THE ZUIDTANGENT -
EXPERIENCES WITH BRT IN THE
    AMSTERDAM REGION
       5a Jornada AMTU
      Vic, 4th March 2009




  ...
Inhoud
                      Agenda
•   Background
•   History
•   System characteristics
•   Bus lane and bus way
•   Veh...
Inhoud
                  Background
• Shift in town planning: new housing and
  office sites in suburban areas
• Increasin...
1st Zuidtangent route



        inh.
147.000 inh.
                                                             inh.
     ...
Inhoud
                    History
• 1987 first study
• 1994-2001 construction
• Ownership and responsibilities shared by ...
Inhoud
     System characteristics (1)
• Ambition: high quality public transport
• Fill the gap between regular buses and ...
Inhoud
      System characteristics (2)
•   High service frequency (8-10 buses/h on weekdays)
•   From December 2007 opera...
Bus lane and bus way
• No technical guidance system
• Fully accessible to conventional buses,
  mixed operation possible
•...
Vehicles and stops
• Stop and bus floor at the same level (30 cm)
• Dedicated fleet of 100% articulated low floor buses
• ...
Identity
• Buses in striking red livery
• Designer stops along
  core section
• Uncompromised identity:
  none of the desi...
Patronage (1st route)
• 40.000 passengers per day (March 2008)
• Every year 10-15% more passengers
• Heaviest loadings in ...
Knelpunten
                 Problems
• Subsidence of bus way: physical guidance at some
  stops blocked
• Concrete surface...
Knelpunten
                    2nd route
• Concept of 1st route not fully applied
• Northern section:
   – no new infrastr...
Knelpunten
        Future developments
• Stops to be improved
• Upgrading of eastern section: more bus lanes
• New branche...
Knelpunten
                     Conclusions
• Successful concept: high commercial speed, high
  service frequency, high fl...
Thank you very much for your
         attention
The Zuidtangent - Experiences with BRT in the Amsterdam Region
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

The Zuidtangent - Experiences with BRT in the Amsterdam Region

1,065 views
916 views

Published on

Sr. David van der Spek,
Consultor de Transport Públic. Autoritat Regional d'Amsterdam.

Resum ponència: Al 2002 la Regió d’Amsterdam inaugurà un BRT de 42km. El ponent ens presentarà les principals característiques del projecte, considerada com una experiència reeixida; ens explicarà els seus avantatges així com els problemes sorgits en el seu desenvolupament, i les lliçons a extreure’n.

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,065
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
7
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
25
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

The Zuidtangent - Experiences with BRT in the Amsterdam Region

  1. 1. THE ZUIDTANGENT - EXPERIENCES WITH BRT IN THE AMSTERDAM REGION 5a Jornada AMTU Vic, 4th March 2009 David van der Spek Public Transport Policy Advisor Stadsregio Amsterdam
  2. 2. Inhoud Agenda • Background • History • System characteristics • Bus lane and bus way • Vehicles and stops • Identity • Patronage • Problems • 2nd route • Future developments • Conclusions
  3. 3. Inhoud Background • Shift in town planning: new housing and office sites in suburban areas • Increasing congestion on roads • Major international airport (5th busiest in Europe) • Priority to accessibility of this area for economical reasons • Existing rail orientated towards Amsterdam • Insufficient quality of existing orbital PT • Major flower exhibition in summer 2002 • Urgent need for high quality orbital link • Estimated demand insufficient for light rail
  4. 4. 1st Zuidtangent route inh. 147.000 inh. inh. 743.000 inh. Zuid-Oost) (incl. Zuid-Oost) Schiphol Airport inh. 78.000 inh. inh. 70.000 inh. inh. 79.000 inh. inh. 30.000 inh.
  5. 5. Inhoud History • 1987 first study • 1994-2001 construction • Ownership and responsibilities shared by 3 regional and local authorities • Total investment 270 million Euro (95-100% funded by national government) • January 2002: start of 1st route • Contract awarded to incumbent operator Connexxion • 2007: Connexxion (Transdev) wins tender • December 2007: start of 2nd stage: 2nd route, new buses, new 8 year contract
  6. 6. Inhoud System characteristics (1) • Ambition: high quality public transport • Fill the gap between regular buses and light rail • 1st route: total length 41 km, core section 24 km • In core section bus lanes and independent bus ways • Elsewhere bus lanes where possible • High flexibility: adapts to space constraints in historic town centre of Haarlem • Several connections to heavy rail network
  7. 7. Inhoud System characteristics (2) • High service frequency (8-10 buses/h on weekdays) • From December 2007 operational 24/7 • High commercial speed (>35 km/h) • Long average distance between stops (1.9 km) • Consistent identity (vehicles, stops, publicity) • ITS: – priority at traffic signals – dynamic passenger information system • Short dwell times: – minimal horizontal and vertical gap – no ticket inspection when boarding
  8. 8. Bus lane and bus way • No technical guidance system • Fully accessible to conventional buses, mixed operation possible • Designed and built to enable future conversion to light rail • Concrete surface • Several elevated sections • 1,8km tunnel section
  9. 9. Vehicles and stops • Stop and bus floor at the same level (30 cm) • Dedicated fleet of 100% articulated low floor buses • 2nd generation: 45 Mercedes Citaro buses, Euro 5- emission level, capacity 46+55 • From regular production: no second hand market risk, no expensive peculiarities • Horizontal gap at stops minimized using profiled kerbstones
  10. 10. Identity • Buses in striking red livery • Designer stops along core section • Uncompromised identity: none of the design elements repeated elsewhere
  11. 11. Patronage (1st route) • 40.000 passengers per day (March 2008) • Every year 10-15% more passengers • Heaviest loadings in Hoofddorp: almost 13.000 passengers per day (both directions) • Patronage up to 99% higher than estimated • Eastern section below estimates • Use of PT increased since Zuidtangent operating (up to 47% in 3 years)
  12. 12. Knelpunten Problems • Subsidence of bus way: physical guidance at some stops blocked • Concrete surface less comfortable than asphalt • Weather protection at stops not satisfactory • Roofs at stops removed after problems during storm • Slippery surface at stops • Fare evasion • Implementation of ITS took a long time • Congestion on motorway section
  13. 13. Knelpunten 2nd route • Concept of 1st route not fully applied • Northern section: – no new infrastructure built – service unreliable due to congestion on motorway – limited demand because of parallel railway • Southern section: – no new design for stops available – stops without BRT identity – bus way opened after delay • Patronage so far disappointing • Service on northern section to be cut
  14. 14. Knelpunten Future developments • Stops to be improved • Upgrading of eastern section: more bus lanes • New branches and extension planned (but longer route is risk to reliability!) • Possibly tunnel in Haarlem city centre • Conversion to light rail depending on patronage • Tangential high quality bus routes to be introduced in other areas
  15. 15. Knelpunten Conclusions • Successful concept: high commercial speed, high service frequency, high flexibility, high reliability • Result: patronage higher than estimated • Lessons: – BRT only works if uncompromised – Stops: functionality more important than design – More attention to quality of infrastructure needed – Maintaining high quality means continuous effort from all parties • BRT is able to increase the share of public transport • The choice for BRT with proven technology has been the right one!
  16. 16. Thank you very much for your attention

×