1 / 19

When is BRT the Best Option? 1:30 – 2:40 p.m. Paul Larrousse

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

forest
Download Presentation

When is BRT the Best Option? 1:30 – 2:40 p.m. Paul Larrousse

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. When is BRT the Best Option? 1:30 – 2:40 p.m. Paul Larrousse Director, National Transit Institute (NTI) (Moderator)

  2. Session Presentations • FlexBRT Project Briefing, Randall Farwell • “When is BRT the Best Option – The LA Experience”, Rex Gephart • Lane Transit District “BRT Decision Process”, Stefano Viggiano

  3. 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

  4. FlexBRT Project Briefing:Using ITS to Serve Suburban Markets Randall Farwell

  5. FlexBRT Concept • Dynamically routed and dispatched point-to-point operation • Responds to user request, real-time and pre-booked • Fare payment prior to boarding • Stations at activity centers • Transit ITS support • Station access only • No fixed schedules • No fixed routes FlexBRT Portland, ME Traditional BRT

  6. Service Area and Stations 38 stations 8 remote kiosks 10 future stations

  7. How It Works • User requests ride and selects destination • ITS System Selects “best fit” • Prompts user to confirm • User boards vehicle, swipes Boarding Pass

  8. 1. User requests ride 2. Origin location determined 3. Prompt for destination 4. Prompt for size of party 5. Locate existing vehicles 6. Evaluate vehicle manifests 7. Select “best fit” based on: user wait time user time on board time on board impact on other passengers user total travel time (wait plus time on board) available capacity on vehicle. 8. Calculate fare 9. Offer best solution 10. Prompt user to accept trip declines, trip canceled, accepts, trip booked, sent to MDT 11. Print Boarding Pass 12. User boards vehicle, boarding pass read, trip confirmed Operational Workflow

  9. ·ITS Driven • On-vehicle systems • Automated reservation, scheduling, vehicle assignment • Vehicle location/computerized dispatch • Payment system and boarding pass • High capacity, high speed, reliable wireless communications

  10. Modeling Effort • Objectives to validate and complement concept plan, defining • Number of vehicles required • Vehicle-miles and vehicle-hours of service • Preliminary O&M costs • Sensitivities to changes in input variables • Trapeze PASS used to model FlexBRT operations • Weekday demand entered as trip requests • 5:00 am to 12:00 am • Total of 4,379 requests • PASS parameters set to reflect FlexBRT concept • Assigned requests to vehicle runs

  11. Sensitivity Analysis • After base, 35 scenarios were run • Variations were made to • Vehicles: 20 (base), 30, 40 • Speed [mph]: 21 (base), 23, 25, 28 • Max. Wait Time 10 (base), 12, 15 • Results for every combination of variations prepared, 36 scenarios • Performed sensitivity analyses on variables • 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.

  12. Operations Analysis • Objective to Optimize: • Number of Vehicles • O&M Costs • Ridership • Productivity • Wait/Travel Times • Cost-effectiveness • Ran 36 Scenarios • Select best scenario

  13. Total Project Costs

  14. Westmonte Drive and SR 436

  15. FlexBRT vs. Traditional Transit

  16. Bang for the Buck FlexBRT makes economic sense… • 92%higher ridership, generated on… • 51%fewer revenue miles, producing… • 291%greater productivity, that costs… • 28%less per rider, which is a… • 79%reduction in the subsidy from local governments PER rider!!

  17. Federal State Local Altamonte Springs Maitland Private Property Owners Funding

  18. PER complete Jan 2004 File CATEX Feb 2004 Public Hearing March 23, 2004 Identify Initial Segment of FlexBRT Final PER May 2004 Final Design Fall 2004 Open FlexBRT 2007/2008 Schedule

  19. Questions?

More Related