Accepted Manuscript

Evaluation of integration between public transportation modes by developing

sustainability index for India cities

Madhu Errampalli, K.S. Patil, C.S.R.K. Prasad

PII: S2213-624X(17)30260-2
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2018.09.005
Reference: CSTP 288

To appear in: Case Studies on Transport Policy

Received Date: 1 September 2017

Revised Date: 13 July 2018
Accepted Date: 17 September 2018

Please cite this article as: M. Errampalli, K.S. Patil, C.S.R.K. Prasad, Evaluation of integration between public
transportation modes by developing sustainability index for India cities, Case Studies on Transport Policy (2018),
doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2018.09.005

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers
we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and
review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process
errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 Evaluation of integration between public
transportation modes by developing
sustainability index for India cities
Madhu Errampalli
Principal Scientist and Head
Transportation Planning Division
CSIR-Central Road Research Institute (CRRI)
Mathura Road, CRRI (P.O), New Delhi - 110025
91-11-26312268
[email protected]

Patil, K. S.
Former Post Graduate Student
Department of Civil Engineering
National Institute of Technology (NIT)
Warangal - 506004, India

and

Prasad, C. S. R. K.
Professor
Department of Civil Engineering
National Institute of Technology (NIT)
Warangal - 506004, India

Highlights
 A methodology incorporating sustainability concept for evaluating levels of
integration between two public transportation modes was developed.
 The study identified 12 indicators under the three main domains of sustainability
i.e. economic, social and environmental, to measure the level of integration
 The developed method applied to estimate the present levels of integration
(sustainability integration index) between metro rail and buses for South Delhi,
India
 The sustainability index for Moolchand Metro station was found to be higher
because of most accessible bus stops with high bus frequency, cycle rickshaws
facilities etc.
 The policy of enhancing bus frequencies would increase sustainability integration
index higher compared to policy of relocating bus stops and common mobility
card.


Corresponding Author

1
 Evaluation of integration between public
transportation modes by developing
sustainability index for India cities
Abstract. Major cities in India facing with rapid urbanisation and increase in private vehicle ownership
resulting to increased traffic congestion, accidents and emissions. Increasing public transport patronage by
shifting commuters from private vehicle would solve these problems to some extent. In this direction,
increasing accessibility to public transport may attract choice riders to use public transport and in that case
bus services may act as feeder to the main transportation systems such as Metro. Therefore integration of
these public transit systems would become a key factor to increase public transit usage and efficiency. In
order to improve the integration between these transit systems, it is very important to assess the present level
of integration between these systems. Hence the objective of the present study is formulated as to develop a
methodology to determine the level of integration (Sustainability Integration Index) between two public
transportation modes incorporating sustainability. The approach was finalised to determine a total of 12
identified indicators under three main domains of sustainability (economic, social and environmental) which
will measure the existing level of integration between Metro rail and Buses. In this study, data collection
was carried out at four Metro Stations and surrounding bus stops in South Delhi, India to calculate the
Sustainability Integration Index (SII). The multi-criteria analysis which involved homogenization of the
indicators of public transportation was considered. Further suitable weights were obtained to each indicator
based on the expert opinion survey conducted and the final SII in the range of 0 to 100 was estimated for
selected metro stations. The developed methodology applied for evaluating three policies referring to
integrating Metro and Bus service in Delhi. From the analysis it was found that, the policy of increasing bus
frequencies resulted in maximum SII value of 4.8% average increase for all four Metro Stations followed by
the policy of relocating bus stops to improve connectivity and the policy of common fare collection with
4.3% and 3.8% increase respectively.

Keywords: Sustainability, Integration, Public Transportation, Transport Policy;

2
1. Introduction
1.1 General
Ever increasing urbanisation growth rate in the developing countries is causing a wide
range of problems especially in the field of transportation such as depleting environment
with larger emissions of automobiles, consumption of large quantity of the energy resource
fossil fuels etc. Fulfilling the mobility needs by consumption of natural resources is
causing a less sustainable urban growth trend. Estimates show that transport is responsible
for 23% of world energy related Green House Gases (GHG) and about three quarters from
road vehicles (IPCC, 2014). And about half a million persons in developing countries
suffer from early death due to air pollution resulting from ground transportation
(Amirazodi, 2012). Further, increased automobile usage is resulting in substantial
externalities such as congestion, traffic noise, increased accidents and loss of urban
ecological amenity (Banister 2002).

As concerns about the transit ridership, a new trend is emerging in almost all the
developing countries for planning and designing an integrated public transportation
system. Practice of promoting public transport as a viable alternative for private cars has
resulted in a global trend towards planned and integrated transport development (Matas,
2004; Ulengin, et. al., 2007). In general, integration implies the opportunity to use the
entire public transport system across a local or regional area (e.g. city, conurbation)
independently of transport modes, tariffs, fares, schedules, ticket systems, etc. Integration
is needed to improve comfort, information, travel time, and cost (Kutz, 2004). Transport
operations may be well integrated at three levels: operational, physical and fare
integration (Dhingra, 2008). Operational integration involves the coordination of routes,
itineraries and frequencies. Physical integration brings about the creation of facilities to
streamline the transfers, including terminals with paid areas. Fare integration involves
the use of the identical media to validate payment (e.g. paper or electronic fare cards).
Integration of transit systems is not widespread in developing cities. Different public
agencies (bus, metro, and train), private operators and individuals (informal par transit)
are delivering the service without coordination due to institutional, legal and financial
barriers. In this direction, increasing accessibility to public transport may attract choice
riders to use public transport and in that case bus services may act as feeder to the main
transportation systems such as Metro. Therefore integration of these public transit systems
would become a key factor to increase public transit usage and efficiency. In order to
improve the integration issues between mass transit systems, it is very important to
understand and assess the present level of integration between these systems and also to
study the feasibility of new plans of integration for the existing public transit systems.

1.2 Public Transportation in the Context of Sustainability

Though the knowledge of sustainable development has emerged in the 1970s, there is still
no universally accepted definition, partially because of extended coverage of sustainable
development (Beatley, 1995). Carey (2004) summarized some definitions of sustainability,
with particular reference to transportation. The most commonly cited definition is
“transportation that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of
future generations to meet their own needs” (WCED, 1987). The concept focuses on
present and future generations, as well as the long-term influences of present actions,
which may not be experienced right after the actions are taken. Litman and Burwell (2006)

3
emphasized that “sustainability is about how environmental, economic, and social systems
interact to their mutual advantage or disadvantage at various space-based scales of
operation.” Sustainable planning reflects the realisation that impacts and objectives often
interact, so solutions must reflect integrated analysis. Sustainable planning does not always
require trade-offs between economic, social and environmental objectives, but rather a
matter of finding strategies that help achieve all of these objectives over the long term by
increasing transportation system efficiency (Litman and Burwell, 2006).

Public transport starts with a disadvantage compared to the door-to-door flexibility of

private transport. The current transport conditions, particularly the level of urban private
car use, disallow sustainable levels of economic performance, social welfare and
environmental resilience. Therefore, reducing the demand for private cars in urban areas is
a key sustainability aim (Batterbury, 2003). Public transportation is a viable option with
comparison with the individual vehicles for attaining sustainability with higher
occupancies for comparable level of energy consumption and lesser emissions in total.
Hence achieving higher operational efficiencies and promoting increase in transit ridership
supports to meet the sustainability. Many authorities are investing in new infrastructure to
improve the quality of PT services (Vassallo, et. al., 2012).

1.3 Objectives and Scope of the Study

In view of the above, the objectives considered for the present study are as follows:
1. Develop a methodology for evaluating public transportation in a view of
sustainability mainly focusing on integration of different public transportation
modes.
2. Developing a set of sustainability indicators for measurement and evaluation of
integration levels between metro rail and buses.
3. Estimate the present sustainability index of integration levels between Delhi
Metro rail and Bus service in South Delhi region using developed methodology.

This study is focused on the development of a methodology for assessing the level of
integration currently existing between any two public transportation modes. The
assessed integration levels are represented as sustainability index value on a scale of ‘0’
to ‘100’. In the present study sustainability index value for public transit modes (metro
rail and bus) in South Delhi was estimated using the methodology developed. The
transfer facilities involving metro and bus service were considered for assessment. In
the present study, the scope is limited to four metro stations which are identified in the
South Delhi area. The integration between the selected metro stations and bus stops
around them has been proposed to assess under the present study. The metro stations
selected were Kalkaji Mandir, Nehru Place, Kailash Colony and Moolchand on violet
line of Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) and Buses run by Delhi Transport
Corporation (DTC) and Delhi Integrated Multimodal Transit System (DIMTS).

1.4 Organization of Paper

The research problem and need for the study on sustainable transportation in context of
integration of public transportation given in Section 1. This section also highlights the
objective and scope of the study. Section 2 describes numerous studies concerned with
sustainability, indicators and evaluation of public transportation. It provides summary of
the similar studies carried out globally with an aim to identify the area and parameters

4
which require research. Section 3 explains stepwise procedure adopted for the selection of
indicators for measuring the sustainability index value for metro rail and buses. The
homogenization of indicators is also explained in this. The study area and data collection is
discussed in the Section 4. Section 5 presents results obtained for each indicator. The final
results of sustainability index value in terms of integration between bus and metro rail for
the selected four metro stations also included in this section. The evaluation of different
policies is illustrated in Section 6. Finally, Section 7 gives the major findings and
conclusions derived from the present study along with limitations.

2. Review of Literature
2.1 Sustainability Indicators of Public Transport
Black, et. al. (2002), through his extensive review of literature determined the
definitions of a sustainable urban transportation and land use system, and objectives that
would form the basis for determining suitable indicators of performance. Sinha (2003)
identified various causes for less sustainable development in developing countries such
as changing urban pattern, motorisation, urbanization trends worldwide, automobile
dependency and Transit decline. Sinha (2003) also examined whether transit ensures
sustainability and also the role of technology innovation to achieve sustainability. The
study concluded that sustainability, transit, land use, and technology are intrinsically
related. Their strongest and most effective relationship is materialized in the existence
of seamless and intermodal transportation systems, which is essential for the success of
urban transit and for the long-term viability of cities around the world. Jeon and
Amekudzi (2005) reviewed major initiatives of transport in North America, Europe, and
Oceania to characterize the emergent thinking on what constitutes transportation
sustainability and how to measure it. The study highlighted that there is no standard
definition for transportation system sustainability, it is largely being defined through
impacts of the system on the economy, environment, and general social well-being; and
measured by system effectiveness and efficiency, and the impacts of the system on the
natural environment. Frameworks based on important causal relationships between
infrastructure and the broader environment, infrastructure impacts on the economy,
environment, and social well-being, and the relative influence of agencies over causal
factors, are largely being used to develop and determine indicator systems for
measuring sustainability.

Kolak, et. al. (2011) carried out a multi-criteria sustainability evaluation of transport
network for selected European countries. The main purpose of the study was to
introduce a decision making framework to assess the sustainability of the transport
networks in a multidimensional setting and a technique to identify non-compromise
alternatives. The study also proposed an elucidation technique to identify according to
which criteria a system needs to be improved and how much improvement is required to
attain a certain level of sustainability.

Amirazodi (2012) focused on sustainable urban transportation strategies and the study
emphasised that sustainable transport management considers the effects of
transportation development on economic efficiency, environmental issues, resources
consumption, land use and social justice and helps reduction of environmental effects,
increase of transportation system efficiency as well as improvement of social life and
aims to enhance efficiency, goods transportation, provide services with minimum access

5
problems that cannot be realized without reorganization of strategies, policies and plans.
Reddy and Balachandra (2012) studied the urban mobility patterns and trends and its
impact on energy and environment in Indian mega cities. The road transport data of 23
metropolitans for the period of 1986-2005 was analysed to obtain the relationship
between energy intensity, passenger kilometres travelled and mode of transport. The
study made policy recommendations to reduce transportation energy consumption and
emissions for achieving sustainable urban mobility.

Litman (2013) provided a comprehensive frame work for evaluating the benefits and
costs of particular transit service provided or improvement planned for increasing
efficiency of transit, examples of transit evaluation, increasing ridership and transit
oriented land use patterns, compares automobile and transit costs and advantages and
disadvantages of Bus and rail projects. Litman (2013) also highlights various categories
of impacts and method to identify best indicators. Various indicators are developed by
different studies similarly indicators selected by Niskota, et. al. (2007). Xenias and
Whitmarsh (2013) investigated the attitudes of individuals to sustainable transport and
how these attitudes differ between experts and non-experts, and factors that influence
these attitudes and their relevant importance in explaining why such differences occur.
The study involved open-ended questionnaires, attitude scales, analytic hierarchy
process and preference ranking to capture and understand the individual attitudes. A
total of 53 experts and 40 British public were surveyed and the results were compared.

2.2 Public Transit Evaluation

Lake and Ferreira (2002) developed a Public Transport Evaluation (PTE) framework to
carry out public transport project evaluation, namely cost benefit analysis and multi-
criteria analysis. A user-friendly spreadsheet based tool was developed to assess
individual projects or strategies within a comprehensive and consistent basis. Yedla and
Shrestha (2003) assessed alternative transportation option for Delhi using multi criteria
approach which comprised of six different criteria - Energy, Environment, Cost,
Technology, Adaptability, and Implementation Barriers. Qualitative criteria
prioritization resulted in higher priority for 4-stroke 2-wheelers followed by CNG buses
and CNG cars. However integrated quantitative and qualitative gave contrasting result
as compared to conventional qualitative and quantitative with highest priority towards
CNG buses followed by 4-stroke 2-wheelers and CNG cars. Advani and Tiwari (2005)
evaluated Delhi metro rail system in terms of capacity, travel time and accessibility. The
evaluation indices were developed that reflected the commuter’s perspective on the
metro services. Studies of influence zone of metro showed the need for the feeder
system and highlighted inherent transfer costs and wait times. They recommended the
integrated ticket which is valid both for a metro and bus service.

Iseki, et. al. (2007) developed a methodology based on travel behaviour research, to
evaluate the components of the out-of-vehicle travel experience. A framework involving
five criteria’s access, connection and reliability, information, amenities and security and
safety were used to develop the survey. The transit passengers were asked to assess the
level of importance of multiple service features, and their level of satisfaction at the stop
or station where the survey was administered under the current conditions on a four-
point scale from “very important” to “not important”, and “strongly agree” to “strongly
disagree”, respectively. Accordingly Importance-Satisfaction Analysis was carried out
to identify which attributes passengers found most important (importance) and which

6
needed the most improvement (satisfaction). Subsequently, chi-square tests, correlation
tests, and multiple regression analyses were carried out to determine the relative
importance of the five-category attributes to users’ satisfaction with the transit facility
and to examine which transit stop and station attributes measured in the physical
inventory were related to the satisfaction level of transit users.

Cascajo (2008) developed a methodology for estimating the sustainability of rail urban
projects by measuring a set of indicators. The methodology was based on a multi-
criteria analysis which considers a numerous criteria to achieve the global objective of
sustainability. The benefits were calculated by comparing in different scenarios like
reference scenario (situation without project) and with the real scenario (with project).
The indicators were calculated by percentage variation with the project without the
project. The final impact was the aggregated sum of percentage variations and weight
assigned to the indicators.

Hidalgo (2008) studied how transit integration was implemented for Sao Paulo, namely
fare integration, bus fleet renovation and support infrastructure for buses. This study
assists in assessing the planning, implementation and operational issues and various
recommendations for transit integration in large city. The study concluded that the
transit trips grew 15% and boarding by 49% between 2002 and 2006. Wilbur Smith
Associates (2008) carried out public transportation studies in 30 Indian cities and
proposed a method which included developing several indices to measure the public
transport performance for a city. Weightage was assigned to each index to achieve a
transport performance index for each city. The determined index value denotes the
overall efficiency of the transportation system established in the city.

Yahya and Noriani (2008) carried out the study for an Integrated Smart Card Fare
Collection System (ISCFCS), its challenge and solutions. The study estimated the
demand for public transport and private vehicle by conducting surveys and then focuses
on ISCFCS, its barriers and funding constraints etc. The study also carried out impact
assessment and concluded that successful implementation of ISCFCS will increase the
public transport share. Gahlot (2011) evaluated Jaipur city public transport system using
GIS and stated that continuous evaluation of transit service quality from various
perspectives, such as availability, frequency, travel speeds etc. is very necessary for
better performance. The study stressed that GIS has proved as a powerful and user
friendly tool to evaluate the public transit facilities in a city. Vimal, et. al. (2011)
focused on two key parameters of public transit, availability of transit network and
pedestrian accessibility which has a significant influence on choice riders to use public
transport. Orth, et. al. (2012) proposed public transport performance measurement
model based on capacity and quality for Zurich public transportation system. The
capacity and quality model was capable of evaluating several key performance
indicators at three levels: individual element level, route segment and entire network
level.

Bhaskar (2013) estimated sustainability index of three corridors in South Delhi region
by developing a methodology to assess the social, environmental and economic effects
of public transportation systems and a set of indicators were developed for measurement
of transport sustainability performance. The evaluation method involved multi-criteria
analysis, measuring both qualitative and quantitative indicators. The study also aimed to
identify the user perception on the selected indicators representing the bus transport

7
service provided. A numerical value called sustainability index was determined
representing the public transport condition in terms of sustainability for the selected
three corridors in Delhi.

Joshi (2013) aimed to plan and evaluate the operational integration between MMTS and
bus system with upcoming MRTS system by using transport planning model software
package VISUM for Hyderabad city. Modelling and integration of network was done
and estimated trips were assigned to the network. Integration of different modes was
done by inputting of timetables and schedules. The impact of integration was seen on
the VISUM interface and the parameters of overcrowding and congestion were
evaluated. Further regression model was used to evaluate the levels of integration on the
network. Redman, et. al. (2013) carried out an extensive review of literature to
understand what quality parameters of public transport to attract car users and it
concluded that while service reliability and frequency are important attributes attracting
car users.

2.3 Summary

The above discussion highlights the numerous studies that have been done globally for
evaluating transport infrastructure in various approaches considering sustainability as an
objective. Several methods are developed and used for identifying the indicators and
measuring them. The result of analysis will greatly depend on perspective of evaluation
hence it was sensed that multi-criteria approach would be ideal for sustainability
analysis of public transit systems for Indian scenario.

3. Study Methodology and Data Collection

3.1 Methodology Adopted
The primary step in the methodology is selection of the public transportation systems
between which the integration is intended to measure. In the present study, it is
proposed that the sustainability index of integration would be assessed between metro
rail and buses in Delhi. The public transport services in Delhi are provided by the
Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi through Delhi Metro Rail
Corporation (DMRC), Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) and Delhi Integrated Multi-
Modal Transit System (DIMTS). The evaluation method considered in the present
study follows a specific multi-criteria analysis (MCA) approach. The detailed flowchart
of methodology employed is presented in Figure 1. The existing levels of integration
between the selected public transportation modes are evaluated under the objective of
sustainability, in its three dimensions: economic, social and environment. To start with,
the indicators were selected under the three dimensions of sustainability to signify the
present level of integration between selected modes. These selected indicators are
measured by collecting data from various surveys (Qualitative and Quantitative) and all
the indicators are homogenized into a single value (U) between 0 - 1 for every
indicators by expert opinion surveys as given in Eq. (1). The final sustainability index
of public transport integration is the aggregated sum of weights and homogenized value
of all the indicators (Cascajo, 2008). The selected indicators are listed in Table 1.
Weighted Individual Value=wi* ui. (1)
Where: wi is the weight of ‘i ’ indicator, ui is the homogenized value of ‘i ’ indicator.
th th

8
 Selection of Public
Transportation Systems

Metro Rail Bus

Identification of Indicators to
Measure Integration: Economic,
Social and Environmental

Selection of Data Collection: Qualitative (Bus and Metro

Study Area user ratings etc.) and Quantitative (Bus
Reliability, Bus Occupancy etc.)

Developing Methodology for Evaluating

and Homogenizing Selected Indicators

Weightage Survey
based on expert opinion
Evaluation and Homogenization of
individual Indicators (U)
Weighing of Indicator (W)

Weighted Individual Indicator value

(W * U)

Sustainability Integration
Aggregation Index

Figure 1: Detailed Flow Chart of Methodology Adopted in the Present Study

Table 1: Indicators Selected for Overall Assessment of Sustainability Index

Sustainability Dimension Name of the Parameter
Productivity
Transfer Time
Economic Indicators Accessibility
Mobility
Additional Employment
Bus and Metro user rating
Reliability
Social Indicators
Safety and Security
Additional Facilities Provided
Air Pollution
Environmental Indicators Non-Motorized Transport
Land Consumption

9
3.2 Homogenization

Homogenization is done to have a common index value for all the indicators in order to
bring them into common units for comparison with other parameters, doing some
mathematical operations etc. In the present case of sustainability, some indicators
would have positive effect and some indicators would have negative effect. For
example the productivity indicator has positive impact on the final sustainability index
value i.e. as the productivity increases, level of integration rises and vice versa.
Similarly transfer time indicator have a negative impact on the final sustainability index
value i.e. as transfer time increases the level of integration decreases and vice versa.
Therefore it is required to define a procedure for converting all the variations of the
indicators into a common homogenized value which normally between 0 and 1. For
example, for homogenizing the productivity indicator, the ratio of number of people
using bus and metro together to complete the journey to the number of people using
any other mode after a bus or metro trip to complete the journey was measured. By
comparing the values a fraction between 0 and 1 is obtained. The maximum value
possible is "1" signifying all the users are using bus and metro to complete their trip
and a minimum value of "0" signifying all the users are using different modes after a
bus or metro trip.

3.3 Weightage of Indicators and Aggregation

The process of weighting involves emphasizing the contribution of some aspects of a
set of data to a final effect or result. That is rather than each variable contributing
equally to the final result, some data are adjusted to contribute more than others. This
was done by conducting a questionnaire survey, performed among the scientists and
research students in CRRI, asking them to rate the indicators on the basis of their
importance in measuring the present level of integration in a view of sustainability for
the selected public transportation modes using predesigned questionnaire. The
indicators are scored from 0 to 10, where 10 is the maximum importance with respect
to measuring the integration finally a weighted average was taken for each indicator to
find the individual weightage. The final sustainability index value signifying the
present levels of integration is calculated by aggregating the all weighted individual
indicators in the range of 0 to 100 as shown in Eq. (2). The maximum value is 100 with
fully integrated system and minimum value of 0 with no integration.

Sustainability Integration Index =∑𝑛𝑖=1 𝑤𝑖 ∗ 𝑢𝑖 (2)

4. Study Area and Data Collection

4.1 Study Area

Delhi, the capital city of India, with a population of 16.7 million in 2011 is one of the
fastest growing cities in the world. The increasing city’s population growth has resulted in
mounting pressure on the existing transportation system and this is bound to increase
further in coming years. Delhi has been endowed with a prevalent road network of 32,663
Km in 2011 and the total number of vehicles in Delhi have significantly increased from
3.16 Million in 2000 to 10.11 Million in 2016 with private car and motorised two wheeler
share of about 30% and 64% respectively. Delhi metropolitan city is supported by a well-
established public transit network with metro rail and buses as the major modes of public

10
transport. Presently, the Delhi Metro network consists of about 218 Km with 170 stations
and operates around 3,000 trips daily with frequency of 1 to 2 minutes in peak hours and
carry an average of 2.7 million passengers daily in 2016. The bus system in Delhi is
operated by the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) with 5,700 buses on the road each day
(out of a total fleet of nearly 6,200 buses) and carries 4.2 million passengers daily.

In the present study, it is proposed that the sustainability index of integration would be
assessed between metro rail and buses in Delhi. To determine the levels of integration
between metro rail and buses, four metro stations and bus stops located at a walkable
distance from the metro stations were selected to carry out the data collection in South
Delhi, India. The metro stations and bus stops selected are listed in Table 2.

Table 2: List of Metro Stations and Bus Stops around Metro Station selected for
the Study
S.
Metro Station Bus Stops
No.
1 Kalkaji Mandir (i) Paras Cinemas, (ii) Kalkaji Mandir, (iii) Nehru Place Terminal
2 Nehru Place (i) DTC Nehru Place, (ii) Nehru Place
3 Kailash Colony (i) Kailash Colony, (ii) LSR College, (iii) Sant Nagar
4 Moolchand (i) Central School, (ii) Moolchand Hospital, (iii) Andrews Gunj

4.2 Questionnaire Survey

Qualitative (user perception survey) and Quantitative methods were used to measure the
selected indicators and for this purpose, data collection through questionnaire survey,
inventory studies, bus occupancy and reliability survey were conducted at all bus stops
(11 bus stops) at selected locations in South Delhi area. A user perception survey was
carried to ask the commuter opinions about current integration between metro and bus
have been done at all metro stations (4 metro stations) and bus stops (11 bus stops) at
selected locations in the study area. The approach was created to conduct a short
passenger survey and a total of 588 commuters were surveyed. From each station,
interviewing would begin at a morning commute time (from 9:00 AM - 11:00 AM) at
bus stops to capture the peak hours and a full day commute time from (9:00 AM - 5:00
PM) at metro stations. Table 3 gives the number of survey samples collected at each
metro station and corresponding bus stops.

Table 3: Number of Samples Collected from Metro Stations and Bus Stops around
Metro Station
Survey Samples Collected
S.
Location Metro Bus Stops around
No Total
Station Metro Station
1 Kalkaji Mandir 62 71 133
2 Nehru Place 97 82 179
3 Kailash Colony 100 31 131
4 Moolchand 100 45 145

11
5. Estimation of Sustainability Indicators and
Sustainability Integration Indices for the Study Area
5.1 Estimation of Weightage of Indicators

The surveys conducted and methodology used for homogenization of each indicator is
described in the previous sections. Some surveys are qualitative in nature and some are
quantitative in nature. Therefore it is required from each topic under evaluation to
define a procedure to convert the results into a homogenized value between 0 and 1. The
estimation of selected indicators surveyed under economic, social and environmental
categories from the surveys. The results from weightage survey conducted among
transport professionals and scientists, for assigning weightage to the indicators used in
the study. The final aim of this study was to determine the sustainability index value for
the selected locations (metro station and bus stop), which indicates the present levels of
integration between metro rail and bus service for South Delhi, India. The homogenized
value of each indicator calculated in the previous sections with regard to economic,
social and environmental classes are considered in deriving the sustainability indices.
From the data collection at different metro stations and around bus stops, the
sustainability indicators have been computed and their summary is presented in Table 4.

Table 4: Summary of Sustainability Indicators obtained from Commuter Surveys

and Weight from Expert Survey
Value of Sustainability Indicators Weights of
Indicators,
S.
(ui) for Different Metro Stations
wi (from
Indicators
No Expert
Kalkaji Nehru Kailash Mool-
Opinion
Mandir Place Colony chand
Survey)
1 Productivity 0.51 0.31 0.34 0.44 8.94
2 Transfer Time 0.288 0.21 0.289 0.265 8.05
3 Accessibility 0.343 0.172 0.28 0.575 9.45
4 Mobility 0.368 0.43 0.408 0.356 8.15
5 Additional Employment 0.04 0.221 0.045 0.382 6.36
6 Bus and Metro User Rating 0.513 0.518 0.507 0.485 8.05
7 Reliability 0.483 0.398 0.504 0.549 9.05
8 Safety and Security 0.625 0.625 0.625 0.75 9.52
9 Additional Facilities 0.5 0.5 0.417 0.5 8.62
10 Air Pollution 0.663 0.77 0.752 0.374 7.94
11 Non-Motorized Transport 1 1 1 1 8.15
12 Land Consumption 0 0 0.5 0.5 7.72
Total Value (out of 12) 5.333 5.154 5.667 6.176 100
Average Value
44.44 42.95 47.23 51.47
(out of 100)

From the Table 4, it can be said that the values of different indicators for different metro
stations shown are out of 1. The total value for each station shown is out of 12 because

12
of 12 indicators. The average value of sustainability indicators are also shown in Table
4. From these results it can be seen that Moolchand metro station has high sustainability
value. These values are computed by giving equal importance to each of the individual
indicators. However, it may not be true that all the indicators have equal importance. To
determine the importance of individual indicators an expert survey is proposed to be
conducted and discussed in the next section.

5.2 Estimation of Sustainability Integration Index

The sustainability index value representing the existing level of integration between
metro rail and bus is estimated for all the four metro stations and bus stops around the
metro stations considered i.e. at Kalkaji Mandir, Nehru Place, Kailash Colony and
Moolchand. The weightage obtained for indicators based on opinion survey among
experts as shown in Table 4, and the homogenized values derived in the previous
chapters for various indicators related to economic, social and environmental domain
are collated and expressed in Table 4. The weighted value for every indicator is
calculated by taking the product of homogenized value and weightage of the indicator.
The final sustainability index value is then obtained by accumulating the weighted value
of all the indicators are shown in Table 5.

Table 5: Summary of Computation of Sustainability Index for Selected Metro

Stations
S. Weighted Value (wi * ui)
Sustainability Indicators Kalkaji Nehru Kailash
No. Moolchand
Mandir Place Colony
Economic Indicators
1 Productivity 4.544 2.811 3.015 3.929
2 Transfer Time 2.317 1.690 2.325 2.133
3 Accessibility 3.244 1.628 2.641 5.429
4 Mobility 3.001 3.506 3.327 2.903
5 Additional Employment 0.256 1.408 0.286 2.429
Maximum Achievable Value 13.362 11.042 11.593 16.822
Social Indicators
6 Bus and Metro user survey 4.124 4.168 4.075 3.898
7 Reliability 4.370 3.601 4.56 4.969
8 Safety and security 5.949 5.949 5.949 7.139
9 Additional Facilities 4.310 4.31 3.592 4.310
Maximum achievable Value 18.753 18.029 18.176 20.317
Environmental Indicators
10 Air pollution 5.263 6.115 5.968 2.969
11 Non Motorized Transport 0.000 0.000 8.154 8.154
12 Land Consumption 7.723 7.723 7.723 7.723
Maximum Achievable Value 12.985 13.838 21.845 18.846
Sustainability Integration Index 45.101 42.909 51.614 55.985

From the above Table 5, it can be seen that Moolchand metro station and bus stops are
better integrated having the maximum value of sustainability index of 55.985, followed
by Kailash Colony with 51.614, Kalkaji Mandir with 45.101 and Nehru Place with least

13
integration levels with a sustainability index of 42.909. Figure 2 illustrates the graphical
representation of the sustainability index values. The maximum sustainability index for
Moolchand station can be explained as result of most accessible bus stops with very
large number of bus fleets serving, Proper connections provided to access the bus stops
by walk through underpasses and footpath’s and also the provision of NMT facilities
around the stations. The minimum index value obtained for Nehru Place station can be
explained due to the poor connection between the bus stop and the metro station, as the
bus stops are located at a considerable distance from the metro station without any
proper facilities to reach the bus stops and with lesser bus fleets serving around metro
station.
Sustainability Integration Index
Moolchand 55.985

Kailash Colony 51.614

Nehru Place 42.909

Kalkaji Mandir 45.101

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00

Figure 2: Estimated Sustainability Integration Index for Different Metro Stations

in the Study Area

6 Evaluation of Transport Policies

6.1 Transport Policies
The developed methodology was used for evaluating three selected policies referring to
integrating Metro and Bus service in Delhi as given below:

1. Common Mobility Card: Common fare collection system for both bus and metro
through an electronic card
2. Relocation of Bus Stop: Relocating and creating direct connection to bus stops
near the metro stations to have convenient transfers between bus and metro
3. Increasing Bus Service Frequency: Increasing the frequencies of all the bus
routes at the bus stops around metro station leads to reduce waiting times

6.2 Evaluation Results of Transport Policies

The effect of above considered policies on the selected indicators and also on the level
integration between bus and metro represented by sustainability index value was
estimated. Table 6 gives the index value for the four metro stations representing the
level of integration between buses and metro with a policy of common mobility card,
relocating bus stops and increasing bus frequency. From the Table 6, it can be seen that
the index value has increased by in the range of 3.5 to 4.1%, 3.5 to 5.6% and 4.4 to
5.2% for policy of common mobility card, relocation of bus stops and increasing bus
frequency respectively across all the four Metro Stations. The maximum sustainability
index can be observed for Kailash Colony Metro Station for the policy of relocation of
bus stops. The comparison of average increase in sustainability integration index from
the proposed three polices shown in Figure 3. From the Figure 3, it can be observed that
policy of increasing the bus frequencies had the maximum increase in the index value

14
followed by the policy of relocating the bus stops and lastly the with policy of having a
common mobility card.

Table 6: Estimated Sustainability Integration Index Value for different Policies

Sustainability Integration Index (SII)
Metro Station Existing Common Relocation of Increasing Bus
Condition Mobility Card Bus Stops Frequency
Kalkaji Mandir 45.101 49.217 (4.1%) 49.645 (4.5%) 50.270 (5.2%)
Nehru Place 42.909 46.564 (3.7%) 46.733 (3.8%) 47.489 (4.6%)
Kailash Colony 51.614 55.605 (4.0%) 57.177 (5.6%) 56.021 (4.4%)
Moolchand 55.985 59.503 (3.5%) 59.468 (3.5%) 60.813 (4.8%)
Note: Values in the parenthesis shows the percentage increase from the existing case
Comparision of Policies
5.000 4.746
Percentage increase in
Sustaiability Index

4.500 4.353

4.000 3.820

3.500
Common Mobility Bus Stop Relocation Increasing Bus
Card Frequency
Transport Policy
Figure 3: Comparison of Average Increase in Sustainability Integration Index
under Different Transport Policies

7. Conclusions
In the present study a methodology was developed incorporating sustainability concept
for evaluating levels of integration between two public transportation modes. The study
identified 12 qualitative and quantitative indicators under the three main domains of
sustainability i.e. economic, social and environmental, to measure the level of
integration. This study considers the multi-criteria analysis which involves
homogenizing the selected sustainability indicators of public transportation and arriving
at an aggregated final index value with appropriate weights for every indicator.
Subsequently, the developed method applied to estimate the present levels of integration
between metro rail and buses for South Delhi, India. The following conclusions can be
drawn from the present study:
 The most suitable indicators are identified for overall assessment of sustainability
index with a focus on integration between public transport modes (Metro and Bus)
in the Indian context. They are: Productivity, Transfer Time, Accessibility,
Mobility, Additional Employment Generated, Bus and Metro User Rating, Safety
and Security, Additional Facilities, Reliability, Air Pollution, Land Consumption
and NMT Facilities.
 The results obtained by the analysis carried out reveals that, Moolchand Metro
Station and bus stops are better integrated having the maximum value of
sustainability index of 54.395 followed by Kailash Colony with 49.897, Kalkaji
Mandir with 43.293 and Nehru Place with least integration levels with a
sustainability index of 41.219.
 The maximum sustainability index for Moolchand station can be explained as
result of most accessible bus stops with very large number of bus fleets serving,

15
 proper connections provided to access the bus stops by walk through underpasses
and footpath’s and also the provision of NMT facilities around the stations.
 The policy of increasing bus frequencies resulted in maximum average increase
sustainability integration index value for all four metro stations of 4.75%, whereas
the policy of relocating bus stops to improve connectivity and the policy of
common mobility card increases sustainability with an average value of 4.35%
and 3.82% respectively.

The methodology developed in the present study can be used for studying integration
levels between different public transportation modes which may assist planners and
policy makers in city wide planning and public transport integration. The present study
focused only on public transport service parameters and do not consider any capital
investments and monetary benefits for evaluation of the system. The number of
indicators can be further increased to improve the accuracy of the results.

Acknowledgement
The authors express their gratitude to the Director, CSIR-CRRI, New Delhi, India for
allowing to publish the part of research findings from the research study titled
"Development and Application of Technologies for Sustainable Transportation
(SUSTRANS)", a 12th Five Year Plan sponsored project by CSIR and Planning
Commission, Government of India. An earlier version of this paper was presented in
WCTR-2016 at Shanghai and the authors acknowledge the opportunity given by
WCTRS in this regard.

References
1. Advani, M., and Tiwari, G. (2005). “Evaluation of Public Transport System: Case
study of Delhi Metro.” Proc. in START-2005,IIT Kharagpur, India.
2. Amirazodi, T. (2012). “Sustainable Urban Transport Management and Its
Strategies.”International Journal of Economics and Management Sciences, 6, 80-83.
3. Batterbury, S. (2003). “Environmental activism and social networks: campaigning
for bicycles and alternative transport in West London.” Annals of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science, 590, 150–169.
4. Beatley, T. (1995) “The many meanings of sustainability.” Journal of Planning
Literature, Vol. 9, No. 4, 339–342.
5. Bhaskar, P. (2013). “Methodology for assessing the social, economic and
environmental effects of public transportation systems.” M.tech. Thesis report, NIT
Karnataka.
6. Black, J. A., Paez, A., and Suthanaya, P. A. (2002). “Sustainable Urban
Transportation: Performance Indicators and Some Analytical Approaches.” Journal
of urban planning and development, 128(4), 184-209.
7. Carey, M. (2004). “What is sustainable?” Paper presented in Postconf. Workshop,
9th Conf. of Hong Kong Society for Transportation Studies - Sustainable Urban
Transportation: Concepts, Policies and Methodologies, Hong Kong.
8. Cascajo, R. (2008). “Assessment of economic, social and environmental effects of
rail urban projects.” TRANSyT – Transport Research Centre, Madrid, Spain.
9. CST (2005). A report on “Defining Sustainable Transportation.”, Centre for
Sustainable Transportation. <http://cst.uwinnipeg.ca/documents/Defining_
Sustainable_2005.pdf> (Oct. 13, 2013).

16
10. Dhingra, S. L (2008) “Integrated urban mass transit system for sustainable
development.” First Indo-US Symposium on Advances in Mass Transit and Travel
Behaviour Research (MTTBR-08), Guwahati.
11. Delhi Multimodal Integrated Transport System (DIMTS), (2011). A report on
“Integration of BRT with an Emission Free Non-Motorized Feeder Network.” Delhi
Integrated Multi-Modal Transit System Limited, Delhi.
12. Doll, C. N. H., and Balaban, O. (2013), “A methodology for evaluating
environmental co-benefits in the transport sector: application to the Delhi metro”,
Journal of cleaner production, 58, 61-73.
13. Government of India (GoI), (2012) “Road Transport Year Book 2009-10 & 2010-
11.” Transport Research Wing, Ministry of Road Transport, New Delhi.
14. Guo, Z., and Willson, N. H. M. (2011). “Assessing the cost of transfer
inconvenience in public transport systems: A case study of the London
Underground.” Transportation Research Part A Policy and Practice, 45(2), 91-104.
15. Highway Capacity Manual, Transport Research Board (TRB)-2010.
16. Hidalgo, D. (2008). “A city wide transit integration for large city: A case study of
interligado system Sao Paulo, Brazil.” TRB annual meeting CD-ROM.
17. Indian Clean Air Programme (ICAP) (2007). “Emission Factor Development for
Indian vehicles.” Automotive Research Association of India (ARAI), Pune.
18. IPCC: (2014) “Transport and its infrastructure. Document.” Intergovernmental
panel on climate change (IPCC). Available at <http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-
report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-chapter5.pdf> (accessed on Feb 20, 2014).
19. Iseki, H., Miller, M., Ringler, A., Smart M., and Taylor B. D. (2007). “Evaluating
Connectivity Performance at Transit Transfer Facilities.” submitted to Chapman, B.,
California department of transportation division of research and innovation,
Sacramento, CA.
20. Iseki, H., Ringler, A., Taylor, B. D., Miller, M., and Smart, M. (2007). “Evaluating
Transit Stops and Stations from the Perspective of Transit Users.” California
Department of Transportation, Division of Research and Innovation, 1227 O Street,
5th Floor, Sacramento, CA.
21. Iseki, H., and Taylor, B. D., (2010). “Style versus Service? An analysis of user
perceptions of transit stops and Stations.” Journal of public Transportation, 13(3),
23-48.
22. Ibrahim, M. F. (2003). “Improvements and integration of a public transport
system:The case of Singapore.” Cities, 20(3), 205-216.
23. Jeon, C. M. and Amekudzi, A. (2005). “Addressing Sustainability in Transportation
Systems: Definitions, Indicators, and Metrics.” Journal of infrastructure systems,
ASCE, 11, 31-50
24. Joshi, V. S. (2013). “Integrated mass transit planning and analysis using macro
simulation tool VISUM.” M.Tech. Thesis report, NIT Warangal.
25. Kittelson and Associates, Inc., KFH Group, Inc., Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade and
Douglass, Inc., and K. Hunter-Zaworski. (2003)“Transit Capacity and Quality of
Service Manual.” TCRP Report 100, 2nd ed. Transportation Research Board of the
National Academies, Washington, D.C.
26. Kolak, O. I., Akin, D., Birbil, S. I., Feyzioglu, O., and Noyan, N. (2011).
“Multicriteria Sustainability Evaluation of Transport Networks for Selected
European Countries.” Proc. of the world congress on Engineering, WCE 2011,
London, U.K.,Vol I.
27. Kutz, M. (2004). “Handbook of transportation Engineering.” McGraw Hill
Publications.

17
28. Lake, M. and Ferreira, L. (2002). “Towards A Methodology to Evaluate Public
Transport Projects.” Physical Infrastructure Centre Research Report 02-03, School
of Civil Engineering, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane.
29. Lee, S., Lee, Y.H., and Park, J.H., (2003). “Estimating price and service elasticity of
urban transportation demand with stated preference technique: a case in Korea.
Transportation Research Record, 1839, 167- 172.
30. Litman, T., and Burwell, D. (2006). “Issues in Sustainable
Transportation.”International Journal Global Environmental Issues, 6(4), 331-347.
31. Litman, T. (2013). “Well Measured: Developing Indicators for Comprehensive and
Sustainable Transport Planning.” Victoria Transport policy Institute, Canada,
<http://www.vtpi.org/wellmeas.pdf>(Nov. 13, 2013).
32. Loo, B. P. Y., and Chow, S. Y. (2006). “Sustainable Urban Transportation:
Concepts, Policies, and Methodologies”, Journal of urban planning and
development, 132(2), 76-79.
33. Matas, A. (2004). “Demand and revenue implications of an integrated public
transport policy: The case of Madrid.” Transport Reviews, 24(2), 195-217.
34. Orth, A., Weidmann, U., and Dorbritz, R. (2012) “Development of Measurement
System for Public Transport Performance.” Journal of Transportation Research
Board, 2274, 135-143.
35. Reddy, B. S., and Balachandra, P. (2012). “Urban Mobility: A Comparative analysis
of megacities in India.” Transport policy, 21, 152-164.
36. Redman, L., Friman, M., Garling, T., and Hartig, T. (2013). “Quality attributes of
public transport that attract car users: A research review.” Transport policy, 25, 119-
127.
37. Sinha, K. C. (2003). “Sustainability and Urban Public Transportation.” Journal of
Transportation Engineering, 129(4), 331-341.
38. Ulengin, F., Onsel, S., Topcu, Y. I., Aktas, E., and Kabak, O. (2007). “An integrated
transportation decision support system for transportation policy decisions: The case
of Turkey.”Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 41(1), 80-97.
39. Vassallo, J. M., Ciommo, F. D., and Garcia, A. (2012). “Intermodal exchange
stations in the city of Madrid.” Transportation, 39(5), 975-995.
40. Vimal, G., Swami, B. L., Parida, M., Jain, S. S. and Kalla, P. (2011), “GIS based
evaluation of public transit system”, Urban Transportation Journal, 10,17-28.
41. Miller,W. W. (2012). Distinguished lecture on “Public Transportation Today and
Tomorrow.” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation
Research Board, 2274, 5–11.
42. WCED. (1987). “Our common future.” World Commission on Environment and
Development, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
43. Xenias, D. and Whitmarsh, L. (2013), “Dimensions and determinants of expert and
public attitudes to sustainable transport policies and technologies”, Transportation
Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 48, 75–85.
44. Yahya, S. and Noor, N. (2008). “Strategic Planning of an Integrated Smart Card
Fare Collection System: Challenges and Solutions. Communications of IBIMA,
2(6), 39-46.
45. Yedla, S. and Shrestha, R. M. (2003). “Multi-criteria approach for the selection of
alternative options for environmentally sustainable transport system in Delhi.”
Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 37(8), 717–729.

18