Webinar: Bus rapid transit system: metro on surface or high performance bus system?

1,693 views

Published on

2014-01-31 webinar

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,693
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
135
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
59
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Webinar: Bus rapid transit system: metro on surface or high performance bus system?

  1. 1. Bus Rapid Transit System: Metro on surface or high performance bus system? Geetam Tiwari MoUD Chair Professor Department of Civil Engineering & Coordinator Transportation Research and Injury Prevention Program (TRIPP) Indian Institute of Technology Delhi(IITD) New Delhi, India 31 January, 2014
  2. 2. Bus Rapid Transit System: 1973-75 Brazil: “ I would like to have a metro system, however, at present I cannot afford it, why not have metro on road”- Mayor Jamie Lerner  Curitiba,  Why?  Problems caused due to growing car ownership  Bus system moving in mixed traffic could not carry large number of people as possible in metro system
  3. 3. Alan Hoffman:Delhi BRT workshop 2005
  4. 4. Alan Hoffman:Delhi BRT workshop 2005
  5. 5. Sao Paulo(10 million), Brazil Central bus lanes~170kms, links underground metro US Federal Transit Administration, 2001
  6. 6. Quito (1.8 million), Ecuador Electric trolley buses running through congeste d historical district
  7. 7. TransMilenio in Bogota from highway to city center
  8. 8. Taipei(6mill), Taiwan ~60km of BRT with metro Photos: Jason Chang, 2002 Creative use of lane space
  9. 9. Kunming(4.6 million), China central bus lns 50% increase in corridor cap. Source: unknown. From Lloyd Wright, 2002
  10. 10. Nagoya, Japan BRT planning in 8 cites John Cracknell, TTC, and the US Transportation Research Board
  11. 11. US examples Lloyd Wright Honolulu US Federal Transit Administration Pittsburgh
  12. 12. Rapid boarding & alighting Lloyd Wright Lloyd Wright Quito, Ecuador Porto Alegre, Brazil Bus stop platform and bus floor at the same level Wider doors Attention to details is the difference between BRT and typical bus system Karl Fjellstrom Curitiba, Brazil
  13. 13. 1980-2000+ BRT(some form of) in every continent! Latin America Belo Horizonte Bogota Campinas Curitiba Goiania Lima Porto Alegre Quito Recife Sao Paulo Europe Claremont Ferrand Eindhoven Essen Ipswich Leeds Nancy Rouen North America Honolulu Los Angeles Miami Ottawa Pittsburgh Vancouver Asia Akita Fukuoka Gifu Kanazuwa Kunming Miyazaki Nagaoka Nagoya Nigata Taipie Oceania Adelaide Brisbane Cities shown in red > 5million population
  14. 14. What is BRTS ? • Bus Rapid Transit is a high-quality, stateof-the-art mass transit system at a fraction of the cost of other options. • Exclusive right of way-central lanes on arterials roads • No friction with other vehicles • Not affected by traffic jams • Lanes can be used by police and emergency vehicles • Faster boarding and alighting • Level platform • Improved buses • ICT integration • Passenger information
  15. 15. BRT Experience • ASIAN CITIES(mixed landuse , short trip lengths, high share of two wheelers) – Open systems – Low Floor buses – Junction bus stops • Latin America ( Slums near city borders, moderate to long trip lengths, absence of two wheelers – – – – Closed system High Floor buses FOB Island mid block bus stop
  16. 16. BRT Experience • European CITIES(mixed landuse , short trip lengths, presence of formal bus system) – Open systems – Low Floor buses – Junction bus stops • North America (suburban development, very high car ownership, long trip lengths) – – – – Closed system Low Floor buses FOB( or curb side lane) Island mid block bus stop
  17. 17. Bus System planned like metro Gives a brand image to public transport  Ensures high service quality and reliability  Allows ease of control and enforcement  Fare structure and fare collection system is generally simpler and uniform.  Simpler Junction design and signal plan. Can be managed in maximum of 4-5 phases as turning buses is controlled  1030km Closed / Trunk & Feeder System 1-3km
  18. 18. Bus System planned like metro Heavy dependence on feeder infrastructure Transfers are increased, increasing journey time Suitable for cities with majority trips are more than 10km ~ Not suitable for corridors with high segment demand variations. High quality feeder network is essential Restricts use by non BRT public transport modes Needs a new and independent institutional mechanism  1030km 1-3km
  19. 19. Metro & BRT network in selected cities Metro Moscow Metro Tokyo BRT Bogota BRT Jakarta
  20. 20. Network connectivity in bus systems • Majority O-D are connected by direct service • Some routes can go off the corridor nearer destinations • Bus stop spacing 500 m providing short access trips
  21. 21. Open System Increases the catchment area of buses  Transfers are minimised, decreasing journey time.  Does not need separate feeder network  Suitable for cities where majority trips are less than ~10 km.  Works well in corridors with high segmental demand variations  Extends segregated lane benefits to all public transport and high occupancy modes on the corridor.  Can work within the existing institutional and regulatory framework using the existing operators. 
  22. 22. Open System Predictability and reliability of public transport is decreased because the buses have to move in mixed conditions for sometime  Difficult to regulate and control  Has generally complex fare structure and fare collection system  Signal cycle design may require more phases as turning is allowed for buses. 
  23. 23. Hybrid System HYBRID SYSTEM – Combines benefits  of Open and Closed System In the same corridor a route is reserved only to ply on the corridor. Other buses move in and out of the corridor and this will be city bus service  Minimum standard/frequency is met by BRTS operations, higher segmental demands are met by city buses.  Provides reliability and high service quality as well brand image along with flexibility and convenience.  Fare collection and control within corridor may be simplified by providing closed shelters with offboard ticketing 
  24. 24. Open and Closed Systems Open System • Buses can enter and leave the busway depending on the origin and destinations – shared busway with multiple routes Closed System • Buses remain within the busway and operate between terminals 24
  25. 25. Trunk and Feeder System 25
  26. 26. 115 Buses/hr (14 Routes) Network Planning 1 Route, 5 buses/hr CHIRAGH DELHI 1 Route, 15 Buses/hr Existing routes 123 Buses/hr (14 Routes) 2 Routes, 12 Buses/hr 5 Routes, 46 Buses/hr PRESS ENCLAVE 157 Buses/hr (18 Routes) 1 Route, 12 buses /hr •36 bus routes •4 through routes •120-150 buses/h 2 Routes, 19 buses/hr LEGEND 123 Buses/hr (14 Routes) ORTHONOVA 2 Routes, 15 buses/hr VIRAT MARG (MID BLOCK) Buses Joining Corridor Buses Leaving Corridor Bus Shelters 4 Routes, 38 buses/hr 123 Buses/hr (14 Routes) Buses On Corridor 10 Routes, 85 Buses/hr AMBEDKAR NAGAR 26
  27. 27. Understanding Capacity Line capacity vs vehicle capacity • Line capacity : Vehicle capacity(Transit Unit, TU) X TU/h • TU capacity= No. of vehicles /TU • Vehicle Capacity : vehicle size, standing, seating, load factor, passenger comfort • Frequency: TU/h= cycle time/headway • Cycle time: Station time+ running time • Running time: corridor length/speed • Station time: boarding and alighting time • Vehicle design, station design 27
  28. 28. Why do cities invest in Public transport? • • • • “reduce” congestion Improve air quality Control sprawl Provide mobility choices This requires 1. retaining PT and NMV users 2.attracting people car users & two wheeler users to PT
  29. 29. What do people want • Get me from point A to point B, (connectivity) • Quickly and don’t make me wait (system performance)
  30. 30. How do you reduce door to door journey time? • Reduce Waiting time~ increase frequencies • Door to door travel that is faster than driving~ increase direct service and express service Pedestrian connectivity
  31. 31. 3 km trip car bicycl e BR T wal k metr o 3 2.5 Distance, km 2 1.5 1 Metro Bicycling 0.5 Walking BRT 2-Wheeler/car 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Time, minutes IIT Delhi 2006
  32. 32. 12 km Trip metr o car 12 Distance, km 10 BR T 8 S’pore average metro trip 12 km 6 Metro 4 BRT 2 2-Wheeler/car 0 0 10 20 30 Time, minutes 40 50 60 IIT Delhi 2006
  33. 33. BRTS Design and Evaluation Process • Design and operation selection currently based on experience in different cities – Problem– cities differ in context and requirements Xiamen* • Lack of comprehensive indicators of “success” – Mostly operational indicators commercial speed and capacity used, user or social indicators not used. Seoul* Taipei * source- www.chinabrt.org BRT Corridors–Global Examples
  34. 34. = 16 Possible Designs (https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/easts/10/0/10_1292/_article Station Motor Vehicle Lanes Bus Lanes Motor Vehicle Lanes Motor Vehicle Lanes Bus Lanes Motor Vehicle Lanes Staggered Stations Station X Island Stations Station Motor Vehicle Lanes Bus Lanes Motor Vehicle Lanes Motor Vehicle Lanes Bus Lanes Motor Vehicle Lanes 2 Station Mid-block Stations Station Station Motor Vehicle Lanes Motor Vehicle Lanes Bus Lanes 2 Motor Vehicle Lanes X Junction Stations Bus Lanes 2 Station Motor Vehicle Lanes X Stations with overtaking lane Stations without overtaking lane Open System – Multi route operation Closed System – Single route operation 2 15
  35. 35. Possible Design Variations Average Trip Length – 7km Demand 7500 PPHPD Average Walk Speed – 1m/s Average Station Spacing :600m Signal Cycle (Ped. Crossing) – 60s Signal Cycle (Veh. Int.) :150s At grade signalized access for ped. Boarding Bay from Crossing: 26m 30% turning buses in open system 5 distinct routes in open system Variations in features modeled (for 16 design options) Demand (PPHPD) 2500, 5000, 7500, 10000, 12500 Average Station Spacing (m) 400, 500, 600, 700, 800, 900, 1000 Signal Cycle (s) 120, 150, 180, 210, 240, 270, 300 Boarding bay dist. From int. (m) 0, 13, 26, 39, 52, 65, 78 Results compared (for 16 design options) Average commercial speeds Maximum achievable frequency Door to door journey time Access & egress time Total walk distance in a one way trip
  36. 36. Findings – Closed systems are better than open – Staggered are better than island stations – Junctions are better than mid block shelter locations – Higher speeds with overtaking lane than without 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1000 Operational Speed in Km/h • Commercial Speed: Average Distance Between Stations (m) Average Distance between Stations Vs. Operation Speed 3.4 3.2 17.9 17.6 14.5 14.2 450 18.9 18.6 15.5 15.2 500 19.9 19.6 16.4 16.1 550 20.8 20.5 17.2 17.0 600 21.6 21.3 18.0 17.7 650 Junction With Overtaking Island in Open system Junction Without Overtaking Staggered in Open system Junction Without Overtaking Island in Open system 22.3 22.0 Average Journey Time in Minutes – Lowest journey time at 750800m station spacing – Open systems better than closed systems for station spacing >450m. – Staggered better than island – Junctions better than mid block – With overtaking better than without Junction with overtaking staggered in open system 50 18.8 18.5 700 49 48 Average Distance Between Stations 2 2 25.2 24.9 Average Distance 24.7 24.4 24.2 vs. Journey Time 23.9 23.6 23.3 23.0 22.7 20.1 19.8 19.5 19.2 47 16.7 46 16.4 45 13.4 13.2 18.9 18.6 17.9 17.6 750 800 850 18.0 17.7 17.2 17.0 16.4 16.1 15.5 15.2 14.5 14.2 21.6 21.3 20.8 20.5 19.9 19.6 2 2 21.8 21.5 21.3 21.0 20.7 20.4 900 950 44 400 43 450 500 550 600 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1000 • Journey Time 6.7 6.4 00 Average Distance Between 26 Stations vs. Operation Speed 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 650 Junction With Overtaking Staggered in Close system Average Overtaking Island in Stations (m) Junction WithDistance Between Close system Junction Without Overtaking Staggered in system Junction with overtaking staggered in openClosed system Junction Without Overtaking Island in Closed system Junction With Overtaking Island in Open system
  37. 37. Findings • Total Access+Egress Time 600 500 Maximum Frequency P – Higher frequency for closed systems than open – Higher frequency for mid block stations than junction – Higher for staggered stations than island – Higher with overtaking lane 400 300 200 100 0 0 13 26 39 52 65 78 Distance of First Boarding Bay from Stop line in m Average Distance between Stations – Compared to open system Distance between Stations Vs. Operation Speed Average 40 Vs. Total Access Time access+ egress time is almost Average Distance double for junction stn. and 15% 35 higher for mid. block stn. in 30 closed systems – Compared to junction stations it 25 is 30% higher for mid block 20 stations in open systems and 10% higher in closed systems 15 17.9 17.6 14.5 14.2 450 18.9 18.6 15.5 15.2 500 19.9 19.6 16.4 16.1 550 20.8 20.5 17.2 17.0 600 21.6 21.3 18.0 17.7 650 • Total walk dist. in a trip – Shorter for open system than for closed system Junction with overtaking staggered in open system Junction With Overtaking Island in Open system than – Shorter for junction stations Junction Without Overtaking Staggered in Open system for mid block Junction Without Overtaking Island in Open system Total Access Time (min.) 3.4 3.2 00 700 • Max. Achievable Frequency: 6.7 6.4 Distance of First stop fr Stop line vs. Max. Frequency (Bus Capacity) 16.7 16.4 13.4 13.2 400 18.9 18.6 17.9 17.6 750 800 450 850 500 900 550 18.0 17.7 17.2 17.0 16.4 16.1 15.5 15.2 14.5 14.2 21.6 21.3 20.8 20.5 19.9 19.6 2 2 21.8 21.5 21.3 21.0 20.7 20.4 20.1 19.8 19.5 19.2 18.8 18.5 700 23.6 23.3 23.0 22.7 22.3 22.0 2 2 25.2 24.9 24.7 24.4 24.2 23.9 950 600 650 Average Distance between Stations (m) Junction With Overtaking Staggered in Close system Junction With Overtaking Island in Close system Junction Without Overtaking Staggered in system Junction with overtaking staggered in openClosed system Junction Without Overtaking Island in Closed system Junction With Overtaking Island in Open system
  38. 38. 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 4 0.0 10 -1.0 16 Trip Length in Km Average motorized speed in City in km/hr 4.0-5.0 3.0-4.0 2.0-3.0 1.0-2.0 0.0-1.0 -1.0-0.0 Gain in Passenger Speed (in km/h) over Regular Bus Service (in Closed System) 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 -1.0 4 10 Speed Differrence in km/hr • Passenger Speed gain over regular buses: – Open system with staggered stations better than closed system with island stations for trip lengths up to 9km. – BRTS has little or no advantage over regular bus systems if avg. motor veh. speed >22.5 km/h. – In all systems longer avg. trip lengths are more attractive over regular buses for avg. MV speeds less than 20 km/h. 5.0 Gain in Passenger Speed (in km/h) over Regular Bus Service (in Open System) Speed Difference in km/hr Trip length variation Impact 5.0-6.0 4.0-5.0 3.0-4.0 2.0-3.0 1.0-2.0 16 Trip length in Km Average Motorized speed in city in km/hr 0.0-1.0 -1.0-0.0
  39. 39. Typical System/Design comp 1. Staggered Stations in open system, first bay is 26m from crossing 2. Island station in closed system, first bay is 60m from stop line Common Design Features(for both designs) No. of boarding bays :3 per direction Demand 7500 PPHPD Average Walk Speed :1m/s Bus overtaking lanes at station: None Signal Cycle (Ped. Crossing) – 60s Signal Cycle (Veh. Int.) – 150s At grade signalized access for ped. Boarding Bay from Crossing – 26m 30% turning buses in open system 5 distinct routes in open system Variations in Context Elements Trip Length (km) - 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16 Average Station Spacing (m) - 500, 600, 700, 800, 900, 1000 Peak bus speed (km/h) - 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100 Avg. veh. speed in corridor (km/h) 10.0, 12.5, 15.0, 17.5, 20.0, 22.5, 25.0, 27.5, 30.0 Results compared Travel time (min), Operational/Commercial speed Passenger Speed (km/h)
  40. 40. Stn spacing and peak speed Impact Operational Speed in Km/Hr Open System Operational Speed for 8 Km Trip Length 32 27 22 17 12 40 27-32 60 22-27 80 17-22 Peak Bus Speed in Km/hr 100 32-36 12-17 Close System Operational Speed for 8 Km Trip Length Operational Speed in Km/Hr • Commercial Speed: Avg. Trip length variation does not effect commercial speed in BRTS Commercial speed increases with increasing station spacing and increasing peak bus speeds in all systems. Commercial speed is more sensitive to station spacing and peak bus speed in closed systems. Steepest gain in commercial speed with increase in peak speeds from 40 to 60km/h At ideal station spacing of 750m, an increase in peak bus speeds from 40 to 60km/h ,commercial speed increases by 10% in open system and 15% in closed system. 33 28 40 23 60 18 80 100 33-36 28-33 23-28 18-23 Peak Bus Speed in Km/hr
  41. 41. Impact on Journey Time • Door to Door Journey Time: 44 43 Trip time in min 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 40 44-45 43-44 42-43 41-42 40-41 39-40 38-39 60 500 37-38 80 600 700 800 900 100 1000 36-37 Peak Bus Speed in Km/hr Close System Travel Time (min) Comparison for 6 Km Trip Length 45.00 44.00-45.00 44.00 43.00 43.00-44.00 42.00 Trip time in min – Open systems are more sensitive to station spacing than closed systems – Ideal station spacing for all systems is about 750m – Journey time advantage of increasing peak bus speed increases with avg. station spacing increase – Increasing peak bus speed has minimal impact on journey time Open System Travel Time Comparison for 6 Km Trip Length 45 42.00-43.00 41.00 40.00 39.00 38.00 37.00 36.00 41.00-42.00 40.00-41.00 40 60 80 100 Peak Bus Speed in Km/hr 39.00-40.00 38.00-39.00 37.00-38.00 36.00-37.00
  42. 42. Conclusions • In general closed systems perform better against operator indicators while open systems perform better against passenger and social indicators. • Open systems work better in cities with avg. trip length less than 9-10km when no bus overtaking lane is used and less than 14-16km when bus overtaking lanes exist. • Staggered stations perform better than island stations in all conditions, for all operational designs. • Stations perform better with overtaking lanes than without • BRTS systems are useful on inner city roads with higher congestion and avg. MV speed of 15-20km/h or less. They are counter productive on corridors with speeds in excess of 27.5km/h • Increasing peak bus speeds over 40km/h results in no significant advantage either to passengers or to operators but significantly increases fatality risk.
  43. 43. WAY FORWARD st 21 What is a century city?
  44. 44. An Alternative Approach Sustainable Mobility(D. Banister, T.Litman, J.Gehl.................. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Social dimensions Accessibility People focus, instead of vehicle Local in scale Street as a space All modes of transport often in a hierarchy with pedestrian and cyclist at the top and car users at the bottom Visioning on cities Scenario development and modelling Multicriteria analysis to take account of environmental and social concerns Travel as a valued activity as well as a derived demand Management based Slowing movement down Reasonable travel times and travel time reliability Integration of people and traffic
  45. 45. BRTS in Future Cities • Inclusive • Compact – High density – Mixed landuse • Short to medium trip lengths • Less dependent on personal motorized vehicles OPEN BRTS or CLOSED BRTS??

×