Simo Airaksinen, M.Sc. (Civ.Eng.), thesis pending, WSP Finland Ltd Virpi Kuukka-Ruotsalainen, M.Sc. (Civ.Eng.), WSP Finland Ltd

Bus priority as a competitive factor Means of speeding up bus traffic have proved to be competitive factors in the Helsinki Metropolitan Area public transport. Measures to enhance speed are also financially profitable for transport providers. Traffic on the whole has increased considerably since the importation of passenger cars was deregulated in Finland in 1962. Since the 1960s, the number of passenger cars and journeys made by car has quadrupled in the HMA (Sihto et al. 2003) while at the same time, the area’s population has doubled and the number of jobs has risen by 80 percent. The rate of growth in passenger car traffic has outpaced that of population growth by a factor of eight; meanwhile, the number of journeys taken by public transport has grown at a rate slower than the population. The share of public transport in the modal split has fallen to a current figure of 39 percent. Growing traffic congestion is reflected also in the efficiency, punctuality, regularity and standard of service of bus transport.

The share of public transport in the modal split peaks when public transport is faster than or nearly as fast as travel by passenger car. On short trips and in small towns, walking or cycling is often an even faster way of getting around than public transport. This is highly positive from an environmental perspective despite reducing public transport. In terms of the competitiveness of urban regions, good, well-functioning public transport allows denser development due to lower car density and lesser need for streets and roads. The Ministry of Transport and Communications Finland strives to improve the operational conditions and services of public transport throughout the country. Speeding up public transport appears among the strategic goals and spearhead actions of several key operators such as the Finnish Road Administration, Helsinki City Transport HKL and Helsinki Metropolitan Area Council YTV. For example, HKL aims by 2012 to speed up bus traffic by six percent and tram traffic by four percent compared to 2004 levels. Bus traffic suffers from congestion caused by other traffic and, in places, also from the high number of buses at stops. The goal in speeding up bus traffic is primarily to increase average travel speed. Reduced overall travel time also benefits customers. The savings achieved in operating costs can, for example, be used to increase bus frequency or to lower fares. This review has been restricted to bus traffic in particular. Most means of prioritising bus traffic lend

Competitiveness and speed of public transport The competitiveness of public transport is a complex concept. In this context, competitiveness describes the supply of public transport relative to other transport modes. Factors relating to competitiveness include travel time, supply of buses and fares. Reliability, staying on schedule, travel time and perceived smoothness of travel account for roughly 20 percent of the perceived total quality of public transport (Vanhanen 2007). Measures to speed up public transport impact on all these factors. 6–

Location is verified through satellite positioning

Helmi Helsinki Public Transport Signal Priority and Passenger Information

11 base stations across the city

Tram sends location data

Driver knows whether he is on schedule

Bus sends priority request

Control updates real-time timetables at stops

Bus acknowledges priority

Bus timetables are updated at night

The core of the system is located in Kallio

Traffic signal operation is monitored

Figure 6–1. Helmi system specification (Helsinki 2007).

themselves to tram traffic as well, while different measures benefit heavy rail traffic running on separate tracks.

timates exclude the rise in passenger volume attributable to faster traffic and lower fares. Some 60 percent of all journeys to the centre of Helsinki are made using public transport (HKL 2005). At rush hours, the figure climbs to 70 percent. Of journeys to the city centre, one third are made using the metro and commuter trains, one third using buses and trams and one third using passenger cars and other transport modes. Bus priorities have consequently been implemented particularly on bus routes radiating out from the city centre. The challenge lies in transversal traffic, where both the starting point and destination are located outside the city centre. Transversal traffic has seen the most intensive growth in recent years; however, it is precisely here that the modal split share and competitiveness of public transport are the lowest relative to passenger cars.

Bus traffic has become slower Bus traffic speeds have fallen by roughly ten percent between 1985 and 2006. Key reasons include increased traffic and delays in the door functions of buses, which include the opening and closing of doors and the bus stop brake. The bus stop brake prevents the bus from moving while the doors are open and acts as a kind of automatic parking brake. Slower bus speeds translate into higher operating costs and a deteriorating standard of service. Traffic slowdown is responsible for an increase of 6.3 million euros in annual operating costs at 2005 prices (Riikonen et al. 2006). This is equal to roughly six percent of fare revenue (HKL 2006). The aforementioned es6–

Jokeri traffic signals

Operating principle of Jokeri signals Ground state (no bus) Dark Bus coming Yellow flashing signal Fixed yellow

Fixed red Bus passes lights Yellow flashing signal Ground state (no bus) Dark

Figure 6–2. Operating principle of Jokeri signals (Helsinki 2004).

in HMA traffic: Eliel Saarisen tie, a roughly one-km stretch of road in the Haaga district of Helsinki, and Maaherrantie road between the districts of Oulunkylä and Viikki (Sane 2005). To reduce noise, part of Eliel Saarisen tie road runs in a tunnel, where there is also a transfer stop for the commuter train station. The 1.5km stretch of Maaherrantie road features two singlelane signal-controlled bridges and a metro service track in the middle of the road. The public transport streets are a vital component of the Jokeri bus route, reducing route length by roughly 2.4 kilometres and travel time by approximately eight minutes when compared to routing along the shortest possible orbital bus route streets. The streets thus give rise to annual savings of some 400,000 euros in operating costs. The transfer stops and connecting facilities to commuter trains built on the streets generate substantial time savings for passengers. Rolled out in autumn 2006, Jokeri has become a success with some 20,000 passengers daily.

Means and impacts of prioritising public transport Public transport lanes Public transport lanes have been found to improve the speed and regularity of public transport by 15–20 percent (Ojala and Pursula 1994). There are roughly 40 kilometres of bus and taxi lanes in Helsinki (Sane 2005). On most of these, delivery transport is also permitted outside rush hours. When tram lanes are also included, four of the six lanes in the cross-section of main streets are often reserved for public transport. In addition, static gating has been implemented on city centre access routes, at the first traffic lights on motorways. Traffic lights at the gates restrict the number of vehicles given access to the main street network to enhance the smooth flow of traffic. Bus lanes at the gates allow buses to pass congested lines of cars. The recommendations of the Finnish Public Transport Association are usually drawn on when planning bus lane reservations. In practice, each case is assessed on its own merits and the recommendations may not be applied. Lane reservations at rush hours would prove justified in terms of transportation economics even at quite low numbers of buses.

Signal priorities Signal priorities may be implemented as either fixed or dynamic, in which case they are based on automatic identification of vehicle location. Fixed priorities are utilised e.g. when a green wave is interrupted at a stop. Helsinki has been a pioneer in providing signal priorities for public transport. The first priorities were implemented on Mannerheimintie road in 1958, when trams passing from the centre lane to the side lane

Public transport streets Two public transport streets have been implemented for the use of the transversal Jokeri route operated 6–

Time on bus stop Volvo, Ikarus E74, doors open inward Mercedes-Benz O 405 N, no automated doors Volvo, Ikarus E74, doors open outward MAN Lion’s City LL Mercedes-Benz O 405 N, automated doors Volvo 8500 CNG Volvo B 10 M, Wiima K202 Scania, Carrus City L 0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Time (s) Figure 6–3. Door function times with different vehicles.

to implement more diverse priorities than at present, in addition to which the necessary capital outlay is significantly lower. Traffic signals that enable buses to smoothly enter traffic on main roads and also facilitate crossing main streets have been designed to augment the Jokeri route in Helsinki (Helsinki 2000). Similar traffic signals have also been deployed in Tampere (Tampere 2007). The signals mostly remain dark and only light up when buses arrive, thus causing less delays to other traffic than regular signals. Signal groups are only built on the main directions of the thoroughfare, thus cutting construction costs to one third of those for regular traffic signals.

were given priority at the traffic signals. The first actual pilots with tram priorities were launched in 1978 (Långström and Sane 1998). Over the years, passive long loop detectors, infrared detectors, microwaves and a bus-identifying induction loop system have been tried out in Helsinki. Good experiences have been obtained with the Helmi system (the name Helmi comes from the Finnish for the Helsinki public transport signal priority and passenger information) currently in use. The system’s effects have been studied particularly on tram line 4 and bus line 23 (Lehtonen et al. 2001). Benefits remained minor on the tram line due to previously existing signal priorities. On bus line 23, travel times fell by 11 percent and traffic light delays by 48 percent while an improvement of 20 percent was seen in regularity and 58 percent in punctuality. Passenger volume increased by 11 percent as a result of the system and one bus could be cut from the route thanks to reduced travel time. The cost-benefit ratio came to 3.3. The Helmi system enables Helsinki at present to reap savings of 1.5 million euros annually in operating costs. A system of managing public transport priorities centrally is currently being studied in the HMA (���� Lehmuskoski������������������������������������������ 2007). GPS location data on the vehicles in the pilot are updated every second on the priority system server. The system uses the location data to determine priority needs and forward priority requests to the signalling devices at junctions. A clear benefit of the system comes from the central server being able

New door functions improve safety but slow down travel The duration of door functions, i.e. the speed at which doors open and close, has a material impact on the smoothness, punctuality and regularity of traffic. Depending on bus model, door functions take 3–10 seconds, assuming that passengers need two seconds for disembarking the bus. Field tests on buses showed that inwards opening doors were faster by roughly 1.5 seconds than a similar model’s doors opening outwards, while automated doors were slower than corresponding non-automated doors by some two seconds. The results reveal a difference of roughly seven seconds between slowest and fastest type of door. The difference is significant, as on a route with 25 stops, for 6–

example, door functions would take 175 seconds or roughly three minutes longer. With internal Helsinki bus routes having an average speed of 24.1 km/h and average length of 9.48 km, travel time would be prolonged by 11 percent on our example route.

Measures to enhance speed are financially profitable for transport providers. Alternatives to “traditional” public funding should indeed be examined. The transport provider, i.e. the party reaping the benefits of savings in operating costs, could contribute to costs by funding projects. Since increased use of public transport renders other traffic smoother, it is only reasonable that the transport operator not be obliged to fund such projects in full, however. It is important to develop public transport quality corridors. Such corridors are stretches of route developed under a unified brand where improvements are made in areas such as the speed of bus traffic and access to stops. The Jokeri route in the HMA is an example of the quality corridor approach. Several quality corridor projects – some of them relatively minor – have been on hold for several years in anticipation of funding from the State budget. The funding for these projects should be secured and the plans put into practice. n

Speed enhancement is a safe yet profitable investment Enhanced speeds in competitively tendered public transport deliver obvious benefits to the client and, in transports operated on the basis of fare revenue, to the transport operator as well, as they permits savings in operating costs. These savings may be put to use to improve the standard of service, for example by lowering fares. Higher speeds and lower fares furthermore increase passenger volume. This in turn naturally slows down traffic, yet the reduction is minor relative to the speed benefit obtained. Rising passenger volume also causes pressure to increase transport supply, which in turn raises costs.

Sources Haataja, S. (1995). 1995 ticket type study (LIPTU) handouts. Helsinki City Transport HKL, 20 December 1995, Helsinki. 10 p. Haataja, S. (2000). 1999 ticket type study (LIPTU) handouts. Helsinki City Transport HKL, 28 January 2000, Helsinki. 11 p. Helsinki (2000). Variance for use of Jokeri signals, Ministry of Transport decision on variance application. City of Helsinki, City Planning Department, Urban Traffic Control Centre (online, accessed on 29 January 2007) http://www.hel2.fi/liikenteenohjaus/jokerivalot/poikkeuslupa.asp Helsinki (2007). Helmi system specification. City of Helsinki, Urban Traffic Control Centre (online, accessed on 21 Feburary 2007) http://www.hel2.fi/liikenteenohjaus/helmi/kuvat/HelmiJarjestelma.jpg HKL (2006). Report on operations 2005. Helsinki City Transport HKL, Helsinki. 24 p. Lehmuskoski, M. (2007). Interview with flash-ofdm expert Mikko Lehmuskoski 8 January 2007. Lehtonen, M. ym. (2001). Liikennevaloetuudet- ja ajantasainen tiedotus. Vaikutukset raitiolinjalla 4 ja bussilinjalla 23 Helsingissä [Signal priorities and up-to-date information. Impacts on tram line 4 and bus line 23 in Helsinki]. Ministry of Transport and Communications reports and memoranda B 41/2001. Helsinki. 82 p. Ojala, J. ja Pursula, M. (1994). Taajamien joukkoliikenteen suunnittelu ja hoito [Planning and operation of public transport in population centres]. Helsinki University of Technology, Transportation Engineering, study handout 13, Finnish Public Transport Association. Otaniemi. 238 p. PLL, see Finnish Public Transport Association Riikonen, J., Vepsäläinen, S. ja Lehmuskoski, V. (2006). Joukkoliikenteen yksikkökustannukset 2005 [Public transport unit costs 2005]. Helsinki City Transport HKL-Planning Unit, Helsinki. 40 p. Salonen, A. (2006). Bussiliikenteen aikataulunopeudet vuosina 2000-2006 [Scheduled speeds in bus traffic in 2000–2006]. Helsinki City Transport HKL. Email message 4 September 2006. Sane, K. (2005). Integration of RTPI and Bus Priority-Automatic. PowerPoint presentation. 54 p. Sihto, S., Valtanen, R. ja Siimes, H. (2003). Pääkaupunkiseudun liikennejärjestelmäsuunnitelma PLJ 2002 [ Helsinki Metropolitan Area Transport System Plan PLJ 2002]. Helsinki Metropolitan Area Council, Transport Department. Publications A 2003:1, Helsinki. 66 p. Suomen Paikallisliikenneliitto ry (2001). Fyysiset bussiliikenne-etuudet [Physical bus priorities]. Bus traffic infrastructure card No. 7. Finnish Public Transport Association (PLL). (online, accessed on 29 December 2004). http://www.paikallisliikenneliitto.com Vanhanen, K. (2007). JOKOLA Joukkoliikenteen kokonaislaatuun vaikuttavat tekijät painopistealueena paikallisliikenne [Factors impacting on the perceived total quality of public transport, with focus on local transport]. Draft 20 Decmber 2006. WSP Finland Oy, Helsinki. 53 p.

6–