Urban Mobility Designing focusing on potential of buses

Transcription

1 Urban Mobility Designing focusing on potential of buses Fumihiko Nakamura Professor of Urban Transportation Planning Executive Director, Vice President Yokohama National University 1

2 Fumihiko Nakamura, Dr.Eng 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 , Assistant Professor, Asian Institute of Technology, Thailand , Associate Professor, Yokohama National University (YNU), Japan 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 , 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

3 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

4 1.Basic Concept of Smart City Mobility 4

5 Problem and Goal Identification Excessive Car Dependence 1.Congestion 2.Accidents 3.Environmental Damage 4.Social Exclusion GOAL : Sustainable Growth SUSTAINABLE = ENVIRONMENT + ECONOMY + SOCIETY Sustainable Mobility = Less dependence on car traffic =anyone can enjoy life without cars 5

6 SUSTAINABLE URBAN MOBILITY STRATEGY FRAMEWORK (GENERAL) TARGET FOR CONTROL GOAL FOR SUSTAINABLE MOBILITY LESS DEPENDENCE ON CAR TRAFFIC CAR OWNERSHIP CAR USAGE CAR PARKING STRATEGY FRAMEWORK SUPPLY SIDE MEASURES + DEMAND SIDE MEASURES 6

7 Several Conceptual Keywords Smart Environmentally Friendly Less Car Dependence Economic Efficiency Social Inclusion Considered Less Car Usage (WISE USE of CAR) Sustainability creativity ICT-aided QUALITY OF CITY LIFE RECONSIDERATION OF Travel time Travel Frequency Travel Distance Travel Mode (MODAL SHIFT) 7 Multi-modal + Inter-modal

8 8 Example of Vision Making 1 Diagnosis Role Image of Each Mode Demonstration Projects Existing Plans Smart and Multimodal Local Transport Vision Showcase Town Concept of Smart Intelligent + Sustainable Multi-modality Variety of mode No need for cars Sharing systems Conventional Modes Walking Bicycle (cars) Bus Multi-Modal-Mobility Stations (Concerge) Multi-modal Vison NEW MODES Small Mobility System sharing Bike Sharing Car Sharing Demand Responsive Transport (DRT)

9 Example of Vision Making 2 Gateway to the city Inter District Smart and Multi-modal Local Transport Vision Local Transport Demonstration Projects Re-arrangement of Buses Management Car Parking Bicycle Parking Road Space Re-distribution Bicycle Right-of-Way Main Bus Routes DRT Local routes Bus Terminal Pedestrian Right-of-Way 9

10 Segmented Users Demand Institutional scope Project Stakeholders Planners, Managers, Controllers and Supply Operators Information Provision Multi- Modes IC Technology Finance Connected Mobility Design Strategy Land Use Management Building Control Sustainability Social Inclusion 10

11 Framework City and Transport Energy constraint Fiscal constraint Technical constraint Human Resource Sustainable City Environment Society (Equity) Economy (Efficiency) Transportation Passenger Transport Public Transport Main Routes BRT and/or Metro Modal Shift Car Traffic Freight Transport Feeder Bus/Minibus On-Street Parking Control Land Use (Urban Activities) Building Development Control Garage and Parking facility Construction control 11

12 Some Discussion from user s aspect CAR Users captive group choice group P.T. Users captive group They will shift to P.T. if P.T. is improved & car use is controld. They will shift to car use if no car use control is applied Cf. Car Use Control Ownership No need to control Driving By traffic regulations or pricing Parking Volume and fee regulated 12

13 MODAL SHIFT in many growing cities more P.T. service and no car control DEMAND CHANGE CAR P.T. GROWTH GROWTH CAR P.T. SUPPLY LIMITATION IN CBD Roads P.T. service 13

14 MODAL SHIFT with Sustainability more P.T. service and car control DEMAND CHANGE CAR P.T. GROWTH CAR P.T. SUPPLY LIMITATION IN CBD Roads P.T. service 14

15 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 3 Less demand By asking travelers to change behavior 4 By stimulating travelers perception Transportation System Management (USA) Transportation Demand Management (USA) Mobility Management (EU and Japan) Comprehensive Traffic Management (UK) 15

16 Example of TSM Reversible lane Central Business District Congested in the morning Central Business District Morning : Upward Other period: downward Reversible Lane Residential District Less Congested in the morning Residential District 16

17 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 Transportation Park & Ride Ride share (more people in a car Satellite office Compressed working 5 days / week -> 3 days / week Triggered commuting earlier or later timing 17

18 Example of TDM Park & Ride Many commuters shift from alternative 1 to alternative 3 as it is faster and cheaper 1: slow & cheap 2: fast but costly 3: fast & cheap Residential Areas Parking Toll Tunnel (no traffic jam) Rokko mountains CBD of Kobe Osaka bay 18

19 Park & Ride mysteries HOME commuting OFFICE F O R M E R TYPE I TYPE II CAR PUBLIC TRANSPORT recommended Not recommended M O D E TYPE III BUS STATION PUBLIC TRANSPORT Not recommended PARK & RIDE CAR STATION PUBLIC TRANSPORT 19

20 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

21 2. Some example of Mobility Designing 21

22 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

23 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

24 Above and Right : Finch metro sta. with P&R and K&R Below left : secured waiting space at bus terminal Below center: underground pedestrian path network Below right: bus and HOV lanes TORONTO 24

25 Denver (USA) 16st street mall 25

26 Transit First policy related Projects (New Town) Runcorn New Town, UK (1969-) Target population : 100,000 One-center system with 8-shaped exclusive busway network to encourage residents to use buses more 26

27 Busway system concept 27

28 Residential Area Design Concept in Runcorn New Town to achieve the modal share of 50:50 BUS STOP Busway BUS STOP GARAGE Highways P Pedestrian path, road network and bus system were carefully designed so as to have the equivalent travel time in case of both modes. 28

29 Runcorn New Town (UK) 29

30 Parking Management + Suburban SC controlling Typical example of Areawide Parking Management with Park-and-Ride scheme + fringe parking + parking pricing CENTER DISTRICT P2 Suburban SC P5 P1 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 P3 P4 30

31 Freiburg : pedestrian precinct + transport union + environmental ticket + areawide parking management + shopping facility regulation Downtown Fringe Parking along Inner Ring Road Pedestrian Precinct inside the Inner Ring Road with two malls (Public Transport and Pedestrian only street (transit mall)) Courtesy of Freiburg City 31

32 32

33 Dallas, USA 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. 33

34 3.Some cases of Urban Bus Systems 34

35 History of Cities with BRT style buses 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s Latin America Asia Africa North America Europe Australia Curitiba Goiania Porto Alegre Pittsburgh Quito Bogota Sao Paulo Guayaquil Jakarta Nagoya Taipei Seoul Beijing Kunming BANGKOK Lagos Ottawa Adelaide Seattle Paris Orland Miami Rouen Brisbane Dal es salaam Boston Lyon Strasburg Nantes Organized by presenters 35

36 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 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 High level of performance with speed, capacity and presence with ICT. Other cases in 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

37 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

38 BRT elements Fast Safe capacity efficient infrastructure Planning Operation Management Exogenous factors busway Bus station vehicle ICT scheduling Station operation Feeder connect separation Salaries Fleet staff Traffic Car restriction Land use 38

39 BRT (Key Route Bus) in Nagoya in JAPAN No Dynamic Traffic Signal Preemption, No Articulate buses BUT HIGH PERFORMANCE Since

40 Seoul Pedestrian space dramatically increased Bus lanes have enabled the smoothness of other lanes Smart card integration for all buses and metros are used by more than 98% of passengers 16 lanes to 4 lanes in downtown 40

41 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

42 Discussion points from Bogota s experience 1. 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

43 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 44

45 4 5

46 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

47 time Force reshaping Time needed Force 47

48 Million Reals / year Million Reals / year Million Reals / year Calculation Results : Busway maintenance cost for 50 years Scenario1 scenario way materials station Bus size 180, , ,000 1 asphalt 2 asphalt concrete 3 concrete , ,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20, years 80 人 160 人 250 人 Scenario 2 scenario3 180, , , , , , , , ,000 80,000 60,000 40, 人 160 人 250 人 100,000 80,000 60,000 40, 人 160 人 250 人 20,000 20, years years 48

49 CURITIBA N-S & E-W axes SLOW & LIGHT Traffic EASY ACCESS SLOW & LIGHT Traffic 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! Typical BRT with TOD (like Bogota) FAST & HEAVY Traffic LIMITED ACCESS FAST & HEAVY Traffic 49

50 Feeder (local) Bus support programs (Yokohama) no operation subsidy but preparation and citizen participation are supported Next step Next step Citizens Registration proposal Marketing survey Bus use City Demonstration experiment City support Next step Operators Service launch by operator with no subsidies 50

51 4. Issues to be discussed 51

52 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

53 Thank you! 53