1. BRT LOST IN TRANSLATION

2. Jakarta and Seoul Closed vs Open BRT

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

4. 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

5. 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

6. Seoul configuration
Jakarta configuration

7. 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

8. 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

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

10. Open bus platforms do not regulate where buses stop Confusion at the stations Narrow overtaking lane obstructs oncoming buses and mixed traffic lanes

11. Stations are Mid-Block or offset from intersection Maximum width needed at stations does not compromised mixed traffic intersection capacity

12. Standard on-board payment system Boarding with steps leads to 2 second boarding times/passenger.

13. 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.

14. Information at bus stations Clearly shows bus routes with stations and overall network

15. 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.

16. Trans - Jakarta A Transmilenio LOST IN TRANSLATION !

17. 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

18. Huge queues at stations Slow Boarding due to small stations and small doors increased dwell time and caused huge queues

19. 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

20. 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

21. No feeder buses reduced demand Yet, the system was initially overcrowded at Terminals Blok M Terminal Below was reconstructed (tripled in size)

22. 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

23. New Terminal Stations are Much Larger

24. Inside the bus, passengers crowd around the single door

25. Size and number of doors and ease of access (stepless) is more important than bus size Bogota has 4 x 1.1 meter doors

26. Access is mostly through elevated pedestrian crossing: safe but inconvenient for pedestrians. They are used because no other way to get into station.

27. 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

28. 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.

29. 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

30. 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

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

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

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

34. What to do about Indian Cities with Narrow Streets:

35. 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

36. 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

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

39. 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)

40. 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)

41. 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

42. 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

43. Present movements in 4 phase signal

44. Road capacity

45. 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

46. 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)

47. DESIGN PROPOSAL NEHRUNAGAR TO SHIVARANJANI

48. 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.

49. BRT only underpass is a possible solution
Quito

50. 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.

51. BRT INTERFACE WITH FLYOVERS
Split flyover removes the weaving problem

52. 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…

53. 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

54. Kunming BRT Intersection treatment