imp-003-impact-eval-report-on-socioeconomic-impact-study-of-metro-bus-project

Directorate General Monitoring and Evaluation,
Planning & Development Department, 4-Civil
Secretariat, Government of the Punjab, Lahore.

PATRON IN CHIEF:
DR.SAJJAD MUBIN
DIRECTOR GENERAL (M&E)
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB
PREPARED BY:
MUHAMMAD NASEEM
INDIVIDUAL CONSULTANT
ASSISTED BY
SARA MIRZA AND IFFRA AHMED
LAHORE UNIVERESITY OF MAMANGEMENT SCIENCES
REWIEVED BY:
RUBINA BANO
M&E SPECIALIST
DG M&E PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MAJJIDA JAWAD
SENIOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST
DG M&E PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT OF
METRO BUS SERVICE LAHORE
Impact Assessment of MBS on Commuters & Other
Stakeholder
October, 2015
Directorate General Monitoring & Evaluation,
Planning & Development Department,
Govt. of the Punjab
(www.dgmepunjab.gov.pk)

Contents
ABBREVIATIONS. ....................................................................................................................................
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.......................................................................................................................i
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................1
1.1 INTRODUCTION OF BRTS......................................................................................................1
1.2 INTRODUCTION ABOUT THE METRO PROJECT LAHORE ................................6
2. METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................................................11
2.1 REQUESTS FOR EVALUATION ....................................................................................11
2.2 HIRING OF INDIVIDUAL EVALUATION CONSULTANTS ...............................11
2.3 EVALUATION TEAM FORMATION ............................................................................11
2.4 DEVELOPMENT OF METHODOLOGY.......................................................................12
2.5 LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................................................14
2.6 PROJECT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS................................................................15
2.7 DEVELOPMENT OF QUESTIONNAIRE .....................................................................16
2.8 EVIRNMENTAL ASSESSMENT......................................................................................16
2.9 CONCLUSION AND INFERENCES.....................................................................................16
3. DATA ANAYSIS OF COMMUTERS SURVEY .......................................................................17
3.1 GENERAL STATISTICS..........................................................................................................17
3.2 GENERAL DEMOGRAPHICS ...............................................................................................18
3.3 SOCIAL SURVEY STATISTICS ...........................................................................................20
3.4 ECONOMIC SURVEY STATISTICS ...................................................................................24
3.5 TRADITIONAL TRANSPORT ANALYSIS........................................................................27
3.6 NON-COMMUTERS SURVEY ANALYSIS .......................................................................29
3.7 ENIVRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT.....................................................................................40
4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................41
4.1 GENERAL IMPACT OF THE MBS......................................................................................41
4.2 CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................42
4.3 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................45
BIBLOGRAPHY:....................................................................................................................................47
ANNEXES .................................................................................................................................................
Annexes 1.....................................................................................................................................................
Annexes 2.....................................................................................................................................................
Annex 3........................................................................................................................................................
Annexes 4.....................................................................................................................................................
Annexes 5.....................................................................................................................................................

ABBREVIATIONS.
MBS: Metro Bus System
BRTS: Bus Rapid Transit System
DGM&E: Directorate General Monitoring and Evaluation
M&E: Monitoring and Evaluation
HOV: High Occupancy Vehicle
VKT: Vehicle Kilometers travel
UNFCCC: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change’s
CO2: Carbon di oxide
NMT: Non- motorized Transport
O&M: Operations and Maintenance
PMBA: Punjab Metro Bus Authority
PITB: Punjab Information Technology Board
PSD: Platform Sliding Doors
TVM’s: Ticket Vending Machines
Rs: Pakistani Rupees
AFC: Automatic Fare Collection
BSS: Bus Scheduling System
PIS: Passenger Information System
P&DD: Planning and Development Department
KM: Kilometers

i | P a g e
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Public transportation in the Pakistan is a crucial part of the solution to the nation’s economic,
energy, and environmental challenges, helping to bring a better quality of life. In increasing
numbers, people are using public transportation and local communities are expanding public
transit services. Every segment of Pakistan society individuals, families, communities, and
businesses benefits from public transportation. Condition of public transport was not
satisfactory before the launch of Metro Bus Service (MBS) in Punjab. Keeping in view the
current condition and public demand, Government of the Punjab took important steps towards
improving the infrastructure and the system of public transportation in Lahore, the capital of
the province. The project titled “Metro Bus Service (MBS)” was launched by the Government
of the Punjab in Lahore, which is a Bus Rapid Transit System (BRTS). The MBS is 27 Km
long corridor starting from Gajjumata to Shahdara via Ferozepur Road, Lytton Road, MAO
College, Lower Mall, Data Darbar, Niazi Chowk, and Shahdara.
MBS is a high-quality, efficient mass transport system, providing capacity and speed
comparable with Public transport .Its insertion in urban transport systems is relatively recent
and as a result there remains a need to introduce the concept to several audiences, particularly
urban transport decision makers, and to better understand its socioeconomic cost, performance
and impacts. To that end, this report provides a synthesis of existing literature and new data,
and develops a detailed analysis to explore the socioeconomic impacts of MBS. The socio-
economic impact study of the MBS was carried out by Director General (M&E) to assess the
social and economic benefits of the project over the costs and the rate of success of the project
to bring social and economic uplift in society. A detailed survey was conducted that included
a sample of 3900 commuters, 237 non-commuters and 500 traditional transport stakeholders.
This survey was also supported by documentary interviews of the various stakeholders. The
major findings of the report are listed below.
KEY FINDINGS:
 The study results showed that 65% commuters lived inside the city boundaries
where as 17% lived outside the city boundaries. Beside this, 68% of the
beneficiaries facilitated by Metro Bus Service were female.
 The income demographics of the Metro Bus commuters clearly depicted that
majority of the commuters belong to the lower socio-economic class and 46% of

ii | P a g e
them did not own any personal vehicle while 37% substituted their personal
vehicles with Metro Bus for transportation needs.
 Approximately 61% of respondents travelled through the Metro Bus on daily basis
for travelling purpose and the purpose of the majority of the commuters was to reach
their work station. It is worth full to note that more than 80% of the commuters said
that MBS resulted in ease of accessibility to their work stations and educational
institutes.
 Nearly 85% of the commuters believed that the provision of MBS was a good
initiative by government and consider it as an indicator of good governance.
Furthermore it was also supportive in releasing the mental stress of commuters in
finding a suitable transport. It was inspiring to note that 50% and 36% of the
commuters rated it as excellent and good transport system respectively.
 The level of satisfaction and happiness with the MBS was so high that 89% of the
commuters said they would recommend it to their friends and family and nearly
85% commuters rated their level of happiness and relaxation on the provision of
MBS on high happiness scales.
 More than 80 % commuters admitted that due to MBS, their working hours
improved due to easy access to transport and more than 70% of them started
working at a better paid job due to ease of convenience by MBS. Additionally,
74% of the commuters were able to decrease their travelling cost by using MBS.
 Traditional transport owners were also interviewed to investigate if MBS was a
good initiative by the government. Although 96 % were negatively affected by the
provision of MBS and the government has not provided any compensation to
traditional transport stakeholders who lost business due to the provision of MBS
however 90 % of the transporters acknowledged that it was a good initiative by
Government.
 Non-commuters were also surveyed and their income group revealed that mostly
fall in the lower middle class. More than 60% of the non-commuters had their own
vehicles while 37% used public transport. It was also essential to discuss that
majority of the own vehicle users spent Rs.50-100 on daily basis while majority of
public transport users expended Rs.20-50 on daily basis.
 Non-commuters highest percentage (78% of the males and 67% of the females)
were of the view that the Metro Bus Service has had a positive impact and felt that
time and costs are saved with the provision of MBS.

iii | P a g e
 Majority of them (40% and 38%) rated it as good and excellent respectively who
had experienced travelling through Metro Bus.
 Different reasons were stated for not using Metro Bus; 45% did not use the MBS
due to having their own conveyance, 37% had problems with accessibility, 11% felt
that the Metro Bus is overcrowded, 5% did not use it due to travel time and 2% did
not avail it due to flexibility of timings of not using the Metro Bus.
 An assessment reveals that the air quality within the parameters of Metro have
improved. The assessment of the Ambient Air Quality Monitoring against National
Environmental Quality Standards (NEQS) showed that Respirable Particulate
Matter (PM2.5), Nitrogen Oxides as (NO & NO2) exceed the NEQ limits at all the
monitored sites while the Ozone (O3) exceed at Shahdara and Gajju Matta which is
mainly due to uncontrolled emissions from vehicles running along the MBS.
 To increase the productively of Metro Bus it is recommended that full capacity
parking plazas should be established on the most crowded stations. Disabled and
elderly find it hard to use MBS as their destinations were far from the route of MBS.
Therefore it is recommended that a paid shuttle service be provided to the disabled
and elder citizens to reach their destinations in time. The MBS should be integrated
with feeder routes and timing of MBS should be increased. A staff member should
be placed to guide the commuters about the electronic machines in peak hours for
taking tickets.
 It is further proposed to ensure the security for women commuters and allotting
them more space inside the bus .Proper maintenance of stairs, washrooms,
sewerage, and drinking waters is a common complaint at majority of the stations .It
is also suggested to remove the flat rate of the ticket and charge commuters as per
station. The cooling systems should be checked regularly for providing a better
facility to the commuters.
Keywords: Transportation system, Transportation Problems, BRTS, MBS

Govt. of the Punjab.
(Source: www.dgmepunjab.gov.pk )
CHAPTER 1:
INTRODUCTION

1 | P a g e
CHAPTER 1
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 INTRODUCTION OF BRTS
Any settlement needs mobility within its boundaries to connect various places within the
settlement and outside its boundaries to connect the settlement with other settlements. People
tend to opt for personal modes of transport for mobility unless there is a strong network of
public transport system. The community needs a fast, reliable and cheap system. Here arises
the need of a mass transit system. BRTS (Bus Rapid Transit System) is fast reliable and cheap
mode of transport. More than million cities are facing serious problems of pollution and
congestion and they are looking for cost effective, efficient, modern and sustainable means of
public transport system. BRTS are increasingly being recognized as amongst most effective
solution for providing a cost effective and high quality public transport service in urban areas
for both the developed and the developing nations. BRT involves coordinated improvements
in a transit system’s infrastructure, equipment, technology and operations that give preferential
treatment to buses on urban roadways. BRT encompasses a variety of approaches, including
high capacity buses using exclusive bus ways with other vehicles, and improving bus service
on city arterial streets. When public transit service is frequent and reliable then the citizens
would prefer to use it rather than their own vehicles. High quality bus rapid transit systems can
affect the quality of life, productivity, health, and safety of people living in cities. These
impacts have been explored in varying depth in the existing research as travel time benefits,
environmental impacts, public health and safety benefits and urban development changes.
1.1.1 Characteristic of BRT System
As we look at the length, area and population of cities, as it increases the type of BRT and level
of BRT changes from a basic bus service to a Full BRT service. The other factors that affect
the type of BRT system may include local preferences and culture, population density,
distribution of trips, climate, geography, topography, available financial resources, local
technical capacity and knowledge, existing business and institutional structures and, perhaps
most importantly, the degree of existing political will to implement a high‐quality system.

2 | P a g e
Figure 1: Some Characteristics of BRTS
1.1.2 Advantages of BRT over other Transit Systems
BRT has more flexibility than Light Rail and its service can be incorporated in an already
existing system rather than having to wait for an entire system to be built. Further it can also
be used as temporary system until Light Rail is built.
Bus Rapid Transit routes can also be adjusted and rerouted over time to serve new
developments and dispersed employment centers. Bus Rapid Transit can respond to changes in
employment, land‐use and community patterns. On the other hand, Light Rail Transit lines are
fixed and cannot easily change to adjust to new patterns of housing and employment.
Compared to other mass transit alternatives the BRT is by far the most cost-effective means of
providing rapid transit service, about 10‐20 percent of the cost of light rail and 1‐10 percent of
Metro.Bus Rapid Transit can collect riders in neighborhoods and then provide rapid long
distance service by entering a bus way or high occupancy vehicle (HOV) facility. Transit
agencies have considerable flexibility to provide long distance service without requiring a
transfer between vehicles.
In performance of transit system two elements are ridership and system speed. While ridership
varies considerably, the largest ridership on Bus Rapid Transit and Light Rail systems were
quite similar. Speed varies but that of Bus Rapid Transit projects were generally faster. Bus
Rapid Transit systems with longer stop spacing provide higher speeds. Ridership on Bus Rapid

3 | P a g e
Transit and Light Rail systems varies widely and depends on frequency of service, number of
stops, hours of operation and customer demand. For example, ridership on 4 bus ways ranged
from 7,000 riders per day to about 30,000 per day and averaged about 15,600 riders per day.
For 13 bus lines on HOV lanes ridership ranged from 1,000 to about 25,000 riders per day with
an average ridership of about 8,100. In addition, the ridership on the two arterial street Bus
Rapid Transit lines in Los Angeles was about 9,000 to 56,000 per day, with an average of
32,500 per day. In addition, ridership can vary greatly with vehicle sizes and passenger capacity
between Light Rail and bus vehicles. Distance Speeds generally depends on the characteristics
such as distance between stops, fare‐collection methods, the degree to which the tracks or
roadway are exclusive to transit vehicles or share right‐of‐way with cars and other vehicular
traffic, type of the intersection and geometric design of the road.
1.1.3 Travel Time Impacts
Several design elements of high-quality BRT systems can help to quicken passengers’
boarding and alighting times reducing overall travel times:
 Level boarding: Station platforms leveled with bus floors decreases the time
consumed by using the stairs.
 Pre-paid boarding: Fares collected off-board the buses, typically at the station
entrance
 High-capacity buses with multiple doors: Several, often wide, doors for
boarding making it easier and quicker for large number of passengers to enter
the bus at the same time
1.1.4 Environmental Impacts
Bus Rapid Transit systems can have positive environmental impacts by reducing greenhouse
gases that contribute to global climate change as well as local air pollutants which leads to
citywide air pollution and smog. Reductions in vehicle emissions can be achieved in several
ways including reducing vehicle-kilometers travelled (VKT) and improving the fuel
efficiency and technology of the buses. Passengers shifting from single-occupancy vehicles
to high-occupancy BRT buses reduce overall VKT in the city. Likewise many BRT systems
consolidate informal systems comprised of low-occupancy vans that may use older and more
polluting fuels and vehicle technologies. New articulated or bi-articulated BRT buses can

4 | P a g e
carry many more passengers per bus kilometer and many are capable of meeting the most
requirement emissions standards.
1.1.5 Reductions in Greenhouse Gases
Eleven BRT systems across Mexico, Colombia, China, India and South Africa have
registered their carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2) emissions reductions through the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change’s (UNFCCC) Clean Development
Mechanism or other emissions verification schemes.
1.1.6 Reductions in Local Air Pollutants
Local air pollutants such as carbon monoxide impose environmental and public health
concerns. By forcing the retirement of less-efficient, older transport vehicles, BRT systems
can have a positive impact the health of city residents by helping decrease the air pollutants.
1.1.7 Public Health Impacts
Bus rapid transit systems also provide valuable public health benefits to society in three key
ways: reduced road fatalities and injuries, reduced personal exposure to harmful air
pollutants, and increased physical activity for BRT users. Local air pollutants primarily
impact individual health therefore this benefit is treated as a public health impact.
1.1.8 Road Safety Impacts
While research on the road safety impacts of BRT systems is less developed than some of
the other impact areas, recent studies shows that BRT corridors can have a positive impact
on traffic safety by reducing the frequency of traffic incidents, injuries and fatalities even
when controlling for citywide trends in accidents.
1.1.9 Physical Activity Impacts
BRT passenger surveys have shown that the vast majority of BRT passengers switch to BRT
from the existing bus or minibus services.

5 | P a g e
1.1.10 Other BRT Impacts
In addition to the travel time, environmental and public health benefits, there are other
important impacts of BRT systems related to urban development and land use, employment,
crime rates, and even public tax revenues.
1.1.11 Urban Development and Property Impacts
Benefits of transportation infrastructure investments get capitalized in land values. While
over the longer term, land uses may change (Cervero and Kang 2011).
1.1.12 Land Value Changes
The reductions in travel time and the improvements in quality of service associated with the
implementation of a new transit line often get capitalized into land values, as residents and
businesses are willing to pay a premium to be closer to transit stations. The magnitude of
the impact tends to vary considerably with market dynamics, property types and across
different regions of the world. Despite the variations several trends can be observed in the
literature.
1.1.13 Land Use Changes
BRT systems may also catalyze changes in the types of development residential, retail,
office, industrial or the density of development near stations. In addition to accommodating
existing travel demand on a corridor, a BRT may induce higher-density development around
stations as a result of increased accessibility and higher pedestrian volumes. For example,
“Ahmedabad’s Janmarg”, a BRT network, represents an excellent chance to help shape a
more inclusive city around cost-effective public transit integrated into a broader transport
network that includes safe access, non-motorized transport (NMT) networks, and pleasant
and inviting public spaces.
1.1.14 Employment Impacts
Construction, operation and maintenance (O&M) of BRT systems can create jobs. This may
result in net increase in the number of employed people, or merely a shift of workers from
one job or sector to another sector. In many cases, BRT systems create new jobs in the formal
economy that replaces informal jobs from the existing traditional transport system.

6 | P a g e
1.1.15 Crime Impacts
By providing well-lit stations staffed with security personnel, security cameras on buses and
in stations and pedestrian-scale lighting around stations, BRT systems can create a safer
environment in those areas they serve. On the other hand, crowded stations and buses may
increase petty crime such as pick-pocketing within the BRT system.
1.1.16 Tax Revenue Impacts
The formalization of transportation industry through concession contracts will result in
increased tax revenues for the national and local governments, for instance the financial
statements from the Trans Milenio system private operators show that between 2005 and
2008 these operators made income tax payments of 32.158 billion 2008 pesos, and 17.476
billion pesos in other tax payments, such as unrecovered VAT, sales, and industry taxes, as
well as vehicle taxes. These revenues were not captured under the traditional bus system.
1.2 INTRODUCTION ABOUT THE METRO BUS PROJECT LAHORE
1.2.1 Lahore City
Lahore is the second largest city of Pakistan with estimated population of 10 million. The
transport demand recently estimated by Japanese International Co-operation Agency (JICA) is
12 million trips, which includes 4 million short walking trips and 8 million motorized trips, on
a usual weekday. The number of vehicles registered in Lahore increased sharply from 95
vehicles in 2001 to 238 vehicles in 2008; per 1000 population.
The Lahore Bus Rapid Transit or Lahore Metro Bus is a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system
in Lahore, Punjab, Pakistan, established on one of the top priorities corridor of mass
transportations. The first section, which consists of a 27-kilometres long route and 27 bus
stations between Gajumata to Shahadra was opened by Turkey’s Deputy Prime Minister Bekir
Bozdag and Punjab Chief Minister, Shahbaz Sharif in February 2013. The Metro Bus System
Line-1 from Gajjumata to Shahdara is established in 2013 running in the North-South direction
through the heart of Lahore. Key locations throughout the city are targeted to allow maximum
number of citizens from surrounding areas to avail the bus services on the priority corridor of
Firozpur Road of Lahore.

7 | P a g e
Figure 1.2. A: Geographic position of
Lahore
Figure 1.2. B: Closer view of City of
Lahore
Initially, 27 stations were built along the MBS corridor, which have been designed keeping in
view the needs of the passengers.The system uses e-ticketing and Intelligent Transportation
System wand. The system is managed by the Punjab Metro Bus Authority (PMBA) with the
IT part being carried out in coordination with Punjab Information Technology Board (PITB).
Figure 1.2. C: Route plan/map of MBS

8 | P a g e
1.2.2 Planning of MBS
After 20 years of discussion, the ambitious and expensive Lahore Metro, which had first been
proposed in 1991 was abandoned in favour of a bus transit system, inspired by the
successful Istanbul Metro Bus system, plans of MBS were developed in the last quarter of 2011
by both local and Turkish experts.
1.2.3 Design of MBS
The MBS is 27 Km long corridor starting from Gajjumata to Shahdara via Ferozepur Road,
Lytton Road, MAO College, Lower Mall, Data Darbar, Niazi Chowk, and Shahdara. MBS
corridor has the following main characteristics;
 A 10 m wide dedicated corridor is allocated in the center of the road for the
operation of Metro Bus.
 The Metro Bus corridor is configured as a two lane undivided travel-way.
 There are twenty seven (27) bus stations each with two curb-side platforms i.e.
one serving the Shadara-bound buses and the other serving Gajjumata-bound
buses;
 Each Platform is 81m long and 3.5m wide, accommodating three bus-bays to
facilitate simultaneous stopping of three articulated buses.
 Passenger's access to the platforms is provided via escalators, stairs &
pedestrian bridges.
 Four (4) Platform Sliding Doors (PSD) are provided at each bus-bay for the
passenger’s safety.
 The articulated buses dock precisely in front of the PSD. Level boarding is
provided for passengers to enter the bus.
 Portion from Qaddafi Stadium to Data Darbar (8.3 Km’s) is elevated to avoid
conflict of Metro Bus with other traffic, in the congested areas.
 Metro Bus system currently operates with 64 articulated buses.
 The maximum speed of the Metro Bus is 50 Km/h and commercial speed is 26
Km/h.
 Metro Buses operates at a headway of 2-3 minutes

9 | P a g e
1.2.4 Ticketing System
Two types of ticketing systems exist at the Metro Bus terminals:
 Single-ride tokens that are good for one journey only and can be purchased for Rs.
20 (US$ 0.20) at the on-site ticket booth or the self-service Ticket Vending
Machines (TVM).
 Metro Bus Cards that can be utilized for multiple journeys. These RFID-based
cards are credit-card sized and can be obtained from the ticket-office for a
refundable amount of Rs. 130 (US$ 1.33). These cards can be recharged to a
maximum balance of Rs. 1000 (US$ 10) at the TVMs. The Metro Bus cards remove
the hassle of standing in a queue for a token and card-holders can proceed directly
to the terminal.
1.2.5 Automated Fare Collection (AFC) System
Automatic Fare Collection (AFC) System is a travel ticketing system which allows collection
& management of fare for public transport in a prompt and accurate manner, through the
deployment of information technology systems. This system allows the automated collection
of payment through PDAs and Ticket Vending Machines (TVMs). AFC system reduces the
need for ticket checking staff and helps to prevent fraud. Off-Board ticketing system is
provided for collection of fare on all MBS route.
1.2.6 Bus Scheduling System (BSS)
The BSS system helps to manage and control the route scheduling and bus route operation via
state of the art Operations Control Centre being established at the Arfa Software Technology
Park, Lahore.
1.2.7 Vehicle Tracking System (VTS)
VTS System allows tracking of the bus, and conveying real time bus information to the bus
station, control center and for telemetry. The VTS System uses a Driver Console for the
exchange of textual information between the driver and control center.

10 | P a g e
1.2.8 Passenger Information System (PIS)
Passenger Information System provides useful real-time data for bus operation such as
estimated arrival time, accurate interval time between buses, and announcements. PIS utilizes
the advanced vehicle location and communication technology. The Metro Bus Information
System provides real time bus information at stations and in the buses.
1.2.9 Intelligent Transportation System
A state of the art Intelligent Transportation System facilitates the Metro Bus operations and the
buses will receive signal priority to the extent possible at eight signalized intersections along
the corridors for improving efficiency and reliability.
1.2.10 Surveillance System
Efficient Surveillance System is planned for the system, and cameras are being installed in the
corridors and at stations for the security of the system. The overall system is designed to be
controlled and monitored from the control center.

CHAPTER 2:
METHODOLOGY

11 | P a g e
CHAPTER 2
2. METHODOLOGY
2.1 REQUESTS FOR EVALUATION
The Chairman, P&D Board on the director of Worthy Chief Minister direct in ADP review
meeting held in the month of March, 2015 to conduct Socio-economic assessment and study to
access commuters satisfaction level. The task was assigned to Directorate General (M&E),
P&D department. Daily average of more than 80,000 commuters travels in metro therefore it
was decided to conduct these studies with the help of individual consultants.
2.2 HIRING OF INDIVIDUAL EVALUATION CONSULTANTS
Individual Consultant with the possibility of provision of surveyors and data entry operators
was hired and paid under project “Capacity Building of Directorate General (M&E) for
Improved Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation in Punjab”. He was assigned the task of data
collection and data analysis from sampled beneficiaries of MBS as per methodology of
evaluation designed by the office of Directorate General (Monitoring & Evaluation). He also
recorded the interviews through audio and video means for verification and authentication
purposes. Moreover he engaged surveyors and data entry operators for data collection, data
entry and analysis purposes.
2.3 EVALUATION TEAM FORMATION
Individual consultant was hired to complete this assignment under the supervision of dedicated
team to conduct this study under the patronage of Patron in Chief Dr. Sajjad Mubin, Director
General (M&E), Directorate General (M&E), P&DD. The other team members performed
various tasks under his supervision for the development of report is as follows:
Report writing:
Naseem Khan Achakzai, Individual Consultant
Data collection and Data Analysis
Naseem Khan Achakzai, Individual Consultant
Sarah Mirza, Research Internee, LUMS
Iffra Ahmad, Research Internee, LUMS

12 | P a g e
Review
Majida Jawad, Sr. Specialist R & D, DGM&E, P&DD.
Rubina Bano, M&E Specialist, DGM&E, P&DD.
2.4 DEVELOPMENT OF METHODOLOGY
2.4.1 Unit of analysis
“MBS user / Commuter” was taken as unit of analysis.
2.4.2 Estimation of Sample Size
It was planned that 5% randomly selected commuters of MBS will be selected as sample for
getting the information regarding their satisfaction level and socio-economic return of the
intervention. A total of 3900 commuters were interviewed against a designed questionnaire.
To have equal representation along the geographic spread of Lahore, interviews were
conducted equally from all 27 stations of MBS.
2.4.3 Gender
It was further planned to have significant representation of female commuters in survey.
Therefore females were planned 35% of total sample size. Whereas 65% of total sample size
males were planned to be interviewed.
2.4.4 Randomization of Sample
To have the representative results of opinion about the services and socio-economic return of
this intervention the metro line was divided into the number of stations starting from Shahdara
to Gajjumata. Therefore in order to get representation from every MBS station and zone,
multiple teams were utilized to collect data from various commuters in parallel. The sample
distribution is shown in the figure 2.4.4.

13 | P a g e
Figure 2.4.4. a Sample Distribution of Commuters
The distance between the stations of MBS is shown in Figure 2.4.4.b below.
Figure 2.4.4. b: Distance between Stations
To evaluate the effect of MBS on traditional transport owners, commuters and other
stakeholders, face to face consultations were done and video interviews were recorded. The
alternate traditional transport owners, such as Rickshaw drivers and Public Van owners were
interviewed to get maximum impact of survey results. Both males and females respondents
were interviewed and videos were recorded.
Shahdara
NiaziChowk
TimberMarket
AzadiChowk
BhattiChowk
Katchery
Civil…
MAOCollege
Janazgah
QartabaChowk
Shama
Ichara
Canal
Qaddafi…
KalmaChowk
ModelTown
Naseerabad
IttefaqHospital
Qainchi
GhaziChowk
ChungiAmar…
Kamahan
AtariSaroba
NishtarColony
Youhanabad
DuluKhurd
Gajjumata
250
100100
150150
100100
150
100100100
500
100100
300
150
100100
150150
100100100100100100
250
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Shahdara
NiaziChowk
TimberMarket
AzadiChowk
BhattiChowk
Katchery
CivilSecretariat
MAOCollege
Janazgah
QartabaChowk
Shama
Ichara
Canal
QaddafiStadium
KalmaChowk
ModelTown
Naseerabad
IttefaqHospital
Qainchi
GhaziChowk
ChungiAmarSidhu
Kamahan
AtariSaroba
NishtarColony
Youhanabad
DuluKhurd
Gajjumata
Distance(km)
Stations of MBS

14 | P a g e
2.5 LITERATURE REVIEW
Pratt and Lomax (1996) proposed a set of indicators based on the objectives of the bus based
public transport system that professionals desire to evaluate. Though these indicators tend to
be specific to the end use of the measures, there are often debates whether multiple indicators
or a single indicator is useful in evaluation. For example, maximized ridership within an
allowable deficit unit may be used as a measure of transit performance (Talley and Becker
1982). Similarly other single measures include cost per passenger or per passenger mile (Nash
1978; Patton 1983). However performance measures may respond to intended recipients for
benefits of the system (Fielding et al. 1985). Different measures use different sets of indicators.
This is also dependent on its end use and the availability of data types used in evaluation. The
primarily base indicator selection should be based upon the end use of bus performance
measures. Selection of indicators is often based on the availability of measurable or observable
data (Hook et al. 2012).
BRT flexibly combines stations, buses, exclusive and segregated bus ways, and intelligent
transportation system elements into an integrated transit system with a strong brand that evokes
a unique identity (Hidalgo and Carrigan 2010). BRT provides higher quality of service than
traditional urban bus operations because of reduced travel and waiting times, increased service
reliability and improved user experience (Diaz et. al. 2004).BRT has contributed to an urban
transport transformation in the last decade. Today, more than 160 cities around the world have
implemented 4,200 kilometers of bus rapid transit or high-quality bus corridors which carry
nearly 30 million daily passenger trips (BRTdata.org 2013). The global growth of BRT has
been tremendous in recent years. In the ten years from 1992-2001, only 23 cities had
implemented new BRTs or bus ways while 115 cities have implemented BRT since 2002
(BRTdata.org 2013).
A wide gap frequently exists between the end use and the data availability to assess
performance because either relevant data are not observable or are too expensive or difficult to
collect (Hook et al. 2012). Thus, developers of performance measures often use proxy
indicators. Since many measures use proxy indicators (Hook et al. 2012) as they are cost
effective, there efficiency in replacing appropriate direct indicators remains open to evaluation
and debates. Two types of data exist, objective and subjective (Institute for Transportation and
Development Policy 2011). Objective data has two sources. One source involves data

15 | P a g e
collection devices, i.e., recorded data (Mulley et al. 1998) while the other source comes from
validated model usages (S G Architects and Fazio Engineer ware 2012a).
Analysts primarily use recorded data in operational studies. Most bus operational studies use
generated data from ticketing devices, fare collection devices and speedometers. Since an
abundance of recorded data exists in bus operational studies, one directs most bus
benchmarking efforts towards the benchmarking of operational performance. Subjective data
uses bus user and societal derived indicators that are often either proxy to operational indicators
or qualitative in nature, creating doubts on the accuracy of such measures.
2.6 PROJECT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
2.6.1 Social Indicators
 Peak Bus Speeds (due to its impact on fatal crashes)
 Potential for Shift from Private Transport – based on passenger travel time
comparison between Metro Buses and private vehicles.
 Potential for retaining existing public transport demand by improving the performance
of current bus system.
 Allowing universal access and barrier free mobility for primarily in terms of disabled
friendly infrastructure and fleet.
 Happiness and Satisfaction
2.6.2 Passenger Indicators
 Passenger speed or door to door travel time
 Total walk distance for passengers in a one way trip
 Total delay to a unit passenger in a one way trip
2.6.3 Operational Indicators
 Expected system capacity
 Expected operational or commercial speed (Km/h)
 Average per station and junction delay
2.6.4 Economic Indicators
 Income

16 | P a g e
 Affordability
 Increase in Economic Activity
 Costs and Benefits
2.7 DEVELOPMENT OF QUESTIONNAIRE
During development of the questionnaire multidimensional nature of the project was kept in
mind. Deliberations were made for developing a questionnaire that features all components of
the project which reflected on the social and economic indicators of the commuters. Therefore
the questionnaire included measurements to determine the satisfaction level of the commuters,
increase in economic position, health benefits, pollution, happiness and affordability etc.
Alternatively a questionnaire for traditional transport was developed for gauging positive or
negative impact on the owners and drivers of the alternate traditional transport such as
rickshaws, buses and public vans. Further a general section was added in the questionnaire for
impact evaluation. Beside this a questionnaire was also developed to determine the
socioeconomic impact of Metro Bus on non-commuters.
2.7.1 Pilot Field Survey & Finalization of Questionnaire
In order to get practical input with respect to the questionnaire and for training of the field visit
teams, a pilot visit to a few stations of Metro Bus was conducted on 20th
April, 2015. During
the visit some commuters were being randomly interviewed and face to face consultations were
held. Sample questionnaires were being filled by interviewing the commuters before the launch
of the data collection period. Consequently, list of impact indicators were narrowed down to
only most important indicators. On the other hand, some indicators were also added for gauging
effectiveness, quality and efficiency of Metro Bus service.
2.8 EVIRNMENTAL ASSESSMENT
During the study an environmental analysis was conducted to investigate the environmental
effects of Metro Bus. It was further studied that how it effects the living of the citizens. The
environmental hazards were also identified and an assessment was done to discover the quality
of air within the parameters of Metro Bus stations.
2.9 CONCLUSION AND INFERENCES
On the basis of data analysis, specific, vivid and easily understandable conclusions were draw

CHAPTER 3:
DATA ANAYSIS AND
RESULTS

17 | P a g e
CHAPTER 3
3. DATA ANAYSIS AND RESULTS
3.1 GENERAL STATISTICS
Table 1: General Statistics
Indicator Value Date Source
Population, city Lahore 7,132,000 2010 UN Habitat
System name (system info) Lahore Metro
Bus System
2013 Lahore Metro Bus System
Corridors (system info) 1 2013 thecityfix.com
Year system commenced (system
info)
N/A 2013 thecityfix.com
Transit agency (system info) Lahore Metro
Bus System
2013
Standard fare (US$) (system info) 0.2 2013 Lahore Metro Bus System
Annual fare revenue (US$
millions) (system info)
5.46 Calculated using annual
demand and fare
Peak load (passengers per hour per
direction) (system info)
3,000 2013 Lahore Metro bus System
Daily demand (passengers per
day) (system info)
130,000 2013 Lahore Metro bus System
Annual demand (passengers per
year) (system info)
39,000,000 2013 Calculated using daily
demand and 300 working
days
Feeder routes (system info) 0 2013 Lahore Metro bus System
System length (km) (additional
information)
26 2013 Lahore Metro bus System
Position of with-flow lanes (additional
information)
Median 2013 thecityfix.com
Position of counter flow
lanes (additional information)
N/A 2013 Lahore Metro bus System
Position of bus doors (additional
information)
Left 2013 Lahore Metro bus System
Lane material on running
ways (additional information)
Asphalt 2013 Lahore Metro bus System
Stations (additional information) 27 2013 thecityfix.com
Station spacing (m) (additional
information)

18 | P a g e
Indicator Value Date Source
Peak frequency (buses per
hour) (additional information)
Total fleet (system fleet) 64 2013 Lahore Metro bus System
Fleet, articulated buses (system fleet) 64 2013 Lahore Metro bus System
Average age, articulated
buses (system fleet)
Planning cost (US$ million) (system
cost)
0.68 2013 Lahore Metro bus System
Infrastructure cost per kilometer (US$
million per km) (system cost)
11.54 2013 Lahore Metro bus System
3.2 GENERAL DEMOGRAPHICS
To gauge the possible socio-economic impact of the newly launched development intervention
“Metro Bus Service”, a detailed survey was conducted in which sample of 3900 commuters
were interviewed. The results of the survey is presented in the following sections.
3.2.1 Gender Distribution
To assess the distribution of gender who
have facilitated by the “Metro Bus
Service”, analysis was carried out and
found that 68% of the beneficiary travelled
by Metro Bus Service were male while 32%
were female. Detail statistics is shown in
Figure 3.2.1. Figure 3.2. 1: Gender Distribution
3.2.2 Location of the Commuters
To get an idea about the location of the
commuters they were asked whether they
lived inside or outside the city boundaries.
The survey results showed that out of the
total sample size 65% lived inside the city
boundaries where as 17% lived outside the
city boundaries (Figure 3.2.2). Figure 3.2. 2: Location of the Commuters

19 | P a g e
3.2.3 Frequency of Travelling
Regarding the frequency of travelling by Metro bus, most of the responded in the favor of
travelled on daily basis. Statistics reflected in the Figure 3.2.3, shows that approximately
60.81% of respondents travelled through the bus on daily / almost daily basis, 23.54% of
responded travelled once a week, 9.62 % of responded travelled once a month, where as 5.18%
rarely travelled via bus and only 0.85 % of responded informed that they never used Metro Bus
Service for travelling purpose.
Figure 3.2. 3: Frequency of Travelling
3.2.4 Distance Travelled to Catch
Metro Bus
Question regarding the distance travelled to
reach the metro bus station were asked by
the interviewers. In this regard, Figure 3.2.4
show that out of the total sample surveyed
53% of responded stated that they travelled
one or less than 1 Km to reach the Metro
Bus Station, 40% travelled 2 Km while only
6% of responded travelled 5 Km to reach
the Metro Bus Station.
Figure 3.2. 4: Distance Travelled to
Catch Metro Bus
3.2.5 Purpose of Trip
Purpose of travelling by MBS was assessed by the statistics at Figure 3.2.5. Figure clearly
shows that most of the beneficiaries / commuters used Metro Bus to reach their work station.
Figure also shows that only 2.60 % of responded used this service for Medical Treatment, this
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00% 60.81%
23.54%
9.62% 5.18% 0.85%
Daily/Amost Daily Once a week Once a month Rarely Never
52.80%
41%
6%
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
1 or <1 Km 2km 5km

20 | P a g e
figure show that the people avoid to sue MBS during emergency. Detail statistics of purpose
of trip is mentioned in the following figure.
Figure 3.2. 5: Purpose of Trip
3.3 SOCIAL SURVEY STATISTICS
3.3.1 Ease of Accessibility for Basic Needs
To gauge the improvement in public transport by introducing Metro Bus Service, an
Important question regarding ease of
accessibility was asked to the commuters.
In this regard, Figure 3.2.6 shows that 89%
of the commuters responded in the favor of
ease of accessibility while only 11% were
against
Figure 3.3. 1: Ease of Accessibility
3.3.2 Accessibility to Educational Institutions
The impact of MBS on the easy approach to
educational institutions was accessed in this
survey. In this regard, majority of chunk i.e.
85% of the population surveyed
acknowledged that the provision of MBS
has made the educational institutions more
accessible (Figure 3.3.2).
Figure 3.3. 2: Accessibility to Educational
Institutions
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00% 48.10%
31%
12.50%
5.80%
2.60%
Work School/College/Univ Personal business Shopping Medical Treatment
Yes
89%
No
11%
Yes
No
0.00%
50.00%
100.00%
Yes No
84.50%
15.50%

21 | P a g e
3.3. 3: Mental Wellbeing
1
Travel by public transport was the hectic
and time consuming before the launching of
MBS. To assess the impact of MBS on the
commuter’s mental stress was also
incorporated in this survey. According to
the responses received from the commuters,
80% replies that the MBS is helpful in
releasing their mental stress / preoccupation
in finding a suitable transport for whatever
purpose they needed it. This reduced their
stress and increased the mental wellbeing.
On the other hand only 20% disagreed the
idea. (Figure 3.3.3).
Figure 3.3. 3: Mental Wellbeing
3.3.4 Rating of MBS Service Quality
The rate of success of MBS depends on the satisfaction level of the beneficiaries. To assess the
quality of MBS commuters were asked to rate the MBS service quality. The results showed
that 50% rated it as excellent and 36% rated it as good while on the other hand 9% rated it as
fair, 4% as poor and only 2% as bad. This showed that the major chunk of the population size
believed MBS quality to be good (Figure 3.3.4).
Figure 3.3. 4: Rating of MBS Service Quality
80.30%
19.70%
Yes
No
Excellent Good Fair Poor Bad
0
10
20
30
40
50
49.5%
35.8%
8.6%
4.3%
1.7%
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Bad

22 | P a g e
3.3.5 MBS: Measure of Good Governance
Providing good public transport to the citizen is the core objective of good governance. In this
regard, 84.6% of the sample surveyed believed that the provision of MBS was a good initiative
by government and indicated good governance. The Figure 3.3.5 depicts the perception of
commuters for MBS as an indicator of governance.
Figure 3.3. 5: MBS: Measure of Good Governance
3.3.6 Happiness
Commuters were asked to rate their level of happiness and relaxation on the provision of MBS
by the government on a scale from 1 to 5 (1= least happy, 5= most happy). 45% rated scale 5,
39% rated scale 4, 10% rated scale 3, 4. % rated scale 2 and the remaining 2% rated scale 1.
Clearly, the bias is towards the positive side of the scale (Figure 3.3.6).
Figure 3.3.6 Happiness
Yes
Don’t know
No
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
100.00%
84.60%
12.80%
2.60%
Yes
Don’t know
No
45.30%
39.30%
9.50%
4.20%
1.70%
5-scale 4-scale 3-scale 2-scale 1-scale
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
5-scale
4-scale
3-scale
2-scale
1-scale

23 | P a g e
3.3.7 Satisfaction
Satisfaction about the service of Metro Bus
showed that about 64% of the commuters
were very satisfied with MBS, 29% were
averagely satisfied while only 7% were not
satisfied (Figure 3.3.7).
Figure 3.3. 7: Satisfaction
3.3.8 Recommendation to Friends
and Family
3.3.9 Metro Bus car
The level of satisfaction and happiness with
the MBS was so high that 89% of the
commuters said they would recommend it
to their friends and family (Figure 3.3.8).
Figure 3.3. 8: Recommendation to
Friends and Family
About 61% of the people agreed to get a
metro bus card (intended for daily or more
often travelling via metro bus), whereas
39% were not willing to purchase it (Figure
3.3.9).
Figure 3.3. 9: Metro Bus Car
3.3.10 Easier Life with Metro Bus
A significant portion i.e. 94% of the
commuter population believed that the
provision of MBS by the government made
their lives easy whereas nearly 6%
commuters disagreed. (Figure 3.3.10).
Figure 3.3. 10: Easier Life with Metro
Bus
64.61%
28.54%
6.85% Very
Satisfied
Averagely
Satisfied
Not
Satisfied
88.88%
11.12%
Yes
No
60.61%
39.39% Yes
No
93.60%
6.40%
Yes
No

24 | P a g e
3.4 ECONOMIC SURVEY STATISTICS
3.4.1 Income Demographics
The income demographics of the metro bus commuters clearly show that majority of the
commuters belong to the lower socio-economic class. Approximately 47% of the commuters
fell in income bracket 10K-20K, 27% fell in income bracket 20K-30K, 16% fell in the income
bracket 5K-10K and only 10% fell in the income bracket of 30K and above (Figure 3.4.1).
Figure 3.4. 1: Income Demographics
3.4.2 Vehicles Owned by Commuters
46% of the commuters did not own any personal vehicle, 32% owned bikes, 16% owned
cycles and only 6% owned cars (Figure 3.4.2).
Figure 3.4. 2: Vehicles Owned by Commuters
46.50%
26.90%
15.88%
10.72%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
10K-20K 20K-30K 5K-10K 30K-Above
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
No personal
vehicle
Bike Cycle Car
46.08%
31.91%
16.05%
5.95%
No personal vehicle
Bike
Cycle
Car

25 | P a g e
3.4.3 Personal Vehicle Use
Substituted with Metro Bus
37% informed that metro bus partially
substituted their personal vehicle usage,
45% said they totally substituted their
personal vehicles with metro bus while
18% said that their personal vehicle usage
was not substituted by metro bus (Figure
3.4.3).
Figure 3.4. 3: Personal Vehicle Used
Substituted with Metro Bus
3.4.4 Fuel Cost Reduction
Nearly 79% of the commuters who had
personal vehicles said that MBS reduced
their fuel costs as it replaced their personal
vehicle usage either completely or partially
while only 21% disagreed about fuel cost
reduction (Figure 3.4.4 ).
Figure 3.4.4 Fuel Cost Reduction
3.4.5 Use of Other Transport
After the provision of MBS 58% of the
commuters who used other public transport
before no longer use any other transport
other than the metro bus. However, 37 %
still use other transport services and only
5% used (Figure 3.4.5).
Figure 3.4.5 Use of Other Transport
3.4.6 Job Creation/Improved Working Hours
Due to MBS service quality and ease of access 84. % commuters admitted that it has
increased their working hours and they are able to perform part time jobs.
The figure 3.4.6 shows the percentage of respondents in response of improved working hours.
44.58%
18.33%
37.10% Partially
No
Yes
78.96%
21.04% Yes
No
58%
36.90%
5.10%
0%
20%
40%
60%
Used before but
not now
Still use other
transport
Never Used
Public
Transport

26 | P a g e
Figure 3.4.6 Job Creation
3.4.7 Increase in Income and decrease in transportation cost
74% of the commuters said they received a pay raise (due to work efficiency by reaching office
on time) or started working at a better paid job where they wanted to work and could not work
due to convenience problem before MBS (Figure 3.4.7). The introduction and use of MBS s
the transport facility decreased travelling costs of 74% of the commuters and it had no effect
on travelling cost of 26% of the sample size (Figure 3.4.8)
Figure 3.4.7 Increase in Income Figure 3.4.8 Decrease in traveling cost.
3.4.9 Metro Bus vs. Public
Transport
Finally, 67% commuters said they were
willing to replace other public transport
facilities with (Figure 3.4.9)
Figure 3.4.9 Metro bus preference
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
100.00%
Yes No
84.08%
15.93%
73.73%
26.28%
Yes
No
0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00% 80.00%
74.40%
25.60%
0.00% 50.00% 100.00%
Yes
No
67.60
%
32.40
%
Yes
No

27 | P a g e
3.5 TRADITIONAL TRANSPORT ANALYSIS
3.5.1 Vehicle Owned
Out of the sample of 500 traditional
transport owners 73% owned rickshaws,
9% owned bus and 19% owned some other
kind of public transport facility (Figure
3.5.1).
3.5.2 MBS: Good Initiative
Traditional transport owners were asked if
MBS was a good initiative by the
government and showed good governance.
About of 90. % commuters acknowledged
that it was a good initiative (Figure 3.5.2). Figure 3.5.2 Opinion about MBS
Initiative
3.5.3 Effect on Traditional Transport
The survey from the traditional transport
stakeholders clearly showed a negative
impact of MBS on them. 96. % were
negatively affected by the provision of
MBS while only 4% positively responded
(Figure 3.5.3).
Figure 3.5.3 Effect on Traditional
transport
90.16%
9.84%
Yes
No
0.00%
50.00%
100.00%
96.34%
3.66%
0%
Negatively Positively No Effect
0.00%
50.00%
100.00% 72.77%
8.70%18.54%
Rikshaw Bus Other
Figure 3.5.1 Vehicle owned

28 | P a g e
3.5.4 Compensation by
Government
No compensation was provided by the
government to traditional transport
Stakeholders who lost business due to the
provision of MBS (Figure 3.5.4)
3.5. 5 Travel by Metro Bus and Rating
About 56% of the total sample of traditional transport stakeholders travelled by metro bus.
When asked to give their unbiased opinion of the MBS 70% rated it as fair, 14% rated it
excellent, 5% rated it good and 11% rated it as bad (Figure 3.5.5(a), Figure 3.5.5(b)).
Figure 3.5.5 (a) Travel by MBS
Figure 3.5.5 (b) Rating of MBS
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
Yes
No
56.29%
43.71%
Yes
No
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
13.96%
5.03%
69.57%
0%
11.44%
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Bad
0%
50%
100%
0%
100%
Yes
No
Figure 3.5.4 Compensation by
Government

29 | P a g e
3.6 NON-COMMUTERS SURVEY ANALYSIS
3.6.1 Gender segregation of respondents
Respondents were selected randomly. Majority of the respondents belonged to the age group
20-35 years of age. About 126 out of 238 respondents belong to this age group. Only 9
respondents were from the age group 60 years and above.
Figure 3.6.1 Gender of Respondents
3.6.2 Percentage of male respondents who experienced travelling by Metro
Bus
The non-commuters were asked about the experience of travelling in the Metro Bus.53% of
the male respondents had not travelled by Metro Bus, while 47% had travelled by Metro Bus
at some point.
Figure 3.6.2 Male respondents who experienced travelling by MB
6
60
30
6
23
66
44
3
up to 20 20-35 35-60 >60
male
female
47
53 yes
no

30 | P a g e
3.6.3 Percentage of female respondents who experienced travelling by Metro
Bus
About 67 percentage of female respondents had not travelled by Metro Bus while 33% had
used the service.
Figure 3.6.3 Female respondents who experienced travelling by MBS
3.6.4 Percentage of respondents by occupation and income group
Arranging the respondents according their income group reveals highest number of
respondents were employees who fits in the income group of Rs 10,000- Rs 30,000 and
followed by the Rs. 30,000 – Rs. 75,000 and more than Rs. 75,000. Students were mostly
with no income, while the rest of the categories were small portions of the sample.
Figure 3.6.4 Occupation and income of Respondents
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
yes no
33 67
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
no income
<10,000
10,000-30,000
30,000-75,000
>75,000
incomegroup
other
jobless
student
employee
self-employed

31 | P a g e
3.6.5 Percentage of respondent’s
frequency of travel
About 67.2 percentage of the respondents
travel daily, 15.5% travelled rarely, 8.4%
travelled weekly, 8 % travelled bi-monthly
and 0.8% did not fall under any of these
categories.
Figure 3.6.5 Frequency of Travel
3.6.6 Mode of transport of respondents
The respondents were assessed to know the
mode of transport.63% of the respondents
used their own transport while 37% used
public transport.
Figure 3.6.6 Mode of Transport
3.6.7 Purpose of trip by respondents
Diverse purpose of trip was observed by
non-commuters. Out of the total sample,
45 percent of the respondents travelled for
work and about 30 percentage travelled to
their educational institutes. The remaining
11% travelled for social purposes and 13%
travelled for other reasons. It was
interesting to note that only 1% travelled
for medical reasons.
Figure 3.6.7 Purpose of trip
0.8
15.5
67.2
8.4
8
rarely
daily
weekly
bi-
monthly
37%
63%
public
own
45%
30%
11%
1%
13%
home-work trip
home-
educational trip
social
medical
others

32 | P a g e
3.6.8 Comparisons of time spent to reach destination by respondents
From the graph below it is evident that
greater percentage (36% and 35%) of
respondents consumed 30 minutes-1 hour
and 15-30 minutes respectively while 19%
respondents used up to 15 minutes and the
remaining 10% respondents spent 1-2 hour
to reach their destination. Figure 3.6.8 Time spent to reach
destination by respondents
3.6.8 a) Comparisons of time spent on daily basis to reach destination with type of
vehicle used
Time spent to reach destination through public transport and own vehicles reported by non-
commuters was investigated separately. The results clearly shows that non-commuters who
travel through public transport travelled long distances. For instance 30min –I hour journey
was travelled by 43% respondents , 15-30 minutes by 30% respondents while up to 15
minutes and 1-2 hour time consumption was reported by 14% respondents respectively. On
the other hand non-commuters who travelled through own vehicles travelled shorter distances
than the public transport users. From the survey results 38% of respondents travelled for 15-
30 minutes, 32% responded 30minutes to one hour, 22% reported up to 15 minutes
respectively.
Figure 3.6.8.a): Time spent to reach destination by respondents with comparison with
transport used
19%
35%
36%
10%
up to 15
min
15-30
min
30min-1
hour
1-2 hour
up to 15 min 15-30 min 30min-1 hour 1-2 hour
public transport 14 30 43 14
own transport 22 38 32 8
-
10
20
30
40
50
public transport own transport

33 | P a g e
3.6.8 b) Comparison of time consumed to reach destination with distance travelled
The comparison of time to taken to reach destination and distance travelled was investigated.
Majority of respondents travelled greater than 10 kilometers and it took them different timings
to reach their destinations. The remaining respondents reported varying time lines to reach their
destinations as depicted in figure 3.6.8(b).
Figure 3.6.8 b): Time consumed to reach destination versus distance travelled
3.6.8 c) Distance from origin by
respondents
The graph indicates varying distance from
origin travelled by non-commuters.
According to the data 35% respondents
spent greater than 10km distance from
origin, 30% travelled 7-10km, 24%
reported 3-6km while only 11% reported
less than 2km distance from origin.
Figure 3.6.8.c): Distance travelled by
respondents
3.6.9 a) Daily expenditure on transport
Different responses were obtained on daily expenditure on transport. The highest expenditure
on transport ranging from Rs.20-50 and Rs.50-100 accounts for 54% respondents
respectively. Beside this 23% respondents spent up to Rs.20 on daily basis, 13% respondents
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
<2km
3-6km
7-10km
>10km
1-2 hour 30min-1 hour 15-30 min up to 15 min
11%
24%
30%
35%
<2km
3-6km
7-10km
>10km

34 | P a g e
spent Rs.100-200 on daily expenditure while only 10% respondents expended greater than
Rs. 200 on daily basis.
Figure 3.6.9 a) Daily expenditure on transport
3.6.9 b) Comparison of daily expenditure on transport with type of vehicle used.
The below graph illustrates comparison of daily expenses with type of vehicle used. Highest
percentage (33%) of public transport users expended Rs.20-50 on daily basis while the
remaining 25%, 23% and 14% respondents spent Rs.50-100, up to Rs.20 and Rs-100-200
respectively. Only 5% spent greater than Rs.200 on daily basis. Highest percentage (28%) of
own transport users expended Rs.50-100 on daily basis while the remaining 24%, 23% and
14% respondents spent Rs.20-50,upto Rs.20 and greater than Rs.200 respectively. Only 12%
spent greater than Rs.100-200 on daily basis.
Figure 3.6.b): Daily Expenditure on travel
-
5
10
15
20
25
30
up to Rs.20 Rs.20-50 Rs.50-100 Rs.100-200 >Rs.200
23
27 27
13 11
up to Rs.20 Rs.20-50 Rs.50-100 Rs.100-200 >Rs.200
percent public 23 33 25 14 5
percent own 23 24 28 12 14
-
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
percent public percent own

35 | P a g e
3.6.10 a) Comparisons of time spent on daily basis to reach destination with type of
vehicle used
From the graph below it is evident that greater percentage (36% and 35%) of respondents
consumed 30 minutes-one hour and 15-30 minutes respectively while 19% respondents used
up to 15 minutes and the remaining 10% respondents spent 1-2 hour to reach their
destination.
Figure 3.6 10.a): Time consumed to reach destination
3.6.10 b) Comparisons of time spent on daily basis to reach destination with type of
vehicle used
Time spent to reach destination through public transport was reported 30min –I hour by 43%
respondents, 30% respondents reported 15-30 minutes while up to 15 minutes and 1-2 hour
time consumption was reported by 14% respondents respectively. On the other hand 38% of
respondents who reach destination through own transport spent 15-30 minutes, 32%
responded 30minutes to one hour, 22% reported up to 15 minutes respectively.
Figure 3.6 10.b) Time spent with reference to mode of transport
19%
35%
36%
10%
up to 15 min
15-30 min
30min-1 hour
1-2 hour
up to 15 min 15-30 min 30min-1 hour 1-2 hour
public 14 30 43 14
own 22 38 32 8
14
30
43
14
22
38
32
8
public own

36 | P a g e
3.6.11 Mode of transport of respondents
Greater percentage of non-commuters used own transport. The preference for mode of
transport shows 65% respondents with preference for using own transport while 35%
respondents recorded preference for public transport.
Figure 3.6.11: Time spent with reference to mode of transport
3.6.11. a) Comparisons of mode of travel with type of public transport used
The highest percentage of non-commuters used Bus/Van as public transport facility. Of the
total sample, 25% respondents preferring public transport, 48% preferred bus/van, 25%
favored auto-rickshaw, 15% voted for chingchi while only 12% desired to travel through
MBS.
Figure 3.6.11.a): Comparison between the modes of travel with respect to public
transport
35
65
public
own
15
25
48
12
-
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
CHINGCHI AUTO-RIKSHAW BUS/VAN MBS
chingchi
auto-
rikshaw
bus/van
MBS

37 | P a g e
3.6.11 b) Comparisons of mode of travel with type of conveyance used
Of the total sample, 65% respondents own vehicles, 53% travelled through motorcycle, 38%
travelled through car and only 3% preferred bicycle as mode of travel. The other vehicles
preference accounts for only 6% of respondents
Figure 3.6.11b): Comparison between the modes of travel with respect to conveyance
3.6.12: Positive impact observed gender wise by respondents
From the figure 3.6.12 it was revealed that greater percentage of both genders (78% of the
males and 67% of the females) perceived the Metro Bus Service to have a positive impact
while lesser percentage (22% males and 33% females) felt that the impact is not positive.
Figure 3.6.12: Positive impact observed (Gender-wise)
3
53
38
6
-
10
20
30
40
50
60
BICYCLE MOTORCYCLE CAR OTHER
bicycle
motorcycle
car
other
78
67
22
33
-
20
40
60
80
100
120
Percent male Percent female
no
yes

38 | P a g e
3.6.13 Respondents with gender wise perception of time and cost saving
The comparison of gender wise perception of time and cost depicts that greater percentage of
both genders (76% males and 67% females ) felt that time and costs are saved with the MBS
while the lesser percentage( 24% males and 33% females) perceived that time and costs are
not reduced.
Figure 3.6.13 Perception of time and cost saving (Gender-wise)
3.6.14 Rating of respondents who experienced travelling by Metro Bus
It is evident from the figure (3.6.14) that highest percentage of non-commuters who
experienced travelling by Metro Bus ratted Metro Bus as good and excellent (40% and 38%
respectively). The remaining14% respondents rated it as fair and only 8% rate it as poor.
Figure 3.6.14 Rating of respondents who travelled by Metro Bus
76
24
67
33
-
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
yes no
Percent female
Percent male
38%
40%
14%
8%
excellent
good
fair
poor

39 | P a g e
3.6.14. a) Rating of respondents who have not travelled by Metro Bus
The non-commuters who haven’t experienced travelling by Metro Bus have diverse views
about the MBS. Out of the total respondents 33% of the respondents rated Metro Bus as fair,
31% rated it as good, 25% rated it as excellent while 11% rate it as poor.
Figure 3.6.14.a) Rating of respondents who have not travelled by Metro Bus
3.6.14. b) Respondents by type of ownership of vehicle who have experienced Metro Bus
Greater ratio of non-commuters who have their own vehicles did not experienced Metro Bus
while at the same time it is interesting to know that equal ratio of non-commuters who own
vehicles and who travel through public transport experienced travelling by Metro Bus.
Figure 3.6.14.b) Respondents with type of ownership who experienced travel by Metro
Bus.
25%
31%
33%
11%
excellent
good
fair
poor
49
53
38
98
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
public
own
Travelled by metrobus yes Travelled by metrobus no

40 | P a g e
3.6.15: Reasons for not using Metro Bus
Multi responses were received about the reasons behind not using Metro Bus. The results
showed that 45% of the non-commuters did not use the Metro Bus due to owning their own
vehicles or having their own conveyance, 37% had problems with accessibility, 11% felt that
the Metro Bus is overcrowded, 5% did not use it due to travel time and 2% did not avail it
due to flexibility of timings of not using the Metro Bus.
Figure 3.6.15. Reasons for not using Metro Bus
3.7 ENIVRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Another important measure to record the socio-economic impact of the MBS is the impact on
the environment. For this purpose, a significant step towards the assessment of the Metro Bus
Service was the Ambient Air Quality Monitoring by the Environment Protection Agency,
Government of Pakistan in June, 2015. Samples were taken at the designated sites (road side
at 6 Metro Bus stations in Lahore) and were analyzed at 3 to 8 meter height for conducting
micro scale monitoring. The samples were collected at the following sites:
- Kalma Chowk
- Qartaba Chowk
- Near Children Hospital
- Gajju Matta
- Shahdara
The parameters of testing the air quality were Sulphur Dioxide (SO2), Oxides of Nitrogen as
(NO), Oxides of Nitrogen as (NO2), Carbon Monoxide (CO), Ozone (O3) and Respirable
Particulate Matter (PM2.5). These parameters were tested against National Environmental
Quality Standards (NEQS) that define the safe or approved standard for each parameter, which
are attached along with the recorded level
5
37
45
2
11
-
10
20
30
40
50
travel time acessibility own convenyence flexilbility of timing over crowding

CHAPTER 4:
Govt. of the Punjab
(Source: www.dgmepunjab.gov.pk)
CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

41 | P a g e
CHAPTER 4
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 GENERAL IMPACT OF THE MBS
Metro Bus System (MBS) similar to all urban transport, can influence the personal satisfaction,
efficiency, well-being, and security of individuals living in urban communities. These effects
have been investigated during the period of this study. Some findings reflects the results from
the surveys conducted, some on simple calculations while others based on assumptions.
4.1.1 Environment
The environmental assessment of the Metro Bus Service was conducted through the Ambient
Air Quality Monitoring by the Environment Protection Agency, Government of Pakistan in
June, 2015.
“Reparable Particulate Matter (PM2.5), Nitrogen Oxides as (NO & NO2) exceed the NEQ
limits at all the monitored sites while the Ozone (O3) exceed at Shahdara and Gajju Matta
which is mainly due to uncontrolled emissions from vehicles (buses, cars, motor bikes, trucks,
rickshaws, etc.) running along the MBS. This is a violation of the PEP Act 1997 (amended
2012)” (Annex 5).
These results hold important connotations for the social impact of the MBS on the city at large,
and can have detrimental effects in the long run.
4.1.2 Travel Time
 Different design techniques and elements used in Metro Bus System to some
extent helped the passengers to save time in boarding the bus as they do not have to
walk up or down the bus stairs. The intelligent systems used especially for purchasing
tokens and prepaid cards have resulted in time savage.
 The segregated lane of the Metro Bus System has separated the MBS from
mixed traffic, resulting in high speed and no interference from the traditional transport
and signal free corridor results in a lot of time saving for the commuters. On the other
hand it has not caused any disturbance to the traditional transport means.
 There is a bus available after every 3 minutes with a stopping time of 30 seconds
which saves time. Using simple math a passenger can get from start to end of Metro
Bus track in approximately 54 minutes if the bus goes at a speed of 27 km/h without
stopping. If an additional 6 minutes of stoppage time at every station is added it can

42 | P a g e
easily be understood that passenger starting his/her journey from Gajjumata to Shahdara
will complete the journey in 60 minutes.
 Savings in Travel time is not just about spending less time on public transport
but, more efficient travel options allow commuters to get to work, School faster and
this also enables them to spend more time on leisure and with family. Travel time
predictability results in less stress to the commuters and the results of the survey
supports this argument.
4.1.3 Impacts on Health of Public
The MBS based on general assumptions provide health benefits to the public resulting in a
healthy society. These benefits include road decrease in fatalities, injuries, exposure to air
pollutants and an increase in the physical activity of the public.
4.1.4 Impacts on Urban Development and Property
Research has proven and confirmed that improvements in transportation results in a positive
impact on urban properties. We can look at the example of the Motorway network of Pakistan
which resulted in the increase of the land values in the villages and areas on both sides of the
motorway after its establishment.
In the case of MBS, residents and businesses are willing to pay premium to be closer to the
MBS stations and overall route, due to reduction in travel times and improved quality which
ultimately results in the increase of the land values. Since the property values have not been
tracked before the MB service was implemented hedonic price models can be used to support
our argument. The survey also showed that a few business owners claimed that an increase in
the property values have incurred.
4.1.5 Impacts on Employment Opportunities
The construction, operation and overall maintenance of the Metro Bus Service have created
jobs in an indirect manner due to higher accessibility of certain areas in lower costs, thus
enabling people to avail opportunities in areas they did not previously look towards.
4.2 CONCLUSION
The socioeconomic study of MBS was carried out to assess the social and economic benefits
of the project over the costs and the rate of success of the project to bring social and economic
uplift in society.

43 | P a g e
A detailed survey was conducted that included a sample of 3900 commuters, 237 non-
commuters and 500 traditional transport stakeholders. This survey was also supported by
documentary interviews of the various stakeholders. The statistics obtained from this detailed
survey have been presented graphically in the previous section.
4.2.1 Social Impact
The survey revealed that MBS brought with it a very positive social impact on the lives of
commuters and non-commuters (especially those living near the MB line). There was an overall
positive perception of the service, and most considered it as a measure of good governance by
the government. This not only showed their satisfaction with the service and an inclination
towards other such potential projects.
MBS alleviate the accessibility to basic needs and services like access to hospitals, home, and
food places. In addition, it also increased accessibility to educational institutions having the
potential to increase attendance rates in schools and colleges. Further, it also led to a rise in the
overall welfare of the citizens who are availing the service.
The daily hunt to find a suitable public transport facility causes mental distress in commuters
and after the provision of MBS this stress was significantly reduced as per the survey results.
This increases the mental wellbeing in the society.
When the satisfaction level of commuters was assessed, not only a very high level of happiness
and satisfaction was observed in people with MBS but also its provision by the government
was seen as an indicator of good governance. People were found so happy and satisfied that
majority of them wanted to recommend it to their friends and family. Also regular commuters
showed a high willingness to make “Metro Cards” for daily travelling.
Overall the survey showed that commuters’ lives were much easier after the provision of MBS.
These all social indicators remain positive and indicate positive social welfare as a result of the
MBS.
4.2.2 Economic Impact
The economic benefits in the society and lives of people (commuters and non-commuters) were
also observed to be significantly positive. Although the traditional transport owners and
stakeholders were negatively affected by MBS and lost business (without being compensated
for it by the government despite these costs being foreseen at the planning stage of the MBS)
however their unbiased opinions about MBS were positive.

44 | P a g e
People commuting by Metro Bus majority belonged to lower socio-economic class while the
non-commuters belonged to lower middle class. The MBS resulted in t many economic benefits
for these people. Those who owned any personal vehicle either fully substituted its use with
Metro Bus or their fuel costs were significantly reduced, which in return frees up disposable
income for spending on other needs of life. Moreover, the commuters acknowledged an
increase in their working hours or being able to work at better paid jobs. The MBS also
provided them with easy and cheap means of commuting to workplace daily and on time. Even
more, the non-commuters living alongside the Metro Bus line admitted an increase in their
property value after the implementation of the metro project near their homes and business
places.
The survey also assessed the view of people regarding their personal travel costs against the
benefits after the provision of MBS. It was concluded that the people ranked the services
provided by the MBS had more benefits than its costs. Overall, the people were satisfied with
the MBS and showed high willingness to replace other means of traditional public transport
with MBS.

45 | P a g e
4.3 RECOMMENDATIONS
5.3.1 Establishment of Parking Facilities:
Owners of automobiles are reluctant to use MBS as the parking facility isn’t available on all of
the stations. It is recommended to ensure that MBS is used to its full capacity parking plazas
should be established on the most crowded stations. Further parking stations should be
established on the other stations. Providing a parking facility will encourage the citizens who
are not using MBS to use it. Further this increase in MBS usage will discourage pollution.
Overall traffic would also decrease creating a pollution free city. Further the decrease in usage
of automobiles would consume less fuel.
4.3.2 Shuttle Service for Disabled and Elderly
Disabled and elderly find it hard to use MBS as their destinations might be further from the
route of MBS. Therefore it is recommended that a paid shuttle service be provided to these
citizens. Specific stops should be established to pick these citizens and drop them to Metro
stations to ensure that they are able to get advantage from the establishment of MBS. The
shuttle service can consist of vans which cover long distances. This facility will help the elderly
and disabled and MBS’s potential could also be reached.
4.3.3 Increase The Timings of MBS:
The timing of MBS should increase as the number of commuters is increasing. This would save
time and provide convenience for commuters who would be able to use their time efficiently
and be more productive with the time.
4.3.4 Integrate MBS with Feeder Routes
By integrating MBS with feeder routes the potential of MBS could be achieved. Further
destinations further away from MBS could be connected with the stations and more commuters
could be using the service provided by MBS. This would make access to MB stations easy.
4.3.5 Usage of Electronic Machines:
It takes plenty of time to get the ticket especially during peak hours despite the fact that stations
have electronic machines. Unfortunately not many commuters know how to use the electronic
machines. A staff member should be placed to guide the commuters about the electronic
machines. This would both save time of the commuters and provide convenience to them.
4.3.6 Accommodating Women:

46 | P a g e
Ensuring on board security for women commuters and allotting them more space inside the
bus. This would bring a positive impact. Further it is suggested to properly accommodate the
elderly and Women travelling on Metro Bus every 4th or 5th bus be specifically allocated for
the women and elderly.
4.3.7 Maintenance:
Proper maintenance of Stairs, Washrooms, Sewerage, and drinking waters is a common
complaint at 90 percent of the stations. (Pictorial Evidence can be seen in Annex 1). Timely
maintenance must be provided for the facilitation of the commuters.
4.3.8 Removing the Flat Rate:
Remove the flat rate of the ticket and charge as per station. This will help government to lessen
the cost of subsidy it provides further commuters would be charged based on the usage.
4.3.9 Regular Service of Air Conditioning System:
As the city of Lahore experiences one of the hottest summers in Pakistan and the fact that a
large number of commuters use MBS it is recommended that a regular service of the air
conditioning system should be performed to ensure that a pleasant ambience is created. The
cooling systems should be checked regularly for providing a better facility to the commuters.

47 | P a g e
BIBLOGRAPHY:
 The Asia LEDS Partnership and the Malaysia Land Public Transport Commission
(SPAD).2014.Quantifying The Environmental, Social, and Economic Benefits from Bus Rapid
Transit Systems .Workshop Report .June 24-25, 2014 - Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
 EMBARQ .2013. Social, Environmental and Economic Impacts of BRT Systems: Bus Rapid
Transit Case Studies from Around the World, EMBARQ.
 Anujjaiswal., Ashutosh Sharma and Yadukrishnan. 2012. Potential of bus rapid transit system
for Million plus Indian cities: A case study of Janmarg BRTS, Ahmadabad, India; An
Overview. International Journal of Advanced Engineering Research and Studies. E-ISSN:
2249–8974
 DG (M&E). 2012. Evaluation guidelines. Planning & Development Department, 4-Civil
Secretariat, Government of the Punjab, Lahore.
 Hook, W., Breithaupt, M., Wright, L., Hidalgo, D., Menckhoff, G., Martins, W. C., Pardo, C.
F., Szasz, P., Navarro, U., and Rutherford, S. 2012, The BRT Standard Version 1.0, Institute
of Transportation and Development Policy, New York.
 S G Architects & Fazio Engineerware. BEAD Tool. [1.69]. 2012a. New Delhi, Institute of
Urban Transport (India). 1-1-2012a. Ref Type: Computer Program
 S G Architects & Fazio Engineerware 2012b, BRTS Evaluation and Design Tool (Version 1.69)
Final Report, Institute of Urban Transport (India), New Delhi.
 Cervero. R.2011. State Roles in Providing Affordable Mass Transport Services for
Low-Income Residents .University of California, Berkeley, USA, Discussion Paper
2011-17: Robert Cervero – ©OECD/ITF 2011
 Hafiz, U., Ahmed and Abdul, J. 2011. Evaluation of System Performance of Metro Bus Lahore.
Department of Transportation Engineering and Management, University of Engineering and
Technology Lahore.
 Institute for Transportation and Development Policy. TEEMP BRT Model. 2011. Washington
DC, Global Environmental Facility. Ref Type: Computer Program
 ITDP. 2007. Bus Rapid Transit Planning Guide. The Institute of Transportation and
Development Policy. NY, USA.
 Bus Rapid Transit in Australasia. 2006: Performance, Lessons Learned and Futures Professor
Graham Currie, Monash University Journal of Public Transportation, BRT Special Edition.
 Jarzab, J., Lightbody, J and Maeda, E. 2002. Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit Projects:
An Overview. Journal of Public Transportation, 5 (2): 31-46.

48 | P a g e
 Pratt, R.H. and T.J. Lomax, “Performance Measures for Multimodal Transportation Systems,”
Transportation Research Record 1518, Transportation Research Board, National Research
Council, Washington, D.C., January 1994, pp. 85–93.
 Fielding, G.J., Babitsky, T.T., & Brenner, M.E. 1985. Performance Evaluation for Bus
Transit. Transportation Research, 19A, (1) 73-82
 Patton, T. A. Transit Performance Indicators. 1983. Cambridge, U S Department of
Transportation, Transportation Systems Center. Ref Type: Serial (Book, Monograph)
 Talley, W.K. & Becker, A.J. 1982. A single Measure for Evaluating Public Transit Systems.
Transportation Quarterly, 36, (3) 423-431
 Mulley, C., Mageean, J., Nelson, J. D., Bonetti, A., Marciani, M., & Cossu, P. 1998, EQUIP,
European Commision Under the Transport.
 Nash, C.A. 1978. Management Objectives, Fares and Service Levels in Bus Transport. Journal
of Transport Economics and Policy, 12, (1) 70

ANNEXES
Annexes 1
1. Pictorial Survey
Meeting Station Staff Interaction with Staff
Interaction with Commuters Interviewing Alternate Traditional Transport Owners
Interviewing Commuters Inside the Metro Bus

An overview of the Washrooms, Stairs, water coolers etc.
Sign board of washroom broken Washbasin was broken
Tiles were broken on stairs Water cooler was not in working condition
Wires were observed uncovered Washbasin was found with broken water supply

Annexes 2
2. Questionnaire for MBS Commuters
1. Interviewer indicate gender by observation
a. Male
b. Female
2. To protect your privacy please do not give us an address, but would you tell us
whether you live inside or outside the city boundaries.
a. Inside
b. Outside
c. Not sure
3. How often do you take bus transport as a transport measure?
a. Daily/Almost daily
b. Once a week
c. Once a month
d. Rarely
e. Never
4. How far did you walk to catch the bus?
a. 5km
b. 2km
c. 1 or <1 km
5. What is the purpose of your trip today?
a. School
b. Work
c. Personal Business
d. Shopping
e. Medical
6. Do you think MBS has made accessibility to basic needs services (e.g.
Hospitals/Home/Food places) easier/quicker?
a. Yes
b. No
7. In your view has MBS made accessibility to educational institutions easier (for your
or your family)?
a. Yes

b. No
8. Has the provision of MBS decreased your mental preoccupation/stress in finding a
suitable transport for whatever purpose you need it?
a. Yes
b. No
9. How would you rate the quality of MBS service?
a. Excellent
b. Good
c. Fair
d. Poor
e. Bad
10. Is MBS a good initiative by Government and show Good Governance?
a. Yes
b. No
c. Don’t know.
11. Overall, how satisfied are you with MBS service?
a. Very Satisfied
b. Averagely Satisfied
c. Not Satisfied
12. Would you recommend MBS to your family and friends?
a. Yes
b. No
13. Will you keep the Metro Bus Card (credit card for travelling daily or often)?
a. Yes
b. No
14. How happy and relaxed you consider yourself after the provision of MBS on the scale
from 1-5 (1= least happy, 5= most happy)?
a. 1
b. 2
c. 3
d. 4
e. 5
15. Has MBS service made your life easier?
a. Yes

b. No
c. Don’t Know
16. What bracket your monthly income falls in?
a. 5000 – 10,000
b. 10,000 – 20,000
c. 20,000 – 30,000
d. 30,000 or above.
17. Do you own any of these vehicles?
a. Cycle
b. Bike
c. Car
d. Do not own any personal vehicle
18. (If Q 17 applies then ask) Does MBS replace your personal vehicle use?
a. Yes
b. No
c. Partially
19. (If Q 17 applies then ask) Has the use of MBS decreased your personal fuel costs?
a. Yes
b. No
20. Did/Do you use any other traditional public transport before/after MBS?
a. Yes I used before but not now
b. Yes I still use other public transports
c. No I never used public transport before
21. Due to MBS service quality and ease of access have your working hours increased or
have you started more than one work because now you can reach your workplaces
more quickly and easily?
a. Yes
b. No
22. Have you been given a pay raise (due to work efficiency by reaching office on time)
or started working at a better paid job you wanted to work and could not work due to
convenience problem before MBS?
a. Yes
b. No

23. Has the introduction and use of MBS as your transport facility decreased your
travelling costs?
a. Yes
b. No
24. Do you think the benefits of MBS are more than it costs you to travel in Metro Bus?
a. Yes
b. No
25. Are you willing to replace other public transport facilities with Metro Bus?
a. Yes
b. No
c. Don’t know
NOTE:
General Demographics: Q 1 - 5
To Assess Social Indicators: Q 6 - 15
To Assess Economic Indicators: Q 16 – 25

Annex 3
3. Questionnaire for Non-Commuters
Q1. Gender: a) Male b) Female
Q2. Age:
a) Up to 20 b) 20-35 c) 35-60 d) >60
Q3. Occupation:
a) Self-Employed b) Employee c) Student d) Jobless
e) Other
Q4. Income Group:
a) No income b) <10,000 c) 10,000-30,000 d) 30,000-
75,000 e) >75,000
Q5. How frequently do you travel?
a) Rarely b) Daily c) Weekly d) Bi - Monthly
Q6. Frequent mode of transport: a) Public b) Own
 What type of public transport you prefer to use:
a) Chingchi b) Auto-Rickshaw c) Bus/Van d) MBS
 What type of conveyance you own?
a) Bi-Cycle b) Motorcycle c) Car d) Other
Q7. Purpose of trip:
a) Home-Work trip b) Home-Educational trip c) Social d) Medical
e) Others
Q8. Distance from origin to destination:
a) <2km b) 3-6km c) 7-10km d) >10km
Q9. How much time you spend to reach the destination/work/university:
a) Up to 15 min b) 15-30 min c) 30min – 1 hour d) 1-2 hours
Q10. How much amount do you spend daily to reach your destination?

a) Up to Rs. 20 b) Rs. 20-50 c) Rs.50-100 d) Rs.100-200
e) >Rs.200
Q11. Have you ever travelled by Metro Bus?
a) Yes b) No
Q12. What is the reason for not choosing Metro Bus for the travelling?
a) Travel time b) Accessibility c) Own conveyance d) Flexibility of
timing e) Over-Crowding
Q13. How do you rate the Metro Bus service?
a) Excellent b) Good c) Fair d) Poor
Q14. Do think that MBS network if built on other routes will save time and cost of travelling?
a) Yes b) No
Q15. Do you think the Metro Bus Project has an overall positive impact on people’s lifestyle?
a) Yes b) No

Annexes 4
Table 2.Recorded Interviews/ Face to Face Consultations
Sr. #
Distance between
Stations
(Kilometer)
Name of Station
Sample Size
Interviewed
1. 0 Shahdara 250
2. 2.2 Niazi Chowk 100
3. 0.56 Timber Market 100
4. 1.1 Azadi Chowk 150
5. 1.2 Bhatti Chowk 150
6. 0.63 Katchery 100
7. 0.7 Civil Secretariat 100
8. 0.9 MAO College 150
9. 1.1 Janazgah 100
10. 0.7 Qartaba Chowk 100
11. 1.2 Shama 100
12. 0.83 Ichara 500
13. 1.7 Canal 100
14. 0.73 Qaddafi Stadium 100
15. 1 Kalma Chowk 300
16. 0.7 Model Town 150
17. 1.3 Naseerabad 100
18. 0.93 Ittefaq Hospital 100
19. 1.8 Qainchi 150
20. 0.9 Ghazi Chowk 150
21. 0.83
Chungi Amar
Sidhu
100
22. 1.1 Kamahan 100
23. 1.2 Atari Saroba 100
24. 1.2 Nishtar Colony 100
25. 0.83 Youhanabad 100
26. 0.83 Dulu Khurd 100
27. 0.83 Gajjumata 250

Annexes 5
Ambient Air Quality Report

imp-003-impact-eval-report-on-socioeconomic-impact-study-of-metro-bus-project

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (6)

Ähnlich wie imp-003-impact-eval-report-on-socioeconomic-impact-study-of-metro-bus-project

Ähnlich wie imp-003-impact-eval-report-on-socioeconomic-impact-study-of-metro-bus-project (20)

imp-003-impact-eval-report-on-socioeconomic-impact-study-of-metro-bus-project