INTEGRATION OF

PUBLIC
TRANSPORTATION
SYSTEMS
Bipin R Muley and CSRK Prasad
Transportation Division
NIT Warangal
 AGENDA
1. Overview

2. MOUD Policies on Public Transportation

3. Public transport scenario of metropolitan cities

in India

4. Integration strategies overseas

5. Best Integration Strategy for selected Indian

cities 2
 OVERVIEW

What?
• Operation of public transit modes as one seamless entity.

Why?
• Meet needs of passenger (comfort, convenience, reduced
travel time, costs etc.)
• Increase patronage of public transport
• Reduce pollution and congestion levels
• Provide last mile connectivity

How?
1. Institutional integration
2. Operational integration
3. Physical integration 3
INSTITUTIONAL INTEGRATION

Creation of organizational framework for
joint planning and operation of transit
services.

Techniques:
• Tariff Associations
• Transit Communities
• Transit Federations
• Mergers
4
 OPERATIONAL INTEGRATION

Application of management techniques to optimize
allocation of transit resources and coordinate services.

Techniques:
• Rationalization of redundant services
• Matching modes to service requirements
• Development & Scheduling of feeder route services
• Unification of fare structure
• Fare discounts
• Coordinated public information system
• Reserved bus lanes and streets
• Parking controls 5
 PHYSICAL INTEGRATION

Integration of public transport modes with
provision of jointly used facilities at
intermediate points or at terminals with
interchange facilities.

Techniques:
• Intermodal terminals
• Transit Shelters
• Route, schedule and vehicle identification
• Park-and-ride facilities
• Pedestrian facilities 6
 MOUD Policies on
Public Transportation

Policies on:

• Optimal modal share for different city sizes

• Capacity of different public transportation modes

• Selection criteria of Mass Rapid Transit modes

7
 Optimal modal share for
different city sizes
Population Mass
Bicycle Other modes
(millions) Transport

0.1 – 0.5 30 – 40 30 – 40 25 – 35

0.5 – 1.0 40 – 50 25 – 35 20 – 30

1.0 – 2.0 50 – 60 20 – 30 15 – 25

2.0 – 5.0 60 – 70 15 – 25 10 – 20

5.0 + 70 – 85 15 – 20 10 – 15
8
Source: Traffic and Transportation Policies and Strategies in Urban Areas in India, 1998, MOUD, GOI
 Capacity of different Public
Transportation modes
Public transport Capacity
mode
Standard size
32 – 34 seating + standing (AIS 052)
urban bus
Mini Urban bus 13 – 22 seating + standing (AIS 052)
Midi Urban bus 23 – 34 seating + standing (AIS 052)
568 commuter (4 car) & 852 commuter
Monorail
(6 car)
LRT 200 – 250 passenger per vehicle
1200 – 1500 per train trip (4 coach) &
Metro
1800 – 2100 per train trip (6 coach)
9
Source: Urban Bus Specification, MOUD, GOI, Wikipedia, DMRC
 Selection criteria of
Mass Rapid Transit modes
Population Avg. trip length
Mode Choices PHPDT in 2021
(million) (kms)

Metro rail ≥ 15,000 ≥2 >7–8

LRT ≤ 10,000 >1 >7–8

Monorail ≤ 10,000 >2 5–6

BRT ≥ 4,000 – 20,000 >1 >5

> 1 lakh hilly

City bus service >2–3
towns
10
Source: Working Group on Urban Transport, NTDPC, Final Report, 2012
 Public Transport Scenario of
Metropolitan Cities
Feature Delhi Mumbai Chennai Kolkata
Population
16.75 12.47 4.68 4.48
(millions)
Buses,
Buses,
Buses, metro, suburban Buses, metro,
Major PT suburban
auto- rails, metro, trams, auto-
modes rails, taxis and
rickshaws and taxis, auto- rickshaws and
available auto-
taxis rickshaws and taxis
rickshaws
ferry services
PT mode
43 45 31 54
share (%)
Passenger
trips/day 1124.9 1124.9 469.8 469.8
(lakhs)
Avg. trip
10.2 11.9 8.6 10.0
length (km)
Source: Study on Traffic and Transportation Policies and Strategies in Urban Areas in India, Final report (2008), 11
Wilbur Smith Associates and MOUD
Recommendations for Delhi

As per 12th Five Year Plan:
• Mix of rail and road based system

• Establishment of single authority

• Integration of all public transport modes

• Medium capacity mass transit system for congested areas

• Increase modal split of public transport

• Integrated passenger information system

12
Recommendations for Mumbai

By Dr. S.L.Dhingra:
• Integration of Versova-Andheri-Ghatkoper metro
and other existing modes
• Feeder route services
• Use of battery powered emission free mini buses
• Bus stops in vicinity of every railway station

Vijayshree Pednekar:
• Single journey ticket
• Multimodal passes
• Fare integration technology 13
Recommendations for Chennai

ITDP with Corporation of Chennai (COC):

• Public cycle sharing system

• Provision for non-motorized transport policy

• Improved parking management

14
Recommendations for Kolkata

Infrastructure Development Finance Company Ltd. and
Superior Global Infrastructure Consulting Pvt. Ltd.:
• Increase efficiency of transportation system

• Synchronizing operational timing

• Higher frequency schedule at peak hours

• Allocating movement corridors for each mode according to

the traffic volume on different routes

• Unified ticketing system 15

 INTEGRATION STRATEGIES
OVERSEAS
Singapore

Queensland

Hong Kong
16
Singapore

Population: 5.07 mn, PT share: 63%
• Institutional integration

• Physical integration

• Network integration

• Fare integration

• Information integration
17
Queensland

Population: 1.1 mn, PT share: 26%
• Institutional integration

• Fare integration

• Network integration
18
Hong Kong

Population: 7.17 mn, PT share: 88%
• Integrated ticket

• Integrated fare

• Physical integration

• Coordinated services
19
 Best Integration Strategy
for selected cities

Delhi

Mumbai

Kolkata

Chennai 20
 REFERENCES
1. Antonio, Y. K. K. (2005). An Integrated Public Transport System – A case study of Hong Kong.
Transport Policy and Planning, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
2. Comprehensive Mobility Plan for Kolkata Metropolitan Area, Report (2008). Infrastructure
Development finance Company Ltd. & Superior Global Infrastructure Consulting Pvt. Ltd.,
Kolkata.
3. Dhingra
Dhingra,, S. L. (2008). “First Indo-
Indo-US Symposium on Advances in Mass transit and Travel
behavior research,
research, IIT Guwahati
Guwahati..
4. Givoni
Givoni,, M. and Banister, D. (2010). Integrated Transport: From Policy to Practice.
Practice. Routledge,
Routledge,
Abingdon.
5. Hull, A. (2005). Integrated Transport Planning in the UK: From concept to reality. Journal of
Transport Geography, 13, 318-
318-328.
6. Luk
Luk,, J.Y.K. and Olszewski
Olszewski,, P. (2003). Integrated public transport in Singapore and Hong Kong.
Road &Transport Research.
7. NEA Transport research and training. (2003). Integration and regulatory structures in public
transport, Transport studies unit, University of Oxford.
8. Pednekar
Pednekar,, V. (2012). “Barriers in Fare Integration of Public Transport”, Alumni CEPT University,
Ahmadabad.
9. Potter, S. (2010). Transport Integration – an impossible dream? Universities Transport Study
Group Annual Conference, University of Plymouth.
10. Public Transportation: Moving America Forward, Final Report (2010), American Public
Transportation Association, Washington D.C. 21
 REFERENCES (Contd.)
11. Recommendations of Working Group on Urban Transport for 12th Five Year Plan (2012- (2012-17),
Planning Commission, Government of India.
12. Recommendatory Urban Bus Specifications – II (2013), Ministry of Urban Development (MOUD),
Government of India.
13. Rivasplata,
Rivasplata, C. (2006). An Analysis of the Impacts of British Reforms on Transit Integration in the
Metropolitan Areas. Ph.D. Dissertation, Univ. of California, Davis.
14. Singapore LT Master plan (2008). A People-
People-Centered Land Transport System.
15. Study on Traffic and Transportation Policies and Strategies in Urban Areas in India, Final report
(2008), Wilbur Smith Associates and Ministry of Urban Development (MOUD), Government of
India.
16. Streeting,
Streeting, M & Barlow, R. (2007). Understanding key drivers of public transport patronage growth-
growth-recent
South East Queensland. International Conference Series on Competition and Ownership in
Land Passenger Transport. Hamilton Island, Queensland, Australia.
17. The Stranded Poor: Recognizing the Importance of Public Transportation for Low-
Low-Income
Households, Issue Brief (2008), National Association for State Community Services Programs
(NASCSP), Washington D.C.
18. Traffic and Transportation Policies and Strategies in Urban Areas in India, Report (1998), Ministry
of Urban Development (MOUD), Government of India.
19. TransLink Annual Report (2009-
(2009-10), TransLink Transit Authority, Queensland Government,
Brisbane.
20. Working Group on Urban Transport, Final Report (2012), National Transport Development Policy 22
Committee (NTDPC), Ministry of Urban Development (MOUD), Government of India.a
THANK
YOU

23