Tumkur City Bus Service

TUMKUR CITY BUS SERVICE
Evaluation Report
February, 2013
Directorate of Urban Land Transport
Contents
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
1.2 Tumkur City at a Glance
1.3 Demographics of Tumkur City
1.4 Financing of City Bus Services in Tumkur
1.5 Tumkur City Transport Service
2 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

2.1 Performance Review Methodology
7
7
2.1.1 Evaluation based on Service Level Benchmarks (As specified by the MoUD)
2.1.2 Evaluation based on various perspectives
3 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
3.1 Performance Evaluation of Public Transportation System for a Medium sized city
3.1.1 City Perspective
3.1.1.1 Level of Service-City perspective
3.1.2 User perspective
3.1.2.1 Level of Service chart- User perspective
3.1.3 Operators perspective
3.1.3.1 Level of service chart- Operators perspective
4 BUS OPERATION IMPACTS
9
9
10
13
15
19
21
27
31
4.1 Passenger Convenience
31
4.2 Impact on the user
31
5 CONCLUSION
32
List of Table
Table 1-1: Demographic Details ............................................................................................................... 3
Table 1-2: Details of Bus Route ................................................................................................................ 4
Table 1-3: Route Details ........................................................................................................................... 6
Table 3-2: Level of service- City perspective.......................................................................................... 14
Table 3-2: Level of service- Commuters perspective ............................................................................. 20
Table 3-3: Performance Indicators ........................................................................................................ 24
Table 3-4: Operators perspective .......................................................................................................... 28
List of Figure
Figure 1-1: Tumkur Map .......................................................................................................................... 2
Figure 1-3: Tumkur Route Map ................................................................................................................ 5
Figure 1-2: Passengers carried ................................................................................................................. 5
Figure 3-1: Mode share before and after the introduction of City service............................................ 12
Figure 3-2: Mode Wise Travel Time ....................................................................................................... 13
Figure 3-3: Photographs of passenger opinion survey .......................................................................... 16
Figure 3-4: Photographs of secondary data collection .......................................................................... 22
Figure 3-5: Daily Bus Utilization ............................................................................................................. 23
Figure 3-6: Load Factor .......................................................................................................................... 24
Figure 3-7: Comparison of Various parameters ..................................................................................... 30
Tumkur City Bus Service Evaluation Report
2013
1 Introduction
1.1
Background
Effective operation of urban bus system is vital for the development of any city. There is a
widespread reliance on public transport for providing mobility within urban areas
throughout the world. However, in most Indian cities, there is an ever increasing preference
towards use of personal vehicles for commuting due to the absence of a robust public
transport service which in turn is leading to the problems of road congestion, pollution, lack
of safety leading to increasing number of road fatalities. Thus, there is an immediate need to
improve the performance of bus system to retain the existing passengers and to discourage
the use of private vehicles.
Buses can operate over existing roadway facilities at a much lower cost per passenger.
Furthermore, buses provide the greatest flexibility in service routes to meet the current
transport demand. Thus, improved performance of urban bus service could essentially
contribute to improved environmental conditions in medium sized cities by shifting mobility
from private modes towards more efficient environmental-friendly and safer travel modes.
Performance of a bus system is affected by several criteria such as the fleet strength, the
quality
and frequency of service last mile connectivity and change of land uses etc.
Therefore, various issues contributing to inefficient operation of bus services need to be

identified and appropriate techniques/measures should be formulated to resolve these
issues.
The Government of Karnataka created the Directorate of Urban Land Transport
(DULT) under the Urban Development Department to integrate and coordinate all land
transport matter in the State. Directorate of Urban Land Transport (DULT), Government of
Karnataka, took up the initiative of supporting the introduction of city bus services in Tier II
cities. Performance evaluation was conducted for the newly introduced City Bus Services
partly funded from State Urban Transport Fund through DULT for Tumkur City.
In the above context, this study identifies some of the important issues related to the
performance of newly introduced bus system in Tumkur city and also suggests some
1|Page
2013
solutions for improvement in the performance of the City bus system. Rapidly rising
operating cost in the City bus services have placed increasing emphasis on improved
management and better utilization of existing facilities. It is required to evaluate how well
the existing city bus system is providing services to the public. Therefore, new techniques to
assist the evaluation of performance of City bus services are needed. Thus, this study also
presents some indicators which can be used to evaluate efficiency and effectiveness of urban
bus service. It is expected that this study will be useful to improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of bus system in urban areas.
1.2
Tumkur City at a Glance
Tumkur is one of the busiest industrial cities located in the

State of Karnataka. The city has a cluster of small-scale
industries, which include a tool factory, soap works, and rice
and oil mills. The chief industries are the one making coarse
cotton cloth, woollen blankets, ropes, watches (Hindustan
Machine Tools) along with WIPRO, TVSE.
Tumkur is situated at a distance of 70 km North West of the
city of Bangalore. This is a city surrounded by mountains and
hills. Tumkur is known as the gateway of Karnataka as it
provides passage to at least fifteen districts to access the State
capital-Bangalore. This city is also famous for its shrines like
Figure 1-1: Tumkur Map
Kaidala Temple, Devarayana Durga, Namada Chilume, Shiva Gange, Goravanahalli

MahaLakshmi Temple etc. Additionally the availability of water resources due to the supply
from river Hemavathy by the canals to the nearby tanks has resulted in an assured source of
drinking water to the city. Tumkur is undoubtedly emerging as a key place for the new
economy. Figure 1.1 shows the location of Tumkur city in Karnataka.
1.3
Demographics of Tumkur City
According to 2011 census, population of Tumkur City is 3.05 lakhs indicating a growth rate of
23.02% in the last decade. The Demographic details are as shown inTable 1.1.
2|Page
2013
Table 1-1: Demographic Details

Tumkur District
Sl. No.
Year
Tumkur City
Population
Growth (%)
Population
Growth
(%)
1981
19,77,854
21.36
1,08,670
54
1991
23,01,138
16.58
1,79,497
65
2001
25,84,711
12.10
2,48,592
38.4
2011
26,81,449
3.74
3,05,821
23.02
(Source: Census of India)

1.4
Financing of City Bus Services in Tumkur
Tumkur has tremendous potential to be the satellite city for Bangalore owing to its proximity
and connectivity to major National Highways and the Railway network. However, the city
faces certain key challenges with urban mobility especially due to the lack of an effective
public transport which is hindering the smooth urban function. As a consequence, the
residents rely on personalized modes and Para-transits. With an unregulated Para-transit the
commuter ends up paying a high price for commute.
As per the recent statistics, the vehicular population in the city stood at 97,751 of which
75,744 came from motorcycles alone. In this regard, a proposal for the induction of 25 buses
was proposed by Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) in September 2010
and sent to Government of Karnataka (GoK) seeking financial assistance. Considering the
need and demand of the city for a dedicated city service to cater the need of the sprawling
urban population in Tumkur, it was proposed to fund 50% of the sought amount for the
rolling stock. The remaining 50% of the amount was borne by KSRTC. The funding was done
for the augmentation of the rolling stock through Directorate of Urban Land Transport
(DULT), UDD, Gok, as per the Scheme of utilisation of State Urban Transport Fund.
1.5
Tumkur City Transport Service
On 18th February 2011, the honourable Minister for Home and Transport, Sri R. Ashoka
officially launched the services of the first phase of Tumkur City Transport Service. Services
on one of the selected routes was started first and gradually increased to cover six routes by
June 2011.Currently there are 49 buses running along 14 routes.
3|Page
2013
The bus routes were selected by KSRTC considering the spatial configuration of city along the
key transportation networks and the key nodes of commuter transit. The origin and
destination of the bus routes operating inside the city are as shown in Table 1.2.
Table 1-2: Details of Bus Route
Route No.
Route no : 201
Route no : 202
Route no : 203
Route no : 201D/1
Route no : 204
Route no : 201B/1
Route no : 205
Route no : 203D/1
Route no : 205D/1
Route no : 206
Route no : 207
Route no : 208
Route no : 205/3
Route no : 205/4
Route no : 209
Routes
Kyathsandra - Tumkur - Heggere
Shettihalli - Tumkur - Yellapura
Oorukere - Tumkur - MaralurDinne
Tumkur - DC Office - Siddaganga Mutt
Gangasandra - Tumkur - Belagumba
Tumkur - SIT Back gate - Devarayapatna
Tumkur - SIT Back gate - Kyathsandra
Tumkur - Upparahalli - Goolarive
Oorukere - Tumkur - Ramakrishna Aashrama - MaralurDinne
Tumkur - Upparahalli - Jayanagara
Tumkur - Gulur - Ethenahalli
Tumkur - Baddihalli/Honnenahalli
Tumkur - Bellavi
Goolarive - Tumkur - Dibbur
Goolarive - Tumkur - Swandenahally
Tumkur - Kesaramadu
Length (km)
13.30
10.70
11.50
08.20
12.00
06.70
07.00
05.50
11.90
05.50
09.40
5.5/6.7
14.80
09.00
14.50
10.00
Currently, number of buses used for operation is 49. On the basis of preliminary surveys, it
was observed that on an average 1200 passengers/day/bus are using the City bus services
daily in Tumkur, leading to a significant modal shift of 17%.
Details of total number of commuters over a year are depicted in Figure 1.2.The maximum
number of bus trips per day is made along Route no. 202 (Shettihalli - Tumkur Yellapura)
with a maximum number of daily passengers as shown in Table 1.3.The minimum fare
charged is Rs. 4 and maximum fare in a route is Rs. 10 as per the stages.
4|Page
2013
Figure 1-2: Passengers carried

The details like kilometers operated, number of stages and fare of the 14 operating routes in
Tumkur had been collected from the divisional office. The figure below shows the route
network for the bus services in the city.
KSRTC
Bus Stand
Figure 1-3: Tumkur Route Map
5|Page
2013
Table 1-3: Route Details

Route Nos
Route From - To
Peak Hour
Frequency
Total No. of
Passengers /Day
Bus Trips/Day
Route no : 201
Kyathsandra - Tumkur - Heggere
5 Min
13687
190
Route no : 202
Shettihalli - Tumkur - Yellapura
5 Min
14304
216
Route no : 203
Oorukere - Tumkur - MaralurDinne
10 Min
6304
98
Route no : 201D/1
Tumkur - DC Office - Siddaganga Mutt
55 Min
2786
78
Route no : 204
Gangasandra - Tumkur - Belagumba
55 Min
5036
84
Route no : 201B/1
Tumkur - SIT Back gate - Devarayapatna
50 Min
1245
26
Tumkur - SIT Back gate - Kyathsandra
50 Mins
Route no : 205
Tumkur - Upparahalli - Goolarive
8 Min
2433
62
Route no : 203D/1
Oorukere - Tumkur - Ramakrishna Aashrama - MaralurDinne
50 Min
999
19
Route no : 205D/1
Tumkur - Upparahalli - Jayanagara
50 Min
1204
Route no : 206
Tumkur - Gulur - Ethenahalli
25 Min
3502
70
Route no : 207
Tumkur - Baddihalli/Honnenahalli
781
10
Route no : 208
Tumkur - Bellavi
30 Min
3793
66
Route no : 205/3
Goolarive - Tumkur - Dibbur
25 Min
831
22
Route no : 205/4
Goolarive - Tumkur - Swandenahally
50 Min
720
14
Route no : 209
Tumkur - Kesaramadu
45 Min
1988
31
(Source:- Tumkur KSRTC divisional office)
2013
2 Performance Evaluation Methodology

2.1
Performance Review Methodology
The evaluation assessment was initially done through a standard set of performance
benchmarks named as Service level benchmarks (SLBs) framed by Ministry of Urban
Development (MoUD), Government of India, which in turn facilitates the development of
Performance improvement plans using information generated by the benchmarking and
ensures a long term sustainability of the Public transport. However, it is seen that the
parameters defined are on a generalized basis and quantifying them on a common scale is
not appropriate. Hence a methodology was proposed to classify the parameters under
separate categories and defining them separately to a Level of Service scale so as to identify
the issues related to each separately. The main benefits of an evaluation framework include:
1. Potential to improve the quality of investment and policy decisions.
2. Help the value for money arguments for PT projects.
3. Identify affected groups and impacts.
4. Introduction of new routes and induction of new buses in phased manner.
In addition to this, a Performance Evaluation methodology for the tier II cities Bus Service
has been developed with respect to the city, the operators perspective and finally the end
users perspective towards the service.
2.1.1 Evaluation based on Service Level Benchmarks (As specified by the MoUD)
The growing challenges of the urban sector in India requires a sytem which can measure the
performance of urban transport activities and also address the performance monitoring for
internal decision making. With this perspective, Ministry of Urban Development (MoUD)
framed a standard set of performance benchmarks which can help Urban Local Bodies
(ULBs) and other agencies in identifying performance gaps and suggesting improvements
through the sharing of information and best practices, ultimately resulting in better services
to the people. Accordingly all JNNURM mission cities are advised to undertake the process
of service level benchmarking.
7
2013
Service level performance indicators have been identified for various areas like Quality and
financial sustainability of public transport, Pedestrian / NMT safety and infrastructure
facilities, ITS facilities in a city to name a few, by the Ministry of Urban Development
(MoUD).
The service level benchmarks for the Public transport consists of two categories:
1. Public transport facilities.
2. Sustainability of Public transport.
1. Public transport facilities
i.
Presence of organized public transport system in urban area (%).
ii.
Extent of supply availability of public transport.
iii.
Service coverage of public transport in the city.
iv.
Level of comfort in public transport.
v.
% of fleet as per urban bus specification.
vi.
Average waiting time for public transport users (mins).
2. Financial Sustainability of public transport
i.
Extent of Non-fare Revenue (%).
ii.
Staff /bus ratio.
iii.
Operating Ratio.
2.1.2 Evaluation based on various perspectives

A methodology was proposed to classify the parameters under separate categories and defining
them separately to a Level of Service scale so as to identify the issues related to each separately.
With this perspective, a performance evaluation for the Bus service had been conducted by
Directorate of Urban Land Transport (DULT) to improve the performance standards of the
service. The evaluation criterion was divided into three perspectives i.e., the User, Commuter
and the City. The proposed methodology identifies the key parameters under defined
perspectives and evaluates the contribution of each to the overall performance of the service,
such that it can act as a handy tool by all public transport operators to improve the service.
8|Page
2013
3 Performance Evaluation
3.1
Performance Evaluation of Public Transportation System for a Medium sized city
There are different performance measurement methods and approaches for evaluating the
performance of a transit system. For a Tier II city like Tumkur the following
method/approach was adopted:
Tumkur Bus Evaluation
City Perspective
User Perspective
Operator Perspective
The performance evaluation is broadly classified into three perspectives:

1.
City Perspective Measurement obtaining the modal shift and transit coverage area.
2.
User Perspective Measurement evaluates the travel characteristics of the users.
3.
Operators Perspective Measurement evaluates the characteristics of the bus

operations in the city.
Data Source
Performance evaluation for the City bus service in Tumkur has been done based on the
Primary data collection through opinion survey and secondary data collected from the
KSRTC divisional office in Tumkur.
1. Primary survey-An opinion survey of bus passengers were collected using a

questionnaire having details like mode of travel, daily trip summary, travel expenses,
travel comfort, reasons for shifting to PT, behavior of bus crew, Bus arrival & departure
time at bus stops, etc.
9|Page
2013
2. Secondary data collection- A detailed secondary data collection of operational

characteristic of city buses from KSRTC divisional office in Tumkur in a prescribed
format prepared by DULT.
3.1.1 City Perspective
Service level performance indicators have been identified for various areas like Quality and
financial sustainability of public transport, Pedestrian / NMT safety and infrastructure
facilities, ITS facilities in a city to name a few, by the Ministry of Urban Development
(MoUD).
The Service level benchmarks (as per MoUD) for public transport system indicate the city
wide LOS provided by public transport system during peak hours. This would require
indicators such as presence of organized public transport system; bus route coverage,
service frequency, and percentage fleet as per urban bus specifications as far as the city
perspective is concerned. Therefore the parameters in context to the City perspective were
captured from the MoUD guidelines to assess the service initially.
1. Presence of organized public transport system in urban area (%)
Currently 49 buses are operated by Karnataka State Road
LOS 1
Transport Corporation in Tumkur.

A = Total Number of Buses in the City 49 buses.
B = Total Number of Buses under the ownership of STU/SPV 49 buses
Presence of Public Transport System in Urban Area (%)
= (B/A)*100
Presence of
Organized PT
>= 60
40 - 60
20 - 40
< 20
=100%, Therefore LOS 1 = 1
10 | P a g e

2. Extent of supply availability of public transport
LOS 2
2013
Extent of supply
The Population of Tumkur city is 3,05,821 Lakh.
availability of
A = Total Number of Buses in the City 49 buses
public transport
B = Total Population of the city (2011 Census) - 3,05,821 Lakhs.

Availability of Public Transport / 1000 Population
= A/ (B/1000) = 0.16,
Therefore, LOS 2 = 4.
>= 0.6
0.4 0.6
0.2 0.4
< 0.2
3. Service coverage of public transport in the city

LOS 3
Service
A = Total Route length of the corridors on which the PT
coverage of
systems ply in the city = 150 (in Road Kilometers).
public transport
B = Area of the Urban Limits of the City = 51.85 (in Square
>= 1
Kilometers)
0.7 - 1.0
Service Coverage = (A/B)
0.3 0.7
= 2.8, Therefore ,LOS 3 = 1.
< 0.3
4. % of fleet as per Urban bus specification
LOS 4
% of fleet as
per urban bus
specification
75 - 100
50 - 74
25 - 49
<=25
A = Total Number of Buses in the City 49 buses

B = Total number of buses as per the Urban Bus specifications in
the city 49 buses
% of fleet = (B/A)*100 = (49/49)*100 = 100%,
% of fleet as per urban bus specification is 100%,
Therefore, LOS 4 = 1
11 | P a g e
2013
The computation clearly demands an increase in the fleet strength thereby creating an
opportunity to capture more commuters into the system by expanding the services even
further. The city is still evolving in the public transport system and hence the coverage of the
routes that is the spatial distribution of the service coverage need to be explored in the near
future. As per the Urban Bus Toolkit the number of buses required typically lie between 0.5 and
1.2 /1,000 population.
In addition to this, a Performance Evaluation methodology was developed including few

more important parameters concerning the City, Operator and the commuters for the tier II
cities Bus Service
The city perspective includes the service coverage of the Public transport and the percentage of shift
to the City bus service. As far as the travel characteristic of the city is concerned two wheelers are
the main mode of transport which constitute 60% of the total mode share and the public
transport (KSRTC and Auto Rickshaw) share is 17%, out of which the KSRTC share is 78.61%
and that of auto-rickshaw is 39.06%.The mode share of travel in Tumkur City before and
after the introduction of the City service is as shown in Figure 3.1
(Source:- Household survey in CMP of Tumkur 2012)
Figure 3-1: Mode share before and after the introduction of City service
The average trip length of the two wheeler is about 4.83 kms which is less than the City Bus
service users whose average trip length is around 8.72 kms as shown in Figure 3.2.
12 | P a g e
Trip Length (km)
10
2013
8.72
8
6
4.83
4.95
5
4.02
2.71
1.3
Auto
Rickshaw
KSRTC
Taxi
Car
Two Wheeler
Cycle
Walk
Mode of travel
Figure 3-2: Mode Wise Trip Length

(Source:- Household survey- CMP Tumkur 2012)
This graph indicates that shorter trips are made by two wheelers where comfort is not a
major concern whereas public transport and cars are preferred over longer trips indicating
preference for comfort.
3.1.1.1 Level of Service-City perspective
The performance of any system depends on a set of factors, thus it becomes necessary to
study all the parameters in detail and arrive to a set of indicators that are of prime
importance to the users, Operators as well as the city. In order to arrive at a performance
benchmarks that can be commonly understood and used by all stakeholders, a methodology
was proposed to classify the parameters under separate categories and defining them
separately to a Level of Service scale so as to identify the issues related to each separately.
In the proposed Level of Service chart, the parameters related to the City, Users and
Operators are categorized and evaluated separately and the measures required to improve
the quality and efficiency of the Bus service are recommended. The Level of Service chart
developed is on a generalized conception and the parameters were carefully selected with
reference to their importance as per the Operators, transit planners as well as the
commuters. The sole purpose of the developed chart is to rank the various indicators to a
scale which can be easily understood and evaluated so as to identify the parameters which
13 | P a g e
2013
needs more attention. This type of chart helps the Operator to identify the problem in
specific and solve them.
The following are the parameters considered for the city perspective:
1. Service coverage.
i.
Average distance between the bus Stops within the Bus route coverage (m).
ii.
Percentage of population accessing the bus stop within 500 meters (%).
2. Shift in Mode share (%) - It is the percentage of mode shift to the City bus service. It was
found to be 17%.
Table 3-1: Level of service- City perspective
City Perspective (LOS)

DATA INPUT
SL. NO
1
SCORE CHART
Sl. No Service Coverage

I
Average distance between bus Stops within the route coverage (m)
< 500
500-800
800-1000
>1000
II
2.5
C
C
1.5
1.0
C
C
C
C
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
C
C
C
C
2.5
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
C
C
C
C
C
2.0
Percentage of population accessing the bus stop within 500 metres (%)
< 20
20-40
40-60
60- 80
C
C
C
C
C
>80
C
C
Shift in Mode share (%)

1
2
3
4
5
> 10
10-30
30-60
60-90
>90
C
C
C
C
C
TOTAL SCORE
5.5
LOS
Range of Scores for City Perspective

LOS
SCORE
>9<=10
>8<=9
>6<=8
>4<=6
>2<=4
<=2
Rating
Excellent
Above
Average
Average
Below
Average
Poor
Very Poor
Colour
14 | P a g e
2013
Inference
The level of service computed with respect to the city perspective indicates fair service
coverage with respect to the area of the city. However, the percentage of population
accessing the bus stops within 500 meters are of 57%, which means that the rest of the
people have to walk more than 500 meters to access the bus stops. And this is one of the
reasons for bringing down the level of service to D. Hence, if the spacing of the bus stops on
some routes like Tumkur - GulurEttenahalli, Tumkur to Bellavi and Tumkur to
Swandenahally could be reduced to a maximum spacing of 600 m between each bus stops,
more people would be attracted towards the bus service, specially aged over 45 years, many
of who suffer with health problems with reduced physical stamina and such commuter
would rather prefer to travel by bus if the quality of the service is good. Additionally, the
only solution to increase the mode share of public transport in Tumkur city is safe and
convenient city bus service.
The survey reveals that the percentage of population accessing the city Bus
service in Tumkur within 500 meters is only 57%. Hence, the spacing of the bus
stops should be around 500 m to increase the patronage of the service.
3.1.2 User perspective

The User Perspective included the Passenger opinion data base collected through primary
survey (200 samples) conducted on all the local bus stops targeting passengers using public
transport as their mode of travel. A Passenger Opinion survey format was prepared
including the details about trip purpose, earlier mode of travel, travel expenses, average
income, vehicle ownership details, trip details in a day, travel information etc. ( As shown in
Annexure I).
15 | P a g e
2013
Figure 3-3: Photographs of passenger opinion survey
The findings from the passenger opinion survey are as given below:
1. As per the primary survey, the major shift to the Public transport is from the two
wheelers.
Purpose of Travel
2. 50% of people in Tumkur commute for

work and business, 27% for education,
2% for shopping and 18% for other
purposes.
3. 40% of people in Tumkur use city bus
service every day, 47% use only on
Shoppin
g
2%
Others
18%
Work &
Busines
s
50%
Educati
on
27%
weekdays and 13% use occasionally.

4. 31% of people in Tumkur prefer city bus for comfort, 20% for safety, 21% for cost
saving, 20% for time saving and 15% for
diectness of the service.
5. 83% of people in Tumkur think that the
Reason for Using PT

Directne
ss of
Service
15%
Comfort
31%
buses arrive on time at the bus-stops.

6. 79% of people in Tumkur think that the
buses depart on time from the bus-stops.
Time
Saving
20%
Cost
Saving
21%
Safety
20%
7. 89.5% of people in Tumkur think that the bus stops at all the designated bus-stops.
16 | P a g e
2013
8. 73% of people in Tumkur think that the behaviour of bus conductor and driver is
good, 18% believes the behaviour is
Time to reach Home from Bus

15-30 Stop
normal, 4% think the behaviour is very
10-15
min
8%
good and1% think the behaviour is
min
5%
< 5 min
31%
bad.
9. To increase the patronage of City Bus
Service, 53% of people in Tumkur feel
that there must be a increase in the
5-10 min
56%
fleet strength,31% feel that the frequency of buses must be increased, 6% feel that
bus fare has to be reduced and 10% feel that maintaining proper time schedule will
increase the patronage of City bus service.
10. 5% of people in Tumkur need to travel for 15-30 min, 8% need to travel for 10-15
min, 56% need to travel for 5-10 min and 31% people need to travel for less than 5
min to reach home from bus-stop.
11. 75% of people in Tumkur prefer auto, 9% of people walk, 16% of people use bus and
1% of people prefer own vehicle for the last-mile connectivity.
12. 88% of people in Tumkur feel that proper infrastructure facilities (propoer bus
shelters, seating facility, lighting, maps, dustbins and route information like bus
timings and bus numbers) need to be provided, 5% express the need of drinking
water in the bus-stop and 7% people think that the cleanliness of the bus stops are
mandatory.
13. 72% of people in Tumkur own two wheelers, 8% have cycle, 15% have four wheelers,
1% have auto-rickshaws, 2% have other vehicles and 3% dont have any vehicle.
14. 53% of People in Tumkur commute by Daily Ticket, 15% use Daily Pass, 14% are using
Monthly pass, 18% are commuting by Yearly pass.
17 | P a g e
2013
The parameters capturing the end users perception and satisfaction of the service in the
MoUD guidelines are:
1. Level of comfort in Public Transport.
2. Average waiting time for public transport users (mins)
B = Passenger count on bus at key identified routes.
Level
of
comfort
in
public transport
<=1.5
C = Seats available in the bus is taken based on its type.
1.5 2.0
Passenger comfort Load factor (passengers per seat)
2.0 2.5
= B/C.
>2.5
1. Level of comfort in public transport
LOS 1
= 14304/ (216*43)
= 1.54, Therefore LOS 1= 2.
2. Average waiting time for public transport users (mins)
LOS 2
The Average LOS of the Waiting time for Public transport is 16

min, Therefore, LOS 2 = 4.
Average waiting
time for public
transport
<=4
4-6
6- 10
> 10
In addition to the above mentioned indicators, some more indicators have been chosen to
compute the level of service and those are discussed below.
18 | P a g e
2013
3.1.2.1 Level of Service chart- User perspective
Based on the above mentioned findings, various parameters were identified and are
considered important with respect to the commuters point of view. They are:
1. Walking time to Transit stop (Min)- The time taken by the commuters to reach the
bus stops were obtained from the opinion survey and its weighted average was
computed. It was found to be 7.5 min.
2. Average Waiting time (Min)- The average waiting time was found to be 16 min.
3. Load factor or Passenger density (%)-It is the percentage of passenger density inside
the bus, measured as total passenger kms to that of the seat kms in lakhs. The load
factor was computed to be 84.94%.
4. Travel Cost ratio (Bus to Shared Auto)- A comparison of the travel cost was made for
the fare of City bus to that of the shared autos in the city. It was found that there is
only a marginal difference in fare for the same distance travelled in bus to that of
auto, which is one of the reason to which people opt for the shared autos.
5. Infrastructural facilities.
i.
Bus shelters, seating facility.
ii.
Lighting.
iii.
Footpath connectivity to the bus stop.
iv.
Route information (Bus timings, numbers)
19 | P a g e
2013
Table 3-2: Level of service- Commuters perspective
Commuter Perspective (LOS)

DATA INPUT
SL.NO
Sl. No
1
2
3
4
Walking time to Transit stop (Min)

<5
C
5 - 10
C
10-15
C
>15
C
Average Waiting time (Min)
<5
C
2
1
2
3
SCORE CHART
2.0
2.0
C
5-15
15-20
C
C
>20
Load factor or Passenger density (%)
0-20
C
20-40
C
40-60
C
60-80
C
80-100
C
Travel Cost ratio (Bus to Shared Auto)
> 0.2
C
C
0.2-0.4
C
0.4-0.6
C
0.6-0.8
C
>1
Infrastructural facilities
Bus shelters, seating facility
YES
4
3
1
2
3
4
5
4
1
2
3
4
5
5
1
NO
2
YES
Lighting
Footpath connectivity to the bus stop
Route information (Bus timings, numbers)
C
C
C
C
1.0
0.5
0.25
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
1.0
0.5
0.25
C
C
C
C
2.00
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.25
C
C
C
C
C
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.25
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
0.5
C
C
C
C
C
C
0.5
0
0.5
0
0.5
0
C
C
C
C
C
TOTAL SCORE
2.8
LOS
Range of Scores for User Perspective

LOS
SCORE
>9<=10
>8<=9
>6<=8
>4<=6
>2<=4
<=2
Rating
Excellent
Above
Average
Average
Below
Average
Poor
Very Poor
Colour
20 | P a g e
2013
Inference
In a commuters point of view, the transit service provided must be reliable and efficient.
The level of service computed indicates a poor performance of the transit in the commuters
perspective.
It is a common tendency of the commuters to expect the transit service the moment they
arrive at the stop. And the average waiting time is found to be 16 min during the peak
hours, indicating a long waiting time. Thus, there is a need to introduce more number of
buses along the following routes as there is an additional demand along these routes:
1. Tumkur - DC Office - Siddaganga Mutt.
2. Tumkur - Upparahalli Jayanagara.
3. Tumkur Kesaramadu.
An effective management of the fleet strength during peak and off peak hours can satisfy
the passenger need to a great extent.
It is also found that there is a marginal difference in the fare of City bus to that of the shared
Auto. Hence, the travel cost ratio is more than 0.5. And hence people prefer shared auto for
last mile connectivity. Additionally, the city needs an improvement in the infrastructural
facilities like bus shelters, Route information etc.
The survey reveals that there is a simultaneous increase in the ridership for
bus from the day of the implementation of the bus service in Tumkur City.
However, the main concern raised by the commuters was the long waiting
time to board a bus indicating a poor reliability.
Additionally, the infrastructural facilities like provision of bus shelters,

lighting and the passenger information system at the bus stops are almost
absent. An improvement in the facility could encourage more passengers.
3.1.3 Operators perspective

A detailed secondary data collection of operational characteristics of city bus was obtained
in a prescribed format from KSRTC (Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation) divisional
office, which served as the database for Operators perspective. A performance monitoring
21 | P a g e
2013
format was prepared by DULT to carry out the evaluation process on a monthly basis with a
view to monitor the Operators efficiency of the cities.
The major aspects involved in are physical requirement, daily bus utilisation, staff position
of the operator, fuel performance, accidents and financial revenue returns. All these aspects
are finalised through a set of indicators like Quality of services, Economy & Profitability and
Operation Performance. The qualtiy of service depends upon accidents, breakdowns,
percent of buses departed and arrived in time, waiting time, condition of the vehicle,
scheduled trips, capacity of bus station, crew behaviour, subsidies given etc. Economy
depends upon the revenue cost, net profit, working expenses, turn over, passenger earning,
vehicle kms, tyre kilometer etc. The operation performance depends upon fleet utilization,
vehicle utilization, scheduled kilometers, operated kilometers, fleet age, fleet strength,
routes operated etc.
Figure 3-4: Photographs of secondary data collection
Presently there are 49 buses in operation on fourteen routes with a a load factor of 84.9%
earning a revenue of 83.02 lakhs in May 2012 at Rs 28.21/Km.
Figure 3.6shows the daily bus utilisation of the bus from February 2011 to May 2012. It is
observed that there is an exponential increase in the utilisation of the bus.
22 | P a g e
2013
Figure 3-5: Daily Bus Utilization
Vehicle utilization can be measured as the mileage of each bus or as the percentage of fleet
being operated. The vehicle utilization (in Km) is low as of June 2012 when compared to
Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation (BMTC) where the vehicle utilization per
day is 225 kms.
Although the congestion is much higher in Bangalore the vehicle utilization attained is high
hence there is a scope to improve the vehicle utilization in Tumkur City service also by 1020%, which in turn has the potential to improve the revenue with the current rolling stock.
The passenger density is found to be high during the peak hour indicating a large number of
commuters depending on the transit service. However, the operators cannot assure a seat
for each of the passengers especially during the peak hours. A study of the passenger arrival
pattern will help analyze the number of commuters using the service so as to calculate the
required fleet strength. Figure 3.6 shows a variation in the Load factor of the City Bus
service over a year. This indicator, calculated by dividing passenger kilometers by place
kilometers, shows the average load on a bus route throughout the day. The higher the load
factor, the more profitable the operation, provided that fares are set high enough, if they
are too low there can be significant loss even on very full buses. The theoretical maximum
of 100% is never achieved in urban services; buses are rarely full for an entire journey, and
usually there are directional imbalances in demand at different times, resulting in buses
operating with heavier loads in one direction than in the other.
23 | P a g e
2013
The load factor will depend on the nature of the route but in practice should normally be
about 30% to 40% for large buses and for very busy midi bus routes up to 65%.
Figure 3-6: Load Factor
Performance indicators and Monitoring thereof (up to Jun-12)

From the secondary data collected, the following parameters were analysed and computed
which are of the prime concern with respect to the Operators point of view. The
computation formulas are shown in Annexure II.
Table 3-3: Performance Indicators
Types of Indicators
Up to June 2011
Up to June 2012
Quality of Services
Major
1.Breakdowns/1000000 vkm
1.26
2. Accidents/ 1000000 vkm
1.55
3. Percent buses departed in time
96
92.0
4. Percent buses arrived in time
97
97.8
25 min
16 min
good
good
23
48
1012
Minor
1. Average Passenger Waiting time
2. Condition of vehicle/time
3. No. of buses on route/day
4. No. of Scheduled trips cancelled
5. Fatal accidents/100000 vkms
24 | P a g e

Types of Indicators
2013
Up to June 2011
Up to June 2012
nil
Total cost/vkm
Rs.27.98
28.71
2. Revenue/cost ratio
1.01
100.0
Net profit/km
Rs.0.40
4. Working expenses/vkm
Rs.25.54
28.40
Minor
1. Turnover/Capital Ratio
0.27
2. Working Expenses/ capital
0.24
3. Earning/ vkm ratio
28.38
28.60
Rs.5734
RS 5872
5. Passenger earning/vkm
28.38
28.60
Supplementary
1. Vehicle kms performed litre of fuel
4.37
4.47
Supplementary
1.No. of bus station provided
Major
1.
3.
4. Average gross earning/bus
2. vkm performed/bus/crew
3. Average tyre kilometer
43
1.20 lakh
1.25 lakh
1. Fleet utilization
100%
100%
2. vehicle utilization (effective)
202.1
189.6
3. vehicle utilization (Gross)
208.1
195.2
4. Average passenger kms/bus/day
1024
1031
1. Scheduled kms/day
2511
8494
2. Operated kms/day
2402
8094
3. Operated kms/scheduled kms ratio
0.96
0.95
4. Revenue kms (Lakhs)
3.16
5. Average number of passenger

carried/bus/held/day
6. Dead kms/ Operated kms ratio
1024
1031
0.05
0.05
23
49
Rs.14.75 lakhs
17.22 lakhs
3. Number of days operated
130
363
4. Number of fraud detection checks exercised
77
5. Number of routes operated
14
Operation performance
Minor
Supplementary
1. Total Fleet strength
2. Per cent capital invested/ fleet
788.21 lakhs (till May

2012)
25 | P a g e

Types of Indicators
2013
Up to June 2011
Up to June 2012
9.7
156.3
6. Routes kms operated

The evaluation of the utilization of the fleet and the service was done through the
parameters from the MoUD guidelines as given below.
1. Extent of Non fare Revenue (%)

From the collected secondary data, Operational performance and financial performance of
KSRTC had been calculated.
LOS 1
Extent of Non
A = Revenue collections per annum from non-fare related
fare Revenue
sources (From May 2011 to May 2012) (i.e. excluding tariff box
(%)
collections) Rs. 0
B = Total revenue per annum from all the sources Rs.788.21
lakhs (From May 2011 to May 2012).
Extent of non-fare revenue (%)
>40
40 20
20 10
<=10
= A/B * 100
= 0 %, Therefore LOS 1 = 1.
LOS 2
2. Staff /bus ratio
A = Total staff of bus operation and maintenance 175
B = Total number of buses 49 (in number)
Staff / Bus Ratio (ratio) = A/B= 3.6
Staff /bus ratio
<=5.
5.5 8
8 10
>10
26 | P a g e

3. Operating Ratio
A = Cost/ vkm = Rs. 28.71
LOS 3
B = Earning/vkm = Rs. 28.60

Operating Ratio (ratio) = A/B= 1.
2013
Operating Ratio
<0.7
0.7 1.0
1.0 - 1.5
>=1.5
3.1.3.1 Level of service chart- Operators perspective
There are various factors which affect the performance of the urban bus transit. Based on
the data obtained from the KSRTC divisional office and the operators point of view, the
following parameters were considered of utmost importance for the performance
effectiveness of the public transit:
1. Earnings per km/ Cost per km- The ratio of the earning to the cost per km is an
indication of the service incurring a loss or attaining a profit.
2. Vehicle Utilization (km/vehicle/day) - It is measured as the total no. of kilometer run
per bus per day.
3. Load factor- It is the percentage of passenger density inside the bus, measured as
total passenger kms to that of the seat kms in lakhs.
4. Operational efficiency- It is the ratio of actual km to the scheduled km. This indicator
keeps a check on the effective and efficient level of performance of the transit
facility provided.
27 | P a g e
2013
Table 3-4: Operators perspective
OPERATOR Perspective (LOS)

DATA INPUT
SL. NO
1
SCORE CHART
EPKM/CPKM
Sl. No
1
2
3
4
0-0.25
0.25-0.50
0.50-0.75
0.75-1.0
C
C
C
C
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
> 1.0
2.5
C
C
C
C
C
Vehicle Utilisation ( Km/day)

1
> 150
150-180
3
4
1.0
180-200
C
C
C
>200
2.5
C
C
C
C
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
C
C
C
C
C
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
C
C
C
C
C
1.5
2.0
Load factor
0-20
C
20-40
C
40-60
C
60-80
C
80-100
C
Operational effeciency
0-0.2
C
0.2-0.4
C
0.4-0.6
C
0.6-0.8
C
0.8-1
C
1
2
3
4
5
4
1
2
3
4
5
TOTAL SCORE
9.0
LOS
Range of Scores for Operators Perspective

LOS
SCORE
>9<=10
>8<=9
>6<=8
>4<=6
>2<=4
<=2
Rating
Excellent
Above
Average
Average
Below
Average
Poor
Very Poor
Colour
28 | P a g e
2013
Inference
The level of service obtained includes all the important indicators that are likely to affect the
service. It identifies the problem in specific and helps the operator to come up with effective
and efficient corrective measures.
The most important factor affecting the operator is earnings per Km (EPKM) and cost per km
(CPKM). In operators perspective, the EPKM must be higher than the CPKM which saves
them from incurring a loss. However, it is always not possible to make a profit unless
effective vehicle utilization is done.
In order to evaluate the operational performance of the service, it has been compared to
the city bus services running under NWKRTC (Hubli-Dharwad), NEKRTC (Gulbarga), KSRTC
(Hassan, as it is making profit) and KSRTC (Tumkur) jurisdictions as shown in the Figure 3.9.
29 | P a g e
2013
Figure 3-7: Comparison of Various parameters
One important thing noticed here is the difference in CPKM & EPKM for Tumkur and Hassan
city as both are operated by the same operators. Hassan has a higher earnings compared to
the cost spent on buses , which could be due to the overlapping of many routes in Tumkur
city making the operators spend more on the same routes for the same kilometers
travelled.
Also the vehicle utilization (in Km) is low as of June 2012 when compared to Gulbarga which
is a similar sized city. Hence there is a scope to improve the vehicle utilization in Tumkur City
service also by 10-20%, which in turn has the potential to improve the revenue with the
current rolling stock
There is a scope of increasing the vehicle utilization of the City Bus Service in
Tumkur by 10-20%, which in turn has the potential to improve the revenue with
the current rolling stock.
30 | P a g e
2013
4 Bus Operation Impacts

4.1
Passenger Convenience
By introducing city bus service the people in Tumkur who have been using other modes like
auto rickshaw,own vehicles now have another mode for their travel. The pass system ( Daily
pass for the City is proposed at Rs. 18/day) have considerably reduced the travel
expenditure of daily travellers and students resulting in cost saving.
4.2
Impact on the user
1. The monthly travel expenses of people have been reduced by 16% by shifting to city bus
service thus increasing their personal savings.
2. The total savings in fuel due to the shift, ( assuming a two wheeler will give 40 Kmpl)
works out to be 2500 litres per day, which is very significant saving given that the bus
operation use only about 1000 litres/day of HSD.
31 | P a g e
2013
5 Conclusion
1. There is a requirement of increasing the Vehicle utilization of the Tumkur City service
also by 10-20%, which in turn has the potential to improve the revenue with the current
rolling stock.
2. The public transport of the city is financially sustainable.
3. City bus service is convenient, cheaper and safer mode of travel where the travel cost of
people has been reduced by 16%.
4. KSRTC needs to provide proper infrastructure facilities in each bus-stop which include
bus timings and bus numbers to help the people using city bus service.
5. The load factor of city bus service is 84.94% which shows that the buses are operating
with good capacity.
6. KSRTC should increase the fleet strength to increase the patronage of existing city bus
services.
7. The maximum spacing of the bus stops should be within 800 m which in turn will
encourage people to use City service on a larger scale.
8. There should be an efficient management of the fleet operation during peak and off
peak hours.
9. Number of trips per bus is to be increased as the ratio between earnings per Km and
Cost per km is found to be 0.92, as the ideal ratio should be greater than one.
10. Fare box structure should be re-calculated based on Auto rickshaw fare as it is the main
competing mode to the Public Transport system.
32 | P a g e
2013
ANNEXURE I
EVALUATION OF CITY BUS SERVICE - TUMKUR
PASSENGER OPINION SURVEY: Questionnaire for users ( ):
1. Name ():..........................................................2. Age ():......................
3. Location (
):................................................................................................................
4. Gender ():
Female ():
Male () :
): Destination (
5. Origin (
): ...
6. Travel distance from Origin to Destination (
):
.
7. Do city Buses Arrive on scheduled time? (
Yes
No
)?
If late, approximately by how many minutes? .
8. Do city Buses Depart on scheduled time? (

Yes
No
)?
If late, approximately by how many minutes? .

)? Yes
9. Is there a proper Bus Stop? (

,
10. If yes, do Buses stop on them? (

Yes
11.
No
)?
No
Behaviour of Bus Conductor / Driver: (/ ):

Ranking
Very good
Good
Normal
Bad
Very bad
12. How often do you use Public Transport?(

)?
Every day ()
Occasionally (
Only on weekdays ( )
)
13. Would you like any Routes to be added to the existing system? (
)?
14. What is the purpose of your travel? (
Work ()
Education ()
)?
Shopping ()
Others ()
15. Earlier Mode of travel of the person: ( )......

16. Earlier Cost of Travel of the person: ( ): .
17. Do you use private buses/IPT for commuting within the city? Why? (
/
?).................................................
18. What do you think must be done to increase the patronage of city bus service? (
)?
33 | P a g e
2013
19. How many minutes do you walk to reach Bus Stop: (
):
< 5min
5-10min
10-15 min
15-30 min
20. Reason for using Public Transport: ( ):
Reasons()
Comfort ()
Safety ()
)
Cost Saving (
Time Saving (
Directness of Service (
)
,
21. If not walking, which mode do you choose to reach bus stop: (
):
22. How many different modes of transport do you use every day to commute? (
)? 1
23. What other facilities you need in the bus stop: (
)?:
................................................................................................................................................
24.
Any other suggestions / Comments about the bus service/ (
/
)
.
25. Number of Vehicles Owned ( ):
Type of Vehicle
Cycles
Scooters/MCs/Mopeds Cars/Vans/Jeep Auto rickshaws

(owned)
Other Vehicles
(pl.specify)

26. Are you satisfied with the Current Bus fare system? If not, suggest the changes you would like
to implement: (
?
,
):
.
27.
Average Income of the person (per month): ( ) ( ):
1000-5000
5000-10000
10000-25000
25000- 5000
34 | P a g e
2013
ANNEXURE II
Total Eff. Kms

% Fleet Utilisation
Pass. Kms. (Lakhs)
Seat Kms. (Lakhs)
% Load Factor
Pass. Carried/bus on road/day
Gross Kms.(Lakhs)
Staff on Workshop & Maintenance
Staff on Administration &
Accounts
Staff per bus on-road
Eff.kms per staff per day
Passenger Tax(in Lakhs)
Total Revenue
(paise/km)
% Cancel Kms
EPKM
Passenger per bus
Load Factor
Operational effeciency
KMPL
CPKM
Total Cost per Vehicle Kms
HSD Cost
Spare
Tyres and Tubes
Lubricants
Others
Dep on vehicle
MV Tax
Recondition
Staff
Dep / other assests
Central overhead
Interest
Mact
Miscellaneous
Cost
Per bus held * no. of buses held * no of days

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

Margin
Traffic Revenue - Cost
Net Profit
Turnover/Capital
Vehicle Kms performed litre of fuel
Scheduled Kms/day
Operated Kms/day
Vehicle utilization (effective)
Vehicle utilization (Gross)
(Total Revenue - Total Cost) / Eff. Kms

Total Revenue / (14.75(Cost of bus) * no of bus)
Gross Kms / KMPL
Per bus held * no of buses
Eff. Kms / no of days
Per bus held
Dead Kms per day + Eff. Vehicle utilisation
2013
36 | P a g e
2013
ANNEXURE III: SLBs for Urban Transport- MoUD, Government of India

Level
of
Service
1. Presence of
Organized
Public
Transport
System in
Urban Area (%)
2. Extent of
Supply
Availability
of
Public
Transport
3. Service
Coverage of
Public
Transport in
the
city
4. Average
waiting
time for
Public
Transport
users
(mins)
5. Level of
Comfort in
Public
Transport
6. % of Fleet as
per Urban Bus
Specification
>= 60
>= 0.6
>= 1
<=4
<= 1.5
75 - 100
40- 60
0.4 - 0.6
0.7- 1
4-6
1.5 - 2.0
50 - 75
20 - 40
0.2 - 0.4
0.3 - 0.7
6 - 10
2.0 - 2.5
25 - 50
< 20
< 0.2
< 0.3
> 10
>2.5
<= 25
Overall Calculated
Comments
LOS
LOS
1
< 12
The City has a good public transport system which is wide spread and
easily available to the citizens. The system provided is comfortable.
2
12 - 16
The City has public transport system which may need considerable
improvements in terms of supply of buses/ coaches and coverage as
many parts of the city are not served by it. The frequency of the
services available may need improvements. The system provided is
comfortable.
17 - 20
The City has a public transport system which may need considerable
improvements in terms of supply of buses / coaches and coverage as
most parts of the city are not served by it. The frequency of the
services available needs improvements. The system provided is not
comfortable as there is considerable over loading.
21-24
The city has very poor/no organized public transport system.
37 | P a g e
2013
ANNEXURE IV: Financial Sustainability of Public Transport, MoUD, Government of
India.
Level of Service 1. Extent of Non fare Revenue (%) 2. Staff /bus ratio 3.Operating Ratio
> = 40
< = 5.5
<= 0.7
20 - 40
5.5 - 8.0
0.7 - 1
10- 20
8 - 10
1 - 1.5
< 10
> 10
> 1.5
Overall Calculated
Comments
LOS
LOS
<=4
1
The public transport of a city is financially sustainable.
2
5-7
The public transport of a city is financially sustainable but needs some

improvements.
8- 9
The public transport of a city is financially sustainable but needs

considerable improvements.
10 - 12
The public transport of a city is not financially sustainable.
38 | P a g e
2013
Daily Bus Utilization
Feb-11
197.4
197.4
81.4
Passenger
Carried
(Lakhs)
0.91
Mar-11
208.5
208.5
73.4
2.77
994
0.64
Daily Bus
Utilisation
Per Bus
held(Km)
Per Bus on
Road (Km)
% Load
Factor(LF)
Passenger
Carried/bus on
road/day
1006
Gross
Kms.(Lakhs)
0.18
Apr-11
205.7
205.7
78.8
2.54
992
0.55
May-11
206.1
206.1
78.4
3.47
997
0.73
Jun-11
195.4
195.4
83.4
6.41
1077
1.21
Jul-11
187.9
187.9
85.8
9.65
1199
1.57
Aug-11
187.7
187.7
84.4
10.98
1198
1.8
Sep-11
187.2
187.2
79.4
12.37
1210
1.98
Oct-11
187.7
187.7
79.3
12.95
1148
2.16
Nov-11
184.7
184.7
78.3
14.03
1097
2.4
Dec-11
187.3
187.3
73.9
14.22
1033
2.62
Jan-12
192.1
192.1
80
16.32
1163
2.74
Feb-12
194
194
80.7
15.93
1161
2.7
Mar-12
191.1
191.1
74.9
15.8
1117
2.77
Apr-12
192.8
192.8
79.1
15.7
1096
2.8
May-12
198.9
198.9
84.9
16.24
1115
2.81
Staff Position
Staff position
of the
operator
Traffic
Workshop &
maintenance
Administration
& Accounts
Total Staff
Staff per bus

on-road
Eff.kms per
staff per
day
Feb-11
39
48
5.3
37.5
Mar-11
40
49
5.4
38.2
Apr-11
41
50
5.6
35.1
May-11
56
14
71
4.7
33.6
Jun-11
70
21
93
4.0
41.6
Jul-11
87
26
116
4.0
43.4
Aug-11
93
31
128
3.7
44.8
Sep-11
93
31
129
3.7
49.6
Oct-11
94
36
136
3.3
51.9
Nov-11
118
38
162
3.8
48.6
Dec-11
119
41
167
3.6
51.5
Jan-12
122
42
172
3.7
52.3
Feb-12
124
43
175
3.6
50.7
Mar-12
124
43
175
3.6
51.5
Apr-12
124
43
175
3.6
52.6
May-12
124
43
175
3.6
52.2
(Source: Tumkur KSRTC divisional office)
39 | P a g e
2013
Fuel Performance
Kms. Per litre of
Diesel (KMPL)
Feb-11
4.28
Mar-11
4.38
Apr-11
4.4
May-11
4.4
Jun-11
4.34
Jul-11
4.43
Aug-11
4.45
Sep-11
4.45
Oct-11
4.47
Nov-11
4.47
Dec-11
4.45
Jan-12
4.44
Feb-12
4.46
Mar-12
4.49
Apr-12
4.49
May-12
4.46
Fuel performance
Financial aspects
Financial
Feb-11
Traffic Revenue
(in Lakhs)
Passenger
Tax (in
Lakhs)
Other Revenue
(in Lakhs)
Total Revenue (in

Lakhs)
5.16
0.28
NG*
NG
NG
NG
NG
NG
NG
NG
NG
NG
NG
NG
NG
NG
NG
NG
NG
NG
NG
NG
NG
NG
NG
NG
NG
NG
NG
NG
NG
NG
NG
NG
Mar-11
15.24
0.84
Apr-11
14.8
0.81
May-11
20.08
1.1
Jun-11
34.66
1.9
Jul-11
46.32
2.54
Aug-11
51.85
2.86
Sep-11
54.26
2.98
Oct-11
59.94
3.29
Nov-11
66.03
3.62
Dec-11
68.01
3.74
Jan-12
76.97
4.23
Feb-12
76.76
4.22
Mar-12
72.31
3.97
Apr-12
78
4.29
May-12
83.02
4.56
(Source:- Tumkur KSRTC divisional office), *- Not give
40 | P a g e

Tumkur City Bus Service

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tumkur City Bus Service

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TUMKUR CITY BUS SERVICE

1.2 Tumkur City at a Glance

1.3 Demographics of Tumkur City

1.4 Financing of City Bus Services in Tumkur

1.5 Tumkur City Transport Service

2 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

2.1.2 Evaluation based on various perspectives

4 BUS OPERATION IMPACTS

4.1 Passenger Convenience

4.2 Impact on the user

Tumkur City Bus Service Evaluation Report

Therefore, various issues contributing to inefficient operation of bus services need to be

Tumkur City Bus Service Evaluation Report

Tumkur City at a Glance

Tumkur is one of the busiest industrial cities located in the

Figure 1-1: Tumkur Map

Kaidala Temple, Devarayana Durga, Namada Chilume, Shiva Gange, Goravanahalli

Demographics of Tumkur City

Tumkur City Bus Service Evaluation Report

Table 1-1: Demographic Details

(Source: Census of India)

Financing of City Bus Services in Tumkur

Tumkur City Transport Service

Tumkur City Bus Service Evaluation Report

Tumkur City Bus Service Evaluation Report

Figure 1-2: Passengers carried

Figure 1-3: Tumkur Route Map

Tumkur City Bus Service Evaluation Report

Table 1-3: Route Details

Kyathsandra - Tumkur - Heggere

Shettihalli - Tumkur - Yellapura

Oorukere - Tumkur - MaralurDinne

Tumkur - DC Office - Siddaganga Mutt

Gangasandra - Tumkur - Belagumba

Tumkur - SIT Back gate - Devarayapatna

Tumkur - SIT Back gate - Kyathsandra

Tumkur - Upparahalli - Goolarive

Oorukere - Tumkur - Ramakrishna Aashrama - MaralurDinne

Tumkur - Upparahalli - Jayanagara

Tumkur - Gulur - Ethenahalli

Goolarive - Tumkur - Dibbur

Goolarive - Tumkur - Swandenahally

(Source:- Tumkur KSRTC divisional office)

Tumkur City Bus Service Evaluation Report

2 Performance Evaluation Methodology

Performance Review Methodology

Tumkur City Bus Service Evaluation Report

Presence of organized public transport system in urban area (%).

Extent of supply availability of public transport.

Service coverage of public transport in the city.

Level of comfort in public transport.

% of fleet as per urban bus specification.

Average waiting time for public transport users (mins).

2. Financial Sustainability of public transport

Extent of Non-fare Revenue (%).

Staff /bus ratio.

2.1.2 Evaluation based on various perspectives

Tumkur City Bus Service Evaluation Report

Performance Evaluation of Public Transportation System for a Medium sized city

Tumkur Bus Evaluation

The performance evaluation is broadly classified into three perspectives:

User Perspective Measurement evaluates the travel characteristics of the users.

Operators Perspective Measurement evaluates the characteristics of the bus

1. Primary survey-An opinion survey of bus passengers were collected using a