Capacity & flow | Part II

PROCESS II

determining an infrastructural model of

CAPACITY & FLOW

CONC LUS I O N S R E L E VA N T TO D E SI GN A lth ou g h t h e p ro g r a m states th at th i s i s n o t an i n f ras tru ctur al pro j e c t , I d e e m e d i t to o i m po rtan t f o r th e pro j ect to n o t accou n t a s o l u t i o n t o t h e i n f ras tru ctu ral ch al l en g es , wh i ch b ecame e v i d e n t i n t h e e arl y ph as es o f def i n i n g th e s i te.

C on n ec t e d t h e 3 ro a d s wi th a co n s ervato ry i n th e tri bu tary, follow in g t h e m o d e l o f t h e ex i s ti n g term i n al , o n th e as s u m p tion tha t i t w a s p u re l y a b o u t s o l vi n g capaci ty.

A n aly z i n g t h e l o c a t i o n a n d ro u te di s tri bu ti o n o f th e term i n al , to notic e t h a t i t i s n o t a bo u t capaci ty, bu t rath er a m atter o f flow an d c o n g e st i o n a s th e term i n al act as th e en try po i n t to the city c e n t e r, w i t h a h i g h ten den cy o f co n g es ti o n .

Wor k ing w i t h d i ff e re n t s o l u ti o n m o del s , I ch o s e o n e th at s epar ates l i n e s f ro m t h e n o rth an d l i n es f ro m th e cen ter, to create an i n t e r n a l t r a n s i t i o n al s pace, wi th atten ti o n to th e u s er in ter m s o f w a l k i n g d i st a n ce, vi s i bi l i ty an d f l o w.

S U M M A RY This narrative unfolds the investigations that went into the solution model of the infrastructural situation. Starting by expanding on the existing linear roadside terminal, with the belief of it being underdimensioned in terms of capacity, into realising it is more a matter of flow, before settling on the interchange design model.

At the same time, taking into account the issues of safety, visibility and access the design is informed to suggest a proposal that is sustainable in activating the site, passenger comfort as well as dealing with an infrastructural transit as a large scale strategy.

Ru

aC

Ru

om

me

nd

ad

or

Cle

me

ntin

o

aF

err eira

Pe

na ID V7O0m² 7

Av en

ida

Co

nst

ant

ino

Ne

ry ID V2O0m² 7

RM

L INA

TE

LA

VE FA

1

Initially the assumption was that the terminal was dysfunctional as it wasn’t able to expand on the specific site condition. Noticeable in the signs being distorted over time, as demand change. The design strategy in the early phases regarded the existing ‘roadside-island’ sollution feasible, and suggested a conservatory spanning accross the old tributary to connect the 3 main roads parrallel to the current terminal.

600m

N

T3

W

T4

500m

400m

300m

200m

100m

0

100m

200m

300m

400m

500m

600m

48

N T5

10

E

7

RE

W

E

E

T2

3

CENTRO

S

TRAFFIC

BUILDINGS

ROADS & ACCESS

STRUCTURAL FABRIC

56

ROUTES

BUS INTERSECTION

to northern Amazonas

T4 T3

T5

15 19 12

8

5

4

Rio

Ne gr

oB rid

ge

7

T1 T2

56

to southern Amazonas

Bus lines Converging on Terminal 1 Centro Highways 1km

to northern Amazonas

T4 T3

T5

15 19 12

8

5

4

Rio

Ne gr

oB rid

ge

7

T1 T2

56

INTENSITY 70 LINES

to southern Amazonas

Bus lines Converging on Terminal 1 Centro Highways 1km

D ES I G N PA R A M E T E R :

T HE P RO B LE M W I T H TH E TE RM I N A L I S N OT D U E TO C A PPAC I T Y, B U T C O N G E STI O N & F L OW A more thorough investigation of the use and distribution of lines, suggested that the problem was a a matter of flow than cappacity. Due to the location and very attypical typology, busses going in either direction cannot overtake, and congestion is very likely, as is even visible on the sattelite image of the area. A completely empty 400 meter terminal with 10 busses clogging the entrance.

I looked into alternative methods based on existing terminal typologies.

1 STACK + BRIDGE

3 TERMINUS + INTERSECTION

Main issue despite limited terminal area, is the connection to Constantino Nery, where busses have to cross the northbound road.

Main issue despite limited terminal area, and disconnection to the context, is how the terminal would allow traffic to on Constantino Nery to pass.

Positive is the possible platform island, on both directions right hand side, and low walking distance.

Positive is the very clear gesture of an unappologetic terminal, that is optimized within its own intent.

Potentially a terminal in different stacked levels, with limited footprint.

Potentially a terminal in different stacked levels, with very limited footprint. and sectional nodes to peripheral structures.

Forming an intersection of incoming lines through the main interchange, and the central loop, this approach creates a small focused transitional space.

Forming an overlapping terminus point at the intersection of the incomming lines and the loop, the terminal becomes a point rather than a space of transition.

D ES I G N PA R A M E T E R :

2 EXPOSURE + RIVER

Utilizing the secondary ‘interchange’ for access, the terminal is exposed on a longer distance, providing more space, loop connection only possible through a larger infrastructural intervention. Change of directions may solve passing, and connect the conservatory!

Main issue is the reversal of the centro loop. and that the island platform type is on the left side of the road.

Positive is the long exposure area, giving many opportunities for extension, and minor issues in the terminal area.

Potentially a longer terminal with more space for transition nodes.

T ER MIN A L A S A T R A N S I T P O I N T, I N TE RSE C TI ON O F T H E C I TY & TH E C O RE

degrees of separation of bus circulation and pedestrian movement.

Association for European Transport and contributors

bus circulation pedestrian flow

security walking distance bus visibility pedestrian safety pedestrian flow congestion ROADSIDE

ONE ISLAND

MULTIPLE ISLANDS

No conflicts between bus and pedestrian, but extremely long.

A concentrated conflict zone, considerably shorter but deeper.

Diffuse conflicts, potentially very short but extremely deep.

TERMINAL 1

Henrique Oliveira Salgado, 44, said he use the T1 several times a week. For him, one of the main problems of the terminal is the lack of lighting. “It is pitch black at night. It’s tricky because you do not know who is good and who wants to steal. We need poles with lamps, and more light“ Mary Maquiné, 54, said the problem that bothers is the lack of security. “I had to have more control over who enters and leaves the terminal. I take the bus here, when I come back from class, and it is quite dangerous. I’m always afraid of being robbed, because my daughter has been assaulted in the terminal, “he said.

ce

ng

ki

t

or

sh

l wa

an st di

RIGHT SIDE PLATFORMS INTERNAL FLOW

staging

centro

NWE barrios

hy

ap

e ogr nc s top a r a ow

cle foll m ntal 5 .

4 iso r

ho

NON-INTERSECTING BUS LANES ELEVATED LANE

pip

eb

elo wa

ven

ue

drainage stream

WATER HANDLING DRAINAGE & RAIN

ACCESS & VISIBILITY NO LANE CROSSING