Diagnostic Evaluation of Multimodal urban transport system operation in Delhi

Abstract

Delhi, the capital of India had planned its MRTS corridor in 1980's and rolled it out in 2002. With the materialization of Delhi Metro the city got a transit lifeline in terms of connectivity. The existing multimodal public transportation of Delhi urban agglomerate offers a plethora of modes, but the issues are their lack of uniform presence, organized routes, demand responsive presence as well as lack of physical infrastructure to support a seamless multimodal trip. This paper aims to study the existing condition of the operational dimension of multimodality with emphasis on temporal, operational and service quality performance indicators. Some of the indicators included for analysis in this paper are the interconnectivity ratio, level of service, service time ratio, interconnectivity convenience, passenger waiting index, commuter perception index, etc. A commuter travel survey was done and responses from 1328 passengers was taken into account for the analysis. The result reveals the importance of the transfer and proximity related segments of travel. Recommendations to improve multimodal operation have also been discussed.

Full text

Eu
r





Di
a

Abstrac
t

Delhi, t
h
materiali
p
ublic tr
a
uniform
support
a
of multi
m
the indi
c
ratio,int
e
travel su
r
reveals t
h
multimo
d
K
eywor
d

1. Mo
t
Public
t
the gro
w
the co
n
of the
t
dislike
2015)
a
Seco&
G
import
a
trip pri
c
during
time, i
n
*Corres
p
r
opean Tra
n
a
gnosti
c
1
R
esearch Sch
o
2
Professor
-
t
h
e capital of
zation of De
l
a
nsportation
o
presence, or
g
a
seamless m
u
m
odality wit
h
c
ato
r
s include
d
e
rconnectivity
r
vey was don
h
e importanc
e
d
al operation
h
d
s: Multimod
a
t
ivation
t
ransport is
w
th of eco
n
n
dition of it
s
t
otal travel
attitude to
w
a
s shown in
G
oncalves
a
nce of dif
f
c
e (fare), s
e
travel incl
u
n
formation
p
p
onding Auth
o
n
sport \ Tra
s
c
Eval
u
Sy
Ma
n
o
la
r
- Civil Engin
e
-
Civil Engineeri
n
India had
pl
l
hi Metro the
o
f Delhi urb
a
g
anized route
s
u
ltimodal trip.
h
emphasis o
n
d
for analysi
s
convenienc
e
e and respon
s
e
of the trans
f
h
ave also bee
n
a
l Transportat
i
an integral
n
omic, soci
a
s
urban tra
n
time on p
e
w
ards trans
i
Figure 1.
(2007), st
u
f
erent perf
o
e
curity, trip
u
des cleanli
p
arameters,
o
r: (+91-8126
s
porti Euro
p
u
ation
o
stem O
n
sha Swa
m
e
ering Departm
e
n
g Department,
I
l
anned its M
R
city got a tr
a
a
n agglomera
t
s
, demand re
s
This paper a
i
n
temporal, o
p
s
in this pap
e
e
, passenger
w
s
es from 132
8
f
er and proxi
m
n
discussed.
i
on, Performa
n
componen
t
a
l, and infr
a
n
sport syste
m
e
rception o
f
i
t was see
n
u
died the q
u
o
rmance in
d
environme
n
ness, safet
y
transfer ne
694716), ma
n
p
ei (2016)
I
1
o
f Mult
i
perati
o
m
i
1
, Mano
r
e
nt,
I
ndian Institu
I
ndian Institute o
f
R
TS corrido
r
a
nsit lifeline i
n
t
e offers a pl
e
s
ponsive pres
e
i
ms to study t
h
p
erational an
d
e
r are the int
e
w
aiting inde
x
8
p
assengers
w
m
ity related
s
n
ce indicator
s
t
of an urb
a
a
structural
f
m
.In a stu
d
f
commute
r
n
when tot
a
u
ality of
p
d
icators lik
e
n
t, transfer
s
y
and trip e
cessity and
n
sha.swami@
g
I
ssue 60, P
a
i
modal
U
o
n in D
e
r
anjan Pa
te of Technology
-
f
Technology-
R
o
o
r
in 1980's a
n
n
terms of c
o
e
thora of mo
d
e
nce as well
h
e existing c
o
d
service qual
i
e
rconnectivi
t
y
x
, commuter
w
as taken int
o
s
egments of t
r
s
, access, egr
e
a
n area. In
d
f
iber of a c
i
d
y done by
M
r
was obse
r
l travel ti
m
p
ublic trans
p
e
reliabilit
y
s
necessity
a
nvironmen
t
waiting ti
m
g
mail.co
m
a
per n° 1, I
S
U
rban
e
lhi
rida
2
-
Roorkee(IIT-R),
o
rkee(IIT-
R
), Ro
o
n
d rolled it
o
o
nnectivity. T
h
d
es, bu
t
the
i
as lack of p
h
o
ndition of th
e
i
ty performa
n
ratio, level
o
perception i
n
o
account for
t
r
avel. Recom
m
e
ss, Transfer,
W
d
eveloping
i
ty very dir
e
M
artin Tur
c
r
ved. A si
g
m
e exceede
d
p
ort in w
h
y
, comfort,
a
nd custom
t
. Conveni
e
m
es.
S
SN 1825-
3
Trans
p
Roorkee, India.
o
rkee, India.
o
ut in 2002.
h
e existing
m
i
ssues are th
e
h
ysical infrast
r
e
operational
d
n
ce indicators
.
o
f service, se
r
n
dex, etc.A
c
t
he analysis.
T
m
endations t
o
W
aiting time.
countries li
ectly depe
n
c
otte(2006)
g
nificant ri
s
d
one hour
h
ich they i
d
cleanliness
er service.
C
e
nce includ
e
3
997
p
ort
With the
m
ultimodal
e
ir lack of
r
ucture to
d
imension
.
Some of
r
vice time
c
ommuter
T
he resul
t
o
improve
ke India
n
ds upon
, impact
s
e in the
(Litman
d
entified
, safety,
C
omfort
e
s travel

European Transport \ Trasporti Europei (2016) Issue 60, Paper n° 1, ISSN 1825-3997

2

Figure 1. Passenger perception on commute duration. (Source: Turcotte, 2006).
Comfort and convenience are very important characteristics of importance to any public
transport entity. Convenience is defined here as how simple the Public Transport service is to
use and how well it adds to one's ease of mobility.
A multimodal transport environment has to essentially coordinate between several parameters
of importance at the planning, design, operation and maintenance stage of a public transit
system.For transit agencies, higher levels of customer satisfaction are associated witha better
public image, customer loyalty and, consequently, customerretention and increased ridership
(TCRP Report 88, 2003). A study was carried out in order to compare the distance travelled
in twin scenario of a fixed route alternative and a demand responsive alternative both having
competent transit attributes. The study revealed that demand responsive, especially when in a
ring-radial network are more effective than the fixed route travel alternative. This was
observed in the case when demand density wasn't very high and a LOS upgrade was sought
after (Marco Diana, 2009). In order to ensure public spending is utilized in the best possible
manner the transit stops and route performance can be evaluated with respect to connectivity
(Sabyasachee Mishra et al. 2015). In the case of central Delhi the ring radial network exists,
but the demand for travel is high. A comprehensive study on the comparison between the two
alternatives for the Delhi Scenario is recommended.
In case of Delhi, development of mass transit system has been done in 2002, much before the
actual projections of vehicular increase and change in the scenario was witnessed. The
unexpected growth in motor vehicles and rapid transformation of economic policies have
brought about a drastic change in the land use pattern of the city. Aljoufie, M. et al.(2011),
examined the relationship between urban growth and transport for Jeddah city in Saudi
Arabia. GIS tool was used to develop several indices related to spatial expansion, land use
change, population density, transport infrastructure expansion, road density, road area density
and urban trips density. A spatial proximity analysis was then carried out to conceptualize
two major types of urban growth, outward expansion and sprawl development, both of which
had a significant influence on the transport infrastructure. Multimodal Transport System
(MMTS) relates to a single trip consisting of combinations of modes i.e. vehicle modes (bus,

European Transport \ Trasporti Europei (2016) Issue 60, Paper n° 1, ISSN 1825-3997

3

metro, car, cycle rickshaw, etc.) or service modes (private/public) between which the
travelers have to transfer. The main aim of MMTS is to promote public transport in urban
areas. A coordinated integration of different modes brings about reduced congestion on the
road, greater convenience for commuters, efficiency and cost effectiveness. In Delhi also, the
urban sprawl in the last two decades has increased the transport demand manifolds. The
demand for mobility has risen from 20 million trips per day to the projected value of 29
million trips per day in 2021 (RITES, 2005). Though an operational MMTS exists, but the
scenario is still far away from reaching the ideal ridership of 80%.
Marco Diana (2012), studied the commuter satisfaction for public transport services in terms
of service frequency, punctuality, possibility of finding sitting place, the speed of the service,
cleanliness of the vehicles, comfort while walking at bus stops, connectivity with other
municipalities, convenience of schedules, cost of the ticket, the municipality where the
household is located and frequency of the use of urban public transport in Italy.The metro
network along with its stations should be seen as an opportunity space, which is properly
developed can transform the image of a city into vibrant, dynamic, well connected and
comfortable space for commuters. Spring C. Hsu, (2010), formulated a model to represent the
transfer waiting time for connecting service at multi-modal stations, simulation results
suggest that multi-modal operations, transfer waiting time cannot be improved without
operational coordination with the feeder service. Multimodal Transportation is an attractive
alternative only if the access and egress distances are not too large (Krygsman &Djist 2001).
When the access or egress distances go beyond a certain threshold value the affinity to travel
in a public transport mode decays.
2. Multimodal Public Transport in Delhi
Delhi is located in northern India and also is the capital of India. Delhi is the fourth most
polluted city in the world and urban transportation is the most dominant factors of increment
in urban pollution (Das. & Parikh 2004). Delhi has always boasted of a good public transport
system in terms of connectivity. However, with the arrival of metro services in Delhi, the
scenario of public transportation changed forever. Naveen Eluruet al.(2012) did a study on
the travel mode choice and transit route choice and a negative propensity towards travel time
on bus was observed as compared to metro or rail modes. Delhi, earlier used to move in DTC
buses or personal modes on a big scale. After metro came into operation a large number of
people started moving through the metro, which eased the traffic to an extent and also eased
pressure on the bus system of Delhi. Even though Delhi Metro has been a boon to the public
transport scenario of Delhi, it is also true that the population of the city has increased many
folds thereby increasing the pressure on the transportation infrastructure yet again.
Rising incomes, flexible door to door service of personalized transportation modes, privacy
and use as a status symbol has led to increase inthe number of privately owned vehicles
causing a state of chaos and congestion on Delhi roads. Delhi has a high number of vehicle
owners and even then around 50% of its population do not possess a four wheeler or a
motorized two wheeler. This means that there is a huge scope of growth for vehicle
ownership in the city (Sahai& Bishop 2010, RITES Ltd and TERI 2010). This congestion

European Transport \ Trasporti Europei (2016) Issue 60, Paper n° 1, ISSN 1825-3997

4

also hampers the speedy operation of the bus services and causes a lot of time delay.Despite
implementation of MRTS, about 8.85 million vehicles are expected to roll on Delhi roads in
2020. The share of motorized travel demand met by personal mode of transport is expected to
increase in Delhi from 40% in 1997 to 48% in 2020 (Das. & Parikh 2004).The number of
trips commuted daily has increased. Also the share of public transport in Delhi has reduced
from 60% in 2001, to less than 45% in 2008 (Jain Suresh et al. 2014).Public transport in
Delhi carries only about 60% of total vehicularperson trips as against 80% of the expected
population size of the city (Kumar P.et al. 2013).Delhi is a city of historical grandeur and the
tourism footfall in the city is high. There has been limited research into the experiences of
visitors with the public transportation system of a city. The urban area tourism of any city
constitutes in the package of numerous goods and services, a vital experience in terms of
public transport facilities (Thompson & Schofield, 2007).
Delhi has a multimodal transportation system operational with a combination of personal
modes (cars, jeeps, SUVs, two wheelers, cycles, etc.) and various public transport modes
(minibuses, DTC buses, JnNURM buses, high capacity buses, ring railway, Delhi metro rail,
upcoming monorail & Intermediate paratransit modes or IPTs like auto rickshaws, battery
operated rickshaws, etc.).Connectivity is likely to aid as a performance measure in a large
scale urban multimodal transit network comprising metro, local DTC buses, JnNURM buses,
local light rail, regional light rail, ring railway bus rapid transit, and other Intermediate
Paratransit (IPT) based transit services, where such services are provided by multiple public
and private agencies with little coordination (Sabyasachee Mishra et al. 2015).The spatial
spread of the city is such that all these modes can be combined, if completely efficient in all
respects cater to the demands of the citizens. However, there are certain issues regarding
travel time delay, connectivity and accessibility in the operational framework and inadequate
amenities that are preventing it from becoming a seamless and self-sufficient urban public
transportation system.
Figure 2. Delhi map showing Metro lines (Yellow, Red, Blue, Green, Violet& Orange).

European Transport \ Trasporti Europei (2016) Issue 60, Paper n° 1, ISSN 1825-3997

5

The technique used for data collection should be thoroughly checked in order to see if the
data collection instrument is suitable for the purpose (Rastogi & Rao, 2002). The data was
collected in activity based format which has emerged as a better substitute to the conventional
trip-based models (Subbarao& Rao, 2014).The choice of customer perception was done as
customers have the right elements for aptly evaluating the used service as they are the direct
users (Eboli&Mazzulla 2014).Service quality is all about how a transit system is perceived by
its users (Marsden and Bonsall 2006, TRB 2010, Dhingi 2011, Litman 2008, 2011 & 2014).
Amongst the plethora of perspectives considered are 5 A's of Availability, Accessibility,
Aesthetics, Amenity and Affordability. The other factors are speed of travel, frequency,
reliability, integration between modes, information, physical design ease, comfort,
convenience, payment options, seamless travel scenario, baggage handling infrastructure,
security infrastructure etc.
Customer perception survey questionnaire was also filled during the data collection. It
contained several questions on the various aspects of a public transport station. According to
the TCQSM the two issues that cause concern to the customers are the service availability
and if the service is available then the comfort and convenience it offers. The factors that are
of importance in the customer's mind are Spatial Availability, Temporal availability.
Information availability and capacity availability (TCRP Report 88, 2003). In a previous
analysis on activity based data the activities were broadly segmented in 3 categories namely
work, employment, business or education based and the other two categories were split in
daily maintenance works and leisure based recreational activities (Subbarao& Rao, 2014).
3. Data Collection
The Population of Delhi, which was 16.8 million (2011) as per census of India, has been
expected to grow to 23 million by 2021. Also the intracity vehicular trips which were 12.7
million are expected to grow to 24.7 million in the sameperiod. If around 15% intercity trips
are taken in addition to the existing then we will get a total of 28.7 million trips per day by
the year 2021 (Kumar P.et al. 2013).
For this purpose a pilot survey was carried out first for 50 respondents and then the main
survey was done. The data for analysis was collected from 1450 commuters in a travel
response questionnaire which included questions on socio-demographic, temporal parameters
and commuter preference on the quality and service aspects of the multimodal transit system.
Further the responses were filtered and 1328 responses were finally recorded in spreadsheets
to be analyzed.

European Transport \ Trasporti Europei (2016) Issue 60, Paper n° 1, ISSN 1825-3997

6

Figure 3(a)Survey questionnaire format.
The data were collected for the yellow and red lines of Delhi metro as shown in Figure 2.
Metro was taken as the major mode of travel or the line haul mode in the multimodal trip in
this study. (RITES 2010) conducted a study which revealed that Delhi Metro has been
successfully able to attract the personal mode user and that the current number of metro users
have 45% passengers who own a personal vehicle. This is due to the fact that Delhi Metro has
provided better services to the users in the terms of safety, reliability and comfort. It also
indicates an attitude of acceptance from the passengers. This attitude if tapped properly may
aid in reaching the ideal patronage. The survey formats are as shown in Figure 3.

European Transport \ Trasporti Europei (2016) Issue 60, Paper n° 1, ISSN 1825-3997

7

Figure 3(b) & 3(c) Survey questionnaire format.

European Transport \ Trasporti Europei (2016) Issue 60, Paper n° 1, ISSN 1825-3997

8

Figure 3(d). Survey questionnaire format
4. Data Analysis Results
Socio demographic data were collected through direct interactions with the commuters. The
results are presented in figure 4. Which reveal that more males travel in the MMTS system
than the females. Majority of people travelling in the system were in the age group (20-40)
years. In the present study they have been classified as education based, work based and
recreation based which includes maintenance, shopping, social and leisure based activities.
Also, the trip purpose for most of the trips were either education or work. The consistency of
these travels towards metro patronage is considered more than those who are travelling for
recreational purposes. Also, 65% people travelling in public transport are possessing private
vehicles.

European Transport \ Trasporti Europei (2016) Issue 60, Paper n° 1, ISSN 1825-3997

9

Figure 4. Demographic characteristics of the commuters.
Responses collected were then analyzed and are shown in Table 1. Customer perception
values were divided on basis of the domain of facility or service and further response values
were developed for the same. These response values are on the scale of 1 to 10. And are
tabulated in Table 2. As we can see that the cleanliness of station premises, shelter
availability, lighting, information signs, and availability of food and beverage in the Delhi
Metro stations is up to the mark. However, the facilities that are related to the access and
egress facilities or the transfer related concourse facilities do not seem to have a very good
response as per the commuter’s perception.
According to a study by RITES (2010) around 75% of access and egress trips to the Metro
Stations are traversed through non-motorized modes (RITES Ltd and TERI 2010, Sahai&
Bishop 2010). Access, egress and transfers all contribute to the major part of time lags while
travelling in a multimodal system. This is where a private mode traveler saves time.

European Transport \ Trasporti Europei (2016) Issue 60, Paper n° 1, ISSN 1825-3997

10

Table 1. The customer perception responses of the Delhi Metro System (red & yellowline).
CONDITION YES (%) NO (%) 
Thisstation/stopareaisclean?98.271.73
Thereareenoughplacestosit?54.7145.29
Thereareplacestobuyfoodandbeveragenearby87.4312.57
Thereisenoughshelterfromsunandrain 97.562.44
Theinformationsignsherearehelpful96.753.25
Itseasytofindroutesandtravel96.143.86
Itisaconvenientandcomfortablewaytotravel96.253.75
Doyoufeelsafeintheday?97.872.13
Doyoufeelsafeinthenight?81.6618.34
Doyouknowwheretocontactincaseofanemergency?47.1152.89
Isthestationlightingadequate?98.781.22
ArethereenoughsecurityPersonnel?Always % Sometimes
%
Not at all
Present
%
 61.1938.190.006
Isthisaneasyplacetotransferforbusoranothermodeof
transportSomewhat % Easy % Not easy
at all %
 64.9417.7917.26
Doyoufindthatyourtimeiswastedintransfersand
waiting?YES % NO % 
 9.8490.15
IFYES,HOWMUCHTIME?(0-20)
RANGE % (20-40)
RANGE % 
 96.373.63
Doyouprefertotravelwiththissystem?YES % NO % 
 97.762.24
Thesystemisbetterthanroadtravel YES % NO % 
 98.071.93
HowgoodistheAccessandEgressfacilitiesatthestationNot Good % Satisfactory
% Good %
 13.6133.7352.64
AretheregoodrestroomsinthestationpremisesNot Available
%
Available
but not
good % Good %
 0.05941.8652.13
These time lags eventually are a reason for the private vehicle users to not shift their mode
choice from private mode to public mode. So, these are crucial segments of travel which
require to be studied in detail and opportunities of improvement in these aspects are an
essential prerequisite to upgrade the ridership of public transit system. Factors such as service
delivery, travel time, safety and security and maintenance are falling directly under the

European Transport \ Trasporti Europei (2016) Issue 60, Paper n° 1, ISSN 1825-3997

11

purview of the transit agency (TCRP Report 88, 2003). Similar observation can be made
from the response values of the customer perception analysis also.
Table 2. The customer perception response values of the Delhi Metro System (red & yellow
line).
INFRASRUCTUTREANDFACILITIESATTHESTATIONPREMISERESPONSE
VALUE
Thisstation/stopareaisclean?
7.8
Thereareenoughplacestosit?
Thereareplacestobuyfoodandbeveragenearby
Thereisenoughshelterfromsunandrain
aretheregoodrestroomsinthestationpremises
INFORMATIONADEQUACYRESPONSERESPONSE
VALUE
Theinformativesignsherearehelpful
8.4
Itiseasytofindroutesandtravel
Itisaconvenientandcomfortablewaytotravel
Doyouknowwheretocontactincaseofanemergency?
SECURITYANDSAFETYRESPONSERESPONSE
VALUE
Doyoufeelsafeintheday?
7.1
Doyoufeelsafeinthenight?
Doyouknowwheretocontactincaseofanemergency?
Isthestationlightingadequate?
ArethereenoughsecurityPersonnel?
ACCESS‐EGRESSANDEASEOFTRANSFERRESPONSERESPONSE
VALUE
Isthisaneasyplacetotransferforbusoranothermodeoftransport
4.02
Doyoufindthatyourtimeiswastedintransfersandwaiting?
Doyouprefertotravelwiththissystem?
HowgoodistheAccessandEgressfacilitiesatthestation
Ifgivenanoption,wouldyoutravelwithanyothermode?
RESPONSETOENTIREMETROSYSTEMRESPONSE
VALUE
Thesystemisbetterthanroadtravel
4.9
DoyougetseatinginMetro?
HowfastdoyoufindMetro?
IsMetroCheaporCostly?
Ifgivenanoption,wouldyoutravelwithanyothermode?
HowdoyoufindMetroService?
Table 1. &2.Show the customer perception, values for the entire system, i.e. red and yellow
lines of Delhi Metro considered together. However, for a better understanding of which
station lacks in which specific domain it is required to have the customer perception values
for individual stations. The station specific details are presented in Table 3. Here, the positive
response was taken as 1 and negative response as 0. As we can see in the customer perception

European Transport \ Trasporti Europei (2016) Issue 60, Paper n° 1, ISSN 1825-3997

12

response values for the individual stations there are several stations which are performing
better like GTB Nagar, Vishwavidyalaya, Chawri Bazaar, Rajiv Chowk, Patel Chowk, Race
Course, etc. in yellow line and Kohat Enclave, NSP, Seelampur, etc. in red line.
A Special Multimodal Transport security regulatory authority has been suggested for the
Delhi multimodal system (Pawan Kumar et al. 2011). Since the concourse area design,
information signage, security installments and personnel for almost all station areas in
DMRC are similarly operated, the difference in the response values for the better and worse
stations is attributed to the ease of travel and ease of transfer facilities in these individual
stations.
Table 3. Station specific customer perception response values.
Individual Stations Customer
PerceptionResponse
Values Individual Stations Customer
PerceptionResponse
Values
JAHANGIRPURI 0.735 RITHALA 0.806
ADARSH NAGAR 0.777 ROHINI WEST 0.800
AZADPUR 0.717 ROHINI EAST 0.715
MODEL TOWN 0.700 PITAMPURA 0.812
GTB NAGAR 0.813 KOHAT ENCLAVE 0.850
VISHWAVIDYALAYA 0.835 NETAJI SUBHASH PLACE 0.838
VIDHAN SABHA 0.760 KESHAV PURAM 0.792
CIVIL LINES 0.835 KANHAIYA NAGAR 0.791
KASHMERE GATE 0.757 INDERLOK 0.778
CHANDNI CHOWK 0.774 SHASTRI NAGAR 0.793
CHAWRI BAZAAR 0.893 PRATAP NAGAR 0.644
NDLS 0.805 PULBANGASH 0.785
RAJIV CHOWK 0.830 TIS HAZARI 0.813
PATEL CHOWK 0.844 KASHMERE GATE 0.757
CENTRAL SECRETARIAT 0.819 SHASTRI PARK 0.762
UDYOG BHAWAN 0.800 SEELAMPUR 0.800
RACE COURSE 0.894 WELCOME 0.793
JOR BAGH 0.817 SHAHADRA 0.756
INA 0.796 MANSAROVAR PARK 0.600
AIIMS 0.866 JHILMIL 0.735
GREEN PARK 0.800 DILSHAD GARDEN 0.684
HAUZ KHAS 0.819
MALVIYA NAGAR 0.835
SAKET 0.821
QUTAB MINAR 0.847
CHATTARPUR 0.811
SULTANPUR 0.808
GHITORINI 0.779
ARJANGARH 0.820
GURU DRONACHARYA 0.827
SIKANDARPUR 0.825
MG ROAD 0.828
IFFCO CHOWK 0.820
HUDA CITY CENTRE 0.813

European Transport \ Trasporti Europei (2016) Issue 60, Paper n° 1, ISSN 1825-3997

13

The percentage of transfers based trips from the total trips is an important observation when
transport integration is considered (Katarzyna& Zak, 2014).
The Interconnectivity ratio is the ratio of Access and egress time taken together to the total
trip travel time. For most multimodal trips the IR range is from 0.2 to 0.5. The value
receivedfor IR in this analysis is 0.3. Service Time Ratio is the ratio of the penalty time (wait
time + transfer time) to the Total Travel Time (TTT). For Most Trips It Is Between (0 - 0.5).
The value obtained for STR in this analysis is 0.234.
Interconnectivity Convenience is the percentage of IVTT that is spent in the Access and
Egress together. It is expressed in %. A value of more than 0.4 shall be undesirable as that
would mean that a person has spent more than 40% of his IVTT time in access and egress.
Value received in the current study is 0.665 which is very much higher than 0.4. This
indicates a dire need to reconsider the access and egress legs of the multimodal trip.
Time delays in the access and egress part is a deterrent to modal shift in favor of public
transport.In a study done in 1980's in USA, they used multinomial logit model to predict
transit ridership in 3 predefined scenarios and they considered the quality of transit being
represented by an additive function of IVTT, OVTT and the travel fare or cost (Frank S.
Koppelman 1983).
Ic= ሺ஺஼஼ாௌௌାாீோாௌௌሻ
ூ௏்் *100
TCQSM has defined six measures of LOS having two broad categories of service availability
which includes service frequency, service coverage and service span and a second category of
service quality which includes service reliability, passenger loading and transit-auto travel
time difference. In this study LOS has been taken out in the temporal context (Fu & Xin,
2007). A service quality index was also developed in which MNL was further used to
estimate the weights of the important attributes (Hensher et al. 2003). In the recommendation
for further work on transit LOS a previous study done in Switzerland suggested a comparison
of transit LOS with automobile LOS (Hermann Orth et al. 2011). This paper studies the
travel time component in both the modes to evaluate LOS of a multimodal system.Level of
service is the ratio of out-vehicle travel time to the in-vehicle travel time. It estimates the
weight of OVTT compared to IVTT. The larger the ratio less attractive is the public transport.
In the present analysis the ratio obtained is 0.680.
Passenger Waiting Index is the ratio of mean passenger waiting time to the frequency of the
transport service. Practically 0 is not possible. PWI value can be fixed between 0 and 1.The
value received from our analysis is 1.867 which is way higher that the upper range 1. The gap
here is due to the waiting time for the access mode as well as the egress mode.

European Transport \ Trasporti Europei (2016) Issue 60, Paper n° 1, ISSN 1825-3997

14

Table 4. Mean values for the performance indicators of the Delhi Metro corridors.
INTERCONNECT-
IVITY RATIO (IR)
SERVICE
TIME RATIO
(STR)
INTERCO-
NNECTIVITY
CONVENIENCE
(IC)
LEVEL OF
SERVICE
(LOS)
PASSENGER
WAITING
INDEX (PWI)
JAHANGIRPURI TO
KASHMERE GATE 0.301 0.221 0.663 0.713 2.011
CHANDNI CHOWK TO
CENTRAL SECRETARIAT 0.321 0.243 0.722 0.699 1.829
UDYOG BHAWAN TO SAKET 0.297 0.22 0.628 0.644 2.062
QUTUB MINAR TO HUDA
CITY CENTRE 0.269 0.190 0.514 0.545 2.178
RITHALA TO KANHAIYA
NAGAR 0.273 0.238 0.570 0.587 1.712
INDERLOK TO KASHMERE
GATE 0.318 0.269 0.781 0.795 1.601
SHASTRI PARK TO DILSHAD
GARDEN 0.323 0.259 0.776 0.775 1.675
Mean values 0.3000.2340.6650.6801.867
Figure 5. Percentage split of the Interconnectivity Convenience IC and the Service Time
Ratio STR for the red and yellow line stations of Delhi Metro.

European Transport \ Trasporti Europei (2016) Issue 60, Paper n° 1, ISSN 1825-3997

15

The results indicate towards a weak coordination in the non line haul parts of the
multimodal journey. Thepercentage split of the interconnectivity convenience value as seen
in figure 5. Shows that apart from 22% people the rest 78% people are spending more than
40% of their IVTT times in the access, egress, wait and transfers. That is, the actual time for a
public transport mode to connect them to origin to destination is taking lesser time as
compared to the fringe timings wasted in OVTT due to improper coordination between the
four legs of multimodal transportation viz. Access leg, Egress leg, Line-haul leg and the
transfer leg. Also, the service time distribution shows that upto 30% time of majority of
commuters is lost in penalty time (wait time and transfer time) when compared to the total
trip time. The transit agencies in their design stages may opt for providing 'planned' transfers
in order to attract commuters who are regular in using the interchange terminals as the
provision of planned or unplanned transfers may allow the transit agencies to pre-plan for
increasing the ease of travel, reduction in travel times and making the image of the transit
provider as more reliable (Subeh Chowdhury et al. 2013). The minimum distance of travel
for coming forward to use rapid transit mode such as metro in most cases is a distance above
10Kms (Vuchic 2005: 32). So a planned transfer here may help to reduce the total time spent
on a travel distance greater than 10 Kms. Since transit modes which have smaller walking
times are the preferable choice (Naveen Eluruet al. 2012), it implies that the proximal
catchment area of the transit mode should be shorter enough to be easily walkable.
5. Conclusions and Recommendations
The existing conditions of the Delhi Metro stations are studied for the role played by the
yellow and the red line in the multimodal fabric of the trip of commuters. The Delhi Metro
has done a commendable task in being able to bring forward a large number of commuters to
shift their mode of preference in the favor of MRTS system. However, a lot of improvements
can still be done to enhance the performance of the system which would eventually reward
DMRC in the form of increment in the ridership. The major insights drawn from the study
are:
1. The Delhi Metro stations are clean, well informed, provide good security within the station
premises, are well designed to prevent from climate and are well equipped in terms of
comfort and station environment for the commuters. This has positively impacted the image
of DMRC and has also brought forward people to travel in DMRC.
2. DMRC is the line haul mode for most multimodal trips in Delhi. The temporal analysis
done on various performance indicators reveal that as far as the metro rail frequency, speed
and IVTT times are considered the DMRC is operating in a satisfactory manner. But, the
problem lies out of the metro rail and unless and until this is given its due attention, it is
unlikely that the commuters will further come forward to use the metro system. The
interconnectivity convenience values are more than 0.4 % for most trips. The Access and
egress facilities are poorly designed with most stations having no organized or formal parking
areas for IPT modes or feeder bus facility. This causes the commuter to wait for the access
and egress modes for a long time, a major adherence to embrace the MMTS system.

European Transport \ Trasporti Europei (2016) Issue 60, Paper n° 1, ISSN 1825-3997

16

3. The transfer area concourses and turnpikes can also be redesigned to save the time of the
passenger in the peak hours as the Service time ratio shows that a lot of time is wasted in
waiting and transfer areas. Various measures can be adopted like a common mobility card,
multiple turnpikes for specific hours, design alterations to reduce concourse area for potential
transfers in order to reduce time lag in this leg of public transport travel.
References
1. Aljoufie, M., Zuidgeest, M., Brussel, MarseveenM.van. (2011) “Urban growth and
transport: understanding the spatial temporal relationship”. Urban Transport XVII
Urban Transport and the environment in the 21st Century, WIT press(116) pp 315-
328.
2. Census of India Website (2011). Population of Delhi in 2011.
3. Chhavi, Dhingi. (2011) “Measuring Public Transport Performance - Lessons for
developing cities”. Sustainable transport sourcebook, Sustainable Urban transport
Project Asia and GIZ.
4. Das,Anjana.,Parikh,Jyoti. (2004).”Transport scenarios in two metropolitan cities in
India: Delhi and Mumbai”.Energy Conversion and Management. 45 pp. 2603-2625.
5. David, A,Hensher., Peter,Stropher., Phillip, Bullock. (2003)“Service Quality:
Developing a service quality index in the provision of commercial bus contracts”.
Transportation Research Part A. 37 pp. 499-517.
6. Diana, M. (2009)“A methodology for comparing distances traveled by performance-
equivalent fixed-route and demand responsive transit services”. Transportation
Planning & Technology. 32(4) pp. 377-399.
7. Diana, M. (2012)“Measuring the satisfaction of multimodal travelers for local transit
services in different urban contexts”.Transportation Research Part A, Elsevier Ltd, 46
(1) pp. 1–11.
8. Frank, S, Koppelman. (1983) “Predicting Transit Ridership in Response to Transit
Service Changes".Journal of Transportation Engineering.109(4) pp. 548-564.
9. Greg,Marsden., Peter,Bonsall. (2006)“Performance Targets in Transport
Policy”.Transport Policy.13(3) pp. 191-203.
10. Hermann, Orth., Robert, Dorbritz., Ulrich, Weidmann. (2011)“Public Transport
Capacity and Quality Development of an LOS-Based Evaluation Scheme”. 11th Swiss
Transport Research Conference (STRC). Monte Verita, Ascona, May11-13, 2011.
11. Jain,Suresh., Agarwal,Preeti., Kumar,Prashan., Singhal,Shaleen., Sharma,Prateek.
(2014) “Identifying public preferences using multi-criteria decision making for
assessing the shift of urban commuters from private to public transport: A case study
of Delhi”.Transportation Research Part F. 24, pp. 60-70.
12. Karen,Thompson., Peter, Schofield. (2007) “An investigation of the relationship
between transport performance and destination satisfaction”. Journal of Transport
Geography. 15 pp.136-144.
13. Katarzyna,Solecka.,Jacek, Zak. (2014) “Integration of the urban public transportation
system with the application of traffic simulation”. Elsevier Transportation research
Proceedia. 3 pp. 259-268.
14. Krygsman, S., Dijst, M., Arentze, T. (2004) “Multimodal Public Transport: An
Analysis of Travel Time Elements and the Interconnectivity Ratio”.Transport Policy,
11 pp. 265-275.

European Transport \ Trasporti Europei (2016) Issue 60, Paper n° 1, ISSN 1825-3997

17

15. Krygsman, S., Djist, Martin. (2001)“Multimodal Trips in Netherlands - Microlevel
individual attributes and residential context”. Transportation Research Record,
Number 1753 pp.11-19.
16. Kumar, P,Phani., Parida, M.,Swami, Mansha. (2013) “Performance Evaluation of
Multimodal Transportation Systems”.Second conference of Transportation Research
Group of India (CTRG), Procedia Elsevier, 104 pp. 795-804.
17. Laura,Eboli.,Gabriella,Mazzulla. (2014)“Relationships between rail passengers’
satisfaction and service quality: a framework for identifying key service factors”.
Public Transport, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. pp. 1-17.
18. Liping,Fu.,Yaping, Xin. (2007) “A new performance index for evaluating Transit
Quality of Service”. Journal of Public Transportation.10(3) pp. 47-69.
19. Martin,Turcotte.(2006)“Like Commuting? Workers’ Perceptions of Their Daily
Commute”. Statistics Canada.
20. Naveen,Eluru., Vincent,Chakour., Ahmed, M, El,Geneidy. (2012) “Travel mode
choice and transit route choice behavior in Montreal: insights from McGill University
members commute patterns”. Public Transport, Springer Verlag. 4 pp. 129-149.
21. Pawan,Kumar., S, Y, Kulkarni., M, Parida. (2011) “Security Perceptions of Delhi
commuters at Metro-Bus interchange in Multi modal perspective”.Journal of
Transport Security 4 pp. 295-307.
22. Rajat,Rastogi.,K,V, Krishna, Rao. (2002) “Survey design for studying transit access
behavior in Mumbai City, India”. Journal of Transportation Engineering ASCE, 128,
(1) pp. 68-79.
23. RITES (2010) “Transport demand forecast study in development of an integrated road
cum multi-modal transport network for NCT of Delhi”. Traffic Survey Results.Report
Volume III: Main Report. Final report.
24. RITES Ltd (2005) “Integrated Multi-Modal Public Transport Network for the
National Capital Territory of Delhi”. Report.
25. RITES Ltd and TERI (2010) Traffic and Transport Demand Study for the National
Capital Territory of Delhi. Report.
26. Sabyasachee, Mishra., Timothy, F, Welch. (2015) “A tool for measuring and
visualizing connectivity of transit stop, route and transfer center in a multimodal
transportation network”. Public Transport, SpringerVerlag Berlin Heidelberg.7 pp.
77-99.
27. Sanjiv, N,Sahai.,Simon, Bishop. (2010)“Multimodal Transport in a low carbon
Future”. India Infrastructure Report 2010. Chapter 19 pp. 310-330.
28. Seco, A,J,M., Goncalves, J,H,G. (2007) “The quality of public transport: relative
importance of different performance indicators and their potential to explain modal
choice”. Urban Transport XIII, Urban Transport and the environment in the 21st
Century, WIT press, 96 pp. 313-325.
29. Spring, C. (2010) “Determinants of passenger transfer waiting time at multi-modal
connecting stations”. Transportation Research Part E,46 pp. 404-413.
30. S,S,V,Subbarao., K,V,K, Rao. (2014) “Characteristics of household activity and travel
patterns in the Mumbai metropolitan Region”. Transportation Planning and
Technology. 37(5) pp. 484-504. 
31. Subeh, Chowdhury., Avishai, Ceder., and Ripul, Sachdeva. (2013). "The effects of
planned and unplanned transfers on public transport users' perception of transfer
routes". Transportation Planning and Technology. 37(2) pp. 154-168. 
32. TCQSM (1999) “Transit Capacity and Quality ServiceManual”. First Edition, TCRP
Web Document 6, Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C. 


European Transport \ Trasporti Europei (2016) Issue 60, Paper n° 1, ISSN 1825-3997

18

33. TCRP Report 88 (2003) “A Guidebook for Developing a Transit Performance
Measurement System”. Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C. 
34. Todd,Litman. (2008) “Valuing Transit Service Quality Improvements”. Journal of
Public Transportation. 11(2) pp.43-64.
35. Todd,Litman. (2011) “Evaluating Transportation Economic Development Impacts”.
36. Todd, Litman. (2014) Evaluating Public Transit benefits and costs: Best practices
guidebook. pp. 1-138.
37. Todd,Litman.(2015)“Valuing Transit Service Quality Improvements: Considering
comfort and convenience in transport project evaluation”. pp. 1-43.
38. TRB (2010), Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board.
39. VukanVuchic (2005), “Urban Transit: Operations, Planning and Economics”. John
Wiley & Sons.