筆者根據相關資料,完成BRT相關評分

 

評分總表

 

評分項目

項目

配分

台中得分

可進步

短期可改善項目

路權等級

8

5

0

 

路線標準

8

5

0

 

車外收費

8

8

---

已經滿分

橫交道路威脅

7

4

0

 

月台與登上車輛

7

4

3

改善車站屋頂排水道設施,即可排除導軌無法啟用問題

多重路線

4

0

0

台中BRT服務密度多,專用道僅一車道,難以達成多重路線目標。

不同營運模式

3

0

0

 

行控中心

3

1

2

臨時的行控中心位於市中心,等待梧棲行控中心完工即可。

位於高運量路廊

2

2

---

已經滿分

需求分布

3

2

0

 

營運時間

2

1

1

營運時間延長至12:00即可。

多條路廊形成路網

2

0

2

依照原有規劃,逐步興建BRT路網。

站區超車道配置

4

0

0

 

低污染車輛

3

1

0

 

遠離路口設站

3

0

0

 

中央島式設站

2

0

0

 

鋪面材質

2

1

0

 

設站間距

2

0

2

依照藍線計畫,完成A02與A04。

候車環境

3

1

1

主要為車站寬度不足,後續車站建置時逐步改善。

車門數量

3

3

---

已經滿分

多重停靠區.子站

1

1

---

已經滿分

月台門

1

1

---

已經滿分

形象

3

3

---

已經滿分

旅客資訊系統

2

2

---

已經滿分

無障礙設施

3

2

0

 

串連其他公共運具

3

2

0

 

行人導引設施

3

2

1

逐步翻修人行設施。

安全的單車停靠區

2

0

1

增設自行車停靠空間,短期可改善部分。

自行車道

2

0

2

改善自行車騎乘環境。

公共自行車系統

1

0

1

逐步拓展租賃點。

小計

100

51

16

依照台中狀況,可以改善至67

扣分項目

扣分項目

配分

台中扣分

可追回分數

短期可改善項目

商業運轉速度

-10

-3

3

台中目前營運速度約為19.9kph,距離不扣分標準僅0.1kph

站間運能過低

-5

0

---

已經足夠

路權的強制力

-5

-1

0

短期難以改善目前誤闖問題

明顯的月台間隙

-5

-3

2

有待車站排水道改善,可連同改善此項目

過度擁擠

-5

-5

5

經過營運方式改善,可達成此標準

專用道.車站維護

-10

-2

2

目前扣分原因為設備未啟用,啟用後即可加回分數

尖峰服務頻率過低

-3

0

---

已經足夠

離峰服務頻率過低

-2

0

---

已經足夠

小計

-45

-14

12

依照台中狀況,可以改善扣分項目中的12分,維持扣2分水準

 

總計

 

37

65

目前台中為37分,短期經過兩部分改善可達65

 

 

第一部分The BRT BasicsBRT基本要求)

 

 

五大評分項目

各項滿分

Dedicated right-of-way(路權等級)

8*

Busway alignment(路線標準)

8*

Off-board fare collection(車外收費)

8

Intersection treatments(橫交路口)

7

Platform-level boarding(月台)

7*

算出以上五大項個別得分及總分後,需同時符合下方四要件才將其定義為BRT

At least 3km length with dedicated lanes

至少3km專用道

Score 4 or more points in dedicated right-of-way element

路權等級至少4

Score 4 or more points in busway alignment element

路線標準至少4

Score 20 or more points across all five BRT Basics elements

五大項總分20分↑

     

 


 

Dedicated Right-of-Way (路權等級,8分,需至少4)

 

Type of Dedicated Right-of-Way

評分

Dedicated lanes and full enforcement or physical segregation applied to over 90% of the busway corridor length (90%↑專用道擁有實體阻隔)

8

Dedicated lanes and full enforcement or physical segregation applied to over 75% of the busway corridor length (75%↑專用道擁有實體阻隔)

7

Delineators only or colorized pavement only without other enforcement measures applied to over 75% of the busway corridor length(採用標線或醒目顏色標記專用道達75%↑而沒有其他強迫措施)

5

Delineators only or colorized pavement only without other enforcement measures applied to over 40% of the busway corridor length(同上述條件,達40%↑而沒有其他強迫措施)

3

Delineators only or colorized pavement only without other enforcement measures applied to over 20% of the busway corridor length

(同上述條件,達20%↑而沒有其他強迫措施)

2

Camera-enforcement with signs only(僅標線及執法照相機而無實體分隔)

1

 

 

評析:台中BRT無論或是現在或是未來,其路權等級設定為5分標準

現況:累積5

未來:累積5


 

Busway Alignment(路線標準,8分,需至少4分)

專用道的設置需減少與其他車流交織的機率、尤其是在專用道與混合車道轉換處。此外,小型車常有路邊臨停之需求、甚至車道外側的路邊停車格,專用道若移至路中間可避免與上述車流產生交織、進而減少誤點的產生。

 

 

專用道位置

評分

第一級tier1

Two-way median-aligned busways that are in the central verge of a two-way road雙向公車道設在道路(雙向道)中央

8

Bus-only corridors where there is a fully exclusive right-of-way and no parallel mixed traffic.  such as transit malls (e.g., Bogotá, Curitiba, Quito, and Pereira) and converted rail corridors  (e.g., Cape Town and Los Angeles) 該道路中只有公車道

8

Busways that run adjacent to an edge condition like a waterfront or park where there are few  intersections to cause conflicts 公車道於邊緣條件(如公園/水岸等、產生車流交織導致事故的機率極小)

8

Busways that run two-way on the side of a one-way street 雙向公車道位於單行道路其中一側

6

第二級 tier2

Busways that are split into two one-way pairs but are centrally aligned in the roadway 雙向公車道分道行駛,但每一專用道位於該分道中間

5

Busways that are split into two one-way pairs but aligned to the curb

雙向公車道分道行駛,且每一專用道位於該分道路邊(緊鄰人行道)

3

第三級 tier3

Virtual busway that operates bi-directionally in a single median lane that alternates direction by block. 單線雙向交替使用的公車道

1

non-scoring configurations

Curb-aligned busway on a two-way road 公車道於雙向道路路側

0

 

評析:經過詢問與斷面相似度比較,台中BRT優先路段位於快慢車道中間,較符合第二級的5分系統定義,未來則必須依照各個路線概況評定分數。

現況:累積10

未來:累積10

注意:本項於文末有更精確的分析

 

Off-board Fare Collection (車外收費,8分)

Off-board fare collection is one the most important factors in reducing travel time and improving the customer experience. There are presently two basic approaches to off-board fare collection: “Turnstile-controlled(驗票閘門),” where passengers pass through a gate, turnstile, or checkpoint upon entering the station where their ticket is verified or fare is deducted, and “proof-of-payment(榮譽制),” where passengers pay at a kiosk and collect a paper ticket that is then checked on board the vehicle by an inspector. Both approaches can significantly reduce delay.(這兩項措施皆是為了減少誤點的發生) However, turnstile-controlled is slightly preferred because:

 

• It is easier to accommodate multiple routes using the same BRT infrastructure; (整合多重路線在同一站台較容易)

• It minimizes fare evasion, as every passenger must have his/her ticket scanned in order to enter the system versus proof-of-payment, which requires random checks;(減少逃票率)

• Proof-of-payment can cause anxiety for passengers who may have misplaced tickets;(榮譽制將使搞丟車票的人感到焦慮)

• The data collected by turnstile-controlled systems upon boarding, and sometimes upon alighting, can be useful in future system planning.(驗票閘門的設計將可協助統計數據並據此作為後續計畫的參考)

 

On the other hand, proof-of-payment systems on bus routes that extend beyond BRT corridors extend the benefits of time savings to those sections of the bus routes that lie beyond the BRT corridor.(榮譽制的優勢在於不一定要採取車外收費,即非BRT站台的區域設置路側站牌亦可,可節省設站經費)

 

BRT重要項目: This is an element of BRT deemed as essential to true BRT corridors.

Off-Board Fare Collection (During All Operating Hours)收費方式

評分

100% of stations on corridor have turnstile-controlled off-board fare collection(全部車站皆擁有驗票閘門)

8

100% of routes that touch the corridor have proof-of-payment fare collection (全部車站皆設有榮譽制付費系統)

7

80% of stations on corridor have turnstile-controlled off-board fare collection (80%車站擁有驗票閘門)

7

80% of routes that touch the corridor have proof-of-payment fare collection(80%車站設有榮譽制付費系統)

6

60% of stations on corridor have turnstile-controlled off-board fare collection (60%車站擁有驗票閘門)

6

60% of routes that touch the corridor have proof-of-payment fare collection(60%車站設有榮譽制付費系統)

5

40% of stations on corridor have turnstile-controlled off-board fare collection (40%車站擁有驗票閘門)

5

40% of routes that touch the corridor have proof-of-payment fare collection(40%車站設有榮譽制付費系統)

4

20% of stations on corridor have turnstile-controlled off-board fare collection (20%車站擁有驗票閘門)

3

20% of routes that touch the corridor have proof-of-payment fare collection(20%車站設有榮譽制付費系統)

2

< 20% of stations on corridor have turnstile-controlled off-board fare collection; < 20% of routes that touch the corridor have proof-of-payment fare collection(<20%車站設有驗票閘門或榮譽制付費系統)

0

 

評析:台中BRT現有路線皆有設置驗票閘門,為8分系統

現況:累積18

未來:累積18

 


 

Intersection Treatments(路口威脅,7分)

There are several ways to increase bus speeds at intersections, all of which are aimed at increasing the green-signal time for the bus lane.(提升平均車速的方法很多,例如綠燈延長、來增加專用道車輛的通行時間) Forbidding turns across the bus lane and minimizing the number of traffic-signal phases where possible are the most important.(應利用禁止左/右轉措施達到減少紅綠燈時相的目的) Traffic-signal priority, when activated by an approaching BRT vehicle, is useful in lower-frequency systems but less effective than turn prohibitions.(優先號誌很重要,但禁左/右轉來減少紅綠燈時相更有效率)

 

Intersection Treatments(橫交路口措施)

評分

All turns prohibited across the busway(全方向禁止跨越專用道)

7

Most turns prohibited across the busway(大部分方向禁止跨越專用道)

6

Approximately half of the turns prohibited across the busway and some signal priority (一半方向的轉向禁止跨越專用道,擁有優先號誌)

5

Some turns prohibited across the busway and signal priority at most intersections (一些方向的轉向禁止跨越專用道,擁有優先號誌)

4

Some turns prohibited across the busway and some signal priority

(一些方向的轉向禁止跨越專用道,擁有一些優先號誌)

3

No turns prohibited across the busway but signal priority at most intersections (不禁左右轉,大多數路口擁有優先號誌)

2

No turns prohibited across the busway but some intersections have signal priority (不禁左右轉,少數路口擁有優先號誌)

1

No intersection treatments (無對應措施)

0

 

評析:台中BRT擁有優先號誌並且穩定運作並無異議。
然而在這個項目中,turn指的是路口轉向,也就是左轉與右轉,並沒有特別強調台中BRT所說的快慢車道交織問題如何評分,但筆者認為應該納入考量,本項目總共給予4分。

現況:累積22

未來:累積22

 

 

Platform-level Boarding(月台與登上車輛,7分)

 

車廂與站台地板等高可減少上下車時間,對年長與行動不便者來說無法水平上下車多少將導致延誤,縮減月台與車廂間隙亦可促進舒適度與安全性。透過以下方法可將間隙壓縮在5公分內,如導引靠站系統、卡賽爾緣石和渡板。

本評分著重在是否能縮減月台間隙而非採用了幾項

 

Percentage of Buses with At-Level Boarding

評分

100% of buses are platform level; system-wide measures for reducing the gap in place(全部車輛地板皆與月台等高且有相對應措施縮減間隙)

7

80% of buses; system-wide measures for reducing the gap in place

(80%車輛地板皆與月台等高且有相對應措施縮減間隙)

6

60% of buses; system-wide measures for reducing the gap in place

(60%車輛地板皆與月台等高且有相對應措施縮減間隙)

5

100% of buses are platform level with no other measures for reducing the gap in place (全部車輛地板與月台等高但無對應措施縮減間隙)

4

40% of buses(40%車輛地板與月台等高但無對應措施縮減間隙)

3

20% of buses(20%車輛地板與月台等高但無對應措施縮減間隙)

2

50% of buses are platform level with no other measures for reducing the gap in place (50%車輛地板與月台等高但無對應措施縮減間隙)

2

10% of buses

1

No platform-level boarding (車輛地板與月台不同高)

0

*灰色區域,疑似原文編排有問題

 

評析:台中BRT車輛與月台等高,並且有施作縮減月台間隙設施,然而因為車站排水道會與車輛後照鏡相撞,至今無法啟用,於是給定4分,但改善後可達7分。從這一項開始,可以比較台中現況以及未來能夠進步多少分。

現況:累積26

未來:累積29

 

 

第二部分Service Planning(服務規劃)

 

Multiple Routes (多重路線,4)

Having multiple routes operate on a single corridor is a good proxy for reduced door-to-door travel times by reducing transfer penalties. This can include:

(同一條路廊上擁有多重路線對於及戶運輸以及縮減運輸時間有相當大的幫助)


選項一:
Routes that operate over multiple corridors, as exists with TransMilenio in Bogotá or Metrobús in Mexico City;(由服務不同地區的公車路線進入BRT路線使路廊中短暫共用,如波哥大/墨西哥城BRT)


選項二:
Multiple routes operating in a single corridor that go to different destinations once they leave the corridor, as exists with the Guangzhou, Cali, and Johannesburg BRT systems. (同一條專用道上路線相同,但是營運區間不同的BRT,如廣州/約翰尼斯堡BRT)

 

This flexibility of bus-based systems is one of the primary advantages of BRT that is frequently not well used or understood. (當專用道班距密度不高時,以上多重路線輔助是另外一個彈性方向)

 

Multiple Routes多重路線

評分

Two or more routes exist on the corridor, servicing at least two stations(兩條以上路線於路廊上,並服務至少兩個站)

4

No multiple routes()

0

 

評析:台中BRT目前只有藍線優先路段,為0分。也由於服務密度足夠,以及BRT專用道非多重車道,並不利於未來多重路線發展,未來為0分。

現況:累積26

未來:累積29


 

Express, Limited, and Local Services(不同營運模式,3)

跳站直達車的設置有助提升平均營運速度及減少旅行時間。直達車的運行主要是為了提供往返路線兩端大站的快速服務。

此處僅針對有無設計直達車做評分

 

Service Types服務類型

評分

Local services and multiple types of limited and/or express services(多種站站停/跳站的停靠模式)

3

At least one local and one limited or express service option(至少各一線直達/區間車)

2

No limited or express services (無直達車)

0

 

評析:台中目前只有藍線優先路段,為0分。

現況:累積26

未來:累積29


 

Control Center(行控中心,3分)

Control centers for BRT systems are increasingly becoming a requirement for a host of service improvements, such as avoiding bus bunching, monitoring bus operations, identifying problems, and rapidly responding to them. A full-service control center monitors the locations of all buses with GPS or similar technology and can:

 

 • Respond to incidents in real-time(即時反應線上的突發狀況)

 • Control the spacing of buses(控制區間內的車輛)

 • Determine and respond to the maintenance status of all buses in the fleet(分配、指派車輛;維持班距)

 • Record passenger boardings and alightings for future service adjustments(記錄旅次分配作為改進的參考)

 • Use Computer-Aided Dispatch (CAD)/Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) for bus tracking and performance monitoring A full-service center should be integrated with a public transport system’s existing control center as well as the traffic signal system.(利用電腦輔助系統/自動車輛定位系統監控線上車輛動態,行控中心應與交控中心連線或結合)

 

Control Center(行控中心)

評分

Full-service control center

3

Control center with most services

2

Control center with some services

1

No control center

0

 

評析:台中目前臨時的行控中心位於興中停車場旁,功能不足暫時給1分。目前完整的梧棲行控中心正在興建,未來可達到3分。

現況:累積27

未來:累積32

 

 

Located In Top Ten Corridors (位處高運量路廊,2分)

 

Corridor Location(是否為高運量路廊)

評分

Corridor is one of top ten demand corridors (包含運量前10大之路廊)

2

Corridor is outside top ten demand corridors (不包含運量前10大之路廊)

0

 

評析:台中藍線位於台中第一重要的大眾運輸需求路廊上,為2

現況:累積29

未來:累積34

 

 

Demand Profile (需求分布,3分)

 BRT路廊須包含一定長度之最高人流量區間,在此區間內需以高標準建置BRT車站/專用道等基礎建設)

參考原文報告中「路線標準」的部分為此項評分

 

Demand Profile

評分

Corridor includes highest demand segment, which has a Tier 1 Trunk Corridor configuration(站間最大量區間路線標準屬Tier 1等級)

3

Corridor includes highest demand segment, which has a Tier 2 Trunk Corridor configuration(站間最大量區間路線標準屬Tier 2等級)

2

Corridor includes highest demand segment, which has a Tier 3 Trunk Corridor configuration(站間最大量區間路線標準屬Tier 3等級)

1

Corridor does not include highest demand segment(站間最大量區間為混合車道)

0

 

評析:台中藍線站間最大量推測於秋紅谷~科博館區間上,依照定義為2分。

現況:累積31

未來:累積36

 


Hours of Operations(營運時間,2分)

A viable transit service must be available to passengers for as many hours throughout the day and week as possible. Otherwise, passengers could end up stranded or may simply seek another mode.(營運時間越長,系統的可利用性就越高)

 

評分準則: Late-night(夜間) service refers to service until midnight(午夜12) and weekend service refers to both weekend days(假日不可停駛).

營運時間

評分

Both late-night and weekend service(深夜與週末提供服務)

2

Late-night service, no weekends OR weekend service, no late nights

(前項服務中僅有其一)

1

No late-night or weekend service

0

 

評析:台中BRT目前只營運至2245,尚未達深夜標準,週末依然提供服務,目前1分,未來調整營運狀況可達2

現況:累積32

未來:累積38

 

Multi-corridor Network (多條路廊形成路網,2分)

Ideally, BRT should include multiple corridors that intersect and form a network, as this expands travel options for passengers and makes the system more viable as a whole.BRT系統需藉由多條路廊交織成路網,提升路網的可及性與可利用性) When designing a new system, some anticipation of future corridors is useful to ensure the designs will be compatible with later developments.(對未來的需求預測將有助於了解新的路線設計與設備配置使否合適或需預留發展空間) For this reason, a long-term plan is recognized, with an emphasis on near-term connectivity through either BRT services or infrastructure.

 

Multi-corridor Network多條路廊形成路網

評分

BRT corridor connects to an existing BRT corridor or to the next one planned in the network (至少兩條正在運行BRT的路廊交會/下一個準備興建BRT的路線與現存BRT路線交會)

2

BRT corridor connects to a future planned corridor in the BRT network(未來可能會興建BRT的路廊與現有運行BRT的路線交會,但尚未定案)

1

No connected BRT network planned or built(現在沒有、未來也沒有)

0

 

評析:台中BRT藍線後續路段已經準備興建,目前現況不明給予0分,但未來仍有2分標準。

現況:累積32

未來:累積40

 


 

第三部分Infrastructure(基礎設施)

Passing Lanes at Stations(站區超車道,4分)

站區超車道提供開行直達車的可能性,同時也能確保直達車擁有較高之平均運行速率、而不被等待進站的區間車卡住。超車道的設計可兼顧大站間的高運量旅運需求、亦保有使系統進一步擴張的空間)

 

Passing Lanes at stations站區超車道配置

評分

Physical, dedicated passing lanes 擁有實體隔離之超車道

4

Buses overtake in on-coming dedicated lanes 以對向專用道做為超車道

2

No passing lanes 無超車道

0

 

評析:無論現在或是短時間的未來,皆難以出現超車道,評定0

現況:累積32

未來:累積40

 

 

Minimizing Bus Emissions (低汙染車輛,3分)

 

Emissions Standards(廢氣排放標準)

評分

Euro VI or US 2010 (歐六或US 2010排放標準)

3

Euro IV or V with PM traps or US 2007 (歐四/五或US 2007排放標準,且須配備PM捕捉裝置)

2

Euro IV or V or Euro III CNG or using verified PM trap retrofit (歐四/歐五/歐三CNG或配備PM捕捉裝置)

1

Below Euro IV or V (低於歐四/五排放標準)

0

 

評析:台中BRT目前為歐五標準,但不知是否配備相關PM捕捉裝置,給予1

現況:累積33

未來:累積41


 

Stations Set Back from Intersections (遠離路口設站,3分)

站體設置應遠離路26-40米,以免後車在等前車上下客而無法進站時影響到橫交路口。

站體設置於路口前,紅燈可能會擋住完成上下車的車輛致其無法離站、進而導致後方車輛無法近站停靠,此情況在尖峰時段時將會更嚴重,建議遠離路口設站以避免此情形

 

評分準則: The distance from the intersection is defined for the near side of the intersection as the stop line at the intersection to the front of a bus at the forward-most docking bay and for the far side of the intersection from the far edge of the crosswalk to the back of the bus at the rear-most docking bay.

Station Location(遠離路口設站)

評分

75% of stations on corridor are set back at least 40 m (130 ft.) from intersection or meet at least one of the following exemptions:>75%車站遠離路口至少40米或符合以下兩種特殊情形)

• Fully exclusive busways with no intersections (全線無橫交路口)

• Stations located near intersections due to block length (such as downtowns where blocks are relatively short) (設站位置受限街區過短而無法遠離路口)

3

75% of stations on corridor are set back 26 m (85 ft.) from intersections or meet above exemptions>75%車站遠離路口至少26米)

2

25% of stations on corridor are set back 26 m (85 ft.) from intersections or meet above exemptions>25%車站遠離路口至少40米)

1

< 25% of stations on corridor are set back 26m (85 ft.) from intersections or meet above exemptions <25%車站遠離路口至少40米)

0

 

評析:經過筆者一一計算,皆未達成任一標準,評定0分。若後續路網協助拉抬才有機會加分,暫時不給予未來分數。

現況:累積33

未來:累積41

 

 

Center Stations (中央島式車站,2分)

 

Center Stations中央設站

評分

80% and above of stations on corridor have center platforms serving both directions of service >80%車站為中央島式車站)

2

50% of stations on corridor 50%>車站為中央島式車站)

1

< 20% of stations on corridor <20%車站為中央島式車站)

0

 

評析:台中BRT為側式月台,目前為0分,未來分數暫不評定。

現況:累積33

未來:累積41


 

Pavement Quality(鋪面品質,2分)

 

Good-quality pavement ensures better service and operations for a longer period by minimizing the need for maintenance on the busway. Roadways with poor-quality pavement will need to be shut down more frequently for repairs. Buses will also have to slow down to drive carefully over damaged pavement.(好的鋪面品質除了確保乘坐舒適度、也比較不需要常常維護)No matter what type of pavement, a 30-year life span is recommended. There are several options for the pavement structure to achieve that, with advantages and disadvantages for each. Three examples are described here:(無論何種鋪面都需擁有至少30年的使用壽命,以下是其中三種常用之鋪面,其優劣詳列如下)

 

1. Asphalt(瀝青鋪面): Properly designed and constructed, asphalt pavement can last 30-plus years with surface replacement every 10 to 12 years. This can be done without interrupting service, resulting in a smooth, quiet ride. For stations, rigid pavement is important to use to resist the potential pavement damage due to braking; (最便宜、最常被使用,舒適度高)

2. Jointed Plain Concrete Pavement (JPCP,水泥混凝土鋪面): This type of pavement design can have a 30-plus-year life. To ensure this life, the pavement must have round dowel bars at the transverse joints, tied lanes by the use of reinforcing steel, and adequate thickness; and(次便宜,舒適度稍差,價格較高)

3. Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (CRCR,連續式鋼筋混凝土鋪面): Continuous slab reinforcement can add additional pavement strength and might be considered under certain design conditions. It is the most expensive option. (最貴,通常只用在站區,較顛簸、較前兩種路面更能負荷重車的剎車力量)

 

Pavement Materials(鋪面材質)

評分

Pavement structure designed for 30-year life over entire corridor

2

Pavement structure designed for 30-year life only at stations

1

Pavement design life less than 30 years

0

 

評析:台中BRT於站區採用30年鋪面,為1分。

現況:累積34

未來:累積42


 

第四部分Stations(車站)

 

Distances Between Stations(設站間距,2分)

 平均站距約450m(站間距超過450米,乘客搭乘BRT的時間會被步行吃掉;少於450米則會拉低平均行駛速度、且時間較乘客出站步行相去不遠)

 

Distance Between Stations(平均車站間距)

評分

Stations are spaced, on average, between 0.3 km (0.2 mi.) and 0.8 km (0.5 mi.) apart (車站平均站距介於0.30.8km

2

 

評析:台中BRT優先路段平均站距為823公尺(21站),不過坪頂~正英路與穿越國道一號皆是無必要設站路段。筆者暫時嚴格看待,給予0分。但依照原本規劃興建A02A04,則為2分,納入未來分數。

現況:累積34

未來:累積44


 

Safe and Comfortable Stations(候車環境,3分)

 

和一般公車相比,BRT應具有安全舒適的候車環境、內部至少三米寬、保護站內乘客不受外在天候影響候車。站體具採光和照明良好、且駐有保全或配備監視系;站內保持整潔,除有助形象塑造外、亦能達到吸引遊客的目的)

 

評分準則: Stations should have at least 3 m (10 ft.) of internal width. This is the definition for “wide” in the scoring chart below. (車站寬度至少3米)

Safe and Comfortable Stations(是否寬敞、引人注目且不受天候影響)

評分

All stations on corridor are wide, attractive, weather-protected

3

Most stations on corridor are wide, attractive, weather-protected

2

Some stations on corridor are wide, attractive, weather-protected

1

No stations on corridor are wide, attractive, weather-protected

0

 

評析:藍線優先路段站內寬度約2.8公尺,未達3公尺基本標準。目前台中火車站達3公尺標準,其餘車站吸引力仍算足夠,給予1分,後續路網站體若有3公尺,即可達到2分標準。

現況:累積35

未來:累積46

 

 

Number of Doors on Bus(車門數量,3分)

乘客上下車速度與車門數有關,一車多門將有助提升上下車速度,避免因只有單門或車門寬度不夠而形成的瓶頸拖延上下車時間。

 

Percentage of Buses with 3+ Doors or 2 Wide Doors on the Station Side and All-Door Boarding(公車擁有三個車門或兩個加寬車門的百分比)

評分

100%

3

65%

2

35%

1

< 35%

0

 

評析:全部雙節式大客車擁有3個車門,為3分。

現況:累積38

未來:累積49

 


 

Docking Bays and Sub-stops(多重停靠區/子站,1分)

 

多重停靠區或一個以上的子站可供多輛車同時停靠,可供不同路線轉乘,子站間距需稍微拉開以避免各子站間車輛進出互相干擾、但也不能距離太遠使轉乘困難。

一個車站需擁有一個子站及兩個停靠區,若有子站、則單一子站設置的停靠區最多兩個。

 

Docking Bays and Sub-stops (高需求站是否具備子站或至少兩個停靠區)

評分

At least two sub-stops or docking bays at the highest-demand stations

1

Less than two sub-stops or docking bays at the highest-demand stations

0

 

評析:嚴格而言,台中BRT雖然搭乘人次多,卻未到達一定的高需求標準,目前於靜宜大學~台中火車站皆預留第二月台空間,給予1分。

現況:累積39

未來:累積50

 

Sliding Doors in BRT Stations(月台門,1分)

Sliding doors where passengers get on and off the buses inside the stations improve the quality of the station environment, reduce the risk of accidents, protect passengers from the weather, and prevent pedestrians from entering the station in unauthorized locations. (月台門的設置能避免意外發生、保障乘客的安全和防止行人違規穿越車道進入月台)

 

Sliding Doors月台門設置情形

評分

All stations have sliding doors

1

Otherwise

0

 

評析:台中BRT擁有月台門,給予1分。

現況:累積40

未來:累積51

 

 

第五部分 Communications(資訊溝通)

 

Branding(形象圖,3分)

BRT promises a high quality of service, which is reinforced by having a unique brand and identity.

 

Branding(是否具備獨特的商標/形象圖)

評分

All buses, routes, and stations in corridor follow single unifying brand of entire BRT system (車輛/路線/車站擁有一致的造型)

3

All buses, routes, and stations in corridor follow single unifying brand, but different from rest of the system

2

Some buses, routes, and stations in corridor follow single unifying brand, regardless of rest of the system (部分擁有)

1

No corridor brand (無)

0

 

評析:台中BRT擁有一致的造型,給予3分。

現況:累積43

未來:累積54

 

 

Passenger Information(旅客資訊系統,2分)

相關研究顯示若能提供車輛到站資訊的服務,旅客的反饋大多是正面的、滿意度也較高;即時動態系統包括電子跑馬燈、液晶顯示器或手持裝置動態APP等。

靜態旅客資訊包括班距/路線/路網圖、站區周邊地圖、緊急逃生指示及其他相關資訊等。

 

Passenger Information (at Stations and on Vehicles) 旅客資訊系統

評分

Functioning real-time and up-to-date static passenger information corridor-wide (建置動態旅客資訊系統)

2

Up-to-date static passenger information(僅靜態旅客資訊)

1

Very poor or no passenger information

0

 

評析:台中BRT包含靜態與動態系統,給予2分。

現況:累積45

未來:累積56


 

第六部分 Access and Integration(友善搭乘環境)

Universal Access(無障礙設施,3分)

 包括車輛地板、車站閘門與進出站動線皆須符合輪椅通行之需求,以及點字指標與導盲磚等

 

Universal Accessibility

評分

Full accessibility at all stations and on all vehicles (所有車輛與車站有完整的無障礙設施)

3

Partial accessibility at all stations and on all vehicles (部分無障礙設施於所有車輛與車站)

2

Full or partial accessibility at some stations and on some vehicles (部分無障礙設施於部分車站與車輛)

1

Corridor not universally accessible

0

 

評析:台中BRT並無點字或是導盲磚,目前輪椅於所有車站皆能自由進出,給予2分,短時間內並不會增設任何設施。

現況:累積47

未來:累積58

 

Integration with Other Public Transport(串聯其他公共運具,3分)

 

When a BRT system is built in a city, a functioning public transport network often already exists, be it rail, bus, or minibus. The BRT system should integrate into the rest of the public transport network. There are two components to BRT integration: BRT須與都市裡現存之公共運具如公車、軌道運輸相結合,以路網的方式串聯其他公共運具;能否整合的兩大關鍵如下)

• Physical transfer points: Physical transfer points should minimize walking between modes, be wellsized, and not require passengers to exit one system and enter another;(轉乘點:減少轉乘步行的距離,乘客在不同系統之間轉乘無須出站、即站內轉乘)

• Fare payment: The fare system should be integrated so that one fare card may be used for all modes.(電子票證整合,不同系統間多卡皆可通)

 

 

Integration with Other Public Transport(與其他公共運具之整合)

評分

Integration of both physical design and fare payment(硬體系統與軟體票證皆整合)

3

Integration of physical design or fare payment only (只有其中一種整合)

2

No integration(無整合)

0

 

評析:台中BRT已完成票證整合,唯轉乘需要出站,給予2分,短時間內難以站內轉乘。

現況:累積49

未來:累積60

 


 

Pedestrian Access(行人導引設施,3分)

 

好的BRT系統需要有好的行人導引設施,好的導引設施是和BRT一起設計的,在興建BRT時應連同路廊周邊的人行道一起改善。良好的人行導引設施如下:

 

• At-grade pedestrian crossings where pedestrians cross a maximum of two lanes of traffic before reaching a pedestrian refuge (sidewalk, median);(行人最多跨越兩個車道即可抵達庇護區,如庇護島或人行道)

• If crossing more than two lanes at once, a signalized crosswalk is provided;(行人穿越道橫跨兩車道以上時應設置行人穿越號誌)

• Well-lit crosswalks where the footpath remains level and continuous;(行人穿越道明亮且與人行道串聯)

• While at-grade crossings are preferred, pedestrian bridges or underpasses with working escalators or elevators can also be considered; (大型橫交路口可考慮附設電扶梯或電梯之天橋或地下道)

• Sidewalks along corridor are at least 3 meters wide.(沿線人行道至少3米寬)

 

Pedestrian Access人行空間

評分

Good, safe pedestrian access at every station and for a 500-meter catchment area surrounding the corridor 每站皆有良好的人行導引設施,且鄰近500公尺人行環境亦佳

3

Good, safe pedestrian access at every station and many improvements along corridor 每站皆有良好的人行導引設施,大部分路側人行道翻修

2

Good, safe pedestrian access at every station and modest improvements along corridor每站皆有良好的人行導引設施,但路側人行道多未翻修

1

Not every station has good, safe pedestrian access and little improvement along corridor並非每站皆有良好的人行導引設施

0

 

評析:台中人行環境實際上並不好,台灣大道大多人行道通暢,給予2分,未來可以慢慢提昇品質至3分。

現況:累積51

未來:累積63

 

 

Secure Bicycle Parking(安全的自行車停車區,2分)

 

The provision of bicycle parking at stations is necessary for passengers who wish to use bicycles as feeders to the BRT system. Formal bicycle parking facilities that are secure (either monitored by an attendant or observed by security camera) and weather-protected are more likely to be used by passengers.

 

Bicycle Parking

評分

Secure bicycle parking at least in terminal stations and standard bicycle racks elsewhere 重要站有自行車停車場,其他車站至少擁有單車停車架

2

Standard bicycle racks in most stations 大多數車站擁有自行車停車架

1

Little or no bicycle parking 很少以上設施

0

 

評析:目前自行車停車空間仍很少,給予0分,短期改善可達1分。

現況:累積51

未來:累積64

 


 

Bicycle Lanes(自行車道,2分)

 

自行車道的設置可拓展路網覆蓋面、亦可確保自行車的安全;作為BRT與住宅區、商業區、學校、辦公區的連結,自行車道普遍設置,範圍大約是BRT沿線外擴2公里左右的範圍。

此外,大多數城市之BRT路廊皆擁有平行的自行車路線或公車路線負擔短程接駁、甚至建構與該路廊平行的自行車道;自行車道寬度至少須2米)。

 

Bicycle Lanes(自行車道)

評分

Bicycle lanes on or parallel to entire corridor 路廊擁有平行的自行車道

2

Bicycle lanes do not span entire corridor 部分路廊無平行的自行車道

1

No bicycle infrastructure 無自行車相關建設

0

 

評析:以筆者標準來說,必須有台北的自行車通行標準,暫時給予0分,改善可達2分。

現況:累積51

未來:累積66

 


 

Bicycle-Sharing Integration(公共自行車系統,1分)

 

Having the option to make short trips from the BRT corridor by a shared bicycle is important to providing connectivity to some destinations. Operating costs of providing bus service to the last mile (i.e., feeder buses) are often the highest cost of maintaining a BRT network; thus, providing a low-cost bicycle-sharing alternative to feeders is generally seen as best practice.(為完成最後一哩之接駁可採公車接駁,但開行接駁公車之成本較高且路線較無彈性,故藉由建置公共自行車租借系統可讓BRT更加深入、擴大BRT的覆蓋面)

 

Bicycle-Sharing Integration (設有公共自行車租借站的比例)

評分

Bicycle-sharing at minimum of 50% of stations on corridor(一半以上車站)

1

Bicycle-sharing at less than 50% of stations on corridor (不足一半車站)

0

 

 

評析:目前A05A12皆有公共自行車租賃站(A08正在施作),可惜仍未達一半比例,給予0分,短期可達1分。

現況:累積51

未來:累積67

 

最終部分 Point Deductions(扣分項目)

 

Point deductions are only relevant to systems already in operation. They have been introduced as a way of mitigating the risk of recognizing a system as high quality that has made significant design errors or has significant management and performance weaknesses not readily observable during the design phase. The penalties from improperly sizing the infrastructure and operations or from poor system management are as follows:

 

 

Commercial Speeds(商業運轉速度,10分)

 

Most of the design features included in the scoring system will always result in higher speeds. However, there is an exception: higher-demand systems in which too many buses carrying too many passengers have been concentrated into a single lane. In this case, bus speeds could be lower than in mixed-traffic conditions. This penalty was imposed to mitigate the risk of rewarding such a system with a quality standard.

 

評分準則: The minimum average commercial speed refers to the system-wide average speed and not the average speed at the slowest link. Where commercial speed is not readily available, the full penalty should be imposed if buses are backing up at many BRT stations or junctions.

Commercial Speeds(最低平均營運速率)

評分

Minimum average commercial speed is 20 kph (12 mph) and above

0

Minimum average commercial speed is 16 kph–19 kph (10–12 mph)

-3

Minimum average commercial speed is 13 kph–16 kph (8–10 mph)

-6

Minimum average commercial speed is 13 kph (8 mph) and below

-10

 

評析:根據201410月資料,BRT於昏峰營運速率為19.9KPH,扣3分。
而根據筆者近日抽樣調查資料,BRT已經逐漸邁向無扣分的標準。

現況:累積48

未來:累積67

 

 

Minimum Peak Passengers per Hour per Direction (pphpd) Below 1,000(單向站間最大運能低於1000人次/小時,扣5分)

 

單向站間最大運能低於1000人次/小時的BRT系統、其運能比混合車流還要低,代表其平行路廊須保留公車路線以提供足夠運能;平行路線應是為了接駁路廊外的乘客轉乘BRT而非與BRT競爭。

 

絕大多數BRT系統皆能達到1000人次/小時的運能要求,但其中有許多城市的BRT系統轉乘需求很低,即便運能達標依舊是不合格的;反觀那些被評為金牌級的BRT系統,透過站內轉乘來創造源源不絕的需求。

 

評分準則: All five points should be deducted if the ridership on the link in the corridor with maximum peak-hour ridership is under 1,000 pphpd in the peak hour. Otherwise, no deduction is necessary.

Passengers per Hour per Direction (PPHPD) in Peak Hour

評分

PPHPD below1,000單向站間最大運能低於1000人次/小時)

-5

 

評析:台中BRT站間最大量超過1000人次/小時,無需扣分。

現況:累積48

未來:累積67

 


 

Lack of Enforcement of Right-of-Way(路權的強制力,扣5分)

 

專用道若無實體阻隔,則無法阻止他車侵入專用道,將導致BRT運行速度下降。若專用道無實體阻隔,則採用車站設置錄影器監控、派遣警力不定時巡邏擅闖專用道之熱點...等方法取締、遏阻入侵專用道的車輛

 

Lack of Enforcement (專用道無實體阻隔時)

評分

Regular encroachment on BRT right-of-way (經常有車誤闖)

-5

Some encroachment on BRT right-of-way (有時候有車誤闖)

-3

Occasional encroachment on BRT right-of-way (偶爾有車誤闖)

-1

 

評析:台中BRT偶而有車輛誤闖,扣1分,短期之內難以改善,未來分數也扣1分。

現況:累積47

未來:累積66


 

Significant Gap Between Bus Floor and Station Platform(車廂地板與月台間縫隙過大,扣5分)

 

Note: If a system does not have platform-level boarding by design, no penalty points should be given.(當車站與月台非水平時,本項不扣分)

Gap Minimization

評分

Large gaps everywhere or kneeling buses required to minimize gaps

-5

Slight gap remaining at some stations, large gap at remaining stations

-4

Slight gap at most stations

-3

No gap at some stations, slight gap at remaining stations

-2

No gap at most stations, slight gap at remaining stations

-1

 

評析:台中BRT 屬於扣3分等級,有待車站改善後可達至少扣1分等級

現況:累積44

未來:累積65

 


 

Overcrowding(過度擁擠,扣5分)

 

評分準則: The full penalty should be imposed if the average passenger density during the peak hour is greater than five passengers per square meter (0.46 per square ft.) on more than 25% of buses in the predominant direction, or the average passenger density during the peak hour is greater than three passengers per square meter (0.28 per square ft.) at stations. If this metric is not easily calculated, then clearly visible signs of overcrowding on buses or in stations should be used, such as doors on the buses regularly being unable to close, stations overcrowded with passengers because they are unable to board full buses, etc.(車內擁擠程度詳見下表,若無法計算時則由特徵來判斷、比如車門經常性關不起來、旅客載不完導致滯站人數過多等等)

Overcrowding(擁擠程度)

評分

Passenger density during peak hour on more than 25% of buses in peak direction is > 5/m2, OR Passenger density during the peak hour at one or more stations is > 3 m2, OR Passengers unable to board buses or enter stations(尖峰時段有25%以上之車輛其乘載密度超過5 /m2,或站內等待上車的旅客密度超過3 /m2,或站內旅客過多導致無法上下車)

-5

 

評析:因為班距不穩,時而滿車時而空車,為扣5分等級,改善後可達不扣分等級(為發車後班距亂掉導致供給不穩,非供不應求)

現況:累積39

未來:累積65

 

 

Poorly Maintained Busway, Buses, Stations, and Technology Systems(專用道車輛車站維護,扣10分)

 

 

Even a BRT system that is well built and attractive can fall into disrepair. It is important that the busway, buses, stations, and technology systems be regularly maintained. A corridor can be penalized for each type of poor maintenance listed below for a total of -10 points.

 

Maintenance of Busway(專用道維護)

評分

Busway has significant wear, including potholes or warping, or debris, such as trash or snow(專用道有鋪面明顯磨損、坑洞、垃圾或降雪)

-4

Maintenance of Buses(車輛維護)

評分

Buses have graffiti, litter, seats in disrepair(車輛內部髒亂或座椅破損)

-2

Maintenance of Stations(車站維護)

評分

Stations have graffiti, litter, occupancy by vagrants or vendors, or structural damage (車站髒亂或被流浪漢/攤販占用、建築受損)

-2

Maintenance of Technology Systems(科技設備維護)

評分

Technology systems, including fare collection machines, are not functional(站內設備故障)

-2

 

評析:第一小項:台中BRT略有破洞或磨損,但是狀況輕微,較大坑洞已經改善
第二小項:車輛內部乾淨,並無座椅破損
第三小項:車站內部每日皆有清掃人員,未達髒亂等級
第四小項:站內設備正常使用,反而是有沒有啟用設備的問題比較大
四小項中,部分設備尚未啟用視為故障,扣2分,短期可改善

現況:累積37

未來:累積65


 

Low Peak Frequency(尖峰服務頻率過低,扣3分)

 

How often the bus comes during peak travel times such as rush hour is a good proxy for quality of service. For BRT to be truly competitive with alternative modes, like the private automobile, passengers need to be confident that their wait times will be short and the next bus will arrive soon.

 

評分準則: Peak frequency is measured by the number of buses observed per hour for each route that passes the highest-demand segment on the corridor during the peak period. The peak frequency deduction is then allocated based on the percentage of routes that have a frequency of at least eight buses per hour in the peak period. If observations are not able to be made, frequencies may be obtained through route schedules.

% Routes With At Least 8 Buses per Hour(尖峰時段每小時發車數)

評分

100% have at least 8 buses per hour(全部路線至少8/hr

0

75% have at least 8 buses per hour75%路線至少8/hr

-1

50% have at least 8 buses per hour50%路線至少8/hr

-2

< 50% have at least 8 buses per hour<50%路線至少8/hr

-3

 

評析:根據現有班表,BRT尖峰服務頻率至少10/小時,無需扣分

現況:累積37

未來:累積65

 

 

Low Off-Peak Frequency(離峰服務頻率過低,扣2分)

 

As with peak frequency, how often the bus comes during off-peak travel times is a good proxy for quality of service.

 

評分準則: Off-peak frequency is measured by the buses per hour of each route passing through the highest-demand segment on the corridor during the off-peak (mid-day) period. The off-peak frequency score is then determined based on the percentage of all routes that have a frequency of at least four buses per hour during the off-peak period.

 

% Routes With At Least 4 Buses per Hour(離峰時段每小時發車數)

評分

100% of all routes have at least 4 buses per hour(全部路線發車頻率至少4/hr

0

60% of all routes have at least 4 buses per hour60%>路線發車頻率至少4/hr

-1

< 60% of all routes have at least 4 buses per hour60%<路線發車頻率至少4/hr

-2

 

評析:根據現有班表,BRT離峰服務頻率為10/小時,夜間收班前的服務頻率也大於每小時5班車,無需扣分

現況:累積37

未來:累積65


 

筆者結論

 

根據目前情況,台中為37分的普通BRT標準

經過改善:可以抵達銅牌BRT的上限;長期發展:可達銀牌等級

 

期待足夠的時間,養育初生的交通運具

讓我們的上一代與下一代,擁有更美好的大眾運輸使用環境

 

 

 

-------------以下為補充------------

 

 

 

重新評分

筆者也花了一些時間重新審視第一部分的第二項。

引用原文:
Scoring Guidelines: This scoring is weighted using the percentage of the trunk corridor of eachparticular configuration multiplied by the points associated with that configuration and then adding those numbers together.
(評分準則:這項必須採用各個元素路段所佔的長度比例,乘以該元素分數加權,之後再把加權結果相加。)

筆者看到這一大包很傻眼,總之焦頭爛額以後,計算結果如下。


台中BRT目前的分數為4.395分,已達BRT標準
若依照原始規劃BRT分數為4.9885.104
實際上火車站前那一段(中正路)改善後為8分標準,筆者以6分試算,分數還可以再往上加。


探討未來路線

太平延伸線大多路段為8分標準,輔以小部分0分標準,整體而言為BRT標準

北延大甲與機場為0分,有以下解釋:
1.
看成非在BRT路廊的接駁公車路線,因此不適合以這份標準看待(這份標準僅針對corridor評分)。若納入路廊評分,會把BRT分數拖垮,也不合實際狀況,所以有第二種解釋。
2.
督促市政府弄出至少以顏色強化的專用道,達到5分標準,直接納入BRT主要corridor範圍,即可使用本標準評分。
其他路線尚未明朗,暫時不計算。
總之這回到一開始的corridor定義,整理出以上結果

結語

直到發現這個疏漏,台中改善BRT的空間更多了,或是說彈性範圍更大。這次市政府停建BRT,反而給我們更多時間準備BRT。而優先路段本身已經是BRT,只是分數微調,若依照原本中正路專用道規劃,以及光明陸橋專用道,將可顯著提昇分數。

筆者的評析以及話語一直語帶保留,如今長久困擾筆者的路廊.路線.路網問題終於解決,本留言一樣補貼在本文。

路線標準定義強化(本段落請參考評分表原文)

紅色框框:
雖然都能翻譯為中央的,但median強調位於道路正中央,central指的是一定範圍的中間(就像台中市區翻譯為central Taichung)。所以median符合central,反之卻不一定相符。

藍色框框:
one-way
本身是形容詞"單行或單向的",從前面英文原文中(上面紅框框)也能發現他們有加上road,使其較為嚴謹地呈現單行道或雙向道,並不能用one-way借代為專用道。而下面的特別使用英文語法,也就是that後面那一包都是形容前面的busway型態(分成一對單向道且分道行駛)

offset bus lane
大致上等於central要素,而筆者認為台中應該給予4.5分,畢竟衝突點比3分少很多,比5分多一些些而已,整體斷面也接近5分要求。


回歸筆者翻譯,centralmedian都翻為中間,因為這只能從意思下去解釋,中文翻譯幾乎一樣。除了這一點,筆者元素表的翻譯皆能謹慎分出不同,搭配附圖參考以及整體考量,得到筆者評分結果。




創作者介紹

HSR on Highway

高鐵HSR 發表在 痞客邦 PIXNET 留言(0) 人氣()