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

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?