Commuters attitude towards travel demand management measures (public transport improvement) : a case of Ahmedabad
Shah, Birva
Commuters attitude towards travel demand management measures (public transport improvement) : a case of Ahmedabad - 2012 - iv,v,63p.
TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 BACKGROUND 1 1.2 MODE CHOICE 1 1.3 RESEARCH BACKGROUND 2 1.4 NEED OF THE STUDY 4 1.5 RESEARCH OBJECTIVE AND QUESTIONS 4 1.6 RESEARCH DESIGN 4 16.1 Conceptual Framework 4 1.6.2 Research Matrix 6 1.7 SCOPE OF WORK 6 1.8 THESIS STRUCTURE 7 CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 8 2.1 TRAVEL DEMAND MANAGEMENT MEASURES 8 2.1.1 Categorisation of TDM Measures 9 2.2 IMPROVING MOBILITY OPTIONS .9 2.3 PAST STUDIES RELATED TO ACCEPTANCE OF TRAVEL-DEMAND MANAGEMENT MEASURES 10 2.3.1 Public attitudes to TDM measures: a comparative study . 10 2.3.2 Case of Singapore 11 2.3.3 Cases of London 12 2.3.4 Case o^Beijing. 14 2.3.5 Case of Aalborg, Denmark (Andrea Broaddus, 2009) 15 2.4 ACCEPTABILITY OF TDM 15 2.4.1 Factors affecting mode choice . 16 2.5 CONCLUSION 17 2.5.1 Conceptual framework of impact of TDM measures 17 2.5.2 Public transport improvement 18 CHAPTER 3. STUDY AREA: AHMEDABAD 19 3.1 INTRODUCTION 19 3.2 DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS 19 3.2.1 Population density 19 3.3 SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS 21 3.3.1 Age distribution 21 3.3.2 Income distribution 21 3.3.3 Modal share 21 3.4 TRAVEL CHARACTERISTICS 22 3.4.1 Trip rate 22 3.4.2 Purpose of Trip 22 3.5 EXISTING PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION 23 3.5.1 Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service 23 3.5.2 Bus Rapid Transport System 24 3.5.3 Proposal for public transportation 24 3.6 SUMMARY 25 CHAPTER4. DATA COLLECTION 26 4.1 INTRODUCTION 26 4.2 DATA REQUIREMENTS 27 4.3 PRIMARY DATA COLLECTION .28 4.3.1 Selectionof survey area 28 4.3.2 Survey set up 30 4.3.3 Survey Design 31 CHAPTERS.5 DATA ANALYSIS 33 5.1 INTRODUCTION 33 5.2 SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS 33 5.3 TRAVEL CHARACTERISTICS 36 5.3.1 Travel Mode 36 5.3.2 Trip Length 36 5.4 CHOICE OF CURRENTTRAVEL MODE AND AREAS OF IMPROVEMENT FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORT 37 5.5 ANALYSIS 39 5.5.1 Mode used Vs income 39 5.6 ATTITUDE TOWARDS TDM MEASURES 40 5.7 OVERALL PRIORITY FOR EACH USER GROUP 41 5.7.1 Prioritisation according to the vehicular ownership 42 5.7.2 Prioritisation according to income level 43 5.7.3 Prioritisation according to occupation 44 5.8 PROBABILITY OF SHIFTING TO THE PUBLIC TRANSPORT 45 5.8.1 Probability according to the Vehicular ownership 45 5.8.2 Probability for the different income levels 46 5.8.3 Probability according to the occupation 47 5.9 CONSIDERING THE PROBABILITY AND THE PRIORITY. 48 5.9.1 Priority for according to vehicle ownership 48 5.9.2 Priority according to the income levels 49 5.9.3 Prioritisation according to occupation 51 5.10 CORRELATION BETWEEN THE TDM MEASURES 53 5.11 SUMMARY 54 CHAPTER 6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 55 6.1 CONCLUSION 55 6.2 RECOMMENDATIONS 57 CHAPTER 7. BIBLIOGRAPHY 58 ANNEXURES 60 ANNEXURE-1 SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE 60 ANNEXURE-2 PROBIT THEORY AND BIVARIATE CORRELATIONS 62 Probit Analysis 62 Spearman's Co-efficient 63
P TH-1471 / SHA
Commuters attitude towards travel demand management measures (public transport improvement) : a case of Ahmedabad - 2012 - iv,v,63p.
TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 BACKGROUND 1 1.2 MODE CHOICE 1 1.3 RESEARCH BACKGROUND 2 1.4 NEED OF THE STUDY 4 1.5 RESEARCH OBJECTIVE AND QUESTIONS 4 1.6 RESEARCH DESIGN 4 16.1 Conceptual Framework 4 1.6.2 Research Matrix 6 1.7 SCOPE OF WORK 6 1.8 THESIS STRUCTURE 7 CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 8 2.1 TRAVEL DEMAND MANAGEMENT MEASURES 8 2.1.1 Categorisation of TDM Measures 9 2.2 IMPROVING MOBILITY OPTIONS .9 2.3 PAST STUDIES RELATED TO ACCEPTANCE OF TRAVEL-DEMAND MANAGEMENT MEASURES 10 2.3.1 Public attitudes to TDM measures: a comparative study . 10 2.3.2 Case of Singapore 11 2.3.3 Cases of London 12 2.3.4 Case o^Beijing. 14 2.3.5 Case of Aalborg, Denmark (Andrea Broaddus, 2009) 15 2.4 ACCEPTABILITY OF TDM 15 2.4.1 Factors affecting mode choice . 16 2.5 CONCLUSION 17 2.5.1 Conceptual framework of impact of TDM measures 17 2.5.2 Public transport improvement 18 CHAPTER 3. STUDY AREA: AHMEDABAD 19 3.1 INTRODUCTION 19 3.2 DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS 19 3.2.1 Population density 19 3.3 SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS 21 3.3.1 Age distribution 21 3.3.2 Income distribution 21 3.3.3 Modal share 21 3.4 TRAVEL CHARACTERISTICS 22 3.4.1 Trip rate 22 3.4.2 Purpose of Trip 22 3.5 EXISTING PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION 23 3.5.1 Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service 23 3.5.2 Bus Rapid Transport System 24 3.5.3 Proposal for public transportation 24 3.6 SUMMARY 25 CHAPTER4. DATA COLLECTION 26 4.1 INTRODUCTION 26 4.2 DATA REQUIREMENTS 27 4.3 PRIMARY DATA COLLECTION .28 4.3.1 Selectionof survey area 28 4.3.2 Survey set up 30 4.3.3 Survey Design 31 CHAPTERS.5 DATA ANALYSIS 33 5.1 INTRODUCTION 33 5.2 SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS 33 5.3 TRAVEL CHARACTERISTICS 36 5.3.1 Travel Mode 36 5.3.2 Trip Length 36 5.4 CHOICE OF CURRENTTRAVEL MODE AND AREAS OF IMPROVEMENT FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORT 37 5.5 ANALYSIS 39 5.5.1 Mode used Vs income 39 5.6 ATTITUDE TOWARDS TDM MEASURES 40 5.7 OVERALL PRIORITY FOR EACH USER GROUP 41 5.7.1 Prioritisation according to the vehicular ownership 42 5.7.2 Prioritisation according to income level 43 5.7.3 Prioritisation according to occupation 44 5.8 PROBABILITY OF SHIFTING TO THE PUBLIC TRANSPORT 45 5.8.1 Probability according to the Vehicular ownership 45 5.8.2 Probability for the different income levels 46 5.8.3 Probability according to the occupation 47 5.9 CONSIDERING THE PROBABILITY AND THE PRIORITY. 48 5.9.1 Priority for according to vehicle ownership 48 5.9.2 Priority according to the income levels 49 5.9.3 Prioritisation according to occupation 51 5.10 CORRELATION BETWEEN THE TDM MEASURES 53 5.11 SUMMARY 54 CHAPTER 6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 55 6.1 CONCLUSION 55 6.2 RECOMMENDATIONS 57 CHAPTER 7. BIBLIOGRAPHY 58 ANNEXURES 60 ANNEXURE-1 SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE 60 ANNEXURE-2 PROBIT THEORY AND BIVARIATE CORRELATIONS 62 Probit Analysis 62 Spearman's Co-efficient 63
P TH-1471 / SHA