when is brt the best option? 1:30 – 2:40 p.m. paul larrousse
DESCRIPTION
When is BRT the Best Option? 1:30 – 2:40 p.m. Paul Larrousse Director, National Transit Institute (NTI) (Moderator). Session Presentations. FlexBRT Project Briefing, Randall Farwell “When is BRT the Best Option – The LA Experience”, Rex Gephart - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
TRB/APTA 2004Bus Rapid Transit Conference
When is BRTWhen is BRT the Best Option?the Best Option?
1:30 – 2:40 p.m.1:30 – 2:40 p.m.
Paul LarrousseDirector, National Transit Institute (NTI)Director, National Transit Institute (NTI)
(Moderator)(Moderator)
TRB/APTA 2004Bus Rapid Transit Conference
• FlexBRT Project Briefing, Randall Farwell• “When is BRT the Best Option – The LA
Experience”, Rex Gephart• Lane Transit District “BRT Decision Process”,
Stefano Viggiano
Session Presentations
TRB/APTA 2004Bus Rapid Transit Conference
Randall Farwell
• MURP in Urban and Regional Planning from Virginia Tech• BS in Urban Studies from Texas Christian Univ.• Senior Consultant with TranSystems Corporation• Director of Planning at Lynx in Orlando Florida• Principal with SG Associates Inc.• Manager of Planning for the Potomac & Rappahannock
Transportation Commission• Transportation Planner with Broward County Florida
FlexBRT Project Briefing:FlexBRT Project Briefing:Using ITS to Serve Suburban MarketsUsing ITS to Serve Suburban Markets
Randall FarwellRandall Farwell
FlexBRT ConceptFlexBRT Concept Dynamically routed and dispatched Dynamically routed and dispatched
point-to-point operationpoint-to-point operation Responds to user request, real-time Responds to user request, real-time
and pre-bookedand pre-booked Fare payment prior to boardingFare payment prior to boarding Stations at activity centers Stations at activity centers Transit ITS supportTransit ITS support Station access onlyStation access only No fixed schedules No fixed schedules No fixed routesNo fixed routes
Portland, ME
Traditional
BRT
FlexBRT
Service Area and StationsService Area and Stations
38 stations
8 remote kiosks
10 future stations
How It WorksHow It Works
1.1. User requests ride and selects User requests ride and selects destinationdestination
2.2. ITS System Selects “best fit”ITS System Selects “best fit”3.3. Prompts user to confirmPrompts user to confirm4.4. User boards vehicle, swipes User boards vehicle, swipes
Boarding PassBoarding Pass
Operational WorkflowOperational Workflow
1. User requests ride1. User requests ride2. Origin location determined2. Origin location determined3. Prompt for destination3. Prompt for destination4. Prompt for size of party4. Prompt for size of party5. Locate existing vehicles5. Locate existing vehicles6. Evaluate vehicle manifests6. Evaluate vehicle manifests7. Select “best fit” based on:7. Select “best fit” based on:
• user wait timeuser wait time• user time on boarduser time on board• time on board impact on time on board impact on
other passengersother passengers• user total travel time (wait user total travel time (wait
plus time on board)plus time on board)• available capacity on available capacity on
vehicle.vehicle.
8. Calculate fare8. Calculate fare9. Offer best solution9. Offer best solution10. Prompt user to accept 10. Prompt user to accept
triptrip• declines, trip canceled,declines, trip canceled,• accepts, trip booked, accepts, trip booked, sent to MDTsent to MDT
11. Print Boarding Pass11. Print Boarding Pass12. User boards vehicle,12. User boards vehicle, boarding pass read, boarding pass read, trip confirmedtrip confirmed
On-vehicle systemsOn-vehicle systems Automated reservation, Automated reservation,
scheduling, vehicle assignmentscheduling, vehicle assignment Vehicle location/computerized Vehicle location/computerized
dispatchdispatch Payment system and boarding Payment system and boarding
pass pass High capacity, high speed, reliable High capacity, high speed, reliable
wireless communicationswireless communications
ITS Driven
Modeling EffortModeling Effort Objectives to validate and complement concept Objectives to validate and complement concept
plan, definingplan, defining Number of vehicles requiredNumber of vehicles required Vehicle-miles and vehicle-hours of serviceVehicle-miles and vehicle-hours of service Preliminary O&M costsPreliminary O&M costs Sensitivities to changes in input variables Sensitivities to changes in input variables
Trapeze PASS used to model FlexBRT Trapeze PASS used to model FlexBRT operationsoperations
Weekday demand entered as trip requestsWeekday demand entered as trip requests 5:00 am to 12:00 am5:00 am to 12:00 am Total of 4,379 requestsTotal of 4,379 requests
PASS parameters set to reflect FlexBRT conceptPASS parameters set to reflect FlexBRT concept Assigned requests to vehicle runsAssigned requests to vehicle runs
Sensitivity Sensitivity AnalysisAnalysis
After base, 35 scenarios were runAfter base, 35 scenarios were run Variations were made toVariations were made to
Vehicles: 20 (base), 30, 40Vehicles: 20 (base), 30, 40 Speed [mph]: 21 (base), 23, 25, 28Speed [mph]: 21 (base), 23, 25, 28 Max. Wait Time 10 (base), 12, 15Max. Wait Time 10 (base), 12, 15
Results for every combination of Results for every combination of variations prepared, 36 scenariosvariations prepared, 36 scenarios
Performed sensitivity analyses on Performed sensitivity analyses on variablesvariables
Success Rate Sensitivity to Speed and Max. Waiting Time
50%
55%
60%
65%
70%
75%
80%
85%
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Speed [mph]
Su
cces
s R
ate
10
12
15
Productivity Sensitivity to Speed and Max. Waiting Time
0
3
6
9
12
15
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Speed [mph]
Pro
du
ctiv
ity
[pas
s/h
r]
10
12
15
Average Waiting Time and On-Board Time Variation with Speed and Max. Waiting Time
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Speed [mph]
Tim
e [m
in]
10
12
15
10
12
15
Increasing Max WT from 10 to 12 min has a higher impact than 12 to 15 min. Max WT of 12 min encourages random arrivals, equates to avg wait of 6 minutes. Productivity increases with speed and Max WT.
Operations AnalysisOperations Analysis
Objective to Optimize:Objective to Optimize: Number of VehiclesNumber of Vehicles O&M CostsO&M Costs RidershipRidership ProductivityProductivity Wait/Travel TimesWait/Travel Times Cost-effectivenessCost-effectiveness
Ran 36 ScenariosRan 36 Scenarios Select best scenarioSelect best scenario
INPUT Scen. 11 Scen. 23 Scen. 34 Scen. 35Runs / Vehicles 20 30 40 40Speed 28 28 28 28Max Waiting Time 12 12 10 12
RESULTSTotal trips 4,379 4,379 4,379 4,379Scheduled Trips (Success) 3,368 4,163 4,281 4,319Unscheduled Trips (Failure) 1,011 216 98 60Success rate 77% 95% 98% 99%Productivity (Pass/hour) 11.32 10.19 8.21 8.83Total Distance [veh-mi] 10,527 13,332 15,610 14,372Non-Revenue Distance 2,993 3,925 5,318 4,505Revenue Distance 7,533 9,408 10,291 9,866Total Time [veh-hrs] 305 420 537 505Non-Revenue Time 80 133 221 200Revenue Time 225 287 315 304Average Trip Distance [mi] 2.38 2.32 2.32 2.31Average Ride Time [min] 7.9 7.7 7.5 7.6Av. wait [min] 6.1 5.8 4.7 5.5Av. Actual Speed [mph] 18.2 18.2 18.7 18.1Speed Ratio 64.9% 64.8% 66.6% 64.8%Daily O&M Costs [$] 12,295$ 15,662$ 17,204$ 16,608$ Annual O&M Costs [$] 3,209,093$ 4,087,785$ 4,490,364$ 4,334,748$
Average O&M cost / trip 3.65$ 3.76$ 4.02$ 3.85$
Total Project CostsTotal Project CostsProject Cost
Elements
Roadway Improvements $3,054,112
Stations $2,316,000
Vehicles $8,910,000
ITS Components $4,421,758
Total Capital$18,701,87
0
Total Fees $4,848,911
Total Project$23,550,78
1
O&M Costs
Vehicle Operations
$4,089,900
ITS $241,300
Stations $62,400
Total O&M Costs$4,393,60
0
Westmonte Drive and SR 436
FlexBRT vs. Traditional FlexBRT vs. Traditional TransitTransit
Evaluation CriteriaAlternative in 2020
Traditional Circulator
FlexBRT
Peak Vehicle Requirement 31 30
Annual Ridership 563,500 1,086,543
Annual Vehicle-Revenue Hours 151,934 74,907
Productivity (Riders/VRH) 3.71 14.51
Annual O&M Cost $8,295,600$4,393,60
0
Annual Cost per Trip $14.72 $4.04
Annual Revenue $704,374$1,358,17
9
Annual O&M Subsidy $7,591,228$3,035,58
9
Annual O&M Subsidy/Rider $13.47 $2.79
FlexBRT makes FlexBRT makes economiceconomic sense… sense… 92%92% higherhigher ridership, generated on… ridership, generated on… 51%51% fewerfewer revenue miles, producing… revenue miles, producing… 291%291% greatergreater productivity, that productivity, that
costs…costs… 28%28% lessless per rider, which is a… per rider, which is a… 79%79% reduction in the subsidyreduction in the subsidy from from
local governments PER rider!!local governments PER rider!!
Bang for the Buck
FundingFunding FederalFederal StateState LocalLocal
Altamonte SpringsAltamonte Springs MaitlandMaitland Private Property OwnersPrivate Property Owners
ScheduleSchedule
PER complete Jan 2004PER complete Jan 2004 File CATEX Feb 2004File CATEX Feb 2004 Public Hearing March 23, 2004Public Hearing March 23, 2004 Identify Initial Segment of FlexBRTIdentify Initial Segment of FlexBRT Final PER May 2004Final PER May 2004 Final Design Fall 2004Final Design Fall 2004 Open FlexBRT 2007/2008Open FlexBRT 2007/2008
Questions?Questions?