Planning Stage IV: Operations

With the identification of travel demand characteristics (Planning Stage II) and inputs from interested groups and individuals (Planning Stage III), it is now possible to prepare a conceptual framework for the operational aspects of the new transit system. By knowing where key origins and destinations are located, the planning team can identify the most appropriate initial corridors. Further, the team can also consider the various type of routing and service options that are possible, such as feeder, express, and local services. Decisions are also possible on the level of customer service quality that will be provided within the system. Attributes such as service frequency, hours of operation, comfort levels, cleanliness, security, and safety will all eventually affect overall ridership levels.

The topics discussed in Planning Stage IV, Operations, are:

3.4.1 Corridor identification

3.4.1.1 Basis for corridor selection

The choice of corridor location will not only impact the usability of the BRT system for large segments of the population but will also have profound impacts on the future development of the city. The starting point for corridor decisions is the demand profiles generated during the modelling process, which will help identify the daily commuting patterns in both spatial and temporal terms. Clearly a key consideration is to minimise travel distances and travel times for the largest segment of the population. This objective will typically result in corridor siting near major destinations such as work places, universities and schools, and shopping areas. The demand profiles generated in Planning Stage II (“Section 3.2 Analysis”) of this document provides the basis for determining likely corridors.

Thus, the areas serving the highest customer demand may be selected as the initial system corridors. However, in some instances, lower demand corridors may be selected if the degree of complexity in the high-demand corridors creates implementation difficulties. System developers may first choose to address a less complex corridor in order to first gain experience. If a lower demand corridor is

3.4.1 Corridor identification 3.4.2 Feeder services 3.4.3 Service options 3.4.4 Passenger capacity

3.4.5 System management and control 3.4.6 Customer service plan

selected, though, it must still possess a sufficient quantity of useful origins and destinations so that the initial system will be financially viable.

Access for special groups, particularly disadvantaged communities, may also be a determining factor. Some systems prefer to develop initial lines around low-income areas so as to demonstrate that BRT has strong developmental linkages. Bogotá, for instance, focused its initial corridor in the lower-income south of the city. The initial corridors, though, will typically include key employment destinations such as central business districts. While road space in such areas may be more limited, the concentration of employment and services in central areas makes it imperative to provide direct access. A system will only be financially viable if the destinations served meet the public’s principal mobility requirements.

3.4.1.2 Roadway options

Trunk corridors are typically selected to operate upon major arterial roads. These roads often offer several advantages:

? Population densities are often higher near major arterials;

? Wider road space to accommodate both dedicated busways and mixed traffic lanes;

? Clear and logical connections with other major arterials in order to form an integrated network; and,

? A concentration of major destinations such as businesses and shopping areas.

The wider space available on such roadways permit lower construction costs, as less re -engineering of the road structure is typically necessary. The choice of arterial roads may also provoke less concern about noise and traffic impacts since these roadways already have a significant presence of motorised vehicles.

However, major arterials are not the only option to consider as trunk corridors. In some instances, another viable alternative is the selection of secondary streets that are parallel to and near a major arterial. The necessity of using a secondary road may occur for several reasons. First, existing traffic levels on major arterials may be such that political officials are uncomfortable with expropriating space from private vehicles. Second, major arterials may not provide easy or safe access for pedestrians to reach the BRT stations.

Secondary roads often hold the advantage that they are more “traffic calmed” for effective busway conversion. In some cases, a secondary road may be entirely converted to BRT use, and thus prohibit access to private vehicles. The feasibility of such an approach depends upon existing use patterns in the area. If the area is largely commercial, then the busway may co-exist quite well, especially since it will provide a concentration of customers for the businesses. However, if the area is largely residential, then there may be conflicts with individuals seeking private vehicle access to their properties. Such conflicts can sometimes be resolved with the establishment of access hours during non-peak periods, but this approach is not always possible. A remaining solution is to legally expropriate such properties for

public purchase, but such purchases can be quite costly as well as sometimes politically disruptive.

In general, though, secondary roads are considered more commonly as feeder routes. Since extensive residential sites are located along secondary roads, providing services to these areas becomes essential to operating a viable system. 3.4.2 Feeder services

3.4.2.1 Trunk-feeder services versus direct services

Providing a transit service to all major residential and commercial sectors of a city can be challenging from a standpoint of system efficiency and cost effectiveness. The densest portions of the city necessitate high-volume vehicles to achieve the required capacity while lower-density residential areas may be most effectively served with smaller vehicles. However, at the same time, customers generally prefer not to transfer between vehicles when given the choice. The question for BRT system planners is how to balance these varying needs and preferences. Smaller residential areas do not have to be sacrificed from the system. A well- designed system can accommodate a range of population densities in order to achieve a true “city-wide” service.

In general, there are two service options for addressing the presence of both high- density and lower-density areas within a city. These options are:

1. Trunk-feeder services; and, 2. Direct services.

Trunk-feeder services utilise smaller vehicles in lower-density areas and then necessitate passengers to transfer to higher-capacity vehicles at terminals. A trunk- feeder service thus operates relatively efficiently by closely matching vehicle operating characteristics to the actual demand. However, such services do imply that some passengers will need to transfer vehicles in order to reach their destination. The process of transferring can be seen as an undesirable burden for some passengers.

Direct services avoid the need for customers to transfer since the same vehicle serves both the feeder area and the trunk-line corridor. However, direct services incur a substantial cost penalty for operating vehicles that do not closely match the actual demand. Thus, direct services may imply that a large vehicle must enter into lower-density areas where relatively few passengers will be in the bus. Alternatively, direct services may imply that small vehicles operate efficiently in feeder areas but are undersized for the economics of trunk corridors. Direct services may still necessitate a transfer if the passenger’s destination is a different corridor than the closest trunk corridor. Figure 53 provides a graphical comparison of trunk-feeder services and direct services.

Figure 53 Illustrative comparison between trunk-feeder services and direct services

Direct services