Metro Orange Line BRT Project Evaluation
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Metro Orange Line BRT Project Evaluation OCTOBER 2011 FTA Report No. 0004 Federal Transit Administration PREPARED BY Jennifer Flynn, Research Associate Cheryl Thole, Research Associate Victoria Perk, Senior Research Associate Joseph Samus, Graduate Research Assistant Caleb Van Nostrand, Graduate Research Assistant National Bus Rapid Transit Institute Center for Urban Transportation Research University of South Florida COVER PHOTO Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority DISCLAIMER This document is intended as a technical assistance product. It is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. The United States Government does not endorse products of manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the objective of this report. Metro Orange Line BRT Project Evaluation OCTOBER 2011 FTA Report No. 0004 PREPARED BY Jennifer Flynn, Research Associate Cheryl Thole, Research Associate Victoria Perk, Senior Research Associate Joseph Samus, Graduate Research Assistant Caleb Van Nostrand, Graduate Research Assistant National Bus Rapid Transit Institute Center for Urban Transportation Research University of South Florida 4202 E. Fowler Avenue, CUT100 Tampa, FL 33620 SPONSORED BY Federal Transit Administration Office of Research, Demonstration and Innovation U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 AVAILABLE ONLINE http://www.fta.dot.gov/research SYMBOL WHEN YOU KNOW MULTIPLY BY TO FIND SYMBOL LENGTH in inches 25.4 millimeters mm ft feet 0.305 meters m yd yards 0.914 meters m mi miles 1.61 kilometers km VOLUME fl oz fluid ounces 29.57 milliliters mL gal gallons 3.785 liters L ft3 cubic feet 0.028 cubic meters m3 yd3 cubic yards 0.765 cubic meters m3 NOTE: volumes greater than 1000 L shall be shown in m3 MASS oz ounces 28.35 grams g lb pounds 0.454 kilograms kg megagrams T short tons (2000 lb) 0.907 Mg (or "t") (or "metric ton") TEMPERATURE (exact degrees) 5 (F-32)/9 oF Fahrenheit Celsius oC or (F-32)/1.8 FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION ii REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, Approved searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send OMB No. comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 0704-0188 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20503. 1. AGENCY USE ONLY 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED October 2011 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING/GRANT NUMBER FL-26-7110 Metro Orange Line BRT Project Evaluation 6. AUTHOR Jennifer Flynn, Cheryl Thole, Victoria Perk, Joseph Samus, and Caleb van Nostrand 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION National Bus Rapid Transit Institute at the Center for Urban Transportation Research REPORT NUMBER University of South Florida 4202 E. Fowler Avenue, CUT100, FTA Report No. 0004 Tampa, FL 33620 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING Federal Transit Administration AGENCY REPORT NUMBER U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE FTA Report No. 0004 Washington, DC 20590 Website [http://www.fta.dot.gov/research] 11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, VA 22161. Phone 703.605.6000, Fax 703.605.6900, Email [[email protected]] TRI-20 13. ABSTRACT In partnership with the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the National Bus Rapid Transit Institute (NBRTI) conducted an evaluation of the Metro Orange Line BRT service, which debuted in October 2005 as one of the first full-service BRT lines in the U.S. and the first exclusive busway in Los Angeles. The 14.5-mile Orange Line runs east-west through the San Fernando Valley, connecting the Warner Center mall and office complex in Woodland Hills to the Red Line subway in North Hollywood. The Orange Line runs almost entirely along an at-grade, dedicated busway within an abandoned rail right-of-way. The line’s 14 stations are similar in design to light rail stations, with canopied platforms, real-time information, covered seating, lighting, bicycle parking, automated fare collection machines, and public art. The project also includes extensive native landscaping along the corridor and a bicycle and pedestrian path parallel to the busway. The Orange Line operates on a headway-based schedule and uses a pre-paid, proof-of-payment fare system. The final evaluation report contains a comprehensive overview of the Orange Line, including a historical narrative; a profile of project elements, project costs, issues in planning, design, and implementation; technology applications; and a “lessons learned” summary. The report also provides an evaluation of project performance by analyzing data on capacity, travel time, reliability, and safety and security. For the examination of travel-time performance, run-time data were collected and analyzed, providing insight into the directional and temporal components of running time, and producing a useful “before” dataset for future study of the project. The performance evaluation also includes an analysis of data from NBRTI’s on-board survey of user perceptions and satisfaction and an assessment of the project’s image and brand identity. The report concludes with an overall appraisal of the Orange Line’s benefits, including assessments of ridership, financial feasibility, transit supportive land development, environmental quality, and overall performance of the Orange Line in meeting project goals. 14. SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER OF PAGES Metro Orange Line, Bus Rapid Transit, BRT, Evaluation, Los Angeles 163 16. PRICE CODE 17. SECURITY 18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF 19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF 20. LIMITATION CLASSIFICATION OF REPORT THIS PAGE ABSTRACT OF ABSTRACT Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION iii FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to recognize the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) for its ongoing cooperation and assistance during the course of this evaluation. In particular, we thank Hitesh Patel, Kathleen Sanchez, Gary Spivack, George Trudeau, Hector Guerrero, Mike Brewer, Jeff Boberg, Martha Butler, John Drayton, Warren Morse, Susan Phifer, and Matthew Barrett for providing data and sharing their time and insights. We would like to thank Sean Skehan of the Los Angeles Department of Transportation for sharing his time and valuable knowledge regarding the Orange Line’s transit signal priority system. We also wish to acknowledge the National Bus Rapid Transit Institute (NBRTI) student research assistants Tara Rodrigues and Menna Yassin for their support and assistance in producing this report. The authors would like to thank the Federal Transit Administration for sponsoring the research. They would also like to thank the FTA project technical monitor, Helen Tann from FTA for the technical guidance. FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION iv TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Section 1: Project Context 1 Background 3 Corridor Characteristics 7 Section 2: Project Description 7 Running Ways 8 Stations 11 North Hollywood Station 12 Warner Center Transit Hub 13 Vehicles 16 Fare Collection 17 Intelligent Transportation Systems 17 Transit Signal Priority 18 Automatic Vehicle Location and Real-Time Information Systems 19 Service and Operations 21 Branding, Marketing, and Community Outreach 21 Branding Elements and Marketing Strategy 26 Community Outreach 29 Lessons Learned 29 Meeting Agency Goals of Travel Time 29 Corridor Noise and Asphalt 30 Capacity 31 Section 3: Project Costs 33 Section 4: Project Performance 33 Travel Time 33 Metro Travel Time Data 34 NBRTI Travel Time Study 35 Travel Time Savings 36 User Perceptions of Travel Time Savings 38 Reliability 38 Running Time Reliability 40 Schedule Adherence 41 Headway Adherence 42 User Perceptions of Reality 42 Image and Identity 43 Brand Identity 44 Contextual Design 46 Research on the Importance of Image and Perception 48 Study Findings 51 User Perceptions of Identity and Image FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION v 52 Safety and Security 52 Safety 53 Accident Rates 54 Security 55 User Perceptions of Safety and Security 56 Capacity 56 Operating Policies and Capacity 57 Passenger Demand 61 User Perceptions Relating to Capacity 61 Accessibility 63 User Perceptions Relating to Accessibility 63 Summary of Project Performance 66 Section 5: Project Benefits 66 Higher Ridership 67 Regional Ridership Trends 67 Sources of Orange Line Ridership 68 Capital Cost Effectiveness 69 Operating Cost Efficiency 74 Environmental Quality 74 Vehicle Technology 75 Ridership and Mode Shift 76 Traffic System Effects 77 Noise 78 Other Pollutants 78 Visual Impacts and Livability 80 Summary of Project Benefits 82 References 84 Appendix A: On-Board Survey Analysis 84 Introduction