1 / 26

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

shlomo
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. Rex Gephart • Masters Degree in Architecture and Urban Planning, University of California, Los Angeles • Director of Regional Transit Planning for the LA MTA • Manages the MetroRapid Service program

  4. Rex Gephart Director, Regional Transit Planning Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Russell Chisholm President Transportation Management & Design, Inc. When is BRT the Best Option? APTA Bus Operations/BRT Conference May 5, 2004

  5. Decision Process for Modal Selection • Regional Transit Alternatives Analysis (1998) • Metro Rapid Demonstration (2000) • Transit Corridor Study (2000) • Metro Rapid Expansion Program (2002)

  6. Regional Transit Alternatives Analysis • Purpose of RTAA: Identify regional transit corridors • Identified major regional demand patterns • Defined areas with high transit dependency • Defined areas with high transit demand • Defined origin and destination trip patterns • Identified five candidate corridors • San Fernando Valley Corridor • Wilshire Corridor • East Los Angeles Corridor • Exposition Corridor • Pasadena Corridor • Supported Metro Rapid arterial concept

  7. September 1998 Los Angeles County Transit Dependency Index (By Traffic Analysis Zone)

  8. September 1998 Transit Ridership by Line Community Statistical Areas with high transit dependency

  9. September 1998 Mid-Wilshire & Koreatown CSA Work Trip Destinations

  10. Metro Rapid Program • Frequent Service • Bus Signal Priority • Headway-based Schedules • Simple Route Layout • Less Frequent Stops • Integrated with Local Bus Service • Level Boarding and Alighting • Color-coded Buses and Stations • High Capacity Buses • Exclusive R-O-W and Arterial Lanes • Off-vehicle Fare Payment • Bus Feeder Network

  11. Pasadena Gold Line Legend Metro Rapid Station Rapid & Rail Station Metro Rapid Line Metro Red Line Metro Blue Line Downtown Los Angeles Blue/Gold Lines Demonstration Lines Implemented June 2000

  12. Metro Rapid Demonstration Two-line arterial demonstration implemented in 2000 to determine if people would ride higher speed bus • Reduced Passenger Travel Times • Wilshire/Whittier Corridor – up to 29% • Ventura Corridor – up to 23% • Increased Corridor Ridership • Wilshire/Whittier Corridor – ridership up 42% • Ventura Corridor – ridership up 38% • Attracted New Riders • 1/3 of ridership increase are new riders

  13. Metro Rapid/BRT Becomes Option • Metro Rapid/BRT added as Major Investment Study option • MTA develops mobility toolbox for assessing BRT as a transit option

  14. Los Angeles Mobility Toolbox

  15. Transit Corridor Study Major Investment Study was performed on four of the five RTAA corridors • Identified preferred corridor modes • San Fernando Valley Corridor - BRT • Wilshire Corridor - BRT • Exposition Corridor - BRT/LRT • East Los Angeles Corridor - LRT • Pasadena Corridor – Independent Study (JPA) - LRT

  16. San Fernando Valley Corridor BRT • Statistics • 14 miles, 13 stations, 7 minute headway • Project construction/vehicle cost = $330 million • Issues • At-grade corridor with many street crossings (against signal progression) • Connects Red Line (HRT) with Warner Center (50,000 jobs) • Originally planned as heavy rail extension (too costly) • BRT selected over LRT • Expected demand (22,000 daily boardings) did not meet LRT economies of scale • BRT required for flexible on-street operation at Warner Center

  17. San Fernando Valley Corridor BRT

  18. Wilshire Corridor BRT • Statistics • 13 miles, 15 stations, 3-4 minute headways • Project construction/vehicle cost = $182 million • Issues • At grade corridor in 3 jurisdictions; many major street crossings • Very high arterial traffic with bottlenecks • Existing Metro Rapid arterial BRT; extends beyond study corridor • Potential future extension of Red Line (HRT) • BRT selected over LRT • Existing BRT-light successful; only need to add exclusive lanes • Avoid mode complexity and unnecessary transfers • Minimizes short term investment until Red Line extended

  19. Wilshire Corridor BRT Rendering

  20. Exposition Corridor LRT • Statistics • 9.4 miles (7.9 new/1.5 shared), 10-12 stations, 7.5 minute headway • Project construction/vehicle cost = $426 million • Issues • Exclusive railroad right-of-way with street crossings • Alignment options include partial arterial operation & grade seps • Opportunity to connect with existing Blue Line LRT • Serves several jurisdictions • LRT selected over BRT • Expected demand (43,600 daily boardings) provides LRT economies of scale • LRT allows shared use of Blue Line LRT tracks & LACBD tunnel

  21. Exposition Corridor LRT

  22. East Los Angeles Corridor LRT • Statistics • 6 miles (1.8 miles in tunnel), 8 new + 1 existing station, 7.5 min hdwy • Project construction/vehicle cost = $898 million • Issues • Initially HRT extension (too costly) • Desire to link with regional hub (Union Station) and existing LRT • Station locations not on continuous street or right-of-way • Surface streets narrow (built in 1800s); active community street life • Surface operation requires numerous turns across traffic • LRT selected over BRT • Minimize community impacts (mix of tunnel and surface ops) • Through service w/ existing Gold Line LRT at Union Station

  23. East Los Angeles Corridor LRT

  24. Metro Rapid Arterial Expansion • Based on the success of the Metro Rapid Demonstration, the program was approved for expansion • Improved travel speeds (up to 29% faster) • Increase in ridership (up to 40%) • Relatively low capital cost ($200,000 per mile) • Easy implementation (12 months to start-up) • FY 2008: 28 corridors and 450 miles of service

  25. Summary • BRT allows for greater flexibility • Allows for easy mix of on-street and exclusive right-of-way operation • Easier to fit in challenging corridors • Allows for incremental upgrading • Lower cost for both capital and operations until economy of scale threshold is reached for LRT • Over 5,000 passengers per peak hour, peak direction • Over 25,000 passengers per day • Each corridor requires a unique decision

More Related