4. Transportation Plan - Johannesburg Development Agency

4. Transportation Plan
Figure 4.3.2.2. Concept 1 – Indicative plan of location of facilities and proposed pedestrian connections with supporting transportation facilities
March 2010 JICTTS Report 2 - Final 4-30

4. Transportation Plan
b) Concept 2: The Network Approach
Rationale
Distributed medium size transport facilities around the stations
consolidated through a more organic process of distributing facilities within
the “BOX” connected by a clearly defined vehicular and pedestrian
access network.
Figure 4.3.2.3. Network approach concept proposal indicating
distributed facilities connecting and reinforcing the existing nodes.
Bold yellow line indicate proposed pedestrian boulevard connecting
to Braamfontein and Braamfontein station in the west and
Doornfontein station in the east
Components
Multi-modal facilities and as per existing, with the incorporation of Kaserne
as proposed in Arup’s( 2009) report, and the introduction of the “express
taxi way” along Bree Street accommodating taxis with remote and limited
holding areas outside the core in spaces under the highway such as
Trump Street and other underutilised spaces in the south-east sector
of the city.
Comments received
Concept 1:
The main constraint for the realisation of this proposal has been the cost
implications, the logistics related to the land release and the allocation of
suitable “air rights” to accommodate compatible uses to make the projects
more viable and attractive to developers. There was also concerns
expressed around the relocation of the Jack Mincer facilities due to the
investment made by the city over the years.
Concept 2:
The main concern was the proposal of separating ranking and holding.
March 2010 JICTTS Report 2 - Final 4-31

4. Transportation Plan
4.3.3 Review of International Practice
Best Practice in Transport Terminals and Interchanges
In the assessment of the viability of the “Integrated Mega-hub” and the
“Network Approach”, the question arises whether it is better to have a single
large terminal or smaller facilities of a different typology in the inner city.
The following extract from a study for the Palmerston North Bus Terminal
Study (New Zealand) by Parsons Brinkerhoff, summarises its findings
regarding best practice well:
“There is no universal ‘best’ solution for cities in terms of whether to
concentrate bus services in a major terminal or to operate services through
the city centre, or to have on-street or off-street facilities. Different cities adopt
different strategies for different reasons and once having adopted a strategy it
influences their public transport planning options and outcomes.
In most cities however, the key drivers in improving public transport services
and facilities in city centres are:
• a desire to promote public transport as a sustainable travel mode and
alternative to the private car
– ensuring public transport provides good access to activity
generators (work locations, shopping destinations, schools etc)
– making public transport facilities prominent and high quality
– public transport facilities that contribute to public safety and amenity
• making efficient use of space in city centre, where demand for space is high:
– ensuring facilities are compact.
Accessibility is an important objective for public transport. To make public
transport an effective mode choice for travellers it has to take people where
they want to go for a range of activities – shopping, working, education,
recreation etc. If a city centre is particularly compact and all the key
destinations would be within easy walk of a central location, then a single
terminal may be a good option. However, in most medium or large cities, no
single terminal location will effectively serve the city’s transport needs.”
Bus Operations: Terminal vs. Interchange Operational Model
Typical operating regimes are indicated in Figure 4.3.3.1. Diagram a) shows
services terminating at the city centre terminal. In Diagramme b), the layover
function have been removed to peripheral locations, while in Diagramme c) it
takes place at the end of through routes, outside the city centre.
Bus layover or recovery time (time scheduled between a bus’s arrival time
and its next departure time, allowing drivers to take toilet breaks, change
destination displays etc) forms a major component of bus dwell time in bus
terminals.
Typical bus stop turnover in terminals and interchanges are 6 to 10 buses per
bay per hour. If the layover function is relocated, bus stop turnover can be
increased to 20 – 30 bus movements per hour, which means that each bus
stop can be used by more routes, resulting in much more compact facilities
serving the same or higher demand than typical conventional terminals.
Two case studies follows, namely a central large conventional terminal
(Port Authority Bus Terminal, New York), and a Bus Exchange or “Super
Stop” in Christchurch, New Zealand, were considered.
Figure 4.3.3.1: Bus Terminal vs. Interchange (Palmerston North
Bus Terminal Study)
a) b) c)
March 2010 JICTTS Report 2 - Final 4-32

4. Transportation Plan
A Single Centrally Located Large Multi-storey Facility Case study: Port
Authority Bus Terminal, New York
At first glance, given the known operational problems relating to access and
circulation and conflict with high pedestrian numbers near large taxi ranks
such as Metro Mall (with 241 taxi loading bays), it seems unlikely that these
challenges can be successfully overcome for an even larger facility centrally
located in Johannesburg. However, it has been done successfully
internationally, a case study researched being the Port Authority Bus Terminal
in New York. The terminal is shown in the aerial photo in Figure 4.3.3.2.
Although this is a bus terminal, and therefore operate differently to the current
taxi ranks of the Johannesburg context, it is not totally irrelevant, as it has the
same order of scale of operations, albeit with larger vehicles.
Key characteristics of the facility are:
• It is reported to be the busiest facility in the world, serving 7200 buses and
200 000 people on an average weekday.
• It serves commuter and long distance routes, and has a link to the subway
station below the building
• It is centrally located (close to Times Square)
• The site it is situated on is approximately 140m X 245m, i.e. 34 300m 2
footprint. It has three levels, i.e. total floor area is 102 900m 2 , or 10.29 ha.
(For comparison, the floor area of Metro Mall A (with three floors) is
approximately 38 190 m 2 , its footprint being approximately 95m X 135m).
• There is a car park on the roof providing park-and-ride opportunities or longstay
(long distance services)
• It has 225 bus berths (208 gates, translating to around 500m 2 per gate)
• It is linked to the Lincoln Tunnel (dedicated bus tunnel) through a system of
elevated ramps thereby avoiding street congestion, however congestion on
the ramps is apparently experienced.
• It currently incorporates a number or retail and convenience businesses
• In 2007 a proposal was approved to construct a 40 storey office commercial
space tower, with construction expected to start in 2009/2010 and estimated
to take four years to complete (current status unknown)
• It was originally constructed in 1950 at a cost of $24 million, and
incorporated more steel than a typical Manhattan Skyscraper of the time. It
was doubled in size in 1966 at a cost of $52 million and in 1970 the XBL
(Lincoln) bus tunnel was constructed
Figure 4.3.3.2. Port Authority Bus Terminal, New York
March 2010 JICTTS Report 2 - Final 4-33