A mass transport problem?

I hope this is the correct section.

Here is the situation as it currently stands:

I have 2 mass transport corridors both suffer from extreme overcrowding.

Corridor 1 is about 20 km long
Corridor 2 is about 35 km long

Currently they are serviced by very high frequency bus services which are at the maximum physical capacity or about 100 people per bus. The buses operate almost on a constant basis with buses passing every 30 seconds or less.

Between 6.30am and 9.30 and 2.30pm and 8pm Monday to Friday the passengers around the merging point of the two corridors about 5km from the city struggle to physically get on the bus and often have to use motorbike taxis or car taxis to finish there trip.

The average density of corridor 2 is around 50000 people per sq km and is only serviced by a 3 lane main road with no bus lanes. The entire corridor is built up with buildings of 5 to 15 levels with no option to make the road wider.

The average density of corridor 1 is around 35000 people per sq km and is serviced by a 4 lane road also with no bus lanes.

The two main roads merge at a large 5 lane wide traffic circle also this traffic circle is the terminus of a commuter railway that is physically isolated from the rest of the system forcing up to 2500 people per hour into the most congested part of the 2 corridors.

All of this traffic is then force over a 4 lane wide bridge to junction where 80% of the traffic must turn right on to a 2 lane wide road in an area that is so densely built up that people have to take over parts of the traffic road just to walk through. The average density in this area hits 100000 per sq km and is made up of densely packed 6 to 20 story buildings.

The corridor ends at a major railway station with both commuter rail and metro line on a 10 lane wide road. which is also a highly congested area.

The estimated hourly throughput on corridor 1 is around 20000 people and corridor 2 is around 35000 people per hour and this merges together with a throughput of 55000 people per hour.

Every one of these people are crammed into hundreds of buses that form an almost continuous line along most of the corridor. Traveling times for corridor 2 is around 2.5 hours end to end and 90 to 120 mins for corridor 1. Which is far too slow as its half this time off peak and a quarter of it at night.

The main reason I'm writing all this is to see if anyone might have some ideas of how to ease this massive congestion and increase capacity of the 2 corridors as cheaply and as fast as possiable.

I have to deal this overloading on a daily basis with no end insight and there are more and more new large condo towers being built along the corridors just make things even worse for everyone.

The only solution here that will have a definite impact on the congestion is grade-separated mass transit, either in the form of a elevated heavy rail or monorail (preferred choice for elevated trains, as its less "bulky" and lets more light through) or as an underground tunnel underneath the road.

Although it will be expensive, it definitely sounds like the ridership potential exists to support either monorail or metro rapid transit.

This is indeed the correct forum, thaitransit.

Does the 55,000 people/hour reflect those who are currently riding the bus system in these corridors, or just those who travel through the corridor? If the latter, how many of those travel via mass transit? Also, you didn't mention whether the 55,000 p/h figure was a peak figure, so I'll assume a surge factor of 2 for a peak hourly rate of 110,000 total people/hour for all transit options at the junction. Some of that traffic (local and between stops) will still be handled by bus, so a future limited-stop train service would need somewhat less at the outset. Based on continuing development though, it'd be wise to program for such a load as the average during rush hours.

I'm inclined to agree with kancamagus on the necessity of elevated rail, but I believe a monorail is much too dainty for the service requirements. Conventional heavy electrified rail seems to be the best option to handle such a huge load, probably controlled via Positive Train Control and perhaps a automated/manual override system. It'd need directional tracks for each stub corridor, with another few tracks for an interchange at that traffic circle, and perhaps a station every few kilometers with supplementary bus service. For that matter, it may be worthwhile to consider a complete multilevel surface made from precast concrete or steel (witness the I-35W bridge replacement - these can be prestressed and made quickly), with parallel elevated sidewalks to eliminate pedestrian issues. I'm sorry I can't offer any particular insights, but it sounds like this is a major issue that can't be addressed by anything other than major initiatives. Good luck!

thaitransit wrote:I hope this is the correct section.

Here is the situation as it currently stands:

I have 2 mass transport corridors both suffer from extreme overcrowding.

Corridor 1 is about 20 km long
Corridor 2 is about 35 km long

....The estimated hourly throughput on corridor 1 is around 20000 people and corridor 2 is around 35000 people per hour and this merges together with a throughput of 55000 people per hour.

With that many people, there is no good way to "cheap out". In the long run it will be cheaper to spend the money now on a good metro system. You apparently already have a metro, so it should be extended. You absolutely need a metro from the main railway station to the near side of the bridge under the 2 lane road. You really ought to continue it across the river to the isolated commuter railway station -- this would relieve the worst congestion. After that, it could be extended down corridor 2, and finally down corridor 1 (the least dense). Given these rather short lengths, you can probably build the line in 5 years, unless there are already a whole bunch of other tunnels (sewer, water, power) under the roads, or it's below sea level in soft ground, or some other thing which makes it really hard to build a subway.

If there are side roads parallel to the main roads in the corridors and very close (300 meters away or less), they may provide an alternative place to put the metro, which might allow you to put it on the surface, which would save lots of money. I can't tell you whether that's possible without looking at the actual city involved.

Building an elevated metro would be cheaper than building an underground one, but it will cost you more in maintenance costs in the long run, and it will also leave the roads dark because they'd be underneath the Metro. On the 4-lane road you could make it elevated (only the middle two lanes would be under the Metro), but on the 2-lane road you simply need an underground metro, unless you can put it in nearby alleys or side roads.

The only thing you could do *really* fast is to prohibit cars from driving on the roads. Make bus lanes on the 4-lane road, and make the other roads *bus-only*. Pedestrians & bicycles allowed, nothing else except buses. However, it may be very difficult to do this politically -- the political process might take longer than digging tunnels! It will also require police to enforce the rules, which is a problem in some countries. It may be extremely difficult to do this for the bridge -- I'm guessing there's no alternative bridge nearby. Perhaps two lanes of the bridge could be used for buses only.

The 2 lane road should simply be closed to cars period, even if you have the metro. If the pedestrians are spilling into the road already, the road should be dedicated to pedestrians. Cars can stop elsewhere and let people walk the rest of the way; pedestrians have no alternative. For now you have to keep the buses running on it, but it's clear this road needs a metro as soon as possible.

---

If you can't afford the tunnels or elevated construction right now but you can afford *some* construction, you should switch from buses to streetcars (also known as trams, trolleys, or light rail). This will also take a few years to build -- but less than the tunnels -- but a single train of streetcars can easily carry 500-1000 people. Streetcars can run into tunnels or onto elevated lines where you have them, and run on the surface the rest of the way. They can operate at pretty close to the same frequency as buses, with better acceleration. They will also benefit a lot from exclusive streetcar/bus lanes, just like buses benefit from exclusive bus lanes. The final section from the commuter railway terminus to the major railway station is *so* dense that it would probably benefit from having *both* a metro underneath it *and* streetcars on the surface.

It also might make sense to build a tunnel for the isolated commuter railway bringing it into the major railway station, but if the commuter railway is steam or diesel that may not be possible. That final section between the two railway stations is so busy that it really could use a huge tunnel, probably a 4-track tunnel or even more tracks. It will save money in the long run if the whole tunnel is built in one go, rather than building a two-track tunnel and trying to build another one later.

How long is that final super-congested segment? How is the major railway station structured? How many people are "passing through" rather than starting or finishing their trip in the 100000/sq km area? These are important questions which may allow for cheaper improvements. If a lot of people are passing through, then a bypass route may take people out of the 2-lane road. If the metro lines at the major railway station are arranged in one way, then extending the metro may be much cheaper and more effective than if they're arranged in a different way. If the railway lines are arranged one way, it may be worthwhile to run one of the surface railway lines into a tunnel and connect it to the isolated commuter line; if not it may not. If the railway lines and metro use the same loading gauge, track gauge, and electrification, you have several advantages and may be able to use one set of tracks for both. If the river is very deep, or the city is built on a swamp or very soft soil, then tunneling may be extremely difficult and you will probably want to build an elevated line. This all depends on various details we don't know. If we knew exactly what corridors you were looking at we could use Google Earth to come up with ideas.

If the final segment is quite short (<5 km) and there's a metro line ending at the major railway station, building the metro out just that one segment to the traffic circle/commuter terminus may give you a tremendous bang for your buck by allowing all the buses to empty out into the metro and reverse at the traffic circle, and putting the commuter rail traffic directly into the metro.

Whatever sort of rail you go with, use standard specifications (standard gauge, most common metro or streetcar loading gauge, standard voltage for electricity) and you'll be able to ask for bids from a large number of different manufacturers, and buy replacements from different manufacturers later. This saves money, obviously. Avoid buying a special one-vendor-only system.

Sadly I suspect political problems will be the #1 issue as usual. Perhaps the developers of the area can be convinced to help finance a railway line which will largely help the people buying their condos?

Trains are good, trains would be great. But it sounds like from reading your blog that underground is not a possibility, so you'll have to go up. When you go up you'll darken the streets below and make them noisier. May not be politically possible.

Probably the fastest thing you can do to reduce the congestion is to reduce access to the road. With more predictable contesting for lane space, cars and buses will be able to do faster. That will increase your throughput. It will also add load to the side streets which will have to carry more of the local traffic.

Also look at http://www.ruf.dk/ -- it's an amalgam of private automobiles, public mass transit, and railroads.

mtuandrew wrote:I'm inclined to agree with kancamagus on the necessity of elevated rail, but I believe a monorail is much too dainty for the service requirements. Conventional heavy electrified rail seems to be the best option to handle such a huge load, probably controlled via Positive Train Control and perhaps a automated/manual override system. It'd need directional tracks for each stub corridor, with another few tracks for an interchange at that traffic circle, and perhaps a station every few kilometers with supplementary bus service. For that matter, it may be worthwhile to consider a complete multilevel surface made from precast concrete or steel (witness the I-35W bridge replacement - these can be prestressed and made quickly), with parallel elevated sidewalks to eliminate pedestrian issues. I'm sorry I can't offer any particular insights, but it sounds like this is a major issue that can't be addressed by anything other than major initiatives. Good luck!

If you're thinking of the monorails they have in zoos and small amusement parks, then yes, they are dainty. But regular monorails (which are somewhat common in space-strapped Japan) have pretty much the same capacity as heavy rail metro systems. Some, like the Tama Monorail carry over 120,000 people every day, whereas in the United States the Walt Disney World Monorail in Florida carries over 200,000 people every day.

So capacity wise, real world monorails are just as capable as heavy rail systems. So then it comes down to aesthetics and costs. Monorails use less material, and thus look better and cost less per mile, when compared to heavy rail systems. Monorails can also easily be built using all prestressed "standard" sizes manufactured off-site and lifted into place with a crane, like you mentioned happened with the I-35 bridge. Assuming that grade separation is desired and subways are too expensive, monorail wins over elevated heavy rail for new systems pretty much every time. The only advantage elevated heavy rail has is that it's compatible with existing rail systems, which is why most of the cities pursuing monorails are cities in Asia that lack any existing rail transport.

Some photos of real world monorails:








Versus traditional elevated rail:

These may be real world mono-rail systems, but they wouldn't necessarily fly in America as is. Take a look at the Las Vegas Monorail for what modern monorail systems would look like in urban America.

In this first photo, you see an emergency walkway so passengers can walk to the next station if the train ever breaks down. You don't necessarily see this safety feature with Asian monorails. This extra safety feature requires somewhat heavier construction with a wider guideway.

Monorail stations are also usually much larger than light rail or heavy rail stations, even when they are elevated. Compare the above monorail station with an elevated DART light rail station below, there's a significant difference in apparent size.


Also take a closer look at this photo of a Disney monorail station.

It looks smaller because it's so low to the ground. There's no way a standard sized truck could cross under it. It'll look entirely different 30 feet in the air so normal street traffic, including trucks, could pass under. Take note that the station structure is still much larger than the DART elevated light rail station.

Most Monorail "advocates" rarely link photos of monorail stations. I wonder why?

Now, taking this just one step further, imagine several Las Vegas or Disney monorail stations above the Main Street in your city's downtown.

We've pretty much concluded that more lanes are needed. They could be above the existing lanes (as an elevated structure), below the existing lanes (as a tunnel/subway), beside the existing lanes (as a wider roadway), or somewhere paralleling with a bridge upstream or downstream (a brand new road or railroad).

But aside from this, if buses were indeed both packed to the gills and bumper to bumper, light rail or rapid transit or monorail cars would be similary packed to the gills and bumper to bumper (coupler to coupler), achieving little or no added capacity or speed. If buses were not bumper to bumper then more of them can be added in the short run.

The accepted capacity of a lane of automobiles is 2000 of them per hour which translates to about 3000 people per hour. If buses sbrtshomh 100 passengers each were on a ten second headway that translates to about 36000 people per hour. So you can imagine the throughput if one of the two lanes each way over the bridge were converted to bus only usage.

I don't think a monorail station HAS to be bigger than a light rail station.