Bus transport sector
Presentation by
Background
Objectives of the project
Rationale for selection of Bus Transport:
Selection of States/Cities – Bus Transport
Selection of States – Bus Transport
North
East
South
West
Central
New Delhi,
Delhi
Lucknow,
Uttar Pradesh
Kolkata,
West Bengal
Patna,
Bihar
Bangalore,
Karnataka
Hyderabad,
Andhra Pradesh
Chennai,
Tamil Nadu
Mumbai,
Maharashtra
Ahmedabad,
Gujarat
Jaipur,
Rajasthan
Bhopal,
Madhya Pradesh
Methodology – desk based research
i.
ii.
Literature review,
Discussion with experts of competition policy, reform
initiatives,
iii. Collection and analysis of secondary data
iv. Stakeholder identification
v. Selection of impact/welfare issues to be covered ,
hypothesis formation
vi. Selection of variables on which data to be collected,
identification of data sources
vii. Development of questionnaires for perception survey,
viii. Development of guidelines for in-depth interview
ix. Finalisation of sampling framework
Methodology – field visits
i. Data collection from govt. officials dealing with
specific sector
•
Not all information available readily from secondary sources
•
Especially, in case of bus transport
ii. Perception survey of producers and consumers
•
To obtain the feedback on issues relevant to the stakeholders
iii. In-depth interview of stake holders
•
To understand the perspective of stakeholders in respect of
• general operational aspects of the sector, as well on
• competition.
Perception survey sampling
 Sample size:
 300 respondents from each of the two states.
 Intra city bus passenger:
 200 samples from each state
 5 busy routes or 40 regular passengers per route
 Routes were selected from both BRTS services and
regular city services routes
 Respondent selection was at random from regular bus
commuters
Perception survey sampling
 Inter-city routes:
• Two routes (50 passengers from each route) from amongst
the busiest ones.
• The selected two routes should show contrast in terms of
operators/buses, frequency, route length etc.
 Bhopal:
 Bhopal-Indore (high frequency, large no. of buses, 250km
distance);
 Bhopal-Gwalior (low frequency, limited number of buses, 450
km distance)
 Ahmedabad:
 Ahmedabad-Baroda (Public dominance, short distance of 110
km, high frequency, alternate mode train available throughout
the day),
 Ahmedabad-Jamnagar (Limited public service, Longer distance
of 320 km, lower frequency, limited alternate mode of travel)
Shortlisted reforms and issues for investigation and
contrasts across cities – intra-city bus transport
Reform measure
Reform/ issues in question
Public vs Private
operators
Madhya Pradesh State
Road Transport
Corporation abolished in
2005.
Issue(s) under investigation




Bus Rapid
Introduction of BRTS in
Transport System Ahmedabad in 2009 and
in Bhopal in 2010.





Nature of the market (prevalence of public and
private players)
Level of participation of private players in
intra-city bus transport
Entry and exit barriers, and concerns of
operators
Availability and reliability of buses for the
average consumer
Nature of public-private interactions in
providing bus services
Price setting (fare), route determination, bus
schedule preparation mechanism; role of
operator and Government;
Market power of private operators
Regulatory aspects – limitations imposed on
private operators; licensing/permit terms
Consumer concerns
Shortlisted reforms and issues for investigation and
contrasts across cities – inter-city bus transport
Reform measure

Private-Public
players
Reform/ issues in question



Stage
vs 
Contract
carriage status

Issue(s) under investigation
MPSRTC abolished in
2005. MP inter-city
largely catered by
private operators.
Significant presence
of public operators in
Gujarat, even though
private participation
is allowed.

Monopoly given to
GSRTC to operate as
sole stage carriage
operator in 1994.
With
MPSRTC
abolished,
private
operators can operate
as stage carriages.










Nature of the market (prevalence of public and
private players)
Level of participation of private players in
inter-city bus transport
Entry and exit barriers; permitted services
Operational freedom of operators
Price setting (fare) mechanism and its
regulation
Availability and reliability of buses for the
average consumer
Nature of public private interactions in
providing bus services
Entry and exit barriers; permitted services
Operational freedom of operators
Price setting (fare) mechanism and its
regulation
Consumer concerns
Competition analysis
framework
Large
number of
players,
inter-player
rivalry
Large Size
of market
Threat of
substitution
Free entry –
exit; Low
barriers
GREATER
MARKET
COMPETITION
Bargaining
power of
buyers and
sellers
Freedom in
operational
decision
making
High private
participation
Competition framework
Intra city Regular
Ahmedabad:
• In Ahmedabad, intra-city regular bus transport network is controlled by
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation controlled Ahmedabad Municipal
Transport Services (AMTS).
Bhopal:
• In Bhopal, intra-city regular bus transport network is controlled by
Bhopal Municipal Corporation controlled Bhopal City Link Ltd (BCLL).
Competition framework: Intra-city Regular
NUMBER OF PLAYERS, FLEET SIZE
AHMEDABAD
BHOPAL
Competition framework: Intra-city Regular
ENTRY – EXIT OF PRIVATE BUS OPERATORS
AHMEDABAD
BHOPAL
Competition framework: Intra-city Regular
PRIVATE PARTICIPATION
AHMEDABAD
BHOPAL
AMTS - fleet held, operated & utilization ratio
Operated fleet size static; fleet utilization on the decline.
1200
1000
800
80%
1120
966
78%
78%
985
942
76%
750
750
674
72%
671
74%
72%
600
70%
68%
68%
67%
400
66%
64%
200
62%
0
60%
March'10
Average Fleet Held
(Number)
March'11
March'12
Average Fleet Operated
(Number)
March'13
Fleet Utilisation (%)
Competition framework: Intra-city Regular
FARE DETERMINATION
AHMEDABAD
BHOPAL
Competition framework: Intra-city Regular
AMTS fare-fuel price change comparison:
Fare rise lower than fuel price increase in the shorter distances
30
30%
25
25
25%
25%
23
22
22%
21%
20
22%
20%
17
15
19%
18
17
17%
20%
19
20%
18
18%
21
21%
20
18%
15
15
15%
14
13
12
13%
11
12
11
10
10
9
10%
9
8
7
6
5
5%
3
3
0
0%
0%
0 to 2
2 to 4
4 to 6
6 to 8
Fare as on 01-04-2012
8 to 10
10 to 14
Fare as on 01-04-2013
14 to 18
18 to 22
Fare increase
22 to 26
26 to 32
32 to 38
38 to 44
Diesel price increase (April 12 to April 13)
44 to 50
Competition framework: Intra-city Regular
FINANCIAL SUPPORT
AHMEDABAD
BHOPAL
Revenue-Cost comparison for AMTS
Cost overruns revenue consistently and expanding
rapidly, requiring ever increasing external support
350
316
300
261
237
RS CRORE
250
230
185
200
150
100
84
98
96
144
93
109
50
49
49
56
118
109
120
57
2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2007-08 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13
Annual Revenue (Rs crore)
Annual Cost (Rs crore)
AMTS cost structure
Staff cost accounts for half of AMTS total cost
(2012-2013)
29%
Staff Cost
50%
Fuel & Lubricant Cost
Tyres & Tubes Cost
Spares Cost
1%
Interest Cost
0%
2%
1% 0%
17%
Depreciation Cost
Tax Cost
Other Costs
AMTS revenue
16,000
14,374
14,000
12,000
11,962
11,770
10,891
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
3,338
1,945
2,074
March'10
March'11
3,516
3,318
3,167
2,444
2,657
March'12
March'13
0
Revenue (Rs lakh)
Revenue/km (Paise)
Revenue/Bus/Day (Rs.)
Competition framework: Intra-city Regular
ROUTE IDENTIFACTION, ROUTE ALLOCATION
AHMEDABAD
BHOPAL
Competition framework: Intra-city Regular
BARGAINING POWER
AHMEDABAD
BHOPAL
Competition framework: Intra-city Regular
CONCERNS SHARED BY PRIVATE OPERATORS (Bhopal)
Road safety comparison across the cities
Road accident profile
(Ahmedabad)
Road accident profile
(Bhopal)
2494
8
2000
3076
2500
3623
10
3,459
3000
14
2,970
11
12
10
9.2
8.3
7.9
8
7.3
1845
1850
2,020
2,124
2,036
8.6
2232
2179
2000
2135
2519
12
11.2
10.4
2500
3500
3152
3000
14
16
3719
13.6
4000
3305
3500
16
3554
4000
2008
2009
2010
Fatal Accidents
All Accidents
Persons Injured
Severity
2011
2012
Persons Killed
301
278
299
275
272
0
244
0
0
279
2
263
500
251
2
245
500
227
4
222
1000
235
4
226
1000
200
6
188
1500
263
6
244
1500
0
2008
2009
2011
Fatal Accidents
All Accidents
Persons Injured
Severity
Note: Accident Severity refers to road accident deaths per 100 accidents
2012
Persons Killed
Competition framework
Intra city BRTS
Ahmedabad:
• In Ahmedabad, BRTS bus transport network is controlled by Ahmedabad
Municipal Corporation controlled Ahmedabad Janmarg Ltd.
• It started operation in 2009.
Bhopal:
• In Bhopal, BRTS bus transport network is controlled by Bhopal Municipal
Corporation controlled Bhopal City Link Ltd (BCLL).
• It started operation in 2013.
Competition framework: Intra-city BRTS
NUMBER OF PLAYERS, FLEET SIZE, FREQUENCY, ROUTE IDENTIFACTION
AHMEDABAD
BHOPAL
Competition framework: Intra-city BRTS
ENTRY – EXIT; PRIVATE PARTICIPATION; ROUTE ALLOCATION
AHMEDABAD
BHOPAL
Competition framework: Intra-city BRTS
FARE DETERMINATION
AHMEDABAD
BHOPAL
Competition framework: Intra-city Regular
REVENUE SHARING
AHMEDABAD
BHOPAL
Janmarg revenue (in Rs lakh)
Helped by ‘Other Income’, Janmarg prunes its losses
Particulars (in Rs crore)
31.03.12
31.03.11
2,913
1,612
Advertisement Income and Pay and Park income
106
49
Other incomes
675
107
Total Income
3,693
1,768
Total expenses
3,825
2,692
Profit / (Loss) before Depreciation /Amortisation
(131)
(925)
1
2
(134)
(926)
Nil
0
(134)
(926)
Bus Fare Income
Less: Depreciation / Amortisation
Profit / (Loss) before Tax
Less: Deferred tax liability
Profit / (Loss) after Tax
Competition framework: Intra-city Regular
BARGAINING POWER
AHMEDABAD
BHOPAL
Competition framework
Inter city
Gujarat/Ahmedabad:
• Both public and private operators are active in the inter city routes.
• The SRTUs, however, enjoy monopoly in the stage carriage segment since
1994.
• Private operators can ply only as contract carriage since then.
MP/Bhopal:
• In Bhopal, MPSRTC was abolished in 2005 due to operational
inefficiencies.
• Currently, all the routes are open for all, and the inter-city services are
largely dominated by private operators.
• Some public entities like MP Tourism Development, BCLL, etc. also
runs limited inter-city operation.
• Both private and public player can operate as stage carriages or contract
carriages, solely at the discretion of the operators’ need.
Size of bus transport sector in Gujarat
Bus population and new registration
4000
Stage and contract carriage
numbers
60000
60000
3500
50000
3000
48536
50000
50415
40000
2500
2000
30000
1500
20000
1000
10000
500
0
0
40000
30000
29558 29722 29756
18978
20000
20693
22336
10000
0
STAGE CARRIAGE
NO OF NEW BUSES REGISTERED
BUS POPULATION
CONT. CARRIAGE
Mar-11
Mar-12
Mar-13
Total
52092
Size of bus transport sector in Madhya Pradesh
34,166
29,636
28,331
27,149
30,000
25,126
35,000
30,591
40,000
2,625
2,472
1,845
4,000
3,500
2,500
2,311
1,854
1,752
3,798
3,000
25,000
20,000
35,639
45,000
39,437
• Largely operated by stage carriages
• Accounts for 97% of total fleet size.
• Expanding at 7% pa.
2,000
1,737
1,500
15,000
1,000
10,000
500
5,000
-
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Total Registered Stage carriages
Total Registered Contract carriages
Newly Registered Stage carriages
Newly Registered Contract carriages
Competition framework: Inter-city
NUMBER OF PLAYERS
GUJARAT
MADHYA PRADESH
Competition framework: Inter-city
FLEET SIZE
GUJARAT
MADHYA PRADESH
GSRTC - physical performance
Staff strength and passenger
carried
Fleet size, age and fuel efficiency
10.00
9.08
100.00
9.00
8.00
84.83
80.53
7.07 6.92
7.00
87.49
90.00
7.64 7.69 7.66 7.72
85.59 84.11
80.00
6.00
5.53 5.55 5.53 5.50 5.50
70.00
60.00
5.00
4.13
4.00
50.00
3.32
41.67 40.07 40.67 41.86 40.37
40.00
3.00
30.00
2.00
20.00
1.00
-
10.00
Avg. Fleet Held (in '000)
2008-09
2009-10
Avg Age of Fleet
(Years)
2010-11
2011-12
Fuel Efficiency
(Km/litre of HSD)
2012-13
Staff Strength (in '000)
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
Passenger Carried (in crore)
2011-12
2012-13
MPSRTC – just before abolishment
Avg. Fleet Held (Number)
2,146 Total Revenue
22,436
Avg Fleet Operated (Number)
1,760 Total Cost
32,297
Revenue Earning KMS (Lakhs)
17,180 Staff Costs
6,539
Staff Strength (Number)
11,204 Fuel & Lubricant Costs
9,288
Fuel Efficiency (Km/litre of HSD)
41 Tyres & Tubes
Passenger KMS Offered (Lakhs)
832,338 Spares
Passenger KMS Performed (Lakhs)
508,018
Passenger Carried (Lakhs)
690
No.of Accidents
232
No. of Fatal Accidents
69
Interest
Depreciation
Taxes
Others
888
2,285
1,531
586
3,619
7,561
Competition framework: Inter city
ENTRY-EXIT, PRIVATE PARTICIPATION, BARRIERS
GUJARAT
MADHYA PRADESH
Competition framework: Inter city
FARE DETERMINATION; GOVERNMENT SUPPORT
GUJARAT
MADHYA PRADESH
GSRTC - financial performance
Cost overruns revenue in all years except 2007-08. Ran a deficit
of Rs 3 billion/ Rs 300 crore in 2012 -13
30.0
27.8
RS IN BILLION (OR ’00 CRORE)
26.0
25.0
20.0
20.0
15.8
15.1
15.0
14.6
15.4
16.4
15.9
16.8
17.0
21.3
24.0
24.8
18.2
19.7
17.8
17.5
14.3
10.0
11.4
12.4
12.0
5.0
2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13
Annual Revenue (Rs billion)
Annual Cost (Rs billion)
GSRTC – cost figures (In Rs)
1961
51,657.00
0.52
1.17
436.00
78.00
128.00
2,242.00
2.80
Vehicle
Diesel (per ltr)
Engine oil (per ltr)
Set of tyre, tube & flap
Battery
Avg emolument per employee per month
MV Tax
Net fare of GSRTC per passenger km in paise
CONTRIBUTION OF
COST HEADS IN TOTAL COST
MV Tax
0.27%
2001
956,116.00
18.03
28.00
5,653.00
1,481.00
8,337.00
5,040.00
28.87
2010
1,341,598.00
35.85
80.00
7,117.00
2,460.00
15,638.00
5,040.00
40.46
Vehicl
e
Avg emolument per
employee per month
47.53%
Diesel (per ltr)
39.94%
Battery
0.22%
Engine oil (per ltr)
0.81%
Set of tyre, tube & flap
2.75%
CAGR (20012010)
4%
8%
12%
3%
6%
7%
0%
4%
Cumulative net Capital Expenditure by GSRTC
12,000.00
Particular
900.00
800.00
10,000.00
700.00
600.00
500.00
6,000.00
400.00
4,000.00
300.00
RS IN CRORE
RS IN LAKHS
8,000.00
(i) Land
Net
Share in net
investment investment
over 2003-04 (2003-04 to
to 2009-10 2009-10)
(in Rs lakh) (in %)
4.44
0%
(ii) Buildings
3,389.80
10%
(iii) Vehicles
30,029.64
86%
136.48
0%
1,396.68
4%
200.00
2,000.00
100.00
-
-
(i) Land (in lakh)
(ii) Buildings (in lakh)
(iv) Depttl. Vehicles (in lakh)
(v) PME items (in lakh)
(iii) Vehicles (in crore)
(iv) Depttl. Vehicles
(v) PME items
Competition framework: Inter city
ROUTE DECISION
GUJARAT
MADHYA PRADESH
GSRTC performance and service profile
Load factor, fleet utilisation,
regularity
100%
96%
95%
95%
95%
94%
94%
96%
96%
95%
96%
95%
90%
100.00%
97%
98%
97%
97%
87.00%
90.00%
80.00%
70.00%
57.95%
85%
80%
GSRTC Service Profile
86%
86%
86%
83%
87%
85%
83%
60.00%
50.00%
75%
40.00%
70%
30.00%
65%
66%
60%
63%
61%
55%
57%
58%
58%
2003-04
2004-05
2005-06
67%
20.00%
7.03%
10.00%
50%
2006-07
2007-08
16.79%
2008-09
Load factor (%)
Fleet utilization (%)
Departure regularity (%)
Arrival regularity (%)
2009-10
19.86%
4.88%
9.26%
0.36% 0.16%
5.04%
0.00%
Express/Super
Gurjarnagari
expressGurjarnagari
With Conductor
Without Conductor
Luxury
Express category
Share in service length
Ordinary
Share in passenger carried
Competition framework: Inter city
COMPETITION
GUJARAT
MADHYA PRADESH
Ahmedabad falls behind Bhopal in terms of passenger perception
on incremental ‘significant’ improvement in the recent times
Significant Improvement
Marginal Improvement
0%
56%
41%
16%
18%
51%
Significant Improvement
Marginal Improvement
9%
5%
18%
17%
6%
7%
0%
16%
10%
9%
10%
9%
20%
13%
20%
1%
30%
36%
40%
39%
30%
62%
61%
70%
50%
57%
40%
39%
50%
16%
50%
60%
60%
4%
60%
46%
70%
18%
70%
16%
80%
39%
80%
22%
90%
46%
90%
51%
100%
61%
100%
43%
Bhopal
Ahmedabad
Perceived positive impact of introduction of BRTS in both the cities on distance
to travel to reach bus stop, timeliness of service, availability, frequency and
waiting time
120%
100%
46%
45%
40%
41%
44%
44%
48%
40%
56%
60%
43%
80%
49%
39%
Ahm
49%
Bpl
41%
Ahm
48%
44%
Bpl
43%
Ahm
41%
34%
20%
35%
40%
0%
Distance from stop
Timeliness
Bpl
Availability
Significant Improvement
Ahm
Bpl
Frequency
Marginal Improvement
Ahm
Bpl
Waiting time
Perceived positive impact of introduction of BRTS in both the cities on bus type,
comfort, safety too. Impact on fare though is not that positive.
100%
90%
80%
47%
48%
48%
46%
59%
60%
52%
70%
50%
40%
38%
30%
6%
3%
Bpl
Ahm
Bpl
Ahm
Bpl
0%
Ahm
Bpl
Types of bus services
Ahm
49%
39%
41%
36%
10%
28%
20%
38%
30%
Comfort
Significant Improvement
Safety
Marginal Improvement
Fare
Impact on intra city transport of (a) continued Govt. monopoly in
Ahmedabad and (b) abolishment of MPSRTC in Bhopal
Ahmedabad sees considerable improvement despite continued government
control. Bhopal not so positive despite the recent change in intra city transport set
up.
Ahmedabad
Bhopal
70%
70%
60%
60%
50%
50%
Significant Improvement
Marginal Improvement
33%
8%
32%
7%
40%
5%
31%
31%
8%
Significant Improvement
9%
31%
8%
25%
11%
11%
Marginal Improvement
0%
3%
0%
8%
10%
14%
10%
12%
20%
14%
20%
12%
30%
13%
30%
22%
40%
4%
53%
54%
40%
60%
80%
61%
80%
76%
90%
58%
90%
55%
100%
59%
100%
Fare increase is largely in tune with general price rise
120%
100%
14%
80%
33%
60%
64%
40%
59%
20%
22%
0%
8%
Ahmedabad
Fare increase higher than general price
Fare increase lower than general price
Bhopal
Fare increase similar to general price
Satisfaction level is higher in Bhopal
Bhopal
Very satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
40%
16%
45%
43%
43%
18%
16%
48%
0%
Very satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
11%
17%
21%
24%
42%
9%
11%
11%
11%
12%
10%
13%
14%
27%
17%
19%
0%
10%
35%
20%
20%
10%
30%
47%
35%
30%
40%
45%
55%
57%
58%
57%
53%
50%
55%
40%
56%
50%
15%
60%
50%
60%
52%
70%
56%
70%
44%
80%
58%
80%
52%
90%
55%
90%
49%
Ahmedabad
Though Gujarat has a better inter-city bus transport service, incremental
improvement is tapering off in the following select parameters.
120%
20%
30%
14%
36%
16%
80%
26%
36%
20%
100%
Ahm
No. of operators
Availability
Marginal improvement
Frequency
Significant improvement
Ahm
6%
Bhp
Timeliness
Bhp
Waiting time
Indore
28%
10% 2%
Vadodara
Ahm
Gwalior
12%
Jamnagar
Indore
6%
42%
48%
30%
22%
Vadodara
18%
Bhp
Gwalior
14%
Jamnagar
12%
Ahm
8%
48%
Indore
10%
12%
Bhp
Vadodara
Gwalior
Vadodara
Jamnagar
Ahm
30%
12%
Jamnagar
10%
Bhp
Indore
Gwalior
22%
Nearest bus stop
Ahm
Gwalior
56%
Indore
64%
60%
66%
Vadodara
64%
64%
Jamnagar
44%
Bhp
Indore
0%
Gwalior
6% 6%
Vadodara
12%
14%
Jamnagar
20%
44%
40%
60%
78%
4%
8%
8%
14%
18%
60%
Ahm
Bhp
No. of categories
Ahm
Quality
Bhp
Significant improvement
Ahm
Bhp
Comfort
Marginal improvement
Ahm
Safety
Bhp
Ahm
Amenities
Indore
Gwalior
Vadodara
6%
8%
16%
16%
28%
32%
20%
Jamnagar
Indore
20%
Gwalior
6%
20%
22%
16%
12%
12%
6%
20%
18%
14%
10%
20%
0%
Vadodara
Jamnagar
Indore
Gwalior
Vadodara
Jamnagar
Indore
Gwalior
Vadodara
Jamnagar
Indore
10%
18%
26%
20%
54%
44%
30%
48%
58%
44%
58%
46%
32%
54%
32%
44%
46%
36%
62%
42%
40%
Gwalior
Vadodara
28%
46%
50%
Jamnagar
Gujarat showed more significant improvement in service range on
offer. The states compared well in other parameters.
80%
70%
60%
30%
Bhp
0%
Ahm
Bhp
No. of categories
Ahm
Quality
Bhp
Very Good
Ahm
Bhp
Comfort
Good
Ahm
Safety
Bhp
Ahm
Amenities
2%
4%
Gwalior
Indore
6%
6%
10%
10%
6%
12%
10%
8%
4%
Vadodara
Jamnagar
Indore
Gwalior
Vadodara
Jamnagar
Indore
Gwalior
Vadodara
Jamnagar
Indore
10%
16%
24%
24%
26%
34%
30%
46%
44%
50%
36%
30%
36%
40%
38%
36%
30%
Gwalior
Vadodara
18%
20%
44%
38%
38%
40%
Jamnagar
Indore 0%
6%
32%
42%
52%
52%
62%
52%
60%
Gwalior
Vadodara
10%
16%
50%
Jamnagar
Passenger rating of inter-city bus services generally
better for Gujarat
90%
80%
70%
Bhp
Increase in fare has been marginal
68%
80%
60%
52%
56%
62%
70%
50%
12%
20%
26%
26%
12%
30%
22%
26%
32%
40%
6%
10%
0%
AMD-JAM
AMD-VAD
Gujarat
Increased significantly
BHP-GWL
BHP-IDR
Madhya Pradesh
Marginal increase
Has remained the same
Fare hike was largely in tune with general price increase
78%
80%
90%
80%
60%
70%
44%
50%
44%
60%
40%
10%
14%
8%
8%
12%
20%
12%
16%
24%
30%
0%
AMD-JAM
AMD-VAD
BHP-GWL
Gujarat
Fare increase higher than general price
BHP-IDR
Madhya Pradesh
Fare increase similar to general price
Fare increase lower than general price
Fare increase had no or marginal impact on finances of
respondents
62%
70%
50%
38%
40%
34%
38%
50%
46%
50%
60%
20%
12%
12%
20%
18%
20%
30%
10%
0%
AMD-JAM
AMD-VAD
BHP-GWL
Gujarat
Significant increase in expenses
BHP-IDR
Madhya Pradesh
Marginal increase in expenses
No impact at all on expenses
34%
38%
Presence of public operator
managed to keep private bus fare
under check
16%
26%
62%
70%
60%
60%
Neutral
AMD-JAM
Affordable
50%
AMD-VAD
38%
Expensive
40%
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
40%
Public bus fare vs. private bus fare
46%
Perception in Ahmedabad on presence of public
operator
40%
70%
66%
80%
74%
Fare varies across private operators
30%
20%
40%
26%
50%
34%
60%
30%
10%
0%
20%
AMD-JAM
10%
AMD-VAD
Managed to keep private bus fare in check
0%
AMD-JAM
AMD-VAD
Yes
No
Have had no impact on private bus fare
Abolishment of MPSRTC resulted in marginal increase
in bus fare for most of the respondents in Bhopal
64%
70%
48%
60%
50%
21%
30%
30%
31%
40%
10%
6%
20%
0%
Significant increase
Marginal increase
BHP-GWL
BHP-IDR
No changes