Professional Documents
Culture Documents
By
Dr. Eric P. Ho
Prof. Ahmad Munawar
Ms. Synthia Angelina
November, 2013
Presentation Contents
Introduction
Technical approach
Data collection method
Regional travel demand
Ridership Analysis
Conclusions
Study Objectives
Upgrade the regional travel demand model for
travel demand forecasts, traffic and ridership
analyses of major investment transport projects
Performed ridership analysis for the purposed
Surabaya Rapid Rail System project, for
Alternative alignment analysis
Project component prioritization analysis
Supporting engineering plan and design
Supporting economic and financial analysis
Study Boundary
City of Surabaya and
surrounding areas
8 external road
segments to represent
traffic entering city of
Surabaya
TECHNICAL APPROACH
Technical Approach
Technical Approach
Travel demand modeling technique
Multi-modal considering both vehicle and passenger
travel
Based on collected travel and traffic data
Based on project socio-economic conditions in the
region
Used transport model software EMME3
Motorcycle
Transit
Bus
Major variables considered:
-Travel time (in-vehicle, walk, wait)
-Travel cost (fare, operation cost)
- Transfers or not
- Trip type (work, school, other)
- Car ownership
Car
Rail
Additional Surveys
Road Segment Traffic Count Study
External Station Origin/Destination Survey
External Terminal Passenger Interview Survey
Trips / Person
Non-Car HHs
Car HHs
1
Household Size
Travel Mode
Private Car
Other passenger
vehicle*
Motorcycle
Transit
Non-Motorized**
All Modes
119,800
2,645,100
262,500
1,722,600
5,112,800
3,390,200
2.3%
51.7%
5.1%
33.7%
100.0%
3.5%
78.0%
7.7%
--100.0%
Private Car
7.10%
NonMotorized
33.70%
Transit
5.10%
Other
passenger
vehicle
2.30%
Motorcycle
51.70%
2009
2010
2011
Average
Annual %
Growth
Surabaya
0.55%
Sidoarjo
1.55%
0.92%
0.14%
Gresik
1.18%
Bangkalan
897,000
907,000
912,000
0.93%
Year
2010 (unit) 2011 (unit) 2012 (unit)
1,213,457 1,274,660 1,402,190
8,638
270,478
9,388
266,542
2012
9,996
284,784
2025
285,000 375,000
Cars/1000 people
95
120
Yr 2013
Yr 2025
2,416,000 2,962,000
% Growth
22.6%
607,000
656,000
8.2%
830,000
907,000
9.3%
Non-Home Based
402,000
430,000
7.0%
All
4,254,000 4,955,000
Note:
1) Motorization trips only
2) Including external/internal trips
3) Assuming 15% increase of labor participation rate
16.5%
2.000.000
1.000.000
0
All
Year 2011
Daily Motorized Trips
289,000
115,000
51,000
71,000
164,000
39,000
729,000
West-River Alignment
East-River Alignment
Cross-Over Alignment - 1
Cross-Over Alignment - 2
West-River
Tram Boardings
Monorail
Boardings
Total Boardings
Total Rail
Passengers
138,000
133,000
151,000
135,000
162,065
182,780
142,022
178,757
300,000
316,000
293,000
314,000
262,000
281,000
244,000
263,000
East-River
Cross-Over - 1
Cross-Over - 2
East-River
Cross-Over - 1
Cross-Over - 2
145,000
143,000
--
66,000
159,000
138,000
71,000 162,000
Total Boardings
145,000
210,000
230,000
300,000
141,000
189,000
190,000
262,000
--
48,000
49,000 121,000
262.000
238.000
190.000
189.000
141.000
TRAM ONLY
-
100.000
200.000
300.000
Sensitivity Analysis
Examine the change of ridership with
respect to change of major parameters:
Transit fare and operation cost
Service level of road network
Travel demand to city center
Integrated bus operation
Value
Tram
Boardings
Monorail
Boardings
Total
Boardings
Total Rail
Passengers
City Center
Parking Cost
Rail Fare 100%
Increase
100% Increase
Free Transfer
%
%
%
Change
Change
Change
from
from
from
Base
Value
Base
Value Base Value
133,000
1.5%
183,000
1.6%
316,000
1.6%
281,000
1.4%
133,000
183,000
316,000
281,000
Value
% Change
from Base
Value
% Change
from Base
133,000
135,000
1.5%
133,000
0.0%
183,000
194,000
6.0%
192,000
4.9%
316,000
329,000
4.1%
323,000
2.2%
281,000
319,000
13.5%
309,000
10.0%
703,000
581,000
-17.4%
653,000
-7.1%
Conclusions
A upgraded Surabaya Travel Demand Model was
implemented using latest collected travel and traffic
data
The upgraded model was applied to develop ridership
forecasts of the purposed Mass Rapid Transit System in
Surabaya
The model is ready to be transferred to the city for
transport planning studies and other major investment
transport projects
The city needs to acquires necessary resources and
professional staff to apply and update the model in
the future
Conclusions
The study demonstrated the use of the travel
demand model for following types of ridership
analysis:
Alternative rail alignment options
Ridership build-up of rail segments
Sensitivity analysis to examine the risk factors that
would impact ridership of the rail system
Conclusions
The ridership analysis reveals that:
The purposed rail system will have substantial ridership in the
range of 240,000 to 280,000 passenger daily
The tram line corridor alone will generate up to 150,000
ridership daily
The tram ridership will depend heavily on its operation speed
in order to compete with motorcycle
The west segment and east segment of the monorail will generate
similar level of the ridership on top of the tram line
The alignment and extend of the east monorail segment needs
further examined to maximize it effectiveness
Conclusions
Rail ridership depends on following factors:
Competitive fare level
Competitive operation speed as compared with
motorcycle and car
Integrated with feeder bus + local bus/angkot system
Travel demand management measures to reduce road
traffic in city center area
End of Presentation
Thank You!!