Presented at The Institution of Engineers (India)

TRIPURA STATE CENTRE

Dr. Partha Pratim Sarkar

Assistant Professor
Department of Civil Engineering
NIT Agartala
 Sustainable mobility

 Satisfying the needs of the current generation without

compromising the ability to satisfy the needs of future
generations.

 mobility model that enables movement with

minimal environmental and territorial impact.
 Elements of sustainable transportation

 Fuel economy

 Occupancy

 Electrification

 Pedal Power

 Urbanisation
Congestion
Parking
Issues in Agartala city
Public Transport
related to Traffic
Non-Motorized modes
Safety and security
Parking Pricing (Variable Pricing)

Increase the parking cost in respect to

the congestion of the place and the cost of
land.

Variable pricing policy in order to

keep the car users parking in alternate
available spaces.

Incentive Rewards Programs

Transit Pass Programs

Subsidized passes for use on bus, free

transit pass as an incentives for first time users
if any.
Shared Vehicles
Sharing personal vehicle
Worksite Flextime
 Proper maintaining of flexible schedule travel time for work places or
slightly different office timings so that peak period congestion can be
reduced.
 Purpose wise work time scheduling wherever feasible will also help
in reducing congestion in peak period.
Transit-Oriented & Pedestrian-Oriented Design, Mixed land use

 Transit-oriented development, or TOD, is

a type of community development that
includes a mixture of housing, office, retail
and/or other amenities integrated into a
walkable neighborhood and located within a
half-mile of quality public transportation.

 Mix land uses such as employment,

housing, restaurants, services (
banking and day care etc.) retail
and more in well designed,
pedestrian friendly developments
can reduce demand for vehicle
travel.
Provision for safe bicycle
lanes

Reducing speed of other

vehicles if sharing the same.
Promoting cycling
Integrating bicycling with and walk as travel
public transportation mode
increases viability of each
mode.

Good bicycling parking

facility.
Car/Public Transport Vicious cycle
(Modelling Transport 4th Edition)
Studies carried out at
Agartala City
HGB Road, Peak Period (Data ,2013,NIT Agartala)

Bus LCV
0% 3%
Bicycle Car
16% 5%
MT.TH.W
Cycle Rickshaw 25%
15%

MT.T.W
36%
 % %
increase increase % increase in Two % increase in Auto
S. No Period in Cars in Buses Wheelers Rickshaws
2004-
1 2005 14.81 4.40 12.05 7.71
2005-
2 2006 13.12 5.09 10.59 9.57
2006-
3 2007 15.37 4.51 10.02 8.94
2007-
4 2008 12.21 3.78 8.14 7.43
2008-
5 2009 12.53 1.54 8.84 7.39
2009-
6 2010 16.77 1.62 14.04 6.70
 HGB Road, Agartala

Vehicle Speed in kmph

Peak period Off-peak period
Category
Mean S.D Mean S.D
1.Car 23.18 8.27 32.26 10.65

2.Bus 14.88 8.43 25.16 10.79

NA NA NA NA
3.Truck
21.84 8.27 30.85 10.65
4.LCV
5.MT.TH.W 21.99 8.26 29.38 10.65

6.MT.T.W 24.34 8.24 31.23 10.65

7.Cycle
12.37 8.25 8.60 10.65
Rickshaw
8.Bicycle
14.42 8.25 15.00 10.64

Data collected in 2013

Reducing Congestion by restricting slow moving vehicles in HGB Road
Agartala.

40

35

30

25
Speed ( kmph)

20
Speed of peak period including NMV
Speed of peak period excluding NMV
15

10

0
Car Bus LCV MT.TH.W MT.T.W
Vehicle Category

Comparison of average simulated speed of vehicles including NMV and

excluding NMV(Slow moving vehicle) of HGB Road section (2013)
 Land use Area(Ha) Percentage
Residential 2277.55 24.75
Commercial 50.75 0.55
Industrial 50.35 0.56
Public Utilities 18.5 0.2
Institutional 175.25 1.9
Government Function 70.5 0.76
Organized Open Space 24.55 0.26
Vacant Land 2205.75 23.97
Land under defense 79.5 0.86
Transport and communication 455.4 4.95
Agricultural 2257.75 24.54

Others (Including Forests Water Bodies etc.) 1532.15 16.7

Total 9200 100
ARCGIS 10.1

 Used for digitizing the land use map

 Estimation of land use parameters

Land use type considered

 Residential
 Commercial Area: Retails/wholesale shops, Industries
 Educational Area
 Services: Private/Govt. offices
 Others: Recreational, religious, and other community centers
16
5/7/2018
(A) Digitized ward map of Agartala city (B) Digitized land use map of Agartala17 City
5/7/2018
(2012)
Land use map showing land uses considered in the study area.
18
5/7/2018
(A) Road network of Agartala city (B) Screenshot of network prepared in 19
TransCAD 5.
5/7/2018
Table: Comparison of mode related data obtained from the network analysis and stated by
individual during survey.

Mode related data given Mode related data from Percentage Percentag Travel time Data of Non-Chosen Mode
by respondent Network Simulation difference e from network analysis( min)
in travel difference
time from in
Travel Time Distance Distance network distance
(min) (Km) (Km) from
Mode

Travel Time
S No

network
(min) Auto Bike Bi-Cycle Car
1 Bus 60 12 30.28 10.80 49.53 10.00 29.05 20.47 58.54 15.29
2 Bus 30 8 12.83 4.53 57.23 43.38 12.30 11.23 22.62 8.29
3 Bus 15 5 18.74 5.78 -24.93 -15.60 16.08 12.02 28.04 11.27
4 Bus 25 8 12.94 4.68 48.24 41.50 11.35 8.99 21.32 8.38
5 Bus 45 14 33.77 12.78 24.96 8.71 34.60 23.10 69.82 17.62
6 Bus 30 17 28.73 10.43 4.23 38.65 27.38 21.98 57.52 21.89
7 Bus 25 4 17.47 6.11 30.12 -52.75 15.71 13.35 32.11 9.72
8 Bus 60 12 30.28 10.80 49.53 10.00 29.05 20.47 58.54 15.29
9 Bus 78 9 30.28 10.80 61.18 -20.00 29.05 20.47 58.54 15.29
10 Bus 20 5 18.74 5.78 6.30 -15.60 16.08 12.02 28.04 11.27
11 Bus 15 6 18.74 5.78 -24.93 3.67 16.08 12.02 28.04 11.27
12 Bus 45 12 30.28 10.80 32.71 10.00 29.05 20.47 58.54 15.29
13 Bus 30 4 3.49 1.21 88.37 69.75 3.47 2.41 6.89 2.94
14 Bus 30 3 3.49 1.21 88.37 59.67 3.47 2.41 6.89 2.94
15 Bus 15 2.5 18.74 5.78 -24.93 -131.20 16.08 12.02 28.04 11.27
16 Bus 45 12 30.28 10.80 32.71 10.00 29.05 20.47 58.54 15.29
17 Bus 60 10 33.77 12.78 43.72 -27.80 34.60 23.10 69.82 17.62
18 Bus 30 8 17.70 6.14 41.00 23.25 15.97 13.66 31.93 9.97
19 Bus 15 8 12.94 4.68 13.73 41.50 11.35 8.93 21.32 8.38
20 Bus 45 15 30.28 10.80 32.71 27.97 22.66 14.88 47.4 10.79

20
5/7/2018
 Questionnaire of RP survey
Household Details
 Address,

 Family size,

 Status of the household

(rented, owned)

 Number of employed and

unemployed adults,

 Monthly travel expenditure

 Aggregated monthly income

 Number of vehicles owned

 Type of vehicles

 Model and year of manufacture

 Odometer reading of the vehicle

Figure Location of the households from where data have

been collected
21
5/7/2018
Land use mix Indices
Commonly used mix indices
 Entropy Index
 Dissimilarity Index
The index takes same value
for two different scenarios
having different pattern if the
proportion of land use mix is
same.

Entropy index ( land use balance)

Entropy Index= Σ Pj * ln(Pj)/ ln(J)

where ,
Pj = Proportion of jth type of land use.
ln (J) = natural logarithm of numbers of land use types

The value lies between 0 to 1. Value nearer to 1 means

land uses are equally distributed among the track

22
5/7/2018
Dissimilarity Index (Cervero and Kockelman,
1997)
 Used to compute dissimilarity among grid cell constituting a tract.

points awarded to each actively developed hectare cell on the basis of

dissimilarity of its land use from those of eight adjacent hectare cells.

K = Number of Developed cells in Tract

Xik =1, if land use category of neighboring grid-cells differs from the central
grid-cell. Otherwise, Xik = 0

23
5/7/2018
Mix type Index

To overcome some of the limitations of Dissimilarity

index, Mix type Index is proposed.

1 𝑋𝑘
Mixed type Index = ෍
𝐾 (𝑁𝑜. 𝑜𝑓 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑡 𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑢𝑠𝑒𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑠𝑡𝑢𝑑𝑦 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎)
𝑘

where,
xk is the no. of distinct land uses observed in the surrounding cells of k
including it.
K is number of actively developed cells in a tract.

The value of “Mix type index” lies between 0 to 1 where

0 represents no mix and 1 indicates more mix.

24
5/7/2018 24
Area Index

 Hess et al. (2001) have explained the need of developing an index

based on land use functional and spatial complementarity.

 Complementarity land uses are those which can be linked by travel

 Area Index (AI) is proposed to consider the land use

complementarity.

Area Index for work trips is the ratio of work areas within certain
radius (1000 meter for this study) from the household to the work
areas for the whole study area

The ratio when close to 1 indicates much of the work areas are
inside a radius of 1000m from the household

25
5/7/2018
Area index calculation using the buffer area of radius 1000 meter around
the sampled household

26
5/7/2018
 Elasticity analysis of the travel parameters with respect to land use variables when
single land use parameter entered in the model
Land use parameters Trip length Non-Motorized Non-Motorized
mode choice for mode choice for
work shopping trips
Work Shopping

Area Index(1000m buffer) -0.232 -0.326 0.321 0.104

Entropy(1000m buffer) -0.349 -0.241 0.495 0.146

Dissimilarity -0.252 -0.371 0.315 0.122

Index(10mx10m cell)

Mix-type index -0.269 -0.397 0.336 0.131

Intersection Density -0.478 -0.857 0.535 0.369

27
5/7/2018
Elasticities of mode choice with land use parameters,
from MNL model

Elasticity Elasticity Elasticity Elasticity Elasticity( DI Elasticity( Mix

Modes
(Area (Entropy (Entropy (DI for 10m x 10m type index
index) 1000m ward) census grid) 10m x 10m
buffer) tract) grid)

Cycle 0.029 0.050 0.037 0.030 0.011 0.02

Cycle Rickshaw 0.265 0.290 0.190 0.168 0.02 0.119

Walk 0.206 0.242 0.150 0.140 0.004 0.105

Bus 0.0003 0.063 --- --- 0.065 0.053

MThW -0.06 -0.011 --- --- 0.06 0.025

28
5/7/2018
 Variation in the probabilities corresponding to various modes

0.35
Car
0.3
Probability of choosing mode

Bus
0.25
MThW

0.2
MTW

0.15 Cycle

0.1 Cycle
Rickshaw
0.05 Walk

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Area Index

29
5/7/2018
 Car
0.6 Bus

Probability of Choosing Mode

0.7
Car MThW
Probability of Choosing Mode
0.5
0.6 Bus MTW
0.5 MThW 0.4

0.4 MTW
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1

0 0
3 5 10 15 20
3 5 10 15 20 Fare in Rupess (Motorized Three Wheeler)
Fare in Rupees (Bus)
0.70
Car
0.6

Probability of Choosing Modes

Bus 0.60
Probability of Choosing Modes

MThW Car
0.5 MTW 0.50
Bus
0.4
0.40 MThW
MTW
0.30
0.3
0.20
0.2
0.10

0.1
0.00
5 10 15 20 25
0 Travel Cost in rupees (MTW)
10 20 30 40 50
Travel Cost in rupees (Car)
 Travel Behavior models

Variable SP- 1 SP-2 SP-3 SP-4 SP-5

description Param. t value Param. t value Param. t value Param. t value Param. t value
ASC Car 2.590 6.17 2.610 5.91 3.28 4.76 2.798 5.56 3.480 6.23
ASC Bus -0.008 -0.04 0.184 0.77 0.17 0.54 - - 0.250 0.95
ASC MThW - - - - - - - - - -
ASC MTW 1.860 9.47 1.880 8.51 2.00 6.73 1.939 8.80 2.620 7.20
Frequency Bus -0.028 -6.61 -0.031 -5.97 -0.04 -5.73 -0.029 -7.17 -0.033 -5.76
Time Car -0.038 -2.06 -0.045 -2.30 -0.12 -1.95 -0.071 -2.13 -0.062 -2.73
Time Bus -0.050 -8.60 -0.097 -5.47 -0.13 -4.95 -0.080 -8.06 -0.112 -5.51
Time MThW -0.036 -7.14 -0.054 -5.22 -0.07 -4.63 -0.056 -7.30 -0.064 -5.57
Time MTW -0.041 -5.92 -0.048 -5.73 -0.04 -4.12 -0.062 -5.46 -0.055 -5.33
SIGMA Time Bus 0.071 4.28 -0.10 -4.37 0.080 8.06 0.084 4.31
SIGMA Time Car -0.14 -1.84 0.071 2.13
SIGMA Time MThW 0.029 1.69 0.06 2.83 0.056 7.30 -0.040 -2.64
SIGMA Time MTW 0.062 5.46
Cost car/inc -0.351 -4.20 -0.388 -4.31 -0.41 -3.38 -0.381 -4.15 -0.392 -3.50
Cost bus/inc -0.542 -6.92 -0.658 -6.10 -0.90 -5.87 -0.592 -6.78 -0.719 -6.12
Cost MThW/inc -0.335 -5.83 -0.423 -5.55 -0.59 -5.40 -0.389 -5.98 -0.453 -5.41
Cost MTW/inc -0.561 -6.73 -0.784 -7.15 -1.12 -6.63 -0.657 -7.19 -0.981 -5.91

31
Continued
5/7/2018
 SP- 1 SP-2 SP-3 SP-4 SP-5
Variable
description Param. t value Param. t value Param. t value Param. t value Param. t value

Cost * gen Car -0.098 -5.76 0.052 -4.12 -0.07 -3.60 -0.053 -4.09 -0.066 -4.04
Cost * gen Bus -0.074 -3.30 -0.078 -2.90 -0.09 -2.48 -0.079 -3.20 -0.094 -3.03
Cost*gen MThW -0.102 -6.10 -0.116 -5.30 -0.15 -4.79 -0.114 -5.94 -0.135 -5.01
Cost*gen MTW -0.029 -1.56 -0.032 -1.46 -0.05 -1.78 -0.032 -1.52 -0.051 -1.58
Comfort * gen bus
0.561 2.66 0.719 3.32 0.85 3.11 0.627 3.25 0.861 3.48

Comfort * gen
0.312 1.80 0.402 1.99 0.69 2.55 0.404 2.19 0.549 2.34
MThW
Comfort * income
0.149 5.40 0.161 4.93 0.20 4.88 0.161 5.60 0.176 4.63
bus
Comfort * inc
0.124 4.68 0.141 4.64 0.16 4.00 0.128 4.61 0.157 4.28
MThW
Error component -1.43 -7.16
(Car,Bus,MTW)
Error component
1.640 3.61
Car, MTW
Error Bus, MThW -0.707 -0.77
Init log-likelihood -1793.736 -1793.736 -1793.736 -1793.736 -1793.736
Final log-likelihood -1224.746 -1216.631 -1201.056 -1203.051 -1178.683
Adjusted rho- 0.306 0.309 0.317 0.310 0.330
square
32
5/7/2018
Elasticities of model parameters corresponding to the models estimated with
the SP data

SP SP SP SP SP
Variable description
Model (1) Model (2) Model (3) Model (4) Model (5)
Frequency measured
-0.284 -0.288 -0.313 -0.279 -0.288
in Time interval) Bus
Time Car -0.200 -0.098 -0.442 -0.310 -0.231
Time Bus -0.361 -0.571 -0.655 -0.514 -0.605
Time MThW -0.021 -0.005 -0.067 -0.033 -0.021
Time MTW -0.185 -0.212 -0.176 -0.262 -0.209
Costcar/inc -0.552 -0.263 -0.542 -0.564 -0.483
Costbus/inc -0.473 -0.523 -0.575 -0.484 -0.514
CostMThW/inc -0.259 -0.277 -0.305 -0.276 -0.271
CostMTW/inc -0.359 -0.509 -0.620 -0.400 -0.517
Cost * gen (Car) -0.615 0.163 -0.466 -0.402 -0.421
Cost * gen(Bus) -0.206 -0.194 -0.182 -0.207 -0.215
Cost*gen(MThW) -0.244 -0.229 -0.244 -0.25 -0.250
Cost*gen(Mc) -0.082 -0.090 -0.129 -0.089 -0.124

Comfort * income (bus) 0.212 0.205 0.246 0.216 0.216

Comfort * gen (bus) 0.116 0.137 0.151 0.122 0.156

Comfort * gen (MThW) 0.039 0.042 0.063 0.048 0.055
Comfort * inc (MThW) 0.108 0.101 0.106 0.102 0.111
33
5/7/2018
 600

500

400
Frequency

300

200

100

0
No
Difficu
Requir Bicycle
Poor Sociall lty in
Conges es Not facilitie
Inferior No quality y not crossin Not Distanc Climat Time
ted physica Comfo s on
Good Bicycle of accepta g Safe e e saving
Roads l rtable the
Roads ble interse
activity way to
ction
work
Rank1 8 23 570 11 128 4 21 43 23 6 42 2 9
Rank2 12 67 56 21 172 20 63 52 45 11 77 10 21
Rank3 7 37 24 10 17 17 54 48 62 25 100 11 23
Rank4 12 6 6 5 9 13 15 15 16 31 5 19
Rank5 2 3 2 3 1 3 5 6 9 5 13 2 9
Rank6 2 1 1 2 1 3 1 3 3 2 1 1
>Rank6 11 7 2 8 9 4 4 6 2 9 6 5 9

Perception ranking for reasons not choosing bicycle as travel mode ( Data collection funded by AICTE)
 Mean perception ratings for different mode.
Auto- Motor Cycle
Perception attribute Car Bus rickshaw cycle Bicycle rickshaw
Comfortable in journey 4.11 2.99 3.23 3.73 3.00 3.57

Always Availability of
comfortable seats 3.78 3.13 3.39 3.69 3.09 3.63
Very easy accessibility 3.69 3.08 3.50 3.90 3.08 3.31

Ability to reach destination

in time 3.91 3.22 3.53 3.90 3.18 3.21

Can exactly calculate

travel time prior to trip 3.90 3.16 3.37 3.91 3.10 3.21
safety from accident 3.83 3.55 3.43 3.24 2.95 3.15
Safety from theft 3.92 3.18 3.35 3.69 3.17 3.17
Safety from weather 3.89 3.55 3.49 2.20 2.20 3.01

Ability to make more trips 3.85 3.03 3.51 3.68 2.72 3.02

Can travel without

changing vehicles 3.94 3.09 3.40 3.93 3.93 3.16
 300

250

200
Frequency

150

100

50

0
Not
Not Reliable Less Not Bus stop Takes Seats are
Not No direct
Availabl (Not able frequenc comforta is far more not Costly
flexible bus
e to arrive y ble away. time available
on time)
Rank1 280 160 61 81 118 45 37 71 29 4
Rank2 33 135 64 154 86 70 52 106 60 3
Rank3 26 77 43 75 53 30 63 154 83 8
Rank4 19 39 13 29 34 12 26 55 49 1
Rank5 5 20 6 9 13 14 8 16 21
Rank6 4 4 4 3 2 6 10 1
>Rank6 5 3 3 5 3 4 3 5 6 7

Perception ranking for reason not choosing bus as travel mode ( Data collection funded
by AICTE)
 Aim to Attain favourable Sustainable
Transport Performance Indicators
1. Transit Accessibility
7. Personal vehicle movement
2. Greenhouse gas emissions
8. Average Vehicle Occupancy
3. Bicycle and Pedestrian Mode
Share
4. VMT per Capita
5. Carbon Intensity
6. Bicycle and Pedestrian Level of
Service
Thank you