Urban Mobility Designing

focusing on potential of buses

Fumihiko Nakamura

Professor of Urban Transportation Planning

Executive Director, Vice President

Yokohama National University

1

Fumihiko Nakamura, Dr.Eng f-naka@ynu.ac.jp

• 1962, born in Niigata, Japan

• 1985, graduate from Department of Urban Engineering, University of Tokyo

• 1987, Master of Engineering, U. of Tokyo1991, Doctor of Engineering, U. of Tokyo

• 1992-1994, Assistant Professor, Asian Institute of Technology, Thailand

• 1995-2004, Associate Professor, Yokohama National University (YNU), Japan

• 1995.2 First Visit to Curitiba• 1998, 2002, 2004, 2008, 2010 (twice), 2011(twice), 2012

(twice), 2013, 2014 Visits to Curitiba

• 2004-now, Professor, YNU

• 2011( 2months), Visiting Professor, PPGTU, PUCPR• 2013-2015, Dean of Graduate School of Urban Innovation, YNU

• 2015-now, Executive Director, Vice President, YNU

• Research Fields

• Urban Transportation Planning, Public Transportation Policies, Urban Planning in Developing Countries, Comprehensive Traffic Management, Mobility Design

2

Contents of the Lecture

1. Basic Concept of Smart City Mobility

2. Some experiences of Mobility Designing

3. Some cases of Urban Bus Systems

4. Issues to be discussed

3

1.Basic Concept of Smart City Mobility

4

Problem and Goal Identification

GOAL : Sustainable GrowthSUSTAINABLE

= ENVIRONMENT + ECONOMY

+ SOCIETY

Sustainable Mobility= Less dependence

on car traffic=anyone can enjoy life

without cars

Excessive Car Dependence

1.Congestion2.Accidents

3.Environmental Damage4.Social Exclusion

5

SUSTAINABLE URBAN MOBILITY STRATEGY FRAMEWORK (GENERAL)

GOAL FORSUSTAINABLE MOBILITY

LESS DEPENDENCEON CAR TRAFFIC

TARGET FOR CONTROL

CAR OWNERSHIPCAR USAGE

CAR PARKING

STRATEGY FRAMEWORK

SUPPLY SIDE MEASURES+

DEMAND SIDE MEASURES

6

Sustainability

Several Conceptual Keywords

Smart

Environmentally Friendly Less Car Dependence

Less Car Usage(WISE USE of CAR)

Economic Efficiency

Social Inclusion

RECONSIDERATION OFTravel time

Travel FrequencyTravel Distance

Travel Mode(MODAL SHIFT)

ICT-aided

creativity

QUALITY

OF

CITY LIFE

Multi-modal + Inter-modal

Considered

7

Role Image of Each Mode Existing PlansDemonstration Projects

Smart and Multimodal Local Transport Vision

Concept ofSmart

Intelligent+

Sustainable

Multi-modality

Variety of mode

No need for cars

Conventional Modes NEW MODES

Walking Small Mobility System sharing

Bicycle Bike Sharing

(cars) Car Sharing

Bus Demand Responsive Transport (DRT)

Multi-modal Vison

Example of Vision Making 1

Multi-Modal-MobilityStations

(Concerge)

Diagnosis

ShowcaseTown

Sharingsystems

8

Gateway to the city

Inter District Local Transport

Road SpaceRe-distribution

Management

Smart and Multi-modal Local Transport Vision

Demonstration Projects

Re-arrangement of Buses

CarParking

Bus Terminal

BicycleRight-of-Way

PedestrianRight-of-Way

BicycleParking

Main Bus

Routes

DRT

Local routes

Example of Vision Making 2

9

Connected Mobility Design Strategy

Demand Institutionalscope

Supply

Sustainability Social InclusionLand Use Management

Building Control

SegmentedUsers

Project Stakeholders

Planners,Managers,Controllers and

Operators

Finance

Information Provision IC Technology

Multi-Modes

10

Framework “City and Transport”

Sustainable City

Transportation Land Use(Urban Activities)

Passenger Transport

Freight Transport

Public Transport

Car Traffic

Environment Society (Equity) Economy (Efficiency)

On-StreetParkingControl

BuildingDevelopment

Control

Garage andParking facility

Constructioncontrol

Modal Shift

Main RoutesBRT and/or Metro

FeederBus/Minibus

Energy constraint Fiscal constraint Technical constraint Human Resource

11

Some Discussion from user’s aspect

captive group

choicegroup

captivegroup

CAR Users P.T. Users

They will shift to car use if no car use control is applied

They will shift to P.T. if P.T. is improved & car use is controld.

Cf. Car Use Control

Ownership No need to control

Driving By traffic regulations or pricing

Parking Volume and fee regulated 12

MODAL SHIFT in many growing citiesmore P.T. service and no car control

CAR P.T.

CAR P.T.

DEMANDCHANGE

SUPPLYLIMITATION

IN CBDRoads P.T. service

GROWTHGROWTH

13

MODAL SHIFT with Sustainabilitymore P.T. service and car control

CAR P.T.

CAR P.T.

DEMANDCHANGE

SUPPLYLIMITATION

IN CBDRoads P.T. service

GROWTH

14

Classification of the Management

No. Direction How Terminology

1 More

supply

By introducing

new facility

Conventional

Approach

2 By enhancing the

performance of

existing facility

Transportation

System

Management (USA)

Comprehensive

Traffic

Management

(UK)

3 Less

demand

By asking

travelers to

change behavior

Transportation

Demand

Management (USA)

4 By stimulating

travelers

perception

Mobility

Management

(EU and Japan)15

Example of TSMReversible lane

Central Business District

Central Business District

ResidentialDistrict

ResidentialDistrict

Congested in the

morning

Less Congested in the morning

Reversible Lane

Morning : Upward

Other period: downward

16

Example of TDM measures

Asking Travelers (Drivers) to change behavior(in order to reduce congestion)

Route change

Mode change

Destination change

Frequency change

Time change

Traffic information service advise less congested detour routes

Public TransportationPark & RideRide share (more people in a car

Satellite office

Compressed working5 days / week -> 3 days / week

Triggered commutingearlier or later timing 17

Example of TDM Park & Ride

Osaka bay

CBD of Kobe

Rokko mountains

Toll Tunnel(no traffic jam) Parking

Residential Areas

1 2 3

1: slow & cheap2: fast but costly3: fast & cheap

Many commuters shift from alternative 1to alternative 3 as it is faster and cheaper

18

Park & Ride mysteries

HOME OFFICEcommuting

PARK & RIDE CARPARKING

@STATION

PUBLIC TRANSPORT

TYPE I CAR

TYPE III

TYPE II PUBLIC TRANSPORT

STATIONBUS PUBLIC TRANSPORT

F

O

R

M

E

R

M

O

D

E

recommended

Notrecommended

Notrecommended

19

Example of MM

Target Setting -> Car users

Asking complaints and requests to buses

Answering them and asking trial rides with free tickets as well as full set of information

Continuing communication

20

2. Some example of Mobility Designing

21

Cities with “transit first policy”(1) Zurich (Switzerland)

• Asking whole citizen about attitudes to public transport priority policy. (Referendum)• Voting result (1979) -> Public transportation Priority

• 51% agree public transportation priority• 49% disagree it

• Tram & Bus get priority at ALL the intersections in the city installed with many bus lanes.• Drivers of tram and bus can request signal to be green

by pushing a special button. (no loss time)• Some traffic jams are there. They are accepted by

citizens. (buses are only on bus lanes without facing any traffic jam).

22

Transit First Policy(2) Histories in North American cities

• Toronto• Huge investment on bus, metro and tram• Expressway removal in downtown• Park & Ride + Kiss & Ride facility well designed at metro station

• Vancouver• Huge investment on bus, skytrain and commuter rails.• No new construction of expressway in the city

• Portland• Expressway proposal shifted to LRT with TOD• Strong priority to Pedestrian, LRT & Bus and Bike• Total capacity of Parking facility in downtown is strongly restricted.

• San Francisco• New parking policy along with transit first concept started.• Important streets for buses introduced curb-cutting prohibition.

• Denver• Downtown redesign with transit mall paid by land owners

• Bad example : Dallas without Transit First Policy (parking downtown)

23

Above and Right : Finch metro sta. with P&R and K&RBelow left : secured waiting space at bus terminalBelow center: underground pedestrian path network

Below right: bus and HOV lanes TORONTO

24

Denver (USA)16st street mall

25

Transit First policy related Projects (New Town)

Runcorn New Town, UK (1969-)

Target population : 100,000One-center system with 8-shaped exclusive busway network to

encourage residents to use buses more

26

Busway system concept

27

Residential Area Design Concept in Runcorn New Town to achieve the modal share of 50:50

BUS STOP Busway

BUS STOP

GARAGE PHighways

Pedestrian path, road network and bus system were carefully designed so as to have the equivalent travel time in case of both modes. 28

Runcorn New Town (UK)

29

Parking Management + Suburban SC controlling Typical example of Areawide Parking Management with Park-and-Ride scheme + fringe parking + parking pricing

• Parking facilities• Location control (not to threaten bus demand)• Price control (revenue pooling) P1:most expensive , P4 and P5: free• Trip purpose control (commuting discouraged, holiday shopping to center

recommended) by price setting (long time weekday expensive in P1 etc.)

• Shopping centers in suburban areas• Should be located as close as possible to main bus routes• Coming by bus should be cheaper (free parking is theoretically strange (next

slide))

• Buses• Should provide more capacity even in day-time and weekends

CENTER

DISTRICT

P3

P4

P2

Suburban SC

P5

P1

30

DowntownFringe Parking along Inner Ring RoadPedestrian Precinct inside the Inner Ring Roadwith two malls (Public Transport and Pedestrian only street (transit mall))

Courtesy of Freiburg City

Freiburg : pedestrian precinct + transport union + environmental ticket + areawide

parking management + shopping facility regulation

31

32

No “Transit First Policy” was considered in Dallas. Instead, many parking facilities were constructed to attract people who otherwise would enjoy suburb and never come to downtown, which resulted in parking downtown surrounded by expressways with less pedestrian.

Dallas, USA

33

3.Some cases of Urban Bus Systems

34

Latin America

Asia

Africa

North AmericaEurope

Australia

1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s

CuritibaGoiania

Porto AlegreQuito

BogotaSao Paulo

Guayaquil

Nagoya Taipei Seoul BeijingKunming

Jakarta

Pittsburgh Ottawa

Adelaide

Seattle

Paris

OrlandMiami

Rouen

Brisbane

Boston

Lyon

Nantes

Organized by presenters

Lagos

Dal es salaam

BANGKOK

Strasburg

History of Cities with BRT style buses

35

• Curitiba, Brazil• the earliest installation of BRT style bus systems• City Master Plan initiated by Mr. Jaime Lerner, the mayor of Curitiba • bus system as the important element in the city.

• Hierarchical network with free-transfer terminals• Main lines with segregated center-located busways (late r with pre-payment stops)

• Side lanes for slow and light traffic with Clear Urban Development policy

• Integrated operation managed by city-wide public corporation (URBS)• Operation started in 1974.

• Several Brazilian cities• Started to introduce BRT (just with busways in many cases)

• Side lanes for fast and heavy traffic (completely different from those in Curitiba)

• Some cities in Mexico, Peru and Ecuador

• Bogota, Colombia “Transmilenio” • based on Curitiba's BRT with some of their own ideas• Operation started in 1999.• High level of performance with speed, capacity and presence with ICT.

• Other cases in 1999-2003• After Bogota.• Most cases do not look so impressive as that in Bogota

• Medellin (Metro Plus) in 2013• Connected to Metro and feeder bus. Buses with doors both sides.

36

• Transjakarta in Jakarta city, Indonesia in 2004• one example of the followers of Transmilenio.• ITDP, a non-profit organization, set a brunch in Jakarta for BRT project.• Learned a lot from Transmilenio (but followed just a part of them)

• No implication about management, operation and control

• Buses in United States and Canada, Australia and European countries • Ottawa’s “Transitway” starts with strong commuter parking regulation and

discount commuter passes with integrated fare and routings• Runcorn in UK (one of the British new towns, famous for the busway system)• Essen in Germany (the first city to have guided bus system)

• Indian and Chinese cities (4 and 13 each)

• African and Middle Eastern cities

• Nagoya in Japan• Center-located exclusive bus lanes operation started in 1982

• Seoul• Full re-organization of urban bus system with center-located exclusive bus lanes

and ICT aided management and control (learning mainly from Curitiba)• Pedestrian Policy and Traffic Management connected.

• Bangkok

• 10 or more Southeast Asian cities• BRT is positively discussed for introduction• Vientiane, Khon Kaen and others,

37

ＢＲＴ elements Fast Safe capacity efficient

infrastructure busway

Bus station

vehicle

ICT

PlanningOperation

scheduling

Station operation

Feeder connect

Management separation

Salaries

Fleet

staff

Exogenousfactors

Traffic

Car restriction

Land use38

BRT (Key Route Bus) in Nagoya in JAPAN

No Dynamic Traffic Signal Preemption, No Articulate buses BUT HIGH PERFORMANCE Since 1982 39

SeoulPedestrian space dramatically increasedBus lanes have enabled the smoothness of other lanesSmart card integration for all buses and metros are used by more than 98% of passengers

16 lanes to 4 lanes in downtown

40

How Foreigners feel about Bogota?• Originally based on the experience in Curitiba.

• Well prepared and equipped with their well-designed facilities

• Median bus station with overpass lanes for limited stop rapid bus service

• ICT for monitoring whole systems and drivers for safety and security

• Multiple bus berths and overpass lanes for higher capacity and efficiency

41

Discussion points from Bogota’s experience1. Layout of BRT right-of-way, busways

• median of multiple lane main streets • widened by extra gas tax revenue.• Disincentive to car users in addition to the license-plate control

regulation.

2. Large investment on ICT for complete system design• high level of punctuality and speed of BRT system • higher level of capacity of the system.

3. no strong coordination with urban planning system formally• Simple system and easy process for its expansion

4. Management just for BRT lines and feeder lines at first• step-by-step process to involve existing operators

• Current problems• poor condition of busway pavement • no coordination with traffic signal operation• collaboration with metro projects..

42

Bogota Transmilenio• What should we learn from Bogota?

• Capacity of buses• Could be referred go green lines only

• Quality of vehicles and drivers• Penalty mechanism is strongly working

• Supported by IT-aided monitoring systems

• Bus drivers with high salary are very popular

• A lot of applicants to drivers (10% selection)

• Security and Safety image (??)

• Quality of information • especially for new users.

43

44

45

Busway pavement cost estimation

• Possible reason for bad situation of Busway pavement• Geotechnical Engineering issue (under the pavement)

• Construction Management and Supervision issue

• Pavement Material Engineering issue, related to bus vehicles.• 4 axes bi-articulated bus with full passengers gives big damages

• Calculation assumptions• Condition

• 9.5 km busways with 20 stations for 500,000 passengers a day

• All the unit cost items are Japanese ones

• Questions• Asphalt (flexible and easy to repair) or Concrete (strong) ?

• Regular bus, Articulate bus or Bi-Articulate bus ?

46

time

Force

reshaping

Time needed

Force

47

Calculation Results : Busway maintenance cost for 50 years

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Mill

ion

Rea

ls /

yea

r

years

scenario3

80人

160人

250人

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Mill

ion

Rea

ls /

yea

r

years

Scenario 2

80人

160人

250人

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Mill

ion

Rea

ls /

yea

r

years

Scenario1

80人

160人

250人

scenariomaterials Bus

sizeway station

1 asphalt

80

160

250

2 asphalt concrete

80

160

250

3 concrete

80

160

250

48

SLOW & LIGHT Traffic

FAST & HEAVYTraffic

SLOW & LIGHT Traffic

FAST & HEAVYTraffic

EASY ACCESS

LIMITED ACCESS

CURITIBAN-S & E-W axes

Typical BRT with TOD(like Bogota)

Structural Axis in Curitiba is very unique in terms of continuity of space. random surface crossing and access to stops. These concepts should be preserved !

49

Citizens

City

Operators

Registration proposal

Marketing survey

Demonstration experiment

City support

Service launch by operator

with no subsidies

Bus use

Next step Next step

Next step

Feeder (local) Bus support programs (Yokohama)

no operation subsidy but preparation and citizen participation are supported

50

4. Issues to be discussed

51

Issues to be discussed• MODAL SHIFT for Smart cities with LESS Dependence on cars

• For target user (existing and potential car owners )• Control of car driving cost and parking cost

• Only employees commuting buses could be subsidized

• Less availability for parking facilities• Less space for driving (downtown areas) (more for bikes and walkers)

• Clear priority to walkers, bikes and buses (urban areas)

• More communication on buses with City Hall and Operators• Opportunity to challenge bus ride with sufficient information

• For public transport side• System should be attractive, creative, sustainable, reliable, attractive and secured.• System should be an option to target market (multi-modal).

• Each element of the system is well connected (inter-modal).• Bike-and-Ride, Park-and-Ride, Sharing modes and Bus etc.

• Pedestrian path, Bike parking, Sharing Bike station, Bike path are connected to bus stops and stations.

• Staff should be able to be proud of the system.

• System should have clear priority on road and traffic management• System should be connected with Urban activities such as shopping center, city hall

offices, congress venue and schools.

• All the systems should be well designed in the context of “Mobility” for targeted person much more than vehicles. 52

Thank you!

53