presentation to tac june 17, 2009

*

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

Use of Exclusive or Semi-Exclusive Lanes


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


Running Ways


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



Mixed Flow Lanes13.10.236.72.71.42763

Exclusive Bus Lanes0.72.24.42.5Segments by time of day4.5



Traffic Signal Priority Results


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


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



Mixed Flow Lanes13.10.236.72.71.42763

Exclusive Bus Lanes0.72.24.42.5Segments by time of day4.5



Observed Priority Bus Station Spacings


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


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

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

*******

presentation to tac june 17, 2009

Documents