Public transport improvement GIZ

1. Public Transport Improvement
By Sunny Kodukula
Material by
Manfred Breithaupt

2. PT issues in many developing cities
•Dirty, overcrowded buses- “poor
man’s mode”
• Mix of modes
• >50% trips; <5% vehicle share
• Ad hoc planning
• No priority on roads
• Often high tax burden (much
more than cars)
• No quality monitoring

3. % of public transport,
walking and cycling
CO2 emissions (kg per
capita per year)
Houston 5% 5690 kg
Montreal 26% 1930 kg
Madrid 49% 1050 kg
London 50% 1050 kg
Paris 54% 950 kg
Berlin 61% 774 kg
Tokyo 68% 818 kg
Hongkong 89% 378 kg
CO2 emissions from passenger transport vs. modal split: mode share can be
influenced by policies and infrastructure
Source: UITP
Redefining Public Transport, Why?

4. Energy consumption and transport
Modal share of
walking, cycling and public
transport
Average energy consumption per
person (MJ)
1995 2001 1995 2001
Athens 34.1 40.9 12.900 12.600
Geneva 44.8 48.8 23.600 19.200
Rome 43.2 43.8 18.200 17.100
Vienna 62 64 10.700 9.050
Cities which increased the modal share of walking, cycling and PT saw a
decrease in the consumption of energy for passenger transport per capita.
Source: UITP
05.10.15
Redefining Public Transport, Why? (cont’d)

5. Redefining Public Transport, Why?

6. Redefining Public Transport, Why?
What do citizens want?
ü Easy access
ü Rapid journey
ü Convenience
ü Comfort
ü Frequent Service
ü Safety
ü Security
ü Customer Service
ü Low cost
ü Have a network
Public Transport
should be designed
around the
customer and not
around a
technology

7. Conventional Public Transport Planning
Approach
Step 1.
Choose
technology
Step 2. Fit
city to the
technology
Step 3.
Force
customer to
adapt to
technology
Technology chosen
to help property
developer
Design chosen to
please existing
operators
Technology chosen due
to manufacturer
lobbying efforts
Reduce size of
network due to
financing limitations
Charge higher fares
in attempt to pay for
expensive system
Require large
subsidies for lifetime
of system’s operation
Extensive marketing campaign to
convince customers that system is
in their interest
Operate infrequent
services to reduce
operating losses
Step 1.
Choose
technology
Step 2. Fit
city to the
technology
Step 3.
Force
customer to
adapt to
technology
Technology chosen
to help property
developer
Design chosen to
please existing
operators
Technology chosen due
to manufacturer
lobbying efforts
Reduce size of
network due to
financing limitations
Charge higher fares
in attempt to pay for
expensive system
Require large
subsidies for lifetime
of system’s operation
Extensive marketing campaign to
convince customers that system is
in their interest
Operate infrequent
services to reduce
operating losses

8. The innovative and successful approach
Rapid travel
time
Few transfers
Frequent
service
Safe vehicle
operation
Secure
environment
Low fare cost
Comfortable and
clean system
Full network of
destinations
Short walk to
station from
home / office
Friendly and
helpful staff
Step 1.
Design a
system from
customer’s
perspective
Step 2.
Evaluate
customer-
driven
options from
municipality
perspective
Step 3.
Decision
Low
infrastructure
costs
Traffic reduction
benefits
Economic /
employment
benefits
Environmental
benefits
Social equity
benefits
City image
Technology decision based on customer
needs and municipality requirements
Rapid travel
time
Few transfers
Frequent
service
Safe vehicle
operation
Secure
environment
Low fare cost
Comfortable and
clean system
Full network of
destinations
Short walk to
station from
home / office
Friendly and
helpful staff
Step 1.
Design a
system from
customer’s
perspective
Step 2.
Evaluate
customer-
driven
options from
municipality
perspective
Step 3.
Decision
Low
infrastructure
costs
Traffic reduction
benefits
Economic /
employment
benefits
Environmental
benefits
Social equity
benefits
City image
Technology decision based on customer
needs and municipality requirements

9. Checklist for efficient public transport planning

10. Accessibility- Options
• How to reach the PT station?
• Walk, bike or drive
• How good is the path?

11. Station Design
• Passenger friendly designs?
• Clear signage, disabled friendly
• Better interchanges
• Public amenities
BS

12. Vehicle and infrastructure design
• Comfortable
• Capacity
• Attractive
Source: Carlos F. PardoSource: Carlos F. Pardo
Which
one to
select?

13. Public Transport priority
• Is PT prioritized over other modes?

14. Modal Integration
• Can an individual take his/her
bicycle? Is it easy to walk? Should
he/she can drive to the station?

15. Professionalism
• Are the stations and the fleet clean?
• Do the drivers have good road
etiquettes?
SlidesdevelopedoriginallybyLloydWright

16. Network coverage
• Can I reach the CBD, shopping district,
my home?

17. Frequency
• How soon can I get a the next
train, bus, tram?
Frequency, Reliability

18. Fare Integration
• How many times one should buy a
ticket?
• Where one should buy the ticket?
• Who are the operators?
How not to do...
St. Petersburg
Pavlovsk
Metro: 17 Rubles Train: 43 Rubles Minibus: 13 Rubles = 73 Rubles
Approx 35 km
an example

19. Fare Integration…(contd)
Wiesbaden
Frankfurt
6.75 Euro
+
1 fare / 1 ticket Integrated
timetable
Approx 40 km
How to do...an example

20. Now let’s look at
available options in Mass Transit

21. Different Mass Rapid Transit Modes available
Light rail
Heavy urban rail Underground metro
Personal rapid transitBRT
Lloyd Wright
Lloyd Wright
Monorail
Lloyd Wright
Lloyd Wright

22. • Selection of a particular mass transit system for a city will always remain a
challenging task
• Affected by passengers, transit operators and the city or community
• Largely depends on the desired form and character of the city and its
metropolitan area, and on its financial capability.
• Planning of transit systems is based on the projection of future demand for
transit travel
• Depends mostly on the availability of right-of-way (ROW) for the transit
systems.
Selection of MRTS

23. Selection Criteria for MRTs
• Availability of the mode to
meet demand
• Cost
• Right-of-way availability
• Environmental impact
• Journey time
• Safety
• Comfort
• Flexibility
• Reliability
• Fare
• Technical sophistication
• Implementation
complexities
• Image
Carlos Pardo

24. When comparing alternatives, there is no technological
option that will outperform the others in every
aspect…it will be a trade off
Sources:Adapted from el D. Hidalgo de Halcrow Fox, 2000, L. Wright and K. Fjellstrom, 2003,y V. Vuchic, 1992
MediaGoodLow (bunching)LowReliability
High
Low
Very Good
Very Good (dense
corridor)
Difficult
Congestion
reduction (?)
Low
New road
underground or
elevated
Heavy rail/ Metro
High
Medium
LowHighEmissions
MediumMediumLowwalk/transfers
GoodGoodRegularSafety
GoodGoodRegular
Level of service
(frequency and
occupancy)
EasyDifficultEasy
Integration with
feeders
VariableVariableVariableImpacts on traffic
AltaLimitedHighFlexibility
2-4 lanes
existing roads
2-3 lanes
existing roads
2-4 lanes
existing roads
Required space
Bus Rapid Transit
BRT
Light rail/ street
car
Priority lanes /
only bus
Characteristic
MediaGoodLow (bunching)LowReliability
High
Low
Very Good
Very Good (dense
corridor)
Difficult
Congestion
reduction (?)
Low
New road
underground or
elevated
Heavy rail/ Metro
High
Medium
LowHighEmissions
MediumMediumLowwalk/transfers
GoodGoodRegularSafety
GoodGoodRegular
Level of service
(frequency and
occupancy)
EasyDifficultEasy
Integration with
feeders
VariableVariableVariableImpacts on traffic
AltaLimitedHighFlexibility
2-4 lanes
existing roads
2-3 lanes
existing roads
2-4 lanes
existing roads
Required space
Bus Rapid Transit
BRT
Light rail/ street
car
Priority lanes /
only bus
Characteristic
High

25. Equivalency road width:In order to carry 20,000 automobile commuters PHPD,a highway mustbe at least 18 lanes wide.
(assumption 1.2 passengers per automobile)
€€€190001500-
2000
Mixed
Traffic
€€
40000 –
60000
Heavy Rail/
Metro
€€€€€
€€€€€
€€€€€
€€€€€
€€€€€
€€€€€
€€€€€
€€€€€
€€€€€
€€€€€
€€€€€
€€€€€
€€€€€
€€€€€
€€€€€
€€€€€
€€€€€
€€€€€
€€€€€
€€€€€
€€€€€
€€€€€
€€€€€
€€€€€
€€€€€
€€€€€
€€€€€
€€€€€
€€€€€
€€€€€
€€€€€
€€€€€
€€€€€
€€€€€
€€€€€
€€€€€
60000 –
90000
Suburban
Rail
(e.g. Mumbai)
€
€€€
€€€
€€€
€€€
€€€
€€€
14000
€€
€€€
€€€
€€€
€€€
Cyclists
€€
€€€
€€€
€€€
€€€
€€€
9000
BRT
single lane
Pedestrians
5000
€€€
€€€
€€€
Regular
Bus
??
BRT
double lane
€
€€€€
€€€€
€€€€
€€€€
€€€€
€€€€
€€€€
€€€€
€€€€
€€€€
€€€€
Light Rail
€
€€€
€€€
€€€
€€€
€€€
€€€
€€€
18000 –
20000
(people per hour on 3.5 m wide lane in the city – PPHPD [PAX/hour/direction])
Source: Botma & Papendrecht, TU Delft 1991 andown figures
PPHPD
Range (à)
2000 8000 14000 17000,
Curitiba
19000 20000 43000,
Bogotá
80000,
HKK
>100000,
Mumbai
Maximum
PPHPD
achieved &
where (à)
Choosing modes – Carrying Capacity

26. Comparison of modes - Capacity and operating
speed
• Bus and BRT
• Low inter-station
spacing, small vehicles,
poor acceleration, Bus
priority
• LRT vs BRT
• Dynamic performance,
vehicle capacity,
• Tram vs LRT
• Signalling, own ROW,
vehicle capacity
• LRT vs Metro
• Acceleration, signalling,
longer vehicles, max
speed
• Suburban rail vs Metro
• Inter-station spacing,
longer vehicles, max
speed
Car (m’way)
Performance (Capacity, Reliability)
Speed
40 km/h
70 km/h
20 km/h
20k / h10k / h
LRT
Suburban
rail
Metro
Tram
BRTBus lane
Bus on-street
Car (street)

27. Time for construction
Bus Rapid Transit
< 18 months
i.e. within the term of a Mayor
Metros
> 5 years
Lloyd Wright Karl Fjellstrom

28. Comparing the costs
BRT
US$ 0.5 – 15 millon / km
Tram
US$ 10 – 25 millon / km
Light Rail Transit (LRT)
US$ 15 – 40 millon / km
Urban commuter rail
US$ 25 – 60 millon / km
Elevated rail
US$ 50 - 125 millon / km
Metro
US$ 50 millon – 320 millon / km
Image source: Manfred Breithaupt Lloyd Wright

29. Characteristics of a “full” BRT
ü Segregated, median bus ways + stations
ü Pre-board fare collection and verification
ü Restricted operator access
ü Free transfers between corridors
ü Modal and fare integration, user oriented
ü Competitively bid concessions
ü High frequency service and low station dwell
times
ü Level boarding and alighting
ü Emissions reductions through newer fuel
technologies

30. BRT systematically combines infrastructure, equipment and
operation to
improve service quality

31. BRT and busway systems in the world
source: EMBARQ, 2011
Planned / in
construction
(82 cities)
In expansion
(23 cities)
In operation
(163 cities)

32. 0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
0
5
10
15
20
25
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
CumulativeNumberofCities
NewCities
Evolution of the number of cities per year
BRT and busway systems in the world
2010: Guangzhou
2000: Bogotá
(TransMilenio),
Colombia
1974/1991*: Curitiba
source: BRTdata.org, September 2013
1972/2010*: Lima
* Busway / BRT year commenced

33. BRT Guangzhou (Winner of 2011
STA Award)
Source: Karl Fjellstrom, ITDP China
•22.5 km of dedicated busway
•Over 800,000 passengers per day
on a single corridor
•27,400 passengers per peak hour
per direction

34. BRT can be very
productive
Guangzhou, China
35,800 pax/day/km
Source: EMBARQ

35. BRT Guangzhou (Winner of 2011
STA Award)

36. Integrated Bicycle Sharing System
§ 5000 bicycles and 113 cycle sharing stations along the BRT
corridor
§ At every station bike parking facilitiesavailable that can be used
without charging
§ the same ticket can be used for BRT and for bike rental
Sources: ITDP & GMEDRI and Shreya Gadepalli
BRT Guangzhou (Winner of 2011
STA Award)

37. BRT can be very
high speed
Istanbul, Turkey
42 km/h

38. Bus Rapid Transit can have similar capacity to metro
systems at a fraction of the initial investment cost
20,000 to 40,000 pphpd, 20-30 Km/h, for 5-20
MM/Km
Initial Cost vs. Capacity
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
0 50 100 150 200
US$ MM/KM
Pax/Hour/Direction
Busway 17-20 Km/h
LRT 20 Km/h
BRT 20-30 Km/h
Metro Elevated 30-40 Km/h Metro Underground 30-40 Km/h
Initial cost and capacity
Passengersperhourperdirection
SlidesdevelopedoriginallybyDarioHidalgo

39. Corridor capacity
for BRT systems
2 lanes per direction
Single lanes
Single lanes
Source: Hidalgo

40. Financial Benefit - What a city can have for
1Bn US$? Make a choice…
426 kilometres of BRT
14 kilometres of elevated rail 7 kilometres of subway
40 kilometres of LRT
* Source: Actual data from systems built or proposed in Bangkok, Thailand

41. ROW C
• here, the public
transport right-of-way is
on street in mixed
traffic.
ROW A
• represents the case where
the right-of-way is fully
controlled.
Selection Criteria for MRTs – Right of Way
(RoW)
Typical RoW for different MRTS modes
• Metro - automated guide way system
• Monorail - complete grade separation
• Commuter Rail - semi-exclusive to exclusive RoW
• LRT and BRT - semi-exclusive to exclusive RoW
Availability of right-of-way (RoW) determines the relative ease or difficulty of
inserting a particular transit system into the pre-existing urban built-up area.
ROW B
• here the right-of-way is
physically separated
longitudinally, but at-
grade crossings exist

42. Other Parameters
Less quantifiable aspects in selection criteria include the following:
• Convenience of accessing the transit stations
• Comfort of travel
• Number of transfers required to reach the destination
• Reliability of operation
• Frequency of service
• Complexity of implementation
• Image

43. What to do: 2 main issues
Public Transport – Quality Control
Public Transport – Integration
(physical, fare, institutions, timetables)
Ways to achieve increase in PT ridership…
Different session
on this later

44. Quality checks and evaluation
• Service kilometer operated/vehicle owned
• Passenger carried/vehicle owned
• Passenger carried /staff member
• Staff/vehicle owned
• Per cent of vehicle fleet operating in peak
hours
• Revenue/vehicle owned
• Revenue/vehicle kilometer
• Kilometers operated between breakdowns
• Kilometers/fuel consumed
• Cost/vehicle km
• Fare collection leakage
• Employees’ absenteeism
• Number of accidents per 105 kilometers
None of these reflect service quality as
users would perceive it!

45. Measuring Quality of Service Standards
(QoS) for Buses in Singapore
• 11 mandatory standards covering 6 key aspects
• Customer driven
• Regular audits (every 6 months)
• Penalty for non-compliance
Reliability
Loading
Safety
• Trip Adherence
• Headway
Adherence
•Peak Loading
• Accident Rate
•Bus Breakdown
Availability
- Spatial (USO)
Integration
Information
Service integration
bet bus & train
•Service Coverage
•Direct Connectivity
Pre-trip info,
in-trip info &
timetables
Availability
- Temporal
•Max Headway
•Hours of Ops

46. 4 steps regarding policy framework for public transport:
1. Clearly define the role of the national
government in urban transport:
- providing policy directions
- rewarding good practices financially
- adopting performance benchmarking/measurement
- guiding municipal financial reform
2. Develop accountability procedures and promote
public participation
3. Strengthen institutional and technical capacity for
strategic planning and monitoring
4. Integrate urban transport planning and operation
for the entire metropolitan area
Policy Framework

47. E.g. Singapore- Translating policy to targets
Land Transport
Master plan
“Making public transporta
choice mode”
‘’Managing road usage” “Meeting the diverse
needs of people”
- 85% of commuters to
complete their door-to-door
journeys within 60 minutes
during morning peak by
improved transfers and
priority
- Double rail transit network
to 278 km by 2020
- Increase bus speeds to 20-
25km/hr from 16-19km/hr by
allotting all-day bus priority
- Increase overall public
transport ridership from 63%
to 70% by 2020
- Designed to limitthe
number of cars that use
the roadway system by
engaging in electronic road
pricing,
- Allowing marketforces to
set parking policies,and
- Strictly limiting the
number of vehicle
registration issued
- Engaging the community,
enhancing accessibility by
providing barrier-free facilities
and keeping fares as low as
possible,making transfer
stations into “lifestyle hubs,”
and promoting the use of
bicycles and other clean
vehicles
Policy/Base
document
Objectives
Targets

48. • Make PT affordable, convenient, comfortable and safe
• Regular quality checks increases reliability of PT and hence
contribute towards increasing patronage
• Segregate Bus-only lanes and links
• Intermodal Integration
• Restraint on private cars
• Parking controls in central areas
• Traffic Management
• Sound institutional setup to plan and manage
Way Forward…..
A package of actions is needed for the success of PT

49. Recent publications

50. English Spanish Portuguese
Bahasa Indonesia (December 2010), Mandarin (partially available last year)
Bus Rapid Transit Planning Guide
Development underway on the 4th
Edition of the BRT Planning Guide
Freely distributed world-wide in
both electronic and bound
versions in multiple languages:
q Chinese
q English
q French
q Indonesian
q Korean
q Portuguese
q Spanish
q Russian

51. Training course manuals
• Bus Rapid Transit
• Public Awareness and Behavioural
Change
• Non-motorised Transport
• Cycling-inclusive Policy
Development: A Handbook
• Travel Demand Management
• Mass Transport Options
• Bus Regulation and Planning
• Financing Urban Transport

52. Thank you.
www.sutp.org
sutp@sutp.org,
www.sutp.cn
transport@gtz.de