bus–based transit - Engineers Ireland

Transcription

BUS–BASED TRANSIT
INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCE WITH
BRT AND BHLS
BRENDAN FINN
ETTS LTD.
All unattributed images are by the Author
Mass Transit based on Buses
Scope of this Presentation
 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
 Bus with High Level of Service (BHLS)
 Metrics
M i ffor BRT and
d BHLS
 International findings
Spectrum of Bus-Based Transit
 High
g p
performance,, high
g capacity
p
y BRT
 Major infastructure, rapid service, intensive services
 Up to 1 million passengers/day
 Bogota,
Bogota Guangzhou
Guangzhou, Istanbul
Istanbul, …
 High-performance, moderate capacity BRT
 Major infastructure, rapid service, strong service
 Range 100-250,000 passengers/day
 Brisbane, Ottowa, Beijing, Mexico City, …
 Bus with High Level of Service (BHLS)
 Moderate/little infrastructure, focus on reliability and quality
 Range 25,000-65,000 passengers/day
 Amsterdam, Gothenburg, Stockholm, Paris, Madrid, Hamburg, …
BRT– Bus Rapid Transit
FEATURES
EXAMPLES AND PRACTICE
Features of BRT
Source : Sam Zimmerman, World Bank
Vehicles
Running Ways
Stations & Terminals
Systems
Service Plan
Features of BRT – Running Ways
Vehicles
Running Ways
Systems
Service Plan
Running Way options
 Dedicated bus road
 Exclusive road for use of buses
 Operate at up to 100 kph (Adelaide, Brisbane)
 Median dedicated lanes – centre of the road
 Usually have physical segregation
 Passing lane required for high efficiency
 If stations in the centre, probably need dedicated fleet
 If lateral stations, can offset to reduce road-take requirements
 Lateral dedicated lanes – located at edge of the road
 May have problem to gain sufficient pavement width
 More difficult if many existing roadside uses
Running way - Istanbul
Source: EMBARQ
Running Way – Beijing, China
Running Way – Guanghzhou, China
Source : Paul Barter
Running way – Seoul, Korea
BRT Running way – Rio de Janeiro
MSOffice3
BRT Running Way – Lagos
Source : Dayo Mobereola, LAMATA
Slide 14
MSOffice3 Future tense
, 21/09/2010
MSOffice2
BRT Running Way - Jakarta
Source : Transjakarta
Slide 15
MSOffice2 Future tense
, 21/09/2010
BRT Running way - Pereira
BRT running way - Pereira
BRT Running Way - Nantes
BRT running way - Paris
Essen : Busway track
Source : Cambridgeshire County Council
BRT running way - Amsterdam
Pittsburgh
b g – East Buswayy construction
o
o
Cambridge : Busway
BRT Tunnel section - Brisbane
Features of BRT – Stations and Terminals
Vehicles
Running Ways
Systems
Service Plan
BRT Bus Station - Bogota
Source : Peter Danielsson, Volvo Bus Corporation
BRT Station - Johannesburg
BRT Station, Sao Paulo
Source : Toni Lindau
BRT Station - Istanbul
Source: EMBARQ
BRT Station - Pereira
BRT Station – Rio de Janeiro
Busway Station - Pittsburgh
BRT Station - Brisbane
Passenger lift at BRT station - Brisbane
Precision docking – Amsterdam
Precision docking - Nantes
Wheelchair ramp - Nantes
Wheelchair ramp - Cleveland
Rouen, France – optical guidance system
Castellon, Spain– Optical Guidance system
Cambridge : Park’n’Ride
Features of BRT – Service Plan
Vehicles
Running Ways
Systems
Service Plan
Service Plan – Mixed service type
Statio
on
Statio
on
Statio
on
Statio
on
Statio
on
Statio
on
Statio
on
Statio
on
Transfer
Terminal
● Base: All
All--day, all
all--stops trunk line
● Overlay:
l
Peak
Peakk-only
l or allall
ll-day
d express services
i
Local
C
B
D
Express
Express
University,
Hospital
District
46
BRT and land-use in Curitiba
Source : URBS, Curitiba
BRT Network - Curitiba
Source : URBS Curitiba
Service differentiation - Curitiba
Source : URBS Curitiba
Ahmedabad – 85 km of BRT network
15 CORRIDORS OF BUSWAY - JAKARTA 201
2015
5
5
10
9
15
3
1
Blok M - Kota
Gajah Mada/Hayam Wuruk – Majapahit – M. Merdeka Barat –
Mh. Thamrin – J end. Sudirman - Sisingamangaraja
2
16
1
P.Gadung – Harmoni
3 Kalideres - Harmoni
4 P.Gadung – Dukuh Atas
5 Kp.Melayu - Ancol
6 Ragunan – Kuningan
7 Kp.Melayu – Kp.Rambutan
8 Lebak Bulus – Harmoni
9 Pinangranti
Pi
ti - Pluit
Pl it
2
4
Pahlawan Kemerdek aan – Suprapto – Senen – J uanda Harmini CB – Merdek a Barat – Kwitang
Daan Mogot – Ky ai Tapa – Has yim As yhari – Harmoni CB – Juanda – Pasar Baru
Pemuda – Pramuka - Tambak – Sultan Agung
g g – Setia Budi
Jatinegara – Matraman Ray a – Kramat Raya – Senen – Gunung Sahari
A
B
14
11
Warung Jati – Mampang Prapatan – Ras una Said – Latuharhari –
Sultan Agung – Rasuna Said
Otista – Cawang – Sutoy o – Raya Bogor
12
8
Pondok Indah – S. Isk andar Muda – T.Nyak Arief –
Jalan Panjang – Daan Mogot – S.Parman – Tomang – Harmoni CB
Sutoyo – Hary ono – Gatot Subroto – S.Parman – J embatan 2 Latumenten
10 Cililitan
- Tanjung Priok
11 Ciledug - Blok M
12 Kalimalang - Blok M
Sutoy o – DI. Panjaitan – A. Yani
6
7
13
Hos Cokroaminoto – Cileduk Raya – Kya Maja
Kalimalang – Let Hary ono – Kapten Tendean – W. Minginsidi
13 Depok -
Manggarai
14 Pulo Gebang – Kp.Melayu
Margonda – Lenteng Agung – PS. Minggu – Prof. DR Supomo – Minangkabau
Sentra Prima – Soek anto – Soegiono – Bas uk i Rachmat – Pedati
15Tanjung Priok Tg. Priok - Kemayoran - Pluit
Pluit
Nantes – Busway and Chronobus network
Features of BRT
Vehicles
Running Ways
Systems
Service Plan
Articulated buses – Bogota and Curitiba
Hamburg: “XXL” bus
Source : Hamburger Hochbahn AG
BRT vehicle - Pereira
BRT Vehicle - Nantes
BRT Vehicle – Amsterdam
Standard Bus – Brisbane
Features of BRT
Vehicles
Running Ways
Systems
Service Plan
ITS systems for BRT
 Operations
p
Management
g
 Automatic Vehicle Location and Management
 Traffic Signal Priority
 Service
S i and
d System
S
planning
l
i and
d support
 Collision avoidance/warning
 Precision docking
 Customer-facing and support services
 Automatic fare collection
 Real-time passenger information
 Journey planning
 Security
S
it and
d passenger managementt systems
t
Control Centre – Bogota, Columbia
Control Centre – Rio de Janeiro
Zurich – AVM Control Centre
Control Centre - Johannesburg
In-vehicle headway management - Seoul
Real-time passenger information - Brisbane
Fare collection at BRT Stations
Smart Card Fare Gates
TransMillenio, Bogota
Mag. Ticket
Mag
Quito: TroleBus
Image and Marketing - Brisbane
Brisbane: S.E. Busway
69
BRT Branding – Rio de Janeiro
BRT Branding – Johannesburg
BHLS Bus with High Level of
BHLS–
Service
CAPACITY AND COST
FEATURES
EXAMPLES
What is BHLS?
 BHLS?
 Derives from French term ‘BHNS’, maybe later another name
 Generic term for a wide range of quality bus systems
 Is it BRT?
 Not exactly, a different product in the spectrum of bus priority
 Focus more on reliability/quality than on speed/capacity
 Holistic approach
 Improved operating environment – reliability, better speed
 Higher quality vehicles with better comfort and image
 Improved passenger facilities – stops, terminals, ...
 Branding, marketing, ‘repositioning the product’
Case Study 1 : Nantes, France
 Opted for Busway rather than
additional LRT




Started 2006, 7km, 15 stations
Designed to tram
tram-style
style specification
4 min frequency, 20 km/hr
25,000 px.day
 Key design features:
 4 park’n’ride facilities
 Articulated buses, CNG
 Priority at traffic signals
 High quality design in city centre
 High
High-specification
specification vehicle
 Like BRT in style, not in volume
Case Study 2 : Zuidtangent, Netherlands
 Priority
y channel for buses
 Dedicated lanes between Haarlem
and Schiphol, then bus priority
 24 km,
km 1.8
1 8 km in tunnel,
tunnel 35 km/hr
 Intervals 6-8 minutes, 24/7
 40,000 p
passengers
g
dailyy
 Use normal buses, normal contracts
 Additional features:
 Integration with rail at many places
 Efficient stop dwell times
 Euro 5 emissions
emissions, standard models
 Unique design elements, identity
Zuidtangent at Schiphol Airport
Source : Stadsregio Amsterdam
Running way - Amsterdam
Source : Stadsregio Amsterdam
Amsterdam: Hard shoulder reserved for bus
Source : COST TU0603 action
In-street operation – Amsterdam
Station - Amsterdam
Precision docking – Amsterdam
Cyclist controlled crossing – Amsterdam
Bicycle facilities - Amsterdam
 Bike’n’Ride
 Extensive
i bike
bik parking
ki
 Amsterdam, Almere
 Bike
Bik on b
bus iis rare
O. HEDDEBAUT
Case Study 2 : Cambridge, UK
 Cambridgeshire Guided Busway
 Operates on dedicated bus road
 Converted disused rail line
 Links developing towns to city
 Deregulated environment
 Operators bear revenue risk
 Modest
M d t ttrack
k charge,
h
maint.
i t fund
f d
 Key features
 Two track g
guided buswayy
 Normal street mode in Cambridge
 4 routes by 2 operators
 Driving speed 80 kph
Cambridge : Busway
Cambridge : Busway
Cambridge : Running way
Cambridge : Park’n’Ride
Cambridge : Vehicle
Cambridge : Guide wheel for Busway
Cambridge : Guide wheel and kerb
Guide Kerb
Guide wheel
Customer comfort - Cambridge
 WiFi on bus
 Socket for PC, phone
 Leather seats
 CCTV for security
O. HEDDEBAUT
O. HEDDEBAUT
O. HEDDEBAUT
Case Study 3 : Lund, Sweden
 Lundalänken



Prioritised bus link from Central Station to
University, Business Park
Total 6 km length
600 m new build, some dedicated road
 Priority to normal buses
 Services of City and Region
 Regular bus routes, regular buses
 Give
i the
h bus
b space, iit will
ill perform
f
 Provision for the future


Lundalänken extended to outer area
City owns the land, will benefit
Lund – access to dedicated bus link
Lund – dedicated bus link
Lund – key interchange stop
Lund - Vehicle
Lund – train information at bus exit
Madrid : Bus/VAO tidal lane
Hamburg: Line 5 in reserved lane
Source : Hamburger Hochbahn AG
Lorient – running way in city centre
Lorient – priority lane in central area
Almere : Chicane at station approach
Oberhausen: Bus and tram on common lane
BHLS - Real-time information – at stops
O. HEDDEBAUT
O. HEDDEBAUT
BHLS - Real-time information – in-vehicle
 Next stop
 Transfer
f routes, times
i
 Announcements
O. HEDDEBAUT
O. HEDDEBAUT
Hamburg – RTPI at bus stop
Source : COST TU0603 action
Amstelveen, NL – RTPI at bus station
Source : David van der Spek, Stadsregio Amsterdam
Paris TVM – Ticket Vending Machine
Ticketing Vending Machine :
to buy ticket (magnetic technology)
to reload your pass (contactless tecnhology)
Source : RATP
Lisbon – traffic signal
Paris TVM – Traffic Signal Priority
Priority announcement helping driver to adapt the speed of the bus at cross road
Effective taking into account when it is flashing
Announcing a change of phase when it is flashings
Bus
running
and
car
stopped
Source : RATP
Key Metrics for BRT and BHLS
DEPLOYMENT
CAPACITY AND COST
Global deployment of Bus-Based Systems
Region
Selected Cities with BRT
Australia
Adelaide, Brisbane, Sydney
(* in development)
North America
Cleveland, Guatemala City, Los Angeles, Mexico City,
Pitt b h Vancouver
Pittsburgh,
V
South America Bogota, Cali, Curitiba, Pereira, Porto Alegre, Quito, Recife,
Santiago, Sao Paulo
Europe (BHLS) Amsterdam, Cambridge, Eindhoven, Madrid, Nantes, Paris
China
Asia
Africa
Beijing, Changzhou, Dalian, Guangzhou, Hangzhou, Jinan,
Kunming, Xiamen,
Ahmedabad, Amman, Bangkok, Cebu*, Delhi, Indore, Istanbul,
Jakarta, Manila*, Nagoya, Pune, Seoul, Taipei
Accra*, Cape Town, Dar es Salaam*, Johannesburg, Lagos,
Pretoria (Tswane)*
Actual throughput on selected BRT systems
System
DAILY Ridership
Beijing South Line
90,000
Brisbane SE Busway
150,000
Lagos, BRT-Lite
200,000
Ottowa Transitway system
200,000
M i IInsurgentes
Mexico
t
225,000
Guangzhou, China
800,000
Istanbul Metrobus
Istanbul,
895 000
895,000
Bogota, Transmillenio
> 1 million
Luas – both lines
80 000
80,000
Dublin Bus – total network
450,000
Capital costs for on selected BRT systems
System
$ million/km
Lagos, BRT-Lite
1.7
Curitiba
2.5
Bogota, Transmillenio
Mexico City Insurgentes
Bangkok
Beijing South Line
3-10
4
4.7
5
Cleveland Healthline
10.4
Dublin Luas – both lines
c. 35
Dublin
bli Metro West (f
(forecast))
c. 50
Dublin Metro North (forecast)
c. 200
BHLS in Europe
Country
Cities with BHLS
England
Cambridge, Crawley, Dartford, Leeds
France
Lille, Lorient, Lyon, Nantes, Paris, Rennes, Rouen, Toulouse
Germany
Essen, Hamburg, Oberhausen
Ireland
Dublin
Italy
Brescia*, Pisa, Prato
Netherlands
Alkmaar, Almere, Amsterdam, Eindhoven, Twente, Utrecht
Spain
Barcelona*, Castellón, Madrid
Sweden
Gothenburg, Jönköping, Lund, Stockholm
Technical Performance of BHLS
 Peak and daily ridership are comparable to many tram
systems, rarely operating at full system capacity


1,000 – 2,500+ pphpd
23,700
3,7 – 65,000
5,
px/day
p / y
 Commercial speed and frequency are good
 16 – 35 kph (10-22 mph)
 12-40 vehicles/hour
hi l /h
 equal to or exceed that of European street tramways
 Seating
g ratio at p
peak is medium to high
g

34-84%
 Investment cost of facility is low and quite affordable

$ 6 million/km
$3-16.5
illi /k
Conclusion
REVISITING SOME
ASSUMPTIONS
USEFUL REFERENCES
Buses can deliver needed capacity
 The major
j BRT systems
y
have veryy high
g capacity
p
y



Bogota’s Transmillenio carries 45,000 passengers per hour, per
direction – more than most metro lines
Istanbul’s Metrobus carries almost 9
900,000
,
px/day
p / y – more than
Dublin Bus, DART, LUAS and Metro North combined
Guangzhou BRT carries >800,000 px/day
 Many
a y BRT sys
systems
e s ope
operate
a ea
at light
g railway
a ay capac
capacity,
y,
exceeding urban LRT/tramway capacity

Mexico city, Brisbane, Ottowa, Lagos > 200,000 px/day
 Many BHLS systems match street-tramway
street tramway capacity
 Ridership on many rail systems turns out to be far
short of initial planning forecasts, design capacity

How often were bus-based systems ruled out incorrectly?
BRT can operate at short intervals
 Some p
planners p
presume a single
g route,, and then
assume that a low headway cannot be managed
 Most BRT systems operate multiple routes:



Overlapping routes
routes, might not all stop at every station
Individual route headways may be in range 3-20 minutes
Multiple loading bays at the stations to maximise throughput
 Route/Vehicle
R t /V hi l capacity
it can be
b high:
hi h


Guangzhou BRT has 28 routes on the main trunk, possible 41
In Seoul, the BRT carries 250 buses per hour, per direction
 However, this is a critical point of the BRT design



Throughput of vehicles at stations
Throughput of passengers at stations
Throughput of buses at junctions
BRT is more than tram on tyres
 BRT is a different mode,, different characteristics
 BRT can indeed be designed in the same style as tram …
 …but then it does not exploit the characteristics of bus
 BRT is a ‘service plan’ availing of the infrastructure
 Route system rather than end-to-end services
 Routes can join/leave the running way
way, reducing the need for
passenger transfer (and less need for big interchange stations)
 Options for express, limited stop, and premium services
 Non-BRT buses/routes may also use it non-stop as a ‘channel’
 Business and operator factors are important
 Can be developed incrementally
Car-users will use high-quality
g q
y bus
 Major
j ridership
pg
gains in BRT in South America,, Asia,,






Australia
Significant % of new riders in North American and
South American BRT come from car
Major ridership gains in European BHLS (range 20140%)
Some mode shift from car in European BHLS
When of high quality, BRT has high customer
perception matching LRT (e.g.
perception,
(e g Los Angeles)
‘Mode constant’ is increasingly shown to be outdated
Growing body of research that transit characteristics
are what matter to the user (speed, reliability, comfort)
Bus systems
y
can enhance land-value
 Metro,
M t commuter
t rail
il and
d ttram h
have proven iimpactt on




land-value, development, and property prices/rents
Research on bus transit has been minimal …
… but, absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence
In Europe, bus transit projects are below investment
th h ld requiring
thresholds
i i ffull
ll post-delivery
t d li
appraisal
i l
BRT is a new mode, evidence is beginning to emerge:




In Cleveland,, $4.3
$4 3 billion investment along
g the buswayy
In Pittsburgh, $800 million investment along the busway
In Seoul, significant value increase in property value on BRT
In Curitiba,, the BRT lines have shaped
p the cityy
 Some BRT/BHLS focus on improving urban-scape
Summary
 BRT and BHLS are established and proven transit modes
 In almost all cases, bus can provide the required
functionality at affordable cost and in short delivery time
 Many
M
presumptions
ti
have
h
been
b
shown
h
tto b
be iincorrectt



Bus transit can achieve significant ridership growth
Bus-based transit can attract car users and achieve modal shift
BRT can stimulate property development and raise land values
 BRT experience suggests that it is the attributes of transit
that achieve the results rather than the technology used
 A fundamental rethink of the role of bus within the
“transportation hierarchy” is required
 International know-how and resources are available
Information resources for BRT, BHLS
 ITDP – www.itdp.org


BRT Planning
Pl
i Guidelines
G id li
(2007,
(
v.4 in
i 2012))
Review of US BRT, case studies
 EMBARQ – www.embarq.org

Case study materials, usage guidance, evaluation
 COST Action on BHLS - www.bhls.eu

Final report available 11/2011 (at POLIS Annual Conference)
 US National BRT Institute – www.nbrti.org
 SUTP – www.sutp.org
 Volvo Centre of Excellence, Santiago – www.brt.cl
 US TRB/TCRP - www.trb.org/TCRP/Public/TCRP.aspx
 World Bank, APTA, UITP, …
 Thredbo
Th db 12 (conference)
(
f
) – www.thredbo-conference-series.org
th db
f
i
Contact details
Brendan Finn
etts@indigo.ie
@
g

bus–based transit - Engineers Ireland

Transcription

Similar documents

PDF presentation

pico union/ echo park - LADOT Transit Services

Mississauga Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Project - West

Belknap Range Trails

How do I get more information?

Bus Rapid Transit - Regional Transit System

Help the Silly Bus kids get to school!

view presentation - East-West BRT Feasibility Study

Sebula by BRT Prototipi