A level-based approach to public transport network planning

1. A level-based approach to public transport network planning Andrew Nash GreenCityStreets.com San Francisco SPUR January 7, 2015

2. ETH Zurich: InsHtute for Transport Planning and Systems Reference: Hermann Orth, Andrew Nash and Ulrich Weidmann A Level-‐based Approach to Public Transport Network Planning Presented at: US TransportaHon Research Board 2015 Annual MeeHng (15-‐1171)

3. The Idea Robert Cervero The Transit Metropolis – A Global Inquiry (1998) Cervero describes Zurich’s approach of (1) making surface public transport faster and (2) building closely spaced regional rail sta>ons in the centre city as a solu>on that eliminates the need for a rapid rail system.

4. So, what’s a level?

5. Level = f (mode, market characterisHcs)

6. Characteris*cs Transport Mode •  Speed •  Capacity •  Capital cost •  OperaHng cost •  Flexibility •  Reliability Travel Market •  Distance (Hme) •  Cost •  Demographics •  Comfort •  Reliability

7. Characteris*cs Transport Mode •  Speed •  Capacity •  Capital cost •  Opera*ng cost •  Flexibility •  Reliability Travel Market •  Distance (*me) •  Cost •  Demographics •  Comfort •  Reliability Speed inﬂuences all other characterisCcs.

8. Speed = Trip length served “eﬀecHvely” … for passengers and operators.

9. Speed = f (right-‐of-‐way) Exclusive = fast Shared = slow

10. Level Cost Speed Stop Spacing Network Density Frequency Capacity Surface (Bus & Tram) + -‐ + + o -‐ Rapid Transit -‐ o o o + + Regional Rail o + -‐ -‐ -‐ + TradiHonal Approach 3-‐level System But, vehicle, infrastructure and services can be adjusted to serve “non tradiConal” markets.

11. region region area budge transit area budge surfac area budge region Three-Level Public Transport Network rapid t rapid t Infrastructure + Market Areas 3-‐level System Regional Rail Rapid Transit Surface Transit

12. Two-Level Public Transport Network regio regio area budg trans area budg surfa area budg regio rapid rapid area budg publi limited additional benefit of a three-level network Faster surface public transit. More regional rail staHons in center. Limited added beneﬁt of 3-‐level network Infrastructure + Market Areas 2-‐level System

15. Other approaches

16. Tram-‐Trains: Trams on regional rail tracks (Karlsruhe approach)

17. Bus Rapid Transit: Provide level 2 service with level 1 infrastructure (CuriHba approach)

18. Move level 1 underground

19. Build level 2 and eliminate level 1 (German 1970s approach)

20. surface public transport Non-motorized regional rail rapid transit level 3 level 1 „level 0" trip length served attractively level 2 Non-motorized rapid transit level 3 level 1 „level 0" trip length served attractively level 2 surface public transport regional rail Func*onal Coverage Diagram: 3-‐ vs. 2-‐level PT System

21. Mode/Level Speed [km/h] Separate ROW Vienna Bus 1 17 Limited Tram 1 15 Par*al Rapid Transit 2 32 Full Regional Rail 3 45 Full Boston Bus 1 18 Limited Light Rail 1 20 Par*al Rapid Transit 2 25 Full Regional Rail 3 50 Full (GC) Zurich Bus H 18 Limited Tram H 15-‐20 Par*al Regional Rail H 50 Full San Francisco Bus 1 14 No Tram (Muni Metro) H 15-‐27 Par*al Rapid Transit (BART) H 56 Full Regional (Caltrain) 3 65 Full (GC) Speed Comparison: 3-‐ vs 2-‐level PT System

22. Measures of Success: Zurich Passenger •  Good coverage •  Rela*vely high speeds •  High frequency Operator •  High farebox recovery •  Growing market share

23. 80% 100% 120% 140% 160% 180% 200% 220% 240% 260% 280% 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Growth, indexed against 1990 Year Regional Rail Passengers Metropolitan Area Popula*on City Popula*on Bus/Tram Passengers Passenger demand vs populaHon in Zurich

24. But now … too many passengers! Zurich’s system is operaHng above its eﬀecHve capacity. •  High regional rail use for very short center city trips; •  Extreme crowding on regional rail within city; •  High crowding on city buses and trams.

25. trip length served attractively Bus Walking Cycling S-Bahn loss in service speed due increased traffic and crowding as capacity cannot keep up loss in service speed due to crowding and longer passenger exchange times gap level 3 level 1 „level 0" regional rail rolling stock not suited for short trips when crowded Tram Func*onal Coverage Diagram: Impact of capacity problems on Zurich system

26. Over Capacity = Reduced Speed = Reduced EﬀecHveness Without a dedicated medium-‐distance medium-‐speed service (rapid transit), capacity constraints on surface and regional rail levels become acute.

27. TradiHonal approaches for solving capacity problems

28. Larger vehicles with more doors (so large it doesn’t ﬁt on the slide!)

29. Speed-‐up boarding

31. Oﬀ-‐board HckeHng and Proof-‐of-‐payment

32. Level-‐based approaches for solving capacity problems

33. Solving capacity problems in Zurich’s 2-‐level system Surface •  Longer stop spacing •  More priority •  “Metrotram” (LRT) Regional Rail •  DiﬀerenHated service –  Inner –  Outer trip length served attractively Bus Walking Cycling attractiveness increases Metrotram: Faster service and higher capacity units gap closed level 3 level 1 „level 0" inner S-Bahn: high frequency and high capacity rolling stockoptimized for short passenger exchange times outer S-Bahn: faster service on regional rail rolling stock increases area served attractively S-Bahn Tram Larger stop spacings

34. Metrotram – larger vehicles & tunnels

35. Shi] demand to level “0” – ac*ve transport Ship short trips from public transit to Level “0” – Biking and Walking

36. PrioriHze the limited space available for transport in ciHes

37. Slow Transit Designed speciﬁcally to serve short trips. Example: Line 100 – Circle Line Woensel Source: Muzus Design Municipality of Eindhoven Ar*st: Tristan Ozero Bus route designed by and for seniors hdp://www.muzus.nl/

38. Conclusions •  Public transport vehicle, infrastructure and services can be adjusted to serve “non tradiHonal” markets. •  2-‐level systems can be a ﬂexible and very cost eﬀecHve way to provide public transport service (no rapid transit system). •  2-‐level systems could be especially atracHve for medium-‐to-‐ low density metropolitan areas (e.g., USA). •  Capacity is the Achilles Heel of 2-‐level systems, but there are many design strategies to overcome this limitaHon. •  Since 2-‐level systems use streets for bus and tram operaHons, they require clear priority seung for the use of street space. •  High quality pedestrian and bicycle systems reduce the demand for capacity on public transport and are increasingly being considered as alternaHves to PT expansion projects.

39. Andrew Nash helps clients design and manage innova*ve public transport, railway, urban planning and ac*ve transport projects. Current work includes greencitystreets.com (using informa*on technology for beder public par*cipa*on), open source railway dispatching applica*ons, public transport planning and ac*ve transport projects. See andynash.com for details and contact informa*on. All photos without credits by Andrew Nash.

A level-based approach to public transport network planning

A level-based approach to public transport network planning

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot(20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked(18)

Similar to A level-based approach to public transport network planning

Similar to A level-based approach to public transport network planning(20)

More from Andrew Nash

More from Andrew Nash(17)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded(20)

A level-based approach to public transport network planning