Bus Rapid Transit in Asia: From Quantity to Quality. What is a Bus Rapid Transit system?

Transcription

1 Bus Rapid Transit in Asia: From Quantity to Quality Dario Hidalgo, PhD Senior Transport Engineer EMBARQ, The WRI Center for Sustainable Transport TRB Annual Meeting Washington DC, January 2009 What is a Bus Rapid Transit system? Is a flexible, rubber-tired form of rapid transit that combines stations, vehicles, services, running ways and ITS elements into an integrated system with strong identity TCRP Report 90 Bus Rapid Transit Volume 2: Implementation Guidelines 2003 It is a high quality public transport system, oriented to the user that offers fast, comfortable and low cost urban mobility BRT Planning Guide ITDP, 2007 Photo: Karl Fjelstrom - ITDP 1

2 BRT in Asia: Operational as Sept 2008 Japan 8 China 8 India 2 Turkey 1 Indonesia 1 South Korea 1 Total 21 Data Source: Google Map: D. Hidalgo BRT Planned or Under Construction in Asia India 16 China 15 Indonesia 8 Philippines 3 Thailand 2 Bangladesh, Iran, Israel, Pakistan, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Turkey 1 Total 51 Data Source: Google Map: D. Hidalgo 2

3 Running Ways BRT Components Component Low Level BRT High Level BRT Traffic Engineering Mixed Traffic Operations Bus Lanes Changes in Roadway Geometry Curb Parking Controls Median Busway on Arterial At Grade Busway Grade Separated Busway Left and Right Turn Controls Traffic Signal Priorities Stations Shelters Level Boarding and Prepayment Passing Lanes (when required) Vehicles Conventional One-Door Multiple doors Easy Boarding/Alighting Low Emissions ITS Manual dispatch, control, fare collection Automatic Vehicle Location Traffic Signal Priority Electronic Fare Collection Source: Adapted from TCRP 90 Volume 2, 2003 Taipei Busways (1996) Photos: Jason Chang 3

4 Taipei Busways Initial Operation: 1996 Length: 30.3 Km 10 busways (avg 3.03 Km) Stations: 143 bus stops Ridership: 1,680,000 pax/day (total bus ridership 2003); ~10,000 pphpd Frequency: 144 buses/hr Commercial Speed: 14 Km/hr (peak) Median lane busways on Arterial open system (0.1) Small shelters with narrow platfoms insufficient bays (0.25) Mixed fleet (0.25) Automatic fare collection on board, no central control (0.33) BRT Rating: 0.93 (23%) Kumming Busway (1999) Photo: Duan Xiaomei - GMTDC 4

5 Kumming Busway Initial Operation: 1999 Length: 46.7 Km busway Stations: 63 bus stops Ridership: 156,000 pax/day (w/o 14.5 Km extension); 8,600 pphpd Frequency: 140 buses/hr Commercial Speed: Km/hr Median lane busways on Arterial open system (0.10) Small shelters with narrow platfoms insufficient bays (0.25) Mixed fleet 20 special buses (0.25) Automatic fare collection on board, no central control (0.33) BRT Rating: 0.93 (23%) Source: Beijing, BRT Line 1 (2005) Photo: Karl Fjelstrom - ITDP 5

6 Beijing BRT Line 1 Initial Operation: 2004 Length: 16 Km (14 Km segregated) Stations: 18 Ridership: 120,000 pax/day; 8,000 pphpd Frequency: 55 buses/hr Commercial Speed: 21 Km/hr Median Busways on Arterial and Expressways Mixed Traffic in Downtown (0.875) Stations with Level Boarding and Prepayment, Passing Lanes (1) 87 Low Floor Articulated Buses CNG, with 3 doors (0.875) Manual dispatch, control and fare collection (smart card accepted) (0.3) BRT Rating: 3.05 (76%) Source: Hangzhou BRT (2006) Photo: Karl Fjelstrom - ITDP 6

7 Hangzhou BRT Initial Operation: 2006 Length: 27.2 Km (7 Km busway) Stations: 17 Ridership: 40,000 pax/day; 1,500 pphpd Frequency: 40 buses/hr (15 BRT buses/hr) Commercial Speed: 15 Km/hr (center, 25+ outside center) Curbside and Mid-lanes Busways on Arterial soft segregation (0.1285) Enclosed Stations with Prepayment and level boarding (1) 48 Articulated Buses Diesel, with 4 Doors (0.875) Automatic fare collection; variable message sings (1) BRT Rating: (75%) Source: Beijing, BRT Lines 2 and 3 (2008) Photo: Karl Fjelstrom - ITDP 7

8 Beijing BRT Lines 2 and 3 Initial Operation: 2008 Length: 39 Km (23 Km segregated) Stations: 43 Ridership: N/A; 2,000 pphpd Frequency: 20 buses/hr Commercial Speed: Km/hr (<15 Km/hr city center) Median Busways on Arterial Mixed Traffic in Downtown (0.59) Stations with Level Boarding and Prepayment, Passing Lanes (1) Low Floor Articulated Buses Diesel, with 4 Doors (0.875) Manual dispatch, control and fare collection (smart card accepted); variable message sings (0.5) BRT Rating: (74%) Source: Changzhou BRT (2008) Photo: Karl Fjelstrom - ITDP 8

9 Changzhou BRT Initial Operation: 2008 Length: 24.6 Km (21.2 Km segregated) Stations: 26 Ridership: N/A; 4,500 pphpd Frequency: 55 buses/hr Commercial Speed: 18 Km/hr Median Busways on Arterial (0.862) Stations with Level Boarding and Prepayment - Narrow (0.75) 60 Low Floor Articulated Buses Diesel, with 4 Doors (0.875) Automatic fare collection; variable message sings (1) BRT Rating: (87%) Source: Chongging BRT (2008) Photo: Karl Fjelstrom - ITDP 9

10 Chongging BRT Initial Operation: 2008 Length: 11.5 Km (6 Km busway, 3 Km fully segregated) Stations: 9 Ridership: N/A; 200 pphpd Frequency: 4 buses/hr Commercial Speed: 32 Km/hr Median Busways on Arterial and Expressway (0.521) Enclosed Stations On Board Payment Poor Access (0.25) 10 Conventional Buses with steps CNG, with 2 Doors (0.25) Manual fare collection; variable message sings (0.5) BRT Rating: (38%) Source: Dalian BRT (2008) Photo: Karl Fjelstrom - ITDP 10

11 Dalian BRT Initial Operation: 2008 Length: 13.7 Km (9 Km busway) Stations: 14 Ridership: N/A; 6,500 pphpd Frequency: 80 buses/hr Commercial Speed: 24 Km/hr Median Busways on Arterial - mainly (0.657) Shelters Prepayment Access by Stairs (0.33) 32 Conventional Buses, 32 Articulated Buses Diesel, with 3-4 Doors (0.75) Automatic fare collection; variable message sings (1) BRT Rating: (68%) Source: Jinan BRT (2008) Photo: Karl Fjelstrom - ITDP 11

12 Jinan BRT Initial Operation: 2008 Length: 14.2 Km (10 Km busway) Stations: 22 Ridership: N/A; 800 pphpd (N-S routes) Frequency: 20 buses/hr Commercial Speed: 20 Km/hr (<10 Km/hr in mixed traffic) Median lane busways on Arterial, below flyover (0.714) Enclosed Stations with Prepayment and level boarding (1) 15 Articulated Buses Diesel, with 3 Doors + 40 Conventional Feeder Buses with 2 doors in each side (0.75) Automatic fare collection; variable message sings (1) BRT Rating: (87%) Source: Xiamen BRT (2008) Photo: Karl Fjelstrom - ITDP 12

13 Xiamen BRT Initial Operation: 2008 Length: 40.2 Km (38.2 Km busway) Stations: 30 Ridership: N/A; 3,600 pphpd Frequency: 50 buses/hr Commercial Speed: 29 Km/hr Elevated Busway and Median Lane (0.95) Enclosed stations with prepayment narrow (0.875) Conventional buses 12m and 10 m 2 doors (0.75) Automatic fare collection, variable message sings (1) BRT Rating: (89%) Source: Jakarta, Transjakarta (2004) Photo: ITDP 13

14 Transjakarta Initial Operation: 2004 Length: 82.5 Km (120 planned by 2008) Stations: 115 stations (11 integration stations, 8 terminals) Ridership: 160,000; 3,600 pphpd Frequency: buses/hr Commercial Speed: <15 Km/hr Median Lanes on Arterials (1) Enclosed stations with prepayment only one door (0.875) Diesel and GNC conventional buses 12m 2 doors (0.75) Automatic fare collection, problems with integration no central control, no passenger information systems (0.5) BRT Rating: (78%)

15 Madhav Pai - EMBARQ Pune BRT Pilot Corridor (2006) Photo: Madhav Pai - EMBARQ No level boarding causes inconveniences to passengers and increases dwell times Inadequate pedestrian crossings Overcrowded buses Hadapsar Terminal Pune BRT Pilot Corridor Photos: Madhav Pai - EMBARQ 15

16 Pune BRT Pilot Corridor Initial Operation: 2006 Length: 14.8 Km (3.6 Km busway; 94.6 Km planned) Stations: 27 bus stops Ridership: N/A; 3,600 pphpd Frequency: 30 buses/hr Commercial Speed: Km/hr Median lane busways on Arterial open system (0.1) Small shelters with narrow platforms insufficient bays, non-level boarding (0.25) Mixed fleet (0.25) Manual fare collection on board, no central control (0.1) BRT Rating: 0.7 (18%) Source: Pai and Hidalgo, JnNURM Funded BRT Systems in India: A Review, TRB 2009 Delhi BRTS (2008) Photo: Madhav Pai, EMBARQ 16

17 Delhi BRTS Initial Corridor Initial Operation: 2008 Length: 5.6 Km Stations: 12 Ridership: N/A; 8,000 pphpd Frequency: 60 buses/hr Commercial Speed: Km/hr Median lane busways on Arterial open system (0.1) Small shelters with narrow platforms insufficient bays (0.25) Mixed fleet (0.25) Manual fare collection on board, no central control (0.1) BRT Rating: 0.70 (18%) Source: Pai and Hidalgo, JnNURM Funded BRT Systems in India: A Review, TRB Ambedkar Marg & Mehrauli Badarpur Road Junction Photo By: Madhav Pai, EMBARQ/WRI April 26 th, 2008 Bus priority at junction Photo By: Madhav Pai, EMBARQ/WRI April 26 th,

18 Delhi bus corridor had several problems during the first weeks: The traffic signals did not work properly. Signal cycles excessively long (12 minutes) Bus queuing at stations - spillovers High number of Blue Line Bus breakdowns in the bus lane. Bus drivers were not well informed of the new operations. Additional traffic wardens have helped providing instructions. Motor vehicles and two wheelers invaded the bus lanes Pedestrian jaywalking The difficulties received wide media coverage focused on the problems for car drivers 18

19 Most problems are being corrected, but the concept is in doubt - expansion has slowed down Delhi s problems resulted in a negative impact for BRT all over India Summary BRT Rating Xiamen Changzou Jinan Jakarta Beijing BRT 1 Hangzhou Beijing BRT 2&3 Dailan Chongging Kumming Taipei Delhi Pune Running Ways Stations Vehicles ITS 19

20 Summary Commercial Speed Xiamen Changzou Jinan Jakarta Beijing BRT 1 Hangzhou Beijing BRT 2&3 Dailan Chongging Kumming Taipei Delhi Pune Commercial Speed (Km/hr) Summary Performance Xiamen Changzou Jinan Jakarta Beijing BRT 1 Hangzhou Beijing BRT 2&3 Dailan Chongging Kumming Taipei Delhi Pune ,500 2,000 3,600 4,500 3,600 3,600 6,500 8,000 8,000 8,600 10,000-2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 Peak Load (pphpd) 20

21 Conclusions BRT adoption is happening very fast in Asian developing countries 6 systems started operations in China in systems are being constructed or planned (30% in India) National policies and funding for BRT development Quality and performance are varied Learning by doing BRT is not yet fully understood Photo: Karl Fjelstrom - ITDP Hitches, Hic-Ups What Went Wrong Planning problems Limited institutional capacity (human capital and funding) Lack of familiarity with BRT concepts (infrastructure + buses + operations + technology) Station design and integration of components Initial operations had difficulties Open systems with scarce control (bunching station spillover) Traffic signal priority is missing Accessibility issues Outstanding needs Improved institutions to plan, supervise Stress on operations and quality of service 21