Speaker - Prof. Shivanand Swamy, Associate Director, CEPT University

1. SMART MOBILITY
APRIL 2015
By
Prof. Shivanand Swamy
Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport;
CEPT University, Ahmedabad
SMART CITY

2. INDIAN CITIES ARE GROWING
CITIES
THEY ARE DESIGNED FOR
COMMUNITY LIVING AND
COLLECTIVE MOBILITY

3. CITY COMPARIOSIONS
Aspect India Europe USA
Population Density 120 50 10-15
Percapita Motrised Trip Rates 0.75-1.1 2-3 2-3
Cars/1000 population 100 400 600-800'
Vehicles/1000 population 225 450 800-900'
Road length per capita (m) 0.75-1.25 2-3 5-7
Road length per ha (m) 100-120 115 90
% NMT Work Trips 20-25 15-20 5
NMT % of total passenger km 48 23 3
Car use-percapita(‘000km/yr) 1400 4500 12000
ICT Use Low High High
C

4. -Doubling of population in next 30-40
years
- Trip rates to double with increased
work participation (women coming into
workforce)
- Vehicle Ownership Rates Increasing
- How do we ensure mobility security?

5. - ALLOCATING ROAD SPACE FOR
COLLECTIVE MOBILITY IS THE WAY
FORWARD
- BRTS IS A KEY ELEMENT IN SMART
MOBILITY

6. 0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
0
5
10
15
20
25
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
CumulativeNumberof
Cities
NewCities
2009: Ahmedabad
(Janmarg), India
2000: Bogotá
(TransMilenio),
Colombia
1974/1991*: Curitiba
1972/2010*: Lima
http://brtdata.org, October 2013
Growth of BRTS Worldover

7. 0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
BRTSNetworkLength(inkms)
Time Series
Latin America
North America
Europe
China
India
Growth of BRTS Worldover

8. MYTHS ABOUT BRTS
BRTS
• Takes away road space!
• Roads will be congested!
• Very few buses given priority over large mixed traffic
vehicles!
• Movement will be inefficient!
• Too much Investment – Too little a benefit
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and Surat Municipal Corporation : Government of Gujarat
Technical Assistance: Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport, CEPT University, Ahmedabad. (An initiative of the Ministry of Urban Development,

9. CURRENT SCENARIO

10. By:
Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport, CEPT University, Ahmedabad.
People moved : 150
Area occupied – 84 sq. m
Queue length – 24 m.
Janmarg Mixed traffic
MORE BUSES MEAN LESS TRAFFIC
Existing Scenario (Ahmedabad) November 2012
People moved :77
Area occupied – 486 sq. m.
Queue length - 54 m.
Phase Time – 40 Seconds
Cycle Length – 120 Seconds

11. By:
Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport, CEPT University, Ahmedabad.
People moved – 150
Area occupied – 84 sq. m
Queue length – 24 m.
Janmarg Mixed traffic
MORE CARS – Constant queue Length- Reduction in people
moved
MORE CARS MEANS LESS PEOPLE
People moved -45
(Reduction from 77)
Area occupied – 486 sq. m.
Queue length - 54 m.

12. By:
Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport, CEPT University, Ahmedabad.
People moved – 150
Area occupied – 84 sq. m
Queue length – 24 m.
People moved -77
Queue length - 183 m.
(Increase from 54 meters)
Phase time – 70 Seconds
Cycle Length – 180
Seconds
Janmarg Mixed traffic
MORE CARS – Same No of people – Longer Queue
MORE CARS MEANS LONGER QUES

13. Future Scenario: If the
Traffic is Doubled
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and Surat Municipal Corporation : Government of Gujarat
Technical Assistance: Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport, CEPT University, Ahmedabad. (An initiative of the Ministry of Urban Development,

14. By:
Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport, CEPT University, Ahmedabad.
People moved – 280
Area occupied – 135 sq.
m
Queue length – 37 m.
People moved -155
Queue length – 210 m.
Phase time – 70 Seconds
Cycle Length – 180
Seconds
Janmarg Mixed traffic
MORE CARS – Same No of people – Longer Queue
MORE CARS MEANS LONGER QUES
Janmarg – Focus on Moving People..
18 M ARTICULATED BUS
CAPACITY- 140

15. IF BRTS DID
NOT EXIST

16. By:
Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport, CEPT University, Ahmedabad.
People moved -240
Queue length - 165 m.
(Increase from 54 meters)
Phase time – 100 Seconds
Cycle Length > 180 Seconds (Not Desirable)
Mixed traffic
Present scenario- without BRTS
MORE CARS MEANS LONGER QUES

17. By:
Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport, CEPT University, Ahmedabad.
People moved -240
Queue length - 463 m.
(Increase from 210 meters)
Phase Time – 200 Seconds+ (Not possible to
operate with At-grade junction)
Mixed traffic
Future Scenario- (double traffic) without BRTS
MORE CARS MEANS LONGER QUES

18. RESULTRESULT with NO BRTS
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and Surat Municipal Corporation : Government of Gujarat
Technical Assistance: Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport, CEPT University, Ahmedabad. (An initiative of the Ministry of Urban Development,

19. Without BRTS all modes are
SLOW
With BRTS even the
cars move faster!!
Who is Moving?

20. Origin - Destination Length
With BRT Without BRT Saving
Average Delay (s) Savings
(sec)
Average
Delay (sec)
Average Delays w/o
BRT over with BRT
From To (Km) BRT Mix Traffic
Helmet Keshavbaug 2.1 104 339 235 395 3.8 times
Helmet Shivaranajani 2.6 138 368 230 431 3.1 times
SIMULATION RESULTS FROM VISSIM
-- FROM HELMET TO SHIVARAJANI INTERSECTION
• The evaluation results indicate the average speed of 27.2 and 22-24 kmph for
BRT and mixed traffic respectively.
• The evaluation results indicate the average speed under mixed traffic situation
is 16-19 KMPHAhmedabad Municipal Corporation and Surat Municipal Corporation : Government of Gujarat
Technical Assistance: Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport, CEPT University, Ahmedabad. (An initiative of the Ministry of Urban Development,
SPEED DELAY ANALYSIS

21. BRTS – A SMART WAY TO MOBILITY
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
20000
22000
24000
1802
1980
2158
2336
2514
2692
2870
3048
3226
3404
3582
3760
3938
4116
4294
4472
4650
4828
5006
5184
5362
5540
5718
5896
6074
DistanceTravelled
Distance Travelled
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
20000
22000
24000
1802
1920
2038
2156
2274
2392
2510
2628
2746
2864
2982
3100
3218
3336
3454
3572
3690
3808
3926
4044
4162
4280
4398
4516
4634
4752
Distance Travelled
Sample size: 10 Buses
Bunching of buses in no
BRT scenario leads to
higher journey time.
Sample size: 12 Buses
Segregated bus lanes
reduce bunching by
increasing reliability
BRTS adds system reliability
No BRT Scenario BRT scenario
Average Journey Time: 38 mins & 31 minsAverage Journey Time: 60 mins

22. LESSON: BUILD BRTS
- Full BRTS
-Light BRTS
-Elevated BRTS
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and Surat Municipal Corporation : Government of Gujarat
Technical Assistance: Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport, CEPT University, Ahmedabad. (An initiative of the Ministry of Urban Development,

23. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and Surat Municipal Corporation : Government of Gujarat
Technical Assistance: Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport, CEPT University, Ahmedabad. (An initiative of the Ministry of Urban Development,
Bogota BRT System – FULL BRTS
Route Length operational 84km
BRTS Stations 114
Daily Ridership 1,650,000
Bus Capacity 140 /210
System Capacity 45,000 pphpd currently
System Speed (avg.) 28.0 kmph
Curitiba BRT System – FULL BRTS
Route Length operational 81 km
BRTS Stations 113
Daily Ridership 504,500
Bus Capacity 80/140/210
System Capacity 13,000 pphpd currently
System Speed (avg.) 19 kmph
Case Studies

24. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and Surat Municipal Corporation : Government of Gujarat
Technical Assistance: Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport, CEPT University, Ahmedabad. (An initiative of the Ministry of Urban Development,
Xiamen BRTS – Elevated Corridor – FULL BRTS
Route Length operational 67.5km
BRTS Stations 47
Daily Ridership -
Bus Capacity 80
System Capacity 8,360 pphpd currently
System Speed (avg.) 27.0 kmph
Istanbul BRT System – FULL BRTS
Route Length operational 42km
BRTS Stations 33
Daily Ridership 600,000
Bus Capacity 170
System Capacity 30,000 pphpd currently
System Speed 42kmph (avg.)
Case Studies

25. ELEVATED BRTS
Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport, CEPT University, Amdavad
PRO(s):
• Can respond to RoW
constraints upto 24 m
• Minimize R&R
impacts
• Reduce delays
CON(s):
• Higher capital cost
• Longer construction
time
• Traffic management
during implementation

26. BRTS BHUBANESWAR
Junction Treatment for BRTS LITE
Segregation at BRTS LITE Station

27. Parking Mess
Eg from Ahmedabad
On-Street Parking reduces
Road Infrastructure Capacity
Traffic Speed
PARKING MANAGEMENT !!!
Planned On site situation
Element Width % covered Width % covered
Footpath 2.25m 15 % 2.25m 15 %
Carriageway 9.25m 50% 7m 22%
BRT lane 3.65m
25 %
3.65m
25 %
BRT Stop 1.9m 1.9m
Parking 2.25 8 % 6m 36%

28. DO WE
HAVE AN
OPTION ?

29. BRTS SURAT
2006
NO
PUBLIC
TRANSPORT

30. BRTS SURAT
2009
SOME
PUBLIC
TRANSPORT

31. BRTS SURAT
2014
BRTS as
PUBLIC
TRANSPORT

32. INTEGRATED LAND USE WITH
MASS TRANSIT 2021

33. Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport, CEPT University, Ahmedabad
Focus on moving people

34. Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport, CEPT University, Ahmedabad
BRTS Breaks Social Barrier

35. THANK YOU