First – Last Mile_MBPJ_2015

First – Last Mile : Feeder Services

Norma Nun

24 March 2014

• Vision and Targets Defined

• Setting the Path for LPT Transformation

• Implementing the Policy

Towards achieving :

• Increased mobility

• Economic growth and transformation

To Make Public Transport as the Rakyat’s (People’s)

Choice for Mobility

Greater KL :

Modal share target of 25% by 2015 and 40% by 2020

National :

Modal share target of 40% in urban areas by 2030

Increased connectivity in rural areas

▪ Target 40%modal share

for public

transport in

the urban

areas by 2030

during AM

peak periods

▪ Increase PT

access in

Rural Areas

National Land Public Transport Master Plan- Targets, Strategic Objectives and Policies

Physically well- connected1

Affordable and accessible to all2

Convenient and offer high

service levels and quality

3

Safe and Secure4

Better quality of life5

▪ Enhance urban connectivity

▪ Enhance rural and inter-city connectivity

▪ Improve route-planning and explore alternative

models to ensure accessibility to the under-served

▪ Build sustainable land public transport models which

provide affordable services to public and financially

viable for operator

▪ Increase accessibility for the mobility impaired

▪ Raise service reliability of public transport

▪ Improve service standard for operators, drivers and

vehicles

▪ Develop seamless experience for the user

▪ Ensure high standards of safety and security for

operators

▪ Encourage and support safety initiatives

▪ Promote healthy living

▪ Manage travel demand

▪ Encourage environmental sustainability

▪ Optimize PT infrastructure

Strategic Objectives Key Policies (14)

What is First – Last Mile

First Mile Rail Last Mile

Trip

R R


Often PT is only one part of the passenger journey. Integration with other modes (other public

transport, private transport, walking and cycling) is important to maximise the potential usage

of PT. This can be referred to as the ‘first and last mile’.

Feeder Services

Strictly Confidential and for Internal Use Only

• Feeder bus services are designed to pick up passengers in a

locality and take them to a transfer point where they make an

onward journey on a trunk service.

• Trunk service can be another bus, or a rail based service such

as a tram, rapid transit or train.

• Feeder buses act as part of a wider local network, or a regional

network.

• Planning and design of feeder services requires understanding

of the existing origin-destination points, network

connectivity, ease of transfer from/to the feeder

service, competing alternatives, fare pricing, routing etc.

CHARATERISTICS – Feeder Services


Criteria of feeder bus services should be:

a) The service should be high-frequency

b) The route should be relatively direct and not meandering

c) Within 7km radius

d) Servicing residential/commercial areas from mainline /

trunks / rail

e) Providing first and last mile connectivity

f) Fare pricing due to competition with other modes

• Unreliable first-last mile connectivity

Will impacts the overall quality and usage of mass transit, resulting in a shift in

the mode share of public transport.

• Integration

While efforts need to be made to improve mass public transport, it is essential

to improve last mile connectivity and link these services into an integrated

system to aid ease of access for users.

• Poor quality

The challenges to effective, reliable and affordable last mile connectivity

solutions include poor quality, unorganised taxi services; and a lack of public

walking/bicycling services and infrastructure.

Last Mile Problems

Things to consider in delivering feeder services:

• The feeder solution is favoured because:Comprehensive Local Transport Connections

– This system creates a more integrated network with better local travel opportunities by the transfer of operating resources from parallel bus and rail operation to a more economic division of roles between bus and rail.

Supports Rail System In Local Transport Coverage

– Feeder services are needed to make good use of the high capacity of the train system and support high frequency services in the main corridors.

Frequent, useful-connectivity service

– A feeder service can often provide a more frequent and useful local service and thus generate more local journeys if there is potential in the market.

• However, some possible disadvantage to consider:Rail is faster, and cheaper in CBD than bus systems

– It is also pointed out that travel speed on rail is faster, more comfortable and more reliable than buses on the main roads into the city centre, and that the upgrading of the bus system in the corridors into the city centre is difficult and costly compared to the operation of trains on segregated rights-of-way.

Transfer is disincentive

– The network effect may not be fully achieved for short journeys; the forced-need to transfer is a substantial disincentive to use public transport.


Planning for Feeder Service

Guidelines DRAFT POLICY GUIDELINES FOR

PUBLIC TRANSPORT NETWORK PLANNING

3.5.3 ……… access by walking, bicycle, or

feeder bus, in order to cater for long term

growth patronage

3.5.5 Walking access mode to public

transport stops and interchanges must be seen

as part of the public transport system

3.5.6 It is recommended to design the

walking routes through interesting urban

streets or beautiful parks, green corridors or

natural environments. The more attractive the

route, the longer distances people are willing

to walk.

3.5.7 Access roads to the stops and on-the-

road information must be without barriers and

obstacles to wheel chairs, prams, those with

reduced walking ability and impaired sight.

3.5.8 All year maintenance of the pedestrian

network is required.

Challenges


Lack of proper infrastructure for feeder buses

• Station areas need to be organized with proper access to pedestrians by providing

walkways and cycle lanes

Inefficient feeder service

• Ideally feeder lengths should be 5-7 kms but have gone beyond 7-8 kms from the stations

in the recent times

• Number of feeder buses in operation lower than optimum whereby operator tries to

cover as much of the catchment area in the single route and single trip.

Not Cost-efficient

• Cost structure for conventional bus not viable for feeder service in residential areas

• Limited resources- Fleet/Personnel

Development pattern

• Pattern of Housing in GKLKV. Low density - link or terrace houses spread out for a

relatively large area

PERFORMANCE OF FEEDER BUS

Waiting time


Long Waiting Times

– 3 out of 10 journeys has waiting time less than the journey time

– 7 out of 10 journeys has waiting time same or exceed journey time

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

T505 U423 T309 T203 T421 T417 T323 T416 T431 T529

Waiting time (mins) In-vehicle journey time (mins)

Source: SPAD Spot Check Results


Long Route Lengths

– Average journeys has route lengths twice the direct journey by private car

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

T505 U423 T309 T203 T421 T417 T323 T416 T431 T529

Route Length (in km) Distance by car (in km)

PERFORMANCE OF FEEDER BUS Route Length

Role of Urban Rail

• The main spine of the future PT network

• to provide links to the center of KL .i.e. primary corridor

demand

• Aim to increase PT capacity through enhancement to

existing lines, extensions to existing lines and the provision

of new routes

• The key link between the city to the airport

Feeder service key component of PT system especially in residential areas

Urban Rail Development Plan (URDP)

The Corridors

Bus Transformation Plan

Approach to Bus Master Plan Development

DETAILED DEMAND MODELLING

TRANSPORT PLANNING PRINCIPLES

2030 Bus M Plan:

• BRT on primary and

secondary corridors

• Local Bus Network

• Feeder Bus

Services

BUS MASTER PLAN

Strictly confidential and for internal use only.

Pillars - Greater KL/KV LPTMPElements of the 6 subsidiary plans …

E L E M E N T S O F T H E S U B S I D I A R Y P L A N S (1)

Urban Rail Development Plan (URDP)

Main spine of PT network

Provide increased PT capacity through enhancement to existing lines, extensions to existing lines and the

provision of new routes

The Projects:

High Speed Rail (HSR) : Connecting 2 countries Malaysia – Singapore Mass Rapit Transit (MRT) : MRT 1 Sg Buloh – Kajang Line Upgrading KTM Extension LRT Kelana Jaya Line LRT 3 : Bandar Utama - Kelang

Bus Transformation Plan (BTP)

Support and feed

Feeder bus services to provide quick connection to primary and

secondary corridors and also provide local services to suburban centres

The Projects:

Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) : Klang to Kuala Lumpur & Sunway Go Kuala Lumpur Bus Network Rationalisation GO KL carrying more

than 10,000 passengers per day

Taxi Transformation Plan (TTP)

Filling the gaps & quality option (door to door)

A high quality door to door service as a mode of choice for city centre trips where cost is not a deciding

factor

The Projects:

Establish 1 Malaysia taxi Brand – Taxi Rakyat 1 Malaysia (TR1MA)

Driver training programme Central customer service centre

18

Strictly confidential and for internal use only.

Pillars - Greater KL/KV LPTMPElements of the 6 subsidiary plans …

E L E M E N T S O F T H E S U B S I D I A R Y P L A N S (2)

Interchange and Integration Plan (IIP)

Prepared by:

Policy, Planning &

Research Division

Version: Dec 2012

Review: Dec 2013

POLICY GUIDELINES FOR

INTERCHANGE AND

INTEGRATION

Coordinate transport and development together by creating places

that are well used and valued

Land Use Planning (LUP)

Travel Demand Management (TDM)To encourage travel by more sustainable modes i.e. LPT and to reduce

reliance on private vehicle

Prepared by:

Policy, Planning &

Research Division

Version: Dec 2012

Review: Dec 2013

POLICY GUIDELINES FOR TRAVEL

DEMAND MANAGEMENT (TDM)

Seek to influence land use policies and planning process to favour

LPT provision and performance

Policy

Framework

Planning

Process

Reduce the barriers to

enable mode shift

Sustainable mode shift

Driving up LPT mode share

more aggressively

19

The Projects:

Ticketing Integration

Interchange and Integration guidelines

The Projects:

Travel demand management (TDM) guidelines

• Provide the main spine of the

future PT network particularly

to provide links to the centre of

KL i.e. primary corridor demand

• Provide increased PT capacity

through enhancement to

existing lines, extensions to

existing lines and the provision

of new routes

• Provide the key link between

the city and KLIA

20

Role of Bus

• Fill in the gaps of rail

network, i.e. secondary corridor

demand including Bus Rapid

Transit where appropriate

• Feeder bus services to

provide quick connection

to primary and secondary

corridors

• Provide local services to

suburban centres

Role of Urban Rail Role of Taxi

• Provide a core public transport

service to those in outlying areas

outside the catchment of core and

feeder services;

• Provide a local service where

households have no car available and

bus does not meet their needs (for

example offering accessibility for the

mobility impaired, the transportation

of large packages or a local

destination off the bus route);

• Provide a service outside

conventional public transport

operation hours;

• A high quality door to door service as

a mode of choice for city centre trips

where cost is not a deciding factor;

Greater KL/KV Land PT Master Plan

Bus as Part of Integrated PTMP

Vision

to make PT the mode of choice for the public

The Spine Support & Feed1. Filling the gaps

2. Quality Option – Door to

Door

21

Policy Framework

Planning Process

Greater KL/KV Land PT Master PlanRole of the subsidiary plans

▪ The ‘glue’ to join the PT

modes together

▪ Enable easier, quicker, more

convenient transfers

between services

▪ Create wider ranging and

more frequent travel

opportunities

Land Use2Travel Demand

Management

▪ Complementary policy

instruments to the PTMP

▪ Seek to influence supply

and demand for PT

through policy

interventions

▪ To encourage travel by

more sustainable modes i.e.

PT and to reduce reliance

on private vehicle

3

S0

D0

ECO

NO

MIC

PRIC

E →

QUANTITY →

SUPPLY AND

DEMAND FOR PT SERVICES

DI

Q0

P0

▪ Developing mechanisms to

influence land use policy

and planning framework

▪ Seek to influence land use

policies and planning

process to favour PT

provision and performance

▪ To give priority and

incentives to ‘pro-PT’

development while

‘manage’ development with

no good PT provision

Interchange & Integration1

O O D

from door to door

Public

Transport

Public

Transport

First mile

• Walk

• Park & ride

• Pick-up / drop-off point

Last mile

• Walk

BUS and/or

RAIL

D

Source : 2014 GKL LPT Survey; SPAD

Reason for using Public Transport

46% 45% 42% 33% 26% 12%

Cheaper than driving

Avoid rush hours traffic

Unavailability of parking

Station near house / office

No driving license

Do not own private vehicle

Do not own private vehicle (54%)

Station near house / office (47%)

Station near house / office (56%)

Unavailability of parking (59%)

Do not own private vehicle (53%)

Unavailability of parking (59%)

Top reason for using most often used

public transport

Main reason for using public transport is because of convenience – there are stations near users house / office

and no need to worry about parking issue. Bus (RapidKL and Metrobus) users however have different reasons.

Planning for Feeder Service

MRT : Sungai Buloh – Kajang Line

OPTIONS FOR IMPROVING FIRST MILE CONNECTIVITY

– NLPTMP Recommendations

1. Enhance Park-and-Ride

– Avoids all first-mile issues from house to train station

– To be norm for all train stations. Exceptions to be justified

– Best to be analysed at the Railway Scheme under facilities provision

– Land availability at stations may be a constraint to providing sufficient park-and-ride facilities

2. Enhance Use of Bicycles for first-mile services

– Avoids all first-mile issues from house to train station

– To be norm for all train stations. Exceptions to be justified

– Best to be analysed at the Railway Scheme under facilities provision

– Practised in advanced countries e.g. Tokyo, Velib scheme in Paris

3. Use New Generation Paratransit for Feeder Services

– Addresses financial viability issues of conventional buses

– Better potential to provide short headways and short travel distance feeder service

– Being piloted in advanced countries for urban freight delivery


Summary


• Feeder bus service is an integral part of mass transit system of a city

together with cycling and walking

• Provide first and last mile connectivity

• Proper planning needs to be done to ensure safe and reliable

movement of passengers

• Need for better integration between feeder services and destination

nodes

Rail acts as Spine of the overall Transit System

Feeder Buses Complement Transit System

Provision of walking and cycling facilities crucial in attracting transit users and shift to PT

THANK YOU

First – Last Mile_MBPJ_2015

Documents

Transcript of First – Last Mile_MBPJ_2015