BRT LOST IN TRANSLATION

Jakarta and Seoul Closed vs Open BRT

Direct Service Vs. Trunk (w/out Feeder) Seoul System Jakarta System

Basic System Differences Seoul Jakarta 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

Speed and capacity on both systems is not yet best practice Seoul Jakarta Bogota 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 35,000 pphpd maximum No buses operate in mixed traffic lanes Bus capacity 150 High floor, doors on median side Buses all articulated 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 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 Seoul BRT Hybrid operations - Very convenient routing structure

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 Bus queuing problem

Passengers don’t know where bus will stop, so they run along the platform. No designated bus bays

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 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 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 Transmilenio LOST 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 door Higher demand exists on the corridor so other buses ply in mixed traffic

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. Kalideras Pulogadung

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 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 Bogota had “Open’ busway before Transmilenio. Very slow speeds of 12km/hr Bad quality of service Unsafe conditions

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

What to do about Indian Cities with Narrow Streets:

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

AHMEDABAD Maninagar loop design LAL DARWAJA AMTS BUS TERMINAL KALUPUR RAILWAY STATION GEETA MANDIR ST BUS TERMINAL BRTS CORRIDOR PHASE 1A KANKARIA LAKE MANINAGAR RAILWAY STATION PROPOSED BRIDGE BRTS CORRIDOR PHASE 1A AHMEDABAD Maninagar loop design

MANINAGAR STATION ROAD SECTION BHAIRAVNATH ROAD SECTION 24 MTS. ROW KANKARIA LAKE MANINAGAR RAILWAY STATION BHAIRAVNATH ROAD SECTION 30 MTS. ROW MANINAGAR LOOP PROPOSAL

MAJOR JUNCTIONS 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 throughput Additional space for pedestrians to cross at intersection (utilizing staggered stop line for other motorized traffic)

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 critical SO 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 capacity

via U-Turn on Perpendicular street RIGHT TURNING via U-Turn on Perpendicular street PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY CROSSING PROPOSED MOVEMENTS ON THE JUNCTION BUS STAND AND SUPPORTING AMENITIES 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

DESIGN PROPOSAL NEHRUNAGAR TO SHIVARANJANI THE EXISTING PARK (RETAINED) BRT LANES 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 RETAINING THE EXISTING PARK AND REDESIGNING THE REMAINING AVAILABLE ROW (48KMS)

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 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 BRT Intersection treatment