Moving from Bus Rapid Transit

to Integrated Public Transport

LISA SEFTEL, CITY OF JOHANNESBURGSATC CONFERENCE JULY 2016

Agenda

Introduction and background What did we learn from our planning process Introducing our Integrated Public Transport

Network plan Implementing the plan Concluding remarks

Introduction and Background

ADD PICTURE

Brief overview: City of Johannesburg

Population: 4.4 million Population growth rate: 3.4% Land mass: 1 645 km 2 Population density: 2695/km2 Household number: 1 434 856 Household size: 3 persons per household

Growth rate: 3.3% in 2011 Unemployment: 23% of economically active

people in 2010 but if those who have stopped looking for work are included, the number grows to >30%

67.4% of households live on less than R3200 per month with a large percentage of poor household’s income going towards transport

Gini co-efficient: 0.63,- highest in world

Carbon emissions: 56% is contribution of Joburg to national carbon emissions, 13% highest carbon emitting City in the world and Transport has the highest demand for energy (67%)

Background: Public Transport Chronology

Year What2003 First five year ITP done. Identified need for a Strategic Public Transport Network

2006 Mayoral Committee agrees to implement BRT in Joburg, study tours, engagement with operators start

2007 Infrastructure roll out starts, MOU with operators signed

2009 Phase 1A BRT starts with 40 buses and interim company.

Feb 2011 Phase 1A BRT handover to taxi industry shareholders

First half 2013

Mayoral Committee agrees to restructure Metrobus on similar lines to BRT contracts – agrees turn around business plan

Oct 2013 Phase 1B starts with an interim company. Full roll out by May 2014

June 2014 Phase 1C business plan approved yet with need to do further work on integration and new areas to North

August 2015

Phase 1B handover to taxi industry, 50% board independent and independent management teams

2015 Establishment of engagement and negotiations for third phase – now integrated

Background: Transport Planning chronology

Year What2003 First five year ITP done. Identified need for a Strategic

Public Transport Network and identified routes for all modes. Most not implemented due to policy switch to BRT

2008/9 Started to plan and find funding for next CITP2012 Transport Register done2013 Household survey done2013 Strategic Integrated Transport Plan Framework (see next

slide) approved by Mayoral Committee2016 Integrated Transport Network done with a focus on public

transport (Strategic Integrated Public Transport Network plan) but also approach to freight and NMT network.

How we have planned to do CITP and what have we done

Done

Not doneStrugglin

g to define

how best to do

Mostly done – need to

get input from

PRASA and Gautrain

Ongoing

What did we learn from the planning process?

Household Travel Survey

What did we do In February 2013

we surveyed 6300 households across the City

We asked them about their transport movements and levels of satisfaction

Key conclusions Private: Public split: 57:

43 Further modal split (all

trips)

Satisfaction with public transport from Household Travel Survey

Transport need assessment

What did we do Workshops were held in the seven

regions asking stakeholders including councillors, operators, residents associations and commuter groups to determine the transport challenges they had and their views on our proposed plans

We also engaged with internal and external government partners through the Joburg Intermodal Planning Committee

Key conclusions Key themes were:

Reliable, more frequent and punctual public transport services

Improved customer care Affordability Last mile accessibility

including sidewalks and safety

Stated Preference Survey

What did we do We interviewed 1208

persons representative of low, high and middle income groups

We investigated ‘mode captivity’ and ‘mode choice sensitivity’

Key conclusions Mode captivity:

50% of road users unwilling to switch to public transport, even with significant improvements

Other 50% will move if it is attractive enough (safety, accessibility, frequency and reliability)

Mode choice sensitivity Most sensitive to waiting time, followed by

walking time People more sensitive to price changes vs

speed changes Gautrain was more attractive than other

modes. BRT was considered similar to Metrorail

Transport Model

What did we do Upgraded the 2003 EMME/2 transport

demand model for horizon years 2014 (base year ), 2015 and 2037 (forecasting)

The following information was updated: Road network capacity (JRA

Pavement Management System) Road network utilization (JRA, NRA

Traffic counts) Public transport infrastructure and

services (TIR 2013) O-D matrices (Joburg HTS 2014) Population (Census 2011) Dwellings (Joburg CIP 2014) Worker and floor area (GITMP25)

The model was used to forecast future scenarios and to test alternative network proposals

Key conclusions Concentrated origins and dispersed

destinations Passenger demand volumes in the long

term do not exceed 10000 passengers in the peak hour on road based assignments

With the exception of Modderfontein, no major road network expansions will be required to develop the ITN. Westlake link from Soweto can create opportunities for us

NMT demand within (10km) does not warrant a city wide network however should be built from precinct levels

Impact of BRT on TOD not yet evident

Developing an Integrated Transport Network

What is the purpose of the ITN?

To set out a long term network for public transport, NMT and freight

To be able to guide infrastructural investment decisions, operational planning, transformation initiatives and budget required in the short, medium and long term.

Components of the Integrated Transport NetworkIntegrated Public Transport Network PlanNon-Motorised Transport Planning FrameworkFreight network plan and freight management plan

This presentation will focus on the public transport component

What guided us: Current environment

Significant fiscal constraints impacting on: Reduced PTIS grant and less certainty High exchange rate makes buses and ITS equipment more expensive

Post Eco-Mobility Festival and current road works makes public transport more desirable for all income groups

Climate change (post CoP) to switch to green transport Learnt many operational and sustainability lessons from Phase 1A and 1B Transformation complexities and ongoing taxi industry instability COF emerging theme: Need to reduce spatial inequality (Corridors of

Freedom) and ‘service delivery inequality (disproportionate investment in different modes)

Approach to IPTN IPTN to

Cater for a wide range of demand realities; Be flexible over time: as demand change and/or more

resources become be available Still ensure rapid transit over long distances to address the

apartheid legacy of long travel times and restructure the City along transport corridors

This means gong forward we are focusing not only on BRT but also on: Additional ways of creating public transport priority for all

modes of public transport Shorter term measures to making existing public transport

more attractive and accessible Integration with other modes and NMT Incorporation of new and shared forms of demand responsive

mobility Proposed changes are aligned to:

NDOT and NT policy directives Changes in fiscal conditions Lessons learnt from Phase 1A, 1B and Metrobus

Components of IPTN • Proposed

network hierarchy

• Proposed passenger access (stops, stations, interchanges) typologies

• Design parameters

• Tools of integration

• Proposed city wide Strategic Integrated Public Transport Network

How did we determine the IPTN?

We looked at: Trip generation at the base year

(2014) and on the basis of projected land use, population and employment growth, developed estimated figures for 2025 and 2037 (using same figures as used to develop SDF)

We made certain assumptions about public transport size, frequencies and other service standards (see further slides)

Surrounding land use and future intention (Corridors of Freedom, possibility of mixed use along corridor, Consolidated Infrastructure Programme model)

Public Transport Trip Generation (City wide)

Public Transport Peak Hour Person Trips

Base (2014) 2025 2037

0-500 500-1,000 1,000-2,000 2,000-3,000 3,000-4,000 4,000-5,000 5,000-7,500 7,500-10,000

10,000-15,000

15,000-20,000

20,000-25,000

25,000-30,000

The service will operate for 18 hours (04:00-22:00)

Typology B/C will have a minimum headway of ≥1 min for the peak and ≤15min)Typology D/E the minimum headway will be ≤10min and during the off peak≤30minThe design is at a load factor of 1 for seated passengers and 0.85 for standing passengers.

85% resident within 1km

45kph Rail36kph BRT27kph Bus Routes25kph Feeder

IPTN design parameters: 1

The average travel speeds of route types

Year 1:50%Year 2:50%Year 3:75%Year 4:≥100%

Single-articulated bus : 110 - 118Rigid Bus: 55 -70 (45 - 55 seats)Minibus-taxi: 15 seats (no standees)Double decker bus: 90 - 110

IPTN design parameters: 2

The capacity (vehicles) to be provided relative to the demand

Maximum standing time is planned for 20min

MBT’s per bay/hour = 12Rigid buses per bay/hour = 6-8The number of vehicles per hour

each bay can accommodate

Number of seats per vehicle

Proposed integrated public transport network (IPTN) hierarchy

We are proposing a public transport network hierarchy differentiated in terms of: Demand Right of way (and thus

speed) Frequency of stops

(depends on demand and surrounding land use)

Modes (some only one mode e.g. rail, low density areas can have more than one mode on the network

Degree of investment (for rapid bus, higher investment)

MODE CATEGORIES

TYPOLOGY DEMAND MODE FUNCTION AND FEATURES

Rail Public Transport Network

SIPTN- Type A 9000-15000 Gautrain,

Metro Railo To move people quickly from area of high residential to areas

of employment/income opportunitieso Limited stops. (closed stations)

Rapid Road Public

Transport Network (High

Capacity)

SIPTN-Type B 6000-9000

Bus Rapid Transport, Light

Rail

o Corridors of Freedom, mixed use development , three story residential

o To move people quickly from area of high residential to areas of employment/income opportunities

o Limited intersections and right turns so buses can be relatively speedy

o Limited mostly closed high or low floor stationsRoad Public Transport Network (Medium Capacity)

SIPTN-Type C 3000-6000 Bus Rapid

Transport

o Corridors of Freedom and areas where the City want s o densify along the corridor

o Mixed use development, Three story residential, social housing along corridor.

o Fairly frequent closed and opens low floor stations and some stops

Road Mixed Traffic Public

Transport Network

(Medium to Low Capacity)

IPTN-Type D 1000-3000 Bus (Double

Decker, Standard)

o Frequent stops with shelterso Some public transport priority (e.g. queue jumping)o On street stopping by public transport vehicles o Low to medium density

Road Mixed Traffic Public

Transport Network (Low

Capacity)

IPTN-Type E 500-1500 Bus ( Standard,

Mini bus)o Frequent stops with lay bye es and shelterso Low to medium density

Road Mixed Traffic Public

Network (Demand Driven)

IPTN-Type F <500

Bus, Taxi, Demand

responsive (e.g. ehailing)

o Low to medium densityo Mostly stops or e-hailing

Proposed IPTN Hierarchy: 1

New public transport priority measures for Type C

Proposed passenger access typologies

We have identified different ways in which passengers can access the public transport system as follows: Stops, Shelters, Open Stations Closed Stations Interchanges terminals,

taxi ranks.

The key drivers in reviewing and proposing passenger access typologies are: Differentiated demand Costs and sustainability Accessibility Integration

For example: It does not make financial and

operational sense to erect and run large fully fledged stations for low numbers of passengers in suburban areas.

On the other hand, in areas like Thokoza Park, a station is no longer big enough to accommodate the numbers and an interchange maybe more suitable.

Proposed Passenger Access Typologies: 1Passenger

access Typology

Network Typology Mode

Indicative

DemandTypical features

Stop Type E Double decker , rigid and mini bus

0 to 225(PAX Facility utilization/hour)

• Stop Pole• On board fare collection• Limited static passenger information• Universally accessible

Shelter Type E Double decker , rigid and mini bus

225 to 450

• Standardised bus shelter with Stop Pole• On board fare collection• Static passenger information• Universally accessible

Open Station (Single Module) 18m Shelter only

Type B to D

Articulated , and rigid bus

450 to 1000

• Standardised open Station • Shelter over only 18m long boarding area

(balance of footprint – no shelter)• Simple Totem Pole• On board fare collection• Possible toilet facility,• Possible TVM, • Static passenger information,• Universally accessible• Secured• CCTV and Wi-Fi• Possible bike storage

Proposed Passenger Access Typologies:2Passenger

access Typology

Network Typolog

yMode Indicative

Demand Typical features

Open stations (Single Module only)Full Shelter

Type B to D

Articulated and rigid bus

1000 to 2500 (PAX Facility utilization/hour)

• Standardised open Station with Simple Totem Pole

• On board fare collection• Full shelter, • Possible TVM• Static passenger information,• Possible Toilet facility, Universally accessible• Secured, CCTV and Wi-Fi

Closed station Single ModuleDouble Module

Type B to D

Articulated and rigid bus 2500 to

50005000 to 10000

• Standardised fully closed Station with Totem Pole

• Off board fare collection• TVM• Static and electronic passenger information,

Ticketing/Staff facilities• Toilet facility,• Universally accessible • Fully secured, CCTV and Wi-Fi• Possible adjacent park and ride site & bike

storageInterchange , Terminal and taxi Rank

Type A to E

Articulated and rigid bus, mini bus taxis

> 10000 • Multiple platform semi closed/ open facility with Totem Pole

• Off board fare collection,• TVM• Static and electronic passenger information• Staff facilities,• Toilet facility, • Universally accessible, • Fully secured, CCTV and Wi-Fi• Adjacent park and ride site if possible & bike

storage

Strategic IPTN On the basis of the above, the next slide sets out the proposed Strategic IPTN

until 2025 It is called the “Strategic” IPTN because it focus on high level road and rail

network. The following slide shows the network coverage that is achieved. In respect of Type A (rail based network) we have depicted the routes that

are currently operational – awaiting outcome of Gautrain expansion study In respect of Type B, C and D we have identified 19 road based routes and we

extend the Rea Vaya naming methodology for proposed future phases as follows: Phase 1 (A,B,C) are existing phases Phase 2 (A,B,C) are second phases in same areas as first phases (e.g. 2A

is also in Soweto) Phase 3 are new phases covering new origins and destinations with 2025

horizon Phase 4, 5 are currently operated by Metrobus (Type C/D ) but could

move to B/C in the long term In line with the branding strategy, all these routes will when transformed be

called Rea Vaya

2025 Network Assignment

This is the anticipated

demand for public transport in 2025

(morning peak hour )

2025 is the proposed year for the IPTN (10 year

plan)

SITPN Type A Routes

SITPN Type A+B Routes

SITPNType A+B+C Routes

SITPNType A+B+C+DRoutes

Routes will stay same, alignments may change after detailed feasibility

Phase From SIPTN Routes Destination TypeGautrain Hatfield Sandton Park Station AGautrain OR Tambo Marlboro Sandton A

Metro Rail

 

Naledi Park Station Germiston AStretford (Orange Farm)

Orlando Park Station A

Princess (Westgate) Florida Park Station A  Naledi Crown City George Goch Station A  West Rand Orlando Park Station A

1A Thokoza Park Soccer City CBD Ellis Park B1B Thokoza Park UJ, Wits,  Parktown CBD B1C CBD Louis Botha, Alexandra Sandton B1A

Extension

Ellis Park Albertina Sisulu East Gate B

2A Thokoza Park Beyers Naude, Randburg Sandton C3 Thokoza Park Roodepoort (3A),Four Ways (3B)

SunninghillMidrand (3C) C

2B Zandspruit Beyers Naude CBD C4 /MB (tbc)

Cosmo City Malibongwe,  Barry Hertzog CBD C

2C Diepsloot William Nicol Sandton B&C2C Diepsloot Randburg CBD B&C1C Tembisa/Ivory Park Sunning Hill Sandton C1C Tembisa/Ivory Park 1C CBD C1C Midrand 1C CBD C1C Tembisa/Ivory Park Kaalfontein Midrand B2A Thokoza Park Chris Hani, South Gate Mall of the South D

5 /MB3 South Crest Rifle Range, Klip River Road CBD C5/MB1 Mall of the South True North Rd, Klip River DR,  Road CBD D

2A Eldorado Park Nasrec RD, 1B CDB D1B 

extension

Wilro Park Ontdekkers Rd, Main Rd CBD C

Tools for integration and sustainability

TOOLS Fare harmonisation Ability to use a single ticket on

different modes Unified passenger information and

marketing platform PUTCO, Metrobus and Rea Vaya

services under single operational ‘command’

Easy and speedy transfers Improved pedestrian network to

PT nodes Reviewed and possible methods of

contracting (fee per km, passenger incentive, who takes the risks and the fares)

CONSIDERATIONS In the business planning

and financial modelling of the operational plans, the costs and benefits of the different tools are being addressed

Tools may need to be sequenced to ensure financial sustainability.

Branding StrategyMayoral Committee has approved the extension of the Rea Vaya brand to quality public transport, walking and cycling

Integrated Quality Transport SystemProof Points: Convenient. Reliable. Affordable. Safe. (Ecofriendly)

BRT Busses

MotorisedTransport (MT)

Non MotorisedTransport (NMT)

MTInfrastructure

Bicycles

NMT Infrastructure

Bus Stations Cycleways Walkways

XXXXBus & Taxi Rank

XXXXStation

Interchanges

XXXXCycleway

XXXXWalkwayBikeshare

XXXXPark & Ride

XXXXBus Stop

XXXXCycle Storage

Rea Vaya brand positioning

Inte

grat

ed

Qua

lity

Tra

nspo

rt S

yste

m Rea Vaya. Metrobus

Rea Vaya. Orlando Stadium Station

Rea Vaya. Alice Lane Cycleway

Rea Vaya. West Street Walkway

Rea Vaya. Bikeshare

Rea Vaya. Westgate Bus & Taxi Rank

Rea Vaya. BRT

Convenient. Reliable. Affordable

Convenient. Safe

Convenient. Ecofriendly

Convenient. Ecofriendly

Convenient. Ecofriendly

Convenient. Safe

Convenient. Fast. Reliable. Safe. Affordable

Street furniture and signage

Non-motorised transport network planning

NMT networkOur aim with the ITN network was to consider a city wide NMT network but the data did not point to the need or viability of such. However Gauteng Province are working on a NMT Master Plan where they proposed a priority list of interventions and then priority areas.

Priority list of interventions: Improve the first and last mile

for existing public transport users

Improve the walking environment for primary walk trips

Encourage a shift from long walk trips to utility cycling

Address the safety of existing utility cycling routes (with proven demand)

Promote a shift from private car to public transport

Promote a shift from private car to utility cycling

Promote a shift from public transport to utility cycling

Promote recreational cycling

Priority areas were identified using following:• IDPs, SDFs, ITPs and NMT Plans• Analysis of Gauteng Household Survey

Data (population, income, mode split, cycling potential)

• Topography –is the area flat enough to cycle?

• Pedestrian activity density (public transport facilities, schools, business nodes etc..)

• Community needs – Quality of Life Survey (GCRO)

• Areas with high number of pedestrian fatalities

• Existing NMT projects proposed by Municipalities

Rationale for project prioritisation

Proposed priority areas for NMT

Implementing our Integrated Public Transport Network

Introduction

On the basis of the ITN and SIPTN (and NMT framework) we are now working on and can align our plans for: PRASA and Gautrain Detailed operational plans for key

quadrants of the City Metrobus

We are also “codifing” our planning and implementation process in a

Transport Governance Framework

Rail

PRASA PRASA recapitalisation will start

with Naledi, Park, Germiston, Tembisa, Tshwane line

Have included an mode shift to rail in SITPN but conservative due to uncertainty

PRASA should be major mode from South with mini bus taxis as feeders to rail

Gautrain City model does not show strong case

for Gautrain. Still to engage with Gautrain on proposed expansion

Gautrain business case built on switch from private car users and thus does not take up any existing public transport demand.

City plans to incorporate Gautrain bus routes in SIPTN so there is a single bus network

Gautrain working on bank based card to ensure integration of ticket medium

Integrated operational planning

We have divided the City into ‘transport catchment areas’ and for each catchment area are developing and then implementing: Detailed Public Transport Operational Plan setting out the

routes, modes, scheduled and unscheduled services, number of vehicles per mode, etc..

Infrastructure plan including number of open, closed stations, interchange, ITS, etc..

Operating Licensing Strategy to include how “seats are allocated” where new buses replace old buses/taxis and how OLS will be allocated to existing/new services

Business plans (fundable, bankable, etc.) for implementation

Also vehicle procurement strategy

across catchment

areas

Progress on operational planning

Focus at the moment is on: North East Quadrant (CBD,

Sandton, Modderfontein, Ivory Park, Midrand)

Greater Soweto (Soweto, CBD, Braamfisherville, South)

“Central areas” (Metrobus traditional areas but will change over time and Metrobus to focus on West (to Roodepoort) and South (Turffontein)

Need to start on “Deep South” with PRASA

Restructuring of Metrobus

What City will do Indicate to Metrobus what routes to

operate, with what frequencies Set and collect fares through an

integrated system Monitor bus through bus

management system Pay Metrobus per km travelled less

penalties Provide holding areas for Metrobus Marketing and communication of

services

What Metrobus will do Ensure buses function on

the routes and to the kms prescribed by the City

Employ, train and manage drivers

Maintain buses Procure new buses

according to a recapitalisation plan

Alignment between Metrobus routes and ITN

With the development of the Integrated Transport Network, we have now:• Aligned the Metrobus routes

to the ITN• Concentrated Metrobus on

C/D network types• Developed a sequenced

implementation plan linked to other operational plan roll outs

• Looked at areas of integration with Rea Vaya and mini bus taxis.

Concluding remarks

Concluding remarks or questions

Retrofitting is inevitable but complex and fraught Planning retrofitting: political imperatives, decisions

made on incomplete information Infrastructure retrofitting: across spheres of

government and within the City, changing demand patterns and horizon years, planned budget vs detailed design budget etc.

Taking out the “R” and introducing “incrementalism” may be more manageable but can it still meet our transformational objectives?