If you can't read please download the document
Upload
lucio
View
23
Download
2
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Overview of Rapid Bus Measures and Effectiveness And Case Studies. Presentation to TAC June 17, 2009. Agenda. Priority Bus Elements and Their Potential Effectiveness PCN Corridor Segmentation PCN Goals, Objectives and Measures of Effectiveness. Features of Priority Bus. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
*
Presentation to TACJune 17, 2009
Overview of Rapid Bus Measures and EffectivenessAnd Case Studies
AgendaPriority Bus Elements and Their Potential EffectivenessPCN Corridor SegmentationPCN Goals, Objectives and Measures of Effectiveness
Features of Priority BusExclusive or semi-exclusive lanesFewer stopsOff-board fare collectionTraffic signal priorityReal time informationBrandingLevel boarding
Projects and Case StudiesSpringfield, MALos Angeles Metro Rapid (Red Line) Los Angeles Orange LineNew York +selectbusKansas CitySilver Line - Boston
Salt Lake City (SR 171 / 3500 South)Las VegasCleveland
Springfield MA Limited Stops with Bus Signal Priority
Springfield MAFirst transit vehicle priority system in regionFour Mile - Sumner Ave/ Allen Ave CorridorIncludes 9 existing traffic signal locationsFacilitate direct service to downtown area
Project Overview
Transit Priority
Priority differs from preemption in that the controller never leaves coordination and no phases are skipped during an event.
Springfield MADesire to provide improved express transit service along existing bus route Reduce CongestionReduce VMT/EmissionsImproved Schedule AdherenceIncrease RidershipEfficient implementation of system on limited budget
Project Objective
EXISTING PVTA G1 ROUTE (NON EXPRESS)Springfield MARoute length: 15 milesSchedule: 50 trips/day
PVTA G1 EXPRESS ROUTERoute Length: 8.0 milesSchedule: 10 trips/daySpringfield MA
Springfield MA - Benefits Travel timeSumner Ave4miles, 3 min savedDowntown 4 miles, 10 min savedCongestion RatioBefore: 1.23After: 1.14Ridership + 8%
LA Metro RapidAs of 12/2008: 26 Metro Rapid lines 400 miles of service 250,000 weekday boardings
Ventura Blvd Performance TOPANGA CANYON TO VINELAND, 14 MILES
Ventura Boulevard Travel Delay Analysis
Base ServiceMetroRapidImprovementBus Stop DelayAs % of one-way trip time25%9%64%Minutes1459Traffic Signal DelayAs % of one-way trip time20%13%36%Minutes1174
Conclusions from Ventura BoulevardTravel times reduced 23%One-third of savings due to traffic signal priorityTwo-thirds of savings due to lane priority and fewer stops
LA Metro Rapid Wilshire/Whittier
Wilshire/Whittier Boulevard Travel Delay Analysis
New York City +selectbusserviceSource: Woodford, et al (2009)
New York +selectbusserviceOverviewLocal fundingDedicated curb laneTransit signal priorityOff-board fare collectionLeading bus intervalCustomer ambassadorsOn-board camerasBrandingNew stations
New York +selectbusserviceFirst Implementation Bx12 - Fordham Road
New York +selectbusserviceBx12 SBS 6-Month Outcomes18-20% 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 before68% say that paying on the street is more convenient
New York +selectbusserviceLane ConfigurationAt stationsBetween stations
Kansas City BRT Metro Area Express (MAX)TRB BRT Conference, July 21, 2008
KC MAX Bus-Only LanesStreet Capacity AvailablePeak Hour Bus-Only LanesFull Time Bus-Only Lane DowntownBus-Only Lanes 52% of MAXMeets FTA Fixed Guideway Requirement for New Starts
HNTB Graphic
MAX Bus Rapid Transit - KCATA
KC MAX ResultsMAX opened in July 2005Ridership up 50%Pre-MAX: 3200/dayCurrent: Over 6000/dayHigh Level of Public Acceptance and Satisfaction
KC Traffic signal priorityUpgraded controllers and interconnect (fiber)New signal timingsTSP when >1 min. lateNo Operator InteractionGoal: 60 % to 70% TSP granted
KC MAX Street Operations7 days per week4:30 AM to midnight9 minute headways AM & PM15 minute headways midday, Saturday, events30 minute headway nights and SundaysPlaza to Downtown: 18 minutes down from 24 minutesLocal bus service paired with MAX in corridor
Las Vegas Metropolitan Area Express
AVERAGE WEEKDAY TRAVEL TIMES (MIN)ON ROUTE 113 AND MAX BY TIME OF DAYLV Travel Time Results
AVERAGE WEEKDAY DWELL TIMES (SEC)ON ROUTE 113 AND MAX BY TIME OF DAYLV Dwell Time Results
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
Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision-Making for Decision-MakingNational BRT Institute and Federal Transit Administration
Dedicated Bus Lane vs. General Purpose Bus Lane
Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 2nd edition. P. 4-53
Dedicated Bus Lane vs. General Purpose Bus Lane
Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 2nd edition. P. 4-53
Use of Exclusive or Semi-Exclusive Lanes
Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision-Making for Decision-MakingNational BRT Institute and Federal Transit Administration
TSP
SYSTEMIMPLEMENTATIONBENEFIT
Seattle2.1-mile TSP system on Rainier Avenue.Average signal delay was reduced from 7.9 seconds to 3.3 seconds (57% reduction). Effects to side street and overall intersection delay were insignificant.
Los Angeles: LADOT and LACMTA985 intersectionsUp to 25% reduction in bus travel times due to the TSP system.
Phoenix7 intersectionsReduced signal delay for buses by 16%. Impact on cross traffic was minimal.
Tacoma, Washington222 intersectionsCombination of TSP and signal optimization reduced transit signal delay ~40% in two corridors
Chicago : PACE22 intersectionsAverage 15% reduction (3 mins) in running time. Actual running time reductions varied from 7% to 20% depending on the time of day.
Source CBRT_2009_Update
Combinations
OPERATORPRIORITY BUS FEATURETRAVEL TIME SAVINGS RANGEBENEFITS
Las Vegas MAXGPS26%42%Ridership up 50%
TSPDwell time reductions of 3 to 4 times
Downtown PlazaPositive rider feedback
Enhanced stations
Bus Only Lanes for 52% of MAX
MTA New YorkExclusive curb lane18%20%Ridership up 11%
TSPPositive rider feedback
Off-baord fare collection89% say SBS service is better than the limited.
Leading bus interval30% say that they are riding more frequently than before
Branding68% say that paying on the street is more convenient
New Stations
LA Metro RapidTSP19%25%1/3 time savings due to TSP
Fewer stops2/3 time savings due to lane priority and fewer stops
Lane priority
Springfield MATSPRidership up 8%
3 to 10 minute travel time savings
Alameda San Pablo RapidMixed traffic17%Ridership up 65%BRT Handbook for Partners
LACMTA Metro RapidMixed traffic20%Ridership up 9 to 42%BRT Handbook for Partners
Tools
TOOLDESCRIPTIONCOSTCOMMENT
Queue JumperNear side bypass lane$100,000 to $300,000 eachEffectiveness limitedCBRT_2009_Update
On-Street Bus LanesCurbsideTime of day or exclusive
Outside parking laneCurb flares at bus stops
CenterLoading platforms required
ContraflowIf left side must have lane divider
Traffic Signal PriorityGreen advanced or red delayed for arriving buses
On Street Running Ways (2)
AlbuquerqueBostonChicagoClevelandEugeneHonoluluKansas CityLas Vegas
Rapid Ride Red LineSilver Line Washington St.ExpressHealthlineEmX Green Line Franklin CorridorCity ExpressMAXNorth Las Vegas MAX
Number of Routes11311211
Total System Route Miles13.82.436.77.142767.5
Mixed Flow13.10.236.72.71.42763
Exclusive0.72.24.42.5Segments by time of day4.5
Queue JumpersNoNoNoNoYesNoNoOne location
Source CBRT_2009_Update
Running Ways
AlbuquerqueBostonChicagoClevelandEugeneHonoluluKansas CityLas Vegas
Rapid Ride Silver LineExpressHealthlineEmX Green LineCityMAXNorth Las
Red LineWashington St(Franklin Corridor)ExpressVegas MAX
Running Way DescriptionOn-streetOn-streetOn-streetOn-streetOn-streetOn-streetOn-streetOn-street
Number of Routes11311211
Total System Route Miles13.82.436.77.142767.5
Mixed Flow Lanes13.10.236.72.71.42763
Exclusive Bus Lanes0.72.24.42.5Segments by time of day4.5
Queue JumpersNoNoNoNoYesNoNoOne location
Source CBRT_2009_Update
Traffic Signal Priority Results
Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision-Making for Decision-MakingNational BRT Institute and Federal Transit Administration
TSP
SYSTEMIMPLEMENTATIONBENEFIT
Seattle2.1-mile TSP system on Rainier Avenue.Average signal delay was reduced from 7.9 seconds to 3.3 seconds (57% reduction). Effects to side street and overall intersection delay were insignificant.
Los Angeles: LADOT and LACMTA985 intersectionsUp to 25% reduction in bus travel times due to the TSP system.
Phoenix7 intersectionsReduced signal delay for buses by 16%. Impact on cross traffic was minimal.
Tacoma, Washington222 intersectionsCombination of TSP and signal optimization reduced transit signal delay ~40% in two corridors
Chicago : PACE22 intersectionsAverage 15% reduction (3 mins) in running time. Actual running time reductions varied from 7% to 20% depending on the time of day.
Combinations
OPERATORPRIORITY BUS FEATURETRAVEL TIME SAVINGS RANGEBENEFITS
Las Vegas MAXGPS26%42%Ridership up 50%
TSPDwell time reductions of 3 to 4 times
Downtown PlazaPositive rider feedback
Enhanced stations
Bus Only Lanes for 52% of MAX
MTA New YorkExclusive curb lane18%20%Ridership up 11%
TSPPositive rider feedback
Off-baord fare collection89% say SBS service is better than the limited.
Leading bus interval30% say that they are riding more frequently than before
Branding68% say that paying on the street is more convenient
New Stations
LA Metro RapidTSP19%25%1/3 time savings due to TSP
Fewer stops2/3 time savings due to lane priority and fewer stops
Lane priority
Springfield MATSPRidership up 8%
3 to 10 minute travel time savings
Alameda San Pablo RapidMixed traffic17%Ridership up 65%BRT Handbook for Partners
LACMTA Metro RapidMixed traffic20%Ridership up 9 to 42%BRT Handbook for Partners
Tools
TOOLDESCRIPTIONCOSTCOMMENT
Queue JumperNear side bypass lane$100,000 to $300,000 eachEffectiveness limitedCBRT_2009_Update
On-Street Bus LanesCurbsideTime of day or exclusive
Outside parking laneCurb flares at bus stops
CenterLoading platforms required
ContraflowIf left side must have lane divider
Traffic Signal PriorityGreen advanced or red delayed for arriving buses
Running Ways
AlbuquerqueBostonChicagoClevelandEugeneHonoluluKansas CityLas Vegas
Rapid Ride Silver LineExpressHealthlineEmX Green LineCityMAXNorth Las
Red LineWashington St(Franklin Corridor)ExpressVegas MAX
Running Way DescriptionOn-streetOn-streetOn-streetOn-streetOn-streetOn-streetOn-streetOn-street
Number of Routes11311211
Total System Route Miles13.82.436.77.142767.5
Mixed Flow Lanes13.10.236.72.71.42763
Exclusive Bus Lanes0.72.24.42.5Segments by time of day4.5
Queue JumpersNoNoNoNoYesNoNoOne location
Source CBRT_2009_Update
Observed Priority Bus Station Spacings
Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision-Making for Decision-MakingNational BRT Institute and Federal Transit Administration
On-Board vs. Off-BoardFare CollectionBus Passenger Service Times (sec/passenger)
Sources: Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 2nd Edition, p. 4-5; BRT ImplementationGuidelines, Table 8-7.
Riders from Private Vehicles
Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision-Making for Decision-MakingNational BRT Institute and Federal Transit Administration
PCN Corridor Segmentation
PCN Evaluation Analytical Approach*Divide each PCN corridor into segments of no less than two milesCompile 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 segmentInput into model for modified network
Corridor Segmentation MethodologyDecision factors for where to cut segments:Always cut at intersectionsNumber of lanes, particularly a change from 3 to fewer, and functional classificationHousehold and Employment DensityArea Type (as defined by model, compilation of household and employment density)
Corridor Segmentation Methodology (continued)Recorded additional corridor and segment characteristicsWMATA routes and local bus routesAvailable median and/or parking lanesTransit ridershipEffective headwayAvailability of existing park and ride locationsCharacterized each segment by urban form
Segment Overview*24 CorridorsApproximately 233 miles as roughly measured in GIS120 segmentsAverage segment length is 1.95Originally planned for segments to be 2 milesSome portions of the corridors go off the main corridor at beginning and/or end to reach Metrorail Station or transfer centerWill be separating those from the main portion of the corridor.
Next Steps to go from Segments to Characteristics* Review segments with TAC Determine recommended improvements for each type of urban form for each level of investment.
Review of Draft Segmentation
*Review Handout of Segmentation Characteristics and DefinitionsProvide feedback
PCN Goals, Objectives and Measures of Effectiveness
Project GoalsGoal 1: Improve competitiveness of bus transitGoal 2: Support existing and planned land use and economic developmentGoal 3: Improve efficiency of transportation system
Project GoalsGoal 1: Improve competitiveness of bus transitGoal 2: Support existing and planned land use and economic developmentGoal 3: Improve efficiency of transportation system
Goal 1 Improve Competitiveness of Bus Transit 1.1: Increase average bus speed 1.2: Increase bus ridership1.3: Increase number of jobs that are accessible by a 45 minute transit trip.1.4: Improve travel time of transit relative to auto
Percent increase in average peak period bus speed Percent increase in average off-peak bus speed Percent change in average travel time per passengerAnnual passenger travel time savedPercent increase in average peak period bus ridership Percent increase in average off-peak bus ridership Percent change in regional bus ridershipPercent of jobs within 45 minutes by transit to householdsThe ratio of transit travel time to auto travel time
ObjectivesMOEs
Goal 2Support Land Use & Economic Development 2.1: Provide transit service within walking distance of existing and planned households and jobs.
Increase the number of households within mile of express bus stopsPercent of households within 45 minutes by bus to job centersIncrease the number of jobs within mile of express bus stopsPercent of jobs within 45 minutes by bus to corridor householdsObjectiveMOEs
Goal 3 Improve Efficiency of System 3.1: Maximize utilization of roadways by people3.2: Reduce the cost of providing bus service3.3: Increase average speed for bus passengers in corridors 3.4: Maintain auto passenger speed within corridors3.5: Improve speed for all passenger trips in corridors3.6: Reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
People served per new lanePeople served per converted laneBus hours needed for serviceNumber 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 VMTObjectiveSMOEs
Comments and Discussion
*******