Assessment of socio economic benefits of non-motorized transport (NMT) integration with public transit (PT) Case study of Bike share (BS) system in Pune, India Parvesh Kumar Sharawat Department of Policy Studies TERI School of advance studies Vasant Kunj, New Delhi – 110070, India
19
Embed
Assessment of socio economic benefits of non-motorized ......Assessment of socio economic benefits of non-motorized transport (NMT) integration with public transit (PT) Case study
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Assessment of socio economic benefits of non-motorized transport (NMT) integration with public transit (PT)
Case study of Bike share (BS) system in
Pune, India
Parvesh Kumar Sharawat
Department of Policy Studies
TERI School of advance studies
Vasant Kunj, New Delhi – 110070, India
Research Question and Hypothesis
■ Research Question - Will provision of a bike share system influence modal choice of
existing and potential commuters to benefit individual users and the city?
Hypothesis 1 Hypothesis 2
Research objectives
■ To examine the importance of NMT and PT integration in urban
transport and the relevance of Bike Sharing (BS) system in that
context
■ To assess the benefits and key variables of modal choice of BS
system
■ To quantitively analyse the potential mode shift variables and
assess the modal shift of commuters in an identified case study
city
■ To derive the individual and the city benefits due to potential
modal shift.
Methodological Approach
Data analysis and results - Correlation matrix analysis - Logistic regression modelling
(stated and revealed preference)
Ob
jecti
ve 1
& 2
Ob
jecti
ve 3
& 4
Literature review
Significant indicators affecting the mode shift to BS
Frequency of reference i.e., most commonly referred variables
Derivability from the benefits
Methodological consistency
■ Cyclist or non-cyclist
■ Age
■ Gender
■ Household size
■ Household monthly income
■ Personal monthly income
■ Occupation
■ Vehicle ownership
■ Bicycle ownership
■ Frequency of trip
■ Purpose of trip
■ Access and egress time
■ Mainline time and distance
■ Bicycle theft
■ Perception of transportation
system and cycling
infrastructure
■ Willingness to pay for BS
Literature review
Benefit of BS and PT integration
Individual Users benefits
■ Reduced cost of travel - access and egress to PT
■ Improved health
■ Improvement in safety and comfort of cyclist
■ Change in access and egress travel time to PT
■ Cost saving for school trips
The City benefits
■ Encourages smart growth – mixed land use will reduce the trip length thus making the city more cycle friendly
■ Rationalization of parking demand
■ Better street interface
The City benefits
■ Reduced heat islands due to decrease in number of motorized vehicles
■ Municipal expenditure reduction on public health care
■ Municipality has to spend less money on constructing expensive Motor Vehicle infrastructures
■ Decrease in Pollution
■ Fossil fuel consumption reduction
■ Decrease in congestion
■ Economic equity
■ Social equity – gender equity
■ Improvement in work trips accessibility of low-income users
• Stratified sampling
• 2500 sample size
• Residential, Institutional, Commercial
and transportation nodes
Case study - Pune
Case study - Pune
Mode share comparison
Mode share
(%)
HH Survey
(2016)
CMP (2008) Metro DPR
(2012)
Wilbur Smith
(2008)
Walk 46.9 22.0 25.0 25
Cycle 3.06 11.1 8.8 18
4W 5.54 10.2 6.3 12
2W 29.04 37.2 38.6 29
IPT 11.3 7.2 8.3 6
PT 4.16 12.3 13.0 10
PCTRA 1.92 1.3 - 1.26
Total number
of trips
6635200 399113 4865117 -
Population 34,61,497
(PMC area)
29,70,000
(projected for
2007 from
2001 census –
PMC area)
37,56,345
(projected for
2011 from
2001 census -
PMC area)
42,00,000
(2001-PMR
area)
Logistic regression modelling approach
Results of logistic regression –Significant indicators
Access Egress Short trips Long trips
• MLH time –
likelihood
increases with
MLH
• Gender –
women are
more likely to
use
• Age – less likely
to used with
increasing age
• MLH time –
likelihood
increases with
MLH
• Occupation -
businessman,
housewives and
students less likely
to use
• Cyclist – non cyclists less likely to
use
• Gender – women are less likely to
use
• Frequency of trip – occasional
travellers are less likely to use
• Perceptions - strong believer of
Pune transport system is generally
safe are more likely to use. And
strong believers of Pune transport
system has no adverse effect on
health are less likely to use. Also,
believers of Separate cycle tracks
on busy main roads as important
cycling infrastructure are more
likely to use.
• Gender – women
are less likely to
use the PT
• WTP –
respondents who
are willing to pay
upto INR 200 for
monthly
subscription are
more likely to use
the PT. However,
probability
decreases with
further increase in
subscription
charges.
Potential modal shift to Bike share system
Logistic regression – user
survey
Modelled probability of shift
Extrapolation on HH data – PCTR, short and long
trips
City demographic (2016 projected
population) –total trips
Modal shift at various cut off
probability points
Benefits estimation
Potential modal shift to Bike share system
Mode 0.5 cut off 0.6 cut off 0.7 cut off 0.8 cut off 0.9 cut off
Short
trips to
BS
Long
trips to
PT
Short
trips to
BS
Long
trips to
PT
Short
trips to
BS
Long
trips to
PT
Short
trips to
BS
Long
trips to
PT
Short
trips to
BS
Long
trips
to PT
Walk 99% 100% 92% 100% 69% 33% 42% 33% 8% 0%
Cycle 100% 93% 99% 93% 95% 58% 75% 51% 29% 0%
2wheeler 96% 90% 92% 91% 74% 62% 32% 38% 6% 0%
Car 100% 85% 91% 85% 61% 50% 30% 35% 0% 0%
PT 99% - 89% - 67% - 31% - 5% -
Auto 95% 75% 84% 75% 65% 17% 40% 17% 7% 0%
Total 98% 88% 91% 89% 71% 44% 40% 35% 9% 0%
• At 0.5 probability cut off point there is high percentage shift to BS and PT which becomes almost
zero when the probability cut off point increases to 0.9. The probability cut off point of 0.8 has
revealed moderate shift of 35-45% which has also been observed in the other modal shift studies
as well (Bajracharya, 2008; Fatima & Kumar, 2014; 3; 10; P V, Thomas, & Sam, 2014; Rastogi, 2010;