Transcript Bankruptcy for Governments

Thoughts on 21st Century
Public Transit
Robert W. Poole, Jr.
Director of Transportation Studies
Reason Foundation
www.reason.org/transportation
Thoughts on FTA
What should FTA’s role in public
transportation be?
How will congestion mitigation
impact public transportation?
How do we apply public-private
partnerships in public transportation?
1. What should FTA’s role be?
Too big a question for today.
FTA must do what Congress has directed.
But, in doing so:
Get the most transportation per dollar spent;
Support solid, peer-reviewed research;
Collect better data (e.g., load factors, unlinked
trips, NPTS), to facilitate research.
2. Congestion mitigation and public
transportation
Reason’s Mobility Project is focusing on
congestion-reduction.
Two-year research & policy-change effort:
Popular book: The Road More Traveled;
Dozen studies on whys of congestion and how to
reduce it significantly;
Case studies applying these ideas in six cities.
Distinguished national advisory board
Current Long-Range Plans
Don’t Reduce Congestion
Metro
Area
LRTP $
%Transit
2005-2030
Atlanta
38%
Denver
27%
Los Angeles 58%
San Diego
49%
SF Bay
64%
Transit
Mode Share
2003 2030
6.7
8.4
5.0
6.4
4.8
7.4
5.0 10.0
6.9
7.3
TTI
2003 2030
1.46
1.40
1.75
1.41
1.54
1.85
1.80
1.94
1.70
1.86
Why doesn’t transit make more of a
difference?
Decentralization of housing
Decentralization of jobs
Hence: suburb-to-suburb commuting
Rail works best as radial feeder to
CBD—but few CBDs are left.
Yet rail absorbs a large fraction of
available funds.
Figure 1: Comparat ive Average P opulat ion Densit y in the Built- up areas of 46 Met r opolitan areas.
Figure 2: Comparat ive Populat ion density Pr ofile in built-up areas in selectedMetropol itan areas
Figure 3: Spat ial Dist ribut ion of j obs in At lant a's M etr opolitan Area
Figure 4: Atlanta and Barcelona built-up area represented at the same scale.
Figure 5:Spatial Distribution of additional po pulation between 1990 and 1999 by accessto transit
Figure 6: Spatial Distribu tion of additional jobsbetween 1990 and 1998 by accessto transit
Advantages of rubber-tire transit in
21st-century metro areas:
Can use all of existing highway infrastructure;
Highway system is a network, with many
network benefits:
Links every origin to every destination;
Much greater potential for single-vehicle trips,
nearly door-to-door;
Less vulnerable to breakdowns, damage—like the
Internet, can route around trouble;
Can adapt and change as land uses change.
Potential Busway Capacity:
Lincoln Tunnel Express Bus Lane: at peak,
carries 32,600 pass/lane/hr. (with 44
passengers/bus)
Port Authority says that with 4-sec headways,
could do 39,600.
With ITS permitting 3-sec headways, and
with 58 passengers, could do 70,000.
HOV Lanes Began as Busways
FHWA/UMTA policy favored busways (1970s).
But only a few exclusive busways today:
Lincoln Tunnel XBL (730 buses/hr.)
Pittsburgh busways
Miami busway
Seattle bus tunnel
Surface-street busways: Las Vegas, Orlando
Empty Lanes Led to Opening Up
Busways to HOVs
Shirley Highway Busway:
Vanpools and HOV-4 (1973), HOV-3 (1989)
Los Angeles El Monte Busway (I-10):
HOV-3 (1976)
Houston Transitways:
HOV-4 (1985), HOV-3 then HOV-2 (1986)
But Carpooling Has Declined as
HOV Lanes Have Expanded
300
25%
% of commuters who carpool
Lane-miles
250
20%
200
15%
150
10%
100
5%
50
0
0%
1980
1990
2000
Fractional carpooling (%)
HOV lane-miles (in 10s)
Vanpooling Has Been Hurt by
Carpool Preference
HOV lane time-saving reduced when
filled with HOV-2s.
Need large time-saving to offset time
cost of assembling van-pool
80
Vanpooling's Decline on the Katy Freeway
60
# Vans
40
20
0
ec
9
'8
ov
'
ct
(O
9
'8
V3
7
'8
96
19
D
O
ov
(N
)
88
6)
'8
4)
98
(1
5)
'8
y
nl
)
85
19
il
pr
O
t
ep
(S
(A
ch
ar
M
H
N
V2
V3
V4
O
O
O
an
/V
us
H
H
H
B
BRT in HOV Lanes:
Not Sustainable
HOV-2 fills up and loses time-saving
HOV-3 in most cases empty-lane
problem
HOV-4 even more empty space
No way to fine-tune occupancy (e.g.,
HOV-2.7)
HOT lanes: important step forward:
Managed (HOT) lanes provide greater
transportation benefits than traditional
HOV lanes:
Sustainable, long-term congestion relief
Guideway for high-speed BRT service
Significant revenue for capital and
operations
Value Pricing Offers
Precise Control
I-15 quasi-real-time variable pricing
91-X fine-tuned rate schedule,
periodically adjusted
49% of peak traffic with 33% of lane
capacity
Both offer reliable high speeds during
rush hours.
91 Express Lanes,
Orange County, California
Managed Lane Projects, 2006
Two Very Different
Managed Lane Models
1. HOV system that sells excess capacity:
I-15 express lanes, San Diego
Implicit Atlanta model (several recent studies)
2. Express toll lanes that give deals to certain
types of HOVs:
91 Express Lanes, Orange County, CA
Maryland/Florida proposed Express Toll Lanes
Limitations of the
HOV-Focused Model
Toll rates fairly low.
Many lanes fill up with HOVs; generate
no revenue.
Throughput control reduced with few
vehicles priced.
Revenues insufficient to pay for
construction.
Comparison of the Two Models
Atlanta NW Corridor (I-75) study:
PM peak, 2030, MLs with 28% of total lane
capacity approach 25% of traffic; hence, are
closed to SOVs.
91 Express Lanes:
PM peak, 2006, MLs with 33% of total lane
capacity handle 49% of total traffic, nearly all
of whom pay the market price.
What Is the Purpose of
Managed Lanes?
VMT Reduction?
Getting people out of their cars has not
worked (declining car-pool mode share).
Emission-reduction is becoming a nonproblem (fleet turnover).
Congestion Relief?
Value of congestion-reduction is huge.
That translates into major new funding
source.
Synergy of Managed Lanes and Bus
Rapid Transit
Value-priced lane is virtual equivalent of
an exclusive fixed guideway.
Pricing limits vehicle flow to what’s
compatible with LOS C conditions.
Reliable high speed is sustainable longterm, thanks to pricing.
Houston implementing first such project
on Katy Freeway managed lanes.
Virtual Exclusive Busway: Houston’s
Katy MLs
3-way public-public partnership
Transit agency (METRO)
Toll agency (HCTRA)
State DOT (TxDOT)
4 new MLs with value pricing
HCTRA funds and manages the MLs
METRO guaranteed 65 buses/hr and 25% of
capacity for bus + HOV3+
LOS C to be maintained, via pricing and occupancy
controls
Implications of Katy ML Deal
Transit funding: no toll revenues to METRO,
but still a great deal (free guideway).
Busway capacity: 65/hr. is 62% increase;
should be ample.
FTA approval: granted, based on LOS C.
Occupancy changes: going to HOV-3 now and
HOV-4 as needed.
Pricing sustainability: MOU commitment.
Network Benefits
Network of priced lanes facilitates
region-wide express bus/BRT service
But that means major construction of
new lanes and flyovers
Hence, toll revenues needed for major
capital costs.
Miami ML Network
Los Angeles ML Network
Network Comparisons
500-lane-mile VEB Network cost is $4 to
$6 billion, based on Reason studies.
250 route-mile light rail system cost is
$31 billion, based on New Starts data.
250 route-mile heavy rail system would
be $38 billion, per New Starts data.
Plus, the VEB guideway would not
depend on [limited] FTA funding.
3. Potential for Public-Private
Partnerships
Toll revenue is key to attracting private sector
Therefore, need Model 2 approach, selling
congestion-bypass
Tolls may cover 50-100% of roadway capital
cost, depending on extent of existing HOV to
convert and need for flyover connectors
FHWA/state funding for roadway balance
FTA New Starts for buses, park & ride,
dedicated on-ramps.
Further PPP Considerations
Private-sector proposing HOT lane addition
projects in Virginia, Texas, Georgia.
FTA policy should count new HOT lanes, as
well as conversions, as “fixed guideway
miles,” as long as Houston-type transit
agreements are in place.
LOS C should be required for such HOT/VEB
projects.
Conclusions
Most 21st-century metro areas are not New York,
Chicago Loop, or DC—decentralization of jobs
requires rethinking role of transit.
Best rail market niches probably already filled; future
lies in rubber-tire transit.
Large benefits in transit making use of expanding
roadway network.
Great synergy between priced lanes and fast,
reliable, high-quality bus service.
HOT/VEB projects with significant toll revenues will
attract private-sector investment.
Thoughts on 21st-Century
Public Transit
Robert W. Poole, Jr.
Director of Transportation Studies
Reason Foundation
www.reason.org/transportation
[email protected]