Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Toolbox: Assessing Person Throughput to Measure Transportation Impacts for BRT Projects
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
UC Berkeley Research Reports Title Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Toolbox: Assessing Person Throughput to Measure Transportation Impacts for BRT Projects Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/03s7k8ff Authors Koling, Adam Zhang, Wei-Bin Zhou, Kun et al. Publication Date 2018-05-17 eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Final Report Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Toolbox: Assessing Person Throughput to Measure Transportation Impacts for BRT Projects Adam Koling, Wei-Bin Zhang, Kun Zhou and Huadong Meng California PATH Program University of California at Berkeley January 22, 2018 STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TECHNICAL REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE TR0003 (REV. 10/98) 1. REPORT NUMBER 2. GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATION NUMBER 3. RECIPIENT’S CATALOG NUMBER CA17-2664 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. REPORT DATE January 22, 2018 6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Toolbox: BRT Person Throughput- Vehicle Congestion Tradeoffs 7. AUTHOR(S) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO. Adam Koling, Wei-Bin Zhang, Kun Zhou and Huadong Meng UCB-ITS-PRR-2018-0X 9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. WORK UNIT NUMBER California PATH Program, University of California at Berkeley 11. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER 1357 46th St., Richmond, CA 94804 12. SPONSORING AGENCY AND ADDRESS 13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED California Department of Transportation Division of Research and Innovation 14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE P.O. Box 942873, MS 83 Sacramento, CA 94273-0001 15. SUPPLEMENTAL NOTES 16. ABSTRACT This report studied person throughput as an impact metric for proposed BRT routes under Caltrans jurisdiction, given the agency’s specific interest in preserving or improving the performance of particular state-owned corridors. It also introduces a simple spreadsheet tool to estimate a BRT project’s traffic impact and show how improved bus service can boost corridor performance. Representatives of Caltrans D4, D7, and D11 were interviewed after tentative development of the tool, expressed support of a transition towards person throughput, and offered feedback on how the tool might best suit most district employees’ needs. 17. KEY WORDS 18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT Bus Rapid Transit, Transportation Planning, No restrictions. This document is available to the Measure of Effectiveness public through the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161 19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION (of this report) 20. NUMBER OF PAGES 21. PRICE Unclassified Reproduction of completed page authorized 1 Disclaimer Statement This document is disseminated in the interest of information exchange. The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the State of California or the Federal Highway Administration. This publication does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. This report does not constitute an endorsement by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) of any product described herein. For individuals with sensory disabilities, this document is available in braille, large print, audiocassette, or compact disk. To obtain a copy of this document in one of these alternate formats, please contact: the California Department of Transportation, Division of Research Innovation, and Systems Information, MS-83, P.O. Box 942873, Sacramento, CA 94273-0001. 2 Table of Contents Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................................... 4 Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 5 1. Context .................................................................................................................................................. 6 1.1 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) .................................................................................................................... 6 1.2 Characteristics and Challenges of BRT .............................................................................................. 7 Environmental Review for Transportation Projects .................................................................................. 8 1.3 Measures of Effectiveness (MOEs) and Level of Service (LOS) ....................................................... 9 1.4 The Impetus for Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) ........................................................................................ 10 1.5 Senate Bill 743: Transitioning to Alternative Measures of Effectiveness ........................................ 11 2. Literature Review ................................................................................................................................ 13 2.1 Academic Research on BRT, Traffic, and Tradeoffs ........................................................................ 13 2.2 Previous Caltrans and PATH Documents ......................................................................................... 14 2.3 Bay Area Examples ........................................................................................................................... 16 3. Development of a BRT Planning Tool.................................................................................................. 18 3.1 Methodology and Assumptions ........................................................................................................ 18 3.2 Input and Output: Step-by-Step Instructions on Completing Spreadsheet Tool ............................... 18 3.4 Overview of 2014 Interviews with Caltrans Districts ....................................................................... 20 3.5 Interviews with Caltrans Districts to Review Spreadsheet Tool ....................................................... 21 4. Conclusion and Recommendations..................................................................................................... 23 Works Cited ................................................................................................................................................. 24 Appendices .................................................................................................................................................. 26 Appendix A: Perspectives of Interviewed BRT Project Managers of Two Transit Agencies ....................... 27 a.1 Interview Findings: AC Transit......................................................................................................... 27 a.2 Interview Findings: SFCTA .............................................................................................................. 27 a.3 Interview Synthesis ........................................................................................................................... 29 Appendix B: Caltrans Director’s Policy (2013) ...................................................................................... 31 Appendix C: Caltrans Deputy Directive (2013) ..................................................................................... 32 3 Acknowledgements This work was performed by the California PATH Program at the University of California at Berkeley in cooperation with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The authors thank Bradley Mizuno, Gloria Gwynne, Fouad Ziaullah, Lai Saetern, and Prakash Sah of Caltrans’ Division of Research and Innovation and System Information, and Scott Sauer of Caltrans Division of Mass Transportation/ Division of Transportation Planning for their support and advice during the project. The authors would also like to thank Michael Schwartz and Bob Masys of the San Francisco County Transportation Authority and Jim Cunradi of AC Transit and the members of the project Technical Advisory Committee members Antonette Clark, Jean Finney, Wingate Lew, Fredrick Schermer, Ina Gerhard, Connery Cepeda, Chris Schmidt, Al Cox, Jila Priebe, Scott Sauer, and Emily Abrahams which provided valuable inputs. 4 Executive Summary This report contributes to ongoing research conducted by the California Partners for Advanced Transportation (PATH) on tradeoffs arising when portions of a roadway are reserved for bus rapid transit (BRT). Specifically, this project builds on the findings of a 2015 PATH report entitled Bus Rapid Transit Toolbox: BRT Person Throughput-Vehicle Congestion Tradeoffs that examined how the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) decides whether to allow transit agencies to build and operate BRT—enhanced bus service with exclusive lanes, dedicated boarding platforms, and separation from other traffic—on sections of its state highway system. BRT can play a new and significant role in transportation systems. Less expensive and more flexible than rail while faster and more reliable than conventional buses, BRT has emerged in recent decades to relieve multiple sources of bus delay while reducing economic and political challenges associated with large-scale infrastructure “megaprojects.” Transit agencies across California operate or anticipate BRT corridors as components of their service networks, and many existing or planned BRT routes align partially or completely within Caltrans rights-of-way. Whether on limited-access highways or urban arterials, BRT can achieve increases in speed and reliability, and often bus mode share, by replacing one