Nairobi Ndovu A104 BRT Service Plan

7/24/2019 Nairobi Ndovu A104 BRT Service Plan

1/94

TheInstitutefor

Transportationand

DevelopmentPolicy

26February,2015

Nairobi Ndovu/A104 BRT

Service Plan


2/94

NairobiNdovu/A104BRTServicePlan Page2

ThisreportwaswrittenbyAnnieWeinstock,Dr.WalterHook,andStephanieLotshawoftheInstituteforTransportation

&DevelopmentPolicy(ITDP),withcriticalinputsfromRemiJeanneret(modeling),ChrisKost(modeling),ZhuXianyuan

(datacollection+modeling),ElkinBello(modeling),andChrisVanEyken(datacollection+GIS).Itwasmadepossibleby

DebashishBhattacharjee,RahabMundara,andTomaszSudraofUN Habitat,undertheUNEPGlobalEnvironmental

FacilitySUSTRANEastAfricaproject,supervisedbyGeordieColville.TheInstituteforTransportationandDevelopment

PolicyalsoprovidedmatchingfundsfromitsNewInitiativesProgram,fundedbyClimateWorks.ITDPwouldliketogive

specialthankstoEngineersDenisOdeckandKibetTeriginofKeNHAfortheirconstantsupport,input,andoversight,

withoutwhichthisreportwouldnothavebeenpossible.


3/94


TableofContents

List of Figures .................................................................................................................. 5

List of Tables ................................................................................................................... 7

List of Abbreviations .......................................................................................................... 8

0 Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... 9

0.1 Scenarios Compared ................................................................................................ 9

0.2 Recommended Service Scenario: Scenario V .................................................................. 11

1 Project Background ..................................................................................................... 16

1.1 The Ndovu/A104 BRT project .................................................................................... 16

1.2 What is a service plan ............................................................................................. 17

1.3 MRTS Harmonisation Study and the Ndovu/A104 BRT Corridor ............................................. 19

2 Objectives of this assignment ......................................................................................... 20

2.1 Personnel and timeframe ......................................................................................... 21

3 Existing Conditions ...................................................................................................... 21

3.1 Surveys .............................................................................................................. 21

3.1.1 Identifying the affected street network and bus routes ........................................................... 22

3.1.2 On-board and at-station boarding and alighting (BA) surveys .................................................... 25

3.1.3 Bus frequency & occupancy surveys .................................................................................. 25

3.1.4 Bus passenger transfer surveys ........................................................................................ 26

4 Existing (baseline) conditions ......................................................................................... 27

4.1 Existing frequencies ............................................................................................... 27

4.2 Existing public transport speeds ................................................................................. 29

4.3 Existing public transport passenger demand .................................................................. 30

5 Service plan for the Ndovu/A104 BRT ................................................................................ 36

5.1 Modeling process ................................................................................................... 36

5.2 Model calibration .................................................................................................. 38

5.3 General Objectives ................................................................................................ 40

5.4 BRT Infrastructure Scenarios ..................................................................................... 40

5.4.1 Infrastructure Scenario 1 ............................................................................................... 41




4/94



5.4.5 A note on BRT infrastructure through the CBD ...................................................................... 44

5.5 BRT Service Scenarios ............................................................................................. 47

5.5.1 Inclusion or exclusion of routes ........................................................................................ 47

5.5.2 BRT service types ........................................................................................................ 50

5.5.3 Scenario I: Trunk-Feeder on KeNHA Infrastructure (Infrastructure Scenario 1) ............................... 57

5.5.4 Scenario II: Direct services on KeNHA Infrastructure (Infrastructure Scenario 1) ............................. 59

5.5.5 Scenario III: Trunk-Feeder on KeNHA Infrastructure + CBD (Infrastructure Scenario 3) ...................... 61

5.5.6 Scenario IV: Direct services on KeNHA Infrastructure + CBD (Infrastructure Scenario 3) .................... 63

5.5.7 Scenario V: Direct services on KeNHA Infrastructure + CBD + Langata (Infrastructure Scenario 4) ........ 64

5.6 Comparison of scenarios .......................................................................................... 66

5.6.1

Basic cost-benefit analysis of each scenario ........................................................................ 70

5.7 BRT station locations and sizing ................................................................................. 73

5.7.1 Routes included in Scenario V ......................................................................................... 78


5/94


ListofFiguresFigure1:BRTservicescenarioV:DirectservicesonKeNHAInfrastructure+CBD+Langata.............................................. 12

Figure2:BRTstationinJohannesburgwithtwosubstops................................................................................................... 14

Figure3:

Number

of

sub

stops

needed

at

each

station

under

recommended

service

plan

scenario

..................................

14

Figure4:A104Highwayproject............................................................................................................................................ 16

Figure5:A104BRTinfrastructureasdefinedbyKeNHA...................................................................................................... 17

Figure6:FiveBRTlinesproposedbytheMRTSHarmonisationStudy................................................................................. 19

Figure7:Ndovu/A104BRTinfrastructureasfoundinMRTSHarmonisationStudy............................................................. 20

Figure8MapofNairobismatatuservices........................................................................................................................... 23

Figure9:SurveyedroutesoperatinginthewiderNairobiarea........................................................................................... 24

Figure10:SurveyedroutesoperatingintheCentralBusinessDistrict................................................................................ 24

Figure11:FVOsurveylocationsforNdovu/A104BRTserviceplanningdatacollection...................................................... 26

Figure12:TransfersurveylocationsforNdovu/A104BRTserviceplanningdatacollection............................................... 27

Figure13:

Existing

aggregate

matatu

frequencies

for

all

routes

surveyed

during

AM

peak

hour.

......................................

29

Figure14:Existingaveragematatuspeedsforallroutessurveyed.AMpeakhour............................................................ 30

Figure15:Existingstopbystopboardingandalightingvolumesforallroutessurveyed................................................... 31

Figure16:ExistingmatatuloadsonA104northernsegmentfromNaivashaRdtoKikuyuRd............................................ 32

Figure17:ExistingmatatuloadsonA104,fromNaivahsaRdtoWestlandsRoundabout................................................... 33

Figure18:ExistingmatatuloadonA104corridorandCBD.................................................................................................. 34

Figure19:ExistingmatatuloadsonA104corridor,southofCBDtoImaraDiamaRailway................................................ 35

Figure20:ExistingmatatuloadsonA104corridor,approachingairport,fromLikoniRdtoJKIA....................................... 36

Figure21Overviewofsurvey,modelingandBRTserviceplanprocess............................................................................... 37

Figure22:CalibrationofmodelforexistingmataturoutesonA104................................................................................... 39

Figure23:

Calibration

of

model

for

existing

matatu

routes

on

A104

&

Lanata

....................................................................

40

Figure24:InfrastructureScenario1 KeNHA'scurrentdesign............................................................................................ 41

Figure25:InfrastructureScenario2 MRTSHarmonizationStudy...................................................................................... 42

Figure26:InfrastructureScenario3 KeNHA+CBDloop.................................................................................................... 43

Figure27:InfrastructureScenario4 KeNHA+CBDloop+Langata.................................................................................... 44

Figure28:TripgenerationdensityinNairobiCBD................................................................................................................ 45

Figure29:Bogota'sTransMilenioBRTgoesrightthroughtheCBD..................................................................................... 46

Figure30:VolumeofwalkingtripsalongCBDstreetsifBRTinfrastructureisnotincludedintheCBD.............................. 46

Figure31:MexicoCity'sBRTsystemwasdesignedwith"trunkonly"services................................................................... 50

Figure32:Jakarta'sBRTwasalsodesignedwith"trunkonly"services............................................................................... 51

Figure33:HarmoniStationtransferfacilityinJakarta......................................................................................................... 52

Figure34:Jakartaaddedsomeintercorridorservices........................................................................................................ 53

Figure35:Guangzhou'sfullydirectservicesBRTsystem..................................................................................................... 55

Figure36:Johannesburgimplementedahybridsystemofdirectservicesandtrunkfeederservices............................... 56

Figure37:BRTServiceScenarioI:TrunkFeederonKeNHAInfrastructure......................................................................... 57

Figure38:UnderScenarioI,twomajortransferfacilities.................................................................................................... 58

Figure39:BRTServiceScenarioII:DirectservicesonKeNHAInfrastructure....................................................................... 60


6/94


Figure40:BRTServiceScenarioIII:TrunkfeederonKeNHAInfrastructure+CBD.............................................................. 61

Figure41:BRTServiceScenarioIV:DirectservicesonKeNHAInfrastructure+CBD........................................................... 63

Figure42:BRTservicescenarioV:DirectservicesonKeNHAInfrastructure+CBD+Langata............................................ 65

Figure43:

Comparison

of

daily

BRT

passengers

across

the

five

scenarios

...........................................................................

67

Figure44:ComparisonofpassengervolumestransferringoffofsurveyedmataturoutesandontotheBRT.................... 68

Figure45:Averagetime(inminutes)savedbyallpublictransportpassengersundereachscenario................................ 69

Figure46:Averagetime(minutes)savedbyBRTpassengers.............................................................................................. 69

Figure47:ProposedstationstopsalongA104,CBD,andLangataRoad.............................................................................. 74

Figure48:Highstationsaturationhasaninverseeffectonspeed...................................................................................... 74

Figure49:Multipledockingbaysandsubstops................................................................................................................... 75

Figure50:WithBRTinfrastructureandstationsintheCBD,demandiscanbedistributedthroughout9CBDstations....76

Figure51:WithoutBRTinfrastructureandstationsintheCBD,demandisconcentratedatonlyafewstationsonUhur77

Figure52:Numberofsubstopsrequiredinatrunkonlysystemwithmultiplecorridors.................................................. 77

Figure53:

Maximum

number

of

sub

stops

for

BRT

systems

around

the

world.

..................................................................

78


7/94


ListofTablesTable1:Comparisonofthe5serviceplanscenarios.............................................................................................................. 9

Table2:SummaryofEstimatedCapitalCostsbyServicePlanScenario.............................................................................. 10

Table3:

Summary

of

rate

of

return

by

service

plan

scenario

...............................................................................................

11

Table4:ResultsofScenarioV............................................................................................................................................... 13

Table5:Frequencycountsofsurveyedroutes.Source:ITDPSurvey................................................................................... 28

Table6:RoutesconsideredforinclusioninBRTservicescenarios...................................................................................... 49

Table7:ResultsofScenarioI................................................................................................................................................ 59

Table8:ResultsofScenarioII............................................................................................................................................... 60

Table9:ResultsofScenarioIII.............................................................................................................................................. 62

Table10:ResultsofScenarioIV............................................................................................................................................ 64

Table11:ResultsofScenarioV............................................................................................................................................. 65

Table12:Cost,Benefit,andRateofReturncomparisonofFiveServicePlanScenarios..................................................... 71

Table13:

Scenario

V

BRT

Routes

..........................................................................................................................................

79


8/94


ListofAbbreviations

Artic:Articulatedbuses(18meter)

BA:Boarding

and

Alighting

BRT:BusRapidTransit

CBD:CentralBusinessDistrict

FVO:FrequencyandVisualOccupancy

ITDP:InstituteforTransportation&DevelopmentPolicy

JKIA:JomoKenyattaInternationalAirport

KeNHA:KenyaNationalHighwaysAuthority

LRT:LightRailTransit

MRTS:MassRapidTransitSystem

MIT:MassachusettsInstituteofTechnology

NMR:NairobiMetropolitanRegion

NUTRIP:NationalUrbanTransportImprovementProject

OD:OriginDestination

Std:Standardbuses(12meter)


9/94


0

ExecutiveSummary

TheInstituteforTransportationandDevelopmentPolicy(ITDP)isanonprofitorganizationwithextensive

technicalexpertiseonBusRapidTransit(BRT)planning.Oneofourcoremissionsistohelpcitiestoimprove

thequality

of

their

BRT

projects.

As

such,

we

have

worked

in

cities

around

the

world

to

help

design

and

implementsomeofthebestranking,goldstandardBRTsystems.

TheNdovu/A104BRTprojectinNairobiiscurrentlyonatrajectorytobecomeaworldclassBRTproject.The

highestqualityBRTsystemsaredesignedaroundagoodserviceplan.Aserviceplandetermineswherethe

BRTrouteswillgo,howbigstationswillneedtobe,andhowmanypassengersaBRTsystemwillattract.The

BRTinfrastructureisthendesignedspecificallyforthisserviceplan.

AttherequestoftheKenyaNationalHighwaysAuthority(KeNHA),ITDPhaspreparedapreliminaryBRT

serviceplanfortheNdovu/A104BRTprojectaccordingtointernationalbestpracticeinBRTserviceplanning.

Thisreportdetailstheprocess,methodology,andmodelingresultsfromseveraldetailedalternativeservice

scenarios.Therecommendedservicescenariointhisreportminimizeslandacquisition,reducesthecapital

costsneededfortransferstations,minimizestraveltimeforpassengers,andattractsthemostpassengers.The

resultsofeachalternativeoptionareshown.Thebestscenariofortheprojectwouldresultinatopquality

BRTthatcanbereplicatedinNairobi,inKenya,inEastAfrica,andthroughouttheworld.

0.1 ScenariosCompared

Table 1: Comparison of the 5 service plan scenarios

Sixscenariosweremodeledandcompared.Thesesixscenariosareasfollows:

Baseline:Existingconditions

ScenarioI:TrunkfeederserviceswithtrunkservicesonA104only

ScenarioII:DirectserviceswithBRTinfrastructureonA104only

Scenario Baseline I II III IV V

Description Existing I:Trunk&

Feeder,

no

CBD

II:Direct

Services,

no

CBD

III:Trunk&

Feeder,

CBD

IV:Direct

Services,

CBD

V:Direct

Services,CBD+

Langata

TripsonMatatus 966,213 732,213 606,213 669,213 597,213 516,213

Dailytrips 0 234,000 360,000 297,000 369,000 450,000

Timeperpassenger 78.36 77.21 76.40 75.4 74.10 72.03

Timesavingsallpassengers 0 1.15 1.96 2.96 4.26 6.33

TimesavingsperBRTpassenger 0 5.1 5.7 10.5 12.1 14.7

BRTVehicles 0 284 352 343 335 385

Dailypassengers perbus 0 824 1023 866 1101 1169

Transferstationsneeded 0 6 0 6 0 0

Comparison

of

Five

Service

Plan

Scenarios


10/94


ScenarioIII:TrunkfeederserviceswithtrunkservicesonA104andthroughtheCBD(BRT

infrastructurethroughCBDtoo)

ScenarioIV:DirectserviceswithBRTinfrastructureonA104andthroughtheCBD

ScenarioV:

Direct

services

with

BRT

infrastructure

on

A104,

through

the

CBD

+1.5km

of

Langata

Rd.

Eachscenariowascomparedonthefollowingterms:

DailyridershipontheBRT;

Averagetimesavingsalltransitpassengers(BRT+matatu);

Averagetimesavings,BRTpassengers;

#BRTvehiclesneeded;

Dailypassengersoneachbus;and

#Transferstationsneeded.

The

best

BRT

service

plan

will

capture

as

much

of

the

existing

matatu

demand

currently

using

the

corridor

as

possible.Thishastwobenefits:First,itmeansmoreofthematatuscanberemovedfromtheremainingtraffic

lanes,decongestingtheroad.Second,itmeansmorepassengerscanbenefitfromthenewBRTsystem.

ScenarioVcapturesbyfarthemostpassengers,andhencewoulddecongesttheroadthemost.

ThebestBRTserviceplanwillsavethemosttimeforallthetransitpassengersinthecorridor,boththoseon

theBRTsystemandthosethatcannotusetheBRTsystem.Itisalsoworthknowinghowmuchtimejustthe

BRTpassengerssave.Inthisrespect,ScenarioValsoperformsthebest.Alltransitpassengerssave6.33

minutesandtheBRTpassengerssave14.7minutespertripunderScenarioV.ScenarioVperformsthebest

becausetheinfrastructureisconcentratedonthemostcongestedpartsofexistingtransittrips,andbecause

thereare

minimal

forced

transfers

imposed

on

passengers.

ThebestBRTserviceplancarriesthemostpassengersperbusbutdoesnotnecessaryrequirethesmallest

fleet.ThebestBRTserviceplanrequiresabiggerfleetbecauseitiscarryingalotmorepassengersthan

alternativescenarios,buteachoneofthosebusesiscarryingmoredailypassengersthanintheother

scenarios,sothesystemoverallwillbemoreprofitable.

ThebestBRTserviceplanrequireslowercapitalcostsandlandacquisition.

Table 2: Summary of Estimated Capital Costs by Service Plan Scenario

Thecapitalcostsforthetrunkandfeederscenarios(I&III)aremuchhigherlargelybecauseoftheneedto

acquirelandandconstructsixtransferstations.Thisaddsanestimated$106.8milliontothecostofalltrunk

Scenario Baseline I

II III IV V

Description Existing Trunk&Feeder,no

CBD

DirectServices,no

CBD

Trunk&Feeder,

CBD DirectServices,CBD

DirectServices,CBD

+Langata

TotalEstimatedCapitalCost 0 262,950,000$ 208,200,000$ 296,150,000$ 210,300,000$ 239,650,000$

Summary

of

Estimated

Capital

Costs

by

Service

Plan

Scenario


11/94


andfeederscenarios(thoughsomeofthisisoffsetbysmallerfleetsizesduetoamuchlowerridership).Inthe

scenarioswithinfrastructureintheCBD,thatinfrastructureaddsonly$2.7millioninbuswaycostsandabout

$6.5millioninstationcosts,soabout$9.2milliontotal.ExtensivelandacquisitionintheCBDisunlikelytobe

necessaryunder

the

direct

services

scenarios,

as

the

right

of

way

is

already

quite

wide.

For

this

initial

investment,about$70millionmoreisachievedinuserbenefitsinthetrunkfeederscenario,andmorethan

$110millionayearinadditionalbenefitsinthedirectservicescenario.Thecapitalcostinthedirectservice

scenarioswithCBD(ScenariosIV&V)forbusesdropsbecauseitrunsservicesinhighlycongesteddowntown

streets,andincreasingthesespeedssignificantlyreducestheamountoffleetneeded.

Table 3: Summary of rate of return by service plan scenario

Intermsofrateofreturn,theCBDsectionhasthehighestrateofreturnofanycapitalinvestmentinthe

corridor.Finally,therateofreturnisfarbetterforthedirectservicescenarios,andforallofthescenarios

includingtheCBDinfrastructure,andsomewhatbetterstillifLangataisincluded.This,onceagain,pointsto

ScenarioVasbeingthebestinvestment.

0.2

RecommendedService

Scenario:

Scenario

V

ThebestperformingscenariowasScenarioV:DirectservicesonKeNHAInfrastructure+CBD+Langata.In

thisscenario,multipleservices,whichmimicthemostpopularexistingmataturoutes,operateinmixedtraffic

forapartoftheirroute,thenenterfullBRTinfrastructurealongtheA104.ThisscenarioalsorequiresfullBRT

infrastructureonthefirst1.5kmofLangataRdandinthecitycenter.Thisserviceoptioncapturesmostofthe

existingpassengersusingthecorridortodayandoffersthemaconvenientoneseatride.Ofthedozensof

existingmataturoutes,wesimplifiedthemandreducedthemto16criticalrouteswhichincludesomelocal

andexpressversionsofthesameroutes.Theresultingserviceplanisdepictedbelow,withdetailsincludedin

Chapter5.

Scenario Baseline I II III IV V

Description Existing Trunk&Feeder,no

CBD

DirectServices,no

CBD

Trunk&Feeder,

CBD DirectServices,CBD

DirectServices,CBD

+Langata

Estimatedannual

benefit

(USD) 5,592,894$

9,123,762$

13,422,946$

21,897,029$

25,286,662$

PV12Years@5% 49,571,230$ 80,866,199$ 118,970,952$ 194,078,877$ 224,122,047$

TotalEstimatedCapitalCost 0 262,950,000$ 208,200,000$ 296,150,000$ 210,300,000$ 239,650,000$

RateofReturn 0.188519605 0.388406334 0.401725316 0.922866748 0.935205703

Summary

of

Rate

of

Return

by

Service

Plan

Scenario


12/94


Figure 1: BRT service scenario V: Direct services on KeNHA Infrastructure + CBD + Langata

ThetotalnumberofAMpeakhourpassengerswhowillusetheBRTinthisscenariois49,887,whichwill

attractapproximately450,000dailypassengers,makingitthehighestperformingscenario.Thiswillrequirea

totalfleet

of

385

buses:

266

articulated

18

meter

buses

and

119

standard

12

meter

buses.

To

ensure

optimal

operationalflexibility,the18meterbusesshouldbespecifiedtohavefourplatformleveldoorsontheright

sideofthebus,andtwocurbleveldoorsontheleftside.The12meterbusesshouldhavetwoplatformlevel

doorsontherightsideandtwocurbleveldoorsontheleft.Ifalowfloordesignisoptedfor,bothsetsof

doorscanbeatthesamelevel.

Currentlytheaveragetripconsumes78.36minuteequivalents,andtherecommendedscenarioreducesthis

to72.03minutes,areductionof6.33minutesforalltransitpassengersusingthecorridorandareductionof

14.7minutesperpeakhourBRTpassengeronaverage.Whenthisfigureiscombinedwiththeestimatedcost

ofbuildingthesystem,apreliminaryeconomicrateofreturncanbecalculated,whichwillbeneededtojustify

theinvestment

to

the

World

Bank.

Wearealsoconfidentthatthisserviceplanwillattractsufficientcustomerswillingtopayareasonablefare

thataprivateinvestorwillbeabletorecovertheirneededinvestmentinbusesfromthefareboxaswellas

theirongoingoperatingcostsandstillreturnaprofit.

ThisresultdependscriticallyonthecompletionoffullBRTinfrastructureonUniversityWay,HaileSelassie

Ave,andMoiintheNairobiCBD.Additionally,asfourofthehighervolumeroutescomefromLangataRd,this


13/94


resultalsodependsonfullBRTinfrastructureforthefirst1.5kmofLangataRd,designedaspartofPhaseI.

Further,thefullydedicatedBRTonlyturnsthatwererecommendedintheNairobiBRTPhaseIInfrastructure

&Intersectionsreport(RiversideDr,UniversityWay,HaileSelassieAve,LangataRd,PopoRd,EnterpriseRd,

andAirport

N

Rd)

remain

critical

to

accommodating

these

services

and

ensuring

that

the

BRT

speeds

do

not

dropsharplyduetolackofintersectioncapacity.IftheseelementsofBRTinfrastructureareexcludedfrom

PhaseI,amajorityofthebenefitsoftheprojectarelost.

Thedetailedresultsofthemodeling(shownfortheAMpeakhour)arebelow.NotethatArticindicatesan

18meterarticulatedbus,andStdindicatesa12meterbus.Bothmustbeconfiguredforuseon andoff

corridor.

Table 4: Results of Scenario V

Ourmodelingalsoproducedstationbystationpassengerboardingandalightingvolumes,fromwhichweare

abletoprovidestationsizingrecommendationsintermsofnumberofsubstops.Asubstopisastation

modulewithenoughspacefortwobusestodock.Substopsshouldbeseparatedbyenoughspaceforabusto

easilypullinandpulloutifthereisanotherbusinfrontofit.

DATA MODEL MODEL RESULTS

Veh Length Run time Pax Pax Max Max Hdwy

Route type (km) (min) Boarding km hours volume load Freq (min) Fleet

B105X Artic 44.9 162.34 7 599 101 573 6 276 3 846 1.20 24.0 2.5 66B11 Std 15.5 67.08 1 996 6 732 576 1 024 0.57 11.4 5.3 13

B110A Std 62.4 168.21 2 338 37 183 1 427 973 0.54 10.8 5.5 31

B110B Std 41.7 108.12 1 575 18 440 713 906 0.50 10.1 6.0 19

B12 Std 16.5 80.61 1 136 4 255 241 592 0.33 6.6 9.1 9

B125 Artic 28.5 154.39 3 284 22 645 2 395 1 789 0.56 11.2 5.4 29

B14 Std 10.5 35.70 1 152 3 501 210 909 0.51 10.1 5.9 7

B15 Artic 25.1 137.44 3 615 17 833 1 675 1 211 0.38 7.6 7.9 18

B23 Artic 22.0 62.36 5 672 37 227 1 859 2 980 0.93 18.6 3.2 20

B30 Artic 29.6 89.16 6 142 39 934 1 960 2 707 0.85 16.9 3.5 26

B33 Artic 24.0 56.42 5 336 44 092 1 801 2 888 0.90 18.1 3.3 17

B33F Artic 35.4 139.64 3 148 29 658 1 505 1 343 0.42 8.4 7.1 20

B33N Artic 15.9 56.90 2 378 13 086 866 2 063 0.64 12.9 4.7 13

B33U Std 50.3 232.00 3 620 20 678 1 569 929 0.52 10.3 5.8 40B34 Artic 38.4 108.79 3 480 38 189 1 579 1 643 0.51 10.3 5.8 19

B48 Artic 28.1 140.04 4 071 35 198 2 768 2 540 0.79 15.9 3.8 38

TOTAL 489 1799 56 542 470 225 27 420 385


14/94


Figure 2: BRT station in Johannesburg with two substops

Themapbelowshowshowmanysubstopsareneededateachstationinordertoaccommodatethe

passengerdemandwithoutsaturating.TheneedforthegreatestnumberofsubstopsintheCBDunderscores

thedemandandneedforBRTinfrastructureintheCBDfromthestartofoperations.

Figure 3: Number of sub-stops needed at each station under recommended service plan scenario

OneofthemainreasonsITDPrecommendedafullBRTringthroughtheNairobiCBDwastoincreasethe

numberofstationsabletohandleCBDboundpassengers.Byhaving9fullBRTstationsinafullringaroundthe

NairobiCBD,theCBDbounddemandontheA104canbedistributedthroughouttheCBD.Thisnotonlyavoids


15/94


anyonestationbecomingovercrowdedandsaturated,italsominimizeswalkingtimes.Thealternative

proposal,tohaveonly4stationsalongtheA104wouldresultinallofthedemandconcentratedinonly4

stations,andnotonlywouldthesestationssaturate,theywouldalsobefarfromtriporiginsanddestinations,

meaningmuch

less

convenience

for

passengers.

Whenthedemandisdistributedto9CBDstations,theywouldrequire3substopseachtoavoidsaturation.

Even3substopsisalotforaCBD.Giventheseresults,ITDPsuggeststhatfullBRTinfrastructurealsobebuilt

alongKenyattathroughtheCBD,includingatleast2stationsalongtheKenyattalink,tofurtherdisbursethis

demandtomorealternativestations,allowingustomaketheremainingCBDstationssmaller.


16/94


1

ProjectBackground

TheAfricaofficeoftheInstituteforTransportation&DevelopmentPolicyisresponsibleforpreparingthe

Nairobi

Ndovu/A104

BRT

service

plan.

1.1 TheNdovu/A104BRTproject

TheA104HighwayprojectispartoftheNationalUrbanTransportImprovementProject(NUTRIP)being

undertakenbytheKenyaNationalHighwaysAuthority(KeNHA)withthesupportoftheWorldBank.TheA104

HighwayisoneofthemostimportantroadsinNairobi,connectingtheairporttodowntownandserving

criticallongdistancefreightandpassengerlinks(asbelow).

Figure 4: A104 Highway project

Responsibilityfordesigningthisroadissplitbetweenthreecontractors:Lot1fromJKIAtoLikoniRoadisunder

thepurviewofGibbAfrica,Lot2fromLikoniRoadtoJamesGichuruRoadisunderthepurviewofCOWI,and

Lot3,fromJamesGichuruRoadtoUthiruisunderthepurviewofEser(Turkey).

TheFeasibilityStudyforMassRapidTransitSystemfortheNairobiMetropolitanRegion(CES/APEC,2011)that

was commissioned by the Ministry of Transport recommended a mixed LRT and BRT system for furthe


17/94


detailing.TheNairobiRailwayStation JKIAAthiRiverandtheNairobiRailwayStationKabeteKikuyu

wereamongthe9corridorsidentifiedtobeappropriateforaMassRapidTransportationSystem.

In2013,

KeNHA

thus

made

the

decision

to

retrofit

the

A104

highway

designs

to

include

world

class

Bus

Rapid

Transit(BRT).TheplansareforhighqualitypossiblygoldstandardBRTinfrastructurealongtheA104.

KeNHAscurrentplanistobuildBRTinfrastructurefromtheCityCabanasinterchangetoJamesGichuruRoad,

maintainingampleroadreserveforanextensionoftheBRTtothenorthinthefuture.

Figure 5: A104 BRT infrastructure as defined by KeNHA (also, Infrastructure Scenario 1, as below)

However,manyofthedecisionsonBRTdesignweremadepriortodevelopingaserviceplanfortheproject.

WhileitisagoodideatohavesomesenseofwhatthedesignwillbeandwhereBRTinfrastructureshouldbe

built,onlyaserviceplancantellyouwhereBRTinfrastructureismostneededandhowintersectionsand

stationsshould

be

designed

to

accommodate

the

BRT

services.

1.2 Whatisaserviceplan

ThestartingpointforthedesignofaBRTsystemshouldnotbetheinfrastructureorthevehicles.Instead,the

systemshouldbedesignedtoachievetheoperationalcharacteristicsthataredesiredbythecustomer.From

the customersperspective, someof themost important factorsaffecting their choiceof travelmodesare


18/94


whethertheserviceswilltakethemwheretheywanttogoandhowlongitwilltake.Thestartingpointforthe

designofthebestBRTsystemshasthereforebeenthecreationofaserviceplan.

Aservice

plan

tells

you

how

buses

should

be

routed

onto

and

off

of

the

BRT

corridor

to

bring

passengers

to

theirdestinationswithas fewtransfersaspossible. Itspecifiesbusroutes,schedules, locationsandsizesof

BRTstations,numberofbusesneeded,andtechnicalspecificationsforthebuses. Italsotellsyouhowwhat

theridershipwilllikelybeoneachroute,wherepassengerswillboardandalight,andhowtheexistingbusand

mataturouteswillbeimpactedbytheBRT.

Becauseofthis,aserviceplanwillaffectmanyaspectsoftheBRTdesignandplanningprocess:

1. Placement of Dedicated Bus Lanes: A service plan will guide the placement of dedicated lanes

Becauseaserviceplanwilltellyouwherebusesshouldberouted,howmanyshouldbeplacedon

eachroute,

and

how

current

speeds

differ

from

what

can

be

achieved

with

BRT,

it

will

indicate

where

dedicatedlaneswouldbemosteffective.

2.

IntersectionDesign:Aserviceplanwillalsodrivethedesignofintersections.Forexample,ifhalfof

thebusesareexitingUhuruHighwayatHaileSelassie,thatintersectionwillneedtobedesignedto

handletheseturningvolumesfromthebusway.

3.

StationDesign:AserviceplanwilldriveBRTstationdesignbecausetheservicesprovidedwillaffect

thenumberofpassengersboardingandalightingateachstationandthisinturnwillaffectthesizeof

thestations,andparticularly,thenumberofsubstopsrequiredtoavoidstationsaturation.Ifthere

arecertainsegmentsofthetrunkBRTwhichhavemultiplebusroutesoperatingonthem(whichthe

serviceplan

will

show),

then

certain

stations

will

need

to

be

designed

to

handle

multiple

buses

dockingatthesametime.

4. FeederStations:A serviceplanwill tellyouwhether itwillbenecessary tobring feederbuses to

access the trunk corridor. If so, theBRTdesignwillneed to include feeder stations so that these

busesmaydropoffpassengersandturnaround.Aserviceplanwillalsotellyouwhether itmakes

moresensetobringfeederbusesdirectlyontothetrunkcorridor(calledcomplementaryservices

andifso,afeederstationwillnotneedtobedesigned.

5. ExistingBus/MatatuRoutes:Aserviceplanwilltellyou,foreachbusormataturoute,whetheritwil

needtostopoperatingorbereroutedsinceitisnotintheinterestofaBRTsystemtoallowmatatus

to

continue

operating

in

competition

with

the

BRT.

Therefore,

a

service

plan

must

be

done

prior

toimplementinganystrategyforhandlingtheimpactedmatatuandbusowners.

6. FinancialModeling:Aserviceplanwilltellyouhowmanypassengerswillusethesystemandhow

manybuseswillbeneeded. It is, therefore, a key input into aBRT systems financialmodel.The

number of passengerswill help determinewhat fare/tariff can be supported and the number of

buseswillhelpdeterminethecostofthesystemandtheamountofequitythatwilllikelyneedtobe

raisedbyshareholders.


19/94


It is therefore important that the service plan happen prior to many other critical decisions in the BRT

planning,design,and financialmodelingprocess.However,oncedesignand financialmodelingbegins, it is

generallynecessarytogobackandupdatethefinancialmodeltoreflectcertaindesignandfinancialdecisions

Therefore,though

the

service

plan

must

be

the

first

step,

service

planning

does

not

end

once

design

begins

Rather,itmusthappeninaniterativeway,beingfrequentlyupdatedtoreflectchangesintheinfrastructure

designandfinancialmodel.

1.3 MRTSHarmonisationStudyandtheNdovu/A104BRTCorridor

In2014,theMinistryofTransportandInfrastructure,togetherwiththeirconsultants,Gauff,completedthe

MRTSHarmonisationStudy.Theaimofthestudywastobringtogetherallpreviousstudiesandplansandto

developanintegratedpublictransportationnetworkforNairobiandtheNairobiMetropolitanRegion(NMR).

TheHarmonisationStudyconsistsoftwomajorparts.1TheMRTSHarmonisationStudyrecommendedfive

MRTS

lines

with

a

focus

on

BRT.

Figure 6: Five BRT lines proposed by the MRTS Harmonisation Study. Source: Rail & Road Based Mass Rapid Transit System onJogoo Road Corridor, Results of the Harmonisation Study Stakeholder Presentation. Gauff Consultants. May 16, 2014

1Gauff Consultants, Mass Rapid Transit System Harmonisation Study Nairobi Metropolitan Region, 2014.


20/94


Further,itconcurredwiththechoiceofBRTontheA104tobecomeLine1.However,itrecommendeda

differentextentofBRTinfrastructurethaniscurrentlybeingdesignedbyKeNHA.TheHarmonisationStudys

Line1BRTinfrastructurehasbeendefinedasfollows:

Figure 7: Ndovu/A104 BRT infrastructure as found in MRTS Harmonisation Study (also, Infrastructure Scenario 2, as below)

TheHarmonisationStudyisrelevanttothisserviceplanningeffortinthatitattemptstodefineabasicservice

planthatshouldbeadoptedforallBRTcorridors.However,itdefinedthisserviceplanbasedonverymacro

leveldataanddidnotinvolveadetaileddatacollectionormodelingprocess.Therefore,ITDPhastestedthe

HarmonisationStudysserviceplanfortheNdovu/A104corridorasoneofthescenariosbutdidnotlimitits

scenariotestingtoonlythisscenariosincesuchascenario,inourexperience,limitsthebenefitsoftheBRT

systemandthus,negativelyimpactstheridership.TheserviceplandefinedbytheHarmonisationStudyis

describedindetailandtestedinSection5.5.3.

2

Objectivesofthisassignment

ITDPisanonprofitwhosecorecompetencyisinprovidingtechnicalsupportforBRTprojectsandhashelped

todesignserviceplansformanyofthebestBRTsystemsaroundtheworld.Assuch,ITDPisworkingwith

KeNHAtocreatetheserviceplanfortheNdovu/A104BRTcorridor.Theobjectiveofthisworkistoprovide


21/94


operationaldesignforthefirstcorridorofahighquality,highcapacitybusrapidtransit(BRT)systemin

Nairobi,Kenya.

2.1

Personneland

timeframe

ITDPsserviceplanningworkinNairobiwascarriedoutfromOctober2013topresentandincludedthe

followingexperts:

AnnieWeinstock

WalterHook

StephanieLotshaw

ChristopherVanEyken

ElkinBello

ChristopherKost

ZhuXianyuan

RemiJeanneret

JacobMason

3

ExistingConditions

Awelldesignedserviceplanisbasedonacarefulevaluationandunderstandingoftheexistingbusandmatatu

servicesthatarecurrentlyservingpublictransportpassengersintheareaimpactedbythenewBRT.Itisthese

passengersmostlikelytotransferontotheBRTandthesepassengerswhowillmakeupthemajorityoffuture

BRTusers.

InordertomodelexistingconditionsforpublictransportuseontheA104,ITDPcollectedrealdataalongthe

corridorthroughaseriesofsurveys,asdescribedbelow.Thisbecamethebasisformodeledsimulationof

baselineconditions,andlaterformodeleddemandestimatesoffutureuseoftheBRT.

3.1 Surveys

InOctober2013andFebruary2014,ITDPcompletedallofthenecessarysurveysanddatacollection:

Boarding&alightingsurveysfor48routes,withatleast5samplesforeachrouteineachtimeperiod

(AMpeak);

Matatufrequency

&

occupancy

surveys

at

multiple

locations;

Matatustoptransfersurveys;

Atstationboardingandalightingsurveys;and

Speedanddelaysurveys

TheNairobiagenciesprovidedexcellentassistanceintheformof:

Awarenessraisingamongstthegeneralpublicviaradio,televisionadsandnotices;and


22/94


SupportfromthePoliceandlocalauthorities.

3.1.1 Identifyingtheaffectedstreetnetworkandbusroutes

Inorder

to

carry

out

the

data

collection

survey,

ITDP

first

identified

the

affected

street

network.

This

refers

tothestreetswithintheNairobistreetnetworkwhichcarrymatatuand/orandbusroutesthatinteractwith

theA104corridor.Thisincludes:

StreetswhichintersectA104,

StreetswhichrunparallelandneartoA104,A104itself,and

StreetsintheCBD.

Wealsoincludedadditionalsurveylocationsbeyondthisareatobetteridentifythecityspassengerdemand

behavior.

Priorto

conducting

the

survey,

it

was

essential

to

identify

the

current

itinerary

for

each

route

and

the

registeredstops(designatedornondesignated).AsinmanyAfricancities,Nairobismataturoutesaresubject

tofrequentmodification,underminingreliabilityforpassengers.Whilemostrouteshaveadefiniteoriginand

finaldestination,theitineraryeachmatatutakescanvarydailyorevenhourlyduetocongestion,

construction,andthepresenceofthetrafficpolice.Evenamatatu'soriginsanddestinationscanchangefor

example,ifamatatustageiscrowdedanddriversrelocatetodifferentparks.Thatsaid,abasicsenseofthe

routesiscriticaltounderstandingexistingpublictransportpatternsonthecorridor.

TheUniversityofNairobi/ColumbiaUniversity/MITteamdidacomprehensiveanalysisofNairobismatatu

routescompiling

the

existing

stopping

locations

both

designated

and

non

designated

for

atotal

of

118

routes.

Weusedthismapasastartingpointandidentifiedtheexistingroutesandregisteredstopsintheaffected

networksothatwecouldselectroutesandpointsforperformingtheonboardandatstationboardingand

alightingsurvey.


23/94


Figure 8 Map of Nairobis matatu services. Source: Digital Matatus

Usingthismapasastartingpoint,weidentifiedthemataturouteswhichinterfacedenoughwiththecorridor

thattheyshouldbeinitiallyconsideredfortheBRTserviceplan.Itwasfortheseroutesthatweperformeda

detailedsurvey.Thisselectionconsideredthreemaincategories:

1) Routefrequency(routeswithgreaterthan3buses/hour),

2) Routeoverlap(routeswithatleast20%overlapontheA104corridor),and

3) Areaofinfluenceanalysis(routesnearthecorridorthatcouldeventuallybecapturedbyaBRT).

Atotalof48routeswereselectedforthesurveys.Somerouteswereidentifiedtooperatealongparallel

corridorsand

thus

marked

as

important

under

the

area

of

influence

aspect

(item

#3).

ThemapsbelowshowalloftheroutessurveyedaspartofITDPsA104survey.


24/94


Figure 9: Surveyed routes operating in the wider Nairobi area.

Figure 10: Surveyed routes operating in the Central Business District.


25/94


3.1.2 Onboardandatstationboardingandalighting(BA)surveys

Theboardingandalighting(BA)surveyisacarefulmappingofprecisematatustoppinglocations,aswellasa

countofhowmanypassengersgetonandoffamatatuorbusateachstopalongtheroute.Two

methodologiesarecommonlyusedtocarryoutBAsurveys:

1. OnboardBAsurveyswhichrequiressurveyorstoridearoute(infullorpartially)andcountnumbersof

passengersboardingandalightingateachstop.

2. AtstationBAsurveywhichrequiressurveyorstorecordpassengermovementsperrouteatagiven

physicallocationorstop.

AtstationBAsurveysrequirelessstaffbutareconsiderablymoredifficulttoprocessandadjust,whileon

boardBAsurveysprovideamoreconsistentandeasiertoprocessdataset.Theatstationmethodologyis

usefulwhenahighvolumeofroutesisobservedalongthecorridorwheretheBRTservicesandinfrastructure

willbe

implemented.

This

survey

was

carried

out

using

the

onboard

methodology.

However,

on

and

off

volumeswerecapturedatthecentralstretchofrouteswithlongitinerarieswherethehighestdemandoccurs

3.1.3 Busfrequency&occupancysurveys

AFrequencyandVisualOccupancy(FVO)survey isasurveyofhowfrequenteachbusormataturouteruns

andwhattheapproximateoccupancyisofeachvehicle.Thisshowsexistingdemandonthematatunetwork

We initially selected78points for this survey.Ateachpoint,oneor two surveyors (determinedbasedon

approximateexpectedbus frequencies at each surveypoint) recorded thematatu route and assessed the

capacityandoccupancylevel.

TheimagebelowshowsthelocationswheretheFVOwascarriedout.


26/94


Figure 11: FVO survey locations for Ndovu/A104 BRT service planning data collection. Source: ITDP

3.1.4 Buspassengertransfersurveys

ThedatacollectedduringtheBAsurveyprovidespassengerbehavioronasingleroutebysingleroutebasis.

However,many

passengers

make

their

full

trip

using

more

than

one

route.

A

transfer

survey

is

helpful

in

order

togetabettersenseoffullpassengertrips,includingtriporiginandtripdestination,beyondasingleroute.

Weselectedthefollowingstrategiclocationstoquestionpassengersabouttheirtrippatterns:

Belleviewbusstop,

Nyayobusstop,

GPObusstop,

AfricaInternationalUniversity,

Railwaysbusstop,

Nairobibus

station,

Kencombusstage,

Odeonbusstage,

Westlandsbusstage,

34busstation,

ChurchArmybusstop,and

JogooRoadRailwaystation.


27/94


28/94


Table 5: Frequency counts of surveyed routes. Source: ITDP Survey

Ifwelookattheaggregatebusfrequenciesbyroadinthestudyarea,wefindthatthehighestfrequencies

(greaterthan400busesintheAMpeakhour)areonHaileSelassieAvenueintheCBD.Frequenciesalmostas

highareexperiencedonKenyattaandonthesegmentsofroadsnearesttheCBD.

Route

Frequency

(buses/hr) Route

Frequency

(buses/hr) Route

Frequency

(buses/hr) Route

Frequency

(buses/hr)

2 32.8 33PJ 39.3 2 29.4 34B 28.0

4W 11.8 33PM 20.0 4W 13.4 34JK 18.0

7C 22.5 34B 4.0 7C 41.0 46KW 58.0

8 33.7 34JK 18.0 8 53.3 46YA 77.2

11 15.3 46KW 32.3 11 26.3 48A 28.1

11A 15.7 46YA 32.5 11A 15.7 48B 4.5

11B 17.3 58 6.3 11B 21.3 48KW 10.0

12C 6.2 69 142.0 14A 10.1 48OT 12.0

12D 2.5 102 15.4 14B 4.0 58 6.8

15 51.9 105 57.5 19C2 27.0 69 29.7

16 9.8 110A 15.3 24c 39.1 102 16.9

19C2 28.5 111 30.7 30 32.5 110K 13.7

23KN 59.3 115 4.5 32AY 13.0 111 29.0

24 6.4 118 5.0 33CA 20.0 118 12.5

24C 39.1 119 10.8 33IM 29.9 119 14.0

32AY 20.0 3839 13.1 33MK 9.5 125 32.4

33CA 20.0 33NG 60.0 126 10.0

33FE 26.8 33PJ 26.0 3839 17.5

33NG 39.3 33UT 30.8

OUTBOUND(AWAYFROMCBD) INBOUND(TOCBD)


29/94


Figure 13: Existing aggregate matatu frequencies for all routes surveyed during AM peak hour.

4.2 Existingpublictransportspeeds

Themapbelowshowsexistingbusspeedsonallofthestreetswheresurveyswereconducted.Unsurprisingly,

theslowestspeedsarenearestthecitycenter,andinsideofthecitycenter,whilethespeedsgetfasterfarther

awayfromthecitycenter.OntheA104,theslowestspeedsarefoundbetweenLangataRoadandthe

WestlandsRoundabout.Withinthecitycenter,allroadssufferveryslowspeeds.


30/94


Figure 14: Existing average matatu speeds for all routes surveyed. AM peak hour

4.3 Existingpublictransportpassengerdemand

Themapbelowshowsexistingstopbystopboardingandalightingvolumesforallmataturoutessurveyed.

Theorangetrianglespointinguprepresentboardingsandthepurpletrianglespointingdownrepresent

alightings.ItshowsthatthemostboardingsandalightingshappenintheCBD,particularlyontheeasternside.

BecausethesurveywasfortheAMpeakhour,therearemorealightingsinandneartheCBDthanboardings.

Thismap

is

important

as

it

shows

where

most

passengers

are

actually

going.

As

we

design

BRT

service

scenarios,asdescribedinthesectionstofollow,weattempttorouteserviceswherepassengerdemand

actuallyis.


31/94


Figure 15: Existing stop-by-stop boarding and alighting volumes for all routes surveyed. AM peak hour.


32/94


33/94


Figure 17: Existing matatu loads on A104, from Naivahsa Rd to Westlands Roundabout AM peak.


34/94


Figure 18: Existing matatu load on A104 corridor and CBD, AM peak hour.

Thepeakhourridershipisalsohighwithanaggregateridershipof10,346passengersperhourperdirection

(pphpd)justnorthoftheCBD(headedsouthboundintotheCBD)and8,564justsouthoftheCBD(headed

northboundintotheCBD).ThispphpdoccursonUhuruHighwayjustnorthoftheCBDinthesouthbound

directionwheremanymataturoutesoperateanddemandishigh.


35/94


Figure 19: Existing matatu loads on A104 corridor, south of CBD to Imara Diama Railway.


36/94


Figure 20: Existing matatu loads on A104 corridor, approaching airport, from Likoni Rd to JKIA. AM peak.

5

ServiceplanfortheNdovu/A104BRT

5.1 Modelingprocess

Usingalloftheexistingconditionsinformationshownintheprevioussection,wethenbuiltapublictransport

modelforthecorridor.Thismodelallowsustoprovideareasonableestimate,groundedinactualdata,ofBRT

ridershipunderavarietyofservicescenarios.Becausethismodelisbasedonactualexistingtransportdata

collectedinthefield,itismorereliablethanamodelwhichlooksonlyatpopulationandemploymentand

makesbroadassumptionsabouttripmaking.


37/94


ThefigurebelowprovidesanoverviewofthemodelingprocesscarriedoutbyITDPinNairobi.

Figure 21 Overview of survey, modeling and BRT service plan process.

Inordertobuildamodel,wefirstreplicatedtherelevantportionsoftheNairobistreetnetworkinourmodel,

usingthemodelingsoftwarepackageEmme4.Onthestreetnetwork,wethencodedtheexistingpeakhour

speeds,ascollected.

Inordertomodelexistingtrippatterns,wethenusedthestopbystopboardingandalightingdataand

convertedit

into

full

trip

origin

destination

pairs.

That

is,

the

surveys

allowed

us

to

count

how

many

people

wereboardingatonestation(e.g.,Nyayo)andhowmanypeoplewerealightingatanotherstation(e.g.,

Railways).ButthiskindofsurveydoesnottellushowmanyofthepeopleboardingatNyayoarealightingat

Railways.WedonotknowwherethepassengersboardingatNyayoalight.


38/94


WethereforeusedwhatiscalledaFratardistributionmodel2inordertotransformtheboarding/alighting

surveyintoastoptostoptripmatrix.AFratarmodelisaprobabilistictoolwhichestimateshowmany

passengersboardingatonespecificstationarealightingatanotherspecificstation.Theresult,therefore,isa

stopto

stop

trip

matrix.

Thestoptostopmatrixwasthentransformedintoafullorigindestination(OD)matrixaccordingtotransfer

surveydata.However,theODmatrixatthatpointwasonlybasedonasurveysampleofpassengersboarding

andalighting.TogetthefullODmatrix,wethenrelatedthenumberofpeoplecountedasboardingand

alightingateachstop,tothetotalnumberoftransitpassengersperdirectionperhourateachsurveypoint.

Thetotalnumberofpublictransitpassengersinthepeakhourwastakenfromthedatacollectedduringthe

FVOsurvey,inwhichweobtainedactualdataonhourlypassengertripspassingcheckpoints.Wethus

expandedthisODmatrixbytheactualnumberofpassengersusingthesysteminthepeakhour.

Oncewe

had

completed

this,

we

were

ready

to

begin

modeling

future

scenarios.

A

BRT

service

scenario

is

modeledbyincreasingthespeedsontheroadlinkswhereBRTinfrastructureisexpectedsincepassengersin

themodelmaketheirfuturetravelchoicesbasedonfindingthefastestoveralltrip.Wethenaddedasetof

BRTroutes(BRTservicescenarios)tointeractwiththeBRTinfrastructure.However,noteveryscenario

assumesthesamebuildoutofBRTinfrastructure.WethereforealsodefinedBRTInfrastructureScenarios

(seeSection5.4below).

Finally,wemadetheassumption,basedonstandardpractice,thatmataturoutesthatcompetedirectlywitha

BRTroutewouldbecancelledandthereforeremoveditfromthemodelasatraveloption.Dependingonthe

BRTservice

scenario,

some

passengers

will

choose

to

use

the

BRT

and

others

will

seek

an

alternate

route

using

matatus(againnotingthatmodeledpassengerswouldhavetoseekamorecircuitousmataturoutingdueto

thefactthatdirectmatatucompetitionhasbeeneliminatedfromthemode).BRTserviceswereassumedto

carryafareof70Kshwhilematatuserviceswereassumedtocarryafareof50Ksh.Weseektofindthe

scenariothatattractsthemostpassengersatthelowestgeneralizedcostperpassengertothecity.

5.2 Modelcalibration

ThesurveyresultswereplacedintoEmmeIVandatransitdemandmodelwascreated.Themodelwas

calibratedintwosteps:First,wecalibratedthemodeleddemandforeachofthemataturoutesusingtheA104

forwhichboardingandalightingdatawascollectedandcomparedtolinkspecificdemandcalculatedfrom

frequencyandoccupancysurveys.Thisyieldedaveryhighgoodnessoffit(R2)of.964.

InFigures22and23below,eachbluepointrepresentsonelocationwhereafrequencyandoccupancycount

wasdone,asshownonthemaponp.26(Figure11).Theyaxisshowsthepassengersperhourperdirection

(PPHPD)predictedbythemodelateachofthefrequencyandoccupancysurveypointsshownonthemap

2National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Travel Demand Forecasting: Parameters and Techniques, 2012


39/94


(Figure11).ThexaxisshowstheactualobservedPPHPDfromthesurveyateachofthesamepoints.When

thesetwofiguresmatchexactly,thebluepointshouldfallexactlyonthediagonalblueline.Thedeviancefrom

thislineiswhatismeasuredbytheR2.

IfthesamemapwerecreatedforthecalibrationofthemodelusedintheMRTSHarmonisationStudy,for

instance,therewouldonlybetwobluepoints,astheyonlycalibratedtheirmodelwithtwolocations,not

enoughtobestatisticallysignificant.

Figure 22: Calibration of model for existing matatu routes on A104 yielded a very good R2 of .964

Second,themodeledresultswerecomparedtothefrequencyandoccupancycountsforalltheroutesalong

theA104andLangata.Thisyieldedanacceptablegoodnessoffit(R2)of0.875.


40/94


Figure 23: Calibration of model for existing matatu routes on A104 & Langata yielded an acceptable R2 of 0.875

5.3 GeneralObjectives

Generalobjectivesforthemodelingwere:

Accommodateasmanypassengersaspossible,

AdjustBRTroutestodemandpatterns.Forexample,addnewserviceswhichmoreefficientlylinkthe

corridorwith

the

CBD,

airport,

Kibera,

and

large

employment

centers

in

Nairobi.

IncludeBRTinfrastructureinadditionallocationsifithelpsgreatlytoimproveahighdemandBRT

servicebutminimizenewinfrastructureadded.

MinimizeunnecessaryturningmovementsatintersectionsbothonA104andintheCBD,

Calculatestationdimensions(length,width,andnumberofsubstops),and

CalculateBRTbusfleetrequirements(sizeandnumber).

5.4 BRTInfrastructureScenarios

BeforetestingaBRTservicescenario,theextentoftheBRTinfrastructureonwhichtheservicesinascenario

willrun

must

be

defined.

This

is

because

in

the

transit

model,

the

links

where

BRT

infrastructure

will

be

placed

willbecodedwithhigherspeeds.Inthisway,passengerswillmaketheirtripdecisionsbasedonselectionof

theshortesttrip.

Intestingservicescenarios,onedoesnotnecessarilyholdconstanttheinfrastructurescenarios.Thesecanbe

adjustediterativelyinordertofindthebestinfrastructure/servicecombination.Ofcourse,politicalandfiscal

constraintsmayultimatelydeterminetheextentoftheinfrastructure.However,wheresmallchangesinBRT


41/94


infrastructureyieldlargeincreasesinBRTpassengervolumes,itmaybeworthconsideringmakingthese

changes.

Beforedescribing

the

BRT

service

scenarios,

we

begin

by

describing

aset

of

BRT

infrastructure

scenarios.

All

servicescenarios(below)areassociatedwithoneoftheseinfrastructurescenarios.

5.4.1 InfrastructureScenario1

InfrastructureScenario1istheextentoftheinfrastructurethatKeNHAiscurrentlyplanningtobuild.TheBRT

infrastructuresitsonA104onlyandextendsfromtheCityCabanasinterchangetotheJamesGichuru

roundabout.BeyondtheJamesGichururoundabout,spacewillbereservedforfutureBRTbutwillnotbebuilt

immediately.

Figure 24: Infrastructure Scenario 1 - KeNHA's current design


InfrastructureScenario2istheextentoftheinfrastructurerecommendedbytheMRTSHarmonisationStudy.

LikeinInfrastructureScenario1,theBRTinfrastructurewillbebuiltonA104onlybutthelengthisgreater,

beginningat

the

Imara

Diama

rail

station

and

extending

to

Uthiru.


42/94


Figure 25: Infrastructure Scenario 2 - MRTS Harmonization Study


InfrastructureScenario3istheKeNHAinfrastructureonA104(InfrastructureScenario1)plusaloopthrough

theCBD.TheCBDlooptravelsonHaileSelassieAvenue,northontoMoiAvenue,andacrossUniversityWay

backtoA104.TheCBDloopwasincludedduetoextremelyslowtravelspeedsintheCBDplusamultitudeof

passengerscurrentlytravelingtoCBDdestinations.


43/94


Figure 26: Infrastructure Scenario 3 - KeNHA + CBD loop


InfrastructureScenario4istheKeNHAinfrastructureonA104plustheCBD(InfrastructureScenario3)plusa

1.5kilometerstretchwestonLangataRoadtotheMagadiRoadjunction.ThestretchonLangataRoadwas

includedduetoextremelyslowtravelspeedsintheCBDplusamultitudeofpassengerscurrentlytravelingto

CBDdestinations.


44/94


Figure 27: Infrastructure Scenario 4 - KeNHA + CBD loop + Langata

5.4.5 AnoteonBRTinfrastructurethroughtheCBD

MostoftheboardingsandalightingsonmatatusoccurintheCBD.WesawinFigures15&18thatthehighest

concentrationofboardingsandalightingsforallroutessurveyedwereintheCBD.Infact,someobservations

ofwalkingtripswithintheCBDrevealedthatmostCBDtripsaredestinedforpointsaroundMoiAvenueand

east.Thisisshowninthefigurebelow.


45/94


Figure 28: Trip generation density in Nairobi CBD. The numbers, found around Moi Avenue and to the east, indicate where thehighest number of trips originate

Infact,

the

worlds

best

BRT

systems

include

full

BRT

infrastructure

right

through

the

CBD.

This

is

the

case

in

Bogota,Johannesburg,MexicoCity,mostrecentlyDaresSalaam,andmanymore.


46/94


Figure 29: Bogota's TransMilenio BRT goes right through the CBD

InNairobi,modelingoftheBRTcorridorshowedthatifBRTinfrastructureisnotbuiltthroughtheCBD,many

peoplewouldbeforcedtowalk0.7to1kilometertogettotheBRTonUhuruHighway.Yetingeneral,people

arewillingtowalkonly0.5kilometersatmost.

Figure 30: Volume of walking trips along CBD streets if BRT infrastructure is not included in the CBD but only on UhuruHighway

Therefore,werecommendprioritizingtheservicescenarios(below)whichoperateoneitherofthetwo

infrastructurescenarioswhichincludetheCBD(i.e,InfrastructureScenarios3&4).ThisincludesBRTServices


47/94


ScenariosIII,IV,andV.Aswewill,see,thesescenariosperformbetterthanServiceScenariosIandIIwhichdo

notincludeBRTinfrastructureintheCBD.

5.5

BRTService

Scenarios

5.5.1 Inclusionorexclusionofroutes

Thedeterminationofwhichroutestoincludeintheserviceplanisbased,first,onexistingpublictransporttrip

patterns.TheexistingmatatuandbusroutesserveasgoodproxiesfortransitdemandpatternsinNairobi.

Matatusare,toagreatextent,routedastheyaretorespondtotheneedsofthepublictransporttraveling

public.Therefore,thereissomelogictotheexistingmataturoutingpatterns.Peoplearealsoaccustomedto

theseroutes.Therefore,wemakeourinitialserviceplanningdecisionswithsomecorrelationtotheexisting

routingsofthematatusandbusesalreadyoperatinginNairobi.Byanalyzingtheexistingroutingsanddemand

ofthematatusandbuses,wecandesignandtestasetofservicescenarios.Inordertomakethis

determination,we

use

the

following

two

criteria:

1. Percentageexistingrouteoverlapwiththecorridor:AroutethathassignificantoverlapwiththeBRT

corridorisagoodcandidateforinclusionintotheBRTsystemsincethepassengersthatusethatroute

todaywillbenefitlargelyfromBRTimprovements.However,aroutethatisincludedasaBRTroute

generallyrequirestheprocurementofnewfleet.Thus,ifmostofthetripforarouteisoperatingoff

theBRTtrunkcorridor,thebenefitsofinclusionintotheBRTserviceplanmaynotjustifythebus

procurementcost.WeconsiderpercentageoverlapforeachBRTInfrastructureScenarioasdefined

aboveasonecriterion.

2.

Avoidance

of

redundancy:

There

were

often

several

routes

serving

very

similar

trip

origins

and

destinations.BRTsystemsgenerallyhaveroutingstructuresthataresimpleenoughtobeeasily

understoodbyvisitorsandavoidredundancy.

3.

AvoidanceofStationSaturation: Ouranalysisshowsthatseveraldowntownstationsarelikelyto

saturateunlessfoursubstopsarebuilt.Itmayproveimpossibletobuildthismanysubstops

downtown,inwhichcaseroutesthatareparticularlyintensiveusersofthebottleneckstationswill

needtobeselectivelyremoved.

Theabovecriteriaarethemostimportantfactorsfordeterminingwhichroutesshouldbeincludedintothe

BRTsystem.

Thebelowtableshowseachroutesurveyed,thefrequencyoftheroute(inbuses/hour),andthepercentage

therouteoperatesonA104corridor.Fromthiswewereabletomakeaninitialdeterminationastowhich

routestoconsiderforBRTservices.Thosewithhighoverlap,(thosewithgreaterthan10%overlaponA104,

identifiedonthegraphasStructuralRoutes),regardlessoffrequency,werethenevaluatedfurtherto

determineiftheymadesensetoturnintoBRTservices.ThosewithloweroverlapontheA104corridor


48/94


(identifiedasComplementaryRoutes),werealsoevaluated.Theroutesthathadverylittleoverlapwiththe

A104corridorwereeliminatedfromconsiderationforBRTservices.

Theremaining

routes

were

analyzed

to

determine

ifinclusion

in

any

of

the

BRT

service

scenarios

would

be

beneficial,frombothapassengerbenefitandfromanoperationalandfinancialperspective(theaddedbus

fleetoutweighstheoperationalcost).Thetablebelowshowsalltheroutessurveyed,thepercentageoverlap

withtheA104corridor,andwhethertheroutewasincludedforconsiderationinanyoftheservicescenarios.

NotethatexistingmataturoutesthatoverlapwithproposedBRTserviceswereassumedtobecancelled,

whilethoseservingODpairsnotwellservedbytheBRTservicesareassumedtocontinuedowntheA104

followingtheircurrentroute.Itisstandardpracticetocancelparallelminibusormataturouteswhenplanning

anewBRTsystem.We,therefore,didnotrunascenarioinwhichnomataturoutesarecancelledalthoughwe

arewilling.TheresultwouldlikelybeadropindemandontheBRTbutitisuncertainbyhowmuch.However,

thiswill

ultimately

be

apolitical

decision

and

the

business

plan

for

this

BRT

project

is

still

under

consideration.


49/94


50/94


Oncethisinitialsetofrouteswasdefined,variouscombinationsofservices(servicescenarios)weretested.

FivemainservicescenariosweredefinedbasedonthedifferingBRTInfrastructureScenarios.Thatis,some

servicesmadesensetoincludewhentherewasmoreBRTinfrastructureandtoexcludewhentherewasless.

Additionally,we

tested

two

different

types

of

BRT

service

patterns

direct

services

and

trunk

feeder

services.

Assuch,wedescribethevarioustypesofBRTservicepatternsbelow.

5.5.2 BRTservicetypes

InearlyBRTsystems,BRTservicesmimickedrailservices:thatis,oneBRTservicetraveledoneachBRT

corridor.Thesearecalledtrunkonlyservicessincetheservicesoperateonlyonthetrunkinfrastructure.The

mostprimitiveformoftrunkonlyBRTsystemsoperateservicesthatmimicrailsystems:oneBRTcorridor,one

busroute.MexicoCitysBRTwasinitiallydesignedthisway.

Figure 31: Mexico City's BRT system was designed with "trunk-only" services

JakartasBRTwasalsoinitiallydesignedthisway.


51/94


Figure 32: Jakarta's BRT was also designed with "trunk-only" services. Harmoni Station is where Lines 1, 2, and 3 intersect.

Theresult

of

designing

trunk

only

services

without

any

inter

corridor

routes

was

the

need

for

very

large

transferstations.Passengerswishingtopassfromonetrunkroutetoanotherhadtotransfer.Thisforcedlarge

volumesofpassengerstoneedlesslytransferbetweenonetrunkserviceandanother.InJakarta,thisprimitive

serviceapproachrequiredaverylargeamountoflandforatransferstation,andevenso,thestationquickly

becameovercrowdedasnewcorridorswereadded.


52/94


Figure 33: Harmoni Station transfer facility in Jakarta could have been avoided if trunk services had been continued ratherthan forcing a transfer between trunk-only services

Overtime,sometrunkonlyBRTsystemsgraduallyevolvedtointroduceintercorridorservices.Intercorridor

servicesstilltravelonlyontheBRTinfrastructurebuttravelbetweencorridorssoastoavoidthesemajor

transfers.JakartaandMexicoCitybothfinallyintroducedintercorridorservicestoreducesevere

overcrowdingattransferstations.


53/94


Figure 34: Jakarta added some inter-corridor services to alleviate some of the major transfer volumes occurring at stations likeHarmoni Station

Inadditiontothedesignquestionofhowtorouteservicesthatoperateonthetrunk,therealsoemergeda

questionofhowtodesignservicesthatcapturepassengersthatdonotlivewithinwalkingdistanceofatrunk

corridor.NotallBRTpassengersliveorworkdirectlyonthetrunkcorridor,soinordertobringmore

passengerstothesystem,itisgenerallynecessarytoroutesomebusesontomixedtrafficstreets(direct

services)orprovidefeederbuses.

EarlierBRTsystemssolvedthisproblembyusingfeederbuses.Inatrunkfeedersystem,trunkservices

operateonthetrunkinfrastructureonly(whethertrunkonlyorintercorridorservices)andfeederservices


54/94


operateinmixedtrafficonly,bringingpassengerstoandfromtheBRTcorridor.BogotasTransMileniowas

designedasatrunkfeedersystem.Likewithtrunkonlyservices,trunkfeederservicesrequirelargetransfer

facilitiesbecausemanypassengersareforcedtomaketransfersbetweentrunkandfeederservices.

Additionally,many

passengers

choose

not

to

use

the

system

because

of

the

time

delay

associated

with

this

cumbersometransfer.

Foryears,itwasbelievedthatdirectserviceswerenotcompatiblewithfullfeaturedBRTtrunkservices.Inthe

lastfewyears,however,directserviceshavebeensuccessfullycombinedwithfullfeaturedBRTontrunk

routes,allowingthebestofbothworlds.PriortoenteringdedicatedBRTinfrastructure,servicesoperatein

mixedtrafficonlocalstreets.ThesamevehiclethenenterstheBRTinfrastructure,eliminatinganyneedfora

transfer.ThisrequiresabusthatcansuccessfullyinterfacewithatrunkBRTstationwhilealsoprovidinga

comfortabletraditionalcurbentrance.Thisisdoneeitherbyhavinglowfloorbusesandlowplatformsattrunk

BRTstations,

or

by

having

BRT

buses

having

high

platform

doors

on

one

side

of

the

bus

and

steps

for

normal

curbentry.

Byeliminatingtheneedtotransfer,passengersoveralltriptimesarereducedandtheyhavethecomfortofa

oneseatride.OntheBRTcorridor,servicesoperatewithintheBRTinfrastructure,withstopsatcenteraligned

stationplatformsanddoorsontherightsideofthebuses.OfftheBRTcorridor,servicesstopalongthe

curbsidewithadditionaldoorsontheleftsideofthebuses.Inadditiontohighertimesavingsandmoredirect

routing,directservicesalsoreduceinfrastructurecostsandlandconsumptionduetoareductionintheneed

forlargetransferfacilities.

Guangzhou,China

was

the

first

BRT

system

to

have

afully

direct

services

model

that

also

had

full

featured

BRT

trunkinfrastructure.


55/94


Figure 35: Guangzhou's fully direct services BRT system includes services that operate both on- and off-corridor

Aroundthesametime,Johannesburg,SouthAfricaalsoimplementedsomedirectservicesontheReaVaya

BRT(knowninJohannesburgascomplementaryservices).Infact,Johannesburgimplementedahybrid

systemoftrunkfeederanddirectservices.


56/94


Figure 36: Johannesburg implemented a hybrid system of direct services and trunk-feeder services

Becausedirectservicestendtoattractmorepassengers,dueprovidingaoneseatride,becausedirectservices

tendtoneedlessfleet,andbecausedirectservicesavoidtransferterminaldelayandindirectnessofroute

delay,andastheyalsoavoidtheneedforalargeandexpensivetransferfacility,wegenerallyprefertotest

directservices.

TheMRTSHarmonisationStudyassumedatrunkonlyservicewithnointercorridorroutes:themostbasic

formofBRTservices.Asthestudynevermadeclearwhetherthereweretobenofeederservicesorwhether


57/94


theservicewasassumedtohavefeederroutesyettobespecified,ITDPcreatedtwoservicescenarios

(ScenariosI&III)whichsplitourproposeddirectservicesintotrunkfeederservices.

5.5.3

Scenario

I:

Trunk

Feeder

on

KeNHA

Infrastructure

(Infrastructure

Scenario

1)

ScenarioIisasetoftrunkfeederservicesthatoperateonA104underthecurrentKeNHAinfrastructureplan

(InfrastructureScenario1).Thisisamoredetailedserviceplanscenariothatisconsistentwithwhatwas

proposedintheHarmonisationStudy.ItprovidesfortrunkservicesthatoperatebetweenCityCabanasand

JamesGichuruwithonelocalandoneexpressservice.AstheinfrastructureontheA104haspassinglanes,we

addedatrunkexpressserviceasitdidnotappeartobeprecludedbytheHarmonisationStudyproposals,and

ithadsignificanttimesavingsadvantages.Transferterminalswouldberequiredatbothends(i.e.,City

CabanasandJamesGichuru)aswellasneartheCBD.Fromthere,weaddedseveralfeederservicesthatwere

notdetailedbutnotprecludedbytheHarmonisationStudyproposal.Thesefeedpassengersintothetrunk

terminalsfrommultiplepopulardestinations.

Figure 37: BRT Service Scenario I: Trunk-Feeder on KeNHA Infrastructure

Additionally,whilethisscenarioincludesfeederservicesatthefourterminals,becausetheserviceplanforthe

longertermMRTSnetwork,asfoundintheMRTSHarmonisationStudy,precludestheinclusionofinter

corridorroutes,threeadditionaltransferstationswouldneedtobebuiltwheretheBRTNdovuService(A104)


58/94


crossestheproposedBRTSimbaServiceatLangataRoad,wherethesetwoservicescrosstheChuiLine(Red)

atHaileSelassie,andwherethesetwoservicescrosstheNyati(Green)LineatKenyatta.Inaddition,an

exclusiveBRTturningmovementwouldneedtobeprovidedtheintersectionoftheA104andUniversityWay.

Figure 38: Under Scenario I, two major transfer facilities will be required in order to facilitate transfers to future BRT corridors


59/94


Runningthisscenariothroughthemodelyieldedthefollowingresults:

Table 7: Results of Scenario I

Thisscenariorequires284busesintotal,71articulated(18meter)and213standard(12meter).Thescenario

is

expected

to

attract

approximately

305,000

passengers

per

day,

and

33,877

passengers

during

the

peak

hour.Some63%ofthetotaltripsareforcedtotransferfromafeederrouteontothetrunkservice.(27,404+

22,620=50,024*0.63=33,877).Dailydemandiscomposedof58,257tripsboardingafeederbusandgetting

offthefeederbeforeitreachesthetrunkservice,another154,322dailytripsthatboardfeedersandtransfer

ontothetrunkservice,andanother92,313dailytripsthatareboardingdirectlyontoatrunkservice.

5.5.4 ScenarioII:DirectservicesonKeNHAInfrastructure(InfrastructureScenario1)

ScenarioIIproposesasetofdirectservicesthatwouldoperateontheA104onthecurrentKeNHA

infrastructureplan(InfrastructureScenario1)butwouldtravelthroughtheCBDwherepassengerdemandis

high.Thatis,servicesoperatealongtrunkBRTinfrastructurebetweenCityCabanasandJamesGichuruand

continuebeyond

to

multiple

destinations,

without

aforced

transfer.

The

routes

are

generally

the

same

in

this

scenarioasinScenarioIexceptratherthancuttingtheroutesatfourterminalsandcontinuingthemas

feeders,theroutesaresimplycontinuous.Thisscenariodoesnotrequiretransferfacilities.Thisscenarioalso

variesfromScenarioIinthattheroutestravelthroughtheCBD.InScenarioI,thiswouldnothavemadesense

aswewouldhaveneededtocreatefeederroutesforjusttheCBDportionoftheserviceplan.Thesefeeder

routeswouldhavebeenextremelyshortandstuckintrafficfortheirentireroutes.Hence,weonlybegan

routingservicesthroughtheCBDinthisscenario.




T1 Artic 32.7 84.03 13 602 68 516 2 921 3 834 2.00 24.0 2.5 34

T2 Artic 32.7 66.03 13 802 92 119 3 097 5 318 1.66 33.2 1.8 37

TOTAL 65 150 27 404 160 635 6 017 71




F105 Std 29.8 126.7 7 254 74 773 5 223 4 348 4.03 48.3 1.2 102

F11 Std 9.5 53.9 1 562 4 385 445 950 0.88 10.6 5.7 10

F110A Std 39.2 115.9 1 687 23 559 924 967 0.90 10.7 5.6 21

F110B Std 18.4 54.8 1 033 7 544 310 650 0.60 7.2 8.3 7

F12 Std 9.3 71.8 130 249 32 76 0.07 4.0 15.0 5

F23 Std 6.9 18.6 3 111 10 645 528 2 481 2.30 27.6 2.2 9F30 Std 14.6 50.9 2 140 9 706 595 1 227 1.14 13.6 4.4 12

F33 Std 2.3 5.9 2 354 2 636 182 1 716 1.59 19.1 3.1 2

F33F Std 12.1 83.9 1 107 3 490 389 568 0.53 6.3 9.5 9

F33U Std 27.0 165.2 1 406 11 721 1 067 813 0.75 9.0 6.6 25

F34 Std 15.2 54.0 76 228 17 76 0.07 4.0 15.0 4

F48 Std 13.0 105.3 760 2 752 387 339 0.31 3.8 15.9 7

TOTAL 197 907 22 620 151 689 10 098 213


60/94


Figure 39: BRT Service Scenario II: Direct services on KeNHA Infrastructure

Runningthisscenariothroughthemodelyieldedthefollowingresults:

Table 8: Results of Scenario II

Thisscenariorequires352busesintotal,241articulated(18meter)and111standard(12meter).Thescenario

isexpectedtoattractapproximately391,158passengersperdayand43,462passengersduringthepeakhour.

Thisscenariohas86,000moredailypassengersthanthetrunkfeederscenario,andeachbuscarries1,111

dailypassengers,comparedtothetrunkfeederscenariowhereeachbusonlycaries1,074dailypassengers.In


Veh Length Run time Pax Pax Max Max HdwyRoute type (km) (min) Boarding km hours volume load Freq (min) Fleet

B105X Artic 44.9 183.73 8 495 112 243 7 489 4 568 1.43 28.6 2.1 88

B11 Std 15.5 82.76 2 055 6 811 647 1 024 0.57 11.4 5.3 16

B110A Std 62.4 184.39 2 047 35 766 1 520 973 0.54 10.8 5.5 34

B110B Std 41.7 126.30 1 466 16 667 758 690 0.38 7.7 7.8 17

B12 Std 16.5 96.29 1 212 4 386 347 637 0.35 7.1 8.5 12

B23 Artic 22.0 82.75 6 188 44 143 2 952 3 252 1.02 20.3 3.0 29

B30 Artic 29.7 110.56 3 363 23 758 1 546 1 500 0.47 9.4 6.4 18

B33 Artic 24.0 73.11 5 655 46 305 2 240 2 997 0.94 18.7 3.2 23

B33F Artic 35.3 155.33 2 899 27 868 1 750 1 064 0.33 6.7 9.0 18

B33U Std 50.3 247.68 2 965 18 738 1 473 676 0.38 7.5 8.0 32

B34 Artic 38.4 124.48 3 245 36 387 1 850 1 745 0.55 10.9 5.5 23

B48 Artic 28.2 161.43 3 872 34 738 3 095 2 490 0.78 15.6 3.9 42

TOTAL 409 1629 43 462 407 810 25 666 352


61/94


otherwords,inanapplestoapplescomparison,thedirectservicescenarioattractsmorepassengersand

requireslessfleetperpassengerthanthetrunkfeederscenarioonthesameinfrastructure.However,thelack

ofBRTinfrastructureintheCBDslowsdowntheseservicesdramaticallyascomparedtothefollowingthree

scenarios.

5.5.5 ScenarioIII:TrunkFeederonKeNHAInfrastructure+CBD(InfrastructureScenario3)

ForScenarioIII,fullBRTinfrastructureinalooparoundtheCBDwasassumed.Basedonpreviouswork,

discussedindetailintheNairobiBRTPhaseIInfrastructure&IntersectionRecommendationsDetailed

Report,thebestloopforBRTinfrastructureisHaileSelassieAvenue,MoiAvenue,andUniversityWay.

ScenarioIIIassumesthattrunkserviceoperateinsidethisCBDloop.Feederserviceswereincludedinthis

scenarioinamannersimilartothoseinScenarioI:trunkrouteswereseveredatthetwoterminals(City

CabanasandJamesGichuru)andseveralfeederservicestookpassengersinmultipledirectionsfromthere.

Twotransfer

terminals

are

required

in

this

scenario.

Figure 40: BRT Service Scenario III: Trunk-feeder on KeNHA Infrastructure + CBD


62/94


Additionally,aswithScenarioI,severaladditionaltransferfacilitieswouldberequiredinandaroundtheCBD

inordertofacilitatethetransferbetweentheNdovuCorridorandfutureBRTcorridors.

InScenarioIII,wedidnotincludethemataturoutesthatcurrentlycomeinfromLangataRoad.Thisisbecause

LangataRoadistoocongestedtoprovideareliableBRTfeederservice.Weconsideredasanalternative,

includingfullBRTinfrastructureonLangataRoadinthisscenariosothatfeederservicescouldbypassthis

congestion.However,LangataRoadissoclosetotheCBDandthetimepenaltytopassengerscomingfrom

LangataRoadimposedbyatransfertothetrunkrouteforsuchashortdistanceistoogreatandcannotbe

justifiedbyprovidingafeederservice.Instead,themataturouteswhichcurrentlyuseLangataRoadandturn

ontoA104willcontinueastheycurrentlyaretoday.ThiswillreducethenumberofpassengersusingtheBRT

andwillmeanmorematatusonA104inthesegmentbetweenLangataRoadandtheCBD.Forasimilar

reason,RoutesB11&B12,whichalsoturnoffofA104atadistanceneartheCBD,wereeliminatedaswell.

ScenarioIII

loses

passengers

to

non

BRT

routes

because

of

the

transfer

required.

For

example,

passengers

who

aregoingtotheairportfromtheCBDwilltravelsouthoneitherroutesB34,B33U,B33Fbutwillhavetomake

atransfertoafeederroute(F34)tocompletetheirtrip.Alternatively,mataturoute34JKIAcircumventsthisby

travellingfromtheCBDalongJogooRoadanddoesnotrequirepassengerstotransfer.Despitethefaster

speedsontheBRT,the34JKIAisstillashortertripanddoesntrequireatransfer.

Table 9: Results of Scenario III




B1 Artic 35.6 91.01 21 123 112 358 4 797 6 375 1.99 39.8 1.5 61

B2 Artic 35.6 73.01 12 296 95 191 3 229 4 157 1.52 26.0 2.3 32

TOTAL 71 164 33 419 207 549 8 026 93




F105 Std 29.8 126.7 7 254 74 773 5 223 4 348 4.03 48.3 1.2 102

F11 Std 9.5 53.9 1 568 4 535 467 950 0.35 10.6 5.7 10

F110A Std 39.

Nairobi Ndovu A104 BRT Service Plan

Documents

Transcript of Nairobi Ndovu A104 BRT Service Plan