Multi-modal Integration in Bangalore

Challenges and Solutions

Topics
Commuter choice criteria for travel mode Snapshot of current multi-modal integration -- the BYP

example

Problem areas/The Integration score card Potential remedies

Panel Discussions Addressing multi-modal integration systemically Can solutions be retrofitted? What can be done in the future?

Commuter Choice Process

Commuter choose between available travel modes based on the following

attributes:

Economics (monetary cost) Total travel time (access, waiting, transit and journey times) Convenience and comfort (last mile connectivity, ease of negotiating interchanges

within and between modes of travel, travel comfort and availability of seating, protection from the elements/pollution, safety etc.)

To lure commuters away from the private mode with its point-to-point

convenience to public modes requires that all three attributes are addressed in some way Since a majority of public transportation (PT) commutes will require multiple modes, a seamless integration between modes will contribute significantly to the perceived higher utility of PT and therefore the choice of this form.

Commuting -- Definitions
Modes:
The various available means of transportation

E.g. walk, cycle, para-transit, bus, metro, comuuter rail.

Zones:
The coverage of modes Zone 1: 0 to 1 Km = Walk Zone 2: 0 to 3 km = Bicycle

Zone 3: 0 to 5 km = Feeder services, paratransit etc.

Zone 4: 0 to 30 km = long bus routes, commuter rail, personal transportation etc.

Multi-modal Integration Dimensions

Physical Integration (ease of access)
Informational Integration (availability of information/signage on

access, schedules etc.) Network Integration (coordinated timing/schedules across modes) Fare Integration (modes honoring each others tickets, single-fare across multiple modes etc.)

The BYP Example

We chose BYP for the following reasons: It is a greenfield development and so represents the best case scenario It represents a point where multiple modes (bus, metro, commuter rail etc.) intersect Has a large catchment area that includes various malls, tech parks, residential areas etc. Representative of several other transit points that will appear in the future Multi-modal integration solutions can be prototyped here

The satellite view of BYP

BYP The multi-modal integration gaps

Zone 1/Zone 2 Integration
No proper footpath/sidewalk around station entry/exit A for pedestrians No bicycle path No over/under pass across Old Madras Road (OMR); it is extremely hazardous to cross the road in front of the station.

BYP The multi-modal integration gaps

Zone 3 (Autos)
Haphazard parking Integration is essentially a fend for

oneself negotiation exercise with auto drivers i.e. business as usual You can see commuters bargaining with drivers (and walking away, as can be seen in the next slide!) No effort made to ease the transition ( such as what one would see at the Cantonment Rly station, for example)

BYP The multi-modal integration gaps

Zone 3 (Metro Feeders) BMTC integration is poorly

executed

Less than optimum physical infrastructure

for bus parking (picture shows the bus bays) Non-existent informational and network integration Fare integration still in concept stage MF services completely unreliable (poor frequency, complete lack of schedule information even with on-site BMTC staff, lack of adherence to schedules and even routes) (You can also see the family that failed to negotiate a reasonable auto fare walking away to find the nearest bus stop, which probably is several hundred meters away)

BYP The multi-modal integration gaps

Zone 4 (Regular/long distance BMTC

services)
Many routes touch this transit point but

access from bus stop to metro entry/exit A is very inconvenient Many buses stop across OMR at a distance of ~ 100 meters on either side. Crossing OMR is hazardous Lack of signage/ information regarding location of bus stops

BYP The multi-modal integration gaps

Zone 4 (Personal/private

Transportation)
Private transportation integration is

reasonable but could have been executed better Inconvenient parking access It would be hard to retrofit a better access solution now since the parking lot is boxed in between tracks, other properties etc.

BYP The multi-modal integration gaps

Zone 4 (Commuter Rail) integration poorly thought through Engineering/logistical/administr-ative challenges in retrofitting a bridge across SWR tracks to the C exit/entrance now under construction Physical interface to SWR will be a challenge Not sure if there are any plans for network and information integration Fare integration even if cannot integrate SWR and BMTC fares, should at least provide facilities for easy ticket purchase

BYP The integration gaps

Zone 4 (KSRTC)
Integration has not been fully

thought through KSRTC passengers transferring to BMRC will have a steep gradient and a non-existent sidewalk

Integration Score Card for Metro @ BYP

Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4

Physical Informational Fare

1 N/A N/A

1 N/A N/A

2 0 0

2 0 0

Network

N/A

N/A

N/A

On a scale of 5: 1 = worst, 5= best

Integration Score Card for Metro @ BYP

With BMTC With SWR With KSRTC With paratransit With private With pedestrians Total

Physical

Informational
Fare Network

1
0 0

0
0 0

0
0 0

0
0 N/A

N/A
N/A N/A

N/A
N/A N/A

On a scale of 5

Potential Remedies
Physical Integration Zone 1 / 2:

Pedestrian overpass across OMR in front of gate A Pedestrian overpass across SWR tracks to C entry/exit and continuing on to KSRTC with landings for SWR tracks. Pedestrian sidewalks for at least 0.5 km radius on all sides Pedestrian crossings at signals Safe bike lanes along identified routes

Zone 3:
-

Auto parking stands, prepaid counter etc. Private shuttle-buses organized by tech parks/office complexes during specific time period/peak hours. Feeder Services by Metro/BMTC but smaller buses

Zone 4:
Proper diagonal bus bays for BMTC ( a la BIAL) A rational MF routing scheme and a schedule that is adhered to Proper paving of the parking lot and better parking configuration

Potential Remedies
Informational integration is probably the easiest to fix in the short

term

Have clear directions/signs and information at all exit/entry points on

BMTC timings, SWR arrivals/departures, KSRTC arrivals/departures, typical auto fares etc.

Addressing MM Integration systemically

Since integration is a cross-modal issue, an independent

organization/ team needed ( a la DIMTS) An integration audit of all new multi-modal transit points (e.g. YPR, Malleshwaram) should happen now, well before these facilities are opened to the public Pedestrian and Vehicular Accessibility, Circulation and Parking plans prepared as part of the Station Area Plan and reviewed before approval and implementation A commitment to open a facility only when it is 100% done

Panel Discussion Points

What do the stakeholders feel about whether integration is currently working

or not? What are the challenges encountered in implementing tighter multi-modal integration? Considering that each mode will attempt to maximize its own performance, what is the incentive to pay attention to integration with other modes? Will free market decide integration or will governmental intervention be needed to ensure integration? Who will oversee integration? Who will determine the type of feeders (size, and type of vehicle, operation) and the quality of service (frequency, timeliness etc.) factors? Who will provide the feeder services?