introduction to data collection guidelines for suti · introduction to data collection guidelines...
TRANSCRIPT
Introduction to data collection guidelines for SUTI
Henrik Gudmundsson, Consultant to UN ESCAP
Chief Advisor, CONCITO
Capacity Building Workshop on Sustainable Urban Transport Index
Colombo, Sri Lanka
30-31 October 2017
• Data guidance
document (57 p.)
Components of SUTI data guidelines
• Excel data sheet
(13 sub-sheets)
• Template for
city report
• Support to SUTI piloting cities
• Ensure consistency of SUTI calculation
• Allow comparability across cities
• Provide a common approach to:
– Identify data for SUTI
– Operate and calculate data
– Document data
– Calculate SUTI
– Present SUTI results
Purpose of data guidelines
• SUTI Phase I report,
defining the SUTI scope
content, and methodology
• International standards and
literature on data and
metrics for transport and
sustainability analysis
Background for data guidelines
• Only addressing data needs for calculating SUTI
indicators, not general transport data collection
• Only addressing data collection at city level
• Prepared for the pilot phase, not final
• Iterative development with updates
• May need further adjustment and extension before
wider use
• Part of pilot exercise to identify needs for revised or
additional guidance
Scope of data guidelines
• Designate a team with a key responsible person
• Plan data collection in advance
• Be aware that level of effort to collect data differs
across indicators; may need to involve several city
departments and other authorities
• Use proposed definitions of key terms
• Make sure to document data and note any
deviations from SUTI standards/recommendations
• Ensure endorsement by city official
General guidance on data collection
• Relevance of the indicator for SUTI (why to measure it)
• Exact definition of the indicator
• The unit for measuring the indicator and inserting in the data sheet (e.g. traffic fatalities per 100.000 inhabitants of the city)
• Presenting the scale (the minimum and maximum allowed values) for the indicator
• Procedure and data sources to collect or derive data
• Results to enter in the SUTI calculation
• Literature with further guidance on methodology or data sources (in some sections)
Guidance per indicator in Document
• How to calculate the indicator from basic data
• How to structure data
• How to score qualitative information
• How to derive aggregate results from samples
• Which value and format to enter in SUTI calculation
Guidance per indicator in Data sheet
Indicator 1: Scoring transport plans (1)
Score
Aspect 0
No coverage
1
Limited
2
Middle
3
Extensive
4
Leading
I) walking
networksNo goals
No designation
No budget
Vague goal
Little designation
seen in plans
Small or unclear
budget
Qualitative goals
Some designation
in 1-2 major
areas/corridors
Some budget
Quantitative goals
Much designation
across city
increased realistic
budget
Ambitious goals
Full designation
across city
Major secured new
funding
II) cycling
networksNo goals
No designation
No budget
Vague goal
Little designation
seen in plans
Small or unclear
budget
Qualitative goals
Some designation
in 1-2 major
areas/corridors
Some budget
Quantitative goals
Much designation
across city
Increased
realistic budget
Ambitious goals
Full designation
across city
Major secured new
funding
III) intermodal
transfer
facilities
No goals
No designation
No budget
Vague goal
Little designation
seen in plans
Small or unclear
budget
Qualitative goals
Some designation
in 1-2 major
areas/corridors
Some budget
Quantitative goals
Much designation
across city
Increased
realistic budget
Ambitious goals
Full designation
across city
Major secured new
funding
IV) public
transport No goals
No designation
No budget
Vague goal
Little designation
seen in plans
Small or unclear
budget
Qualitative goals
Some designation
in 1-2 major
areas/corridors
Some budget
Quantitative goals
Much designation
across city
Increased
realistic budget
Ambitious goals
Full designation
across city
Major secured new
funding
Indicator 1: Scoring transport plans (2)
Aspect Review (cities to provide) Score
I) walking
networks
• The plan of City X has no clear vision or goals for the role and
priority of pedestrians in the city’s transport system. (…)
• All in all City X plan has limited attention to and coverage of
walking.
1
II) cycling
networks
• The plan of City X mentions that cycling is an important mode of
transport that should be given priority where possible…All in all
City X transport plan has middle attention to cycling …
• ....
2
III) intermodal
transfer
facilities
• City X plan is called ‘a multi-modal strategy’ but there are no goals
for how to obtain or measure a multi-modal mix …
• …
• City X transport plan has limited attention to intermodality
1
IV) public
transport
• City X plan has a goal that public transport will carry 30% of the
city’s traffic when the plan is fulfilled and ….
• …
• Coverage of public transport is extensive; Score: 3.
3
Total (sum)7
Example
review and
scores to be
replaced with
actual text and
scores
Result to enter
in SUTI Data
Entry sheet
Indicator 2: Calculate modal split
Average number of trips per person per day by main modes of transport (for age group example
15-60 years)
PURPOSE COMMUTING
(WORK AND EDUCATION)
LEISURE, BUSINESS AND OTHER
PURPOSES
MODE # subtotals Not relevant
a. Scheduled bus and minibus 0.4
b. Train, metro, tram 0.3
c. Ferry 0.0
d. Other public 0.1
e. Public transport 0.8
f. Walking 0.25
g. Bicycle 0.05
h. Active transport 0.3
i. Passenger car 0.3
j. Taxi 0.01
k. Motorcycle 0.4
l. Scooter/moped 0.3
m. Para transit (unscheduled) 0.2
n. Other motorized (trucks,etc) 0.05
o. Individual motorized 1.3
p. Total 2.4
q. Public and active 1.1
r. Modal share of active and
public transport46.6%
Example data to be
replaced with actual
data
Result to enter in SUTI Data Entry sheet
Average frequency in daytime (6:00am-
6:00pm)
Pop. density Inhabitants
Node/stop Interval inh/km2 #
Rail Line A
StationA1 5 min 15,000 11,781
StationA2 5 min 10,000 7,854
StationA3 8 min 10,000 7,854
BRT Line B
StopB1 10 min 10,000 7,854
StopB2 10 min 10,000 7,854
StopB3 15 min 5,000 3,927
BUS line C
StopC1 10 min 10,000 7,854
StopC2 15 min 5,000 3,927
StopC3 20 min 5,000 3,927
StopC4 20 min 2,000 1,571
StopC5 30 min 2,000
StopC6 60 min 2,000
SUM 64,403
Total Population 100,000
% within 500m buffers 64
Indicator 3: Convenient good PT access
Example data to be
replaced with actual
data
Result to enter
in SUTI Data
Entry sheet
Note: 500 m buffer
circle corresponds to
0.785 km2, of land
Dissatisfied Satisfied
Very Partly Partly Very
Dimension 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 RESP AV
SCORE
SATIS
FACT
Frequency of the service 39 69 67 86 56 11 83 411 4.01 36.50
Punctuality (delay) 24 65 78 87 89 33 46 422 4.03 39.81
Comfort and cleanliness of
vehicles22 32 105 85 111 44 5 404 3.95 39.60
Safety of vehicles 2 12 14 208 66 88 24 414 4.65 43.00
Convenience of stops/stations 23 45 34 136 170 22 1 431 4.06 44.78
Availability of information 99 127 110 66 24 12 11 449 2.71 10.47
Personnel courtesy 7 11 33 55 179 99 44 428 5.01 75.23
Fare level 22 46 98 99 120 87 22 494 4.21 46.36
Responses238 407 539 822 815 396 236 3453 431.63 41.97
Indicator 4: Satisfaction survey parameters
Result to enter in SUTI Data
Entry sheet
Example data to be replaced with
actual data
Where,
• FR is the fatality rate per 100,000
• Kiis the number of fatalities for mode i
• i are travel modes (road, rail, tram…)
Indicator 5: Fatalities
Example aggregation of fatalities by
mode
Fatalities #
Road transport 84
Railway transport 8
Tram 1
Ferryboats 3
Other 0
Total 96
Inhabitants 798,600
Fatalities/100,000 inh 12.02
Result to enter in SUTI Data
Entry sheet
Example data to be replaced with
actual data
Example calculation for METRO MANILA (Note: approximation)
Services
Annual Ridership Market shares
(estimated)
Single
ticket price
Monthly cost
(60 tickets)
Weighted
monthly cost
MRT-3 700,000 58.3 15 900 525
LRTA 500,000 41.7 13 780 325
Company x 0.0 0 0
Company y 0.0 0 0
Company z 0.0 0 0
Total 1200,000 100 0 850
Mean household income, 3 decile, 2015 11,083
7.7
Indicator 6: Affordability
Result to enter in SUTI Data
Entry sheet
Example data to be replaced with
actual data
Indicator 7: Operational costs (Fare Box Ratio)
WEIGHTED FARE BOX RECOVERY RATE
Services
Market shares
(estimated)Fare Revenues
Transport
Operating
expenses
Fare box ratio
Company 1 29.0 2,300,000 1,970,000 117%
Company 2 26.0 27,570,000 64,834,000 43%
Company 3 17.0 18,356,000 23,013,600 80%
Company 4 16.0 8,554,700 15,132,820 57%
Company 5 12.0 78,666,500 199,705,000 39%
Total 100 Weighted 72.2
Result to enter in SUTI Data
Entry sheet
Example data to be replaced with
actual data
Indicator 8: Investments in Public Transport
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 average
PUBLIC TRANSPORT
FACILITIES16,100,000 14,250,000 4,650,000 6,240,000 6,640,000 9.576.000
TOTAL TRANSPORT 46,350,000 41,250,000 34,776,990 35,987,600 32,776,990 38.228.316
SHARE 25,0
Share of transport investments used for public transport
• 5-year average (historic)• Focus on committed investments by the city/regional
government and local sources, not central subsidy
Result to enter in SUTI Data
Entry sheet
Example data to be replaced with
actual data
Indicator 9: Air Quality (PM10)
Annual mean of PM10 chosen for indicator because:
• PM10 data expected more widely available
• WHO recommend use of nnal mean for health impact
• Population weighted
EXAMPLE TABLE WITH FOUR MEASUREMENT STATIONS REPRESENTING POPULATION
PM10 Population Population
Station Location yearly mean in area percentage
1Boulevard A 48 650,000 19.75
2Busy intersection B 66 750,000 22.79
3Street canyon C 81 150,000 4.56
4Rooftop / Background D 34.5 1,740,400 52.89
Total city population 3,290,400 100
Population weighted concentration 46.47
Result to enter in SUTI Data
Entry sheet
Example data to be replaced with
actual data
Indicator 10: Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Two calculation methods available
• Bottom-up from traffic data and GHG emission factors
• To-down from transport fuel sales in the city region
BOTTOM UP EXAMPLE -VERY SIMPLIFIED CALCULATION USING STANDARD VALUES FOR TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND EMISSIONS (MUST
BE ADJUSTED TO LOCAL CIRCUMSTANCES)
Traffic Km/year
Km road Vehicle ADT Truck % Van % MC % Pass cars Trucks Vans MCs SUM
Freeways 35 50.000 18 20 0 396.025.000 114.975.000 127.750.000 0 638.750.000
Arterials 320 35.000 15 15 35 1.430.800.000 613.200.000 613.200.000 1.430.800.000 4.088.000.000
Collectors 1.200 15.000 12 15 38 2.299.500.000 788.400.000 985.500.000 2.496.600.000 6.570.000.000
Local streets 4.500 7.000 8 12 40 4.599.000.000 919.800.000 1.379.700.000 4.599.000.000 11.497.500.000
cul-de-sacs 1.100 500 5 10 60 50.187.500 10.037.500 20.075.000 120.450.000 200.750.000
TOTAL 7.155 8.775.512.500 2.446.412.500 3.126.225.000 8.646.850.000 22.995.000.000
Emission
factors
Total
emissions
Fuels and
emissions ´SHARE %
GRAM
CO2/km
CO2
Ton/year POPULATION
Passenger cars Petrol 70 160 982.857
Diesel 30 120 315.918
Vans Petrol 50 170 265.729
Diesel 50 130 203.205
Trucks Diesel 100 700 1.712.489
MCs Petrol 100 70 605.280
TOTAL CO2 4.085.4783.200.000,00 1,28
Result to enter in SUTI Data Entry sheetRed numbers to be replaced with actual data
Guidance to calculate SUTI
1. Calculate value for each of the 10
indicators using sub-sheets
2. Manually insert result in SUTI Data
Entry sheet
3. SUTI and diagram automatically
calculated
4. Review and comment results
0,00
10,0 0
20,0 0
30,0 0
40,0 0
50,0 0
60,0 0
70,0 0
80,0 0
90,0 0
100 ,00
Extent to which transport
plans cover public
transport, intermodal
facilities and infrastructure
for active modes
Modal share of active and
public transport in
commuting
Convenient access to
public transport service
Public transport quality
and reliability
Traffic fatalities per
100.000 inhabitants
Affordability – travel costs
as part of income
Operational costs of the
public transport system
Investment in public
transportation systems
Air quality (pm10)
Greenhouse gas emissions
from transport
City 1
City 2
City 3
City 4
City 5
City 6
City 7
City 8
• Guidance has been developed for SUTI pilot
• Using definitions in literature – but complete
universal standards are missing for most indicators
• Is the guidance useful for cities? Is it needed?
• Which elements could be improved?
– General procedure?
– Individual indicators?
– Calculating SUTI?
• Balance: more detailed and restrictive, versus more
flexible and context-sensitive?
Summary and discussion
