SESSION 3A - ‘Talking Transit 3’ - Planning and Design of Feeder Services and Short Routes

1. Feeder services in BRTS -
New concepts
Abhijit Lokre, Associate Professor, Centre of Excellence in
Urban Transport, CEPT University

2. FEEDER SERVICES IN BRTS
NEW CONCEPTS
APRIL 16, 2013
Abhijit Lokre
Associate Professor
Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport
CEPT University
Kasturbhai Lalbhai Campus, Amdavad -

3. Connecting People to Cities -
Reimagining the Master Plan
Rejeet Mathews, Program Manager- Urban Development and
Accessibility, EMBARQ India

4. History of BRTS
 Latin America is the pioneer in BRTS. Curitiba
opened world’s 1st BRTS in 1974.
 Looking at its success, BRTS spread across
InLatin America of the earlier efforts
India, many
involved experimentation with other
 Indonesia and China introduced concept of
modelsinand met with varying degrees
BRTS their cities in early 2000.
 By 2003 Delhi (India) got into process of
ofadopting BRTS to Indian cities.
success.
 BRTS planning was followed by Ahmedabad
(2005), Pune and Indore (2006).
 Other cities in India followed suit after
declaration of JnNURM in 2006.
Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport, CEPT University, Amdavad

5. Status of BRT cities in India
Scale of BRTS
 City scale varies from
New Delhi 1million to 18million
Lucknow population
Jaipur Guwahati  City size varies from 75sqkm
Ahmedabad to 1500sqkm urban area
Rajkot Bhopal  Trip lengths varies from
Vadodara Indore Kolkata 4.0km to 12.0km
Surat Naya Raipur
Legend:
Pimpri Chinchwad Operational (4)
Pune Under Implementation / DPR Approved (9)
Visakhapattanam
DPR/DFR under preparation (6)
Vijaywada
Hubli Dharwad Million plus cities in India (32)
Bangalore
Chennai
Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport, CEPT University, Amdavad

6. 1884
How have our cities developed?
 Physical structure
 Central core developed as destination hub
 Radial routes originate from this centre 1910
1930
1951
Railway Station
Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport, CEPT University, Amdavad

7. How have our cities developed?
 Physical structure
NH-24
Aliganj
Munshipuliya
Indira nagar
SH-25 Imambara Polytechnic
Hardoi Road NH-28
Faizabad Road
Dubbaga Chinhat
Transit Demand Model
Chowk Lucknow, India
Gomti nagar
Rajajipuram
Hazratganj
 Typically, RoW is less where
demand is highest!
Bus- Charbagh
Terminus Railway Stn
Cantonment
VIP road/ Canal LEGEND Existing
Alambagh RoW
< 15m
Telibagh
18m
24m
30m
Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport, CEPT University, Amdavad
40m

8. How have our cities developed?
 Transit structure
 City centre is still major destination to city.
 Cities have dispersed landuse leading to multiple
origin destinations with smaller trip lengths. No single
corridor would have high demand
Ahmedabad – Transit Demand Productions Ahmedabad – Transit Demand Attractions
Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport, CEPT University, Amdavad

9. OUR CITIES ARE UNIQUE
&
REQUIRE
UNIQUE SOLUTION

10. BRTS IS A CONCEPT NOT
A TECHNOLOGY
WE NEED TO ADD MORE
LAYERS TO BRTS CONCEPT

11. Types of BRTS
Sr. No. Level of BRT Characteristics
1 Full BRT Metro –quality service
Integrated network of routes and corridors High level
BRT
Closed, high-quality stations
Off-board fare collection/ verification
Frequent and rapid service
Modern, clean vehicles
Marketing identity
Superior customer service
2 BRT Segregated bus-way
Typically pre-board fare payment/ verification
Higher quality stations
Clean vehicle technology
Marketing identity
3 BRT Lite Some form of bus priority but not full segregated
bus-ways
Improved travel times
Higher shelters
Clean vehicle technology
Marketing identity
4 Basic Busway Segregated bus-way/ single corridor services
On-board fare collection Low level
BRT
Basic bus shelters
Standard bus vehicles
Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport, CEPT University, Amdavad

12. Characteristics of full BRTS
 Closed system – trunk and feeder services
 Central bus lanes
 Median bus stops
 Off-board fare collection
 At-level boarding alighting
 Distance based fare – smart cards
 Integrated ticketing system – Trunk, feeder
 Automatic vehicle tracking system
Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport, CEPT University, Amdavad

13. Scaling UP BRTS
 Objectives
 Providing service level comparing to
Metrorail.
 High speed public transit system
 High Capacity System
Increasing PPHPD
??
Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport, CEPT University, Amdavad

14. Scaling UP BRTS
 Increasing capacity of BRTS through design
interventions
 Segregated lanes with Passing Lanes
 High Frequency
 Avoid Intersections to reduce delays
 Rolling stock of Articulated and Bi-Articulated buses
 High quality BRT station
 Capacity managed upto 30000-45000 pphpd
Articulated Bus (UK) Articulated Bus (Bogota, Colombia)
Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport, CEPT University, Amdavad

15. SCALING DOWN BRTS
DESIGN INFRASTRUCTURE PARAMETERS
A CONCEPT REQUIRED
FOR INDIAN CITIES

16. Scaling DOWN BRTS
 To percolate services to all level of cities.
 To provide affordable solution to public transit
 To reach all sections of society.
 To respond to local challenges of organic city
development.
 To adjust to constraints of RoW.
 To bring to acceptance of local people
Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport, CEPT University, Amdavad

17. Requirement to Indian cities
 Demand required 1000 pphpd to 5000 pphph (Only Hubli-
Dharwad requires design capacity upto 12000 pphpd)
 RoW constraints to city centre. Design for standard bus
with two-way BRT requires 27m RoW while Indian cities
have average RoW of 18-14m in city centre
 Junctions required every 500m-750m within city limits.
 Standard Buses / Mini Buses to suffice requirement.
 Traffic Management (One-way / Two-way)
Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport, CEPT University, Amdavad

18. Capacity of System
Relative to bus type (for 1+1 lane with
Jn)
Bus Type Length Width Typical
capacity*
Peak hour peak direction passengers carried
for headways (minutes)
(seating + 1 2 3 5 10
standee)
Mini buses 6m-8m 2.2m 13-30 2100 1050 700 420 210
Standard buses 10-12m 2.66m 60-80 4200 2100 1400 840 420
Articulated buses** 16-18m 2.66m 140-170 9300 4650 3100 1860 930
Bi articulated buses 24-m 2.66m 210-270 14400 7200 4800 2880 1440
Bus Type Length Width Typical Headway required (in minutes) for Peak hour
capacity* peak direction passengers carried
(seating + 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
standee)
Mini BRT buses 6m-8m 2.2m 20 1.0min 0.5min - - -
Midi BRT buses 10-12m 2.66m 35 1.5min 1.0min 0.5min 0.5min 0.5min
Standard BRT buses 16-18m 2.66m 70 2.5min 2.0min 1.5min 1.5min 1.0min
Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport, CEPT University, Amdavad

19. One-way BRTS Concept
One-way BRTS
PRO(s):
• Can respond to RoW
constraints upto 18 m
CON(s):
•Limits circulation in one-
direction.
•Can impact services in
case of breakdowns
Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport, CEPT University, Amdavad

20. Elevated BRTS
Elevated BRTS
PRO(s):
• Can respond to RoW
constraints upto 18 m
CON(s):
•Accessibility to BRT
Stations.
•Increased cost of
infrastructure.
•Visually unappealing
Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport, CEPT University, Amdavad

21. BRTS & Pedestrian exclusive
streets
BRTS &
Pedestrian
exclusive streets
PRO(s):
• Safe pedestrian
infrastructure
CON(s):
•Acceptance of people.
•Can be adopted to
stretches with limited
public property access.
Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport, CEPT University, Amdavad

22. MINI-BRTS Concept
0 7200 5500
5.5 m
ane Tram way Mini 6 m Lane
BRT
mini Bus Lane
Mini BRTS
Concept
PRO(s):
• Suits to Indian city centre
and old city area with low
passenger demand
requirement
Inner-city BRTS
27-32
Passenger Capacity ??
Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport, CEPT University, Amdavad

23. Mini BRTS

24. One-way mixed lane with 2-way Mini
BRTS
One-way mixed
lane with 2-way
Mini BRTS
PRO(s):
• Can respond to RoW
constraints upto 18 m
CON(s):
•Limits traffic circulation in
one-direction.
•Preferably suits to
stretches with limited
property access on one
side.
Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport, CEPT University, Amdavad

25. Feeder integration Locations of turn
Turn around concepts arounds
Example: Makarpura – Susan circle
stretch
BRT trunk corridor
BRT feeder corridor
BRT trunk bus route
BRT feeder bus route
Turn around
BRT Trunk Feeder
interchange

26. What about pedestrians?
Percentage Trips by Mode & Trip Lengths
Percentage of Avg. Trip Percentage of
Mode Avg. Trip Lengths
Trips Lengths Trips
Walk 28.07% 2.03 31.17% 1.3
Bicycle 16.72% 3.57 12.71% 3.4
TW 30.16% 5.51 26.28% 7.9
Car 3.96% 7.81 13.29% 11.27
Auto Rickshaw 9.29% 4.41 5.40% 6.34
Bus 9.67% 5.42 10.65% 15.63
Other 1.63% 5.48 0.44% 6.67
Total 100% 100%
• 1/3 of the trips (trip length exceeding 1 km) is bicycle or walk
trips, in AMC.
• Walk trips are short with a length of 2 kms.
• Average Trip length for Bicycle are about 3 kms.
• Average bicycle trip length for work trips is 4.0kms and
• Average bicycle trip length for education trips is 3.6kms.

27. How do people access BRTS? Sample Size: 472
66% people Walk to/from BRT as their Access / Egress mode
Current BRT Users: Access Mode Avg 54.4
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Walk AMTS GSRTC Shared rickshaw Rickshaw Cycle 2-wheeler 4-wheeler With someone Rail
Current BRT Users: Egress Mode Avg 56.7
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Walk AMTS GSRTC Shared rickshaw Rickshaw Cycle 2-wheeler 4-wheeler Pick-up Rail

28. Creating local area access plan…
Schools Colleges
Overlapping Layers
Hospitals Recreational places
Identifying Clusters
Connecting clusters to nearest BRT road (1.25 kms)
Connecting ammenities (1 km)
Creating Loops
Identifying missing Links between
singular loops and Clusters
Completing Pedestrian networks
Identifying Special Cases
Manmade constraints – like railway and bridges
Community spaces to be developed

29. Mapping local destinations

30. Creating feeder pedestrian network
Overlapping Layers
Identifying Clusters
Connecting clusters to nearest
BRT
Connecting amenities
Creating Loops
Sola
cross
road Identifying missing Links
between singular loops and
Clusters
Completing Pedestrian
IIM networks
BRT College
BRT stop Hospital
School Recreational

31. THANKYOU