Feeder Services in BRTS: New Concepts - Abhijit Lokre

Download Feeder Services in BRTS: New Concepts - Abhijit Lokre

Post on 07-May-2015




0 download

Embed Size (px)


SESSION 3A - Talking Transit 3 - Planning and Design of Feeder Services and Short Routes


<ul><li>1.Feeder services in BRTS -New conceptsAbhijit Lokre, Associate Professor, Centre of Excellence inUrban Transport, CEPT University</li></ul> <p>2. FEEDER SERVICES IN BRTSNEW CONCEPTS APRIL 16, 2013 Abhijit Lokre Associate Professor Centre of Excellence in Urban TransportCEPT University Kasturbhai Lalbhai Campus, Amdavad - 3. Connecting People to Cities -Reimagining the Master PlanRejeet Mathews, Program Manager- Urban Development andAccessibility, EMBARQ India 4. History of BRTSLatin America is the pioneer in BRTS. Curitiba opened worlds 1st BRTS in 1974. Looking at its success, BRTS spread acrossInLatin America of the earlier effortsIndia, manyinvolved experimentation with other Indonesia and China introduced concept ofmodelsinand met with varying degrees BRTS their cities in early 2000. By 2003 Delhi (India) got into process ofofadopting BRTS to Indian cities.success. BRTS planning was followed by Ahmedabad (2005), Pune and Indore (2006). Other cities in India followed suit after declaration of JnNURM in 2006.Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport, CEPT University, Amdavad 5. Status of BRT cities in IndiaScale of BRTS City scale varies from New Delhi1million to 18million LucknowpopulationJaipurGuwahati City size varies from 75sqkmAhmedabad to 1500sqkm urban areaRajkotBhopal Trip lengths varies fromVadodaraIndoreKolkata 4.0km to 12.0km Surat Naya Raipur Legend: Pimpri ChinchwadOperational (4) PuneUnder Implementation / DPR Approved (9) Visakhapattanam DPR/DFR under preparation (6) Vijaywada Hubli DharwadMillion plus cities in India (32) Bangalore Chennai Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport, CEPT University, Amdavad 6. 1884How have our cities developed? Physical structure Central core developed as destination hub Radial routes originate from this centre191019301951Railway Station Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport, CEPT University, Amdavad 7. How have our cities developed?Physical structure NH-24 AliganjMunshipuliya Indira nagarSH-25 Imambara Polytechnic Hardoi RoadNH-28Faizabad RoadDubbaga ChinhatTransit Demand Model Chowk Lucknow, IndiaGomti nagar Rajajipuram Hazratganj Typically, RoW is less wheredemand is highest!Bus- CharbaghTerminus Railway StnCantonment VIP road/ CanalLEGEND ExistingAlambaghRoW &lt; 15mTelibagh 18m 24m 30m Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport, CEPT University, Amdavad 40m 8. How have our cities developed? Transit structure City centre is still major destination to city. Cities have dispersed landuse leading to multipleorigin destinations with smaller trip lengths. No singlecorridor would have high demandAhmedabad Transit Demand ProductionsAhmedabad Transit Demand Attractions Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport, CEPT University, Amdavad 9. OUR CITIES ARE UNIQUE&amp; REQUIREUNIQUE SOLUTION 10. BRTS IS A CONCEPT NOTA TECHNOLOGY WE NEED TO ADD MORELAYERS TO BRTS CONCEPT 11. Types of BRTSSr. No. Level of BRT Characteristics1 Full BRT Metro quality service Integrated network of routes and corridorsHigh levelBRT Closed, high-quality stations Off-board fare collection/ verification Frequent and rapid service Modern, clean vehicles Marketing identity Superior customer service2 BRTSegregated bus-way Typically pre-board fare payment/ verification Higher quality stations Clean vehicle technology Marketing identity3 BRT Lite Some form of bus priority but not full segregated bus-ways Improved travel times Higher shelters Clean vehicle technology Marketing identity4 Basic Busway Segregated bus-way/ single corridor services On-board fare collectionLow level BRT Basic bus shelters Standard bus vehicles Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport, CEPT University, Amdavad 12. Characteristics of full BRTS Closed system trunk and feeder services Central bus lanes Median bus stops Off-board fare collection At-level boarding alighting Distance based fare smart cards Integrated ticketing system Trunk, feeder Automatic vehicle tracking systemCentre of Excellence in Urban Transport, CEPT University, Amdavad 13. Scaling UP BRTS Objectives Providing service level comparing toMetrorail. High speed public transit system High Capacity System Increasing PPHPD ??Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport, CEPT University, Amdavad 14. Scaling UP BRTS Increasing capacity of BRTS through designinterventions Segregated lanes with Passing Lanes High Frequency Avoid Intersections to reduce delays Rolling stock of Articulated and Bi-Articulated buses High quality BRT station Capacity managed upto 30000-45000 pphpdArticulated Bus (UK)Articulated Bus (Bogota, Colombia)Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport, CEPT University, Amdavad 15. SCALING DOWN BRTSDESIGN INFRASTRUCTURE PARAMETERSA CONCEPT REQUIREDFOR INDIAN CITIES 16. Scaling DOWN BRTS To percolate services to all level of cities. To provide affordable solution to public transit To reach all sections of society. To respond to local challenges of organic citydevelopment. To adjust to constraints of RoW. To bring to acceptance of local people Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport, CEPT University, Amdavad 17. Requirement to Indian cities Demand required 1000 pphpd to 5000 pphph (Only Hubli-Dharwad requires design capacity upto 12000 pphpd) RoW constraints to city centre. Design for standard buswith two-way BRT requires 27m RoW while Indian citieshave average RoW of 18-14m in city centre Junctions required every 500m-750m within city limits. Standard Buses / Mini Buses to suffice requirement. Traffic Management (One-way / Two-way) Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport, CEPT University, Amdavad 18. Capacity of SystemRelative to bus type (for 1+1 lane with Jn)Bus Type LengthWidthTypicalcapacity*Peak hour peak direction passengers carriedfor headways (minutes)(seating + 1 23510 standee)Mini buses 6m-8m 2.2m 13-3021001050 700420210Standard buses 10-12m2.66m60-8042002100 1400 840420Articulated buses**16-18m2.66m 140-170 93004650 3100 1860 930Bi articulated buses 24-m2.66m 210-270 14400 7200 4800 2880 1440Bus TypeLengthWidth Typical Headway required (in minutes) for Peak hourcapacity* peak direction passengers carried(seating + 15002000 2500 3000 3500 standee)Mini BRT buses6m-8m 2.2m20 1.0min0.5min ---Midi BRT buses10-12m2.66m 35 1.5min1.0min 0.5min 0.5min 0.5minStandard BRT buses16-18m2.66m 70 2.5min2.0min 1.5min 1.5min 1.0min Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport, CEPT University, Amdavad 19. One-way BRTS ConceptOne-way BRTSPRO(s): Can respond to RoWconstraints upto 18 mCON(s):Limits circulation in one-direction.Can impact services incase of breakdownsCentre of Excellence in Urban Transport, CEPT University, Amdavad 20. Elevated BRTSElevated BRTSPRO(s): Can respond to RoWconstraints upto 18 mCON(s):Accessibility to BRTStations.Increased cost ofinfrastructure.Visually unappealingCentre of Excellence in Urban Transport, CEPT University, Amdavad 21. BRTS &amp; Pedestrian exclusivestreetsBRTS &amp;Pedestrianexclusive streets PRO(s): Safe pedestrian infrastructure CON(s): Acceptance of people. Can be adopted to stretches with limited public property access. Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport, CEPT University, Amdavad 22. MINI-BRTS Concept0 720055005.5 mane Tram wayMini 6 m Lane BRT mini Bus Lane Mini BRTSConceptPRO(s): Suits to Indian city centreand old city area with lowpassenger demandrequirementInner-city BRTS27-32Passenger Capacity ??Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport, CEPT University, Amdavad 23. Mini BRTS 24. One-way mixed lane with 2-way MiniBRTS One-way mixed lane with 2-wayMini BRTS PRO(s): Can respond to RoW constraints upto 18 m CON(s): Limits traffic circulation in one-direction. Preferably suits to stretches with limited property access on one side. Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport, CEPT University, Amdavad 25. Feeder integrationLocations of turnTurn around conceptsaroundsExample: Makarpura Susan circlestretch BRT trunk corridor BRT feeder corridor BRT trunk bus route BRT feeder bus route Turn aroundBRT Trunk Feederinterchange 26. What about pedestrians? Percentage Trips by Mode &amp; Trip Lengths Percentage of Avg. TripPercentage ofModeAvg. Trip Lengths Trips LengthsTripsWalk28.07% 2.0331.17% 1.3Bicycle 16.72% 3.5712.71% 3.4TW30.16% 5.5126.28% 7.9Car3.96% 7.8113.29%11.27Auto Rickshaw9.29% 4.41 5.40% 6.34Bus9.67% 5.4210.65%15.63Other1.63% 5.48 0.44% 6.67Total100% 100% 1/3 of the trips (trip length exceeding 1 km) is bicycle or walktrips, in AMC. Walk trips are short with a length of 2 kms. Average Trip length for Bicycle are about 3 kms. Average bicycle trip length for work trips is 4.0kms and Average bicycle trip length for education trips is 3.6kms. 27. How do people access BRTS?Sample Size: 47266% people Walk to/from BRT as their Access / Egress modeCurrent BRT Users: Access Mode Avg 54.4 100%90%80%70%60%50%40%30%20%10% 0%Walk AMTS GSRTCShared rickshaw Rickshaw Cycle 2-wheeler 4-wheeler With someone Rail Current BRT Users: Egress ModeAvg 56.7 100%90%80%70%60%50%40%30%20%10% 0%Walk AMTSGSRTC Shared rickshaw RickshawCycle 2-wheeler4-wheeler Pick-up Rail 28. Creating local area access plan Schools CollegesOverlapping Layers Hospitals Recreational places Identifying ClustersConnecting clusters to nearest BRT road (1.25 kms) Connecting ammenities (1 km) Creating LoopsIdentifying missing Links betweensingular loops and ClustersCompleting Pedestrian networks Identifying Special Cases Manmade constraints like railway and bridges Community spaces to be developed 29. Mapping local destinations 30. Creating feeder pedestrian network Overlapping Layers Identifying Clusters Connecting clusters to nearest BRT Connecting amenities Creating Loops Sola cross roadIdentifying missing Links between singular loops and Clusters Completing Pedestrian IIM networksBRTCollegeBRT stop HospitalSchool Recreational 31. THANKYOU </p>