Assessment of socio economic benefits of non-motorized transport (NMT) integration with public transit (PT)

Case study of Bike share (BS) system in

Pune, India

Parvesh Kumar Sharawat

Department of Policy Studies

TERI School of advance studies

Vasant Kunj, New Delhi – 110070, India

Research Question and Hypothesis

■ Research Question - Will provision of a bike share system influence modal choice of

existing and potential commuters to benefit individual users and the city?

Hypothesis 1 Hypothesis 2

Research objectives

■ To examine the importance of NMT and PT integration in urban

transport and the relevance of Bike Sharing (BS) system in that

context

■ To assess the benefits and key variables of modal choice of BS

system

■ To quantitively analyse the potential mode shift variables and

assess the modal shift of commuters in an identified case study

city

■ To derive the individual and the city benefits due to potential

modal shift.

Methodological Approach

Data analysis and results - Correlation matrix analysis - Logistic regression modelling

(stated and revealed preference)

Ob

jecti

ve 1

& 2

Ob

jecti

ve 3

& 4

Literature review

Significant indicators affecting the mode shift to BS

Frequency of reference i.e., most commonly referred variables

Derivability from the benefits

Methodological consistency

■ Cyclist or non-cyclist

■ Age

■ Gender

■ Household size

■ Household monthly income

■ Personal monthly income

■ Occupation

■ Vehicle ownership

■ Bicycle ownership

■ Frequency of trip

■ Purpose of trip

■ Access and egress time

■ Mainline time and distance

■ Bicycle theft

■ Perception of transportation

system and cycling

infrastructure

■ Willingness to pay for BS

Literature review

Benefit of BS and PT integration

Individual Users benefits

■ Reduced cost of travel - access and egress to PT

■ Improved health

■ Improvement in safety and comfort of cyclist

■ Change in access and egress travel time to PT

■ Cost saving for school trips

The City benefits

■ Encourages smart growth – mixed land use will reduce the trip length thus making the city more cycle friendly

■ Rationalization of parking demand

■ Better street interface

The City benefits

■ Reduced heat islands due to decrease in number of motorized vehicles

■ Municipal expenditure reduction on public health care

■ Municipality has to spend less money on constructing expensive Motor Vehicle infrastructures

■ Decrease in Pollution

■ Fossil fuel consumption reduction

■ Decrease in congestion

■ Economic equity

■ Social equity – gender equity

■ Improvement in work trips accessibility of low-income users

• Stratified sampling

• 2500 sample size

• Residential, Institutional, Commercial

and transportation nodes

Case study - Pune

Case study - Pune

Mode share comparison

Mode share

(%)

HH Survey

(2016)

CMP (2008) Metro DPR

(2012)

Wilbur Smith

(2008)

Walk 46.9 22.0 25.0 25

Cycle 3.06 11.1 8.8 18

4W 5.54 10.2 6.3 12

2W 29.04 37.2 38.6 29

IPT 11.3 7.2 8.3 6

PT 4.16 12.3 13.0 10

PCTRA 1.92 1.3 - 1.26

Total number

of trips

6635200 399113 4865117 -

Population 34,61,497

(PMC area)

29,70,000

(projected for

2007 from

2001 census –

PMC area)

37,56,345

(projected for

2011 from

2001 census -

PMC area)

42,00,000

(2001-PMR

area)

Logistic regression modelling approach

Results of logistic regression –Significant indicators

Access Egress Short trips Long trips

• MLH time –

likelihood

increases with

MLH

• Gender –

women are

more likely to

use

• Age – less likely

to used with

increasing age

• MLH time –

likelihood

increases with

MLH

• Occupation -

businessman,

housewives and

students less likely

to use

• Cyclist – non cyclists less likely to

use

• Gender – women are less likely to

use

• Frequency of trip – occasional

travellers are less likely to use

• Perceptions - strong believer of

Pune transport system is generally

safe are more likely to use. And

strong believers of Pune transport

system has no adverse effect on

health are less likely to use. Also,

believers of Separate cycle tracks

on busy main roads as important

cycling infrastructure are more

likely to use.

• Gender – women

are less likely to

use the PT

• WTP –

respondents who

are willing to pay

upto INR 200 for

monthly

subscription are

more likely to use

the PT. However,

probability

decreases with

further increase in

subscription

charges.

Potential modal shift to Bike share system

Logistic regression – user

survey

Modelled probability of shift

Extrapolation on HH data – PCTR, short and long

trips

City demographic (2016 projected

population) –total trips

Modal shift at various cut off

probability points

Benefits estimation

Potential modal shift to Bike share system

Mode 0.5 cut off 0.6 cut off 0.7 cut off 0.8 cut off 0.9 cut off

Short

trips to

BS

Long

trips to

PT

Short

trips to

BS

Long

trips to

PT

Short

trips to

BS

Long

trips to

PT

Short

trips to

BS

Long

trips to

PT

Short

trips to

BS

Long

trips

to PT

Walk 99% 100% 92% 100% 69% 33% 42% 33% 8% 0%

Cycle 100% 93% 99% 93% 95% 58% 75% 51% 29% 0%

2wheeler 96% 90% 92% 91% 74% 62% 32% 38% 6% 0%

Car 100% 85% 91% 85% 61% 50% 30% 35% 0% 0%

PT 99% - 89% - 67% - 31% - 5% -

Auto 95% 75% 84% 75% 65% 17% 40% 17% 7% 0%

Total 98% 88% 91% 89% 71% 44% 40% 35% 9% 0%

• At 0.5 probability cut off point there is high percentage shift to BS and PT which becomes almost

zero when the probability cut off point increases to 0.9. The probability cut off point of 0.8 has

revealed moderate shift of 35-45% which has also been observed in the other modal shift studies

as well (Bajracharya, 2008; Fatima & Kumar, 2014; 3; 10; P V, Thomas, & Sam, 2014; Rastogi, 2010;

Thamiz Arasan & Vedagiri, 2011; Vedagiri & Arasan, 2009)

Potential modal shift to Bike share system

It was presumed that Pune will have a functional BS system and supporting NMT infrastructure to

operate a city-wide BS system. Thus, potential mode shifts to BS system, at 0.8 cut off value, are

expected under these conditions. However, in case the assumptions are not met, then the minimal

mode shift at 0.9 cut off value will be more realistic. This will result in no potential shift to PT, and

minimal shift from current PT and IPT users (12%) to BS system for short distance trips. The sizable

percentage of potential shift will be from current cyclists (29%) and people who are walking (8%) for

short distance trips There will be marginal shift from current two-wheeler users (6%) and no potential

shift from car users to BS system for short distance trips. It is clear that the potential mode shift to BS

system will be only for short distance trips and largely from walking and cycling users in the city.

Mode Existing 0.5 cut off 0.6 cut off 0.7 cut off 0.8 cut off 0.9 cut off

Walk 47% 11.5% 14.0% 22.4% 32.1% 43.9%

Cycle 3% 0.1% 0.1% 0.3% 0.9% 2.3%

Bike share 0% 63.3% 59.2% 45.4% 25.4% 5.2%

Two wheeler 29% 4.6% 5.1% 10.8% 20.1% 28.1%

Car 6% 0.9% 1.1% 2.8% 3.9% 5.5%

PT 11% 18.8% 19.3% 16.2% 14.9% 11.0%

Auto rickshaw 4% 0.8% 1.2% 2.2% 2.9% 4.0%

Benefits - Existing and BS system scenario

Benefit Existing Scenario BS scenario

Reduced cost of travel of access

and egress to PT

0 0

Change in access and egress travel

time to PT

Access and Egress

time – 35% MLH

Access and Egress

time – 12.5 % MLH

Cost saving for school trips – due

to use of PT and Bike share by

school children

INR 3.0 approx. for

Auto users, INR 4.0

approx. for two

wheeler and PT users

0 INR per trip

Improvement in safety and comfort

of cyclist due visibility created by

Bike share system

3% 0.7%

Benefits - Existing and BS system scenario

Benefit Cut

off

(0.5)

Cut

off

(0.6)

Cut

off

(0.7)

Cut

off

(0.8)

Cut

off

(0.9)

Changes in congestion 20% 21% 13% 9% -1%

Parking demand rationalization 54% 52% 35% 20% 1%

Reduction in Municipal MV infrastructure

development

53% 51% 34% 20% 1%

Reduction in Fossil fuel consumption 80% 79% 53% 31% 1%

Reduction in CO2 emission 78% 77% 53% 30% 1%

Economic equity 42% 40% 31% 19% 4%

Social equity 24% 21% 9% 4% 0.2

%

Improvement in work trips accessibility of

low income HH users

8% 8% 6% 4% 0.6

%

Results and conclusions

■ Pollution, congestion, fuel consumption, parking demand and investment in MV infrastructure

■ Functional NMT

infrastructure

■ Safe NMT

infrastructure

Policy and practice implications

■ Bike share (BS) system as last mile would have

more takers for mass transit with longer MLH

like Metro and BRT and should be integrated.

■ Investing in a city-wide bike share system will

have higher impact in attaining sustainable

mode shares than investing in a PT system for

mid sized and small cities.

■ Subscriptions are useful because people are

more likely to use if they have already paid for it

but subscription charges should be optimal.

■ Women targeted outreach programs.

THANK YOU

The research acknowledges the project “Pune bicycle plan” being led by iTrans Pvt. Ltd. in

partnership with CEE and PDA under which part of the data has been collected.