Transcript Overview of Rapid Bus Measures and Effectiveness And Case Studies Presentation to TAC June 17, 2009

Overview of Rapid Bus
Measures and Effectiveness
And Case Studies
Presentation to TAC
June 17, 2009
1
Agenda

Priority Bus Elements and Their Potential
Effectiveness

PCN Corridor Segmentation

PCN Goals, Objectives and Measures of
Effectiveness
Features of Priority Bus

Exclusive or semi-exclusive lanes

Fewer stops

Off-board fare collection

Traffic signal priority

Real time information

Branding

Level boarding
Projects and Case Studies






Springfield, MA
Los Angeles Metro
Rapid (Red Line)
Los Angeles Orange
Line
New York +selectbus
Kansas City
Silver Line - Boston



Salt Lake City
(SR 171 / 3500 South)
Las Vegas
Cleveland
Springfield MA
Limited Stops
with Bus
Signal Priority
Springfield MA
Project Overview




First transit vehicle
priority system in region
Four Mile - Sumner Ave/
Allen Ave Corridor
Includes 9 existing
traffic signal locations
Facilitate direct service
to downtown area
Transit Priority
Priority differs from preemption in that the
controller never leaves coordination and no
phases are skipped during an event.
Springfield MA
Project Objective






Desire to provide improved
express transit service along
existing bus route
Reduce Congestion
Reduce VMT/Emissions
Improved Schedule Adherence
Increase Ridership
Efficient implementation of
system on limited budget
Springfield MA
EXISTING PVTA G1 ROUTE
(NON – EXPRESS)


Route length:
15 miles
Schedule:
50 trips/day
Springfield MA
PVTA G1 EXPRESS ROUTE
• Route Length: 8.0 miles
• Schedule: 10 trips/day
Springfield MA - Benefits


Travel time
Sumner Ave
 4miles,
Downtown

4

3 min saved
miles, 10 min saved
Congestion Ratio
 Before:
1.23
 After: 1.14

Ridership + 8%
LA Metro Rapid
As of 12/2008:
 26 Metro Rapid lines
 400 miles of service
 250,000 weekday
boardings
Ventura Blvd Performance
TOPANGA CANYON TO VINELAND, 14 MILES
Speed (mph)
Direction Period
Base
Priority Priority
Off
On
E/B
7-9 am
14.5
17.5
18.7
E/B
4-6 pm
15.6
17.5
19.1
W/B
7-9 am
14.7
17.9
19.5
W/B
4-6 pm
15.8
18.7
21.0
15.0
17.9
19.5
Average
Ventura Boulevard Travel Delay
Analysis
Base Service
Bus Stop
Delay
Traffic
Signal
Delay
MetroRapid
Improvement
As % of
one-way
trip time
25%
9%
64%
Minutes
14
5
9
As % of
one-way
trip time
20%
13%
36%
Minutes
11
7
4
Conclusions from Ventura Boulevard

Travel times reduced 23%

One-third of savings due to traffic signal priority

Two-thirds of savings due to lane priority and fewer
stops
LA Metro Rapid – Wilshire/Whittier
Speed (m.p.h.)
From
To
Miles
Base
Rapid
Rapid with
Priority
Centella
Comstock
3
11
12
13
San Vincente
Valencia
6
11
14
15
Whittier
Valencia
Indiana
5
11
15
17
Total
Centella
Inidana
14
11
14
15
Wilshire
Wilshire/Whittier Boulevard Travel
Delay Analysis
Base Service
Bus Stop
Delay
Traffic
Signal
Delay
MetroRapid
Improvement
As % of
one-way
trip time
25%
4%
84%
Minutes
14
5
16
As % of
one-way
trip time
20%
13%
33%
Minutes
11
7
5
New York City +selectbusservice
Source: Woodford, et al (2009)
New York +selectbusservice
Overview









Local funding
Dedicated curb lane
Transit signal priority
Off-board fare collection
Leading bus interval
Customer ambassadors
On-board cameras
Branding
New stations
New York +selectbusservice
First Implementation – Bx12 - Fordham Road
Bus Route
Weekday Ridership
(2006)
Bx12
Bx17
Bx9
Bx22
W60-61 (Westchester Co.)
42,410
10,964
27,199
17,695
6,427
Total:
104,695
New York +selectbusservice
Bx12 – SBS 6-Month Outcomes

18-20% improvement in running time,

Ridership increased 11%

Customer response:

89% say SBS service is better than the limited.

30% say that they are riding more frequently than before

68% say that paying on the street is more convenient
New York +selectbusservice
Lane Configuration
Between stations
At stations
Kansas City BRT
Metro Area Express (MAX)
TRB BRT Conference, July 21, 2008
KC MAX
Bus-Only Lanes

Street Capacity Available

Peak Hour Bus-Only Lanes

Full –Time Bus-Only Lane Downtown

Bus-Only Lanes 52% of MAX

Meets FTA “Fixed Guideway
Requirement” for New Starts
HNTB Graphic
KC MAX Results

MAX opened in July 2005

Ridership up 50%
 Pre-MAX:
 Current:

3200/day
Over 6000/day
High Level of Public Acceptance and Satisfaction
KC Traffic signal priority





Upgraded controllers
and interconnect
(fiber)
New signal timings
TSP when >1 min. late
No Operator
Interaction
Goal: 60 % to 70%
TSP granted
KC MAX Street Operations







7 days per week
4:30 AM to midnight
9 minute headways AM & PM
15 minute headways midday, Saturday, events
30 minute headway nights and Sundays
Plaza to Downtown: 18 minutes down from 24
minutes
Local bus service paired with MAX in corridor
Las Vegas Metropolitan Area Express
LV Travel Time Results
AVERAGE WEEKDAY TRAVEL TIMES (MIN)
ON ROUTE 113 AND MAX BY TIME OF DAY
Route 113 (pre-MAX)
Percentage
Reduction
MAX
NB
SB
NB
SB
NB
SB
AM
38
49
28
31
26%
43%
Midday
44
49
28
31
36%
37%
PM
37
39
23
28
38%
28%
LV Dwell Time Results
AVERAGE WEEKDAY DWELL TIMES (SEC)
ON ROUTE 113 AND MAX BY TIME OF DAY
Route 113 (pre-MAX)
MAX
NB
NB
AM
25
32
5
8
Midday
30
35
5
8
PM
27
34
17
12
How LV Passengers Felt Their Travel
Time Changed
Summary Findings
Effect of Bus Stops on Bus Speeds
BUSWAY AND FREEWAY BUS LANE SPEEDS AS A
FUNCTION OF STATION SPACING
Station
Spacing
Stops Per
Mile
0.25
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
4.0
2.0
1.0
0.7
0.5
Speed (mph)
20-Second
30-Second
Dwell
Dwell
18
25
34
42
44
Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision-Making for Decision-Making
National BRT Institute and Federal Transit Administration
16
22
31
38
40
Dedicated Bus Lane vs. General
Purpose Bus Lane
Estimated Average Bus Speeds on General Purpose Traffic Lanes
Average Stop
Spacing (miles)
Average Dwell Time Per Stop (seconds)
10
20
30
40
50
60
0.10
6
5
5
4
4
3
0.20
9
8
7
6
6
5
0.25
10
9
8
7
7
6
0.50
11
10
10
9
9
8
Estimated Average Bus Speeds on Dedicated Arterial Street Bus Lanes
Average Stop
Spacing (miles)
10
0.10
0.20
0.25
0.50
9
16
18
25
Average Dwell Time Per Stop (seconds)
20
30
40
50
7
13
15
22
6
11
13
20
Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 2nd edition. P. 4-53
5
10
11
18
4
9
10
16
60
4
8
9
15
Dedicated Bus Lane vs. General
Purpose Bus Lane
Ratio of Speed: Dedicated Arterial Lane/General Purpose Lane
Average Stop
Spacing (miles)
0.10
0.20
0.25
0.50
Average Dwell Time Per Stop (seconds)
10
20
30
40
50
60
1.5
1.8
1.8
2.3
1.4
1.6
1.7
2.2
1.2
1.6
1.6
2.0
1.3
1.7
1.6
2.0
1.0
1.5
1.4
1.8
1.3
1.6
1.5
1.9
Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 2nd edition. P. 4-53
Use of Exclusive or
Semi-Exclusive Lanes
EmX Green
Line Franklin
Corridor
City Express
MAX
North Las
Vegas MAX
Honolulu Kansas City Las Vegas
Healthline
Eugene
Express
Chicago Cleveland
Silver Line
Washington
St.
Boston
Rapid Ride –
Red Line
Albuquerque
Number of Routes
1
1
3
1
1
2
1
1
Total System Route
Miles
13.8
2.4
36.7
7.1
4
27
6
7.5
• Mixed Flow
13.1
0.2
36.7
2.7
1.4
27
6
3
• Exclusive
0.7
2.2
4.4
2.5
Segments by
time of day
4.5
No
No
No
Yes
No
One
location
Queue Jumpers
No
No
Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision-Making for Decision-Making
National BRT Institute and Federal Transit Administration
Traffic Signal Priority Results
SYSTEM
IMPLEMENTATION
Average signal delay was reduced from 7.9
2.1-mile TSP system on seconds to 3.3 seconds (57% reduction). Effects
Rainier Avenue.
to side street and overall intersection delay
were insignificant.
Seattle
Los Angeles: LADOT
and LACMTA
Phoenix
Tacoma, Washington
Chicago : PACE
BENEFIT
985 intersections
Up to 25% reduction in bus travel times due to
the TSP system.
7 intersections
Reduced signal delay for buses by 16%. Impact
on cross traffic was minimal.
222 intersections
Combination of TSP and signal optimization
reduced transit signal delay ~40% in two
corridors
22 intersections
Average 15% reduction (3 mins) in running time.
Actual running time reductions varied from 7%
to 20% depending on the time of day.
Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision-Making for Decision-Making
National BRT Institute and Federal Transit Administration
Observed Priority Bus
Station Spacings
City
Albuquerque
Boston
Chicago
Cleveland
Eugene
Honolulu
Kansas City
Las Vegas
Los Angeles
Oakland
System
Rapid Ride – Red Line
Silver Line Washington St.
Express
Healthline
EmX Green Line Franklin Corridor
City Express
County Express
MAX
North Las Vegas MAX
Metro Rapid
Rapid San Pablo Corridor
Miles between stops
0.87
0.22
0.47
0.42
0.44
0.55
0.96
0.29
0.84
0.75
0.56
Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision-Making for Decision-Making
National BRT Institute and Federal Transit Administration
On-Board vs. Off-Board
Fare Collection
Bus Passenger Service Times (sec/passenger)
Observed
Default (SingleFare Payment Method
Range
Door Boarding)
BOARDING
Pre-payment (e.g., passes, no fare, free
transfer, pay on exit)
Smart card
2.25–2.75
2.5
3.0–3.7
3.7
Single ticket or token
3.4–3.6
3.7
Exact change
Swipe or dip card
3.6–4.3
4.2
4.2
4.4
1.4–2.7
2.6–3.7
2.3
3.5
ALIGHTING
Rear door
Front door
Sources: Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 2nd Edition, p. 4-5; “BRT Implementation
Guidelines,” Table 8-7.
Riders from Private Vehicles
Ridership from Motor Vehicles
%
Albuquerque Rapid Ride
33%
Boston Silver Line Washington Street
2%
Boston Silver Line Airport
20%
Boston Silver Line BMIP
50%
Las Vegas MAX
10%
Los Angeles Orange Line
33%
Oakland San Pablo Rapid
19%
Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision-Making for Decision-Making
National BRT Institute and Federal Transit Administration
PCN Corridor Segmentation
PCN Evaluation
Analytical Approach
45

Divide each PCN corridor into “segments” of no less than two
miles

Compile characteristics of each segment (number of lanes,
density, etc.) and characterize segment by adjacent urban
form (urban, inter suburban and outer suburban)

Develop list of enhancements by investment level (high, medium
or low) and adjacent urban form
Analytic Approach (continued)

Develop benefits per bus treatment (increased bus
speed from TSP, queue jumps, exclusive lanes etc)

After initial “full build” model run identify PCN
characteristics to be applied to each segment

Input into model for “modified” network
Corridor Segmentation Methodology

Decision factors for where to cut segments:
 Always
cut at intersections
 Number
of lanes, particularly a change from 3 to
fewer, and functional classification
 Household
 Area
and Employment Density
Type (as defined by model, compilation of
household and employment density)
Corridor Segmentation Methodology
(continued)


Recorded additional corridor and segment characteristics

WMATA routes and local bus routes

Available median and/or parking lanes

Transit ridership

Effective headway

Availability of existing park and ride locations
Characterized each segment by urban form
Segment Overview
49
 24
Corridors
 Approximately 233 miles as roughly measured in GIS
 120 segments
 Average segment length is 1.95
 Originally
 Some
planned for segments to be ≤ 2 miles
portions of the corridors go off the main corridor
at beginning and/or end to reach Metrorail Station or
transfer center
 Will be separating those from the main portion of the
corridor.
Next Steps to go from Segments to
Characteristics
50
Review segments with TAC
Determine recommended improvements for each type
of urban form for each level of investment.
Investment Level
Area Type
Urban
Inner Suburban
Outer Suburban
High
- Exclusive Lane
-Signal Priority
-Off-board fare collection
-2 queue jump lanes per
mile
-Peak headway 5 minutes
-1 mile stop spacing
-etc.
…
…
Medium
…
…
…
Low
…
…
…
Review of Draft Segmentation
51

Review Handout of Segmentation Characteristics
and Definitions

Provide feedback
PCN Goals, Objectives and
Measures of Effectiveness
Project Goals
Goal 1: Improve competitiveness of bus transit
Goal 2: Support existing and planned land use and
economic development
Goal 3: Improve efficiency of transportation system
Project Goals
Goal 1: Improve competitiveness of bus transit
Goal 2: Support existing and planned land use and
economic development
Goal 3: Improve efficiency of transportation system
Goal 1
Improve Competitiveness of Bus Transit
Objectives
1.1: Increase average bus speed
1.2: Increase bus ridership
1.3: Increase number of jobs that
are accessible by a 45 minute
MOEs
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
transit trip.
1.4: Improve travel time of
transit relative to auto
6.
7.
8.
9.
Percent increase in average peak
period bus speed
Percent increase in average off-peak
bus speed
Percent change in average travel time
per passenger
Annual passenger travel time saved
Percent increase in average peak
period bus ridership
Percent increase in average off-peak
bus ridership
Percent change in regional bus
ridership
Percent of jobs within 45 minutes by
transit to households
The ratio of transit travel time to auto
travel time
Goal 2
Support Land Use & Economic Development
Objective
2.1: Provide transit
service within walking
distance of existing
and planned
households and jobs.
MOEs
1.
2.
3.
4.
Increase the number of
households within ½ mile of
express bus stops
Percent of households within 45
minutes by bus to job centers
Increase the number of jobs within
½ mile of express bus stops
Percent of jobs within 45 minutes
by bus to corridor households
Goal 3
Improve Efficiency of System
ObjectiveS
3.1: Maximize utilization of roadways
by people
3.2: Reduce the cost of providing bus
service
3.3: Increase average speed for bus
passengers in corridors
3.4: Maintain auto passenger speed
within corridors
3.5: Improve speed for all passenger
trips in corridors
3.6: Reduce vehicle miles traveled
(VMT)
MOEs
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
People served per new lane
People served per converted lane
Bus hours needed for service
Number of buses needed
% change in bus passenger times
for trips through and within all
corridors
% change in auto passenger times
for trips through and within all
corridors
% change in times for all (auto and
bus) trips through and corridors
% change in bus VMT
% change in auto VMT
Comments and Discussion