towards systematic design of urban bus stations reinforcing a weak link in a p

8/18/2019 Towards Systematic Design of Urban Bus Stations Reinforcing a Weak Link in a p

1/13

© Association for European Transport and contributors 2009 1

TOWARDS SYSTEMATIC DESIGN OF URBAN BUS STATIONS,Reinforcing a weak link in a public transport chain

Enne de BoerJoost van Rossum

TU Delft, Faculty CiTG, Dept. Transport and Planning

1. INTRODUCTION

There is an astonishing diversity in the design of bus stations. Yet the designprocess, or perhaps, just the selection of a certain standard concept to bemoulded to the location available, does frequently not seem to be founded onsound functional considerations.

The history and development of urban bus station seems to be unwritten. We willpresent a short sketch based on our experience with Dutch bus stations andscanty knowledge of foreign ones (section 2).Bus stations can be divided into three families, characterised by different degreesof separation of bus circulation and pedestrian movement (section 3):

- one with buses departing from the roadside, varying from a sidewalk to afull grown terminal building,

- one with a central island, surrounded by bus lanes,- one with parallel platforms surrounded and separated by bus lanes.

These concepts each have typical qualities, which should be subjected to asystematic assessment, before selecting one of those for application in a specific

situation. Two essential ones, being the incidence of conflicts between bus andpedestrian movements and the space required for each type, includinggeometrical manipulation, are discussed in section 3. A general assessment ofthe families on a number of other customer oriented criteria is presented insection 4.The inevitable conclusion is that conflict free roadside concept, fairly common inthe UK but exceptional on the continent, deserves more general application(section 5).

2. THE DEVELOPMENT OF URBAN BUS STATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS

The bus station is a relatively recent facility. Bus transport developed during thethird decade of the 20th century, extending public transport beyond railwaynetworks and competing with tramways, that had to operate at a rather lowspeed.Cities controlled their internal transport with permits, protecting concessionarycompanies from competition from ‘wild buses’. Regional transport was notallowed to provide transport within the city and therefore terminuses werecreated in the border zone of the town centre.


2/13


The bus station at the filled Groningen Damsterdiep canal, just outside the old SteentilGate was an example. The modest station building (see picture 1) is still standing. The

location was used before as a terminus of the tow canal ferries to the northeast.

Picture 1. City of Groningen, former Damsterdiep bus station at Steentil Gate.

Picture 2. Heerenveen bus station ca. 1975, parallel platforms.

At the background the old loc shed of the former NTM, Dutch Tramway Company, owned by NS.It continued rail cargo transport on the line to Sneek until 1968.


3/13


When regional tramway companies had to change to road vehicles they startedto use their precincts at major railway stations as bus stations. This practice wasstill visible at for instance Heerenveen and Leeuwarden during the 1970’s (seepicture 2). The station building was the old tramway station).The integration of public transport, allowing regional companies into the citycentre and allowing those to transport passengers within the city, led to anaccumulation of buses at central railway stations. The most spectacular case isUtrecht CS with separate large stations for local transport and regional transport.A new bus station is being developed as part of the ‘Key Project’ forreconstruction of the railway station area. Similar projects are undertaken at fiveother locations in Amsterdam, Arnhem, Breda and The Hague (VROM 2006).

Several of the large bus stations created at major railway stations are of a similardesign:

- a set of parallel platforms (each to serve more than one bus) confronting acentral waiting area,

- a system for identification of approaching buses and assigning these aplatform,

- an electronic indication of all planned departure locations and times for acertain period at a central display,

- an electronic indication of coming departures at an overhead display ateach platform.

Specimen can be found at Eindhoven, ‘s-Hertogenbosch and Amersfoort e.g.(see picture 3). Other are operating with a single island (Almere) or with a hybriddesign (Leeuwarden).

Picture 3. Amersfoort CS bus station.


4/13


(an analysis of the qualities of these bus stations from a passenger perspective can defound in De Boer and Krul 2005)Sources for maps of bus stations at Dutch railway stations are Douma’s ‘Station

architecture of the Netherlands from 1938 …. and of course the site of Dutch rail.

There were no national standards developed for the layout of bus stations. Thenational institute for standardization in the design of public facilities, CROW,dedicated only a few pages to bus stations in its voluminous ASVV manual withrecommendations for road design (Aanbevelingen voor verkeersvoorzieningenbinnen de bebouwde kom, 2004, pp 906 – 912). It indicates different basicmodels and principles for efficient design.

The German ‘Recommendations for planning, construction and operation of busstations’ (1994, Empfehlungen …) are even more modest in spite of their volume.

Presented are the layouts of some existing bus stations with a series of oftenwise comments, but without commenting the slightly bizarre layouts as such.Nevertheless one may find recommendable specimen of design, like those at theBraunschweig and Delmenhorst railway stations.

3. PRESENT DAY CONCEPTS AND THEIR SCORES ON TWO IMPORTANTCRITERIA: THE INCIDENCE OF CONFLICTS BETWEEN BUS ANDPEDESTRIAN MOVEMENT AND RELATIVE SIZE

3.1. Three basic principles (dis)regarding user conflicts

Fundamental for the design of bus stations is how passengers can reach theirbus. Ideal is no doubt the avoidance of conflicts between bus movements andpassenger movements.On large airports the plane is simply connected to the pedestrian precinct bymoveable bridges. On modern railway lines the trains arrive at platforms with aheight corresponding with their floor height. The height of the platforms preventspassengers from crossing the rails. Regular crossing is made possible byelevated or depressed walkways.Road vehicles may arrive at and depart from normal pedestrian precincts,although slightly elevated platforms (NL 18 cm) are required for access ofdisabled passengers. This implies that pedestrian movements need carefulconsideration, to avoid conflicts with bus movements.Three basic types of bus stations can be distinguished with respect to theirinherent incidence of conflicts between buses and pedestrians taking or leaving abus. These types are presented with the measures required to accommodate 8stops for 12m buses, being able to arrive and depart without being obstructed byother ones.


5/13


3.2. The roadside station: no conflicts between bus and pedestrian, butextremely long This type has only a side platform. This may be the sidewalk in front of theentrance of a Metro station, as is the case at Montreal Montmorency (2007), seePicture 4. There are no specimen in The Netherlands.

Picture 4. Montreal Montmorency Metro station and U shape road side busstation.

The layout with 8 bus stops allowing for independent arrival and departureat/from each stop requires a zone of approximately 180 x 10,5 = 1890 m². Seefigure 1.

The length of such a simple bus station is formidable. The depth is modestbecause only narrow zones for waiting passengers, waiting buses and passingbuses are required. Apart from those special facilities might be required for

passengers and buses waiting for later departures.The length can be reduced by putting the bus platforms at an angle towards theplatform. An angle of about 15º is fairly common. It is used at MontrealMontmorency and Delmenhorst for instance.An angle of 45º requires a change of departure routine. The bus can no longerdepart in forward direction. It has to move backwards to leave the stop.This requires a substantial manoeuvring zone. When both the front door and theback door have to be accessible a pier of 2.5 m width is required. Neverthelessthe surface needed for the bus station is reduced to 1107.6 m², being only 40%of the original size.


6/13


Conclusion: the road side solution for a bus station is attractive because it avoidspotential conflicts between the parties involved: pedestrians seeking to catch abus and buses seeking to arrive at or depart from a bus stop. The disadvantageof a great platform length can be avoided by putting the bus stops at an angle ofup to 90º!

Figure 1. The layout of a roadside bus station (left) and the reduction of its lengthby putting the stops at angles of 15º and 45 º towards the platform (middle andright).


7/13


Picture 5. Stansted Airport bus station. A road side solution with stops at anangle of about 60º and a zone reserved for maneuvering.

Figure 2. The layout of a one-island bus station (left) and the reduction of itslength by putting the stops at an angle of 15º (right).


8/13


3.3. The one island bus station: a concentrated conflict zone, considerablyshorter but deeper. This type has an isolated platform with two rows of stops in its basic shape. Thecentral pedestrian crossing minimises the risk of accidents.A layout with 4 bus stops at each side of the platform requires a zone of 90 x 21= 1890 m², disregarding the surfaces needed for circulation around the platform.See figure 2.

Picture 6. Sittard bus station (about 1990), a one island solution with crossing atthe short side.

The bus station at the Dutch intercity train station of Sittard (about 2000) is aspecimen with the pedestrian crossing right in front of the station entrance. Byputting the axis of the island at an angle of 90º towards the station building thedistance to the most distant stop is nearly twice the potential distance. SeeDelmenhorst bus station at the DB railway station for the ideal orientation(Google maps> aerial).

The shape of the platform may be remoulded, allowing for additional facilities enfor stops at the short end. This can be noted at Leeuwarden bus station. A multi-angular, nearly round island is found in Japanese Hamamatsu (see de Boer andde Boer 2007).


9/13


3.4. The multiple island station: diffuse conflicts, potentially very short butextremely deepThis type has more than one island platform. This will cause spreading ofcrossing patterns between islands and the environment.A pedestrian route may be introduced to connect the front parts of the platforms,especially to make it easier for the ill sighted to find the right stop. This isproblematic though for those hurrying to or from a distant platform, hoping tocatch a bus or train. This principle is applied in for instance Tilburg (NL) andBraunschweig (Germany).

Figure 3. The layout of a multi island bus station and the reduction of its breadthby putting the islands at an angle of 45º towards the base line, being a centralwaiting area usually (angle indicated only).

3.5. A comparison of the surfaces required for the three typesThe advantage of the road side bus station with regard to the (potential)incidence of conflicts between bus movements and pedestrian movements is selfevident. The surfaces required for the three types are compared in table 1.It proves that the space required for each basic type is similar. Rotation of thebus stops may reduce the surface of a bus station by 40% (road side). Rotationof the multi island type is less productive (± 30%). It is ineffective in the case ofthe one island solution.


10/13


Concept Length [m] Width [m] Surface [m2]

Roadside 180 11 1980

- rotation 150 144 13 1872

- rotation 450 57 20 1140

One island 90 21 1890

- rotation 150 72 26 1872

Multi island 52 40 2080

- rotation 450 57 25 1425

Table 1. The surfaces required for the three bus station concepts, related todifferent degrees of rotation of bus stops.

4. AN ASSESSMENT ON OTHER CUSTORMER ORIENTED CRITERIA

The road side solution proves to be most attractive with regard to two importantaspects: the incidence of conflicts between bus and pedestrian (zero) and thesurface required. The implications for the bus are self evident. There is anincreased chance of bus to bus conflicts when buses have to depart backwards.

Apart from driver training, the presence of a manoeuvring zone and coordinationof departures may reduce the potential problem. The time required for departingis unlikely to be increased, because crossing pedestrians will be absenthenceforth.Yet additional user oriented criteria might point into a different direction. Weassessed the three basic types on the following additional criteria:

- security (the opportunity to wait for the bus at a central spot, to besurveyed easily)

- walking distance (from a central road side spot)- bus visibility (presence to be seen from a central spot)- pedestrian safety (the incidence of serious conflicts).

- pedestrian flow

The result of the assessment is shown in figure four. The scores on the fivecriteria, being 0.2 as a maximum for each, are added in a histogram. The worstscore is zero.It shows that the road side bus station is likely to be the worst in terms of walkingdistance and bus visibility. The explanation is its long platform and the position ofthe buses close to it. For the other three aspects it is simply the best, because ofits qualities for pedestrians and collective space for both waiting and embarking.


11/13


Bus visibility and walking distance are best for the multi island configuration,because the passenger can more easily oversee the bus station and (in the caseof fixed bus stops) can take position at an optimal location.

Figure 4. The assessment of three types of bus station for five consumer orientedaspects.

5. CONCLUSION: THE ROAD SIDE SOLUTION DESERVING SERIOUSCONSIDERATION

The road side bus station is a most unusual phenomenon for the continent ofWestern Europe, although a few specimen may be found in Germany andSweden.The principle has two distinct advantages though: a modest surface and anabsence of bus – pedestrian conflicts. The scores on other customer orientedcriteria are not unfavourable either, although walking distances and bus visibilitydeserve special attention. It may be reason to create a slightly curved platform ascreated at Hamburg St. Georg. The second author proposed a quarter circularconfiguration for the bus station of The Hague CS.One wonders why the concept is not applied generally. It was used in the past in

The Netherlands as well. Perhaps the bus congestion at places like Utrecht CSwas reason to opt for a bus optimal solution like the multi island station.

0,0

0,10,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1,0

Roadside One island Multi island

Security

Walking distance

Bus visibility

Pedestrian safety

Pedestrian flow


12/13


Picture 7. Utrecht CS bus station at about 1960.

Bibliography

CROW (2004), ASVV 2004, Aanbevelingen voor verkeersvoorzieningen binnende bebouwde kom (Recommendations for traffic facilities in built-up areas), Ede,1204 pp.

De Boer, E and S.W. de Boer (2007), Het systematisch ontwerp van busstationsin relatie tot treinstations, Paper Colloquium Vervoersplanologisch Speurwerk2007, CVS Proceedings. Pp. 1573 – 1591.

De Boer, E. and R. Krul (2005), The dynamic bus station, a user friendly facility?Paper ETC 2005 (http://etcproceedings.org).

Douma, C. (1998), Stationsarchitectuur in Nederland 1938-1998, Walburg Pers,Zutphen, 352 pp.

FGSV (1994), Empfehlungen fuer Planung, Bau und Betrieb von Busbahnhoefen,Koeln.


13/13


Landelijk Bureau Toegankelijkheid (2000), Busstations, bruikbaar voor iedereen,Wenkenblad (design suggestions), Dutch Ministry of Transport, The Hague.

Van Rossum, J. (2009), Optimale ruimtelijke configuraties busstations, MastersThesis TU Delft, 103 pp.

VROM (2006), Progress report New Key Projects (Voortgangsrapportage NieuweSleutelprojecten, in Dutch), 40 pp, The Hague.

towards systematic design of urban bus stations reinforcing a weak link in a p

Documents