webinar: bus rapid transit system: metro on surface or high performance bus system?
DESCRIPTION
2014-01-31 webinarTRANSCRIPT
Bus Rapid Transit System:
Metro on surface or high performance bus
system?
Geetam Tiwari
MoUD Chair Professor
Department of Civil Engineering &
Coordinator Transportation Research and Injury Prevention Program (TRIPP)
Indian Institute of Technology Delhi(IITD)
New Delhi, India
31 January, 2014
Bus Rapid Transit System:
1973-75 Curitiba, Brazil: “ I would like to have a
metro system, however, at present I
cannot afford it, why not have metro on
road”- Mayor Jamie Lerner
Why?
Problems caused due to growing car
ownership
Bus system moving in mixed traffic
could not carry large number of
people as possible in metro system
Alan Hoffman:Delhi BRT workshop 2005
Alan Hoffman:Delhi BRT workshop 2005
Sao Paulo(10 million), Brazil
Central bus lanes~170kms, links underground metro
US Federal Transit Administration, 2001
Quito (1.8 million), Ecuador
Electric
trolley
buses
running
through
congeste
d
historical
district
TransMilenio in Bogota from highway to city center
Taipei(6mill), Taiwan ~60km of BRT with metro
Creative use of lane space
Photos: Jason Chang, 2002
Kunming(4.6 million), China central bus lns 50% increase in corridor cap.
Source: unknown. From
Lloyd Wright, 2002
Nagoya, Japan John Cracknell, TTC, and the US
Transportation Research Board
BRT
planning
in 8 cites
US examples
Honolulu
Pittsburgh
US Federal Transit Administration
Lloyd Wright
Rapid boarding & alighting
Quito, Ecuador
Porto Alegre, Brazil
Curitiba, Brazil
Lloyd Wright
Karl Fjellstrom
Lloyd Wright
Bus stop platform and bus floor at
the same level
Wider doors
Attention to details is the
difference between BRT and
typical bus system
1980-2000+
BRT(some form of) in every continent! Latin America
Belo Horizonte
Bogota
Campinas
Curitiba
Goiania
Lima
Porto Alegre
Quito
Recife
Sao Paulo
North America
Honolulu
Los Angeles
Miami
Ottawa
Pittsburgh
Vancouver
Asia
Akita
Fukuoka
Gifu
Kanazuwa
Kunming
Miyazaki
Nagaoka
Nagoya
Nigata
Taipie
Europe
Claremont Ferrand
Eindhoven
Essen
Ipswich
Leeds
Nancy
Rouen
Oceania
Adelaide
Brisbane
Cities shown in red
> 5million
population
What is BRTS ? • Bus Rapid Transit is a high-quality, state-
of-the-art mass transit system at a fraction of the cost of other options.
• Exclusive right of way-central lanes on arterials roads
• No friction with other vehicles
• Not affected by traffic jams
• Lanes can be used by police and emergency vehicles
• Faster boarding and alighting
• Level platform
• Improved buses
• ICT integration
• Passenger information
• ASIAN CITIES(mixed landuse , short trip
lengths, high share of two wheelers) – Open systems
– Low Floor buses
– Junction bus stops
• Latin America ( Slums near city borders, moderate to long trip lengths, absence of two wheelers – Closed system
– High Floor buses
– FOB
– Island mid block bus stop
BRT Experience
• European CITIES(mixed landuse , short trip
lengths, presence of formal bus system) – Open systems
– Low Floor buses
– Junction bus stops
• North America (suburban development, very high car ownership, long trip lengths) – Closed system
– Low Floor buses
– FOB( or curb side lane)
– Island mid block bus stop
BRT Experience
Closed /
Trunk & Feeder System
1-3km
10-
30km
Gives a brand image to public
transport
Ensures high service quality and
reliability
Allows ease of control and
enforcement
Fare structure and fare
collection system is generally
simpler and uniform.
Simpler Junction design and
signal plan. Can be managed in
maximum of 4-5 phases as
turning buses is controlled
Bus System planned like metro
1-3km
10-
30km
Bus System planned like metro
Heavy dependence on feeder
infrastructure
Transfers are increased,
increasing journey time
Suitable for cities with majority
trips are more than 10km ~
Not suitable for corridors with
high segment demand variations.
High quality feeder network is
essential
Restricts use by non BRT public
transport modes
Needs a new and independent
institutional mechanism
Metro & BRT network in selected cities
Metro
Moscow
Metro
Tokyo
BRT
Bogota
BRT
Jakarta
Network connectivity in bus
systems
• Majority O-D are connected by direct
service
• Some routes can go off the corridor nearer
destinations
• Bus stop spacing 500 m providing short
access trips
Open System Increases the catchment area of buses
Transfers are minimised, decreasing
journey time.
Does not need separate feeder network
Suitable for cities where majority trips
are less than ~10 km.
Works well in corridors with high
segmental demand variations
Extends segregated lane benefits to all
public transport and high occupancy
modes on the corridor.
Can work within the existing institutional
and regulatory framework using the
existing operators.
Open System
Predictability and reliability of public
transport is decreased because the
buses have to move in mixed
conditions for sometime
Difficult to regulate and control
Has generally complex fare structure
and fare collection system
Signal cycle design may require more
phases as turning is allowed for buses.
Hybrid System HYBRID SYSTEM – Combines benefits
of Open and Closed System
In the same corridor a route is reserved only to
ply on the corridor. Other buses move in and out of
the corridor and this will be city bus service
Minimum standard/frequency is met by BRTS
operations, higher segmental demands are met by
city buses.
Provides reliability and high service quality as
well brand image along with flexibility and
convenience.
Fare collection and control within corridor may be
simplified by providing closed shelters with off-
board ticketing
24
Open and Closed Systems
Open System
• Buses can enter and leave the busway depending on the origin and destinations – shared busway with multiple routes
Closed System
• Buses remain within the busway and operate between terminals
25
Trunk and Feeder System
26
Network Planning Existing routes
•36 bus routes
•4 through routes
•120-150 buses/h
AMBEDKAR NAGAR
VIRAT MARG (MID BLOCK)
ORTHONOVA
PRESS ENCLAVE
CHIRAGH DELHI
10 Routes, 85 Buses/hr4 Routes, 38 buses/hr
2 Routes, 19 buses/hr 2 Routes, 15 buses/hr
1 Route, 12 buses /hr
5 Routes, 46 Buses/hr
1 Route, 5 buses/hr1 Route, 15 Buses/hr
2 Routes, 12 Buses/hr
123
Bus
es/h
r12
3 B
uses
/hr
157
Bus
es/h
r12
3 B
uses
/hr
115
Bus
es/h
r
Buses On Corridor
Buses Joining Corridor
Buses Leaving Corridor
Bus Shelters
LEGEND
(14
Rou
tes)
(14
Rou
tes)
(18
Rou
tes)
(14
Rou
tes)
(14
Rou
tes)
27
Understanding Capacity
Line capacity vs vehicle capacity
• Line capacity : Vehicle capacity(Transit Unit, TU) X
TU/h
• TU capacity= No. of vehicles /TU
• Vehicle Capacity : vehicle size, standing, seating, load
factor, passenger comfort
• Frequency: TU/h= cycle time/headway
• Cycle time: Station time+ running time
• Running time: corridor length/speed
• Station time: boarding and alighting time
• Vehicle design, station design
Why do cities invest in Public
transport?
• “reduce” congestion
• Improve air quality
• Control sprawl
• Provide mobility choices
This requires 1. retaining PT and NMV users
2.attracting people car users & two wheeler users to PT
What do people want
• Get me from point A to point B,
(connectivity)
• Quickly and don’t make me wait (system
performance)
How do you reduce door to door
journey time?
• Reduce Waiting time~ increase
frequencies
• Door to door travel that is faster than
driving~ increase direct service and
express service
Pedestrian connectivity
IIT Delhi 2006
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time, minutes
Dis
tan
ce
, k
m
Metro Walking
Bicycling BRT
2-Wheeler/car
car bicycl
e BRT
metro
walk
3 km trip
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time, minutes
Dis
tan
ce, km
Metro
BRT
2-Wheeler/car
IIT Delhi 2006
car
BRT
metro
12 km Trip
S’pore average metro trip 12 km
BRTS Design and Evaluation Process
• Design and operation
selection currently based on
experience in different cities
– Problem– cities differ in
context and requirements
• Lack of comprehensive
indicators of “success” – Mostly operational indicators
commercial speed and capacity
used, user or social
indicators not used.
* source- www.chinabrt.org BRT Corridors–Global Examples
Xiamen*
Seoul*
Taipei
Possible Designs (https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/easts/10/0/10_1292/_article
15
Island Stations Staggered Stations
Junction Stations Mid-block Stations
Stations with overtaking lane Stations without overtaking lane
Bus Lanes Bus Lanes
Bus Lanes Bus Lanes
Bus Lanes Bus LanesMotor Vehicle Lanes
Motor Vehicle LanesMotor Vehicle Lanes
Motor Vehicle Lanes
Motor Vehicle Lanes
Motor Vehicle Lanes
Motor Vehicle Lanes
Motor Vehicle Lanes
Motor Vehicle Lanes
Motor Vehicle Lanes
Motor Vehicle Lanes
Motor Vehicle Lanes
Station Station
StationStation Station
Station Station
Open System – Multi route operation Closed System – Single route operation 2
X
2
2
2
= 1
6
X
X
Possible Design Variations Average Trip Length – 7km Demand 7500 PPHPD
Average Walk Speed – 1m/s Average Station Spacing :600m
Signal Cycle (Ped. Crossing) – 60s Signal Cycle (Veh. Int.) :150s
At grade signalized access for ped. Boarding Bay from Crossing: 26m
30% turning buses in open system 5 distinct routes in open system
Demand (PPHPD) 2500, 5000, 7500, 10000, 12500
Average Station Spacing (m) 400, 500, 600, 700, 800, 900, 1000
Signal Cycle (s) 120, 150, 180, 210, 240, 270, 300
Boarding bay dist. From int. (m) 0, 13, 26, 39, 52, 65, 78
Variations in features modeled (for 16 design options)
Results compared (for 16 design options) Average commercial speeds Maximum achievable frequency
Door to door journey time Access & egress time
Total walk distance in a one way trip
Findings
• Commercial Speed: – Closed systems are better
than open
– Staggered are better than island stations
– Junctions are better than mid block shelter locations
– Higher speeds with overtaking lane than without
• Journey Time – Lowest journey time at 750-
800m station spacing
– Open systems better than closed systems for station spacing >450m.
– Staggered better than island
– Junctions better than mid block
– With overtaking better than without
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
950
1000
Op
era
tio
na
l S
pe
ed
in
Km
/h
Average Distance Between Stations (m)
Average Distance Between Stations vs. Operation Speed
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
950
1000
Avera
ge J
ou
rney T
ime in
M
inu
tes
Average Distance Between Stations (m)
Average Distance Between Stations vs. Journey Time
13.414.5
15.516.4
17.218.0
18.819.5
20.120.7
21.321.8
22.3
16.7
17.918.9
19.920.8
21.622.3
23.023.6
24.224.7
25.225.7
13.214.2
15.216.1
17.017.7
18.519.2
19.820.4
21.021.5
22.0
16.4
17.618.6
19.620.5
21.322.0
22.723.3
23.924.4
24.925.4
400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1000
Average Distance between Stations Vs. Operation Speed
Junction with overtaking staggered in open system Junction With Overtaking Staggered in Close systemJunction With Overtaking Island in Open system Junction With Overtaking Island in Close systemJunction Without Overtaking Staggered in Open system Junction Without Overtaking Staggered in Closed systemJunction Without Overtaking Island in Open system Junction Without Overtaking Island in Closed system
13.414.5
15.516.4
17.218.0
18.819.5
20.120.7
21.321.8
22.3
16.7
17.918.9
19.920.8
21.622.3
23.023.6
24.224.7
25.225.7
13.214.2
15.216.1
17.017.7
18.519.2
19.820.4
21.021.5
22.0
16.4
17.618.6
19.620.5
21.322.0
22.723.3
23.924.4
24.925.4
400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1000
Average Distance between Stations Vs. Operation Speed
Junction with overtaking staggered in open system Junction With Overtaking Staggered in Close systemJunction With Overtaking Island in Open system Junction With Overtaking Island in Close systemJunction Without Overtaking Staggered in Open system Junction Without Overtaking Staggered in Closed systemJunction Without Overtaking Island in Open system Junction Without Overtaking Island in Closed system
Findings • Max. Achievable Frequency:
– Higher frequency for closed systems than open
– Higher frequency for mid block stations than junction
– Higher for staggered stations than island
– Higher with overtaking lane
• Total Access+Egress Time – Compared to open system
access+ egress time is almost double for junction stn. and 15% higher for mid. block stn. in closed systems
– Compared to junction stations it is 30% higher for mid block stations in open systems and 10% higher in closed systems
• Total walk dist. in a trip – Shorter for open system than for
closed system
– Shorter for junction stations than for mid block
13.414.5
15.516.4
17.218.0
18.819.5
20.120.7
21.321.8
22.3
16.7
17.918.9
19.920.8
21.622.3
23.023.6
24.224.7
25.225.7
13.214.2
15.216.1
17.017.7
18.519.2
19.820.4
21.021.5
22.0
16.4
17.618.6
19.620.5
21.322.0
22.723.3
23.924.4
24.925.4
400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1000
Average Distance between Stations Vs. Operation Speed
Junction with overtaking staggered in open system Junction With Overtaking Staggered in Close systemJunction With Overtaking Island in Open system Junction With Overtaking Island in Close systemJunction Without Overtaking Staggered in Open system Junction Without Overtaking Staggered in Closed systemJunction Without Overtaking Island in Open system Junction Without Overtaking Island in Closed system
13.414.5
15.516.4
17.218.0
18.819.5
20.120.7
21.321.8
22.3
16.7
17.918.9
19.920.8
21.622.3
23.023.6
24.224.7
25.225.7
13.214.2
15.216.1
17.017.7
18.519.2
19.820.4
21.021.5
22.0
16.4
17.618.6
19.620.5
21.322.0
22.723.3
23.924.4
24.925.4
400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1000
Average Distance between Stations Vs. Operation Speed
Junction with overtaking staggered in open system Junction With Overtaking Staggered in Close systemJunction With Overtaking Island in Open system Junction With Overtaking Island in Close systemJunction Without Overtaking Staggered in Open system Junction Without Overtaking Staggered in Closed systemJunction Without Overtaking Island in Open system Junction Without Overtaking Island in Closed system
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0 13 26 39 52 65 78
Ma
xim
um
Fre
qu
en
cy P
Distance of First Boarding Bay from Stop line in m
Distance of First stop fr Stop line vs. Max. Frequency (Bus Capacity)
15
20
25
30
35
40
To
tal A
cc
es
s T
ime
(m
in.)
Average Distance between Stations (m)
Average Distance between Stations Vs. Total Access Time
Trip length variation Impact
• Passenger Speed gain over regular buses: – Open system with
staggered stations better than closed system with island stations for trip lengths up to 9km.
– BRTS has little or no advantage over regular bus systems if avg. motor veh. speed >22.5 km/h.
– In all systems longer avg. trip lengths are more attractive over regular buses for avg. MV speeds less than 20 km/h.
-1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
4
10
16
Spe
ed
Dif
fere
nce
in k
m/h
r
Trip Length in Km
Average motorized
speed in City in km/hr
Gain in Passenger Speed (in km/h) over Regular Bus Service (in Open System)
4.0-5.0
3.0-4.0
2.0-3.0
1.0-2.0
0.0-1.0
-1.0-0.0
-1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
4
10
16
Spe
ed
Dif
ferr
en
ce in
km
/hr
Trip length in Km
Average Motorized
speed in city in km/hr
Gain in Passenger Speed (in km/h) over Regular Bus Service (in Closed System)
5.0-6.0
4.0-5.0
3.0-4.0
2.0-3.0
1.0-2.0
0.0-1.0
-1.0-0.0
Typical System/Design comp
No. of boarding bays :3 per direction Demand 7500 PPHPD
Average Walk Speed :1m/s Bus overtaking lanes at station: None
Signal Cycle (Ped. Crossing) – 60s Signal Cycle (Veh. Int.) – 150s
At grade signalized access for ped. Boarding Bay from Crossing – 26m
30% turning buses in open system 5 distinct routes in open system
Trip Length (km) - 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16
Average Station Spacing (m) - 500, 600, 700, 800, 900, 1000
Peak bus speed (km/h) - 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100
Avg. veh. speed in corridor (km/h)
-
10.0, 12.5, 15.0, 17.5, 20.0, 22.5, 25.0, 27.5,
30.0
Common Design Features(for both designs)
Variations in Context Elements
Travel time (min), Operational/Commercial speed
(km/h),
Passenger Speed (km/h)
Results compared
1. Staggered Stations in open system, first bay is 26m from crossing
2. Island station in closed system, first bay is 60m from stop line
Stn spacing and peak speed Impact
• Commercial Speed:
Avg. Trip length variation does not effect commercial speed in BRTS
Commercial speed increases with increasing station spacing and increasing peak bus speeds in all systems.
Commercial speed is more sensitive to station spacing and peak bus speed in closed systems.
Steepest gain in commercial speed with increase in peak speeds from 40 to 60km/h
At ideal station spacing of 750m, an increase in peak bus speeds from 40 to 60km/h ,commercial speed increases by 10% in open system and 15% in closed system.
18
23
28
33
40
60
80
100Op
era
tio
nal
Sp
ee
d in
Km
/Hr
Peak Bus Speed in Km/hr
Close System Operational Speed for 8 Km Trip Length
33-36
28-33
23-28
18-23
12
17
22
27
32
40
60
80
100
Op
era
tio
nal
Sp
ee
d in
Km
/Hr
Peak Bus Speed in Km/hr
Open System Operational Speed for 8 Km Trip Length
32-36
27-32
22-27
17-22
12-17
Impact on Journey Time
• Door to Door Journey
Time:
– Open systems are more
sensitive to station spacing
than closed systems
– Ideal station spacing for all
systems is about 750m
– Journey time advantage of
increasing peak bus speed
increases with avg. station
spacing increase
– Increasing peak bus speed
has minimal impact on
journey time
500600
700800
9001000
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
40
60
80
100
Trip
tim
e in
min
Peak Bus Speed in Km/hr
Open System Travel Time Comparison for 6 Km Trip Length
44-45
43-44
42-43
41-42
40-41
39-40
38-39
37-38
36-37
36.00
37.00
38.00
39.00
40.00
41.00
42.00
43.00
44.00
45.00
40
60
80
100
Trip
tim
e in
min
Peak Bus Speed in Km/hr
Close System Travel Time (min) Comparison for 6 Km Trip Length
44.00-45.00
43.00-44.00
42.00-43.00
41.00-42.00
40.00-41.00
39.00-40.00
38.00-39.00
37.00-38.00
36.00-37.00
Conclusions
• In general closed systems perform better against operator indicators while open systems perform better against passenger and social indicators.
• Open systems work better in cities with avg. trip length less than 9-10km when no bus overtaking lane is used and less than 14-16km when bus overtaking lanes exist.
• Staggered stations perform better than island stations in all conditions, for all operational designs.
• Stations perform better with overtaking lanes than without
• BRTS systems are useful on inner city roads with higher congestion and avg. MV speed of 15-20km/h or less. They are counter productive on corridors with speeds in excess of 27.5km/h
• Increasing peak bus speeds over 40km/h results in no significant advantage either to passengers or to operators but significantly increases fatality risk.
WAY FORWARD
What is a 21st
century city?
An Alternative Approach
Sustainable Mobility(D. Banister, T.Litman, J.Gehl..................
• Social dimensions
• Accessibility
• People focus, instead of vehicle
• Local in scale
• Street as a space
• All modes of transport often in a hierarchy with pedestrian and cyclist at the top and car users at the bottom
• Visioning on cities
• Scenario development and modelling
• Multicriteria analysis to take account of environmental and social concerns
• Travel as a valued activity as well as a derived demand
• Management based
• Slowing movement down
• Reasonable travel times and travel time reliability
• Integration of people and traffic
BRTS in Future Cities
• Inclusive
• Compact
– High density
– Mixed landuse
• Short to medium trip lengths
• Less dependent on personal motorized
vehicles
OPEN BRTS or CLOSED BRTS??