brt lost in translation. jakarta and seoul closed vs open brt jakartaseoul

BRT LOST IN TRANSLATION

Jakarta and Seoul Closed vs Open BRT

Jakarta Seoul

Direct Service Vs. Trunk (w/out Feeder)

Seoul System

Jakarta System

Basic System Differences

• 50km built, 191 km planned, integrates with 300km of metro• Direct Service with Normal Buses, some route restructuring• Buslanes in the central verge, but not median stations• Access from at grade crossings.• Stations mid block• On-board electronic smart card ticketing system integrated with metro system

and normal bus system• No physical separation from mixed traffic lanes

• 34km built (3 corridors), roughly 150 km planned by 2008 (14 corridors). No metro system.

• Trunk Service with Limited Feeder Buses• Buslanes in the central verge and stations in the central median.• Access mostly by pedestrian overpasses on Corridor I• Stations mid block• Off board ‘smart’ card ticketing system, not integrated yet with feeders or other

transit modes• Physical separation from mixed traffic lanes

Seoul Jakarta

Speed and capacity on both systems is not yet best practice

• 13,000 pphpd maximum• Many buses still operate

in mixed traffic lanes• Bus capacity 80• Semi low floor, doors on

curb side only• Speeds increased from

around 8kph to around 18.5 kph

• Good physical integration with Seoul Metro

• 4,000 pphpd maximum

• MOST buses still operate in mixed traffic lanes

• Bus capacity 80• High floor, doors on

both sides, • Speeds increased

from around 10kph to around 15kph

Seoul Jakarta• 35,000 pphpd

maximum• No buses operate

in mixed traffic lanes

• Bus capacity 150• High floor, doors on

median side• Buses all

articulated

Bogota

Seoul configuration

Jakarta configuration

Seoul BRT Hybrid operations - Very convenient routing structure

• 43 Red inter-district buses

• Yellow CBD circulators

• Blue buses serve arterials

• Green buses are feeders to trunk lines and metro stations

Bus queuing problem

Mass confusion and congestion when first opened, requiring immediate modifications.

3 meter passing lanes at stops were added. (4 meters is standard)

100 of 400 buses per hour relocated back to mixed traffic lanes

No designated bus bays

Passengers don’t know where bus will stop, so they run along the platform.

Open bus platforms do not regulate where buses stop

Confusion at the stations

Narrow overtaking lane obstructs oncoming buses and mixed traffic lanes

Stations are Mid-Block or offset from intersection

Maximum width needed at stations does not compromised mixed traffic intersection capacity

Standard on-board payment system

Boarding with steps leads to 2 second boarding times/passenger.

Pedestrian access is at-grade, very convenient.

Traffic lights are timed to conform to nearest intersection to avoid vehicular traffic delay and enhance pedestrian safety.

Information at bus stations

Clearly shows bus routes with stations and overall network

Very convenient ticketing system integrates with metro and other buses. Other cash card functions

Distance based fare structure requires swiping when entering and exiting. GPS based with backup driver activated station-based.

Trans - Jakarta

A TransmilenioLOST IN TRANSLATION !

Median-aligned pre-paid platform-level boarding stations, but..

Platform not that well aligned and only one door per bus at each station.

Stations were undersized for actual demand

This caused crowing at inside stations

Huge queues at stations

Slow Boarding due to small stations and small doors increased dwell time and caused huge queues

Bus queuing even at very low capacity (3000 pphpd) Mainly due to single doorHigher demand exists on the corridor so other buses ply in mixed traffic

HarmoniHarmoniHarmoniHarmoniHarmoniHarmoniHarmoniHarmoniHarmoni

Bunderan SenayanBunderan SenayanBunderan SenayanBunderan SenayanBunderan SenayanBunderan SenayanBunderan SenayanBunderan SenayanBunderan Senayan

Kota StationKota StationKota StationKota StationKota StationKota StationKota StationKota StationKota Station

Blok MBlok MBlok MBlok MBlok MBlok MBlok MBlok MBlok M

MonasMonasMonasMonasMonasMonasMonasMonasMonas

Diversity of Routes could be offered, but currently buses only run along Corridor I, II, or III, and do not serve multiple corridors. As a result everyone has to transfer.

Pulogadung

Kalideras

No feeder buses reduced demand

Yet, the system was initially overcrowded at Terminals

Blok M Terminal Below was reconstructed (tripled in size)

Problem will be solved when new Expanded (rebuilt) Harmony terminal station is completed

But whole problem could be avoided by adding routes where buses continued from one segregated corridor to the other

New Terminal Stations are Much Larger

Inside the bus, passengers crowd around the single door

Size and number of doors and ease of access (stepless) is more important than bus size

Bogota has 4 x 1.1 meter doors

Access is mostly through elevated pedestrian crossing: safe but inconvenient for pedestrians. They are used because no

other way to get into station.

Bogota is at-grade in the City Center, pedestrian overpass access on high speed arterials.

Curitiba and Quito are all At Grade

Underpass or pedestrian bridge only necessary if crossing more than 3 high speed lanes without a pedestrian refuge, and no intersections

Why do both systems have capacity and speed far below Bogota’s TransMilenio?

• Seoul has passing lanes, but no pre-paid boarding, no platform level boarding, and chaos at stations due to lack of control through stopping bays.

• TransJakarta has pre-paid boarding, platform level boarding, but no passing lanes, therefore no express buses, no sub-stops, and only one door per bus.

• Transjakarta Corridors 4- 6 will have articulated buses and high volume stations will have passing lanes.

• Corridor I will be reconstructed to have three doors at a large expense.

Some Possible improvements

Average boarding time

(seconds)Capacity(pass/h)

Bus stop time

(seconds)Speed(km/h)

Fleet(buses)

Present Situation 2.5 2700 45 17 60

Improving boarding 1.7 3700 35 19 56

Bus with two doors 0.5 6000 22 21 51

With articulated bus 0.3 9600 18 23 26

TransJakarta Corridors all being reconstructed with wider, elegant sidewalks.

Revitalization of pedestrian traffic on the whole corridor.

Governor just announced plans to pedestrianize major road in N. Jakarta

High grade shaded walkway connects TransJakarta to the Commuter rail line.

Bogota had “Open’ busway before Transmilenio. Very slow speeds of 12km/hr

Bad quality of serviceUnsafe conditions

Rough parameters for increasing capacity at constant (20kph or higher) speed.

What to do about Indian Cities with Narrow Streets:

Hyderabad: Corridor 1 : present width (wall to wall)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000

South NorthCenter2 way2 way

Physical separation may be possible by splitting routes into two one way exclusive corridors.

Or continuity of route can be maintained by reducing mixed traffic road space to

one lane per direction

KALUPUR

RAILWAY STATION

MANINAGAR

RAILWAY STATION

LAL DARWAJA

AMTS BUS TERMINAL

GEETA MANDIR

ST BUS TERMINAL

PROPOSED

BRIDGE

KANKARIA LAKE

BRTS CORRIDOR PHASE 1A

BRTS CORRIDOR PHASE 1A

AHMEDABAD Maninagar loop design

KANKARIA

LAKE

MANINAGAR

RAILWAY STATION

BHAIRAVNATH ROAD SECTION

30 MTS. ROW

MANINAGAR STATION ROAD SECTION

24 MTS. ROW

MANINAGAR LOOP PROPOSAL

2 lanes per direction for BRT entering into intersection (for straight, left and right turning bus routes) and 3 lanes per direction for main carriage way.

Restriction of certain turning movements to reduce cycle time and increase throughputAdditional space for pedestrians to cross at intersection (utilizing staggered stop line for other motorized traffic)

MAJOR JUNCTIONS

Distance of bus station from stop line on streets with wide RoW

if an extra right turning bus lane is required (with 12m buses)

If all the buses are going straight and total bus volume is under 70 buses/hour, only one lane per direction is sufficient.

Then Bus stop can be 25m from stop line (with 12m buses)

Distance of bus station from stop line for narrow RoW streets (30-35m) - 70m

BUS STOP

BUS STOP

Mixed traffic needs more right of way at the intersection to avoid congestion of mixed traffic at intersection

Pedestrian signals can be installed synchronized with the signals at the nearest junction

Intersection Design

• Intersections are criticalSO REDUCE CONFLICTS

But how? Restrict turning options (right turns)

Avoid elements which can be put elsewhere (No parking – Shift back stations)

Provide time for pedestrians to cross and safe places to wait

Present movements in 4 phase signal.

. . . . . . . … .. .

Road capacityGeneral traffic capacity along a corridor

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200meters

real

tivec

apci

ty %

Two phase signal

traffic direction

four phase signal

DESIGN CONCERNS:• PEDESTRIAN SAFETY

• REDUCING THE WAITING TIME AT SIGNALS, BY REORIENTING THE RIGHT TURNING TRAFFIC THROUGH LOOPS ALONG THE ROAD ACROSS THE WESTERN CORRIDOR

• TRAFFIC CONGESTION REDUCED AND DIVERTED AWAY FROM THE JUNCTION

• PROPOSED ORGANISED VEHICULAR MOVEMENT

• PROPOSED BUS STOP AND RELATED AMENITIES ACCESSIBLE FOR THE PEDESTRIANS

PROPOSED MOVEMENTS ON THE JUNCTION

BUS STAND AND SUPPORTING AMENITIES

PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY CROSSING

RIGHT TURNING

via U-Turn on Perpendicular street

RETAINING THE EXISTING PARK AND REDESIGNING THE REMAINING AVAILABLE ROW (48KMS)DESIGN PROPOSAL

NEHRUNAGAR TO SHIVARANJANI

Exisiting park on one side of the RoW could be converted into a vibrant space which include jogging tracks, public amenities, organized hawking

THE EXISTING PARK (RETAINED)

BRT LANES

DESIGN PROPOSAL NEHRUNAGAR TO SHIVARANJANI

3 Principles to Remember• Vehicle Speed

– Vehicle speed is a significant determinant of severity of crashes, should be logical with respect to context, and is a critical factor in safety where there are conflicting traffic modes.

– Lower vehicle speeds open a range of design options that enable a street to look less like an expressway and more like a neighborhood street.

• Pedestrian and bicycle exposure risk– By making the distance to cross the street shorter, the time

spent crossing the street is reduced and the exposure risk is subsequently reduced.

• Driver predictability– If other street users can better predict how and where a

particular vehicle will be driven, the street will be safer.

BRT only underpass is a possible solution

Quito

Single flyover creates conflict w/ center lane BRT. Either a signal or weaving lanes are needed. Perpendicular flyovers are not a problem. Double flyovers with space in middle for BRT also ok.

BRT INTERFACE WITH FLYOVERS

Split flyover removes the weaving problem

Secret to Bogota’s High Speed and Capacity:

• 3 stopping bays, (specific buses stop at specific stopping bays)

• passing lanes, • express services, • pre-paid off-bus boarding

stations, • articulated buses with 4 doors.

Not every Indian city needs this high capacity…

BRT is a concept not a rubber stamp

Most cities have some common factors

…and some very different ones

We should use the basic concepts to make the best possible design for each city with its own special design

Kunming BRTIntersection treatment