OBSERVATIONS ON THE BUS CORRIDOR IN DELHI
Dario Hidalgo, PhD
EMBARQ, The WRI Center for Sustainable Transport
Submitted to the Center of Science and the Environment
Delhi, India, February 2009
Contents
• Key Questions About the Corridor • Delhi Bus Corridor Observations• Recommendations for Existing Corridor
• Has the bus corridor improved the travel conditions in the corridor?
• Are the strategies to reduce motor vehicle congestion effective?
• Would curbside bus lanes would work better than median bus lanes?
• Has the bus corridor improved the travel conditions in the corridor?
Distribution of Vehicles - By Mode
2%23%
75%
Motor Vehicles
Buses
Cycle & Cycle Rkshw
Distribution of People - By Mode
55%
33%
11%
Motor Vehicles
Buses
Cycle & Cycle Rkshw
Chirag Delhi Junction
Morning Peak Hour
AK to MC
4,916 Vehicles
11,480 People
Source: DIMTS, IIT Delhi, 2008
You get different answers depending on your priorities – moving vehicles vs. moving people
Distribution of wait time @ Chirag Delhi junction - People
68%
32%
MotorisedVehiclesBuses
Distribution of wait time @ Chirag Delhi junction - Vehicles
4%
96%
MotorisedVehiclesBuses
Calculation based on Webster’s Delay Formula for Signalized Intersections
One Leg
Chirag Delhi Junction
Morning Peak Hour
AK to MC
53.0 Vehicle-Hours
164.8 Person-Hours
The Bus Corridor has reduced the average travel time
People Delay - Morning Peak Hour - In Hours
1,440 1,648
3,1862,078
0
2000
4000
6000
Without Project With Project
Buses
MV's-19%
+14%
-35%
4,626
3,726
• Are the strategies to reduce motor vehicle congestion effective?
Delay for People
53
111105
179
0
40
80
120
160
200
Motor Vehicles Buses
To
tal P
eop
le*H
ou
rs
148 Seconds Cycle240 Seconds Cycle
Increasing the Signal Cycle increases the waiting time for all users – biggest impact to the bus commuters (55% of the people)
• Would curbside bus lanes would work better than median bus lanes?
The difference in commercial speed between median lanes and curbside lanes is 5-7 km/hour
Curbside bus lanes
• Left turns are usually higher than right turns (left turns along the stretch, right turns only at the junction)
• Encroachment: hawkers, taxis, auto-rickshaws, • Punctures (e.g. every 114 m on the left hand side and 134 m on
right hand side on the extension of the pilot corridor, Source IIT Delhi, Feb 2009)
• Breakdown vehicles• More difficult to enforce• Painted lanes do not ensure compliance
Curbside Lanes Santiago, Chile, April 2008
Curbside Lanes Santiago, Chile, April 2008
0
50
100
150
200
250
Median Lane Curbside Lane Mixed Traffic
Tri
p T
ime
(Min
ute
s)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
Fle
et (
Bu
ses)
Trip Time
Fleet
Unreliability - 10%
Unreliability - 40%
Unreliability - 60%
Curbside lanes increase the average travel time for bus commuters and cost of operations for the
transit providers
15 Km Corridor – 6 Km pilot, 9 Km with alternatives
What is a Bus Rapid Transit system?
“Is a flexible, rubber-tired form of rapid transit that combines stations, vehicles, services, running ways and ITS elements into an integrated system with strong identity”TCRP Report 90 – Bus Rapid Transit – Volume 2: Implementation Guidelines 2003
“It is a high quality public transport system, oriented to the user that offers fast, comfortable and low cost urban mobility” BRT Planning Guide – ITDP GTZ, 2007
Photo: Madhav Pai, EMBARQDelhi Bus Corridor
(2008)
Delhi Bus Corridor
• Initial Operation: April 2008• Length: 5.6 Km• Stations: 9• Ridership: Total N/A; • Peak 6,500
passenger/hr/direction• Frequency: 120 buses/hr• Commercial Speed• Peak Hour & Direction: In corridor: 16-19 Km/hr• Off corridor: 7-11 Km/hr• Operational Productivity: ? passengers/bus-km (4.8 citywide DTC)• Capital Productivity: ? passengers/bus/day (848 citywide DTC)• Investment Infrastructure: Rs 14 crores/km (3 million/km)• Cost per Passenger: ?• Average User Fare: Rs 1/km Rs 3.87 per passenger citywide
DTC (USD 0.08)
Source: Interviews February 2008
Photo By: Madhav Pai, EMBARQ/WRI April 26th, 2008
Photo By: Madhav Pai, EMBARQ/WRI April 26th, 2008@ Ambedkar Marg & Mehrauli Badarpur Road Junction
Bus priority at junction
• The usage of the active transport facilities is very high – 1,129 bicycles/hour peak period South North at Junction
– Pedestrian: not available
• Pedestrian and cyclists have expressed high level of satisfaction with the new facilities
• Temporary solutions for congestion relief are compromising the concept of segregated facilities for active transport. New space is required to reduce conflicts
• This report concentrates on the bus corridor
The bus corridor also includes the construction of segregated facilities for pedestrians and bicycles for the first time in Delhi
Summary Commercial Speed
15
17
14
14
32
24
15
15
21
15
18
29
18
10 15 20 25 30 35
Pune
Delhi
Taipei
Kumming
Chongging
Dailan
Beijing BRT 2&3
Hangzhou
Beijing BRT 1
Jakarta
Changzou
Xiamen
Jinan
Commercial Speed (Km/hr)
Summary Performance
3,600
6,500
10,000
8,600
200
6,500
2,000
1,500
8,000
3,600
4,500
3,600
4,500
- 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000
Pune
Delhi
Taipei
Kumming
Chongging
Dailan
Beijing BRT 2&3
Hangzhou
Beijing BRT 1
Jakarta
Changzou
Xiamen
Jinan
Peak Load (pphpd)
Delhi Bus Corridor Performance Qualitative Rating
Component Rating
User Acceptance
High• High 88% (Bus Commuters, CSE, Jun 08; weighted average 69%)
Delhi Bus Corridor PerformanceQualitative Rating
Component Rating
Travel Time
Medium Low
• Accessibility: Medium-High; at grade pedestrian crossings at signalized intersections; pedestrian wait time higher than 60 seconds at the signal.
• Waiting time: Medium-Low; 3 routes along the corridor with 5 minute interval during peak hour
• Commercial speed: Medium-High; 16-19 Km/h (DIMTS, Jan 09); Improved by 128%-27% (from 7-15 Km/h)
Source: Independent Evaluation D. Hidalgo, M. Pai, EMBARQ, Feb 2009
Delhi Bus Corridor PerformanceQualitative Rating
Component Rating
Reliability
Low
• Variability (intervals, speeds): High; Bunching, Wide-Gaps
• Breakdowns, incidents: High; Bus breakdowns, encroachment
Source: Independent Evaluation D. Hidalgo, M. Pai, EMBARQ, Feb 2009
Delhi Bus Corridor PerformanceQualitative Rating
Component Rating
Comfort
Low
•Occupancy (buses, platforms): High; Buses/Platforms beyond crush capacity
•User information: Medium-Low; scarce/vandalized maps & signs, many guards are available, variable message signs
• Integration with other transport modes: Low; scarce connectivity, lack of single payment media
•Perception of safety and security: Medium-Low; well illuminated, clean, guards are available, but operation is chaotic
Source: Independent Evaluation D. Hidalgo, M. Pai, EMBARQ, Feb 2009
Delhi Bus Corridor PerformanceQualitative Rating
Component Rating
Cost
Medium Low
• Costs: Low capital investment (Infrastructure 10 Crores/km)
• Capital and operational productivity: not available (small improvement expected)
Source: Independent Evaluation D. Hidalgo, M. Pai, EMBARQ, Feb 2009
Delhi Bus Corridor PerformanceQualitative Rating
Component Rating
Externalities
Medium Impacts
• Fatalities: High (0.8/month)
• Emissions: Low particulate matter, CNG engines; 13% New Fleet
• Increased land values: not available (low expectation)
• Congestion relief (attraction of personalized vehicle users): not available, (low expectation)
Source: Independent Evaluation D. Hidalgo, M. Pai, EMBARQ, Feb 2009
Delhi Bus Corridor - Performance
Component Qualitative Rating
User Acceptance High
Travel Time Medium Low
Reliability Low
Comfort Low
Cost Medium Low
Externalities Medium Impacts
Source: Independent Evaluation D. Hidalgo, M. Pai, EMBARQ, Feb 2009
Observed Operational Problems
• Bus queuing at stations – spillovers• High number of bus breakdowns in the bus lane• Pedestrian jaywalking • Motor vehicles encroachment of bus lanes• High Vehicle Occupancy• Unreliable Bus Operation (High variability in intervals and
commercial speeds)
Recommendations for the Existing Bus Corridor
• Establish a Quality Improvement Program– Define Indicators: User Acceptance, Travel Time, Reliability, Comfort,
Productivity, Externalities
– Set up a monitoring mechanism: plan, perform, report, take action, evaluate
– Measurement and actions should address concerns of all users and constituents
• Focus on Improving Reliability and Comfort which are the lowest rating components regarding system performance
• Reevaluate the service plan: – For each route collect the load profile, occupancy at peak location,
variation along the day; then define the required supply (buses/hour, fleet)
- Introduce flexible route planning
Recommendations for the Existing Corridor
• Do not affect active transport (bike-ped) facilities to improve motor vehicle operations
• The temporary solution for Chirag Delhi is compromising the concept of segregation for the whole corridor and the future expansions
Recommendations for the Existing Corridor
• Do not focus on queue length or vehicle delay, tackle average person delay
• Use automatic short cycles– Against conventional wisdom short cycles are the best way to
address oversaturated conditions (minimum delays)– Upgrade signal technology (multiple signal timing plans by time
of day, flexible/actuated controllers)
• Introduce user/driver education and adequate enforcement (replicate the experience of metro that has a passenger behavior act)
