articles 60114 pune

8/8/2019 Articles 60114 Pune

1/182

Final ReportSustainable Urban Transport for Pune Metropolitan Area

___________________________________________________________________ Central Institute of Road Transport

Sustainable Urban Transport forPune Metropolitan Area

Final Report

June, 2005


2/182



This study is part of the Clean Air Initiative for Asian Cities' (CAI-Asia) pilotprogram Partnership for Sustainable Urban Transport in Asia (PSUTA). Theprogram is supported by the Swedish International Development CooperationAgency (Sida) through the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and jointlyimplemented with EMBARQ, the World Resources Institute (WRI) Center forTransport and the Environment.

The views expressed in this study are those of the authors and do notnecessarily reflect the views and policies of the Clean Air Initiative for AsianCities or EMBARQ or the Swedish International Development CooperationAgency or the Asian Development Bank.

The Clean Air Initiative for Asian Cities or EMBARQ or the SwedishInternational Development Cooperation Agency or the Asian DevelopmentBank do not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this publicationand accept no responsibility for any consequence of their use.


3/182



CONTENTSPage

List of Tables [iv]

List of Figures .. [vi]

ABBREVIATIONS [viii]

1 INTRODUCTION 1-1

Background. 1-1

Terms of Reference 1-3

Approach.. 1-3

Pune City Profile.. 1-5The Report 1-9

2 SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT SYSTEM 2-1

Definition .... 2-1

Key Attributes .... 2-1

3 STAKEHOLDERS AND THEIR EXPECTATIONS 3-1

Identification of Stakeholders 3-1Stakeholder-wise Expectation from ST System 3-3

4 INDICATORS OF SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT SYSTEM 4-1

Identification of Indicators .... 4-1

Grouping of Indicators .. 4-5

System of Assessment of Indicators .. 4-8

5 DATA REQUIREMENTS FOR KEY INDICATORS 5-1

Introduction .. 5-1

6 MAPPING THE GAP 6-1

Identification of Data Gaps. 6-1


4/182



Page

7 ALTERNATIVES FOR BRIDGING GAP 7-1

Evolving Alternatives for Bridging the Data Gap. 7-1

8 TREND ANALYSIS FOR SELECTED INDICATORS 8-1

Access 8-1

Economic . 8-5

Environment & Health. 8-13

Safety 8-32

Governance. 8-35

Assessment of Sustainable Transport System in PMA

through Indicators.. 8-35

9 SUMMING UP 9-1

General 9-1

Summing up. 9-2

ANNEX 1.1 Pune city road network

ANNEX 1.2 Pimpri-Chinchwad city road network

ANNEX 4.1 List of indicators for stakeholders

ANNEX 4.2 Detailed evaluation of indicators

ANNEX 8.1 National Ambient Air quality Standards

ANNEX 8.2 Distribution of Vehicle Population among DifferentCategories in Pune

ANNEX 8.3 Emission Factors for Different Categories of Vehicles andfor Different Vintages

ANNEX 8.4 Annual Vehicle Utilization by Category

ANNEX 8.5 Pune Emission Inventory under the USEPAProgramme

ANNEX 8.6 Indian Emissions Compliance System

ANNEX 8.7 Continuous Technological Upgrading throughProgressively More Stringent Emission Regulations

ANNEX 8.8 Pune City TrafficPhotographs


5/182



LIST OF TABLES

Page

1.1 Pune MA Demographic and Area Details 1-7

1.2 Land-use Distribution Pattern in PMC 1-7

4.1 Stakeholders, Expectations, & Indicators for STS 4-1

4.2 Group Indicator with their Hierarchy & Stakeholders 4-6

4.3 Hierarchy Indicators with Group & Stakeholders 4-9

4.4 Distribution of Indicators with Hierarchy by Group of STS 4-12

5.1 Data Requirements for Access Indicators 5-4

5.2 Data Requirements for Economic Indicators 5-7

5.3 Data Requirements for Environmental Indicators 5-9

5.4 Data Requirements for Safety Indicators 5-12

5.5 Data Requirements for Governance Indicators 5-14

6.1 Environmental Indicators and Availability of Data 6-3

7.1 Bridging Data Gaps for Access Indicators 7-3

7.2 Bridging Data Gaps for Economic Indicators 7-6

7.3 Bridging Data Gaps for Environmental Indicators 7-8

7.4 Bridging Data Gaps for Safety Indicators 7-13

7.5 Bridging Data Gaps for Governance indicators 7-14

8.1 No. of Canceled km/Scheduled km. 8-2

8.2 Average Passenger Load Factor 8-3

8.3 No. of Breakdowns per 10,000 km 8-4

8.4 No. of Zebra Crossings Vs. Total Traffic Signals 8-4

8.5 Fare/passenger km. Vs. Petrol Cost for two-wheelers 8-5


6/182



8.6 Loss through Subsidized Fare Vs. Subsidy Provided 8-6

8.7 Capital Expenditure on Transport to Total Budgeted

Expenditure

8-7

8.8 Fare/km Vs. Cost/km 8-7

8.9 Investment vis--vis Requirement in PT per annum 8-8

8.10 Rate of Return on Cumulative Investment 8-9

8.11 Operating Fuel Intensity : passenger-km/liter (bus) 8-10

8.12 Expenditure to Revenue Realized through Transport

Infrastructure (PMC)

8.10

8.13 Expenditure to Revenue Realized through Transport

Infrastructure (PCMC)

8-11

8.14 Tax collection from transport sector to total tax collection

(PMC)

8-12

8.15 Tax collection from transport sector to total tax collection

(PCMC)

8-12

8.16 Details of Air Quality Monitoring Stations in PMA 8-13

8.17 Regulatory Standards for Ambient Noise Levels in India 8-22

8.18 Applicability of Latest Emission Standards for Different

Categories of Vehicles

8-30

8.19 Number of PUC Centers in Pune Metropolitan Area 8-31

8.20 Adequacy of the Number of PUC Centers in Pune

Metropolitan Area

8-31

8.21 Fatalities and Injuries/10,000 vehicles in Pune 8-33

8.22 No. of Persons Violating Traffic Rules/10,000 vehicles 8-34

8.23 No. of Traffic Police Deployed/lac vehicles 8-35

8.24 Assessment of Sustainable Transport system (STS) in

PMA through Indicators

8-36


7/182



LIST OF FIGURES

Page

1.1 Location of Pune in Maharashtra 1-6

8.1 Ratio of canceled km. to scheduled km 8-2

8.2 Average passenger load factor in % 8-3

8.3 No. of breakdowns per 10,000 km 8-4

8.4 Fare/passenger km. Vs. petrol cost for two-wheelers 8-5

8.5 Loss through subsidized fare vs. subsidy provided 8-6

8.6 Capital expenditure on transport to total budgeted

expenditure

8-7

8.7 Fare/km Vs. Cost/km 8-8

8.8 Investment vis--vis requirement in PT per annum 8-8

8.9 Rate of return on cumulative investment 8-9

8.10 Operating fuel intensity 8-10

8.11 Expenditure to revenue realized through transport

infrastructure (PMC)

8.11

8.12 Expenditure to revenue realized through transport

infrastructure (PCMC)

8-11

8.13 Tax collection from transport sector to total tax

collection (PMC)

8-12

8.14 Tax collection from transport sector to total tax

collection (PCMC)

8-13

8.15 Trends in daily levels of PM10 at Karve Road Station 8-15

8.16 Trends in daily levels of NOx at Karve Road Station 8-17

8.17 Monthly average SPM and NO2 levels at Nal-Stopmonitoring station over the years

8-18

8.18 Monthly average SPM, SO2 and NO2 levels at Nal-Stop, Bhosari, and Swargate monitoring stations 8-19

8.19 Average SPM, SO2 and NO2 levels at Pune 8-20

8.20 Levels of ambient noise at Mahatma Phule Mandai 8-22

8.21 Relative percentage of PM10 emissions in Pune Region 8-24


8/182



8.22 Population of different categories of registered vehiclesin Pune

8-25

8.23 PM and NOx contribution of vehicles of differentcategories and vintages of vehicles in Pune

8-27

8.24 Period-wise and cumulative contribution of PM and

NOx vehicles in Pune

8-27

8.25 Percentage of vehicles of different categories meetingthe year 2000 emission standards

8-29

8.26 Transport-caused fatalities/10,000 vehicles in Pune 8-33

8.27 Transport-caused injuries/10,000 vehicles in Pune 8-34

9.1 Growth of Vehicles in Pune 9-1

9.2 Levels of RSPM (PM10 and NO2) in Pune 9-2


9/182



2 ABBREVIATIONS

CB Cantonment BoardCSO Central Statistical OrganisationCNG compressed natural gas

CPCB Central Pollution Control BoardDALY disability adjusted life yearsdB decibelEMU Electric Multiple UnitFig. figureGDP gross domestic productGovt. governmentha hectareHC hydrocarbonHCV heavy commercial vehicleHIG high-income groupIPT intermediate public transportkm kilometer

LCV light commercial vehicleLIG low-income groupLPG liquefied petroleum gasMIG middle-income groupMPCB Maharashtra Pollution Control BoardMCCIA Maratha Chamber of Commerce Industries and AgricultureMVI motor vehicles inspectorNAAQS National Ambient Air Quality StandardsNMT non-motorized transportNGO non-governmental organizationNH national highwayNos numbersNOx oxides of NitrogenNSS national sample surveyPCMC Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal CorporationPCMT Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal TransportPM particulate matterPMA Pune Metropolitan AreaPMC Pune Municipal CorporationPMT Pune Municipal TransportPT public transportPUC pollution under controlPWD person with disabilityRs RupeesRSPM respirable suspended particulate matterRTO Regional Transport OfficeSPM suspended particulate matterSTS sustainable transport systemSTU State Transport UndertakingSN serial numberUSD United States DollarUSEPA United States Environmental Protection AgencyVED vital, essential, and desirable


10/182



Notes

All tons are metric tons.

All dollars are U.S. dollars.

1 U.S. dollar = 44.2 India Rupees (2006)

1 Paise = 0.01 Rupee

1 lac =100,000

1 crore = 10 million


11/182




12/182




13/182




14/182




15/182



Photo 1 Traffic Congestion due to Construction (near Agriculture College)

Photo2 Footpath Encroached by Hawkers (Shivajinagar)

Photo 3 Vehicles Queue at Traffic Signal (near Simla Office)


16/182



Photo 4 On-street Parking at J M Road

Photo 5 On-street Parking at Laxmi Road

Photo 6 Traffic Chaos near Laxmi Road


17/182



1. INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

1.1 Many cities in Asian countries are growing by leaps and bounds both

physically and demographically. The rapid growth of cities is putting

tremendous pressure on urban infrastructureincluding housing,

transportation, power supply, water supply, and sewerage systems.

Transport, which is demand-driven, plays a very important role in the

overall growth of the economy. Despite having direct influence on

economic growth, transport systems in many cities in Asiaespecially

in Indiarequire much higher levels of attention in terms of their

growth and sustainability.

1.2 As observed in Indian cities, some of the common problems of

transport systems are as follows:

- poor integration of the transport network with city land-use plans

- inequitable access to transport systems

- very high growth in personalized modes (scooter/motor cycle, car)

- traffic congestion at major arterials, particularly during peak periods

- acute vehicular parking problems in commercial areas

- high incidence of road accidents, causing fatalities and injuries

- alarming increase in pollution levels (air/noise) due to vehicles

- inadequate public transport (PT) systems (bus and rail)

- inadequate attention toward the needs of non-motorized modes

(pedestrian, cycle, cycle-rickshaw) of transport.

1.3 In view of the high growth rates of personalized vehiclesand theirmultidimensional effects on ecology, travel quality, environment, safety,

and public healthit is important for planners to take suitable short-

and long-term remedial measures. Although a number of studies have

been carried out to address these issues, the performance level of the

urban transport system leaves significant gaps in meeting the publics

expectations and travel needs. Even an objective, uniform, and


18/182



reliable system of assessing the adequacy of urban transport is

generally not available, except though fragmented details.

1.4 Given this situation, it would be useful to identify a set of objective

indicators that would reasonably reflect whether the urban transport

system is heading toward sustainability.

1.5 It is in this context that the Clean Air Initiatives (CIA)Asia Secretariat,

in consultation with the local government (Pune Municipal Corporation-

PMC), agreed to participate in the partnership for sustainable urban

transport in Asia (PSUTA). The Asian Development Bank (ADB)

received support for this project from the Swedish International

Development Agency (SIDA). ADB, working with local organizations

with expertise in transport and EMBARQ (World Resources Institute,

Washington, D.C.) initiated the PSUTA project in three cities in Asia,

namely Pune in India, Hanoi in Vietnam, and Xian in China.

1.6 The PSUTA project in Pune was managed by the Central Institute of

Road Transport (CIRT), an institute of national standing in the road

transport sector with a focus on research and consultancy in the

transport field, the training of transport system executives and

managers, and testing and certification of the quality of automobile

components and accessories. CIRT is an ISO 9001 and ISO 14001-

certified and NABL-accredited Institute.

1.7 The terms of reference (TOR) and the projects approach and

methodology are described in the following paragraphs.


19/182



TERMS OF REFERENCE

1.8 For the study on Sustainable Urban Transport for Pune

Metropolitan Area, the following broad terms of reference were

agreed upon:

a. To define a sustainable transport system (STS) in the context of social

acceptability, ecological sustainability, political participation, and

economic productivity;

b. To identify key indicators with defining formulas, calculating (if

required) for access, economics and demography, environment and

health, andgovernance;

c. To categorize indicators in hierarchical order;

d. To assess requirements of key data for indicators (key data,

source/owner of data, evaluation of quality of data, frequency of data

compilation);

e. To map data gaps (that is, data requirements compared to data

availability);

f. To design up to three options for closing/bridging data gaps;

g. To develop recommendations for policy and decision makers with

respect to how to produce a sustainable urban transport plan and

policy structure for Pune.

APPROACH

1.9 An urban transport system should be planned, designed, and

developed to cater to total travel demand for both passengers and

goods for a city. The transport system must not only meet total travel

demand for a city, but also meet the expectations of the stakeholders

who are directly or indirectly linked to the system. A step-by-step

approach for this study is given below:


20/182



- We developed a definition of a sustainable transport system (STS)

for the Pune Metropolitan Area (PMA), taking into consideration

present and future expectations of concerned stakeholders for a

dynamic, eco-friendly, energy efficient, safe, affordable, and

operationally viable transport system.

- We identified concerned stakeholders for transport of both

passengers and goods.

- We identified expectations of the stakeholders for Punes transport

system.

- We calculated how meeting their expectations would affect the

sustainability of the transport system.

- We identified possible indicators for concerned stakeholders to

meet their expectations from the transport system.

- We identified quantifiable indicators to function as a tool for

assessing the level of sustainable transport.

- We developed formulas to assess the values of indicators.

- We grouped the selected indicators.

- We developed values/time-series trends of indicators to reflect the

sustainability of the transport system with reference to the

parameters of STS (such as access, economics, demography,

environment and health, andgovernance).

- We arranged the indicators in a hierarchical level on the basis of

levels of decision making.

- We assessed data requirements and availability of key data to

construct indicators (key data, evaluation of quality of data,

frequency of data compilation, source/owner of data).

- We assessed gaps in data requirements and data availability in the

existing system.

- We mapped the data gaps.

- We developed and evaluated alternatives for closing/bridging gaps

for each indicator.


21/182



PUNE CITY PROFILE

Brief History

1.10 Pune has always been an important region, from the ancient Hindu

period to the British regime. It attained glory during the Maratha period,

when it was a bastion of the powerful Maratha empire. The location of

Pune in Maharashtra is shown in Fig. 1.1.

1.11 Presently, Pune is the seventh largest industrial city in India and the

second most important city in Maharashtra after Mumbai. Pune is

known for its cultural heritage, educational activities, and heavy

industrialization. It is identified as a growing metropolis. Over the past

three decades, Pune has witnessed remarkable development,

particularly along the Mumbai-Pune highway (NH-4)/Mumbai-Pune

expressway, and in most regions in the hinterland.

1.12 The pleasant, cool climate of Pune is to a great extent responsible for

its development as a center of education. It has some of the finest and

most prestigious educational institutions in India. Two charming hill

stationsLonavala and Khandalaare located about 65 kms and 70

kms northwest of Pune on the Mumbai-Pune highway (NH-4)/ Mumbai-

Pune expressway. Important historic sites in Pune include

Shaniwarwada (the palace of the Peshwa rulers, built by Bajirao in1736), Parvati hills and temples (built by Nanasaheb Peshwa in 1749),

Saras Baug (a tidy garden in the southern part of the city, built by

Nanasaheb Peshwa), Chatusrungi Mandir, and Osho International

Commune.

1.13 Industrialization at present is concentrated in the Pimpri-Chinchwad

Municipal Corporation (PCMC) area. All the office establishments

state, central, semi-government offices, and commercial centers with

high population densityare located in Pune city. Besides PuneMunicipal Corporation Area (PMC) and the Pimpri-Chinchwad

Municipal Corporation (PCMC), the Pune Metropolitan Area (PMA) also

includes the Cantonment Boards of Pune and Khadki.


22/182



Figure1.1 to be inserted

Fig 1.1 Location of Pune in Maharashtra

Demographic and Economic Profile

1.14 The Pune Metropolitan Area (PMA) spreads over an area of

375.48 sq. km. The 2001 Census of India estimated that the Pune and

Pimpri-Chinchwad urban areas had populations of 25,38,473 and10,12,472 respectively. Over the period from 19912001, the

population of the state grew by 22.57 percent, whereas the population

of the Pune MA increased by 65.19 percent. The population density

(persons per sq km) for Pune MA was 9,873 in 2001. The city

administration is run by two municipal corporations, PMC and PCMC,

and two cantonment boards, Pune and Khadki. Average household

size in Pune city is about 4 persons per household; per capita income

is Rs 6,615/month. Some 55 percent of households own a two-

wheeler, and 35 percent own a bicycle. (Source: Comprehensive traffic& transportation study for Pune city, 2004). Table 1.1 presents

demographic and area details of Pune MA.


23/182



Table 1.1Pune MA Demographic and Area Details

S N Area jurisdictionArea(sq km)

Population*in (in lacs)

1991 2001

1 Pune Municipal Corporation(PMC)

244.00 15.67 25.38

2 Pune Cantonment Board 13.88 0.82 0.80

3 Khadki Cantonment Board 13.23 0.78 0.77

4Pimpri-ChinchwadMunicipal Corporation(PCMC)

104.37 5.17 10.12

Total area 375.48 22.44 37.07Decennial population growth (PMA)1991-2001 in % 65.19

Source: *Census of India 1991 & 2001

Land-Use Distribution1.15 Table 1.2 presents existing land-use distribution patterns for the PMC

area.

Table 1.2Land-use Distribution Pattern in PMC

S N Land-use category %

1 Mixed land use 0.5

2 Residential 21.1

3 Commercial 0.1

4 Industrial 1.5

5 Public/ semi-public 1.76 Public Utility 7.5

7 Transport & communication 3.9

8 Agriculture 43.2

9 Hilltop and hill slope 6.8

10 Reserve forest 5.3

11 Other 1.9

Total 100%

Registered Vehicles1.16 The total registered vehicle population (transport and non-transport) in

Pune city in 2002 was 658,313, out of which 537,956 were non-

transport vehicles such as two-wheelers, cars, and jeeps.

Two- wheelers constitute the highest among non-transport vehicles

(491,747, or 74.6 percent of total vehicles), followed by cars (63,489,

or 9.6 percent of total vehicles) in 2002. Growth of vehicles in Pune is

about 8 percent per annum.


24/182



Transport Linkages

1.17 The total road length in the Pune metropolitan area is about 1,250 kms.

This area includes Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC), Pimpri-

Chinchwad Municipal Corporation (PCMC), Pune Cantonment Board,

Khadki Cantonment Board, and some villages around the city.

Mumbai, Indias financial hub, is just 34 hours away from Pune and

can be accessed by the Mumbai-Pune expressway/Mumbai-Pune

highway (National Highway-NH-4), as well as by rail and air. With the

significant reduction in travel time (about 23 hrs) between Mumbai

and Pune by road via the expressway, there is growing passenger

travel demand between Pune and Mumbai. Similarly, there is also an

increase in passenger travel demand between Pune and other regional

centers. Some of the other cities that are well-connected with Pune are

Nagpur, Nasik, Satara, Sholapur, Kolhapur, Aurangabad, Nanded,

Hyderabad, Bangalore, Panaji, Kolkata, Chennai, and Delhi by

road/rail/air. Important major arterials in Pune city are old NH-4, Pune-

Nasik road, Pune-Ahmednagar Road, Jangli Maharaj road, Gokhale

road, Shankarsheth road, Satara road, and Sholapur road. The Pune

city (including Pune CB and Khadki CB) and Pimpri-Chinchwad city

road network plan are described in Annexes 1.1 and 1.2, respectively.

Public Transport

1.18 Currently, the citys transport requirements are managed by Pune

Municipal Transport (PMT) and Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal Transport

(PCMT). PMT and PCMT operate 849 buses and 212 buses

respectively in PMA (as of March 31st, 2004). In addition to the above,

about 7,500 buses (as on March 31st, 2002) are registered in Pune to

cater to the needs of a large number of industries, offices, and the

nearby region. About 6 lacs passenger trips per day are catered by

public transport. Large numbers of auto-rickshaws also operate in the

city to cater to the intra-city travel needs of passengers. Auto-rickshaws tend to serve areas/localities with inadequate bus service;

they offer a relatively cheap source of transport.

1.19 Inter-city travel needs are managed by the Maharashtra State Road

Transport Corporation (MSRTC) buses, private buses, rail, and air. The

inter-city bus routes offer services between Pune and other major cities


25/182



such as Mumbai, Bangalore, and Hyderabad. A variety of bus

servicesranging from ordinary, express, deluxe, and air-

conditionedare available to suit different sections of society.

1.20 Pune is well-connected by rail to Mumbai, Hyderabad, Chennai, Miraj-

Kolhapur, and Goa. Such rail services are also used by people

commuting to work to nearby places.

1.21 Pune is also well-connected by air via Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai,

Kolkata, Hyderabad, and Bangalore.

THE REPORT

1.22 This report is divided into nine chapters as described below:

- Chapter 2 presents a definition of a sustainable transport system

and its key attributes.

- Chapter 3 identifies concerned stakeholders and their expectations

for a sustainable transport system.

- Chapter 4 deals with the identification of indicators of stakeholders

expectations for a sustainable transport system.

- Chapter 5 discusses data requirements for key indicators, including

data availability, quality of data, frequency of data compilation,

source/owner of data, etc.

- Chapter 6 maps data gaps.

- Chapter 7 details alternatives for bridging data gaps.

- Chapter 8 presents trend analysis for selected indicators of STS.

- Chapter 9 presents a summary of the study.


26/182



2. SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT SYSTEM

2.1 The Sustainable Transport System (STS) for Pune Metropolitan Area is

defined according to the expectations of the concerned stakeholders

for STS, particularly in the context of the following elements: Social acceptability

Ecological appropriateness

Political participation

Economic productivity

Energy Efficiency

Safety

Cultural appropriateness

2.2 Any transport system could be considered reasonably sustainable if it

adequately fulfils the expectations of the concerned stakeholders on a

continual and equitable basis.

DEFINITION

2.3 Considering the above, the STS is defined as follows:

STS is an integrated system which optimally satisfies

accessibility expectations of all concerned stakeholders on

a continual and equitable basis in a manner which is

dynamic, eco-friendly, energy efficient, safe, affordable and

operationally viable.

KEY ATTRIBUTES


27/182



2.4 While defining STS, we considered the following six key attributes,

which focus on the most important themes of the STS.

a. Dynamic. The term dynamic in the STS context highlights the

changing needs of the transport industry with respect to

innovation(s) in vehicle technology, information systems, trafficand transportation engineering, and management techniques. A

dynamic STS tends to ensure that it caters to changing

transportation needs with reference to various aspects of the

transport sector.

b. Eco-friendly. This signifies the importance of developing an

environmentally friendly transportation system. It focuses on

harnessing the full potential of those transport modes that require

minimal energy resources and do not pollute the environment.

Such modes include pedestrians, bicycles, cycle-rickshaws,

horse-carts (popularly called tongas in India), electric trolley

buses, trams, battery-operated buses, electric multiple unit (EMU)

trains, and CNG/LPG/hybrid/fuel cell vehicles.

c. Energy efficient. The term energy efficient highlights the

importance of using transport modes that cater to larger numbers

of trips with the least consumption of energy, such as high-

capacity road/rail-based public transport (PT) modes. Maximum

usage of energy efficient modes will eventfully lead to lower

consumption of fuel, as well as lower pollution.

d. Safe. Considering the large number of road accidents and

mounting social costs of accidents in Indian cities, it is essential to

look toward transport modes that provide higher safety levels to

the transport system, such as bus and rail systems.

e. Affordable. Since affordability plays an extremely important role

in improved patronage of the transport systemespecially the

public transport (PT) and intermediate public transport (IPT)

systemsand in obtaining a sustainable transport system, the

fare structure of the PT/IPT needs to be fixed at a reasonable

level.

f. Operationally viable. The operational viability of a transport

systemrelative to city land-use characteristics and the existing


28/182



layout of the transport (road/rail) networkplays a very important

role in making any transport system sustainable.

3. STAKEHOLDERS AND THEIR EXPECTATIONS

IDENTIFICATION OF STAKEHOLDERS

3.1 Having defined a sustainable transport system (STS) for Pune city, the

next task of the study is to identify concerned stakeholders, along with

their expectations for sustainable transport. The sustainability of the

transport system depends on effectively and adequately fulfilling the

expectations of the concerned stakeholders.

3.2 In order to identify the concerned stakeholders and their expectations,

the study team along with the representatives of EMBARQ worked out

a list of stakeholders of passengers and goods transport for Pune

Metropolitan Area. The broad categories of the stakeholders for STS

are as follows:

Citizens. They are one of the most important stakeholders of a

sustainable transport system in a city. The transport system,

including infrastructure, is generally planned, designed, and

implemented/operated to meet day-to-day travel needs of the

citizens. People as stakeholders of STS have been further divided

into two categories, namely commuters and civil society.

Service Providers. As the name suggests, service providers

(owners and/or operators) operate public transport (PT)/

intermediate public transport (IPT) systems in the city primarily to

meet the travel needs of passengers as well as goods transport. In

Pune city, various transport modes such as suburban rail, bus,

auto-rickshaw, and six-seater auto-rickshaw cater to the travel


29/182



needs of passengers/commuters. Light commercial vehicles

(LCVs), heavy commercial vehicles (HCVs), and other intermediate

modes are operated to cater to goods transport needs in the city.

Energy providers. The main task of energy providers is to ensurean adequate supply of energy of appropriate quality (transport fuel)

to the service providers and for personal vehicles.

Infrastructure Providers. The term infrastructure providers here

basically include transport infrastructure providers for road- and rail-

based transport systems. In Pune city, the municipal corporations

and cantonment boards are responsible for providing road-based

infrastructure. Indian Railways (IR) provides infrastructure for rail-

based transport.

Regulators. Regulators as stakeholders play an important role in

STS. Regulators must develop adequate regulations, as well as

effective implementation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act

and rules, enforcement of traffic police rules, vehicular emission

norms, and fuel quality norms.

Vehicle Manufacturers. Vehicle manufacturers ensure an

adequate supply of user-friendly vehicles in the market. Thesevehicles have to be eco-friendly, energy efficient, safe, and

universally accessible.

Government. The governmentincluding the central government,

state government, and local governmentplays a key role in

obtaining a sustainable transport system. The local government and

its departments (municipal corporations, cantonment boards, state

finance department, state pollution control boards, and health

services department) play a vital role in ensuring adherence tovarious standards and norms, as well as timely execution of

infrastructure projects, including tax collection and providing

universal and equitable access to the citizens.


30/182



STAKEHOLDER EXPECTATIONS FOR A SUSTAINABLE

TRANSPORT SYSTEM

3.3 Stakeholder expectations for a sustainable transport system are

discussed in the following section.

CITIZENS

3.4 As mentioned earlier, citizens comprise people, civil society, and

commuters. Some of their expectations of a sustainable transport

system are as follows:

o Clean environment. The first and foremost expectation of

citizens from STS is to have a clean environment.

o Noise-free environment. The noise level in the city should be

within acceptable levels, which will eventually reduce transport-

induced cases of hearing impairment.

o Safety. Citizens expect a safe urban transport system to help

reduce transport-related fatalities and injuries. Safety measures

should include training of drivers, ensuring vehicle fitness,

controlling violation of traffic rules, ensuring strict enforcement of

helmet use by two-wheeler users, wearing seat belts for 4-

wheeler users, and providing enough trauma care centres in the

city.

o Access to transport facilities. Easy access to the transport

system is a very important expectation of travellers. Bus

commuters expect public shelters to be located close to their

residential areas. There should be proper integration of inter-

change points at bus terminals and railway stations. Similarly,

persons with disabilities (PWDs) expect the bus

stops/terminals/buses to be PWDs friendly.


31/182



o Minimum travel time. Commuters expect to spend minimum

travel time for their trips. This can be achieved by improving the

journey speed of the vehicles, reducing congestion, as well as

by reducing waiting time at road intersections and bus stops.

o Adequacy of transport services. There should be an adequate

supply of all categories of buses to meet travel demand of all

sections of society (LIG/MIG/HIG).

o Reliability. Commuters expect the bus transport system to

provide highly reliable services, performing trips without

breakdowns during the journey.

o Punctuality. Commuters expect buses or suburban rail to

adhere to scheduled arrival/departure timings.

o Minimum waiting time for transport services. This is mainly

applicable to the public transport system. Commuters expect

minimal waiting time at bus shelters/terminals/railway stations.

o Affordability. The fare structure of the public transport system

(bus/sub-urban rail) should be affordable, even for the lower

income segment of the citys population.

o Adequacy of travel information. Commuters of public

transport (bus and rail) need to have adequate travel information

about bus routes, bus arrival/departure schedules, and bus

shelters/bus terminals. Similarly, information about suburban rail

is required by its travellers.

o Comfortable journey. Public transport commuters expect their

travel trips to be comfortable. They expect to travel seated in the

bus/suburban rail, at least in buses.

o Safe side-walkways/pedestrian crossings. In Pune city, a

large number of short trips are performed as walk trips.

Availability of safe and encroachment-free side-walkways and


32/182



pedestrian crossings constitute an important expectation of

pedestrians.

o Cycle tracks. Cyclists expect adequate cycle track length (km)

to meet their requirements.

o Parking areas. Personalised vehicle (bicycles, scooters/ motor-

cycles, cars) users expect availability of parking space for

vehicles. On-street vehicular parking other than designated

spots should be curbed.

SERVICE PROVIDERS

3.5 The road-based service providers, as stakeholder of STS, include bus

operators/owners, taxi owners/operators, and operators of three-wheelers, 6-seaters, and auto-rickshaws, as well as railway service

providers. Some of the expectations of service providers are as

follows:

o Operational feasibility. For PT/IPT service providers,

operational feasibility of the transport system is an important

expectation for STS. It encompasses various parameters such

as adequacy of infrastructural facilities and demand/load factors.

o Financial viability. Service providers of PT/IPT expect the

financial viability of their services to the citizens/commuters even

after accounting for loss of revenue on account of subsidized

fares or subsidies provided by the government.

o Energy efficient vehicles. Bus and other IPT service providers

expect energy efficient vehicles to obtain improved fuel

efficiency/ operating fuel intensity.

o Cleaner vehicles. As mentioned in the previous chapter, eco-

friendly transport services are one of the key attributes of a

sustainable transport system; cleaner vehicles such as LPG,

CNG, battery-operated, and hybrid electric vehicles could play a

very important role.


33/182



o Safe vehicles. Bus transport service providers expect vehicles

to be safe to minimize the number of road accidents caused by

vehicular defects. With the availability of safe vehicles, road

accidents may be significantly reduced.

o Reliable and durable vehicles. The availability of reliable and

durable vehicles, which affects vehicles performance on the

road, is an important expectation of service providers. Reliability

of the bus transportation system is usually measured by the

number of breakdowns per 10,000 km operated.

o Integration of rail with road transport. Service providers of

public transport expect effective integration of transport modes

to provide seamless transfer of travellers, including railway

stations. IPT stands should be connected with bus/ railway

stations within a 0.5 km. distance.

ENERGY PROVIDERS

3.6 The role of energy providers as a stakeholder of sustainable transport

is to ensure an adequate supply of energy (fuel) for public transport,

intermediate public transport (IPT), and users of the personalized

modes. Some of the notable expectations of energy providers are as

follows:

o Adequate demand and growth. Energy providers expect

adequate demand for energy on continual basis.

o Space for fuel station. In order to meet the energy

requirements of their clients, energy providers expect availability

of suitable land for locating their fuel stations in the city.


34/182


___________________________________________________________________ Central Institute of Road Transport 4-1

INFRASTRUCTURE PROVIDERS

3.7 Infrastructure providers are one of the important stakeholders of

sustainable transport. They plan, design, and execute projects

pertaining to transport infrastructure, such as roads, bus shelters,

parking bays, sidewalks, and traffic signals. The important expectationsof infrastructure providers as stakeholders are:

o Availability of adequate space for roads, sidewalks, parkinglots, bus shelters.

o Availability of adequate funds. Availability of adequate funds

is an important input for ensuring provisioning of infrastructure

requirements.

REGULATORS

3.8 Regulators are one of the stakeholders of the sustainable transport

system. They regulate implementation of various rules and regulations

pertaining to transport systems and subsystems. Some of the

expectations of the regulator are as follows:

o Rules and regulations. Regulators expect adequate availability

of rules and regulations to check vehicular emissions, their

roadworthiness, speeding, etc.

o Enforcement capacity and capability. In order to enforce

relevant rules and regulations, regulators expect to have

adequate staff (traffic policemen, motor vehicle inspectors) and

necessary infrastructure and facilities, such PUC centers and

driver testing tracks.

VEHICLE MANUFACTURERS

3.9 The role of vehicle manufacturers as a stakeholder of a sustainabletransport system is to supply an adequate number of vehicles in

response to consumer demand and to promote technological

innovation in vehicles. Some of the expectations of the vehicle

manufacturers are as follows:

o Healthy growth of transport sector.


35/182



o Consumer satisfaction.

o Adequate, efficient, and transparent system of statutory

approvals.

GOVERNMENT (CENTRAL, STATE AND LOCAL)

3.10 The government plays a vital role in planning, implementation, and

control of various activities. Some of the expectations of the

government are as follows:

o Timely execution of programs and policies.

o Efficient tax collection.

o Compliance with statutory standards, regulations, laws.

o Minimal injuries/fatalities due to accidents and adequate

post-accident care.

o Universal and equitable access.


36/182



4 INDICATORS OF A SUSTAINABLE TRANSORTSYSTEM

IDENTIFICATION OF INDICATORS

4.1 In order to meet expectation(s) of the concerned stakeholders for a

sustainable transport system (STS), we identified all possible indicators

that directly or indirectly reflect a measure of the expectations of

stakeholders. An indicator is a quantifiable and measurable parameter

that describes a certain activity, objective, or performance. In some

cases, it is qualitative.

4.2 All possible indicators are compiled and listed in Annex 4.1.

Subsequently, a VED (Vital, Essential and Desirable) analysis of

indicators was carried out. While vital signifies critical indicators for

STS, essential refers to the next level of criticality (less importance) of

indicators of STS, and desirable refers to indicators meeting basic

expectations of stakeholders from a sustainable transport system.

Following VED analysis, we identified a total of 52 indicators

representing critical expectations of stakeholders in the STS, which are

shown in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1Stakeholders, Expectations, and Indicators for STS

SN Stake-holder

Expectation Indicators Gro-up

Hierarchy

1 People/citizens

1.1 cleanenviron-ment

1.1.1

1.1.2

No. of days pollution levelexceeded national ambient airquality standards (NAAQS)air quality trends for last 5years(concentration of pollutants inambient air)

En

En

M

H

1.1.3 % of green area to total cityarea

En H

1.1.4 Pollution contribution fromtransport sector as a fractionof total pollution load (%)

En M

1.1.5 Total fuel consumed (by type:petrol, diesel) / 10,000 vehiclepopulation (fuel-wise)

En L

1.1.6 Disability adjusted life years En M


37/182



(DALY) per 10,000 populationdue to transport component ofair population

1.1.7 No. of Pollution Under Control(PUC) centers per lacvehicles

En L

1.2 noisefreeenviron-ment

1.2.1

1.2.2

No. of days noise levelexceeded normal levelnoise level trends for last 5years

En

En

M

H

1.3 safetyfromtransportsystem

1.3.1 Transport-caused fatalitiesper 10,000 vehicles (vehiclecategory-wise) including NMT& pedestrianstrend analysis

S H

1.3.2 Transport caused injuries per10,000 vehicle (vehiclecategory-wise) including NMT& pedestrians trend analysis

S M

1.3.3 No. of trauma care centersper lac population

S M

1.3.4 No. of persons violating trafficrules per 10,000 vehicles

S L

2 Commuter/traveller

2.1 easyaccesstotransport

2.1.1 No. of bus shelters to totalroad length

Ac L

facility 2.1.2 No. of bus shelters/terminals

Persons with Disabilities(PWDs) friendly to total busshelters (trend analysis)

Ac M

2.1.3 No. buses PWDs friendly/totalbuses (trendanalysis)

Ac M

2.2 minimum traveltime

2.2.1 Travel time per unit distancefor each transport mode(sample study-peak-nonpeak) (trend analysis)

Ac M

2.3 adequacy of

transport

2.3.1 Travel demand & transportsupply ratio (PT related)

Ac H

services

2.3.2 City capital expenditure ontransport to total budgetedexpenditure (trend analysis)

Ec M

2.4 reliability

2.4.1 No. of breakdowns per10,000 km operated (forbuses)

Ac L

2.5 punctua 2.5.1 No. of cancelled Ac L


38/182



lity km/scheduled km (for buses)

2.6 minimumwaitingtimefor PT

2.6.1 Average waiting time at busstops/shelters (trend analysis)

Ac M

2.7 comfort-ablejourney

2.7.1 Average passenger loadfactor (for buses)

Ac M

2.8 safewalkways/pedestriancrossings

2.8.1 No. of zebra crossings /total traffic signals

Ac L

2.8.2 No. of walk-signals / totaltraffic signals trendanalysis

Ac L

2.9 parkingareas

2.9.1 Parking demand in sq km-hr /available parking space(on/off-street) per 10, 000vehicles (mode-wise)trend analysis

Ac M

2.10 adequacy oftransport

services

2.10.1 Capital investment intransport sector to GDP

Ec H

2.11 affordabi-lity

2.11.1 expenditure on transport as %of household expenditure (byincome group)trend analysis)

Ec M

2.11.2 Marginal cost per km fortwo-wheeler to bus fare perpassenger km

Ec M

2.12 cycletracks

2.12.1 Total cycles track (by track-length-category) per 10,000cycles-trips (survey)

Ac L

3 Serviceprovider

3.1 operational/financialviability

3.1.1 Loss of revenue on accountof subsidized fare to subsidyprovided by govt.

Ec M

3.1.2 Fare per km/cost per km for Ec M


39/182



bus3.1.3 Investment vis a vis

requirement in PT per annumEc H

3.1.4 Rate of return on cumulativecapital investment trendanalysis

Ec M

3.2 integration ofrail withroadtransport

3.2.1 no. of buses connected withrailway stations within 0.5 kmdistance to 10,000 railcommuters vis a visrequirement as per traveldemand (trend analysis)

Ac M

3.3 energyefficientvehicle

3.3.1 Operating fuel intensity interms of passenger-km/literfor bustrend analysis

Ec L

3.4 cleanervehicle 3.4.1 No. of LPG, CNG, batteryoperated, hybrid electricvehicles per lac vehiclespopulation (by category)trend analysis

En L

3.5 railwayinfrastruct-ure

3.5.1 Total area for parking spacefor vehicles at railway stationvis a vis requirement as pernorms station-wise trendanalysis

Ac L

4 Energyprovider

4.1 consumer

satisfact-ion

4.1.1 No. of fuel samples failed tomeet specifications against

total no. of fuel samplestested (trend analysis)

En L

4.2-spacefor fuelstations

4.2.1 No. of dispensing stations perlac vehicles (trend analysis)

Ac L

5 Infrastr-uctureprovider

5.1 adequate funds

5.1.1 %age of total budget spent ontransport infrastructure trendanalysis

Ec H

5.1.2 ratio of expenditure torevenue realized through

transport infrastructure(road tax, fuel tax, etc)

Ec L

5.2 availability ofspacefor roadbuildingforsidewal

5.2.1 %age of area reserved fortransport use

Ac M


40/182



ks,parkinglots,busshelters, etc

6 Regula-tors

6.1 enforce-mentcapacity &capability

6.1.1 no. of MVIs /10,000 vehiclesvis a vis existing norms

S L

6.1.2 No. of traffic police deployed/lac vehicles

Gov L

7 Vehiclemanufa-cturers

7.1 healthygrowthof

transportsector

7.1 .1 vehicles ownership/household(trend analysis)

Ac L

7.2 policy &regulations forsafety,emissions,

performanceetc. ofvehicles

7.2.1 - Available/not available(qualitative)

Gov -

7.3 roadmapwithadequate leadtime forimplem

entationofregulations

7.3.1 -Available/not available(qualitative)

Gov -

7.4 goodqualitydrivers

7.4.1 no. driver training schools/no.of new licenses issuedtrend analysis

S L

8 Gover-nment

8.1 continual

8.1.1 %age of vehicles meeting thelatest emission standards

En L


41/182



(central,state/local)

technologyupgrada-ationofvehicles, fuels,etc.

trend analysis

8.2 efficienttaxcollection

8.2.1 tax collection from transportsector to total tax collectiontrend analysis

Ec L

9 Goodsvehicleoperator/

driver

9.1 basicamenities

9.1.1 parking bays capacity(planned) for goodsvehicles/10,000 LCV & HCV

vehicles

Ac M

Abbreviations used in Table 4.1:Group: Ac-access, En-environment, Ec-economic, Gov-governance,

S-safety and Hierarchy level: H-high, M-medium and L-low.

GROUPING OF INDICATORS

4.3 The indicators were then placed in the following broad groups:

- Access

- Economics- Environment and Health

- Safety

- Governance

4.4 Table 4.2 shows group indicators arranged in a hierarchical manner

and the concerned stakeholders.

Table 4.2

Group Indicators with their Hierarchy and Stakeholders

SN Group Indicators Hierarchy Stake-holder

1 Access 1.1 no. of buses connected with railwaystations within 0.5 km distance to10,000 rail commuters vis a visrequirement as per travel demand

M SP

1.2 total cycles track (by track-length- L Com


42/182



category) per 10,000 cycles-trips1.3 %age of area reserved for transport use H IP1.4 no. of bus shelters to total road length L Com1.5 no. of bus shelters/terminals Persons

with Disabilities (PWDs) friendly to totalbus shelters

M Com

1.6 no. buses PWDs friendly/total buses M Com1.7 travel time per unit distance for each

transport mode(sample study-peak-non peak)

M Com

1.8 travel demand/transport supply ratio (PTrelated)

M Com

1.9 no. of cancelled km/scheduled km(for buses)

L Com

1.10 average waiting time at bus stop/shelter M Com1.11 average passenger load factor M Com1.12 no. of zebra crossings/total traffic

signalsL Com

1.13 no. of walk-signals / total traffic signals L Com1.14 parking demand in sq km-hr / available

parking space (on-street/off-street) per10, 000 vehicles (by mode)

M Com

1.15 total area for parking space for vehiclesat railway station vis a vis requirementas per norms (by station)

L SP

1.16 vehicles ownership per household M VM1.17 no. of breakdowns per 10,000 km

operated(for buses)

L Com

1.18 no. of dispensing stations per lacvehicles L EP

1.19 parking bays capacity (planned) forgoods vehicles per10,000 LCV & HCVvehicles

M GVD

2 Economic

2.1 capital investment in transport sector toGDP

H Com

2.2 expenditure on transport as % ofhousehold expenditure (by incomegroup)

(trend analysis)

M Com

2.3 marginal cost per km for two-wheeler tobus fare per passenger km

M Com

2.4 loss of revenue on account ofsubsidized fare to subsidy provided bygovernment

M SP

2.5 city capital expenditure on transport tototal budgeted expenditure

M Com

2.6 fare per km / cost per km for bus M SP


43/182



2.7 investment vis a vis requirement in PTper annum

H SP

2.8 rate of return on cumulative capitalinvestment trendanalysis

M SP

2.9 operating fuel intensity in terms of

passenger-km/liter for bus trendanalysis

L SP

2.10 %age of total budget spent on transportinfrastructure trendanalysis

H IP

2.11 ratio of expenditure to revenue realizedthrough transport infrastructure (roadtax, fuel tax, etc)

L IP

2.12 tax collection from transport sector tototal tax collection trendanalysis

L Govt.

3 Environ-ment 3.1

3.2

no. of days pollution level exceedednational ambient air quality standards(NAAQS)air quality trends for last 5 years

M

H

P

P3.3

3.4

no. of days noise level exceeded normallevelnoise level trends for last 5 years

M

H

P

P3.5 % of green area to total city area H P3.6 pollution contribution from transport

sector as a fraction of total pollutionload (%)

M P

3.7 total fuel consumed (by type: petrol,

diesel) per 10,000 vehicles population(by fuel)

L P

3.8 no. of fuel samples failed to meetspecifications against total no. ofsamples tested

M EP

3.9 %age of vehicles meeting the latestemission standards

L Govt.

3.10 no. of LPG, CNG, battery operated,hybrid electric vehicles per lac vehpopulation(by category)

L SP

3.11 no. of PUC centers per lac vehicles

population

L P

3.12 disability adjusted life years (DALY) per10,000 population due to transportcomponent of air population

M P

4 Safety 4.1 Transport-caused fatalities per 10,000vehicles (by vehicle category) includingNMT & pedestrians

H P

4.2 Transport-caused injuries per 10,000vehicle (by vehicle category) including

M P


44/182



NMT & pedestrians4.3 no. of trauma care centers/ lac

populationM P

4.4 no. of persons violating traffic rules per10,000 vehicles

L P

4.5 no. of MVIs /10,000 vehicles vis a vis

existing norms

L Reg

4.6 no. driver training schools/no. of newlicenses issued

L VM

5 Governance

5.1 no. of traffic police deployed/lacvehicles

L Reg

5.2 policy & regulations for safety,emissions, performance etc. of vehicles(available/not available) qualitative

- VM

5.3 road map with adequate lead time forimplementation of regulations(available/not available) qualitative

- VM

Abbreviations used in Table 4.2:Hierarchy level: H-high, M-medium and L-low.Stakeholder: P-people, Com-commuter, SP-service provider, EP-energy

provider, IP-infrastructure provider, Govt.-government,Reg-regulator and VM-vehicle manufacturer andGVD-goods vehicles driver/operator

SYSTEM OF ASSESSMENT OF INDICATORS

4.5 We then evaluated the indicators both quantitatively and qualitatively

using certain formulas and data. The details of this assessment aredescribed in Annex 4.2.

4.6 The indicators were organized in a hierarchical level under three

categorieshigh, middle, and low level.

4.7 The indicators falling in the high hierarchical level signify that for

achieving STS, these indicators should be used for making policy-level

decisions by the highest level of officials, such as the mayor of the city,

the municipal commissioner, and other senior officials. Mediumhierarchy indicators refer to those that should be used for analyzing, or

establishing trends. by the concerned executive-level officials of the

respective departments. Low hierarchy indicators refer to the raw data

level; these indicators are of low significance in STS. The indicators

arranged by hierarchy, along with corresponding groups and

stakeholders of STS, are shown in Table 4.3.


45/182



Table 4.3Hierarchy wise Indicators with Group and Stakeholders

SN Hierarchy Indicators Gr-oup

Stake-holder

High Level

1 H air quality trends for last five years(concentration of pollutants in ambientair)

En P

2 H % of green area to total city area En P

3 H noise level trends for last 5 years En P

4 H travel demand/transport supply ratio(PT related)

Ac Com

5 H capital investment in transport sectorto GDP

Ec Com

6 H investment vis a vis requirement in PTper annum

Ec SP

7 H %age of total budget spent ontransport infrastructuretrend analysis

Ec IP

8 H Transport-caused fatalities per 10,000vehicles (by veh category) includingNMT & pedestrianstrend analysis

S P

Middle Level

1 M no. of days pollution level exceeded

national ambient air quality standards(NAAQS)

En P

2 M pollution contribution from transportsector as a fraction of total pollutionload (%)

En P

3 M no. of days noise level exceedednormal level

En P

4 M disability adjusted life years (DALY)per 10,000 population due to transportcomponent of air population

En P

5 M %age of area reserved for transportuse

Ac P

6 M no. of bus shelters/terminals PersonsWith Disabilities(PWDs) friendly tototal bus shelters (trendanalysis)

Ac Com

7 M no. buses PWDs friendly to totalbuses (trend analysis)

Ac Com

8 M travel time per unit distance for eachtransport mode (sample study,

Ac Com


46/182



peak/non-peak) (trend analysis)

9 M average bus waiting time at busstops/shelters (trend analysis)

Ac Com

10 M average passenger load factor Ac Com

11 M parking demand in sq km-hr /available parking space (on-street/off-street) per10,000 vehicles (by mode)trend analysis

Ac Com

12 M no. of buses connected with railwaystations within 0.5 km distance to10,000 rail commuters vis a visrequirement as per travel demand(trend analysis)

Ac SP

13 M parking bays capacity (planned) forgoods vehicles/10,000 LCV & HCV

vehicles

Ac GVD

14 M loss of revenue on account ofsubsidized fare to subsidy provided bygovernment

Ec SP

15 M city capital expenditure on transport tototal budgeted expenditure (trendanalysis)

Ec Com

16 M expenditure on transport as % ofhousehold expenditure (by incomegroup)(trend analysis)

Ec Com

17 M marginal cost per Km for two-wheeler

to bus fare per passenger Km

Ec Com

18 M fare per km / cost per km for bus Ec SP

19 M rate of return on cumulative capitalinvestment (trend analysis)

Ec SP

20 M Transport-caused injuries per 10,000vehicle (by vehicle category) includingNMT & pedestrians(trend analysis)

S P

21 M no. of trauma care centers / lacpopulation

S P

Low level

1 L %age of vehicles meeting the latestemission standards trend analysis En Govt.

2 L total fuel consumed (by type petrol,diesel)/10,000 vehicles pop (fuel-wise)

En P

3 L no. of LPG, CNG, battery operated,hybrid electric vehicles per lac vehpopulation (by category)trend analysis

En SP

4 L no. of fuel samples failed to meet En EP


47/182



specifications against total no. ofsamples tested (trend analysis)

5 L no. of PUC centers per lac vehiclespopulation

En P

6 L no. of bus shelters to total road length Ac Com

7 L no. of breakdowns per 10,000 kmoperated(buses)

Ac Com

8 L no. of canceled km / scheduled km(for buses)

Ac Com

9 L no. of zebra crossings/total trafficsignals

Ac Com

10 L no. of walk-signals / total trafficsignals trend analysis

Ac Com

11 L total cycles track (by track-length-category) per 10,000 cycles-trips(survey)

Ac Com

12 L total area for parking space for veh atrailway station vis a vis requirementas per norms (by railway station) (trend analysis)

Ac SP

13 L vehicles ownership per household(trend analysis)

Ac VM

14 L no. of dispensing stations per lacvehiclestrend analysis

Ac EP

15 L operating fuel intensity in terms ofpassenger-km/ liter for buses(trend analysis)

Ec SP

16 L ratio of expenditure to revenuerealized through transportinfrastructure(road tax, fuel, etc)

Ec IP

17 L tax collection from transport sector tototal tax collection trendanalysis

Ec Govt.

18 L no. of persons violating traffic rulesper 10,000 vehicles

S P

19 L no. of MVIs /10,000 vehicles vis a visexisting norms

S Reg

20 L no. driver training schools/no. of newlicenses issued trendanalysis

S VM

21 L no. of traffic police deployed/ lacvehicles

Gov Reg

Qualitative Indicators1 policy & regulations for safety,

emissions, performance etc. ofvehicles

Gov VM


48/182



(available/not available)qualitative

2 road map with adequate lead time forimplementation of regulations(available/not available)qualitative

Gov VM


49/182



Abbreviations used in Table 4.3:

Hierarchy level: H-high, M-medium and L-low.Group: Ac-access, En-environment, Ec-economic, Gov-governance,

S-safetyStakeholder: P-people, Com-commuter, SP-service provider, EP-energy

provider, IP-infrastructure provider, Govt.-government,Reg-regulator and VM-vehicle manufacturer andGVD-goods vehicles driver/operator

4.8 As shown in Table 4.3, eight indicators fall under the high-levelcategory, 21 indicators in the middle level, and 21 indicators in the lowlevel.

4.9 The group distribution pattern of STS indicators is presented in Table4.4. Note that the majority of the high-level indicators (3 each) fall in theenvironment and economic groups. The access category dominates

the middle level with 9 indicators, followed by 6 indicators in theeconomic group. For the low -level indicators, the access group hashighest number with 9 indicators, followed by 5 indicators in theenvironment group. This analysis of indicators clearly brings out that forpolicy making, the environment and economic groups of indicators arerequired by high-level officials, whereas for analyzing trends andestablishing patterns for assessing STS, the access, economic,environment, and safety indicators are required for the executive levelof officials.

Table 4.4Distribution of Indicators with Hierarchy

by Group of STS

Group of STS High Middle Low Total

Access 1 9 9 18

Economic 3 6 3 12

Environment & Health 3 4 5 12

Safety 1 2 3 6

Governance - - 1 1

Total 8 21 21 50


50/182



5 KEY DATA REQUIREMENTS FOR INDICATORS

INTRODUCTION

5.1 Having identified indicators for each functional group of STS (access,

economic, environment, safety and governance) in Chapter 4, we now

turn to the requirements and availability of key data for indicators. The

key data values will help in quantifying the respective indicator value.

5.2 We examined the requirements and availability of key data particularly

with respect to the following:

-what data is required

-what data is available

-quality of data

-regularity of data compilation

-source/ownership of data

5.3 The details are available in Tables 5.1 to 5.5. The quality of data is split

into sections (acceptable and available). The quality of data is

examined with respect to the data accuracy level and is marked as

high, good and average. The quality of data ranked high signifies

the highest accuracy level in data; good signifies the next lower

accuracy level in data quality, and average signifies the lowest

accuracy level in data.

5.4 The frequency of data compilation is again split into sections (desired

and available). The regularity of data collection is marked as regular

and irregular. Regular signifies that at fixed intervals

(daily/monthly/yearly) the required data is collected by the concerned

department in PMA; irregular signifies that data is not collected at fixed

intervals.

5.3 Further, possible sources or ownership of data are examined. The

funding for data collection, including publishing of data (common in


51/182



most cases), is not discussed separately. However, wherever changes

in ownership of data and its funding are observed, they are indicated

accordingly.

Access

5.4 Data accessibility is examined in Table 5.1. As shown in Table 5.1, for

the majority of the indicators, the quality and frequency of data

compilation is acceptable. For data compiled through primary surveys,

the required frequency for data compilation is indicated as 5 years.

Economic

5.5 Regarding the economic aspect of STS, key data requirements and

availability are shown in Table 5.2. The required high-quality data is

collected regularly by the concerned departments.

Environment & Health

5.6 The data requirements and availability for indicators reflecting air

quality and public health is shown Table 5.3. In the case of the

environment and health group, for some indicators data is not collected

for example, data on noise levels and detailed data on pollutant

sourcesand for some data frequency of data collection is observed tobe irregular.

Safety

5.7 The key data requirements for safety of operations/ safety of transport

systems are presented in Table 5.4. For safety-related indicators, high-

quality data is compiled regularly by the concerned departments. For

the majority of indicators in safety area, data is available from the

Traffic Police and the RTO in PMA.

Governance

5.8 Table 5.5 presents key data requirements and availability for the

governance aspects of a sustainable transport system. There are three

indicators in this group, which includes two qualitative-type indicators.


52/182



Table 5.1

Key Data Requirements & Availability for Access Group of Indicator

Quality of data Frequency ocompilati

(regular/irre

SN Indicator Key data required

accep-table

actual desired av

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

1 total cycle tracks (by track-length-category)per 10,000 cycles-trips

-total length of cycle tracks (bycategory)-total cycle trips

high

good

high

average

regular

regular@

reg

irre

2 no. of buses connected withrailway station(s) within 0.5km distance to 10,000 railcommuters vis a vis asrequirement per traveldemand

-rail commuters travel demand-no. of buses connected torailway station(s) within 0.5 kmdistance

good

high

good

high

regular

regular

irre

reg

3 %age of area reserved fortransport use

-total area reserved fortransport use-total area (PMA)

high

high

high

high

regular

regular

reg

reg

4 number of bus shelters tototal road length -no. of bus shelters-total road length highhigh highhigh regularregular regreg

5 number of busstops/shelters for persons

-no. of bus shelters PWDsfriendly

high - regular -


53/182



with disabilities (PWDs) to

total bus stops/shelters

-total bus shelters in PMA high high regular reg

6 number of buses PWDsfriendly to total buses

-no. of buses PWDs friendly-total buses*

highhigh

highhigh

regularregular

irrereg

7 travel time per unit distancefor each transport mode

-travel time per unit distance(by mode)

good average Regular@

irre

8 travel demand and transportsupply ratio (PT related)

-per capita trip (for bus)-total no. of bus trips-average occupancy ratio inbus*

goodhighhigh

goodhighhigh

regularregularregular

irreregreg

9 no. of breakdowns per

10,000 km operated* (forbuses)

-no. of breakdowns vis a vis

km operated for buses

high average# regular reg

10 no. of canceledkm/scheduled km (forbuses)*

-no. of canceled km for buses-no. of scheduled km for buses

highhigh

highhigh

regularregular

regreg

11 average waiting time at busstops/shelters

-average waiting time at busstops/shelters

good average regular@ irre

12 average passenger loadfactor (for buses)*

-average passenger load factorfor buses

high good regular reg

13 number of zebra crossing tototal traffic signals

-total no. of zebra crossings

-total traffic signals

high

high

high

high

regular

regular

reg

reg

14 number of walk signals to -no. of walk signals high High regular reg


54/182



total traffic signals

-total traffic signals high high regular reg

15 parking demand to availableparking space per 10,000vehicles

-total parking demand-available parking space per10,000 vehicles

goodhigh

averagehigh

regularregular

irrereg

16 total area for vehiclesparking at railway station torequirement as per norms

-total area for vehicles parkingat railway station (s)

high high regular@ irre

17 no. of dispensing stationsper lac vehicles

- no. of dispensing stations- no. of registered vehicles

highhigh

highhigh

regularregular

regreg

18 vehicles ownership perhousehold

- no. vehicles owned-no. of households

goodhigh

averagegood

regular@regular@

irreirre

19 planned parking bayscapacity (goods vehicles) to10,000 Heavy CommercialVehicles (HCVs) and LightCommercial Vehicles(LCVs)

-planned parking bays capacity(goods vehicles)-no. of goods vehicles

high

high

good

high

regular

regular

irre

reg

@ data to be collected regularly at 5 year interval # data reliability to be improved * data publi


55/182



Table 5.2

Key Data Requirements & Availability for Economic Group of Indicato

Quality of data Frequency ofcompilatio

(regular/irreg


accep-table

actual desired av

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

1 capital investment intransport sector to GDP

-capital investment intransport sector by localgovernment-GDP of PMA (availableat district level)

high

good

good

good

regular

regular

reg

reg

2 expenditure on transport as% of householdexpenditure (income group-wise)

-% of averageexpenditure on transport-average householdexpenditure or income

good

good

-

-

regular

regular

-

-

3 marginal cost per km fortwo-wheeler to fare per

passenger km

-marginal cost per km fortwo-wheeler

(only fuel efficiency istaken on assumption of60 km per liter and petrolprices 40 Rupees @ liter)

good

high

average#

high

regular @

regular

irre

reg


56/182



-fare per passenger km*

4 loss of revenue on accountof subsidized fare tosubsidy provided bygovernment

-loss of revenue onaccount of subsidizedfare-subsidy provided bylocal government

high

high

high

high

regular

regular

reg

reg

5 city capital expenditure ontransport to total budgetedexpenditure

- % capital expenditureon transport of totalbudget

high high regular reg

6 fare per km/cost per km forPT (bus)

-fare per km in PT*-cost per km in PT*

highhigh

highhigh

regularregular

regreg

7 investment vis a vis

requirement in bustransport per annum

-investment per annum

made by localgovernment in publictransport-requirement per annumgiven by public transportprovider

High

high

good

good

regular

regular

reg

reg

8 rate of return on cumulativecapital investment

-net profit of publictransport provider-total capital investment

high

high

high

high

regular

regular

reg

reg

9 operating fuel intensity interms of passenger-km/literfor bus

-number of passengerkilometers operated*-fuel consumed in liters*

(per annum)

high

high

high

high

regular

regular

reg

reg

10 %age of total budget spenton transport infrastructure

-% expenditure ontransport infrastructure oftotal local government

good average regular@ irre


57/182



budget

11 ratio of expenditure torevenue realized throughtransport infrastructure(road tax, fuel tax, etc)

- % revenue fromtransport infrastructure- % expenditure ontransport infrastructure oftotal local governmentbudget

High

high

good

good

regular

regular

reg

reg

12 tax collection fromtransport sector to total taxcollection

-octroi collection andother taxes such as roadtax etc.

high high regular reg

* data published by Central Institute of Road Transport, Pune # through primary survey @ 5

Table 5.3

Key Data Requirement & Availability for Environment Group of Indicat

Quality of data Frequecom

(regula


accep-table

actual desired

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

1

2

no. of days pollutionlevel exceeded

national ambient airqualitystandards(NAAQS)air quality trends forlast 5 years

- ambient air pollutant concentrations forvarious pollutants such as PM10, NO2,

SO2, measured at various locations inthe PMA area (spatial distribution)- ambient air pollutant concentrations attraffic hotspots

high

good

good

good

regular

regular@


58/182



3 disability adjusted life

years (DALY) per10,000 populationdue to transportcomponent of airpollution

-Results of epidemiological studies

-data on hospital admissions, deaths,asthma among school children

good

good

-

good

irregular

regular

4

5

no. of days noiselevel exceedednormal levelnoise level trends forlast 5 years

- data on noise levels measured attraffic hotspots (spatial distribution)

good - regular

6 % of green area to

total city area (PMA:green space)

distribution of green spaces in PMA (by

ward)

high high regular

7 number of LPG,CNG, batteryoperated, hybridelectric vehicles perlac vehicles(by category)

-no. of LPG, CNG, battery operated,hybrid electric vehicles- no. of registered vehicles

high

high

high

high

regular

regular

8 pollution contributionfrom transport sectoras a fraction of totalpollution load (%)

-distribution of vehicle population(by vehicle category/ vintage)-emission factors (by vehicle categoryand vintage)

--utilization factors (km/day) or (km/year-percentage of old vehicles not in use orphased out-percentage of old vehicles upgraded,retrofitted with emission control devices,

high

good

good

good

good

high

good

good

-

-

regular

regular

regular

regular

regular


59/182



or converted to alternative fuels such as

CNG or LPG-number of vehicles tested for in-useemission per 100,000 vehicles/year-number of vehicles passing the in-useemission inspection per 100,000vehicles

(by vehicle category & vintage)-detailed data on pollutant contributionby various sources

high

high

good

-

-

-

regular

regular

regular

9 no. of fuel samplesfailing to meetspecifications against

total no. of fuelsamples tested

-no. of fuel samples failed to meetspecifications

-total number of fuel samples tested

high

high

good

good

regular

r

articles 60114 pune

Documents