Feeder services in BRTS -New conceptsAbhijit Lokre, Associate Professor, Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport, CEPT University
FEEDER SERVICES IN BRTSNEW CONCEPTS
Abhijit LokreAssociate Professor
Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport CEPT University
Kasturbhai Lalbhai Campus, Amdavad -380009
APRIL 16, 2013
Connecting People to Cities - Reimagining the Master Plan
Rejeet Mathews, Program Manager- Urban Development and Accessibility, EMBARQ India
History of BRTS Latin America is the pioneer in BRTS.
Curitiba opened world’s 1st BRTS in 1974. Looking at its success, BRTS spread across
Latin America Indonesia and China introduced concept of
BRTS in their cities in early 2000. By 2003 Delhi (India) got into process of
adopting BRTS to Indian cities. 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
In India, many of the earlier efforts involved experimentation with other models and met with varying degrees of success.
Million plus cities in India (32)
Status of BRT cities in India
Scale of BRTS City scale varies from 1million to 18million population City size varies from 75sqkm to 1500sqkm urban area Trip lengths varies from 4.0km to 12.0km
Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport, CEPT University, Amdavad
Under Implementation / DPR Approved (9)
Indore
Surat
Rajkot
Vijaywada
Pimpri Chinchwad
Hubli Dharwad
Bhopal
Naya Raipur
Visakhapattanam DPR/DFR under preparation (6)
Chennai
Vadodara
Guwahati
Kolkata
Lucknow
Bangalore
Operational (4)Legend:
Pune
Jaipur
Ahmedabad
New Delhi
How have our cities developed? Physical structure
Central core developed as destination hub Radial routes originate from this centre
Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport, CEPT University, Amdavad
1884
1910
1930
1951
Railway Station
Physical structure
Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport, CEPT University, Amdavad
LEGEND Existing RoW
< 15m18m24m30m40m
Cantonment
Hazratganj
Imambara
Chowk
Dubbaga
Polytechnic
Chinhat
Bus-Terminus
Charbagh Railway Stn
Gomti nagar
Indira nagar
Rajajipuram
Aliganj
Alambagh
Munshipuliya
VIP road/ Canal
Telibagh
SH-25 NH-28
NH-24
Kanpur
Road
Ash
ok M
arg
Hardoi RoadFaizabad Road
Subhas M
arg
Typically, RoW is less where demand is highest!
Transit Demand Model
Lucknow, India
How have our cities developed?
Transit structure City centre is still major destination to city. Cities have dispersed landuse leading to
multiple origin destinations with smaller trip lengths. No single corridor would have high demand
Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport, CEPT University, Amdavad
Ahmedabad – Transit Demand Productions Ahmedabad – Transit Demand Attractions
How have our cities developed?
OUR CITIES ARE UNIQUE &
REQUIRE UNIQUE SOLUTION
BRTS IS A CONCEPT NOT A TECHNOLOGY
WE NEED TO ADD MORE LAYERS TO BRTS CONCEPT
Types of BRTSSr. No. Level of BRT Characteristics
1 Full BRT Metro –quality service Integrated network of routes and corridors Closed, high-quality stations Off-board fare collection/ verification Frequent and rapid service Modern, clean vehicles Marketing identity Superior customer service
2 BRT Segregated bus-way Typically pre-board fare payment/ verification Higher quality stations Clean vehicle technology Marketing identity
3 BRT Lite Some form of bus priority but not full segregated bus-ways
Improved travel times Higher shelters Clean vehicle technology Marketing identity
4 Basic Busway Segregated bus-way/ single corridor services On-board fare collection Basic bus shelters Standard bus vehicles
Low level BRT
High level BRT
Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport, CEPT University, Amdavad
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 system
Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport, CEPT University, Amdavad
Scaling UP BRTS
Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport, CEPT University, Amdavad
Objectives Providing service level comparing to
Metrorail.
High speed public transit system
High Capacity System
Increasing PPHPD ??
Scaling UP BRTS Increasing capacity of BRTS through design
interventions 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 pphpd
Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport, CEPT University, Amdavad
Articulated Bus (UK) Articulated Bus (Bogota, Colombia)
SCALING DOWN BRTS
A CONCEPT REQUIRED FOR INDIAN CITIES
DESIGN INFRASTRUCTURE PARAMETERS
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 city development.
To adjust to constraints of RoW.
To bring to acceptance of local people
Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport, CEPT University, Amdavad
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 bus with two-way BRT requires 27m RoW while Indian cities have 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
Capacity of System
Relative to bus type (for 1+1 lane with Jn)Bus Type Length Width Typical
capacity*(seating + standee)
Peak hour peak direction passengers carried for headways (minutes)
1 2 3 5 10
Mini buses 6m-8m 2.2m 13-30 2100 1050 700 420 210
Standard buses 10-12m 2.66m 60-80 4200 2100 1400 840 420
Articulated buses** 16-18m 2.66m 140-170 9300 4650 3100 1860 930
Bi articulated buses 24-m 2.66m 210-270 14400 7200 4800 2880 1440
Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport, CEPT University, Amdavad
Bus Type Length Width Typical capacity*(seating + standee)
Headway required (in minutes) for Peak hour peak direction passengers carried
1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Mini BRT buses 6m-8m 2.2m 20 1.0min 0.5min - - -
Midi BRT buses 10-12m 2.66m 35 1.5min 1.0min 0.5min 0.5min 0.5min
Standard BRT buses 16-18m 2.66m 70 2.5min 2.0min 1.5min 1.5min 1.0min
Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport, CEPT University, Amdavad
One-way BRTSPRO(s):• Can respond to RoW constraints upto 18 m
CON(s): •Limits circulation in one-direction.•Can impact services in case of breakdowns
One-way BRTS Concept
Elevated BRTS
Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport, CEPT University, Amdavad
Elevated BRTSPRO(s):• Can respond to RoW constraints upto 18 m
CON(s): •Accessibility to BRT Stations.•Increased cost of infrastructure. •Visually unappealing
BRTS & Pedestrian exclusive streets
BRT Corridor
Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport, CEPT University, Amdavad
BRTS & Pedestrian exclusive streetsPRO(s):
• Safe pedestrian infrastructure
CON(s): •Acceptance of people.•Can be adopted to stretches with limited public property access.
MINI-BRTS Concept
5.5 m
6 m
mini Bus Lane
7500
BRT Lane
7200
Mini BRT Lane
5500
Tram way
27-32 Passenger CapacityCentre of Excellence in Urban Transport, CEPT University, Amdavad
Mini BRTS Concept
PRO(s):• Suits to Indian city centre and old city area with low passenger demand requirement
Inner-city BRTS ??
Mini BRTS
One-way mixed lane with 2-way Mini BRTS
Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport, CEPT University, Amdavad
One-way mixed lane with 2-way Mini BRTSPRO(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.
Locations of turn arounds
BRT trunk corridor
BRT feeder corridor
BRT trunk bus route
BRT feeder bus route
Turn around
Turn around concepts
BRT Trunk Feeder interchange
Example: Makarpura – Susan circle stretch
Feeder integration
Percentage Trips by Mode & Trip Lengths
ModePercentage of
TripsAvg. Trip Lengths
Percentage of Trips
Avg. Trip Lengths
Walk 28.07% 2.03 31.17% 1.3Bicycle 16.72% 3.57 12.71% 3.4TW 30.16% 5.51 26.28% 7.9Car 3.96% 7.81 13.29% 11.27Auto Rickshaw 9.29% 4.41 5.40% 6.34Bus 9.67% 5.42 10.65% 15.63Other 1.63% 5.48 0.44% 6.67Total 100% 100%
• 1/3 of the trips (trip length exceeding 1 km) is bicycle
or walk trips, 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.
What about pedestrians?
Current BRT Users: Access Mode
Current BRT Users: Egress Mode
1st M
onth
2nd
Mon
th
3rd
Mon
th
4th
Mon
th
5th
Mon
th
6th
Mon
th
7th
Mon
th
8th
Mon
th
9th
Mon
th
10th
Mon
th
11th
Mon
th
12th
Mon
th
13th
Mon
th
14th
Mon
th
15th
Mon
th
16th
Mon
th
17th
Mon
th
19th
Mon
th
20th
Mon
th
21st
Mon
th
22nd
Mon
th
23rd
Mon
th
24th
Mon
th
25th
Mon
th0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Walk AMTS GSRTC Shared rickshaw Rickshaw
Cycle 2-wheeler 4-wheeler Pick-up Rail
1st M
onth
2nd
Mon
th
3rd
Mon
th
4th
Mon
th
5th
Mon
th
6th
Mon
th
7th
Mon
th
8th
Mon
th
9th
Mon
th
10th
Mon
th
11th
Mon
th
12th
Mon
th
13th
Mon
th
14th
Mon
th
15th
Mon
th
16th
Mon
th
17th
Mon
th
19th
Mon
th
20th
Mon
th
21st
Mon
th
22nd
Mon
th
23rd
Mon
th
24th
Mon
th
25th
Mon
th0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Walk AMTS GSRTC Shared rickshaw Rickshaw
Cycle 2-wheeler 4-wheeler With someone Rail
Sample Size: 472
66% people Walk to/from BRT as their Access / Egress modeAvg 54.4
Avg 56.7
How do people access BRTS?
Overlapping Layers
Identifying Clusters
Connecting clusters to nearest BRT road (1.25 kms)
Connecting ammenities (1 km)
Identifying missing Links between singular loops and Clusters
Creating Loops
Completing Pedestrian networks
Identifying Special Cases
Schools Colleges
Hospitals Recreational places
Manmade constraints – like railway and bridges
Community spaces to be developed
Creating local area access plan…
Mapping local destinations
Sola cross road
IIM
BRTBRT stop
School
College
Overlapping Layers
HospitalRecreational
Identifying Clusters
Connecting clusters to nearest
BRT
Connecting amenities
Creating Loops
Identifying missing Links
between singular loops and
Clusters
Completing Pedestrian
networks
Creating feeder pedestrian network
THANKYOU