[sustran] Re: Jakarta busway twists and turns?

[Walter Hook]

Chris, 

This solution is generally pretty reasonable as you have described it. So
long as there us priority leading up to the bottleneck, it is indeed the
best solution.  We use this solution quite a bit.  We know Volvo well. 

Best
Walter 

-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Cherry [mailto:cherry at utk.edu] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 4:37 PM
To: 'Walter Hook'; 'Jonathan Richmond'
Cc: UTSG at JISCMAIL.AC.UK; 'Sustran List'
Subject: RE: [sustran] Re: Jakarta busway twists and turns?

I didn't work on this project directly, but if I understand it correctly,
one would open up the bus lane at the bottleneck so that the traffic is
always flowing out of the bottleneck at maximum capacity (so a 2 mixed + 1
BRT configuration would have an effective capacity of three lanes). The bus
would still have a huge advantage in heavily congested corridors because it
would effectively jump the longest queues leading up to the bottleneck and
would be inhibited by mixed traffic for only a short section of the busway
(like the queue formed by one cycle length). One could design it so that the
queue never expanded more than one cycle length at a signalized
intersection. Of course this traffic theory and technology leads to many
policy and implementation questions etc and it might be dangerous to concede
any bus right of way, especially in a difficult enforcement environment.
Also, as the bus lane becomes more saturated with buses, the effectiveness
of trying to use excess lane capacity dwindles. One note, Volvo is one of
the leading bus producers in the world and sells a lot of buses in China
under its joint venture Sunwin. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Walter Hook [mailto:whook at itdp.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 4:11 PM
To: 'Jonathan Richmond'; 'Chris Cherry'
Cc: UTSG at JISCMAIL.AC.UK; 'Sustran List'
Subject: RE: [sustran] Re: Jakarta busway twists and turns?

The papers from Berkeley make a few generalizations that are more typical of
conditions in the US than in developing countries. 

Segregated bus lanes will actually increase the speeds and capacity of the
mixed traffic lanes if the current traffic mix includes a large number of
buses with very disorganized stopping behavior.  This situation is typical
on many BRT corridors that ITDP is working on, all in developing countries,
but it is quite rare in the US.  

In conditions, as frequently occurs in the US, where bus frequencies and
passenger volumes are quite low, say below 5000 pphpd, and certainly below
2000pphpd, the advantages of physically segregated lanes drop if this leads
to congestion of mixed traffic, since a mixed traffic lane can move almost
as many people depending on the vehicle mix. 

This is a real issue in the US where the bus frequencies tend to be pretty
low due to low demand except on a few very exceptional corridors.  This
would be the case on Wiltshire Boulevard, for instance, and on a few major
arterials in New York, etc.  Probably a cost benefit analysis of converting
a mixed traffic lane to an exclusive bus lane would only yield a positive
result in higher demand corridors, and so harder to sell in the US.

Of course you can drop bus priority at bottlenecks, but you only need bus
priority at bottlenecks, so what is the point of the bus priority?  On many
brt systems we are planning there are parts of the brt network where we end
the physical segregation for a certain section.  Flyovers are the typical
situation.  However, we continue the segregation up to the bottleneck, so
the bus avoids the cue that sometimes forms to reach the bottleneck.  This
works fine.  But to open the brt up only at traffic bottlenecks sort of
defeats the purpose of the lane segregation otherwise, no?

In the developing world, this low bus frequency is not so typical.  In the
case of TransJakarta the lanes look empty at times in part because the bus
procurement has been held up, in part because demand is not that high yet
because there are very few feeder buses, and in part because the station/bus
interface in Corridor I, with only one door per bus on Corridor I, can't
really handle so many buses per hour.  Once these problems are resolved,
then the bus frequency will be much higher, and there will no longer be
empty lanes.  The justification for removing segregation will be weaker.
That being said, even a bus every 1.5 minutes looks pretty empty except at
the stations.  Stand on the road sometime and count a minute and a half
inside a lane, it seems like a long time. 

There are bus priority systems in Europe where there are bus priorty lanes
only at such bottlenecks, and they are cheaper to build but lack a system
identity. 

Hope this clarifies rather than confuses

Best
Walter 



-----Original Message-----
From: sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org at list.jca.apc.org
[mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org at list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf
Of Jonathan Richmond
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 3:49 AM
To: Chris Cherry
Cc: UTSG at JISCMAIL.AC.UK; Sustran List
Subject: [sustran] Re: Jakarta busway twists and turns?


I am very interested in this - does anyone think that this principle could 
be extended to optimizing the use of BRT rights of way to allow buses to 
enter and leave at various points without causing congestion?


On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, Chris Cherry wrote:

> There has been some research coming out of the transportation engineering
> (Michael Cassidy and Carlos Daganzo) group looking at trying to maximize
the
> use of these "empty" BRT lanes (or any limited access lane for that
matter).
> Essentially, if planned right, one could allow vehicles to enter the
> restricted lane only at bottlenecks in the system and thus vastly increase
> the throughput of cars with minimal disruption to buses. They have been
> looking at this from the context of HOV lanes in the USA, but have
recently
> been trying to apply the theory to busways in China. This would ultimately
> improve the efficiency of the transportation system, reduce congestion and
> potentially allow the drivers to perceive the BRT system in a better
light.
> Of course there are a lot of policy issues around letting cars in some
> strategic areas of the BRT system and convincing them that it is not
> beneficial to let them in the entire system. Here are a couple of paper
out
> of the UC-Berkeley Volvo Center
>
>
http://www.its.berkeley.edu/publications/UCB/2007/VWP/UCB-ITS-VWP-2007-1.pdf
>
http://www.its.berkeley.edu/publications/ucb/2005/vwp/ucb-its-vwp-2005-2.pdf
>
>
> Chris Cherry
> Assistant Professor
> Civil and Environmental Engineering
> University of Tennessee-Knoxville
> 223 Perkins Hall
> Knoxville, TN 37996-2010
> phone: 865-974-7710
> mobile: 865-684-8106
> fax: 865-974-2669
> http://web.utk.edu/~cherry
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 03:13:00 -0700
> From: John Ernst <itdpasia at comcast.net>
> Subject: [sustran] Re: Jakarta busway twists and turns?
> To: <sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org>
> Message-ID: <20071202181335.859F92DB9C at mx-list.jca.ne.jp>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>
>
> If I can pick up this now dated thread on the Jakarta busway (with
> apologies, I was on vacation)...
>
> I agree with the assessment that the Jakarta busway is in serious
> trouble.  It is also true that former Governor Sutiyoso forced the
> busway through.  (I still complement him for it because my guess is
> that going slow would have meant not going at all.)
>
> I believe Jakarta holds the record as the shortest design and build
> time of any full BRT in the world.  (I would welcome hearing of other
> systems that might be contenders.)  Jakarta officially started
> planning in May of 2003. By early 2008 it will have about 200km of
> corridors, or an average of 40km per year from conception to
> operation.  By 'full BRT', I basically mean segregated lanes, raised
> platforms and pre-board fare collection, but we could niggle on mixed
> traffic sections of segregated corridors, etc. (Keep in mind that I
> am definitely talking about quantity here, not quality.)
>
> One of the main consequences of Sutiyoso's rapid implementation is
> that there was little legal work completed.  There is no provision in
> law or regulation for the busway itself, it is actually a
> manipulation of normal bus route licenses.  The appropriation of road
> space for the busway is also a gray area.  My understanding is that
> because the busway does not have clear legal basis, the police
> consider it up to their discretion whether or not they enforce the
> corridors.
>
> This year, one of the new corridors under construction is in a very
> wealthy area.  So, there have been a lot of complaints about losing
> road space for cars.  A lot of this is misunderstanding -- in that
> area the city will widen the road to preserve the same number of
> mixed traffic lanes, although narrower ones.  In the meantime, the
> police have reacted by opening more and more sections of bus lanes to
> mixed traffic.
>
> ITDP is one group working to keep BRT on course in Jakarta.  We have
> this year begun working more with the police (city police in
> Indonesia are not under city government, but under a national police
> agency).  For example, we took a key member of the police to Bogota
> for the transit fair last month.
>
> I agree fully with Carlos Pardo's comments (Nov 23) about the
> difficulty of convincing the public about BRT lanes.  Overall, this
> is an interesting problem in implementing BRT systems: the lanes
> often look empty.  When we see a photo of a BRT, it always has a bus
> or two in the lane, but between buses you see only 2-5 minutes of
> empty lane -- at least in closed systems without overlapping
> routes.  On the other hand, if the mixed traffic lanes are not
> congested, there is no reason to build segregated BRT lanes.
>
> In a city like Jakarta, where for 20 years streets have been
> generally filled curb-to-curb, it is very hard to accept that a lane
> that looks empty could be carrying 10 or 20 times as many passengers
> as the ones that look chock-full.  You can imagine the pressure on
> the police officer on the street.
>
> A lot needs to be done to improve the capacity and performance of the
> Jakarta busway.  Hopefully that will soon include returning to full
> enforcement of all busway corridors.  While several scenarios are
> possible, it's unlikely to fully happen until the 3 corridors now
> under construction start operating at full service.  If history is
> any guide, that could be around next June.
>
> I hope this information is useful.  Sorry to be slow to pitch in.
>
> Best,
> John
>
> At 11:09 PM 11/21/2007, you wrote:
>> Evidence on the ground in Jakarta suggest that there is indeed cause for
>> serious concern over the continued viability of Bus Rapid Transit in
>> Jakarta. The history of excellent measures being scrapped due to problems
> of
>> implementation is crowded enough to give one pause.
>>
>> The whole endeavor was basically forced through on the force of
personality
>> by Governor Sutiyoso loosely based on Transmilenio, Bogota. His gamble
>> seemed a good one at the time: We can endure the hardship of construction
>> and the initial decrease in the flow of traffic confident that in the
>> medium-term, more people will take to the buses, even those with cars,
and
>> overall mobility as quantified and perceived will increase. The problem
is
>> that even Jakartans that one would expect to support the busway are now
>> incensed at the dramatically worsening of conditions. They eagerly await
>> what they perceive as the all but inevitable rolling back of the program
> and
>> a return to the ever expanding asphalt approach to mobility.
>>
>> I am not aware of serious endeavors towards course correction but I will
>> inquire a bit.
>>
>> Robert Cowherd, PhD, Associate Professor of Architecture
>> Wentworth Institute of Technology 550 Huntington Ave. Boston, MA 02115
USA
>> cowherdr at wit.edu; +1 617 989-4453
>>
>>
>> On 11/21/07 8:43 AM, "Walter Hook" <whook at itdp.org> wrote:
>>
>>> John ernst tells me that several of the corridors have been open for
> some
>>> time now during the construction, but that it is temporary.
>>>
>>> w
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org at list.jca.apc.org
>>> [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org at list.jca.apc.org] On
> Behalf
>>> Of Paul Barter
>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 1:49 AM
>>> To: Global 'South' Sustainable Transport
>>> Subject: [sustran] Jakarta busway twists and turns?
>>>
>>> The Jakarta busways appear to be facing some curious decisions according
>>> to this Jakarta Post article below.
>>>
>>> See near the end where it says:
>>> "On Nov. 5 the administration announced motorists would be permitted to
>>> use certain sections of other busway corridors in the city for a month.
>>> The decision was made to ease traffic congestion caused by the ongoing
>>> construction of the three new corridors."
>>>
>>> This means mixed traffic is being allowed into operational busways?
>>> Can anyone fill in the background on what is going on in Jakarta? Should
>>> we be worried about the future of BRT there or is this a minor hiccup?
>>>
>>> Paul
>>> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> John Ernst   -  Senior Program Director
> ITDP - The Institute for Transportation and Development Policy
>    127 W 26th St.  Suite 1002, New York, NY 10001
>    Tel +1 (212) 629-8001   Direct Tel +1 (347) 694-4771  Direct Fax
> +1 (801) 365-5914
>    Skype: john.ernst
>
> Promoting environmentally sustainable and equitable transportation
worldwide
>  Visit http://www.itdp.org
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 12:42:19 -0800
> From: Todd Alexander Litman <litman at vtpi.org>
> Subject: [sustran] Re: Fwd: Event: Getting the climate right for
> 	transport
> To: "Paul Barter" <peebeebarter at gmail.com>,
> 	sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org
> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20071203123020.03a7e830 at mail.islandnet.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed
>
>
> Last week I attended the National Renewable
> Energy Laboratory (NREL) Energy Analysis Forum in
> Golden, Colorado
> (http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/news.html ), where
> leading North American energy analysts shared the
> latest thinking concerning  greenhouse gas
> emission reduction strategies and legislation,
> much of which involves emission cap and trade
> programs
>
(http://www.rff.org/rff/News/Releases/2007Releases/loader.cfm?url=/commonspo
> t/security/getfile.cfm&PageID=31222
> ). Similarly, a recent report by McKinsey,
> "Reducing U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: How Much
> At What Cost"
> (http://www.mckinsey.com/clientservice/ccsi/greenhousegas.asp
> ) estimates the economic costs of achieving emission reduction targets.
>
> Virtually all these analyses are biased against
> mobility management (various strategies that
> increase transport system efficiency by improving
> mobility options, encouraging use of more
> efficient modes, and reducing the need to travel), for the following
> reasons:
>
> * Co-benefits are ignored. Current analysis gives
> virtually no consideration to benefits such as
> reduced traffic congestion, road and parking cost
> savings, consumer savings, reduced traffic risk,
> improved mobility for non-drivers, and improved
> public health, although these benefits are often
> larger in total value than emission reduction
> benefits (see http://www.vtpi.org/tdm and
> www.ap-net.org/docs/16th_seminar/huizenga_caiasia_special.pdf ).
>
> * Current analysis generally ignores the
> additional external costs that result when
> increased vehicle fuel efficiency and subsidized
> alternative fuels stimulates additional vehicle
> travel, called a "rebound effect" (see
> http://www.vtpi.org/cafe.pdf and
> http://www.rff.org/documents/RFF-DP-04-53.pdf ).
>
> * Mobility management emission reductions are
> considered difficult to predict. Although case
> studies and models are available for many of
> these strategies (see for example, case studies
> in http://www.vtpi.org/tdm and the TRIMMS Model
> at http://www.nctr.usf.edu/abstracts/abs77704.htm
> ), such models are not widely available or designed for energy planning.
>
> * Mobility management programs are considered
> difficult to implement. Such programs often
> involve multiple stakeholders, such as regional
> and local governments, employers and developers,
> and various special interest groups. Even PAYD, a
> relatively simple strategy, requires cooperation
> of insurance regulators, insurance companies, and
> various special interest groups. As a result,
> they tend to seem difficult and risky compared
> with other emission reduction strategies that
> only require changes to utility operations, fuel production or vehicle
> designs.
>
> * Analysis often assume that current transport
> patterns are economically optimal and any
> reduction in vehicle travel harms consumers and
> the economy. This ignores various market
> distortions that stimulate motor vehicle travel,
> and the benefits to consumers and the economy of
> many mobility management strategies
> (<http://www.vtpi.org/distortions_BPJ.pdf>www.vtpi.org/distortions_BPJ.pdf
> ). With improved travel options and efficient
> incentives travel reductions reflect low-value
> vehicle-miles that consumers willingly forego in
> exchange for  cost savings. In a more optimal
> market, with efficient  road, parking and vehicle
> insurance pricing, and more optimal planning
> practices, motorists would drive significantly
> less and be better off overall (http://www.vtpi.org/sotpm.pdf ).
>
>
> Described differently, there are two general
> approaches to reducing transportation emissions:
> reduce emission rates per vehicle-kilometer or
> reduce total vehicle-travel. The first generally
> seems easier, because it simply requires changing
> fuels or vehicle design, but, if done correctly,
> the second provides far more total benefits. As a
> result, significant emission reductions can be
> achieved with negative costs (they provide net economic benefits).
>
> Due to these factors, currently proposed emission
> reduction programs will not implement mobility
> management as much as optimal and so will fail to
> achieve other important benefits such as
> congestion reductions, crash reductions, consumer
> savings and equity objectives
> (http://www.vtpi.org/wwclimate.pdf ). A truly
> sustainable transportation system requires more
> than simply reducing consumption of fossil fuels,
> it requires creating a more efficient
> transportation system. It will be up to those of
> us who understand the wider value of mobility
> management to educate decision makers about their
> full benefits and overcome barriers, so they can
> be implemented as much as justified.
>
> Please let me know if you have comments or questions.
>
>
> Best wishes,
> -Todd Litman
>
> At 11:06 PM 12/1/2007, Paul Barter wrote:
>> Trying to forward this message which the list blocked for some reason.
>> Paul
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Carlosfelipe Pardo <carlosfpardo at gmail.com>
>> To: Global 'South' Sustainable Transport
<sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org>
>> Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2007 18:05:30 -0500
>> Subject: Event: Getting the climate right for transport
>>  Transport side event at COP 13, Bali Indonesia
>> Organized by TRL/GTZ, UITP, UIC, ITPS
>>
>> The German Technical Cooperation (GTZ) will host a side event titled
> "Getting
>> the climate right for transport" at the United Nations Climate Change
>> Conference (COP 13) in Bali. The event will be in cooperation with the
>> Transport Research Laboratory (UK), UITP, UIC and Institution for
Transport
>> Policy Studies (Japan).
>>
>> The event will discuss future pathways to a more sustainable transport
>> system along with options for decision-makers to integrate climate change
>> mitigation measures into the transport sector.
>>
>> The event will take place on 7th and 8th December, 2007 from 1 to 3 pm in
>> the Tidal Room at the Grand Hyatt Hotel.
>>
>> The event will combine practical as well as methodological approaches
with
>> actual experience on sustainable transportation. The draft program is on
> our
>> SUTP website at www.sutp.org .
>>
>> At this event Mr. Manfred Breithaupt (GTZ) and Mr. Holger Dalkmann (TRL)
>> will present the new sourcebook module titled "Transport and Climate
>> Change", which is the latest publication in the GTZ Sustainable Urban
>> Transport series, and discuss available instruments to reduce carbon
> dioxide
>> emissions in the transport sector.
>>
>> The module summarises the challenges that climate change mitigation has
to
>> face in the transport sector and presents the major options and
instruments
>> available to deal with them. The module also explains the various
>> sustainable transport policy and planning options and sketches out their
>> potential for reducing carbon dioxide emissions.
>> With the new module, the GTZ Sustainable Urban Transport Sourcebook now
has
>> 26 modules focussing on various issues of transportation. All the modules
>> are available to download from the SUTP websites at no cost (
>> http://www.sutp.org and http://www.sutp.cn for Chinese users).
>>
>> --
>> Carlosfelipe Pardo
>> Coordinador de Proyecto- Project Coordinator
>> GTZ - Proyecto de Transporte Sostenible (SUTP, SUTP-LAC)
>> Cl 93A # 14-17 of 708
>> Bogot? D.C., Colombia
>> Tel/fax:  +57 (1) 236 2309  Mobile: +57 (3) 15 296 0662
>> carlos.pardo at sutp.org   www.sutp.org
>> --------------------------------------------------------
>> IMPORTANT NOTE to everyone who gets sustran-discuss messages via
> YAHOOGROUPS.
>>
>> Please go to
>> http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss
>> to join the real sustran-discuss and get full
>> membership rights. The yahoogroups version is
>> only a mirror and 'members' there cannot post to
>> the real sustran-discuss (even if the
>> yahoogroups site makes it seem like you can).
>> Apologies for the confusing arrangement.
>>
>> ================================================================
>> SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion
>> of people-centred, equitable and sustainable
>> transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South').
>
>
> Sincerely,
> Todd Alexander Litman
> Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org)
> litman at vtpi.org
> Phone & Fax 250-360-1560
> 1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA
> ?Efficiency - Equity - Clarity?
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> ================================================================
> SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,
> equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries
> (the 'Global South').
>
> End of Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 52, Issue 2
> **********************************************
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> IMPORTANT NOTE to everyone who gets sustran-discuss messages via
YAHOOGROUPS.
>
> Please go to http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to
join the real sustran-discuss and get full membership rights. The
yahoogroups version is only a mirror and 'members' there cannot post to the
real sustran-discuss (even if the yahoogroups site makes it seem like you
can). Apologies for the confusing arrangement.
>
> ================================================================
> SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,
equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries
(the 'Global South').
>

-----
Jonathan Richmond
Transport Adviser to the Government of Mauritius
Ministry of Public Infrastructure, Land Transport and Shipping
Level 4
New Government Centre
Port Louis
Mauritius

+230 707-1134 (Mauritius mobile: most reliable way to reach me at
all times)

+1 (617) 395-4360 (US phone number rings at home -- call me in
Mauritius for the price of a call to the US).

+1 (425) 998-0998 (US phone number, connects to mobile phone when in
wifi zone, or goes to voice mail)

+44 (0)7978 807532 (UK mobile number, connects to mobile phone when in
wifi zone, or goes to voice mail). This is also a SIP number. If you
have a SIP phone you can reach me by dialing: sip:447978807532 at truphone.com

>From Google Talk you can add me as a contact by clicking add and
then entering ext+447978807532 at truphone.com. Clicking on this address
will then ring my mobile phone when I am in a wifi zone, or go to voice
mail at other times.

e-mail: richmond at alum.mit.edu
http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/

-------------------------------------------------------- 
IMPORTANT NOTE to everyone who gets sustran-discuss messages via
YAHOOGROUPS. 

Please go to http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to join
the real sustran-discuss and get full membership rights. The yahoogroups
version is only a mirror and 'members' there cannot post to the real
sustran-discuss (even if the yahoogroups site makes it seem like you can).
Apologies for the confusing arrangement.

================================================================
SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,
equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries
(the 'Global South').