Downloaded 149 times
![Equivalency road width:In order to carry 20,000 automobile commuters PHPD,a highway mustbe at least 18 lanes wide.
(assumption 1.2 passengers per automobile)
€€€190001500-
2000
Mixed
Traffic
€€
40000 –
60000
Heavy Rail/
Metro
€€€€€
€€€€€
€€€€€
€€€€€
€€€€€
€€€€€
€€€€€
€€€€€
€€€€€
€€€€€
€€€€€
€€€€€
€€€€€
€€€€€
€€€€€
€€€€€
€€€€€
€€€€€
€€€€€
€€€€€
€€€€€
€€€€€
€€€€€
€€€€€
€€€€€
€€€€€
€€€€€
€€€€€
€€€€€
€€€€€
€€€€€
€€€€€
€€€€€
€€€€€
€€€€€
€€€€€
60000 –
90000
Suburban
Rail
(e.g. Mumbai)
€
€€€
€€€
€€€
€€€
€€€
€€€
14000
€€
€€€
€€€
€€€
€€€
Cyclists
€€
€€€
€€€
€€€
€€€
€€€
9000
BRT
single lane
Pedestrians
5000
€€€
€€€
€€€
Regular
Bus
??
BRT
double lane
€
€€€€
€€€€
€€€€
€€€€
€€€€
€€€€
€€€€
€€€€
€€€€
€€€€
€€€€
Light Rail
€
€€€
€€€
€€€
€€€
€€€
€€€
€€€
18000 –
20000
(people per hour on 3.5 m wide lane in the city – PPHPD [PAX/hour/direction])
Source: Botma & Papendrecht, TU Delft 1991 andown figures
PPHPD
Range (à)
2000 8000 14000 17000,
Curitiba
19000 20000 43000,
Bogotá
80000,
HKK
>100000,
Mumbai
Maximum
PPHPD
achieved &
where (à)
Choosing modes – Carrying Capacity](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/03publictransportimprovementmbsk-151008170955-lva1-app6892/75/Public-transport-improvement-25-2048.jpg)
Uploaded byICLEI
Public transport improvement
Public transport systems can be improved by focusing on customer needs rather than technology or existing operators. The most effective systems prioritize public transport, integrate different modes, and plan frequent services on a full network. While metro and heavy rail require large subsidies, bus rapid transit (BRT) provides high capacity at a fraction of the cost, constructing over 400km of BRT for the price of 7km of subway. BRT is also faster to implement, requiring under 18 months compared to over 5 years for metros.
More Related Content
Similar to Public transport improvement
Public transport improvement
- 1. Public Transport Improvement BySunny Kodukula Material by Manfred Breithaupt
- 2. PT issues inmany developing cities •Dirty, overcrowded buses- “poor man’s mode” • Mix of modes • >50% trips; <5% vehicle share • Ad hoc planning • No priority on roads • Often high tax burden (much more than cars) • No quality monitoring
- 3. % of publictransport, walking and cycling CO2 emissions (kg per capita per year) Houston 5% 5690 kg Montreal 26% 1930 kg Madrid 49% 1050 kg London 50% 1050 kg Paris 54% 950 kg Berlin 61% 774 kg Tokyo 68% 818 kg Hongkong 89% 378 kg CO2 emissions from passenger transport vs. modal split: mode share can be influenced by policies and infrastructure Source: UITP Redefining Public Transport, Why?
- 4. Energy consumption andtransport Modal share of walking, cycling and public transport Average energy consumption per person (MJ) 1995 2001 1995 2001 Athens 34.1 40.9 12.900 12.600 Geneva 44.8 48.8 23.600 19.200 Rome 43.2 43.8 18.200 17.100 Vienna 62 64 10.700 9.050 Cities which increased the modal share of walking, cycling and PT saw a decrease in the consumption of energy for passenger transport per capita. Source: UITP 05.10.15 Redefining Public Transport, Why? (cont’d)
- 5.
- 6. Redefining Public Transport,Why? What do citizens want? ü Easy access ü Rapid journey ü Convenience ü Comfort ü Frequent Service ü Safety ü Security ü Customer Service ü Low cost ü Have a network Public Transport should be designed around the customer and not around a technology
- 7. Conventional Public TransportPlanning Approach Step 1. Choose technology Step 2. Fit city to the technology Step 3. Force customer to adapt to technology Technology chosen to help property developer Design chosen to please existing operators Technology chosen due to manufacturer lobbying efforts Reduce size of network due to financing limitations Charge higher fares in attempt to pay for expensive system Require large subsidies for lifetime of system’s operation Extensive marketing campaign to convince customers that system is in their interest Operate infrequent services to reduce operating losses Step 1. Choose technology Step 2. Fit city to the technology Step 3. Force customer to adapt to technology Technology chosen to help property developer Design chosen to please existing operators Technology chosen due to manufacturer lobbying efforts Reduce size of network due to financing limitations Charge higher fares in attempt to pay for expensive system Require large subsidies for lifetime of system’s operation Extensive marketing campaign to convince customers that system is in their interest Operate infrequent services to reduce operating losses
- 8. The innovative andsuccessful approach Rapid travel time Few transfers Frequent service Safe vehicle operation Secure environment Low fare cost Comfortable and clean system Full network of destinations Short walk to station from home / office Friendly and helpful staff Step 1. Design a system from customer’s perspective Step 2. Evaluate customer- driven options from municipality perspective Step 3. Decision Low infrastructure costs Traffic reduction benefits Economic / employment benefits Environmental benefits Social equity benefits City image Technology decision based on customer needs and municipality requirements Rapid travel time Few transfers Frequent service Safe vehicle operation Secure environment Low fare cost Comfortable and clean system Full network of destinations Short walk to station from home / office Friendly and helpful staff Step 1. Design a system from customer’s perspective Step 2. Evaluate customer- driven options from municipality perspective Step 3. Decision Low infrastructure costs Traffic reduction benefits Economic / employment benefits Environmental benefits Social equity benefits City image Technology decision based on customer needs and municipality requirements
- 9. Checklist for efficientpublic transport planning
- 10. Accessibility- Options • Howto reach the PT station? • Walk, bike or drive • How good is the path?
- 11. Station Design • Passengerfriendly designs? • Clear signage, disabled friendly • Better interchanges • Public amenities BS
- 12. Vehicle and infrastructuredesign • Comfortable • Capacity • Attractive Source: Carlos F. PardoSource: Carlos F. Pardo Which one to select?
- 13. Public Transport priority •Is PT prioritized over other modes?
- 14. Modal Integration • Canan individual take his/her bicycle? Is it easy to walk? Should he/she can drive to the station?
- 15. Professionalism • Are thestations and the fleet clean? • Do the drivers have good road etiquettes? SlidesdevelopedoriginallybyLloydWright
- 16. Network coverage • CanI reach the CBD, shopping district, my home?
- 17. Frequency • How sooncan I get a the next train, bus, tram? Frequency, Reliability
- 18. Fare Integration • Howmany times one should buy a ticket? • Where one should buy the ticket? • Who are the operators? How not to do... St. Petersburg Pavlovsk Metro: 17 Rubles Train: 43 Rubles Minibus: 13 Rubles = 73 Rubles Approx 35 km an example
- 19. Fare Integration…(contd) Wiesbaden Frankfurt 6.75 Euro + 1fare / 1 ticket Integrated timetable Approx 40 km How to do...an example
- 20. Now let’s lookat available options in Mass Transit
- 21. Different Mass RapidTransit Modes available Light rail Heavy urban rail Underground metro Personal rapid transitBRT Lloyd Wright Lloyd Wright Monorail Lloyd Wright Lloyd Wright
- 22. • Selection ofa particular mass transit system for a city will always remain a challenging task • Affected by passengers, transit operators and the city or community • Largely depends on the desired form and character of the city and its metropolitan area, and on its financial capability. • Planning of transit systems is based on the projection of future demand for transit travel • Depends mostly on the availability of right-of-way (ROW) for the transit systems. Selection of MRTS
- 23. Selection Criteria forMRTs • Availability of the mode to meet demand • Cost • Right-of-way availability • Environmental impact • Journey time • Safety • Comfort • Flexibility • Reliability • Fare • Technical sophistication • Implementation complexities • Image Carlos Pardo
- 24. When comparing alternatives,there is no technological option that will outperform the others in every aspect…it will be a trade off Sources:Adapted from el D. Hidalgo de Halcrow Fox, 2000, L. Wright and K. Fjellstrom, 2003,y V. Vuchic, 1992 MediaGoodLow (bunching)LowReliability High Low Very Good Very Good (dense corridor) Difficult Congestion reduction (?) Low New road underground or elevated Heavy rail/ Metro High Medium LowHighEmissions MediumMediumLowwalk/transfers GoodGoodRegularSafety GoodGoodRegular Level of service (frequency and occupancy) EasyDifficultEasy Integration with feeders VariableVariableVariableImpacts on traffic AltaLimitedHighFlexibility 2-4 lanes existing roads 2-3 lanes existing roads 2-4 lanes existing roads Required space Bus Rapid Transit BRT Light rail/ street car Priority lanes / only bus Characteristic MediaGoodLow (bunching)LowReliability High Low Very Good Very Good (dense corridor) Difficult Congestion reduction (?) Low New road underground or elevated Heavy rail/ Metro High Medium LowHighEmissions MediumMediumLowwalk/transfers GoodGoodRegularSafety GoodGoodRegular Level of service (frequency and occupancy) EasyDifficultEasy Integration with feeders VariableVariableVariableImpacts on traffic AltaLimitedHighFlexibility 2-4 lanes existing roads 2-3 lanes existing roads 2-4 lanes existing roads Required space Bus Rapid Transit BRT Light rail/ street car Priority lanes / only bus Characteristic High
- 25. Equivalency road width:Inorder to carry 20,000 automobile commuters PHPD,a highway mustbe at least 18 lanes wide. (assumption 1.2 passengers per automobile) €€€190001500- 2000 Mixed Traffic €€ 40000 – 60000 Heavy Rail/ Metro €€€€€ €€€€€ €€€€€ €€€€€ €€€€€ €€€€€ €€€€€ €€€€€ €€€€€ €€€€€ €€€€€ €€€€€ €€€€€ €€€€€ €€€€€ €€€€€ €€€€€ €€€€€ €€€€€ €€€€€ €€€€€ €€€€€ €€€€€ €€€€€ €€€€€ €€€€€ €€€€€ €€€€€ €€€€€ €€€€€ €€€€€ €€€€€ €€€€€ €€€€€ €€€€€ €€€€€ 60000 – 90000 Suburban Rail (e.g. Mumbai) € €€€ €€€ €€€ €€€ €€€ €€€ 14000 €€ €€€ €€€ €€€ €€€ Cyclists €€ €€€ €€€ €€€ €€€ €€€ 9000 BRT single lane Pedestrians 5000 €€€ €€€ €€€ Regular Bus ?? BRT double lane € €€€€ €€€€ €€€€ €€€€ €€€€ €€€€ €€€€ €€€€ €€€€ €€€€ €€€€ Light Rail € €€€ €€€ €€€ €€€ €€€ €€€ €€€ 18000 – 20000 (people per hour on 3.5 m wide lane in the city – PPHPD [PAX/hour/direction]) Source: Botma & Papendrecht, TU Delft 1991 andown figures PPHPD Range (à) 2000 8000 14000 17000, Curitiba 19000 20000 43000, Bogotá 80000, HKK >100000, Mumbai Maximum PPHPD achieved & where (à) Choosing modes – Carrying Capacity
- 26. Comparison of modes- Capacity and operating speed • Bus and BRT • Low inter-station spacing, small vehicles, poor acceleration, Bus priority • LRT vs BRT • Dynamic performance, vehicle capacity, • Tram vs LRT • Signalling, own ROW, vehicle capacity • LRT vs Metro • Acceleration, signalling, longer vehicles, max speed • Suburban rail vs Metro • Inter-station spacing, longer vehicles, max speed Car (m’way) Performance (Capacity, Reliability) Speed 40 km/h 70 km/h 20 km/h 20k / h10k / h LRT Suburban rail Metro Tram BRTBus lane Bus on-street Car (street)
- 27. Time for construction BusRapid Transit < 18 months i.e. within the term of a Mayor Metros > 5 years Lloyd Wright Karl Fjellstrom
- 28. Comparing the costs BRT US$0.5 – 15 millon / km Tram US$ 10 – 25 millon / km Light Rail Transit (LRT) US$ 15 – 40 millon / km Urban commuter rail US$ 25 – 60 millon / km Elevated rail US$ 50 - 125 millon / km Metro US$ 50 millon – 320 millon / km Image source: Manfred Breithaupt Lloyd Wright
- 29. Characteristics of a“full” BRT ü Segregated, median bus ways + stations ü Pre-board fare collection and verification ü Restricted operator access ü Free transfers between corridors ü Modal and fare integration, user oriented ü Competitively bid concessions ü High frequency service and low station dwell times ü Level boarding and alighting ü Emissions reductions through newer fuel technologies
- 30. BRT systematically combinesinfrastructure, equipment and operation to improve service quality
- 31. BRT and buswaysystems in the world source: EMBARQ, 2011 Planned / in construction (82 cities) In expansion (23 cities) In operation (163 cities)
- 32. 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 0 5 10 15 20 25 1970 1975 19801985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 CumulativeNumberofCities NewCities Evolution of the number of cities per year BRT and busway systems in the world 2010: Guangzhou 2000: Bogotá (TransMilenio), Colombia 1974/1991*: Curitiba source: BRTdata.org, September 2013 1972/2010*: Lima * Busway / BRT year commenced
- 33. BRT Guangzhou (Winnerof 2011 STA Award) Source: Karl Fjellstrom, ITDP China •22.5 km of dedicated busway •Over 800,000 passengers per day on a single corridor •27,400 passengers per peak hour per direction
- 34. BRT can bevery productive Guangzhou, China 35,800 pax/day/km Source: EMBARQ
- 35. BRT Guangzhou (Winnerof 2011 STA Award)
- 36. Integrated Bicycle SharingSystem § 5000 bicycles and 113 cycle sharing stations along the BRT corridor § At every station bike parking facilitiesavailable that can be used without charging § the same ticket can be used for BRT and for bike rental Sources: ITDP & GMEDRI and Shreya Gadepalli BRT Guangzhou (Winner of 2011 STA Award)
- 37. BRT can bevery high speed Istanbul, Turkey 42 km/h
- 38. Bus Rapid Transitcan have similar capacity to metro systems at a fraction of the initial investment cost 20,000 to 40,000 pphpd, 20-30 Km/h, for 5-20 MM/Km Initial Cost vs. Capacity 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 0 50 100 150 200 US$ MM/KM Pax/Hour/Direction Busway 17-20 Km/h LRT 20 Km/h BRT 20-30 Km/h Metro Elevated 30-40 Km/h Metro Underground 30-40 Km/h Initial cost and capacity Passengersperhourperdirection SlidesdevelopedoriginallybyDarioHidalgo
- 39. Corridor capacity for BRTsystems 2 lanes per direction Single lanes Single lanes Source: Hidalgo
- 40. Financial Benefit -What a city can have for 1Bn US$? Make a choice… 426 kilometres of BRT 14 kilometres of elevated rail 7 kilometres of subway 40 kilometres of LRT * Source: Actual data from systems built or proposed in Bangkok, Thailand
- 41. ROW C • here,the public transport right-of-way is on street in mixed traffic. ROW A • represents the case where the right-of-way is fully controlled. Selection Criteria for MRTs – Right of Way (RoW) Typical RoW for different MRTS modes • Metro - automated guide way system • Monorail - complete grade separation • Commuter Rail - semi-exclusive to exclusive RoW • LRT and BRT - semi-exclusive to exclusive RoW Availability of right-of-way (RoW) determines the relative ease or difficulty of inserting a particular transit system into the pre-existing urban built-up area. ROW B • here the right-of-way is physically separated longitudinally, but at- grade crossings exist
- 42. Other Parameters Less quantifiableaspects in selection criteria include the following: • Convenience of accessing the transit stations • Comfort of travel • Number of transfers required to reach the destination • Reliability of operation • Frequency of service • Complexity of implementation • Image
- 43. What to do:2 main issues Public Transport – Quality Control Public Transport – Integration (physical, fare, institutions, timetables) Ways to achieve increase in PT ridership… Different session on this later
- 44. Quality checks andevaluation • Service kilometer operated/vehicle owned • Passenger carried/vehicle owned • Passenger carried /staff member • Staff/vehicle owned • Per cent of vehicle fleet operating in peak hours • Revenue/vehicle owned • Revenue/vehicle kilometer • Kilometers operated between breakdowns • Kilometers/fuel consumed • Cost/vehicle km • Fare collection leakage • Employees’ absenteeism • Number of accidents per 105 kilometers None of these reflect service quality as users would perceive it!
- 45. Measuring Quality ofService Standards (QoS) for Buses in Singapore • 11 mandatory standards covering 6 key aspects • Customer driven • Regular audits (every 6 months) • Penalty for non-compliance Reliability Loading Safety • Trip Adherence • Headway Adherence •Peak Loading • Accident Rate •Bus Breakdown Availability - Spatial (USO) Integration Information Service integration bet bus & train •Service Coverage •Direct Connectivity Pre-trip info, in-trip info & timetables Availability - Temporal •Max Headway •Hours of Ops
- 46. 4 steps regardingpolicy framework for public transport: 1. Clearly define the role of the national government in urban transport: - providing policy directions - rewarding good practices financially - adopting performance benchmarking/measurement - guiding municipal financial reform 2. Develop accountability procedures and promote public participation 3. Strengthen institutional and technical capacity for strategic planning and monitoring 4. Integrate urban transport planning and operation for the entire metropolitan area Policy Framework
- 47. E.g. Singapore- Translatingpolicy to targets Land Transport Master plan “Making public transporta choice mode” ‘’Managing road usage” “Meeting the diverse needs of people” - 85% of commuters to complete their door-to-door journeys within 60 minutes during morning peak by improved transfers and priority - Double rail transit network to 278 km by 2020 - Increase bus speeds to 20- 25km/hr from 16-19km/hr by allotting all-day bus priority - Increase overall public transport ridership from 63% to 70% by 2020 - Designed to limitthe number of cars that use the roadway system by engaging in electronic road pricing, - Allowing marketforces to set parking policies,and - Strictly limiting the number of vehicle registration issued - Engaging the community, enhancing accessibility by providing barrier-free facilities and keeping fares as low as possible,making transfer stations into “lifestyle hubs,” and promoting the use of bicycles and other clean vehicles Policy/Base document Objectives Targets
- 48. • Make PTaffordable, convenient, comfortable and safe • Regular quality checks increases reliability of PT and hence contribute towards increasing patronage • Segregate Bus-only lanes and links • Intermodal Integration • Restraint on private cars • Parking controls in central areas • Traffic Management • Sound institutional setup to plan and manage Way Forward….. A package of actions is needed for the success of PT
- 49.
- 50. English Spanish Portuguese BahasaIndonesia (December 2010), Mandarin (partially available last year) Bus Rapid Transit Planning Guide Development underway on the 4th Edition of the BRT Planning Guide Freely distributed world-wide in both electronic and bound versions in multiple languages: q Chinese q English q French q Indonesian q Korean q Portuguese q Spanish q Russian
- 51. Training course manuals •Bus Rapid Transit • Public Awareness and Behavioural Change • Non-motorised Transport • Cycling-inclusive Policy Development: A Handbook • Travel Demand Management • Mass Transport Options • Bus Regulation and Planning • Financing Urban Transport
- 52.