This document discusses a level-based approach to public transport network planning. It describes a traditional three-level system with regional rail, rapid transit, and surface transit. However, some cities have found that a two-level system with faster surface transit and more dense regional rail stations can provide similar coverage with limited additional benefit to a three-level system. The document also discusses how Zurich's successful two-level system is now facing capacity issues, and proposes solutions like differentiated regional rail services and "Metrotrams" to address this.

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.