Case Study Analysis of HCT Treatments in Subject: Mixed Traffic
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Technical Memorandum Date: Monday, December 03, 2018 Project: Moving Forward TV Highway – Enhanced Transit and Access Plan To: Dyami Valentine (Washington County) and Marah Danielson (ODOT) From: Tom Shook (HDR) FINAL Technical Memorandum 4: Case Study Analysis of HCT Treatments in Subject: Mixed Traffic 1.0 Introduction The purpose of this technical memorandum is to review a series of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) case studies and identify planning and implementation opportunities for application of BRT along TV Highway. Information gathered from transit agencies that recently planned and implemented BRT service will provide Washington County, Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), and other partnering agencies with valuable insight and lessons learned related to BRT development along TV Highway. This technical memorandum provides an overview of examples of BRT services in regional and national locations with similar corridor character, challenges, and issues that have been identified along TV Highway in Washington County. Case studies on four unique BRT systems operating in similar environments to TV Highway highlight key characteristics of planning, funding, implementing, and operating the services. To collect the case study information, the project team researched and conducted phone interviews with the case study agencies identified by Washington County and ODOT staff. The technical memorandum presents and synthesizes results and lessons learned from BRT planning and implementation in the four case study locations. The organization of this technical memorandum begins with a brief overview of key BRT characteristics and a summary of the benefits of BRT. This overview is followed by a detailed look at key service characteristics drawn from each peer agency interview, synthesized into a set of key lessons learned, which were then identified for each case study corridor. 1.1 Themes Explored Three major lessons learned themes were explored during the case study interviews, as follows: • Project Funding: Agency representatives discussed project costs and types of funding pursued during project planning/project development and how their agency agreed on a financial strategy to implement the project. • Project Planning: Agency representatives provided an overview of the overall corridor problem statement and discussed initial corridor deficiencies/opportunities; High Capacity Transit (HCT) Moving Forward TV Highway | Enhanced Transit and Access Plan 1 concepts considered (including BRT) and rationale for selecting BRT; traffic and transit operations analysis techniques; community reactions and strategies to build project support; and other project-related challenges/strategies to successfully pre-position each corridor for BRT construction and revenue service operation. Several unique challenges were presented for each of the corridors that required a creative approach and inter-agency negotiation to successfully deliver the project. • Project Design & Implementation: A number of design and implementation considerations were discussed, including transit priority treatments, access management strategies, access to transit improvements, service design, stop spacing, concurrent corridor projects, and operating requirements, all of which provide valuable lessons learned on design and implementation strategy. These themes contribute to BRT’s ability to deliver improved travel times, reliability, safety, all while increasing corridor ridership. Each agency was asked at the end of the interview about unique lessons learned they wanted to share regarding the BRT planning and implementation experience. 2.0 Brief Overview of BRT 2.1 General BRT Characteristics Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is a high-quality transit service that integrates a host of strategies and technologies to improve transit travel speed, reliability, capacity, passenger comfort, and unique transit identity over traditional fixed-route bus service. BRT strategies include: • High-quality transit service – service that features reduced transit travel times, long spans of service, longer stop spacing, and high frequency of service. • Dedicated transit guideway and/or transit priority treatments – roadway and intersection infrastructure allowing transit vehicles to bypass congested segments or intersections. Transit guideway alignment may include median alignments, curb-run alignments, or hybrids. Intersection priority treatments include signalized queue jumps, bus-only lanes, business access and transit (BAT) lanes, and other specialized treatments. • Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) – ITS facilitates operations through a coordinated system of technology that allows the bus and driver to communicate with traffic signals, stations, and communications centers as well as customers. ITS elements may include transit signal priority, optical guidance systems, and computer aided dispatch/automated vehicle locators systems. • Enhanced fare collection systems – innovative fare collection tools and methods that reduce boarding times. This most often includes off-board fare collection but may include turnstile- controlled proof-of-payment. • Enhanced stations – high amenity stations that may include covered waiting areas, platform level boarding for quick passenger loading and unloading, off-board fare collection, next-bus displays, Wi-Fi, and other features. Moving Forward TV Highway | Enhanced Transit and Access Plan 2 • Specialized vehicles – unique buses that often feature a stylized appearance package, high passenger-carrying capacity, and interiors with open seating patterns, quality lighting, and large windows. • BRT branding – unique designs and marketing to separate BRT from local bus service. This often includes unique names, visually different vehicles, and branded station designs. In general, BRT has operating costs slightly higher than local bus service, primarily due to technology costs (TSP operations), and maintenance at stations (e.g., off-board fare machines). However, in most cases, increases in speed, and therefore reduction in travel time, will provide opportunities to reinvest saved operating resources along the corridor or elsewhere in the transit network. Capital costs for BRT differ based on the strategies employed. Dedicated running ways, high-end vehicles, sophisticated fare collection systems, and full-feature stations will dictate capital costs. Discretionary federal and other specialized grant programs at the local and state levels often subsidize capital costs. 2.2 BRT Design Flexibility The range of strategies employed differentiates BRT systems, typically falling into a spectrum of BRT investment. The lower end of the spectrum typically applies to service in mixed traffic and targeted strategies such as queue jumps, TSP, and increased stop spacing (often referred to as “arterial,” “corridor,” or “lite” BRT); whereas the higher end BRT (or “true” or “fixed guideway” BRT) employs many or all of the above suite of strategies, most notably an exclusive or segregated guideway needed to reduce travel times and improve service reliability. Each corridor that has undergone or is planning for BRT investment is unique and requires targeted investment to mitigate specific transit needs and/or deficiencies. BRT is intended to be flexible and allows for a variety of different features and strategies necessary to improve transit service in a cost-effective manner with minimal impacts. For eligibility purposes of the Federal Transit Authority (FTA)’s Capital Investment Grant (CIG) Program, FTA defines BRT as either “fixed guideway” or “corridor-based,” both requiring accessible stations, short headways, faster passenger travel times through priority treatments, and separate and consistent brand identity. “Fixed guideway” BRT is defined as a corridor with over 50 percent of the route operating in separated right-of-way dedicated for transit use during peak periods, whereas “corridor-based” BRT is defined as a corridor that does not operate in a separated right-of-way dedicated for transit during peak periods. Both are eligible for FTA’S CIG Small Starts funding and both are evaluated through the same FTA-administered rating system, because they both provide investment to improve the quality of transit service along a defined corridor or network of corridors. The Small Starts rating system considers a set of criteria used to compare other eligible projects, including mobility improvements, environmental benefits, congestion relief, cost-effectiveness, economic development, land use, and local financial commitment, each of which is weighted differently. Corridor projects considering FTA Small Starts funds may utilize project justification warrants to automatically receive a satisfactory (“medium”) rating on three of the evaluation criteria, including mobility improvements, congestion relief, and cost-effectiveness. These warrants are eligible for Moving Forward TV Highway | Enhanced Transit and Access Plan 3 projects that fall within certain weekday ridership and total project capital cost thresholds as defined by FTA’s CIG Policy Guidance.1 3.0 Case Studies for Review 3.1 Selected Case Studies BRT has been developed in a variety of forms in many cities across the country, ranging from fully exclusive operations, mixed traffic operations, center running, curbside running, and other forms that prioritize transit service. Washington County and ODOT selected four peer agencies that have planned and implemented some form of BRT service, each of which achieved mobility