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.

A level-based approach to public transport network planning

895 views

Published on

A methodology for analysing public transport networks and identifying strategic improvement options. Case study of Zurich Switzerland.

Published in: Engineering
  • Be the first to comment

A level-based approach to public transport network planning

  1. 1. A level-based approach to public transport network planning Andrew  Nash   GreenCityStreets.com     San  Francisco  SPUR   January  7,  2015  
  2. 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. 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. 4. So,  what’s  a  level?  
  5. 5. Level  =  f  (mode,  market  characterisHcs)  
  6. 6. Characteris*cs   Transport  Mode   •  Speed   •  Capacity   •  Capital  cost   •  OperaHng  cost   •  Flexibility   •  Reliability   Travel  Market   •  Distance  (Hme)   •  Cost   •  Demographics   •  Comfort   •  Reliability  
  7. 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. 8. Speed  =  Trip  length  served  “effecHvely”     …  for  passengers  and  operators.  
  9. 9. Speed  =  f  (right-­‐of-­‐way)     Exclusive  =  fast   Shared  =  slow  
  10. 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. 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. 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  
  13. 13. Other  approaches  
  14. 14. Tram-­‐Trains:  Trams  on  regional   rail  tracks  (Karlsruhe  approach)  
  15. 15. Bus  Rapid  Transit:  Provide  level  2  service  with   level  1  infrastructure  (CuriHba  approach)  
  16. 16. Move  level  1  underground  
  17. 17. Build  level  2  and  eliminate  level  1   (German  1970s  approach)      
  18. 18. 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  
  19. 19. 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  
  20. 20. Measures  of  Success:  Zurich   Passenger   •  Good  coverage   •  Rela*vely  high  speeds   •  High  frequency   Operator   •  High  farebox  recovery   •  Growing  market  share  
  21. 21. 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  
  22. 22. 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.  
  23. 23. 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  
  24. 24. 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.  
  25. 25. TradiHonal  approaches  for   solving  capacity  problems  
  26. 26. Larger  vehicles  with  more  doors   (so  large  it  doesn’t  fit  on  the  slide!)  
  27. 27.      Speed-­‐up  boarding  
  28. 28. Off-­‐board  HckeHng  and   Proof-­‐of-­‐payment  
  29. 29. Level-­‐based  approaches  for   solving  capacity  problems  
  30. 30. 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
  31. 31. Metrotram  –  larger  vehicles  &  tunnels  
  32. 32.   Shi]  demand  to  level  “0”  –  ac*ve  transport   Ship  short  trips  from  public  transit  to   Level  “0”  –  Biking  and  Walking  
  33. 33. PrioriHze  the  limited  space   available  for  transport  in  ciHes  
  34. 34. 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/  
  35. 35. 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.  
  36. 36. 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.  

×