Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

2016 05-30 may session ulises navarro

236 views

Published on

Webinar Session presented by Ulises Navarro (ITDP Latin America), on May 30th, 2016.
BRT Centre

Published in: Engineering
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

2016 05-30 may session ulises navarro

  1. 1. Experiences during the first year of BRT implementation – Mexico´s cases México, May 31st, 2016
  2. 2. Content • Introduction • Metrobus – Mexico City, former Distrito Federal • Metrobus 1 – Insurgentes • Metrobus 2 – Eje 4 Sur • Metrobus 4 – City Center • Metrobus 6 – Eje 5 Norte • RUTA - Puebla • RUTA 1 – Tlaxcalcingo / Chachapa • RUTA 2 – Avenida 11 Norte - Sur • Mexibus – Mexico City, current Estado de México • Mexibus 1 – Avenida Central • Mexibus 3 – Avenida Chimalhuacán • Mexibus 2 – Avenida López Portillo • Conclusions
  3. 3. § Buses´operation § Technology (fare payment and collection) § Negotiations with former (current) operators § Negotiations with surrounding businesses § Planning and design errors § Right of way enforcement Introduction… In the experience of three BRT systemsin Mexico, very different aspectsand difficultieshave arised at the time of implementation
  4. 4. With six lines, Metrobusis carrying around 1.2 million boardingsper day Metrobus…
  5. 5. Metrobus1: being the first one implemented in Mexico City, was also the one to experience most problems Metrobus 1… Operation • Lack of experience of operators – drivers • Frequent non permitted left turns • Non frequent invasions of bus lanes by private vehicles, frequent by bycicles
  6. 6. Metrobus1: being the first one implementedin Mexico City, was also the one to experience most problems Metrobus 1… Technology • Deployment of the fare system
  7. 7. Metrobus1: being the first one implementedin Mexico City, was also the one to experience most problems Metrobus 1… Design • Fixing geometric problems after implementation
  8. 8. Metrobus1: being the first one implementedin Mexico City, was also the one to experience most problems Metrobus 1… Design • Building rigid pavement after implementation
  9. 9. Metrobus1: being the first one implementedin Mexico City, was also the one to experience most problems Metrobus 1… Negotiations • Starting negotiations before having a complete knowledge of the current business
  10. 10. Metrobus2: no major problemsin operationsand technology Metrobus 2… • Currently carrying more than 200k passengers per day • It is a very directional corridor – connects low income residential areas to the east, with major employment to the west
  11. 11. Metrobus2: no major problemsin operations and technology Metrobus 2… Planning – Transfers • Saturation of stations where the two corridors intersected
  12. 12. Metrobus2: no major problemsin operationsand technology Metrobus 2… Negotiations – neighbors opposition Design – direction of private vehicles
  13. 13. Metrobus 4, originally thought as a street car … • It is carrying about 80k passengers per day • No major operation or technology problems • Surrounding businesses opposition
  14. 14. BEFORE DOWNTOWNMXC
  15. 15. AFTER DOWNTOWNMXC
  16. 16. Metrobus5, first corridor designed under the complete street concept Metrobus…• It is carrying about 90k passengers per day • No major operation or technology problems • Surrounding businesses opposition
  17. 17. With the implementation of Metrobus6, the transfers with Metrobus5 are saturatingSan Juan de Aragón stationsduring peaks Metrobus…
  18. 18. RUTA - Puebla Ruta… Carrying 240k passengers / day • Many problems during implementation of Line 1
  19. 19. RUTA 1 - Puebla Ruta… • 32 km long • 70k passengers per day • Problems: • Planning • Design and construction • Technology – fare system • Operation – during initial operation and eventually with feeders • Frequent invasions of bus lanes • Finances
  20. 20. RUTA - Puebla Ruta… • 13.5 km long • 170k passengers per day • Problems: • No fare integration with R1 • Operation at the beginning with feeders • Subsidizes R 1 • Unnecessary transfers
  21. 21. Mexibus - EDOMEX • 3 lines, 57 km • 310k passengers per day • Problems: • Negotiations • No fare integration • No feeders (they were planned but not implemented) • Frequent invasions of bus lanes • Finances – business plan
  22. 22. Mexibus 1 - EDOMEX • 18 km • 170k passengers per day • Problems: • No fare integration • No feeders (they were planned but not implemented) • Finances – business plan
  23. 23. Mexibus 2 - EDOMEX • 22 km • 60k passengers per day • Problems: • Negotiations • No fare integration • No feeders (not planned) • Frequent invasions of bus lanes • Finances – business plan
  24. 24. Mexibus 3 - EDOMEX • 17 km • 80k passengers per day • Problems: • Negotiations • No fare integration • No feeders (they were planned but not implemented) • Frequent invasions of bus lanes • Finances – business plan
  25. 25. Mexibus Remnants For Mexibus2 and 3 almost half of the demand of the basins are serviced by remnants(operatorsnot included in the negotiations)
  26. 26. Local, limited and express services A new functional and operational design is helpingMexibus3 compete with remnantsduringpeak hours– not so during off peak
  27. 27. Direct services with smaller buses with doors on both sides: • Auxiliary Peñon – Bordo • Auxiliary Chimalhuacán However, they are reluctant to implement direct services– need for more fleet
  28. 28. Conclusions • Right of way invasions- enforcement • Technology – fare system isnot usually ready when BRT is first deployed. Bettertimingin the implementations´proceduresis needed. • Operator – drivers´ training, timingis also an issue • Design – expert advice might help • Negotiationswith former – current operator: thorough knowledge of the system • Planning – the new system must alwaysbenefit usersin the door to door trip. Expert advice might help • Finances– review of demand studiesand businessplan
  29. 29. o ITDP.mx o Twitter: @ITDPmx ulises.navarro@itdp.org Thanks! Contact:

×