city bus service kgf

DIRECTORATE OF URBAN LAND TRANSPORT

URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

EVALUATION REPORT

KGF CITY BUS SERVICE

KGF City Bus Service Evaluation Report 2013

Directorate of Urban Land Transport 1

Table of Contents

1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 2

1.1 KGF City ..................................................................................................................... 3

1.2 Demographics of KGF City ........................................................................................ 4

1.3 Vehicular composition in KGF ................................................................................... 5

1.4 KGF city Bus service .................................................................................................. 5

2 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION .................................................................................... 6

2.1 Public transport facilities – KGF City ......................................................................... 6

2.1.1 Presence of organized public transport system in urban area (%) ....................... 6

2.1.2 Extent of supply availability of public transport.................................................. 7

2.1.3 Service coverage of public transport in the city................................................... 7

2.1.4 % of fleet as per Urban bus specification ............................................................ 8

2.1.5 Level of comfort in public transport .................................................................... 8

2.1.6 Average waiting time for public transport users (mins) ...................................... 8

2.2 Financial Sustainability of public transport - KGF ..................................................... 9

2.2.1 Extent of Non fare Revenue (%) .......................................................................... 9

2.2.2 Staff /bus ratio ...................................................................................................... 9

2.2.3 Operating Ratio .................................................................................................... 9

2.3 Facts and Findings – Route Wise .............................................................................. 10

2.3.1 Route 201/202/203/204/205/206 ....................................................................... 10

3 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 12

EVALUATION OF CITY BUS SERVICE (KGF) .......................................................... 13



1 Introduction

The demand for urban transport in India is determined by trends such as substantial increase

in urban population, household incomes and industrial and commercial activities. With the

economy growing today at a rapid pace this demand has only increased and public

transportation systems have not been able to keep pace with the rapid and substantial increase

in demand. Public transport is the primary mode of transport in the bigger cities and metros.

This includes anywhere between 22-46% of the total trips for travel in cities with population

> 80 lakhs. City bus transport is the most common and predominant form of public transport

in cities with population greater than 1 million. Cities with a poor public transportation

system have a higher availability of para-transit and private modes. Intermediate public

transport systems like tempos, autos and cycle rickshaws assume importance to meet the

travel demand in mid-level cities.

Bus services in particular have deteriorated and passengers have turned to personalized

modes and intermediate public transport (IPT) (such as auto rickshaws, jeeps, taxi, tempos,

mini buses etc.), adding to traffic congestion which impacted on bus operations to a large

extent.

The legislation available to regulate bus operations in Indian cities i.e. Motor Vehicle Act

1988, modified by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994 does not lay enough

emphasis on Public Private Partnership (PPP) operations. Accordingly in most states, the

State Transport Undertakings (STUs) continue to dominate the road transport sector.

However, with their priorities set towards inter state and inter city operations, in most cases

city bus operations have taken a backseat and STUs either do not provide service or only

offer limited services or provide service with buses which are not considered fit for long

distance operations. Besides, city bus operations are considered to be loss making and hence

claim least priority. Further, in medium and small size cities, fleet availability by STUs has

steadily declined with a sharp decline in patronage. The vacuum created by is being filled by

IPT modes, which are fragmented and poorly regulated private sector operations.

In this regard, The Government of Karnataka created the Directorate of Urban Land

Transport (DULT) under the Urban Development Department to integrate and coordinate all

land transport matter in the State. Directorate of Urban Land Transport (DULT), Government

of Karnataka, took up the initiative of supporting the introduction of city bus services in Tier



II cities. As a part of this initiative Performance evaluation was conducted for the newly

introduced City Bus Service partly funded from State Urban Transport Fund through DULT

for KGF (Kolar Gold Fields) City.

This study identifies some of the important issues related with the performance of newly

introduced bus system in KGF and also suggests some solutions for improvement in the

performance of the City bus system. Rapidly rising operating cost in the City bus services

have placed increasing emphasis on improved management and better utilization of existing

facilities. It is required to evaluate how well the existing city bus system is providing services

to the public. Therefore, new techniques to assist the evaluation of performance of City bus

services are needed. It is expected that this study will be useful to improve the efficiency and

effectiveness of bus system in urban area.

1.1 KGF City

The KGF is a mining city in Bangarpet taluk, in

the Kolar District of Karanataka state, India. The

city is located at a distance of about 100 km from

the state capital, Bangalore. KGF is the state

border city adjoining the states of Tamilnadu and

Andrapradesh. The city also has an Engineering,

Dental and law college. KGF also has the National

Institute of Rock Mechanics (NIRM) which is run

by the ministry of mines. It manufactures a variety

of heavy equipment used for earth moving,

transportation and mining. The Bharat Earth

Movers Limited (BEML) a Public Sector

Undertaking under the Ministry of Defense has also set up a large manufacturing unit in

KGF. The major source of employment are agriculture, dairy and sericulture and due to

which the city is known as the land of “Silk, Milk and Gold”. Farmers in Kolar are totally

dependent upon bore-well water for irrigation and drinking. The Gold Fields was closed in

2003 due to reducing gold deposits and increasing cost of production.

There are few famous temples and tourist destinations in and around the city like Mulbagal,

Guttahalli, Kotilingeshwara, Antara Gange, Kolar Gold Fields and Bangarapet etc.



The road pattern in KGF city is a combination of radial and grid pattern with arterial roads.

The municipal bus stand is the focal point from where most roads lead to outer areas of the

city.

1.2 Demographics of KGF City

The city had a population of 1, 62,230 during the 2011 census. CMC, Robertsonpet, KGF is

handling the administration of the city which is the biggest municipality among the district

occupying 58.12 Sq. Km of area. Figure 1 illustrates the growth of population in KGF city

from 1901 to 2011 based on census of India statistics. It can be clearly seen that population of

KGF is on a significant growth trend in the last few decades.



1.3 Vehicular composition in KGF

A cursory look at the status of vehicle

composition in KGF is very alarming.

Table 1 illustrates the automobile

composition in the city as per the

recent statistics available from the

Regional Transport Office. It can be

seen that while the vehicular

population in the city stood at 55,274

of which 44,520 came from

motorcycles alone.

1.4 KGF city Bus service

Considering the need, necessity and demand for public Transport in KGF city, KSRTC took

up the initiative of providing the sustainable city bus transport operations in KGF. 3 routes

with 15 schedules were proposed by KSRTC, out of which 1 route with 6 schedules were

found to be operating in KGF. The route details are as given below.

Vehicle Type No. of Vehicles

Two wheelers 44,520

Cars & Jeeps 3,269

Cabs 78

Auto-Rickshaw 1,406

Omni buses 120

Tractors & Trailers 3,426

Goods vehicles 1,976

Private buses 89

Others 390

Total 55,274

Route No. Route Route Length

From To

201 KGF Bangarapet 14








2 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

The growing challenges of the urban sector in India requires a system which can measure the

performance of urban transport activities and also address the performance monitoring for

internal decision making. With this perspective, Ministry of Urban Development (MoUD)

framed a standard set of performance benchmarks which can help Urban Local Bodies

(ULBs) and other agencies in identifying performance gaps and suggesting improvements

through the sharing of information and best practices, ultimately resulting in better services to

the people. Accordingly all JnNURM mission cities are advised to undertake the process of

service level benchmarking. Service level performance indicators have been identified for

various areas like Quality and financial sustainability of public transport, Pedestrian / NMT

safety and infrastructure facilities, ITS facilities in a city to name a few, by the Ministry of

Urban Development (MoUD).

The Service level benchmarks (as per MoUD) for public transport system indicate the city

wide LOS provided by public transport system during peak hours. This would require

indicators such as presence of organized public transport system; bus route coverage, service

frequency, and percentage fleet as per urban bus specifications as far as the city perspective is

concerned. Therefore the parameters as per the MoUD guidelines to assess the service

initially were analysed for KGF.

The service level benchmarks for the Public transport consists of two categories:

1 Public transport facilities.

2 Sustainability of Public transport.

2.1 Public transport facilities – KGF City

2.1.1 Presence of organized public transport system in

urban area (%)

Currently 6 buses are operated by Karnataka State Road

Transport Corporation in KGF.

LOS 1 Presence of

Organized PT

1 >= 60

2 40 - 60

3 20 - 40

4 < 20



A = Total Number of Buses in the City – 6 buses.

B = Total Number of Buses under the ownership of STU/SPV - 6 buses

Presence of Public Transport System in Urban Area (%)

= (B/A)*100

=100%,

Therefore, LOS1 = 1

2.1.2 Extent of supply availability of public transport

The Population of KGF city is 1, 62,230.

A = Total Number of Buses in the City – 6 buses

B = Total Population of the city (2011 Census) - 1,62,230.

Availability of Public Transport / 1000 Population

= A/ (B/1000) = 0.04

Therefore, LOS 2 = 4

2.1.3 Service coverage of public transport in the city

A = Total Route length of the corridors on which the PT systems

ply in the city = 14 (in Road Kilometers).

B = Area of the Urban Limits of the City = 58.12 (in Square

Kilometers)

Service Coverage = (A/B) = 0.24

Therefore, LOS 3 = 4

LOS 2 Extent of supply

availability of

public transport

1 >= 0.6

2 0.4 – 0.6

3 0.2 – 0.4

4 < 0.2

LOS

3

Service

coverage of

public transport

1 >= 1

2 0.7 - 1.0

3 0.3 – 0.7

4 < 0.3



2.1.4 % of fleet as per Urban Bus Specification

A = Total Number of Buses in the City – 6buses

B =Total number of buses as per the Urban Bus specifications

in the city – 6buses

% of fleet = (B/A)*100

= (6/6)*100 = 100%,

% of fleet as per urban bus specification is 100%,

Therefore, LOS 4 = 1.

2.1.5 Level of comfort in public transport

B = Passenger count on bus at key identified routes.

C = Seats available in the bus is taken based on its type.

Passenger comfort – Load factor (passengers per seat)

=B/C

=668.93/ (19*43)

=0.82


2.1.6 Average waiting time for public transport users (mins)

The Average LOS of the Waiting time for Public transport is

15 min.

Therefore, LOS 5= 4.

LOS 4 % of fleet as

per urban bus

specification

1 75 - 100

2 50 - 74

3 25 - 49

4 <=25

LOS 5 Level of comfort

in public

transport

1 <=1.5

2 1.5 – 2.0

3 2.0 – 2.5

4 >2.5

LOS

6

Average waiting

time for public

transport

1 <=4

2 4 - 6

3 6- 10

4 > 10



2.2 Financial Sustainability of public transport - KGF

2.2.1 Extent of Non fare Revenue (%)

From the collected secondary data, Operational

performance and financial performance of KSRTC had

been calculated.

A =Revenue collections per annum from non-fare related

sources (From August 2012 to July 2013) (i.e.

excluding tariff box collections) – Rs. 10.76

B = Total revenue per annum from all the sources –

Rs.22.24 Lakhs (From August 2012 to July 2013).

Extent of non-fare revenue (%)

= A/B * 100

= 48.38 %, Therefore LOS 1 = 1.

2.2.2 Staff /bus ratio

A = Total staff of bus operation and maintenance –

B = Total number of buses – 6 (in number).

Staff / Bus Ratio = A/B= 4.43


2.2.3 Operating Ratio

A = Cost/ vkm = Rs. 33.5

B = Earning/vkm = Rs.25.53

Operating Ratio (ratio) = A/B = 1.31


LOS 1 Extent of Non fare

Revenue (%)

1 >40

2 40 – 20

3 20 – 10

4 <=10

LOS 2 Staff /bus ratio

1 <=5

2 5.5 – 8

3 8 – 10

4 >10

LOS 3 Operating Ratio

1 <0.7

2 0.7 – 1.0

3 1.0 - 1.5

4 >=1.5



2.3 Facts and Findings – Route Wise

In the above section, an overall evaluation of the city bus service has been made through the

computation of level of service prescribed by MoUD. In addition to this, a route wise

performance evaluation has been carried for KGF which is necessary to understand the travel

constraints in each route. This is essential as the constraint of one route may vary from the

other.

The following section lists out the route wise analysis (both with respect to passenger and

operators) for the better understanding of the overall operational efficiency of each route.

2.3.1 Route 201/202/203/204/205/206

This route is operated between KGF to Bangarapet to a total route length of 14 km.

A. Operational Efficiency-Passenger

1. 43% of the commuters are in the age group of 30-45

years.

2. 55% of the trips along this route are work trips.

3. 80% of commuters use city bus service for their daily

commute.

4. 44% of the commuters make through trips everyday i.e., from KGF to Bangarapet.



B. Issues:

1. 45% of the commuters feel the need of route information

at the bus stop followed by 31% demanding bus shelters.

2. 44% of the commuters need to walk for 15-30 min. to

access the nearest bus stop.

3. 73% of the commuters are not satisfied with the current

bus fare.

Operational Efficiency-Operators

Observations:

1. Cost of operation: The cumulative earning and cost

of operations for this route was found to be 25.45 and

33.5 respectively.

2. Load Factor: The load factor of 72.6% has been

recorded.

3. Trips per day: The approximate number of trips

made is 18 trips /day.

A. Inference

As this route required more buses as there is no IPT running on this route. There is a huge

demand of city buses as commuters prefer to catch city buses. The difference of EPKM and

CPKM are lesser, which can be improved by inducting more buses.



3 CONCLUSION

The quality of city bus services should be improved by working with city bus agencies to

introduce best practices in service planning operations and performance monitoring, thus

making city bus service the preferable alternative to private vehicle use.

In the case of KGF there is a high demand of buses on the entire route as commuter are

opting for city bus service to commute and there is no IPT runs on that route. it is suggested

to increase number of fleet on routes stated above in the chapter 1.

EVALUATION OF CITY BUS SERVICE (KGF)

PASSENGER OPINION SURVEY: Questionnaire for users (ಬಳಕದಾರರಗ ಪರಶ):

1. Name (ಹಸರು):.......................................................... 2. Age (ವಯಸುು):......................

3. Gender (ಲಂಗ): Male (ಪುರುಷ): Female (ಸತರೀ):

4. Origin ( ಸಥಳ): ………………………………Destination ( ಸಥಳ):

…………...………

5. Travel distance from Origin to Destination (

): ……………………………………………………………………………………….

6. Do city Buses Arrive/Depart on scheduled time? (ಈ

ಆ / )?

Yes No

7. Is there a proper Bus Stop/Shelter? ( )? Yes No

8. What other facilities you need in the bus stop: ( )?

Bus shelter ( ) Route Information ( ) Lighting (

)

9. How much time do you wait for the bus at the bus stop? (

) ?

< 5min 5-10min 10-15 min 15-30 min

10. Behaviour of Bus Conductor / Driver: (ಬಸ ಕಂಡಕಟರ / ಚಾಲಕ ನಡವಳಕ):

Ranking Very good

( )

Good

( )

Normal

( )

Bad

( ) Very bad

( )

11. How often do you use Public Transport? ( ,

)?

Every day (ಪರತದನ) Weekdays (ವಾರದ ದನಗಳು ಮಾತರ) occasionally

( )

12. Would you like any Routes to be added to the existing system? (

)?

………………………………………………………………………………………………

…

13. What is the purpose of your travel? (ನಮಮ ಪರಯಾಣದ ಉದದೀಶ )?

Work (ಕಲಸ) Education (ಶಕಷಣ) Shopping (ಶಾಪಂಗ) others

(ಇತರ)

14. If not Public Transport, which is your next preferential mode of transport? (

, ) ?

Auto Private Bus Others

15. What do you think must be done to increase the patronage of city bus service? (

)?

Satisfied ( ) Reduction in fare ( ) Reliability

( ) Infrastructure facility ( ) Increase in

route coverage ( ) Increase in no. of buses ( )

others ( )

16. How many minutes do you walk to reach the Bus Stop: (

):

< 5min 5-10min 10-15 min 15-30 min

17. Reason for using Public Transport: (ಸಾವವಜನಕ ಸಾರಗ ಉಪಯೀಗಸಲು ಕಾರಣ):

Reasons(ಕಾರಣಗಳು)

Comfort (ಆರಾಮದಾಯಕ)

Safety (ಸುರಕಷತ)

Cost Saving ( )

Time Saving ( )

Directness of Service ( )

18. If not walking, which mode do you choose to reach bus stop: ( ,

ಆಯಕ ): Two wheeler Auto Cycle Private Bus Walk

others

19. Number of Vehicles Owned (ಮಾಲೀಕತವದಲರುವ ವಾಹನಗಳು ಎಷುಟ): Type of

Vehicle

ವಾಹನ

Cycles

ಸೖಕಲಸು

Scooters/MCs/Mopeds

ಸಕಟರ

Cars/Vans/Jeep

ಕಾರುಗಳು Auto

rickshaws

(owned)

ಆಟಕೀ

Other

Vehicles

(pl.specify)

ಇತರ

ರಕಷಾಗಳು ವಾಹನಗಳು

20. Average Travel Expenses / Month (at present): ಸರಾಸರ ಪರಯಾಣ ವಚಚ / ತಂಗಳು (ಪರಸುುತ)

……………………………………………………………………………………………

…………

21. Are you satisfied with the Current Bus fare system? ( ?

Yes No

22. If not, select the improvement required ( ಆ ) Reduction in fare ( ) Reduction in monthly pass fare ( )

Others ( ) 23. Average Income of the person (per month): (ವಯಕತುಯ ಸರಾಸರ ವರಮಾನ) (ಪರತ ತಂಗಳು): 1000-5000 5000-10000 10000-25000 25000-

50000

24. Any other suggestions / Comments about the bus service/ ( /

)

ANNEXURE II

Total Eff. Kms Per bus held * no. of buses held * no of days

% Fleet Utilisation (Average no. of buses on-road / Average no. of buses held) *

100

Pass. Kms. (Lakhs) Traffic Revenue(in Lakhs) / .85

Seat Kms. (Lakhs) 42(no of seat) * Total Eff. Kms.(in Lakhs)

% Load Factor (Pass. Kms. (Lakhs) / Seat Kms. (Lakhs)) * 100

Pass. Carried/bus on road/day Passanger Carried / no of bus on road / no of days

Gross Kms.(Lakhs) Total Eff. Kms + Total Dead Kms

Staff on Workshop &

Maintenance

0.9 * Average no. of buses held

Staff on Administration &

Accounts

0.1 * Average no. of buses held

Staff per bus on-road Total Staff / Average no. of buses on-road

Eff.kms per staff per day Total Eff. Kms.(in Lakhs) * 100000 / no of days / Total Staff

Passenger Tax(in Lakhs) Traffic Revenue(in Lakhs) * 0.056

Total Revenue Traffic Revenue + Other Revenue

(paise/km) (Total Revenue (in Lakhs) / Total Eff. Kms.(in Lakhs)) * 101

% Cancel Kms (Cancel Kms / Schedule Kms) * 100

EPKM Traffic Revenue / Eff. Kms

Passenger per bus Total passengers / Schedule

Load Factor EPKM / 42(no of seat) / 0.85 * 100

Operational effeciency Eff. Kms / Schedule

KMPL Gross Kms / Hour Schedule per day(HSD)

CPKM Cost / Eff. Kms

Total Cost per Vehicle Kms CPKM / no. of vehicles

HSD Cost HSD * 45.7

Spare 0.28 * Eff. Kms

Tyres and Tubes 0.70 * Eff. Kms

Lubricants 0.10 * Eff. Kms

Others 0.06 * Eff. Kms

Dep on vehicle 2.81 * Eff. Kms

MV Tax Traffic Revenue * 0.056

Recondition 0.05 * Eff. Kms

Staff 1900 * Operation schedule

Dep / other assests 0.15 *Eff. Kms

Central overhead 0.50 * Eff. Kms

Interest 0.23 * Eff. Kms

Mact 0.10 * Eff. Kms

Miscellaneous 1.45 * Eff. Kms

Cost HSD Cost + Spare + Tyres and Tubes + Lubricants + Others +

Dep on vehicle + MV Tax + Recondition + Staff + (Dep/other

assests) + Central overhead + Interest + Mact + Miscellaneous

Margin Traffic Revenue - Cost

Net Profit (Total Revenue - Total Cost) / Eff. Kms

Turnover/Capital Total Revenue / (14.75(Cost of bus) * no of bus)

Vehicle Kms performed litre of

fuel

Gross Kms / KMPL

Scheduled Kms/day Per bus held * no of buses

Operated Kms/day Eff. Kms / no of days

Vehicle utilization (effective) Per bus held

Vehicle utilization (Gross) Dead Kms per day + Eff. Vehicle utilisation

ANNEXURE III: SLBs for Urban Transport- MoUD, Government of India

Level

of

Service

1. Presence of

Organized

Public

Transport

System in

Urban Area

(%)

2. Extent of

Supply

Availability

of

Public

Transport

3. Service

Coverage

of Public

Transport

in the

city

4.

Average

waiting

time for

Public

Transport

users

(mins)

5. Level

of

Comfort

in

Public

Transport

6. % of Fleet

as

per Urban

Bus

Specification

1 >= 60 >= 0.6 >= 1 <=4 <= 1.5 75 - 100

2 40- 60 0.4 - 0.6 0.7- 1 4 - 6 1.5 - 2.0 50 - 75

3 20 - 40 0.2 - 0.4 0.3 - 0.7 6 - 10

2.0 - 2.5 25 - 50

4 < 20 < 0.2

< 0.3

> 10 >2.5 <= 25

Overall

LOS

Calculated

LOS

Comments

1 < 12 The City has a good public transport system which is wide spread

and easily available to the citizens. The system provided is

comfortable.

2 12 - 16 The City has public transport system which may need considerable

improvements in terms of supply of buses/ coaches and coverage as

many parts of the city are not served by it. The frequency of the

services available may need improvements. The system provided is

comfortable.

3 17 - 20 The City has a public transport system which may need considerable

improvements in terms of supply of buses / coaches and coverage as

most parts of the city are not served by it. The frequency of the

services available needs improvements. The system provided is not

comfortable as there is considerable over loading.

4 21-24 The city has very poor/no organized public transport system.

ANNEXURE IV: Financial Sustainability of Public Transport, MoUD, Government of

India.

Level of

Service

1. Extent of Non fare Revenue

(%)

2. Staff /bus

ratio

3.Operating

Ratio

1 > = 40 < = 5.5 <= 0.7

2 20 - 40 5.5 - 8.0 0.7 - 1

3 10- 20 8 - 10 1 - 1.5

4 < 10 > 10 > 1.5

Overall

LOS

Calculated

LOS

Comments

1 < = 4 The public transport of a city is financially sustainable.

2 5 - 7 The public transport of a city is financially sustainable but needs

some improvements.

3 8- 9 The public transport of a city is financially sustainable but needs

considerable improvements.

4 10 - 12 The public transport of a city is not financially sustainable.

city bus service kgf

Documents

urban transport

demographics of kgf

public transport users

urban bus specification

primary mode of transport

urban population

urban area

public transportation