feeder services in brts: new concepts - abhijit lokre

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


1884

1910

1930

1951

Railway Station

Physical structure


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


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


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


Scaling UP BRTS


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


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


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)


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


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


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


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


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


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

feeder services in brts: new concepts - abhijit lokre

Business