Formulating Guidelines for Multimodal Transport Hubs

FORMULATION OF FRAMEWORK
AND GUIDELINES FOR MULTIMODAL
TRANSPORT HUB

Study Area: Sealdah Interchange, Kolkata

Literature Review
Gargi Ghosh
10 AR 60 R08

Under the guidance
of:
Prof. Debapratim

A multimodal journey:

A multimodal transport hub facilitates-

•R a i l f a c i l i t i e s •Passenger waiting area
•Bus facilities •Commercial facilities
•Water facilities •Ticketing offices
•Air facilities •Parking facilities
•Vertical and horizontal
passenger link.

FORMULATION OF FRAMEWORK & GUIDELINES FOR MULTIMODAL TRANSPORT HUB: Study Area: Sealdah Interchange, Kolkata

TOLLYGUNJ BUS DEPOT

TOLLYGUNJ METRO

AUTO STANDS

TOLLYGUNJ TRAM DEPOT

TOLLYGUNJ METRO

FORMULATION OF FRAMEWORK & GUIDELINES FOR MULTIMODAL TRANSPORT HUB: Case Study East – West Metro Corridor, Kolkata

•To enable the establishment of quality focused multimodal transport system to provide
a “ single journey experience ” i.e. to plan for “seamless travel”

• To co-coordinate the use of different modes and their proper integration to decongest
road, reduce journey time, enhance environment, provide greater convenience for
commuters & for efficiency and cost effectiveness.


PRELIMINARY Study on interchange site and catchment area
APPROACH :
EVALUATION
Parameters of interchange Barriers of interchange
LEVEL OF SENSITIVITY
SERVICE ANALYSIS
APPROACH APPROACH Prioritizing and ranking of parameters

LEVEL OF SERVICE APPROACH SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS APPROACH

LOS values Methodology for Estimation of demand response
planning process for variation in interchange
Gap analysis of factors/barriers
opinions
Arrive at stable
priorities for
development

Recommendation of Design standards /
guidelines for transport recommendation
infrastructure and planning


• DEFINITIONS
1

• THEORY OF INTERCHANGE
2

• INTERCHANGE AND UTILITY OF TRAVEL
3

• COMPARATIVE STUDY OF INTERCHANGE
4 PARAMETERS Parameters to be
studied
• STUDY OF SURVEYS UNDERTAKEN
5 Surveys to be
undertaken
• STUDY OF DATA ANALYSIS PROCEDURES
6 Data analysis
methodology
• METHODOLOGY OF WORK
6
Domain of work


Group for Urban Interchanges Development and Evaluation (GUIDE)
URBAN INTERCHANGES - a good practice guide:

Lists out the
Study confined to barriers to Ways of
Cost effective
interchange area interchange – improving
interchange level
– European through expert interchange
proposals
context opinion and experience
literature study

Study on Mobility, Intermodality and Interchanges (MIMIC)

Study on Classification, r
interchange anking of
Estimation of
and catchment interchange Interchange
demand
area – 30 barriers – specific
response –
European survey at the proposals
logit model
interchanges of interchange
four scales site

PIRATE:

Derives values
Study on
Lists out the for LOS from
interchange Provides
parameters of users and
and catchment methodology
interchange – operators –
area –a sample for planning
based on EU survey at the
of 22 European approach
transport policy 22 interchange
interchanges
sites

Multi Modal Transportation System Planning and Design- unpublished PhD Thesis

Study on Delhi MMTS
Lists out the Provides methodology
–interchange as a
parameters of MMTS for planning approach
component


A study of intermodal transport Coordination and its contribution to Sustainable
urban transportation In Hong Kong: unpublished dissertation ,Lui Kwok Wai, William

Study on Derives values for Recommendations
Public transport
interchange and LOS for public for intermodality
policies in Hong
catchment area – transport contributing to
Kong
Hong Kong context interchanges sustainability

An analysis of Transport Interchanges in west rail – unpublished dissertation work MAK
Steven Chi Fai:

Study on interchange Specifies evaluation Evaluates
and west rail network process for interchanges in west
– Hong Kong interchanges rail link


The word interchanges can have with two meanings:

• It can describe the action of interchanging, as undertaken by passengers as
part of a journey (sometimes termed transfer)

• But it can also mean a location where interchange takes place.
Source GUIDE

Public Transit Interchange is a location where passengers transfer from one mode of transport to
another, or between two services of the same mode. An interchange can mean three things:

the act of changing between mode – interchange

the place where one changes between modes – interchange zone

a purpose-built facility to improve interchange quality – interchange facility

Source: The Intermodal Transport Interchange for London - Best Practice Guidelines (Tfl et al, January 2001


Public transport works by concentrating passengers onto selected corridors, and inevitably this leaves
some journeys without a direct connection. So interchange is a necessary evil when it comes to
providing comprehensive linkages within an urban area.

We regard the utility of having to interchange (Uint) as having three principal components:

a requirement to interchange (I) which has a penalty associated with it (α)
independent of the amount of time spent interchanging

·the time spent transferring between vehicles (TT) with a weight β

·the time spent waiting for the connection (W) with a weight δ

Expressed as a linear-additive function, this utility of interchange is:

U = αI + βTT + δw + ε0


So utility of travel can be expressed
as:

Ui = Uint + U rest + ε

Urest denotes the utility associated with the travel attributes which influence choice other than those
contained in Uint
If Urest is considered to be a function of simply in-vehicle time and cost, then utility of travel can be
expressed as :
Ui = αIi + βTTi + δWi + γCi + μTi +
ε1


Ui = αIi + βTTi + δWi + γCi + μTi +
ε1

(i) Interchange penalty I (ii) Transfer Time Value (iii) Wait Time Value W
TT
α=λ0 + λ1 E(W)+ λ2E(A)+ λ3PJ+ λ4NL +
λ5 TC • Security of interchange
•Amount of transfer time
Λ0 = Fixed level of penalty • Ability to engage in
•Nature of transfer worthwhile
E(W), E(A) = additional waiting time activities
•Transfer environment
PJ = position in journey where (iii) Cost Value C (iii) In-vehicle time Value
T
interchange occurs
• Cost of a single mode
NL= non linear effects journey
• amount of time in vehicle
TC= transaction cost of interchange •Cost to interchange
• cost of travel


The parameters of study have been catergorised under the following heads:

1 • LOCAL PLANNING AND LAND USE

2 • L O G I S T I C S A N D O P E R AT I O N A L

3 • PHYSICAL DESIGN

4 • I N F O R M AT I O N

5 • OVERALL PERFORMANCE


HONGKONG UTILITY PARAMETERS FOR
PARAMETERS PIRATE MIMIC STUDY FUNCTION DELHI MMTS STUDY

Location and
overall Rail- street
LOCAL
accessibility Pedestrian linkages movement ease Accessibility local roads Entrance accessibility
PLANNING
AND entrance Existence of Cycle rail-PTI Legibility of interchange
LANDUSE accessibility tracks movement ease movement pattern zone
No conflicting
vehicular and PTI- rail Rail-street movement
pedestrian flows movement ease Ease of access ease

Cycle storage Street- street
facility movement ease Ease of egress Rail-PTI movement ease

Reliable feeder Catchment area passenger flow – Street- street
services < 500m adequate capacity movement ease

High density pick Parking Pedestrian linkage to
up points availability parking location catchment area
Segregation of
Bus &
Cab & taxi services passengers Conflict among modes
Walking distance –
segregation of inside & outside
Parking areas modes interchange



Network
Frequency of Public transport Connectivity operational connectivity
Taxi provision service provision between modes integration between modes
Time synchronised
LOGISTIC AND Operation Time physical operation between
OPERATIONAL Overall quality Waiting time Bus availability synchronization integration modes
Unified ticketing Frequency of network Frequency of
Car parking system Tram availability modes integration service
Cost of
interchange Non -road based peak utilization of
Queuing time public transport Waiting time mode Waiting time
Unified ticketing
personal safety bicycle parking feeder services system
PTI part of real
property safety station Feeder services
Peak utilization of
bicycle storage modes
Distribution
transfer facility network
Pedestrian Transfer
parking capacity facility

Drop off/ Pick up max accumulation

PARAMETERS FOR
PARAMETERS PIRATE MIMIC HONGKONG STUDY UTILITY FUNCTION DELHI MMTS STUDY

PHYSICAL Security Single level Interchange Connectivity
DESIGN Equipment Functionality services environment subways between levels
Designing for
Surveillance Aesthetic design Toilets security transfer facilities legibility of layout

Ticketing Walking Distances Seating areas waiting areas
Automated
ticket vending Protected
machines walkways ease of access
Commercial Overall lighting
facilities Level change of 120-15o lux ease of egress
shopping transfer between
facilities Ramp availability levels
Car & bike Elevator Ticket vending
rentals availability machines

waiting facilities Lift availability Disabled access
Safety waiting
waiting rooms areas queuing space
guide routes for
toilets blinds

catering Disabled access



Integrated
OVERALL interchange real time
PERFORMANCE Safety & security management Integrated safety information Integration
passenger
Image of perception of
personal safety interchange capacity comfort pedestrian safety Efficiency
Minimize
walking
property safety Urban Setting distance Property safety

Efficiency Functionality Safety Functionality
Integrated
Passenger interchange
coordination Cleanliness facilities management
Shops and retail Security
Efficiency services personnel Easy layout

operation Cost of travel Pedestrian safety

Information Urban setting
Shops and retail
Placement services

Legibility

HONGKONG PARAMETERS FOR
PARAMETERS PIRATE MIMIC STUDY UTILITY FUNCTION DELHI MMTS STUDY

Multi level car Weather protected
parking stacking areas link

pedestrian
Drop off area pathways Drop off area

no conflict
among modes Parking areas

loading areas Peripheral bus bay
Walking
distance less Bus stop
than 500m performance

weather
protected link
peripheral saw-
toothed bus
bay
Real time Pre- trip
C. INFORMATION information information CCTV Pre-trip information
Total Travel Real time Travel time
time information Maps information


LOCAL PLANNING AND LOGISTICAL AND OVERALL
LANDUSE OPERATIONAL PHYSICAL DESIGN PERFORMANCE INFORMATION
Network connectivity Connectivity between Integration with urban
Entrance accessibility between modes levels setting Pre-trip information
Time synchronised
operation between Efficiency of
Legibility modes legibility of layout interchnage Travel time information

Rail-street movement Frequency of service waiting areas Property safety

Rail PTI movement waiting time ease of access Functionality
Integrated interchange
Street- street movement Unified ticketing system ease of egress management
Pedestrian linkage to
catchment area feeder services transfer between levels Easy layout
Ticket vending
conflict among modes Peak utilization of modes machines Pedestrian safety

Walking distance Distribution network Disabled access Urban setting
Shops and retail
Weather protected link queuing space services

Drop off area

Parking areas

Peripheral bus bay
Bus stop performance

BUILT FACILITY DESIGN TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE TRANSPORT PLANNING

EFFICIENT DESIGN INTEGRATED INFRASTRUCTURE MGMT FEEDER ROUTES

PROPERTY SAFETY PRE- TRIP INFORMATION TIME SYNCHRONISED
OPERATION
LEGIBILITY OF LAYOUT REAL TIME INFORMATION NETWORK CONNECTIVITY
BETWEEN MODES
DISABLED ACCESS PEDESTRIAN LINKAGE TO CATCHMENT FREQUENCY OF SERVICE
AREA
ENTRANCE ACCESSIBILITY PARKING/DROP OFF AREA PEAK UTILIZATION OF MODES

RETAIL SERVICES BUS BAYS DISTRIBUTION NETWORK

WEATHER PROTECTED LINK UNIFIED TICKETING SYSTEM PEDESTRIAN FLOWS

TICKET VENDING INTEGRATION
MACHINES
WAITING AREA VOLUME OF INTERCHANGE

QUEUING SPACE TRANSFER STAGE

EASE OF ACCESS/EGRESS LINE HAUL STAGE
CONNECTIVITY BETWEEN
LEVELS

INTERCHANGE SITE & USER & EXPERT
CATCHMENT AREA SURVEY for
•Trip factors
•Individual factors
•Interchange
BARRIERS OF factors
INTERMODALITY
Questionnaire INTERCHANGE
on catchment DELINEATION OF DECONSTRUCTI
area CATCHMENT AREA CLASSIFICATION OF ON
BARRIERS
GIS mapping MICRO
SIMULATION
ON SITE SURVEY
NESTED
LOGIT CHANGE IN DEMAND
MODEL RESPONSE FOR
VARIATION IN FACTORS

COST EFFECTIVE SOLUTIONS
FOR EACH BARRIER CATEGORY


AIM TOOLS
USER AND EXPERT SURVEY
on
• Trip factors
BARRIER • Interchange factors
IDENTIFICATIO • Individual factors DATA ANALYSIS
N
INTERCHANGE
• marking DECONSTRUCTION Calculation of mean marks:
• ranking for
importance • visual profiling matrices
• energy, distance, time matrices
m(i) = Σ Mj(i)
nΣni
MICROSIMULATION MODEL
Mj(i) is the mark given to factor i by individual j;
i = 1,...,K is the generic factor considered, with K
Totally Moderately Extremely the total number of door-to-door factors listed in
unimportant Important important the questionnaires;
j = 1,...,n is the generic individual interviewed,
1 5 9 with n the total number of interviewees;
ni is the number of interviewees who circled an
„N‟ in the question referring to factor i.


VISUAL PROFILING MATRICES TIME, ENERGY, DISTANCE MATRICES

Dist Spee Time Energ
(m) d (s) y (J)
(m/s)
Horizontal 200 1.34 149.2 52.1
walking (
outside)
Horizontal 50 1.34 37.3 13.0
walking (
inside)
Horizontal 10 1.34 7.5 2.6
walking (
platform
distance)
Stairs (up) 3.5 .30 11.7 10.9

Stairs(down) .34 12.1 6.0
R – ramps B – barriers
H – handrails P - Pavement obstacle


A simulation is a technique for using computers to imitate, or simulate, the
operations of various kinds of real-world facilities or processes.

•It looks at the interaction of individual
"units" such as people or vehicles –
AGENT BASED APPROACH

• Each unit is treated as an autonomous
entity and the interaction of the units is
allowed vary depending on stochastic
(randomized) parameters

• each unit is represented by a record
containing a unique identifier and a set of
associated attributes – e.g. a list of
vehicles with known origins, destinations
and operational characteristics

INTERCHANGE AREA

PARAMETR SELECTION

Priority rating Priority rating
by user group PRIORITISING THE by expert
PARAMETERS
group
User Operator
Perceived perspecti perspecti Targeted
QoS ve ve QoS
Desired QoS QUALITY OF SEVRVICE Delivered
QoS
Minimum QoS
GAP ANALYSIS
Establishing Stable
Demand – Supply priorities – using SD
analysis and mean mark
PROPOSAL FOR
INTERCHANGE
IMPROVEMENT


10
PRIORITISATION USER GROUP 9
OF PARAMETERS SURVEY:
8
UNDER PROVISIONED
7
INTERCHANGE UG 1: W+R, P+R,

Importance
6
PERFORMANCE R+R, C+R
5

4
• perceived quality of UG2: Non users
3
service
2
OVER PROVISIONED
1
• delivered quality of
0
service
0 2 4 6 8 10
Perceived LOS
• desired quality of EXPERT GROUP
service SURVEY I>LOS = Under provision
I<LOS = Over provision

• targeted quality of PG1: operators Totally Moderately Extremely
unimportant Important important
service

• min acceptable PG2:Planners and 1 5 9
Totally Moderately
quality of service administrative Very
displeased satisfied pleased
machinery


USER GROUPS EXPERT GROUPS Priority, Perceived QoS, Expected QoS
,Minimum QoS
Age wise Gender wise Operator - planner
Delivered QoS, Targeted QoS
Mode wise
High SD = less probability of the issue to
be solved
Consistently high mean value for priority 3.5
= More stable a candidate for
6 development 3

5 2.5

2
4

UG1 1.5
3 UG2
1
PG1
2 PG1 0.5

1 0
PG1-UG1 PG1-UG1 UG1-UG2 PG1-PG2 PG2-UG1 PG2-UG2

0 feeder routes
feeder routes Walking distance Unified Ticketing waiting time Walking distance

Gap in mean value for parameter priority Gap in SD value between groups for parameter priority


• perceived LoS

• delivered LoS PERCEIVED
LOS (USER)
GAP
• desired LoS

• targeted LoS MIN TARGETED DESIRED
LOS LOS (OPERATOR) LOS (USER)
• min acceptable LoS

? WILLINGNESS TO PAY – USER
? SUBSIDIES - GOVERNMENT

OPTIMUM VALUES OF LOS

GUIDELINES & FRAMEWORK


STUDY

FORMATION IMPLEMENTATION
OF OF
GUIDELINES GUIDELINES

To derive the LOS values for interchange, user and expert
survey would be conducted at:

DUMDUM INTERCHANGE

• Suburban railway, bus, metro line, paratransit &
pedestrian flow
T O L LY G U N J I N T E R C H A N G E

• Terminal metro station, bus, pedestrian &
paratransit flows
SEALDAH INTERCHANGE

• Terminal suburban railway
station, bus, pedestrian, paratransit flow & future
metro

SHORTLISTING OF PARAMETERS
( BARRIERS & ATTRACTION) under
TRANSPORT INFRA. & PLNG

• perceived LoS SURVEY FOR
SURVEY FOR SURVEY OF
PRIORITISATION OF
SATISFACTION OPERATORS FOR
PARAMETERS ( USER+
• delivered LoS (USER + EXPERT)
EXPERT)
CATCHMENT AREA

• desired LoS
DERIVING LEVEL OF SERVICE
• targeted LoS
VALUES
• min acceptable
LoS
GAP ANALYSIS

USER SURVEY FOR
WILLINGNESS TO
PAY
ARRIVING AT OPTIMUM LEVELS
FROM DEMAND SUPPLY & COST
BENEFIT ANALYSIS

GENERAL FRAMEWORK AND
GUIDELINES

Transport modes at the interchange:

1. S U B R U R B A N R A I L W AY S
2. BUS TRANSIT
3. PA R AT R A N S I T
4. M E T R O (upcoming)

Major issues at the interchange:

• Conflict of flows
• Congestion
• Pedestrian safety
• Parking space

•Application of the formulated guidelines
•Detailed planning of selected parameters


1. Terzis, G (2000) GUIDE: Group for Urban Interchanges Development and Evaluation , MVA
Consultants
2. Coccia Enzo (2002), PIRATE
3. Wardman Mark, Hine Julian, Stradling Stephen (2001), Interchange and Travel Choice, Vol-1, Vol-2.,
DETR
4. South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive (2001), MIMIC: Mobility, Intermodality and
Interchange, EU Commission under Transport
5. A study of intermodal transport Coordination and its contribution to Sustainable urban transportation
In Hong Kong (2001), Lui Kwok Wai, William, unpublished dissertation work.
6. Singh Y.P. (2002), “Performance of Kolkata Metro railway: A case study.” CODATUX Pa., 337 – 342.
7. KMDA. “Master Plan for Traffic & Transportation for Kolkata Metropolitan Area - 2025,” Report.
8. C. Jotin Khisti, B. Kent Lall, Prentice Hall of India Private Limited, Transportation Engineering An
Introduction


Formulating Guidelines for Multimodal Transport Hubs

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

En vedette

En vedette (6)

Similaire à Formulating Guidelines for Multimodal Transport Hubs

Similaire à Formulating Guidelines for Multimodal Transport Hubs (20)

Plus de Gargee Ghosh

Plus de Gargee Ghosh (6)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Formulating Guidelines for Multimodal Transport Hubs