Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (7)
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (19)
Similar to 2016 05-30 may session ulises navarro
Similar to 2016 05-30 may session ulises navarro (20)
More from BRTCoE
More from BRTCoE (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
2016 05-30 may session ulises navarro
- 1. Experiences during the first year of BRT implementation – Mexico´s cases México, May 31st, 2016
- 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. § 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. With six lines, Metrobusis carrying around 1.2 million boardingsper day Metrobus…
- 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Metrobus2: no major problemsin operations and technology Metrobus 2… Planning – Transfers • Saturation of stations where the two corridors intersected
- 12. Metrobus2: no major problemsin operationsand technology Metrobus 2… Negotiations – neighbors opposition Design – direction of private vehicles
- 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
- 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. With the implementation of Metrobus6, the transfers with Metrobus5 are saturatingSan Juan de Aragón stationsduring peaks Metrobus…
- 18. RUTA - Puebla Ruta… Carrying 240k passengers / day • Many problems during implementation of Line 1
- 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Mexibus Remnants For Mexibus2 and 3 almost half of the demand of the basins are serviced by remnants(operatorsnot included in the negotiations)
- 26. Local, limited and express services A new functional and operational design is helpingMexibus3 compete with remnantsduringpeak hours– not so during off peak
- 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. 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. o ITDP.mx o Twitter: @ITDPmx ulises.navarro@itdp.org Thanks! Contact: