5 route network rs final

171
-1

Published on

Published in: Business, Sports
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
171
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
12
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

5 route network rs final

  1. 1. Route Network Development Rod Stickland
  2. 2. 2 Context •Earlier presentations have highlighted the massive increase in travel within the Jakarta Region over the past decade … and the relative stagnation of public transport demand •Within DKI Jakarta there are now around 26 million person trips per day – with 6.5 million (25%) by public transport – [NB Includes cross-border trips from Jabodetabek area]
  3. 3. 3 Growth in Passenger Movement (Greater Jakarta - 2002-2012)
  4. 4. 4 The Scale of the Transport Problem
  5. 5. 5 NB: Excludes cross-border trips to/from JABODETABEK area
  6. 6. 6 Network Development •This presentation is concerned with the development of the BUS network within DKI Jakarta •There are FOUR main classes of bus:  BRT, APTB, BKTB & Executive Mini - which all operate on the busways  Large/Regular Buses – both AC and non-AC and some Express Services  Medium Buses – approx 25 seats  Small Buses – Angkots & Mikrolets •The main focus of this presentation is on the non-BRT network and services
  7. 7. 7 Role of BRT in Jakarta •The BRT plays a fundamental key role in the overall PT network in Jakarta •It provides a core or ‘spine’ to the network and serves trunk longer-distance trips – especially to/from the inner areas •The network is extensive and most main corridors are covered •However not all areas are served and many trips will NOT use the BRT
  8. 8. 8 Area of influence/service of BRT •Total area of DKI Jakarta is 653km2 •Length of busway = 175km •Catchment area of BRT = 500m on each side – or a 1km ‘band’ •Total ‘area served’ by BRT = 175km2 •Equivalent to 27% of city area •Remaining 73% NOT served by BRT
  9. 9. 9 Public Transport Fleet Size •There are over 18,000 buses operating in the Jakarta DKI area •14,000 of these are Mikrolets/Angkots Jakarta DKI area (2013) Vehicles Percent Large Buses 1,570 8% BRT Buses 630 3% Medium Buses 2,170 12% Small Buses 14,000 76% Total 18,370 100%
  10. 10. 10 Public Transport Fleet Size Jakarta DKI area (2013) Routes Vehicles Buses/Route Large Buses 142 1,570 11.1 BRT Buses 19 630 33.2 Medium Buses 90 2,170 24.1 Small Buses 159 14,000 88.1 Overall 410 18,370 44.8 •These buses operate on 410 routes, with an average of up to 88 buses per route for the Mikrolets & Angkots
  11. 11. 11 Public Transport Fleet Size •It is evident that there is an oversupply of vehicles on a number of routes •This is most obvious in regard to the Angkots/Mikrolets and Medium Buses •Large numbers of vehicles can be observed waiting at terminals throughout the day •This represents a waste of resources and leads to (financial) inefficiency
  12. 12. 12 Angkots at Kampung Melayu
  13. 13. 13 The limitations of BRT •BRT is the ‘flag-ship’ for PT in Jakarta and the corner-stone of the network … BUT .. The BRT network comprises a 4km grid on major roads and serves only a quarter of the city BRT buses comprise only 3% of the total fleet BRT carries <10% of PT passengers
  14. 14. 14 Network Development •The main focus of this project is on the development and upgrading of the non- BRT bus services – big buses, medium buses and small buses •These services need to be integrated with the BRT … but also serve a significant demand for travel independent of the BRT
  15. 15. 15 Services directly related to BRT •A number of services that are physically integrated with the BRT have recently been introduced •The function of these services is to expand the ‘footprint’ of the BRT and to feed more passengers onto the network •There are however a number of significant issues in regard to full integration – bus types, floor height, fares, etc – as well as potential congestion on the busway
  16. 16. 16 BRT Busway Development • BRT provides core/trunk services • High capacity, frequent & high speed
  17. 17. 17 BRT Busway + Direct Services • Direct Services connect between Corridors • Add capacity on main corridors
  18. 18. 18 BRT Busway + APTB Direct/Feeders • APTB Services provide links to outer areas • Benefit from busways in inner areas
  19. 19. 19 BRT Busway + Feeder Services • Feeder Services connect to local communities • Extend ‘reach’ (catchment) of BRT
  20. 20. 20 BRT Busway + Associated Services • Combined routes provide basic framework of PT services for city • Supplemented by local routes
  21. 21. 21 Local Network Development •This (expanded BRT) network forms the framework for the development of the local area networks •These networks will comprise basically shorter distance routes providing local connectivity and access to housing areas, employment and commercial, social and leisure facilities
  22. 22. 22 Existing Networks •A comprehensive network of routes for all types of buses exists throughout Jakarta •This has evolved over the years in response to passenger demand .. and is well understood and appreciated by users •It is neither practical nor appropriate to make comprehensive changes – any change should be EVOLUTIONARY •This does NOT mean however that some change is not required
  23. 23. 23 Existing Network: •Regular & AC Buses 142 Routes served by 1,570 large buses
  24. 24. 24 Existing Network •Medium Buses 90 Routes served by 2,170 medium buses
  25. 25. 25 Existing Network •Regular, AC & Medium Buses 232 Routes served by 3,740 large & medium buses
  26. 26. 26 Existing Network •Angkot & Mikrolet Services 159 Routes served by 14,000 small buses [Coverage not complete in SW sector]
  27. 27. 27 Existing Network •All Bus Routes (Large, Medium & Small) 410 Routes served by 18,370 buses of all sizes
  28. 28. 28 Network Development •The resultant network clearly provides comprehensive coverage of the developed areas •There have been additions and extensions to the network over the years – including the ‘overlaying’ of the BRT and associated services – but (probably) far fewer route deletions •Future developments include the introduction of MRT and Monorail •The changing scale and pattern of demand suggests a review of the network is needed
  29. 29. 29 Network Development •A number of factors have affected the scale and pattern of demand over the past 10 years: a. Introduction of BRT – has taken a substantial part of longer distance (trunk) demand and has ‘displaced’ existing operators b. Growth in motor-cycle and car ownership and use has resulted in stagnation of overall demand for public transport c. Most new services are using large buses and large numbers of smaller vehicles are being
  30. 30. 30 Network Development •As a result many of the existing routes will have experienced a reduction in passenger demand .. and •The result is that there are an excessive number of mostly small buses chasing a declining (or at best stagnating) number of passengers
  31. 31. 31 What to do? •Routes that compete with – or link with – the BRT should be reviewed as part of an integrated strategy for Feeder Routes •There would appear to be NO LOGIC for smaller vehicles to operate on the busways •‘Other’ routes should be reviewed (either singly or jointly within a corridor) to determine the most appropriate vehicle size and number of vehicles required to meet the demand (and required level of service)
  32. 32. 32 What to do? •Generally the longer routes (linking adjoining neighbourhoods/centres) should benefit from larger vehicles – with the smaller vehicles used for shorter local collector services within a specific locality •Most routes currently operated by ‘medium’ buses would be suited for conversion to larger capacity vehicles •Most Angkot/Mikrolet services could (at least in the short term) be operated by the existing medium buses
  33. 33. 33 What to do? •This will likely result in a significant reduction in the numbers of vehicles required to operate the services – with fewer large buses being more effectively deployed on a new ‘hierarchy’ of routes •The JAPTraPIS (2012) proposed a hierarchy of bus services which is broadly similar and is considered appropriate: the focus is on the services highlighted
  34. 34. 34  Median BRT - Full BRT along exclusive bus lanes along the road median  Modified BRT - Full BRT along service roads or kerbside lanes, where a median design is not possible  Intermediate bus priority routes - integrated with full BRT and operate on standard roadways. They act as feeders to the BRT and also provide cross suburb services. (fare integrated with Full BRT)  Area-wide bus route - Line-haul routes run parallel with BRT but offer different service (non-fare integrated)  Neighbourhood area service - Short distance feeder services operating smaller buses to either the BRT or to the Intermediate bus routes (not fare integrated)  Paratransit services - as part of the local neighbourhood services to offer feeder services to the trunk route under a local area arrangement Network and Service TypeNetwork and Service Type Source: JAPTraPIS (2012)
  35. 35. 35 JAPTraPIS Proposal (2012): ■■Conceptual Network Hierarchy by Service TypeConceptual Network Hierarchy by Service Type Area License A Area License B Area License C Area-wide Intermediate AREA-WIDE BUS ROUTE LICENSE Connecting to BRT Bus Shelters, Public Facilities and Interest Points and Crossing Area-License Borders NEIGHBORHOOD BUS AREA LICENSE Bus Operators are given Area License. The Operators determines routes and service level based on Customer Demands and Minimum Service Standards
  36. 36. 36 Physical Integration with BRT •Physical integration (or ‘through running’) of services on the BRT raises a number of issues and must be carefully considered •Vehicle type: requires high-floor and off-side door .. preferable that all vehicles operating on BRT are of similar size, configuration and performance •Fares: integrated fares required together with revenue sharing – ideally smartcards •Capacity: too many services will seriously compromise operating conditions in inner area •Improved interchange facilities with feeder routes offers preferable solution
  37. 37. 37 Effect of Network Development (1) •The overall effect will be the consolidation and extension of the BRT services as the core/trunk network – (with the necessary capacity enhancements in the inner areas) •The development of a complementary network of secondary routes operated by large buses connecting suburban centres and linking between the BRT corridors •The introduction of local BRT “feeder” services which ‘feed’ the BRT stations but do NOT enter the busways
  38. 38. 38 Effect of Network Development (2) •The rationalisation of inter-district routes operating primarily on the secondary road network, using vehicles consistent with the passenger demand and desired frequency •Local Neighbourhood Services operating within a specific (defined) zone and linking with adjacent BRT and secondary services: – could be medium buses or para-transit (non- fixed route)
  39. 39. 39 Impact of Network Development •BRT remains the central core element of the PT/bus network – high capacity, high frequency corridors – with some through- running of outer area services •Development of local feeder services •Improved INTERCHANGE with BRT •Secondary regular bus services rationalised linking suburban centres and BRT corridors •Local area networks/services to penetrate
  1. A particular slide catching your eye?

    Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

×