedestrianzonewalking Height of Light Pole is a function of Street Width. Narrower the Street Width, lower can be the Lamp Height. Under NO CIRCUMSTANCES should the Light pole placement interfere with the clearance of the main pedestrian walkway of the pavement.Light pole may preferably be located within the tree planting zone

Mobility Safety Ecology Optimallighting Fortopedestriansprovide safety and security. Light poles must be CLEAR of Walkingpedestrianthezone. pedestrians.lightingoptimalProvidefor Pedestrian lights should be pavementlowerplacedandfocusingonthe Provide FULL cut off preventfixtureslightingtospillage of light and wastage of energy, and also nightpreventskylightpollution.

Design Principles:

Mobility Safety Ecology plantationAvenuetree is a must on all streets in order to pedestrians.shadeprovideandcomfortto IntegratedNaturalDrainageSystemsNative plantation for conservation.andresistancewater

Tree planting plan and Lighting plans must be prepared in conjunction so that tree canopies do not obstruct lighting for road users.

SCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) II SEM PROPOSALS: COMPLETE STREET APPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE OF VIJAYAWADA CITY Mitradev2200600044Sahoo 103

ACTIVE STREET EDGES; • Building frontages contain active street components such as shops, which provide natural surveillance. • Eluru Road & Mg Road contributes most of the Active street frontage. • Considering the existing Land use, the street frontage for natural surveillance extends to entire length of road. ▪ Placement Provided at Conflict Potential points, Places lacking Natural lighting, High pedestrian zones, Bus stops ▪ Dimensions & intervals 3.5m High & 15m interval ▪ Illumination Normal lamps – 50 lux, Lamps at pedestrian crossing 80 lux Vehicular street lights at 10m high and 30 lux at 30 m intervals Placement ▪ Vending zones shall be provided below the trees, in consideration with user’s choice for shade. ▪ Vendors are accommodated where there is a higher demand for goods, i.e. nearby bus stops, ▪ Continuity of NMT tracks should not be disturbed ▪ These are provided throughout the stretch, which do not restrict pedestrian, cyclist or vehicular movement. LIGHTING:VENDINGZONES:Proposed NMT Design including Street Frontage Pedestrian Lighting – 3.5m high and 50 lux at 15m interval Street Lighting – 10m high and 30 lux, 30 m interval Types of eye on street SCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) II SEM APPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE OF VIJAYAWADA CITY PROPOSALS: COMPLETE STREET Mitradev2200600044Sahoo 104

SCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) II SEM PROPOSED WARNING SIGNAGES APPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE OF VIJAYAWADA CITY SUNIL2200600052KUSHTGI 105 PROPOSED WARNING SIGNAGES SCHOOL AHEAD Placed near ITI college, Loyola college, SPAV, Bhashyam Public School,, Siddhartha College of Pharmaceutical Science, Siddhartha college of hotel management and Siddhartha college of Arts and Science & Sri Chaithanya Junior college MG road PEDESTRIAN CROSSING There are frequent crossings as the area is dominantly educational and residential in nature. ROUNDABOUT At Siddhartha college junction & Benz circle MG road T JUNCTION Near Amma Kalyanamandapam and at Ramesh Hospital Junction and some major intersections of collectors streets of MG road Y INTERSECTION At Mother Teresa Junction & Eluru road & MG road intersection M. G ORADI T ORIAD

proposed & listed warning sign boards on bot the Road stretches

The below maps of M.G ROAD college Road is showing the locations of various

The key map is showing roads in Vijayawada the red highlighted portion is consisting M.G highlighted portion is consisting of

I.TI road KEY MAP

city

Road and violet colour

& I.T.I

The

below maps of M.G ROAD & I.T.I college Road is showing the locations of various proposed & listed Information sign boards on both the Road stretches

SCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) II SEM PROPOSED INFORMATION SIGNAGES APPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE OF VIJAYAWADA CITY SUNIL2200600052KUSHTGI 106 PROPOSED INFORMATION SIGNAGES BUS STOP Near proposed bus stops CYCLE PARKING Placed near the proposed cycle docks PEDESTRIAN CROSSING There are frequent crossings as the area is dominantly educational and residential in nature. NATIONAL HIGHWAY Placed on National Highway 5 & 9 (NH5 & NH 9) AUTO RICKSHAW STAND Near proposed IPT stands HOSPITALS Near existing hospitals like Ramesh hospital on ITI road INFORMATION SIGN BOARDS M.GRO A DITIROA D The key map is showing roads in Vijayawada city the red highlighted portion is consisting M.G Road and violet colour highlighted portion is consisting of I.TI road KEY MAP

SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) - II SEM APPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE STUDY OF VIJAYWADASCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE DESIGN PROPOSALS OF PBS SYSTEM T.S.GURURAJA2200600053 FINANCIAL VIABILITY ASSESSMENT OF PUBLIC BICYCLE SHARING SYSTEM IN VIJAYAWADA PBS GUIDING ELEMENTS Based on PBS GUIDANCE DOCUMENT MoHUA BASE DESIGN OF CYCLE Source: Pune cycle Plan BASE DESIGN OF PBS DOCK STATION Front elevation of Design Option in 3D Source: Public Bike Sharing Scheme for Bhopal 3D views of PBS Docks with vertical advertisement panel:Placement of proposed PBS docking stations adjacent or behind bus stops Medium Sized (20) Dimensions: length: 24m Width:2.5m Height:3.3 m 650 s.ft Adv Area Integration of PBS Docking Stations with Public Transit: designmodernExistingofBusshelterinVijayawada 107

SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) - II SEM APPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE STUDY OF VIJAYWADASCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE PROJECT COSTS AND FINANCIAL VIABILITY OF PBS T.S.GURURAJA2200600053 BASE YEAR 2021 Base Fare (first 1 hours) ₹ 5.00 Annual Fare Revision of 24 hour flat fare ₹ 40.00 Average Productive usage hours 8 hours PROPOSED PBS FLEET Demand Phase.1ELURUROAD Phase.2M.G.ROAD Phase.3 ROADITI Total number of cycles 420 300 100 Total stationsdocking 21 15 5 Towing Vans 5 3 1 Manpower Security Guard (2 shifts)+5% additional 45 32 11 Managerial Staff 5 4 2 CAPITAL COST ASSUMPTIONS BASED ON MARKET RATES Per Unit Cost (Rs.) Remarks Bicycles + ITS installation Cost ₹ 15,000 10 % price hike subsequent of base year Dock Stations +Automatic Ticket Vending Machine cost ₹ 6,00,000 Towing Vans (Redistribution vehicles) Cost ₹ 7,00,000 Marketing costs ₹ 10,00,000 1st year ₹ 5,00,000 Subsequent years ITS & Contingency Charges 25% of above total cost Bicycles to be replaced every year 10% of the previous year fleet BASE FARE AND 24 HOURS FLAT RATE INCREMENT UPTO 2031 year 24 flathourfare Minimum Base Fare (first hour) 2021 ₹ 40 ₹ 5 2022 ₹ 45 ₹ 5 2023 ₹ 50 ₹ 7 2024 ₹ 55 ₹ 7 2025 ₹ 60 ₹ 8 2026 ₹ 65 ₹ 9 2027 ₹ 70 ₹ 9 2028 ₹ 75 ₹ 10 2029 ₹ 80 ₹ 10 2030 ₹ 85 ₹ 11 2031 ₹ 90 ₹ 12 Year installedBicyclesNewtobe Bicylestobereplaced(10%) annuallybicyclesTotaltobepurchased Bicycles/TotalYearforservice Lakhs)esbicyclCostfor(Rs.in 2021 420 420 420 ₹ 63.00 2022 300 42 342 720 ₹ 56.43 2023 100 72 172 820 ₹ 26.06 2024 82 82 820 ₹ 12.31 2025 82 82 820 ₹ 12.30 2026 82 82 820 ₹ 12.30 2027 82 82 820 ₹ 12.30 2028 82 82 820 ₹ 12.30 2029 82 82 820 ₹ 12.30 2030 82 82 820 ₹ 12.30 2031 82 82 820 ₹ 12.30 TOTAL 820 770 1590 8520 243.90 (Rs.StationsDockingCostinLakhs) VansTowingCost(Rs.inLakhs) Marketi ng gBrandinand(Rs.inLakhs) ITS & ContingencyCharges(Rs.inLakhs) ₹ 126.00 ₹ 35.00 ₹ 10.00 ₹ 58.50 ₹ 99.00 ₹ 23.10 ₹ 5.00 ₹ 45.88 ₹ 36.30 ₹ 8.47 ₹ 5.00 ₹ 18.96 ₹ 5.00 ₹ 4.33 ₹ 5.00 ₹ 4.33 ₹ 5.00 ₹ 4.33 ₹ 5.00 ₹ 4.33 ₹ 5.00 ₹ 4.33 ₹ 5.00 ₹ 4.33 ₹ 5.00 ₹ 4.33 ₹ 5.00 ₹ 4.33 ₹ 261.30 ₹ 66.57 ₹ 60.00 ₹ 157.94 TotalCostCapital(Rs.inLakhs) ₹ 292.50 ₹ 229.41 ₹ 94.79 ₹ 21.64 ₹ 21.63 ₹ 21.63 ₹ 21.63 ₹ 21.63 ₹ 21.63 ₹ 21.63 ₹ 21.63 ₹ 789.71 PROJECT COSTS & FINANCIAL VIABILITY ASSESSMENT OF PUBLIC BICYCLE SHARING CAPITAL EXPENDITURES - CAPEX 108

SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) - II SEM APPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE STUDY OF VIJAYWADASCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE PROJECT COSTS AND FINANCIAL VIABILITY OF PBS T.S.GURURAJA2200600053 OPERATING COST ASSUMPTIONS Cycle Maintenance 5% of its base cost Dock MaintenanceStations 2% of its base cost 5% Incremental Cost Towing MaintenanceVans 5% of its base cost Security Guard ₹ 9,000.00 rs/month Managerial Staff ₹ 15,000.00 rs/month 10% hike in cycle maintenance charges & Human resource wages YEAR ManitenanceCycle(Rs.inLakhs) ManitenancDocke(Rs.inLakhs) Towing MaintenanceVan(Rs.inLakhs) CostManpower(Rs.inLakhs) ChargesInsurancefornewcycles(Lakhs) ChargesInsuranceforoldcycles(Lakhs) Total O&M Cost (Rs. in Lakhs) 2021 ₹ 3.15 ₹ 2.52 ₹ 1.75 ₹ 58 ₹ 0.63 ₹ 65.65 2022 ₹ 5.40 ₹ 4.63 ₹ 3.03 ₹ 109 ₹ 0.51 ₹ 0.38 ₹ 123.24 2023 ₹ 6.15 ₹ 5.58 ₹ 3.66 ₹ 137 ₹ 0.26 ₹ 0.65 ₹ 153.56 2024 ₹ 6.15 ₹ 5.86 ₹ 3.92 ₹ 151 ₹ 0.12 ₹ 0.74 ₹ 167.77 2025 ₹ 6.15 ₹ 6.16 ₹ 4.19 ₹ 166 ₹ 0.12 ₹ 0.74 ₹ 183.44 2026 ₹ 6.15 ₹ 6.46 ₹ 4.49 ₹ 183 ₹ 0.12 ₹ 0.74 ₹ 200.65 2027 ₹ 6.15 ₹ 6.79 ₹ 4.80 ₹ 201 ₹ 0.12 ₹ 0.74 ₹ 219.55 2028 ₹ 6.15 ₹ 7.13 ₹ 5.14 ₹ 221 ₹ 0.12 ₹ 0.74 ₹ 240.32 2029 ₹ 6.15 ₹ 7.48 ₹ 5.50 ₹ 243 ₹ 0.12 ₹ 0.74 ₹ 263.14 2030 ₹ 6.15 ₹ 7.86 ₹ 5.88 ₹ 267 ₹ 0.12 ₹ 0.74 ₹ 288.22 2031 ₹ 6.15 ₹ 8.25 ₹ 6.29 ₹ 294 ₹ 0.12 ₹ 0.74 ₹ 315.77 TOTAL ₹ 63.90 ₹ 68.71 ₹ 48.65 ₹ 2,030.73 ₹ 2.39 ₹ 6.93 ₹ 2,221.31 INSURANCE CHARGES New Cycles 150 rs/month Old Cycles 100 rs/month REVENUES Fare increment 10% annually Advertisement cycles ₹ 50.00 Rs/month Advertisement area 600 sq.feet Advertisement cost 50 per sq.feet/ month Increment advertisementinrevenue 2% Per annum Average utilization of a cycle/day 4 Trips per day Increment in revenue from fare box 5% Per annum scrap value of cycles 60% of its cost base cost Initial Fare 10 rupees YEAR Fare RevenueBox(Rs.in Lakhs) Increment advertisementinrevenue(2%) from cycles Adverisementfrombicycles (Rs. in Lakhs) Increment advertisemeinntrevenue (2%) from dock stations mentAdvertisefromstations (Rs. in Lakhs) revenue from scrap cycles ( in lakhs) RevenueTotal(Rs.in Lakhs) 2021 ₹ 30.66 ₹ 50 ₹ 2.52 ₹ 30,000 ₹ 180.0 ₹ 0.00 ₹ 213.18 2022 ₹ 52.56 ₹ 51 ₹ 4.41 ₹ 30,600 ₹ 183.6 ₹ 3.8 ₹ 244.35 2023 ₹ 83.80 ₹ 52 ₹ 5.12 ₹ 31,212 ₹ 187.3 ₹ 6.5 ₹ 282.67 2024 ₹ 83.80 ₹ 53 ₹ 5.22 ₹ 31,836 ₹ 191.0 ₹ 7.4 ₹ 287.42 2025 ₹ 95.78 ₹ 54 ₹ 5.33 ₹ 32,473 ₹ 194.8 ₹ 7.4 ₹ 303.32 2026 ₹ 107.75 ₹ 55 ₹ 5.43 ₹ 33,122 ₹ 198.7 ₹ 7.4 ₹ 319.29 2027 ₹ 107.75 ₹ 56 ₹ 5.54 ₹ 33,785 ₹ 202.7 ₹ 7.4 ₹ 323.38 2028 ₹ 119.72 ₹ 57 ₹ 5.65 ₹ 34,461 ₹ 206.8 ₹ 7.4 ₹ 339.51 2029 ₹ 119.72 ₹ 59 ₹ 5.76 ₹ 35,150 ₹ 210.9 ₹ 7.4 ₹ 343.76 2030 ₹ 131.69 ₹ 60 ₹ 5.88 ₹ 35,853 ₹ 215.1 ₹ 7.4 ₹ 360.07 2031 ₹ 143.66 ₹ 61 ₹ 6.00 ₹ 36,570 ₹ 219.4 ₹ 7.4 ₹ 376.46 TOTAL 1076.90 56.86 2190.37 ₹ 69.30 ₹ 3,393.42 OPERATIONAL EXPENDITURES - OPEX SOURCES OF REVENUE 109

SHEET NODEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIO M.PLAN(TIP) - II SEM APPRAISAL OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : A CASE STUDY OF VIJAYWADASCHOOL OF PLANNING & VIJAYAWADAARCHITECTURE PROJECT COSTS AND FINANCIAL VIABILITY OF PBS 110T.S.GURURAJA2200600053 YEAR TotalCostCapital(Rs.inLakhs) Total O&M Cost (Rs. in Lakhs) RevenueTotal (Rs. in Lakhs) ProfitabilityNet(inlakhs) 2021 ₹ 292.50 ₹ 65.65 ₹ 213.18 ₹ 144.97 2022 ₹ 229.41 ₹ 123.24 ₹ 244.35 ₹ 108.31 2023 ₹ 94.79 ₹ 153.56 ₹ 282.67 ₹ 34.33 2024 ₹ 21.64 ₹ 167.77 ₹ 287.42 ₹ 98.01 2025 ₹ 21.63 ₹ 183.44 ₹ 303.32 ₹ 98.26 2026 ₹ 21.63 ₹ 200.65 ₹ 319.29 ₹ 97.02 2027 ₹ 21.63 ₹ 219.55 ₹ 323.38 ₹ 82.20 2028 ₹ 21.63 ₹ 240.32 ₹ 339.51 ₹ 77.57 2029 ₹ 21.63 ₹ 263.14 ₹ 343.76 ₹ 58.99 2030 ₹ 21.63 ₹ 288.22 ₹ 360.07 ₹ 50.23 2031 ₹ 21.63 ₹ 315.77 ₹ 376.46 ₹ 39.07 ₹ 789.71 ₹ 2,221.31 ₹ 3,393.42 ₹ 382.40 NET PROFITABILITY 382 Lakhs NET PROFIT VALUE ₹ 63.59 Lakhs INTERNAL RATE OF RETURNS 21% PROFITABILITY INDEX 1.44 PAY BACK PERIOD 4.2 years FINAL PROJECT SUMMARY OF PUBLIC BICYCLE SHARING SYSTEM ₹ 200.00 ₹ 100.00 ₹ 0.00 ₹ 100.00 ₹ 200.00 ₹ 300.00 ₹ 400.00 ₹ 500.00 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 total expenditure total revenue Net profitability Inference: From the above graph, we can observe that there is gradual increase in revenue from the 3rd year onwards. But the Net profit value is in declining trend may due to costs involved in operation and maintenance, hence there is a need for upgradation of ITS and automation to decrease costs incurred by human resource for profitable PBS system and need for other alternative sources of revenue. lakhs)Profits(in PROFITABILITY OF PROJECT: SHARE OF INVESTMENT CAPEX ₹ 789.71 26% OPEX ₹ 2,221.31 74% SHARE OF REVENUE ₹ 56.86, 2% ₹ 2,190.37,64% **Figure in lakhs FARE BOX ₹ 1,146.234% ADVERTISEMENT ₹ 2,247.266% Adv. CyclesAdv.Dockingstations