• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Feeder Services in BRTS: New Concepts - Abhijit Lokre
 

Feeder Services in BRTS: New Concepts - Abhijit Lokre

on

  • 915 views

SESSION 3A - ‘Talking Transit 3’ - Planning and Design of Feeder Services and Short Routes

SESSION 3A - ‘Talking Transit 3’ - Planning and Design of Feeder Services and Short Routes

Statistics

Views

Total Views
915
Views on SlideShare
895
Embed Views
20

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
46
Comments
1

2 Embeds 20

http://ebizontech.com 17
http://connectkaro.org 3

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel

11 of 1 previous next

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Feeder Services in BRTS: New Concepts - Abhijit Lokre Feeder Services in BRTS: New Concepts - Abhijit Lokre Presentation Transcript

    • Feeder services in BRTS -New conceptsAbhijit Lokre, Associate Professor, Centre of Excellence inUrban Transport, CEPT University
    • FEEDER SERVICES IN BRTS NEW CONCEPTS APRIL 16, 2013 Abhijit Lokre Associate Professor Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport CEPT University Kasturbhai Lalbhai Campus, Amdavad -
    • Connecting People to Cities -Reimagining the Master PlanRejeet Mathews, Program Manager- Urban Development andAccessibility, EMBARQ India
    • History of BRTS Latin America is the pioneer in BRTS. Curitiba opened world’s 1st BRTS in 1974.  Looking at its success, BRTS spread acrossInLatin America of the earlier efforts India, manyinvolved experimentation with other  Indonesia and China introduced concept ofmodelsinand met with varying degrees BRTS their cities in early 2000.  By 2003 Delhi (India) got into process ofofadopting BRTS to Indian cities. success.  BRTS planning was followed by Ahmedabad (2005), Pune and Indore (2006).  Other cities in India followed suit after declaration of JnNURM in 2006. Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport, CEPT University, Amdavad
    • Status of BRT cities in India Scale of BRTS  City scale varies from New Delhi 1million to 18million Lucknow population Jaipur Guwahati  City size varies from 75sqkm Ahmedabad to 1500sqkm urban areaRajkot Bhopal  Trip lengths varies from Vadodara Indore Kolkata 4.0km to 12.0km Surat Naya Raipur Legend: Pimpri Chinchwad Operational (4) Pune Under Implementation / DPR Approved (9) Visakhapattanam DPR/DFR under preparation (6) Vijaywada Hubli Dharwad Million plus cities in India (32) Bangalore Chennai Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport, CEPT University, Amdavad
    • 1884How have our cities developed? Physical structure  Central core developed as destination hub  Radial routes originate from this centre 1910 1930 1951 Railway Station Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport, CEPT University, Amdavad
    • How have our cities developed?  Physical structure NH-24 Aliganj Munshipuliya Indira nagarSH-25 Imambara Polytechnic Hardoi Road NH-28 Faizabad RoadDubbaga Chinhat Transit Demand Model Chowk Lucknow, India Gomti nagar Rajajipuram Hazratganj  Typically, RoW is less where demand is highest! Bus- Charbagh Terminus Railway Stn Cantonment VIP road/ Canal LEGEND Existing Alambagh RoW < 15m Telibagh 18m 24m 30m Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport, CEPT University, Amdavad 40m
    • How have our cities developed? Transit structure  City centre is still major destination to city.  Cities have dispersed landuse leading to multiple origin destinations with smaller trip lengths. No single corridor would have high demandAhmedabad – Transit Demand Productions Ahmedabad – Transit Demand Attractions Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport, CEPT University, Amdavad
    • OUR CITIES ARE UNIQUE & REQUIRE UNIQUE SOLUTION
    • BRTS IS A CONCEPT NOT A TECHNOLOGY WE NEED TO ADD MORELAYERS TO BRTS CONCEPT
    • Types of BRTSSr. No. Level of BRT Characteristics 1 Full BRT Metro –quality service Integrated network of routes and corridors High level BRT Closed, high-quality stations Off-board fare collection/ verification Frequent and rapid service Modern, clean vehicles Marketing identity Superior customer service 2 BRT Segregated bus-way Typically pre-board fare payment/ verification Higher quality stations Clean vehicle technology Marketing identity 3 BRT Lite Some form of bus priority but not full segregated bus-ways Improved travel times Higher shelters Clean vehicle technology Marketing identity 4 Basic Busway Segregated bus-way/ single corridor services On-board fare collection Low level BRT Basic bus shelters Standard bus vehicles Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport, CEPT University, Amdavad
    • Characteristics of full BRTS Closed system – trunk and feeder services Central bus lanes Median bus stops Off-board fare collection At-level boarding alighting Distance based fare – smart cards Integrated ticketing system – Trunk, feeder Automatic vehicle tracking system Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport, CEPT University, Amdavad
    • Scaling UP BRTS Objectives  Providing service level comparing to Metrorail.  High speed public transit system  High Capacity System Increasing PPHPD ?? Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport, CEPT University, Amdavad
    • Scaling UP BRTS  Increasing capacity of BRTS through design interventions  Segregated lanes with Passing Lanes  High Frequency  Avoid Intersections to reduce delays  Rolling stock of Articulated and Bi-Articulated buses  High quality BRT station  Capacity managed upto 30000-45000 pphpdArticulated Bus (UK) Articulated Bus (Bogota, Colombia) Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport, CEPT University, Amdavad
    • SCALING DOWN BRTSDESIGN INFRASTRUCTURE PARAMETERSA CONCEPT REQUIRED FOR INDIAN CITIES
    • Scaling DOWN BRTS To percolate services to all level of cities. To provide affordable solution to public transit To reach all sections of society. To respond to local challenges of organic city development. To adjust to constraints of RoW. To bring to acceptance of local people Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport, CEPT University, Amdavad
    • Requirement to Indian cities Demand required 1000 pphpd to 5000 pphph (Only Hubli- Dharwad requires design capacity upto 12000 pphpd) RoW constraints to city centre. Design for standard bus with two-way BRT requires 27m RoW while Indian cities have average RoW of 18-14m in city centre Junctions required every 500m-750m within city limits. Standard Buses / Mini Buses to suffice requirement. Traffic Management (One-way / Two-way) Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport, CEPT University, Amdavad
    • Capacity of SystemRelative to bus type (for 1+1 lane with Jn)Bus Type Length Width Typical capacity* Peak hour peak direction passengers carried for headways (minutes) (seating + 1 2 3 5 10 standee)Mini buses 6m-8m 2.2m 13-30 2100 1050 700 420 210Standard buses 10-12m 2.66m 60-80 4200 2100 1400 840 420Articulated buses** 16-18m 2.66m 140-170 9300 4650 3100 1860 930Bi articulated buses 24-m 2.66m 210-270 14400 7200 4800 2880 1440Bus Type Length Width Typical Headway required (in minutes) for Peak hour capacity* peak direction passengers carried (seating + 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 standee)Mini BRT buses 6m-8m 2.2m 20 1.0min 0.5min - - -Midi BRT buses 10-12m 2.66m 35 1.5min 1.0min 0.5min 0.5min 0.5minStandard BRT buses 16-18m 2.66m 70 2.5min 2.0min 1.5min 1.5min 1.0min Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport, CEPT University, Amdavad
    • One-way BRTS Concept One-way BRTS PRO(s): • Can respond to RoW constraints upto 18 m CON(s): •Limits circulation in one- direction. •Can impact services in case of breakdowns Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport, CEPT University, Amdavad
    • Elevated BRTS Elevated BRTS PRO(s): • Can respond to RoW constraints upto 18 m CON(s): •Accessibility to BRT Stations. •Increased cost of infrastructure. •Visually unappealing Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport, CEPT University, Amdavad
    • BRTS & Pedestrian exclusivestreets BRTS & Pedestrian exclusive streets PRO(s): • Safe pedestrian infrastructure CON(s): •Acceptance of people. •Can be adopted to stretches with limited public property access. Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport, CEPT University, Amdavad
    • MINI-BRTS Concept0 7200 5500 5.5 mane Tram way Mini 6 m Lane BRT mini Bus Lane Mini BRTS Concept PRO(s): • Suits to Indian city centre and old city area with low passenger demand requirement Inner-city BRTS 27-32 Passenger Capacity ?? Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport, CEPT University, Amdavad
    • Mini BRTS
    • One-way mixed lane with 2-way MiniBRTS One-way mixed lane with 2-way Mini BRTS PRO(s): • Can respond to RoW constraints upto 18 m CON(s): •Limits traffic circulation in one-direction. •Preferably suits to stretches with limited property access on one side. Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport, CEPT University, Amdavad
    • Feeder integration Locations of turnTurn around concepts arounds Example: Makarpura – Susan circle stretch BRT trunk corridor BRT feeder corridor BRT trunk bus route BRT feeder bus route Turn around BRT Trunk Feeder interchange
    • What about pedestrians? Percentage Trips by Mode & Trip Lengths Percentage of Avg. Trip Percentage of Mode Avg. Trip Lengths Trips Lengths TripsWalk 28.07% 2.03 31.17% 1.3Bicycle 16.72% 3.57 12.71% 3.4TW 30.16% 5.51 26.28% 7.9Car 3.96% 7.81 13.29% 11.27Auto Rickshaw 9.29% 4.41 5.40% 6.34Bus 9.67% 5.42 10.65% 15.63Other 1.63% 5.48 0.44% 6.67Total 100% 100%• 1/3 of the trips (trip length exceeding 1 km) is bicycle or walktrips, in AMC.• Walk trips are short with a length of 2 kms.• Average Trip length for Bicycle are about 3 kms. • Average bicycle trip length for work trips is 4.0kms and • Average bicycle trip length for education trips is 3.6kms.
    • How do people access BRTS? Sample Size: 47266% people Walk to/from BRT as their Access / Egress mode Current BRT Users: Access Mode Avg 54.4 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Walk AMTS GSRTC Shared rickshaw Rickshaw Cycle 2-wheeler 4-wheeler With someone Rail Current BRT Users: Egress Mode Avg 56.7 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Walk AMTS GSRTC Shared rickshaw Rickshaw Cycle 2-wheeler 4-wheeler Pick-up Rail
    • Creating local area access plan… Schools CollegesOverlapping Layers Hospitals Recreational places Identifying Clusters Connecting clusters to nearest BRT road (1.25 kms) Connecting ammenities (1 km) Creating Loops Identifying missing Links between singular loops and Clusters Completing Pedestrian networks Identifying Special Cases Manmade constraints – like railway and bridges Community spaces to be developed
    • Mapping local destinations
    • Creating feeder pedestrian network Overlapping Layers Identifying Clusters Connecting clusters to nearest BRT Connecting amenities Creating Loops Sola cross road Identifying missing Links between singular loops and Clusters Completing Pedestrian IIM networksBRT CollegeBRT stop HospitalSchool Recreational
    • THANKYOU