You are on page 1of 20

KGF CITY BUS SERVICE

EVALUATION REPORT

DIRECTORATE OF URBAN LAND TRANSPORT


URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

KGF City Bus Service Evaluation Report 2013

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

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
3

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

CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 12
EVALUATION OF CITY BUS SERVICE (KGF) .......................................................... 13

Directorate of Urban Land Transport

KGF City Bus Service Evaluation Report 2013


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
Directorate of Urban Land Transport

KGF City Bus Service Evaluation Report 2013


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)

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.
Directorate of Urban Land Transport

KGF City Bus Service Evaluation Report 2013


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.

Directorate of Urban Land Transport

KGF City Bus Service Evaluation Report 2013


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

Vehicle Type
Two wheelers
Cars & Jeeps

No. of Vehicles
44,520
3,269

Cabs
Auto-Rickshaw
Omni buses
Tractors & Trailers
Goods vehicles
Private buses
Others
Total

78
1,406
120
3,426
1,976
89
390
55,274

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.

Route No.

Route
From

201
202
203
204
205
206

KGF
KGF
KGF
KGF
KGF
KGF

Route Length
To

Bangarapet
Bangarapet
Bangarapet
Bangarapet
Bangarapet
Bangarapet

14
14
14
14
14
14

Directorate of Urban Land Transport

KGF City Bus Service Evaluation Report 2013


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

LOS 1

Public transport facilities KGF City

Presence of
Organized PT

2.1.1

Presence of organized public transport system in


urban area (%)

>= 60

40 - 60

Currently 6 buses are operated by Karnataka State Road

20 - 40

Transport Corporation in KGF.

< 20

Directorate of Urban Land Transport

KGF City Bus Service Evaluation Report 2013


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
LOS 2

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

Extent of supply
availability of

A = Total Number of Buses in the City 6 buses

public transport

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


Availability of Public Transport / 1000 Population
= A/ (B/1000) = 0.04

>= 0.6

0.4 0.6

0.2 0.4

< 0.2

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).

LOS
3

Service
coverage of
public transport

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


Kilometers)
Service Coverage = (A/B) = 0.24

>= 1

0.7 - 1.0

0.3 0.7

< 0.3

Therefore, LOS 3 = 4

Directorate of Urban Land Transport

KGF City Bus Service Evaluation Report 2013


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

% of fleet as
per urban bus
specification
75 - 100

50 - 74

25 - 49

<=25

LOS 4

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.

Level of comfort
in
public
transport
<=1.5

1.5 2.0

2.0 2.5

>2.5

LOS 5

Passenger comfort Load factor (passengers per seat)


=B/C
=668.93/ (19*43)
=0.82
Therefore, LOS 5 = 1.
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.

Average waiting
time for public
transport
<=4

4-6

6- 10

> 10

LOS
6

Directorate of Urban Land Transport

KGF City Bus Service Evaluation Report 2013


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

LOS 1 Extent of Non fare


Revenue (%)

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

>40

40 20

20 10

<=10

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

LOS 2

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


Staff / Bus Ratio = A/B= 4.43

Staff /bus ratio

<=5

5.5 8

8 10

>10

Therefore, LOS 2 = 1.

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 3

Operating Ratio

<0.7

0.7 1.0

1.0 - 1.5

>=1.5

Therefore, LOS 3 = 4.

Directorate of Urban Land Transport

KGF City Bus Service Evaluation Report 2013


Facts and Findings Route Wise

2.3

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.

Directorate of Urban Land Transport

10

KGF City Bus Service Evaluation Report 2013


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.

Directorate of Urban Land Transport

11

KGF City Bus Service Evaluation Report 2013


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.

Directorate of Urban Land Transport

12

EVALUATION OF CITY BUS SERVICE (KGF)


PASSENGER OPINION SURVEY: Questionnaire for users ( ):
1. Name ():.......................................................... 2. Age ():......................
3. Gender ():

Male ():

Female ():

): Destination (

4. Origin (

):

...
5. Travel distance from Origin to Destination (
.

):

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

)?

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: ( / ):


Ranking

Very good
(

Good
)

Normal
)

Bad
)

11. How often do you use Public Transport? (

Very bad
(

)?
Weekdays ( )

Every day ()
(
12.

occasionally

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

13. What is the purpose of your travel? (


Work ()

Education ()

)?

Shopping ()

others

()
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 (

Infrastructure facility (

route coverage (

Reliability
)

Increase in

) 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: ( ):


Reasons()
Comfort ()
Safety ()
Cost Saving (
Time Saving (

)
)

Directness of Service (

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

Two wheeler
others

Auto

Cycle

):
Private Bus

Walk

19. Number of Vehicles Owned ( ):


Type of
Vehicle

Cycles

Scooters/MCs/Mopeds Cars/Vans/Jeep Auto


rickshaws

(owned)

Other
Vehicles
(pl.specify)

20. Average Travel Expenses / Month (at present): / ()

21. Are you satisfied with the Current Bus fare system? (
?
Yes
No
22. If not, select the improvement required (
Reduction in fare (

Reduction in monthly pass fare (

)
Others (

23. Average Income of the person (per month): ( ) ( ):


1000-5000
5000-10000
10000-25000
50000
24. Any other suggestions / Comments about the bus service/ (
)

25000/

ANNEXURE II
Total Eff. Kms
% Fleet Utilisation
Pass. Kms. (Lakhs)
Seat Kms. (Lakhs)
% Load Factor
Pass. Carried/bus on road/day
Gross Kms.(Lakhs)
Staff on Workshop &
Maintenance
Staff on Administration &
Accounts
Staff per bus on-road
Eff.kms per staff per day
Passenger Tax(in Lakhs)
Total Revenue
(paise/km)
% Cancel Kms
EPKM
Passenger per bus
Load Factor
Operational effeciency
KMPL
CPKM
Total Cost per Vehicle Kms
HSD Cost
Spare
Tyres and Tubes
Lubricants
Others
Dep on vehicle
MV Tax
Recondition
Staff
Dep / other assests
Central overhead
Interest
Mact
Miscellaneous
Cost

Per bus held * no. of buses held * no of days


(Average no. of buses on-road / Average no. of buses held) *
100
Traffic Revenue(in Lakhs) / .85
42(no of seat) * Total Eff. Kms.(in Lakhs)
(Pass. Kms. (Lakhs) / Seat Kms. (Lakhs)) * 100
Passanger Carried / no of bus on road / no of days
Total Eff. Kms + Total Dead Kms
0.9 * Average no. of buses held
0.1 * Average no. of buses held
Total Staff / Average no. of buses on-road
Total Eff. Kms.(in Lakhs) * 100000 / no of days / Total Staff
Traffic Revenue(in Lakhs) * 0.056
Traffic Revenue + Other Revenue
(Total Revenue (in Lakhs) / Total Eff. Kms.(in Lakhs)) * 101
(Cancel Kms / Schedule Kms) * 100
Traffic Revenue / Eff. Kms
Total passengers / Schedule
EPKM / 42(no of seat) / 0.85 * 100
Eff. Kms / Schedule
Gross Kms / Hour Schedule per day(HSD)
Cost / Eff. Kms
CPKM / no. of vehicles
HSD * 45.7
0.28 * Eff. Kms
0.70 * Eff. Kms
0.10 * Eff. Kms
0.06 * Eff. Kms
2.81 * Eff. Kms
Traffic Revenue * 0.056
0.05 * Eff. Kms
1900 * Operation schedule
0.15 *Eff. Kms
0.50 * Eff. Kms
0.23 * Eff. Kms
0.10 * Eff. Kms
1.45 * Eff. Kms
HSD Cost + Spare + Tyres and Tubes + Lubricants + Others +
Dep on vehicle + MV Tax + Recondition + Staff + (Dep/other
assests) + Central overhead + Interest + Mact + Miscellaneous

Margin
Net Profit
Turnover/Capital
Vehicle Kms performed litre of
fuel
Scheduled Kms/day
Operated Kms/day
Vehicle utilization (effective)
Vehicle utilization (Gross)

Traffic Revenue - Cost


(Total Revenue - Total Cost) / Eff. Kms
Total Revenue / (14.75(Cost of bus) * no of bus)
Gross Kms / KMPL
Per bus held * no of buses
Eff. Kms / no of days
Per bus held
Dead Kms per day + Eff. Vehicle utilisation

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


Level
1. Presence of
of
Organized
Service Public
Transport
System in
Urban Area
(%)

2. Extent of
Supply
Availability
of
Public
Transport

3. Service
Coverage
of Public
Transport
in the
city

>= 60

>= 0.6

>= 1

4.
Average
waiting
time for
Public
Transport
users
(mins)
<=4

5. Level
of
Comfort
in
Public
Transport

6. % of Fleet
as
per
Urban
Bus
Specification

<= 1.5

75 - 100

40- 60

0.4 - 0.6

0.7- 1

4-6

1.5 - 2.0

50 - 75

20 - 40

0.2 - 0.4

0.3 - 0.7

6 - 10

2.0 - 2.5

25 - 50

< 20

< 0.2

< 0.3

> 10

>2.5

<= 25

Overall Calculated
Comments
LOS
LOS
< 12
The City has a good public transport system which is wide spread
1
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.

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.

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

1. Extent of Non fare Revenue


(%)
> = 40

2. Staff /bus
ratio
< = 5.5

3.Operating
Ratio
<= 0.7

20 - 40

5.5 - 8.0

0.7 - 1

10- 20

8 - 10

1 - 1.5

< 10

> 10

> 1.5

Overall Calculated
Comments
LOS
LOS
<=4
The public transport of a city is financially sustainable.
1
2

5-7

The public transport of a city is financially sustainable but needs


some improvements.

8- 9

The public transport of a city is financially sustainable but needs


considerable improvements.

10 - 12

The public transport of a city is not financially sustainable.

You might also like