Slides

Transcription

Slides

Each Transport Mode,
Each Potential
Den Danske Banekonference 2016
Jonas Lohmann Elkjær Andersen
Technical University of Denmark
Urban Transport Modality
• Urban transport is the focal point
• Uniform characteristics and demands, different systems in play,
comparisons are meaningful
• Different mode of public transport (systems) to and within a city
– Long distance train, regional train, high-speed train, long distance bus etc.
• Not regarded as urban transport (not supplying urban transport service)
– Commuter trains, regional busses
– Metro, Light rail/tram, city busses, BRT…
Photo credit: Eventbillet.dk
2
Each Transport Mode, Each Potential
17.05.2016
Commuter trains
S-bahn, Berlin
CBD
S-train, Copenhagen
Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons
Characteristic: Closed
allignment – At grade
Usage: Transport from
satellite cities and
surburbs to CBD
3
17.05.2016
Photo credit: Colourbox
Metro
London Underground
CBD
Copenhagen Metro
Photo credit: PA Wire
Characteristic: Closed
allignment - Underground
Usage: Internal transport
in build up areas
4
Photo credit: Polfoto. Miriam Dalsgaard
17.05.2016
Light Rail Transit (LRT)/Tram
Aarhus Light Rail
CBD
Tram, Paris
Photo credit: letbanen.dk
Characteristic: Semiclosed alignment – Street
bound
Usage: Internal transport
in build up areas
5
17.05.2016
Photo credit: Jonas Andersen
Bus
A-bus, Copenhagen
CBD
Malmöexpressen
Regular city bus
Busses with high level of
service (BHLS) or Bus
Rapid Transit (BRT)
Photo credit: helsingborg.se
Characteristic: Open to
semi closed runway –
Street bound
Usage: i.a. Internal
transport in build up areas
6
17.05.2016
Photo credit: Wikipedia
Preconditions
• For further investigations
• Internal transport in build up areas (urban service)
– Metro
– Light Rail (LRT)
– Bus (regular city bus and BRT)
• Generalisations are made – Rules have exceptions
CBD
• The foundation of examples in this presentation is Copenhagen
– Parallels to scandinavian and european cities
7
17.05.2016
How to compare urban transport modes
• Investigate system performance and impact on the surroundings
• Important KPIs (quantitative and qualitative) and derived impacts that
have dominant system dependencies:
KPIs
Derrived
impacts
Cost
•Travel time
•Service/Capacity
•Accessibility
•Flexibility
•Attractiveness
•Urban development
•Urban space transformation
•Operational cost (operation & maintenance –
lifespan of vehicles)
•Capital cost: Construction cost and purchase of
rolling stocks
• KPIs and derrived impacts vs. Cost => value for money
8
17.05.2016
Travel time – components
Traffic priorities
– Right of way
• Segregation
• Signal priorities
Stop spacing
– Distance between stop
Rolling stock
– Max speed
– Acceleration/decelaration
Dwell at stop
– Passenger exchange
Bus travel time in central Copenhagen 2002:
20%
Free flow
driving
5%
Dwelling at
stops
15%
40%
20%
(HUR, 2002)
9
Congestion
driving
Signals
Exit from
stops
17.05.2016
Travel time – impact on passengers
• Case project - OTM model
(Andersen&Landex, 2012)
Regular bus config.
Fully prioritised
Rapid Transit config.
10
17.05.2016
Travel time – impact on operating cost
(Nielsen&Lange, 2015)
11
17.05.2016
Travel time – system dependencies
Metro
Traffic priorities: Full
Avg. travel speed: around 35 km/h
Stop spacing: 900 m
Copenhagen Metro: 34 km/h
Max speed: 80 km/h
Dwell time: Good
LRT
Traffic priorities: Mostly full to full
Avg. travel speed: around 20-30 km/h
Stop spacing: 400-900m
Odense (planned): 20 km/h
Max speed: 70 km/h
Ring 3 (planned): 30 km/h
Dwell time: Good
Bus
Traffic priorities: Zero to full
Avg. travel speed: 10-25 km/h
Stop spacing: down to 400 meters
Bus 8A: down to 12 km/h
Max speed: 50-80 km/h
Dwell time: Bad to semi good
12
Den kvikke vej: 20 km/h
17.05.2016
Service/Capacity
Service: Number of departures (frequency or headway)
Capacity: Vehicle capacity, System capacity
Service/capacity should be balanced with the number of passengers
(supply/demand)
(Andersen&Landex, 2012)
13
17.05.2016
Service/capacity – system dependencies
Vehicle capacity:
Metro
Vehicle capacity: High, up to 1200 pass./veh.
Copenhagen Metro (39m): approx. 300 pass./veh.
(96 seats)
LRT
Vehicle capacity: Semi-high, up to 500 pass./veh.
Aarhus: Stadler VarioBahn (32m): 224 pass./veh.
Stadler Tango (40m): 266 pass./veh.
Bus
Vehicle capacity: Low-medium, up to 150 pass./veh.
Regular bus (12m): approx. 75 pass./veh.
Articulated bus (~18m): approx. 120 pass./veh.
Double articulated bus (~24m) : approx. 150 pass/veh.
14
17.05.2016
Service/capacity – vehicle capacity
350
300
Pass./vehicle
250
200
150
100
50
0
Regular bus
15
Articulated bus
Double articulated
bus
LRT
Metro
17.05.2016
Service/capacity – system capacity
Regular bus
Articulated bus
Double articulated bus
LRT
Metro
10000
9000
Pass./hour/direction
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
10
7,5
5
2
Minutes between departures
16
17.05.2016
Accessibility – to platforms
Copenhagen, Denmark
Sidney, Australia
Photo credit: Stig Nygaard, Wikipedia
Underground => stairways
17
Photo credit: Jonas Andersen
Surface based => no stairways
17.05.2016
Accessibility – impact on travel time
• Underground vs. surface based
0
1000
2000
3000
Distance [Meters]
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
0
2
Travel time [Minutes]
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Average speed:
18
LRT [20km/h-30km/h]
Metro [35km/h]
(Andersen, 2011)
17.05.2016
Accessibility – system dependencies
Metro
Access to vehicles: Good, many doors, little gap and no step
Access to platforms: Poor, stairways must be scaled
LRT
Access to vehicles: Good, many doors, little gap and no step
Access to platforms: Good, in streets
Bus
Access to vehicles: Poor - semi good (depending on number of doors and
exit/entrance points), gaps and steps can occur
Access to stop: Good, in streets
19
17.05.2016
Flexibility
• How transport systems adapt to sudden physical
disruptions – external factors
– Vehicles, people, accidents, demonstrations
etc.
Metro
Inflexible: obstacles on the tracks will shut down
operation
However, metro run in closed systems
LRT
Inflexible: obstacles on the tracks will shut down
operation
Not closed systems
Bus
Flexible: obstacles on runway will be bypassed and routes
can quickly be rearranged
20
17.05.2016
Flexibility
• How transport systems adapt to sudden disruptions
Toronto, Canada
Photo credit: unknown
21
17.05.2016
Attractiveness
• Attractiveness of at transport system is subjective
– Depends i.a. on KPIs
– Psychological aspect (Rail factor?)
• Comfort is a dominant parameter
(Scherer, 2010)
22
17.05.2016
Attractiveness – comfort
1. Vehicle comfort:
– Interior, seat, cushions etc.
– Indepent of transport type
2. Drive comfort
Acceleration/braking
– To/from stops/stations but also if
disruptions occur
Vibrations and bumps
– Depends on running surface: tracks or
asphalt or concrete
Drive comfort espcially becomes an issue
when seating capacity is surpassed –
standees feel the full effect
(Philip Ytournel, Politiken 2016)
23
17.05.2016
Attractivenes/comfort – vibrations
(Ingvardson&Jensen, 2012)
24
17.05.2016
Attractiveness – drive comfort
System dependencies
Metro
Acceleration/braking: steady, standard for comfort (1.0-1.4 m/s*s)
Acc./dec. exceptions: no sudden disruption, only to/from stations
Vibrations and bumps: rail bound => little
LRT
Acceleration/braking: quite steady, standard for comfort
Acc./dec. exceptions, sudden disruptions can occur => unexpected braking
Vibrations and bumps: rail bound => little
Bus
Accelerations/braking: unsteady (driver dependent)
Acc./dec. exceptions: sudden disruptions occur => unexpected braking
Vibrations and bumps: depends on surface; but can be a lot
25
17.05.2016
Urban development
• Transit-oriented development (TOD) and urban development driven by
public transport
Arlington, Virginia
Photo credit: Thesmothete
26
17.05.2016
27
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
-5%
-10%
• Most important drivers for urban development:
– Service upgrade (travel time reduction)
– Fixed and remaining infrastructure
17.05.2016
MARTA (Atlanta, USA)
Metra (Chicago, USA)
Toronto Rapid Transit (Toronto)
Midway line (Chicago, USA)
PATCO (Philadelphia, USA)
Seoul Subway (Seoul)
MBTA (Boston, USA)
Helsinki metro (Helsinki)
Belfast suburban rail (Belfast)
Lindenwold line (Philadelphia,…
SEPTA (Philadelphia, USA)
Copenhagen Metro
Tyne and Wear Metro…
BART (San Francisco, USA)
Guangzhou Metro (Guangzhou)
Crossrail (London, UK)
Jubilee Line Extension (London,…
Caltrain (San Francisco, USA)
Miami metrorail (Miami, USA)
Metrolink suburban rail…
Coaster (San Diego, USA)
Metrolink (St. Louis, USA)
Metro Light Rail (Phoenix, USA)
DART (Dallas, USA)
San Diego Trolley (San Diego,…
Eastside MAX (Portland, USA)
Bybanen (LRT, Bergen)
Buffalo Metro Rail (Buffalo, USA)
Docklands (London, UK)
Tramlink (Croydon, UK)
Sacramento RT Light Rail…
Supertram (Sheffield, UK)
Metrolink light rail (Manchester,…
South-East Busway (Brisbane)
East Busway (Pittsburgh, USA)
TransMilenio (Bogotá)
TEOR (Rouen)
Seoul BRT (Seoul)
Guangzhou BRT (Guangzhou)
BRT Line 1 (Beijing)
Urban development – property values
(Ingvardson, 2016)
Urban development – system dependencies
Metro
Urban development:
– Large impact (observed in Ørestad, Flintholm and Amager Strand)
Increase in property value
– 5-10% in the vicinity of stations (observed in Copenhagen)
LRT
Urban development:
– Large impact expected (observed in Stockholm and Bergen)
– Approx. same as Metro
Bus
Urban development:
– No impact to medium
– No increse to medium
28
17.05.2016
Urban development - examples
Ørestad
Photo credit: By og Havn
Photo credit: Amagerstrandpark.dk
29
Amager Strand
17.05.2016
Urban space transformation
1. Occupancy of space by the transport system
2. Impact on urban environment: upgrade of urban space and urban
renewal linked to the transport system
– Grass and plants, water, art projects, building renovation, cafes and
squares etc.
(Vejregler – Kollektiv Bustrafik og BRT, 2015)
30
17.05.2016
System dependencies
Cours Jean Jaurès, Grenoble
Metro
No urban space occupancy
Impact on urban environment:
+ None, except around stations
LRT
Occupancy of urban space (in the streets)
Impact urban environment:
÷Power poles and power lines (+ no local emissions)
+ Recreational: Green tracks, planting, renovation, upgrades
+ Shared space and appeace roads (Neutralise ghettoisation)
Bus
Occupancy of urban space (in the streets)
Impact on urban environment:
+ No power poles and power lines
÷ Local emmsions and noise (if diesel driven)
÷ No green track
+ Recreational: Planting
31
Photo credit: enmodegrenoble.com
17.05.2016
Green track (Nantes)
Busways planting (Nantes)
Photo credit: IngolfBLN
32
Photo credit: regionforward.org
17.05.2016
After
Before
Strasbourg
Before
33
Photo credit: publicspace.org
After
17.05.2016
Conclusions - reservations
Difficult to provide unequivocal conclusions => generalisations are
necessary
Only guidelines – system choice must always depend on the specific
corridor – its conditions, demands and its role in the overall network
Photo credit: Junko Kimura
34
17.05.2016
Potential of each transport mode
Metro
High capacity (facilitate high ridership), low travel time within
system, attractive system with good comfort, do not occupy
urban space, urban development generator
=> Applicable in dense urban environment and suitable
for TOD
LRT
Semi-high capacity (facilitate semi-high ridership), attractive
system with good comfort, easy accessible system, occupy
urban space, urban development and urban renewal
generator
=> Applicable in semi-dense urban environment and
suitable for TOD and urban space renewal
CBD
Bus
Low to medium capacity, easy accessible, occupy urban space
(BRT), Flexible
=> Applicable in semi-dense and less dense urban
environment (BRT), All round network gap filler
(regular bus)
35
17.05.2016
Transport modes – ideas
36
17.05.2016
Transport modes – Copenhagen
UDBYGNING AF DEN KOLLEKTIVE
TRAFIK I KØBENHAVN (KØBENHAVNS KOMMUNE, 2011)
37
17.05.2016
Interactions of different systems
System separation based on urban
density is a good guideline, but alone it
is to rigid
– There can also be benefits in
interactions of different transport
modes
– Provide better overall coverage
and ensure feeder traffic
Paris
– New tram in the arrondissements
where Metro also operate
Nantes
– Focus on both LRT and BRT
Berlin
– Mix of S-bahn, Metro, trams and
bus
And so on…
38
17.05.2016
Copenhagen – mixed network?
(Trængselskommisonen, 2013)
39
17.05.2016
(DTU Transport 2014)
The future…
• Autonomous cars - what will happen?
Photo credit: futurehumanevolution.com
40
17.05.2016
Thank you for your
attention!
Jonas Lohmann Elkjær Andersen
[email protected]

Slides

Transcription

Similar documents

I`m helping to end MS by participating in the 2016 Jayman BUILT MS

The Board of Directors of Qatar Fuel (WOQOD) is pleased to invite

5 `S` Training Program at ABV-IIITM, Gwalior on 21.07.2016

4 star ALOE HOTEL, PAPHOS

2016 MW Alliance Raffle - Manitowish Waters Alliance LTD

HERE - Perfect Shots Photography

2016 Sponsorship Prospectus

Annonce S1

CREATEng

BAND-tastic! Georgia 2016 Flyer_Layout 1

Ikano Bank - Danske Analyse