Urban Mobility Designing focusing on potential of buses · Urban Mobility Designing focusing on...
Transcript of Urban Mobility Designing focusing on potential of buses · Urban Mobility Designing focusing on...
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 [email protected]
• 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