New tools for design and operation of urban transport interchanges

Transcription

1 van Egmond, Patrick*, DTV, Netherlands Hoogendoorn, Caroline, UITP, Belgium van der Hoeven, Frank, TU Delft, Netherlands New tools for design and operation of urban transport interchanges * p.v.egmond@dtvconsultants.nl Workshop design intermodale knooppunten/ 12 Mei 2015

2 Inhoud 1. Doelstellingen van NODES 2. Overstap onderdelen en types 3. Gereedschappen en gereedschappenkist 4. Benchmarken 2 Workshop design intermodale knooppunten/ 12 Mei 2015

3 1. NODES Objective to create a more efficient, effective and inclusive urban transport system for citizens containing all elements of a user-friendly clean, energy-efficient, safe, secure and intelligent transport for travelers, other users and citizens. 3 Workshop design intermodale knooppunten/ 12 Mei 2015

4 Een overstap, voor wie? 4 Workshop design intermodale knooppunten/ 12 Mei 2015

5 2. Overstap onderdelen en types Actie of Locatie Overstap onderdelen: Overstap gebouw en niveaus Vervoersvormen/ vervoerders Station en overstap gebied? Stedelijk vervoersnetwerk en catchment area Reizen en klanten Levensloop van een station 5 Workshop design intermodale knooppunten/ 12 Mei 2015

6 2. Overstap onderdelen en types NODES heeft alle Europese overstap stations geclassificeerd op basis van hoofd karakteristieken: Locatie, Ligging in het Netwerk Vervoersvormen en infrastructuur + onderscheid tussen overstap stations met gebouw/ of geen gebouw. 06/02/2014 Workshop design intermodale knooppunten/ 12 Mei 2015

7 Overstap types 7 Workshop design intermodale knooppunten/ 12 Mei 2015

8 Overstap types Type 1 (LD) Madrid/ Atoccha (3,3 Miljoen / ) Type 2 (LS) Utrecht, Central station ( / ) Type 3 (SL) Madrid/ Sol (3,3 Miljoen/ ) 06/02/2014 Workshop design intermodale knooppunten/ 12 Mei 2015

9 Overstap types Type 4 (SI) Luxembourg stad/ Centraal Station ( / ) Type 5 (IA) Madrid, Ciudad Lineal (3,3 Miljoen/ ) Type 6 (CP) Osnabruck/ Busstop Neumarkt ( / ) 06/02/2014 Workshop design intermodale knooppunten/ 12 Mei 2015

10 3. Gereedschappen en Gereedschapskist Nieuwe wet/ regelgevings maatregelen Sociaal/ cultureel (bijv. Nieuwe vormen van stakeholder samenwerking); Economisch/ Financieel (bijv. PPP, PFI); Organisatie (bijv. Nieuwe business modellen, franchise van winkel concepten op het station); Energie en Milieu (bijv. Geluidsplanning, Energie neutrale gebouwen); Technical (bijv. plannings software, Veiligheidsmaatregelen, ICT oplossingen voor minder mobiele reizigers); Methodes (bijv. Geintegreerde informatie planning, station experience monitor) Gebruik van nieuw materialen 10 Workshop design intermodale knooppunten/ 12 Mei 2015

11 3. Gereedschappen en gereedsschapkist Centro Birmingham way finding (UK) (Voorbeeld 1) Network Rail Design guideline (Voorbeeld 2) NS Station Experience monitor (Voorbeeld 3) 11 Workshop design intermodale knooppunten/ 12 Mei 2015

12 NODES Gereedschapskist (86 gereedschappen) 12 19/05/2015

13 4. NODES Benchmark instrument Interchange type Connecting point(s) with shelters, stops and urban infrastructure Intermodal area with infrastructure Central Interchange in small city/ area with infrastructure Second level Interchange with infrastructure Central interchange in large city Central interchange in very large city Main mode Interchange total demand (passenger/ day 13 19/05/

14 Overstapstation basis informatie Interchange basic data General data of the interchange (A) Interchange Name Name Latitude (x), Longitude (y) Degrees/minutes/seconds Address Country / City / District / Neighbourhood / Suburb / Street / Number Areal photo (e.g. google image) Interchange improvement (B) Interchange improvement foreseen New interchange build Large restructuring of the interchange infrastructure (including adding a new mode, i.e. train, metro, light rail, bus station) Project image 1 (w hen available) New design (interior in case of infrastructure, exterior in case of shelters and stops) New organisational structures No changes are foreseen 14 19/05/2015

15 Context informatie City/ wider catchment area data (C ) City/ Public transport catchment area data Name of City/ Area Name Data provided for Image of city/ area (when available) N of inhabitants (city, network, or wider area) Modal share (city or area Bicycle (including Moterised 2 level) (%) fill with data Public transport Pedestrian Private car electric bike) wheeler available Year Year % % % % % Public transport network data (D) Main structuring mode of the network (Train, Metro, light rail or Bus) N of public transport users Users/ year N of public transport trips Trips/ year Passenger-km/ N of public transport Km (demand) year 15 19/05/2015 Image of public transport network (when available)

16 Netwerk informatie Annual passenger demand per mode at network level (please specify for each transport mode available) Urban Bus Suburban Bus Long distance Bus Light rail Passenger-km/ year Passenger-km/ year Passenger-km/ year Passenger-km/ year Underground Commuter train (in the area) Long distance/ regional train (from outside area) Ferry Passenger-km/ year Passenger-km/ year Passenger-km/ year Passenger-km/ year Aircraft Bicycle Taxi Others (walking/ carsharing/ carpooling) N passengers Bicycle-Km year Passenger-km/ year or passengers Passenger-km/ year or passengers Network modes. Transport mode: Nº of lines at network level (fill for available modes) Modes Total Nº lines/ directions Lines numbers Urban Bus Nº lines Lines numbers Suburban Bus Nº lines Lines numbers Long distance Bus Nº lines Lines numbers Light rail Nº lines Lines numbers Underground Nº lines Lines numbers Commuter train Long distance/ regional train Nº directions Nº directions Ferry Nº lines/ directions Lines numbers 16 19/05/2015 Others

17 Overstap aansluitingen Interchange modes and demand Infr. Modes at interchange Type (A/B/C A/B/C or Urban Bus N N of lines/ directions at interchange level Average frequency (off peak) Average frequency (peak hours) Passengers/ working day N of lines Minutes Minutes Passengers/ wd % of total passengers at peak hours % Suburban Bus A/B/C or N N of lines Minutes Minutes Passengers/ wd % Long distance Bus A/B/C or N N of lines Minutes Minutes Passengers/ wd % Light rail Underground Commuter train Long distance rail Ferry Aircraft Bicycle Taxi Others (e.g.; carsharing, carpooling) A/B/C or N A/B/C or N A/B/C or N A/B/C or N A/B/C or N A/B/C or N A/B/C or N A/B/C or N A/B/C or N N of lines Minutes Minutes Passengers/ wd N of lines Minutes Minutes Passengers/ wd N of directions Minutes Minutes Passengers/ wd N of directions Minutes Minutes Passengers/ wd N of lines/ directions 17 19/05/2015 Minutes Minutes Passengers/ wd A Number of passengers Cyclists/ working day Passengers/ wd Passengers/ wd % % % % % % % % %

18 Overstap karakteristieken Transfer characteristics at interchange level (Mode horizontal to Mode vertical) (F) Mode 1 Mode 2 Transfer percentages Walking Others (specify) Urban Bus suburban Bus Long distance Bus Underground Light rail Commuter train Long distance train Bicycle Walking Others 18 19/05/2015

19 Reis en reizigers karakteristieken Usage and travellers characteristics (passing through the interchange) (G) Types of clients. Percentage of total travellers (%) MUST: Commuters LUST: Leisure (other than commuter but regular) JUST: Non usual (non regular) Time spread of peak hours at the interchange percentage of total travellers percentage of total travellers percentage of total travellers Long spread of peak hour (over 3 hours each peak hour) Average peak hour spread (about 2 hours and half each peak hour ) Concentrated peak hours (about 1 hour and half each peak hour) Usage of interchange capacity at peak hours Very busy (over 90% of capacity) Average business (50 to 90% of capacity) Not busy (Under 50% of capacity) 19 19/05/2015

20 Analyse van de Stedelijke omgeving 1 On a scale of 1-10 (with 1 being poor and 10 being excellent) how would you rate the transfer between the interchange main modes with the private car a Speed (time to travel between modes) Score missing b Ease Score missing c Obstacles (the number of physical obstacles encountered) Score missing 2 On a scale of 1-10 (with 1 being poor and 10 being excellent) how would you rate the integration of the interchange main modes with the other public transport modes a Speed (time to travel between modes) Score missing b Ease Score missing c Obstacles (the number of physical obstacles encountered) Score missing 3 On a scale of 1-10 (with 1 being poor and 10 being excellent) how would you rate the integration of the interchange main modes with the bicycle a Speed (time to travel between modes) Score missing b Ease Score missing c Obstacles (the number of physical obstacles encountered) 20 19/05/2015 Score missing

21 Analyse van het ontwerp en inrichting 1 On a scale of 1-10 (with 1 being poor and 10 being excellent) how would you rate transfer between modes WITHIN THE core INTERCHANGE area in terms of: a Speed (time to travel between modes) 9 b Ease 4 c Obstacles (the number of physical obstacles encountered) 9 2 On a scale of 1-10 (with 1 being poor and 10 being excellent) how would you rate the proximity of all public transport modes available WITHIN THE INTERCHANGE relative to the core interchange area in terms of: a Speed (time to access the interchange) 4 b Ease 9 c Obstacles (the number of physical obstacles encountered) 4 3 On a scale of 1-10 (with 1 being poor and 10 being excellent) how would you rate access to / egress from the interchange in terms of: a Speed (time from alighting transport service to exiting the interchange or vice versa) 9 b Ease 4 c Obstacles (the number of physical obstacles encountered) /05/2015

22 Analyse van multimodaliteit en ICT 1 Thinking about perception of safety in terms of potential for accidents / incidents, on a scale of 1-10 (with 1 being poor and 10 being excellent) how would you rate the following during the daylight hours: Movement space (areas reserved for passenger movement and connections to / from / a 9 between transport modes or the surrounding area). Decision space (typically areas where passenger decisions take a priority e.g entrances, b 9 ticket offices or corridor intersections) Opportunity space (typically include areas of the interchange outside of the core c 9 movement corridors or decision spaces and can include cafes, shops, landscaping etc) d Waiting space (e.g. Shelters, Waiting rooms, platforms etc) 9 2 Thinking about perception of safety in terms of potential for accidents / incidents, on a scale of 1-10 (with 1 being poor and 10 being excellent) how would you rate the following during hours of darkness: Movement space (areas reserved for passenger movement and connections to / from / a 9 between transport modes or the surrounding area). Decision space (typically areas where passenger decisions take a priority e.g entrances, b 9 ticket offices or corridor intersections) Opportunity space (typically include areas of the interchange outside of the core c 9 movement corridors or decision spaces and can include cafes, shops, landscaping etc) d Waiting space (e.g. Shelters, Waiting rooms, platforms etc) /05/2015

23 Management en Commercie 1 Thinking about interchange staff and personell, rate on a scale of 1-10 (with 1 being poor and 10 being excellent) the availability, competent and friendliness and currentness of the following: [Score 0 if not present] Availability Competent Friendliness a b c d e Staff in movement space (areas reserved for passenger movement and connections to / from / between transport modes or the surrounding area). Staff in decision space (typically areas where passenger decisions take a priority e.g entrances, ticket offices or corridor intersections) Personell in opportunity space (typically include areas of the interchange outside of the core movement corridors or decision spaces and can include cafes, shops, landscaping etc) Staff in waiting space (e.g. Shelters, Waiting rooms, platforms etc) Staff availability and competence during service disruptions /05/2015

24 Energie en Milieu Year Environmental performance Average Peak a b c d e Noise level at the platforms (Decibel) (Average/ Peak) Noise levels at the interchange central area (Decibel) (Average/ Peak) Emission levels of the build infrastructure (kg/co2) Energy use of the build infrastructure (Kwh) (Daily average/ Peak day) Usage of water (M³) Sustainable resource practices a b c d Recovery rate of waste water (% of total) Recovery rate of waste (% of total) Usage of renewable energy (% of total) Usage of renewable materials in the building (% of total) 24 19/05/2015

25 Per type, prestatie t.o.v. doelstellingen Objective 1 Enhance accessibility and integration 49% Poor Objective 2 Enhance intermodality 56% Average Objective 3 Enhance liveability 49% Poor Objective 4 Increase safety and security conditions 49% Poor Objective 5 Increase economic viability and cost efficiency 58% Average Objective 6 Stimulate local economy 40% Poor Objective 7 Increase environmental efficiency 0% Poor Objective 8 Increase energy efficiency 0% Poor Objective 1 100% Objective 8 75% Objective 2 50% 25% Average threshold Objective 7 0% Objective 3 Good threshold Name Objective 6 Objective 4 Objective /05/2015 For detailed results and links to tools, click here

26 Prestaties gekoppeld aan gereedschappen Objectives Enhance accessibility and integration Score Rating Link to Toolkit U&I.1.C #REF! #REF! #REF! U&I.2.C #REF! #REF! #REF! U&I.3.C #REF! #REF! #REF! U&I.4.C #REF! #REF! #REF! U&I.5.C #REF! #REF! #REF! U&I.6.C #REF! #REF! #REF! U&I.7.C #REF! #REF! #REF! U&I.8 #REF! #REF! #REF! U&I.9 #REF! #REF! #REF! U&I.10 0% Poor Here D.1.C Score Good D.2.C #REF! #REF! #REF! D.3.C #REF! #REF! #REF! 26 19/05/2015

27 Bedankt Patrick van Egmond 27