El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan BRT Industry Review
Prepared for: SamTrans
October 2013
SF13-0692
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review October 2013
Table of Contents
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 1
1.1 Definition of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)...... 1 1.2 BRT In the SamTrans and El Camino Real Context ...... 2 1.3 Case Studies and Key Lessons Learned ...... 4
2.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 6
2.1 Background of This Study ...... 6 2.2 Purpose of the BRT Case Study Review ...... 7 2.3 Organization of this Review ...... 7
3.0 DEFINITION AND TYPICAL ATTRIBUTES OF BUS RAPID TRANSIT (BRT) SYSTEMS ...... 8
3.1 Industry Definition of BRT ...... 8 3.2 Typical Attributes of BRT ...... 9 3.2.1 Frequent Service ...... 10 3.2.2 Fast and Reliable Service ...... 11 3.2.3 Enhanced Passenger Amenities ...... 20 3.2.4 Distinctive Branded Service ...... 21 3.3 Variants of BRT ...... 23 3.3.1 The Two Families of BRT ...... 23 3.3.2 Formal Differentiation between Rapid and BRT Services ...... 24
4.0 BRT WITHIN THE SAMTRANS CONTEXT ...... 29
4.1 Focus of this BRT Phasing Plan ...... 29 4.2 Proposed Delineation between Rapid and BRT Services for SamTrans ...... 30
5.0 CASE STUDIES ...... 31
5.1 Case Study 1: Metro Rapid – Los Angeles, CA ...... 32 5.1.1 Description of the System ...... 32 5.1.2 Key Attributes ...... 33 5.1.3 Performance and Benefits ...... 34
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review October 2013
5.1.4 Applicability to SamTrans ...... 35 5.2 Case Study 2: AC Transit Rapid – Oakland, CA ...... 36 5.2.1 Description of the System ...... 36 5.2.2 Key Attributes ...... 37 5.2.3 Performance and Benefits ...... 38 5.2.4 Applicability to SamTrans ...... 39 5.3 Case Study 3: Rapid 522 – Santa Clara County, CA ...... 40 5.3.1 Description of the System ...... 40 5.3.2 Key Attributes ...... 41 5.3.3 Performance and Benefits ...... 42 5.3.4 Applicability to SamTrans ...... 43 5.4 Case Study 4: EmX – Eugene, OR ...... 44 5.4.1 Description of the System ...... 44 5.4.2 Key Attributes ...... 44 5.4.3 Performance and Benefits ...... 46 5.4.4 Applicability to SamTrans ...... 46 5.5 Summary of Key Lessons Learned ...... 47 5.6 Next Steps...... 48
Appendices
Appendix A – Travel Time Savings Benefits from Transit Priority Enhancements (SFMTA)
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review October 2013
List of Tables
Table 1-1: The Two Families of BRT ...... 2 Table 1-2: Attributes for SamTrans Rapid vs. BRT...... 3 Table 1-3: List of Four Case Study Systems ...... 4 Table 3-1: Typical BRT Attributes and Specific Strategies ...... 10 Table 3-2: Average Peak Service Headways on Example BRT Systems ...... 11 Table 3-3: The Two Families of BRT ...... 23 Table 3-4: Caltrans Incremental BRT Development Stages ...... 25 Table 3-5: VTA BRT Service Design Guidelines ...... 27 Table 4-1: Attributes for SamTrans Rapid vs. BRT...... 30 Table 5-1: List of Four Case Study Systems ...... 31 Table 5-2: LA Metro Rapid Attributes (System-Wide) ...... 33 Table 5-3: LA Metro Rapid Performance and System Benefits ...... 34 Table 5-4: AC Transit Rapid Attributes ...... 37 Table 5-5: AC Transit Rapid Performance and System Benefits (72R Only) ...... 38 Table 5-6: VTA Rapid 522 Attributes...... 41 Table 5-7: VTA Rapid 522 Performance and System Benefits ...... 42 Table 5-8: EmX Attributes ...... 44 Table 5-9: EmX Performance and System Benefits (Franklin Corridor Only) ...... 46
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review October 2013
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 DEFINITION OF BUS RAPID TRANSIT (BRT)
Although there is no precise definition universally agreed upon, BRT is generally understood to connote bus services that, at a minimum, operate faster than “local bus” service. BRT performance is facilitated by both operational and physical measures that may include some or all of the following elements (which are described in detail in the main report):
Limited stop service;
Bus priority at signals and on streets;
Faster passenger boarding and fare collection;
Transportation system management enhancements;
Enhanced passenger amenities; and
Unique branding.
Many variants of BRT operate in North America and throughout the world – each agency and entity has its own perspective on what constitutes BRT service in the local context. There is general industry consensus, however, that BRT can be delineated into two families based on the level of attributes and investment in each system: Rapid and Full BRT (or just BRT) – as shown in Table 1-1Table 1-1. It should be noted that Formatted: Font: Bold for this report, BRT is a shorthand term that will refer to both Rapid and Full BRT.
1
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review October 2013
TABLE 1-1: THE TWO FAMILIES OF BRT
Type of BRT Typical Attributes Examples
Alameda-Contra Costa (AC) Transit District 1R & Line 72R These systems typically operate in mixed flow lanes, Los Angeles County Metropolitan sometimes with some degree of signal priority, and Transportation Authority (Metro) Rapid likely branded service and vehicles. Rapid systems, Rapid also sometimes known as “BRT Lite” have minimal Livermore Amador Valley Transit capital investment. Authority (LAVTA) Rapid Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Rapid 522
Greater Cleveland Regional Transit These systems typically have a much higher degree Authority HealthLine of priority and enhancements than Rapid services. Lane Transit District (LTD) Eugene These systems operate vehicles in dedicated transit Emerald Express (EmX) lanes (or segments of) that allow vehicles to Full BRT LA Metro Orange Line operate faster and more reliably. Significant capital VTA Valley Rapid (Future) investments are made to upgrade corridor right-of- San Francisco Municipal way and stations, to make the riding experience Transportation Authority Van Ness more “rail-like.” BRT (Future)
1.2 BRT IN THE SAMTRANS AND EL CAMINO REAL CONTEXT
The goal of the El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan is to develop a short- and long-term BRT strategy. At present, SamTrans does not operate Rapid or Full BRT service on the El Camino Corridor. The 2006 El Camino Real Bus Corridor Origin and Destination Survey recommended the implementation of a Rapid service to “prime the pump” for an anticipated Full BRT service, as current densities are insufficient to support Full BRT. As such, it seems logical to conclude that for this analysis and development of this Phasing Plan:
The short-term operating plan and phasing plan should focus on Rapid bus service. The long-term operating plan and phasing plan should focus on more capitally intensive Full BRT services.
Based on the categorization of Rapid and BRT services by other counterpart entities, Table 1-2 presents the potential attributes for Rapid and Full BRT service tiers for the SamTrans and El Camino Real context.
2
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review October 2013
TABLE 1-2: POTENTIAL ATTRIBUTES FOR SAMTRANS RAPID VS. BRT
Typical BRT Specific Strategy/Strategies Rapid Full BRT Attribute
Frequent Frequent bi-directional service X X Service
Longer stop spacing X x
Operational measures
o Turn prohibitions / exemptions X X
o Low-floor vehicles X X
o Level boarding facilities X
o All-door boarding/alighting X
o Off-board fare payment X
o Transportation system management Fast and X X enhancements and labeled as Appendix A Reliable Service Transit priority measures
o Transit Signal Priority (TSP) X X
o Bulbouts X X
o Queue jump lanes X X
o Dedicated transit lanes
. Reserved lanes X
. At-grade busway X
. Grade-separated busway X
Enhanced More substantial stations X Passenger Amenities Real-time information X X
Distinctive Branded and specially marketed service X X Branded Service Specialized vehicles X X
3
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review October 2013
1.3 CASE STUDIES AND KEY LESSONS LEARNED
Four case studies are reviewed in this document as applicable examples for the SamTrans context:
TABLE 1-3: LIST OF FOUR CASE STUDY SYSTEMS
Type of Service Name of Service Region Operator
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Rapid Metro Rapid Los Angeles, CA (USA) Transportation Authority (LA Metro)
Alameda/Contra Costa Transit District Rapid Rapid Oakland, CA (USA) (AC Transit)
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Rapid Rapid 522 Santa Clara County, CA (USA) Authority (VTA)
Full BRT EmX Eugene, OR (USA) Lane Transit District (LTD)
Several recurring themes, which are applicable to the future planning of the SamTrans El Camino Real BRT, are apparent:
“Packages” of Strategies Are Most Effective at Reducing Travel Time and Improving Reliability - No single strategy outweighs the synergistic benefits of packaging strategies together to achieve maximum time savings or reliability. All Rapid or BRT elements contribute to the effectiveness of the service – whether it is longer stop spacing, level boarding, TSP, etc. As noted below though, longer stop spacing (or skip stop service) is most effective at reducing +travel times and is typically part of the initial phasing of any BRT system. Other measures complement longer stop spacing to incrementally improve travel time and/or reliability such as TSP and level boarding.
Longer Stop Spacing Is Viewed As Most Effective – From the travel time savings assessments and anecdotal evidence, reducing stops comprised the largest element in travel time savings. This is also the easiest strategy to implement. There is some question, however, over what is the second most effective strategy – some agencies identify traffic signal coordination, while others identify level boarding. What is important is that the combination of these strategies generates the highest benefits.
Significant Benefits Can Be Generated with Minimal Capital Investment – Significant benefits can be generated from low-cost strategies such as reducing the number of stops, TSP, and signal coordination. While dedicated lanes and rail-like stations can generate benefits, they come with a
4
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review October 2013
significant added capital investment that need to be evaluated from a return-on-investment perspective.
Most Agencies Implement TSP on Continuous Stretches to Maximize Benefit – VTA, AC Transit, and LA Metro all implement TSP along most portions of their Rapid systems. Eugene’s EmX BRT service provides TSP on only one-third of intersections along the route – however this should be viewed more as an anomaly than the norm, as Eugene is significantly smaller and less dense than the other three regions.
Conditional TSP Should Be Considered – AC Transit and LA Metro provide conditional TSP for their Rapid systems. This prevents “early” buses that are “running hot” from receiving priority and can help balance headways and prevent bus bunching from an early bus catching up to a late bus.
5
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review October 2013
2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1 BACKGROUND OF THIS STUDY
The 2010 Grand Boulevard’s Initiative Multimodal Corridor Plan (GBI Corridor Plan) identified the need for improvements in both transportation and land use along the El Camino Corridor.1 In San Mateo County, the El Camino Corridor is expected to experience an increase of over 24,800 households and 90,800 jobs between 2005 and 2035 using 2007 Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) projections. Several past studies identified BRT as feasible along the corridor.
Under this backdrop, the El Camino Real Bus Rapid Transit Phasing Plan seeks to define how enhanced transit service can attract sufficient ridership and achieve cost-effective performance. The Phasing Plan seeks to identify and develop the following:
Costs and benefits of a BRT system;
Essential system components;
Stakeholder support;
Ridership demand analysis;
Operating and capital cost estimates;
Network integration with existing and future SamTrans, VTA and Muni bus systems;
Funding strategy; and
Phasing and implementation plan.
1 Grand Boulevard Multimodal Transportation Corridor Plan, The Grand Boulevard Initiative, October 2010.
6
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review October 2013
2.2 PURPOSE OF THE BRT CASE STUDY REVIEW
The BRT Case Study Review is one of the first tasks of the larger BRT Phasing Plan. The Review is intended to inform SamTrans, key stakeholders, agencies, and cities about the:
Typical attributes that define BRT service and quality;
Potential benefits of various BRT attributes;
Types of BRT in operation today in North America;
The type of BRT being considered for this El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan; and
Key lessons learned from implementation and operation of BRT at other agencies.
2.3 ORGANIZATION OF THIS REVIEW
This review is organized into four sections:
Section 2.0: Introduction (this Section) – This section describes the background of the study and the purpose of this BRT Industry Review.
Section 3.0: Definition and Typical Attributes of Bus Rapid Transit Systems – This section presents the industry definition of BRT as well as the typical attributes of BRT systems. This section also presents how other agencies and entities classify different tiers of BRT.
Section 4.0: BRT within the SamTrans Context – This section discusses how BRT should be categorized and classified in the SamTrans context. It also lays out the attributes for different types of BRT based on Section 3.0 findings.
Section 5.0: Case Studies – This section presents relevant BRT case studies and identifies applicable strategies and lessons learned for the El Camino and SamTrans context.
Appendix A - Appendix A illustrates the expected travel time savings from implementation of transit priority measures from San Francisco MTA’s Transit Effectiveness Project or TEP. Anticipated TEP time savings benefits are quantified discretely from other measures such as longer stop spacing, stop relocation, etc.
It should be noted that some of the material presented in this review is based on that from the VTA’s Service Design Guidelines as well as VTA’s BRT Strategic Plan.
7
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review October 2013
3.0 DEFINITION AND TYPICAL ATTRIBUTES OF BUS RAPID TRANSIT (BRT) SYSTEMS
This section presents the industry definition of BRT and typical attributes of BRT systems. It concludes with a comparison of how agencies differentiate between various tiers of BRT service.
3.1 INDUSTRY DEFINITION OF BRT
The Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) defines BRT as a “flexible, rubber-tired rapid-transit mode that combines stations, vehicles, services, running ways, and Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) elements into an integrated system…BRT applications are designed to be appropriate to the market they serve and their physical surroundings, and they can be incrementally implemented in a variety of environments”.2 The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) defines BRT as a “rapid mode of transportation that can provide the quality of rail transit and the flexibility of buses”.3
Although there is no precise definition that is universally BRT is generally understood to connote agreed upon, BRT is generally understood to connote bus services that, at a minimum, operate bus services that, at a minimum, operate faster than faster than “local bus” service. “local bus” service. BRT performance is facilitated by both operational and physical measures that may include some or all of the following elements:
Limited stop service;
Bus priority at signals and on streets;
Faster passenger boarding and fare collection;
Transportation system management enhancements;
Enhanced passenger amenities; and
Unique branding.
In many cases, BRT service is meant to provide “rail-like” service and amenities, while being more flexible and economical.
2 Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 90, Bus Rapid Transit – Volume 1: Case Studies in Bus Rapid Transit, Transportation Research Board, 2003. 3 Thomas, E. 2001. Presentation at Institute of Transportation Engineers meeting, Chicago (August).
8
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review October 2013
BRT, as it is known today, originates from Latin America in the 1970s, where funding to build rail rapid transit systems was scarce. Cities such as Curitiba in Brazil led the way by developing rubber-tire bus- based transit systems operating with fewer stops and in dedicated at-grade rights-of-way with enhanced stations and intermodal transfer hubs as well as specialized vehicles (including articulated and double- articulated vehicles).
In the 1990s, North American agencies started to take notice and introduced BRT-like routes with different color schemes, names, marketing campaigns, and sometimes even fare structures. Vehicles, services, and branding started to provide a “rail-like” experience – the focus was not only on improving riding conditions, but also improving the level of service to attract non-riders.
3.2 TYPICAL ATTRIBUTES OF BRT
The following sub-sections describe typical attributes of BRT systems (as identified in TCRP Report 90) that separate BRT from local bus service. Table 3-1 identifies four key attributes and various underlying strategies of these attributes. While some BRT systems may not incorporate all four of these attributes, they typically incorporate several of these attributes – which collectively separate BRT as a premium and enhanced service over local bus.
9
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review October 2013
TABLE 3-1: TYPICAL BRT ATTRIBUTES AND SPECIFIC STRATEGIES
Typical BRT Attribute Specific Strategy/Strategies
Frequent Service Frequent bi-directional service
Longer stop spacing Operational measures o Turn prohibitions / exemptions o Low-floor vehicles o Level boarding facilities o All-door boarding/alighting o Off-board fare payment o Transportation system management enhancements Fast and Reliable Service Transit priority measures o Transit Signal Priority (TSP) o Bulbouts o Queue jump lanes o Dedicated transit lanes . Reserved lanes . At-grade busway . Grade-separated busway
More substantial stations Enhanced Passenger Amenities Real-time information
Branded and specially marketed service Distinctive Branded Service Specialized vehicles
3.2.1 FREQUENT SERVICE
Local rail transit is renowned for frequent all-day service Frequent BRT service is typically between in both directions. Vehicle arrivals are frequent enough 10-12 minutes in the peak, and 15-30 that riders can “show up” without consulting a schedule minutes in the off-peak. and experience relatively short waiting periods. BRT tries to mimic this level of service with bi-directional frequent service. This characteristic is important for encouraging the public to rely on rapid transit for their local travel needs as well as to attract non-riders and choice riders.
“Frequent service” is a relative term that varies among agencies. Among agencies operating BRT-type service in North America, the typical peak operating headway can be between 10 to 12 minutes during the weekday, and 15 to 30 minutes during off-peak hours (and possibly longer during early morning, late
10
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review October 2013
evening, and Sunday operations).4 Systems operating in their own dedicated transit lanes can often operate at much lower headways though. Examples include:
TABLE 3-2: AVERAGE PEAK SERVICE HEADWAYS ON EXAMPLE BRT SYSTEMS
Operating Agency / Average Peak BRT System Running Way Type Location Headway (Minutes)
AC Transit / Central AC Transit 1R and Line 72R Mixed flow 12 Alameda County, CA
Kansas City Area Transportation KCATA / Kansas City, Mixed flow and segments of 10 Authority (KCATA) MAX MO dedicated median bus lane
LA Metro Orange Line Metro / Los Angeles, CA Dedicated busway 4
LAVTA / Eastern LAVTA Rapid Mixed flow 15 Alameda County, CA
VTA / Santa Clara Mixed flow and segments of VTA Valley Rapid (future service) 10-12 County, CA dedicated median bus lane
BRT systems typically operate bi-directionally all-day to better serve the needs of higher-density, multi- use corridors that generate trips all-day, not just during the peak periods. This characteristic distinctly separates BRT from commuter transportation (such as express bus service) in that the latter may only operate during the peak periods or in the peak direction of travel.
3.2.2 FAST SERVICE
Fast service – both actual and perceived – is another hallmark of rail rapid transit that BRT seeks to mimic. Achieving fast and time-competitive transit journeys is paramount to keeping existing riders, but also attracting choice users that currently drive. Compared to local bus services, BRT can operate faster and more reliably by implementing: (i) longer stop spacing; (ii) operational measures such as turn restrictions, level boarding, and off-board fare payment; (iii) transit priority measures including specialized signals and queue jump lanes; and (iv) some form of dedicated transit lane. While longer stop spacing is relatively inexpensive and easy to implement, dedicated lanes are the most expensive strategy and the most difficult to implement. These elements are described below.
4 Most BRT systems also operate on a headway, rather than schedule basis – meaning that a bus is evaluated “early” or “late” against its expected arrival headway at a given station.
11
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review October 2013
3.2.2.1 Longer Stop Spacing
Along a long route, incremental delay and variability Longer stop spacing is the easiest way to from frequent stops (including dwell times as well as improve travel speeds and reliability merge times) can result in a significant reduction in travel speed and on-time performance. Reducing the number of stops served (and thus increasing stop spacing) is the easiest way to improve travel speeds and reliability. Local buses typically stop every quarter mile or less in some cases, while agencies typically implement half-mile stop spacing for BRT services. Implementing longer stop spacing is one of the least expensive strategies to improve speed and reliability, but is less visible and prominent to the public than installing physical infrastructure to speed buses (such as a queue jump lane or dedicated bus lane).
Under this strategy, BRT serves higher demand stops and major origin/destination nodes, while skipping low demand stops or those located in less transit-supportive areas. Psychologically, the trip seems faster for passengers, who perceive a continuous movement uninterrupted by frequent stops. Often, but not always, implementation of longer stop spacing for BRT is accompanied by the continuation of less frequent local bus service to maintain local connectivity to/from lower demand stops/areas not served by BRT.
3.2.2.2 Operational Measures
A variety of “operational measures” can be implemented to Turn prohibitions can improve traffic speed BRT vehicles and improve reliability. through intersections and help buses run faster. 3.2.2.2.1 Turn Prohibitions / Exemptions
Vehicles making left turns can block intersections and delay through traffic in the opposite direction. Vehicles making right turns can delay through traffic while waiting for pedestrians to cross the street. Prohibiting left and/or right turns at particular intersections can have significant benefits to transit travel times and reliability by minimizing interruptions to through transit and general traffic flow.
12
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review October 2013
Another strategy is called transit exemption. Transit exemption in right-hand turn lanes allows for transit through movements, while general traffic must turn right. Likewise, the exemption may allow transit vehicles to make turning movements where general traffic is prohibited from doing so. These strategies give transit “priority” over automobiles. Exemption is often implemented to allow transit vehicles to enter Source: FHWA bus stations or transit centers without having to merge in and/or out of mixed flow traffic congestion on through lanes. Exemption functions similar to queue jump lanes defined in Section 3.2.2.3.3, except the latter typically involve separate bus signal phasing.
On El Camino Real, two exemptions are in place on El Camino Real at Hillsdale Boulevard in San Mateo and at Ravenswood Avenue in Menlo Park. These lanes are controlled with “bus exempt” signs on the right-turn only lanes allowing bus through movement, but no special bus signal phase. VTA also has two similar facilities along El Camino Real (but VTA refers to them as queue jump lanes, even though there are no special bus phases at these locations).
SamTrans is pursuing additional exemption lanes at five locations along El Camino Real to improve on- time performance and efficiency of the new ECR route (which combines the 390 and 391 into a single service operating at 15-minute headways along the entire corridor through San Mateo County):
Northbound El Camino Real and Second Avenue in San Mateo;
Southbound El Camino Real and Broadway in Redwood City;
Southbound El Camino Real and Jefferson in Redwood City;
Northbound El Camino Real and Jefferson in Redwood City; and
Southbound El Camino Real and Valparaiso in Menlo Park.
13
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review October 2013
3.2.2.2.2 Faster Loading/Unloading
The time it takes to board and alight a transit Fast loading/unloading is an important element vehicle has impacts on dwell time, which can of BRT that can reduce dwell time – this can be collectively add up along a long route. achieved with low-floor vehicles, level Loading/unloading can be accelerated through one boarding, and all-door boarding/alighting of the following strategies:
Low-Floor Vehicles - Buses that must “kneel” or require a “step-up” for passengers – either because the vehicle is high-floor or because of a significant vertical differential between the bus and the loading area/platform – require a longer time to board and alight than low-floor vehicles. Dwell time for wheelchair and ADA riders using high-floor vehicles can be significant, particularly when a lift is activated.
Level Boarding Facilities - In some cases, BRT systems have dedicated platforms that allow customers direct boarding into buses without a “step.” Eugene’s EmX BRT is one example of a system employing level boarding. The planned SFMTA Van Ness BRT system is another.
All-Door Boarding/Alighting - Faster loading/unloading can also be accomplished with all-door boarding and alighting. BRT systems adopting this strategy often use off-board fare payment as well (described below). SFMTA has implemented this program recently system wideand has installed wireless non-contact card readers at all doors to accommodate all-door boarding and alighting.
3.2.2.2.3 Off-Board Fare Payment
The exchange of cash or the validation of a commuter Off-board fare payment reduces boarding pass can also increase dwell time. In the SamTrans times, but is expensive to implement and context, while the use of Clipper has reduced dwell time requires more intense fare inspection impacts for riders, not every rider uses or has a Clipper card. Off-board fare payment, typically facilitated for BRT with ticket vending machines (TVMs) similar to those at Caltrain and Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) stations, can speed the boarding process significantly by minimizing the driver-rider interaction. As noted, off-board fare payment is typically implemented along with all-door boarding.
In practice, most BRT systems adopt off-board fare payment and TVMs to provide a more “rail-like” experience. Often, these elements accompany systems with dedicated bus lanes and enhanced, rail-like stations. A strict and comprehensive fare inspection process needs to be in place to discourage fare evasion.
14
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review October 2013
3.2.2.2.4 Transportation System Management Enhancements
Another potential attribute of BRT is the implementation Transit signal priority is a typical hallmark of various transportation system management of BRT systems, allowing buses to enhancements. The typical goal of these enhancements minimize intersection stoppage along the is to improve on-the-ground operations and journey effectiveness through schedule efficiencies, and changes in fleet type, service frequency, hours of operation, and network structure allow operators to match the right type and level of service to areas with corresponding demand for transit. These enhancements also include in-line management strategies including real-time dispatching, real-time monitoring of bus movements and traffic conditions, refinement of layover time and deadheading, which assist operators in planning for delays due to peak-hour traffic.
3.2.2.3 Transit Priority Measures
Measures that give transit “priority” over general traffic include both operational and physical elements as described below.
3.2.2.3.1 Transit Signal Priority (TSP)
Transit Signal Priority (TSP), also known as Bus Signal Priority, can help reduce delay and variability in bus travel times and schedule arrival times. TSP can be implemented in a mixed flow context, but also for dedicated bus lanes and queue jump lanes to minimize delay to through bus movements.
Generally, TSP can be implemented in two manners: (i) passively, where signals are programmed to align with transit running times or to optimize general traffic flow (this is done Source: Sustainable Transportation in the in the Denver Transit Mall); or (ii) actively, where priority is Netherlands granted to a bus after it is detected. Active priority is either: (i) conditional, where only late buses are given priority (as is done on AC Transit’s San Pablo Rapid and Los Angeles’s
15
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review October 2013
Metro Rapid) or (ii) unconditional, where all buses are given priority regardless of whether they are early or late (as is done in for the Santa Clara County portion of the El Camino Corridor for VTA). 5
Typical active TSP strategies include: (i) extending the green cycle (i.e., green extension), which elongates the green time to allow an approaching bus to cross the intersection; or (ii) truncating the red cycle (i.e., early green), which shortens the red time so that a bus experiences a shorter time waiting at the intersection.
3.2.2.3.2 Bulbouts
Bus bulbouts, often referred to as curb extensions, Bulbouts reduce the merge times for buses effectively extend the curb at bus stops into the parking to serve curbside stops, but may impact lane, allowing buses to stop in the nearest traffic lane following traffic on narrow streets instead of at the curb lane when loading/unloading. Bulbouts can reduce bus merge times into and out of general mixed flow traffic lanes, while also creating more space for bus shelters and street furniture. Bulbouts can impact general traffic flow as buses stop in the mixed flow lanes, reducing throughput capacity, and forcing vehicles behind the bus to wait if they are unable to pass.
3.2.2.3.3 Queue Jump Lanes
Queue jump lanes, also known as queue Queue jump lanes are typically implemented in jumpers or exempt lanes, are short segments of right-turn lanes and allow transit to continue priority lanes at specific locations. In the US through the intersection while general traffic turns context, queue jump lanes are typically in right- right. Queue jump lanes are typically enabled by a hand turn lanes and allow for transit through special bus phase or transit signal priority. movements.6 Queue jump lanes are enabled by a special bus signal phase or signal priority to allow the bus to move ahead of general purpose traffic.
5 For systems adopting headway-based schedule control, a bus is evaluated “early” or “late” against its expected arrival headway at a given station. 6 Right-turning vehicles from the cross street, accustomed to turning on red, must be controlled to prevent conflicts with the through-moving transit vehicles. Control is typically achieved through one or more of the following methods: (i) signs banning right turns on red; (ii) yield or stop signs; (iii) special right-turn signals; and (iv) channelization to give right-turn vehicles better visibility of oncoming transit vehicles.
16
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review October 2013
Queue jump lanes can permit transit vehicles to bypass queues at congested intersections, bridge approaches and toll plazas, etc. and can reduce transit delay, improve travel speeds, and increase reliability. Queue jump lanes can also be deployed to allow transit vehicles to more effectively transition into and out of median bus lanes to serve curbside stops. No queue jump lanes exist along El Source: City of Chandler, AZ Camino Real.
3.2.2.4 Dedicated Transit Lanes
Transit operating in mixed flow lanes is subject to delay and conflict from other vehicles, cyclists, and pedestrians. Thus, stretches of dedicated transit lane(s) for exclusive transit use can be one of the most important factors, aside from implementing longer stop spacing, in achieving faster and more reliable service. Dedicated lanes are a visible and permanent commitment to providing priority to transit over general traffic.
Dedicated transit lanes can have significant benefits to travel time and reliability, but are costly and challenging to implement
Source: TheGreenCarWebsite.co.uk
While not all BRT systems operate in dedicated transit lanes, those that do are often able to operate at much higher speeds and carry much higher peak loads than Rapid systems operating in mixed flow traffic. From the rider perspective, dedicated transit lanes may have an even stronger psychological impact, by allowing vehicles to bypass congestion and operate unimpeded in the transit lane.
However, implementing stretches of dedicated transit lanes is expensive, requires support both politically and financially from stakeholder cities, the business communities, and residents, and is often difficult to achieve, especially if current mixed flow lanes are “re-allocated” for transit-only purposes. The re- allocation of mixed-flow lanes to dedicated bus lanes can have a significant impact to levels of service.
17
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review October 2013
Dedicated transit lanes may be implemented along an entire corridor, or in a portion or portions of a corridor. Operationally, these lanes may function as:
Peak-Only Lanes – Transit vehicles operate in these lanes during peak hours only. Outside of the peak, general traffic can operate in the lane as well. Often, peak-only lanes are implemented in the peak direction of travel and achieved by instituting parking bans during the peak. Buses then operate in the vacated parking lanes. This strategy has minimal physical infrastructure costs as no construction is required. This is the strategy employed in Vancouver along many arterials including the Broadway Corridor and Georgia Street, and in Washington DC suburbs such as Silver Springs (these lanes function as reversible peak-only lane).
All-Day Lanes – Lanes are for exclusive transit use throughout the day. This strategy is typically the most expensive types as the lanes require some degree of physical segregation from adjacent traffic as well as Source: flickr.com enforcement.
Reversible Lanes – In some right-of-way constrained sections, sufficient width may exist for only one dedicated transit lane. Some systems operate short reversible (or bi-directional) single lane segments so both travel directions can benefit from the dedicated transit segment. Functioning similar to a single track segment of rail, signals control movement into and out of the lane. Eugene’s EmX operates one short segment of reversible lane, while VTA’s Stevens Creek BRT Corridor has proposed such a lane through the congested and constrained Valley Fair section.
Contraflow Lanes – Contraflow transit lanes are often implemented on one- way streets, where transit operates in the opposite direction of the surrounding lanes. This allows two-way operation of the bus, while general traffic operates in one direction. Contraflow lanes can maximize spare capacity on a road and allow for more direct routings in areas with significant
one-way road networks. Boston’s Silver Source: Google Street View Line operates a contraflow segment on Washington Street.
Three types of dedicated transit lanes exist – these are described below.
18
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review October 2013
3.2.2.4.1 Reserved Lanes
Reserved lanes for transit are comprised of curb bus lanes, median busways, or reserved freeway lanes. Typically, these lanes are implemented by “re-allocating” existing mixed flow travel lanes to exclusive transit use. These lanes are typically physically separated from adjacent traffic through colored pavement, bollards, raised pavement, as well as short, mountable concrete medians.
The Las Vegas Metropolitan Area Express (MAX) Source: Arup (Mexico City, TransMetro) operates in a dedicated curbside lane (i.e., the right-most lane). Most agencies deploying reserved lanes, however, operate median bus lanes to avoid right-turn and parking conflicts. Median bus lanes can be configured with: (i) side platforms, which allow for right-side boarding, but also require a platform for each direction; or (ii) center platforms, which have a wider waiting area to serve both directions, but require either contraflow operations for right-side boarding or specialized vehicles allowing dual-side boarding. Cleveland’s HealthLine BRT and Eugene’s EmX systems use a center platform configuration with dual-side boarding vehicles. VTA’s proposed BRT system would operate with side platforms. Mexico City’s TransMetro is a large-scale example of BRT operating in median bus lanes on city streets.
3.2.2.4.2 At-Grade Busway
The LA Metro Orange Line and the Miami-Dade Busway both operate as at-grade busways. At-grade busways are built in their own right-of-way (often abandoned rail corridors). Interaction with mixed flow traffic is limited to intersections and the entry and exit points of the busway. Transit typically operates much faster and more reliably than in reserved lanes which are still subject to mixed flow interference. Speed is limited by the number of mixed flow traffic crossings.
19
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review October 2013
3.2.2.4.3 Grade-Separated Busway
The Ottawa Transitway and the Pittsburgh Busway operate as exclusive busways that provide complete physical separation from mixed flow traffic. Unlike at-grade busways, there are no crossings with mixed flow traffic. These BRT systems operate similar to rail rapid transit systems such as BART. They can achieve the fastest operating speeds, the highest reliability, and carry the highest hourly loads of the various types of BRT systems.
Source: Wikimedia 3.2.3 ENHANCED PASSENGER AMENITIES
BRT services also may include enhanced passenger amenities to improve the perceived and actual transit experience. Typical amenities are described below.
3.2.3.1 More Substantial Stations
Full BRT typically has enhanced and more robust Enhanced passenger stations and waiting stations to improve the passenger waiting experience. areas are one facet of BRT, but are typically Amenities can range from simple and more elegant implemented at high demand stops first. stylized shelters to more elaborate rail-like stations with high platforms and large seated waiting areas. High quality materials may also be used for the facility. Other amenities may include better lighting, sheltered waiting areas, real-time passenger information, ticket vending machines, etc.
Source: VTA
20
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review October 2013
3.2.3.2 Real-Time Information
Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking of transit vehicles combined with knowledge of real-time traffic conditions allows transit agencies to provide up-to-date real-time passenger information such as expected arrival times and journey times both at the wayside and aboard vehicles through variable message signs and announcements, as well as through smartphones and other handheld devices. Real- time information systems can reduce perceived waiting times and improve the attractiveness of transit and use of transit. Implementation of real-time information systems may not be warranted at all BRT Real-time information is provided by many stops initially – thus such systems are usually phased in agencies. For Full BRT, it mimics the to prioritize high demand stops first, and low demand reliability and quality of rail. stops later.
3.2.4 DISTINCTIVE BRANDED SERVICE
To separate BRT from local and express bus service in the minds of the riders but also non-riders, agencies typically brand BRT as a distinctive service. This branding is carried through for the entire “package”, primarily in terms of service, vehicles, and stops.
21
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review October 2013
3.2.4.1 Branded and Specially Marketed Service
To leverage the noted advantages of BRT, most Agencies market BRT as a premium service agencies market BRT as an elite, premium brand of and typically give it a catchy and service. The goal is to create the perception among memorable nickname – EmX, the Rapid, riders and non-riders that BRT is faster, more reliable, the HealthLine, etc. comfortable and “hip” than local service operating in the same corridor and a viable alternative to the automobile. Specialized branding may include:
A unique name or route numbering for BRT, which can imply an elite level of service over local bus;
Unique painting, bus wrapping, or logo for BRT vehicles;
Specially chosen colors schemes and logos for BRT marketing materials, stop signs, and maps; and Image: City of Brampton, Ontario
Targeted marketing campaigns to extol the benefits of BRT over local bus and possibly the automobile.
3.2.4.2 Specialized Vehicles
Agencies typically deploy BRT buses that are distinctive BRT systems typically deploy specialized from local buses both in appearance (for instance vehicles that differentiate the service from branding, color scheme, and logo), but also in make and regular local bus. Vehicles sometimes have model. Sleek and contoured vehicles that look more a rail-like appearance and feel to “rail-like” in appearance have been adopted at many emphasize the premium service. agencies, with low-floors for faster entry and exit, and nicer interior seating. Several BRT systems have introduced dual-side door vehicles to allow both left-side (for center platform configurations) and right-side boarding. Several agencies have likewise selected energy-efficient or zero-emission propulsion vehicles to further differentiate and bring greater publicity to the service. In addition, some BRT vehicles are equipped with Wi-Fi to further differentiate service. The VTA’s Valley Rapid plans to make all BRT vehicles Wi-Fi capable.
22
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review October 2013
3.3 VARIANTS OF BRT
This section discusses the two main variants of BRT and how other organizations/entities have tried to distinguish between different BRT systems.
3.3.1 THE TWO FAMILIES OF BRT
Many variants of BRT operate in North America and throughout the world – each agency and entity has its own perspective on what constitutes BRT service in the local context. There is general industry consensus, however, that BRT can be delineated into two families based on the level of attributes and investment in each system: Rapid and Full BRT – as shown in Table 3-3.
TABLE 3-3: THE TWO FAMILIES OF BRT
Type of BRT Typical Attributes Examples
These systems typically operate in mixed flow lanes, often AC Transit 1R & Line 72R with some degree of signal priority, and likely branded Los Angeles Metro Rapid Rapid service and vehicles. Rapid systems, also sometimes known LAVTA Rapid as “BRT Lite” have minimal capital investment. VTA Rapid 522
These systems typically have a much higher degree of Cleveland HealthLine priority and enhancements than Rapid services. These Eugene EmX systems operate vehicles in dedicated transit lanes (or Los Angeles Metro Orange Full BRT segments of) that allow vehicles to operate faster and more Line reliably. Significant capital investments are made to upgrade VTA Valley Rapid (Future) corridor right-of-way and stations, to make the riding SFMTA Van Ness BRT experience more “rail-like”. (Future)
23
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review October 2013
3.3.2 FORMAL DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN RAPID AND FULL BRT SERVICES
Several transit agencies and entities have attempted to For the remainder of this review and study, formally differentiate between the two tiers of enhanced the following terms will be used: service (Rapid vs. Full BRT) to better define service expectations to the public and to stakeholders. Rapid will connote systems that operate in mixed flow lanes with some degree of The following sections present how different agencies signal priority and minimal capital and entities differentiate between Rapid and Full BRT investment. services. It is notable that while there are slight nuances in how the entities define Rapid and Full BRT services – BRT will connote more capital intensive all similarly conclude that (as described in Table 3-3): systems with dedicated transit lanes, robust and enhanced stations, and more Rapid connotes systems that operate in mixed rail-like amenities. flow lanes with some degree of signal priority and minimal capital investment.
Full BRT connotes more capital intensive systems with dedicated transit lanes, robust and enhanced stations, and more rail-like amenities.
3.3.2.1 CalTrans BRT Handbook for Partners
In February 2007, CalTrans published its Bus Rapid Transit – A Handbook for Partners. This handbook was meant to inform Caltrans staff and other stakeholders about what elements comprise a BRT system. Table 3-4Table 3-4 presents the various stages of BRT implementation leading to Full BRT operations. The “Initial BRT Stage” represents Rapid type services which operate in mixed flow traffic lanes with some form of transit priority. BRT requires greater investment but is typically more effective through allocation or implementation of dedicated bus lanes and transit running ways to provide separation from mixed flow vehicles.
24
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review October 2013
TABLE 3-4: CALTRANS INCREMENTAL BRT DEVELOPMENT STAGES
Source: Caltrans Bus Rapid Transit – A Handbook for Partners, California Department of Transportation, February 2007.
25
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review October 2013
3.3.2.2 VTA Service Design Guidelines
The VTA Service Design Guidelines (included within its 2007 Transit Sustainability Policy) define the typical attributes and minimum performance thresholds of Rapid service versus Full BRT as presented Table 3-5 which was adapted from various tables in the Guidelines.7
Similar to the Caltrans working definition of BRT, VTA defines Rapid and Full BRT services as follows (this definition is from the BRT Strategic Plan’s State of the Industry Review):
Rapid (known as BRT 1 in the Service Design Guidelines) - A premium level of service, with higher operating speeds, greater reliability, and fewer stops than local bus service. Buses and stations are brand identified, typically with standard amenities, such as shelters, benches, and real-time passenger information. BRT 1 primarily operates in mixed flow traffic lanes. Time- savings is generated from reducing the number of stops served and from transit priority elements such as signal priority, queue jump lanes, or bulbouts.
Full BRT (known as BRT 2 in the Service Design Guidelines) - An enhanced service with dedicated running ways (or transitways), both on- and off-street, as well as high-capacity stations with enhanced amenities on par with those for light or heavy rail, and possibly passing lanes at stations to allow different types of routes and bypass flexibility. On-street facilities may be in the center median or at the curbside. Travel time savings accrue and reliability increases since BRT vehicles are not subject to mixed traffic delays. Capital costs for Full BRT are significantly higher than for Rapid systems.
7 It is noted that in the Guidelines, the official moniker of Rapid service is BRT 1, while BRT service is known as BRT 2. VTA’s various BRT corridors, however, are not known to the public as BRT 2.
26
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review October 2013
TABLE 3-5: VTA BRT SERVICE DESIGN GUIDELINES
Type of Service
Typical Attributes Rapid Full BRT
All-Day, Frequent Service X X
Limited Stops X X
Simplified Routing X X
Service Elements Specialized Vehicles X X
More Robust Stops X
Rail-Like Stations X
Off Vehicle Fare Payment X
Operates in Mixed-flow Lanes X
Operates in Peak Period Lanes X Runningway Operates in Dedicated Bus Lanes X
Operates in Dedicated Transitway X
Transit (Bus) Signal Priority X X Transit Priority Queue Jump Lanes X X Elements Bulbouts (Curb Extensions) X X
Avg. Boardings per Revenue Hour 45 55
Avg. Boardings per Station 150 350 Service Design Guideline (SDG) Avg. Boardings per Route Mile 200 350-475 Standards Residential Corridor Density (Minimum 12-16 12-16 Dwelling Units / Acre)
Higher Investment Costs X Other Attributes Brand Identity X X
Source: VTA BRT Service Design Guidelines, 2007.
27
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review October 2013
3.3.2.3 LA Metro’s Transit Service Policy
LA Metro published its Transit Service Policy in 2011. This Policy outlines the different tiers of service Metro provides. It specifically differentiates between its Rapid (called Metro Rapid) and its BRT (called Metro Liner) services as follows:
Metro Rapid (Rapid) – The Policy defines Metro Rapid service as “expedited arterial bus service operating on heavily traveled corridors. Time reductions are achieved through the use of fewer bus stops, transit signal priority, and peak period bus lanes. Metro Rapid buses use specially branded buses and enhanced bus stops at selected locations that include special shelters, information kiosks, and “Next Trip” displays.” Well known Metro Rapid routes include the Wilshire-Whittier Rapid and the Ventura Rapid.
Metro Liner (Full BRT) – The Policy defines Metro Liner service as “expedited BRT service operated on its own exclusive right-of-way on either arterials or freeways with dedicated transit stations.” Metro Liner service incorporates a series of design feastures including dedicated bus lanes, high-capacity vehicles, transit signal priority, enhanced bus stations and shelters, enhanced streetscapes, and improved fare collection with TVMs at select stations.” The Metro Orange and Silver Lines are examples of such services.
28
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review October 2013
4.0 BRT WITHIN THE SAMTRANS CONTEXT
This section discusses how BRT should be categorized and classified in the SamTrans context. It also lays out the attributes for different types of BRT based on Section 3.0 findings.
4.1 FOCUS OF THIS BRT PHASING PLAN
In the context of this El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan, the goal of this study is to first develop a short- and long-term BRT strategy. At present, SamTrans does not operate Rapid or BRT service on the El Camino Corridor. The 2006 El Camino Real Bus Corridor Origin and Destination Survey recommended the implementation of a Rapid service to “prime the pump” for an anticipated Full BRT service, as current densities are insufficient to support Full BRT. However, housing and employment densities are anticipated to meet Full BRT thresholds (20 units per acre and 1.0 floor area ratio, respectively) in some places along the Corridor by 2035. If looking at residential and job density together, the Corridor is likely to support Full BRT in the future.8 As such, it seems logical to conclude that for this analysis and development of this Phasing Plan:
The short-term operating plan and phasing For this Phasing Plan: plan should focus on Rapid bus service, which include lower cost enhancements such as wider stop spacing and possible transit signal priority, The short-term operating plan and as corridor conditions are not suitable for phasing plan should focus on Rapid bus significant Full BRT investment (i.e., ridership, service. densities, etc.). The long-term operating plan and The long-term operating plan and phasing phasing plan should focus on more plan should focus on more capitally intensive Full BRT services, possibly with dedicated capitally intensive Full BRT services. transit lane segments and/or rail-like amenities.
8 Grand Boulevard Multimodal Transportation Corridor Plan, The Grand Boulevard Initiative, October 2010.
29
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review October 2013
4.2 PROPOSED DELINEATION BETWEEN RAPID AND FULL BRT SERVICES FOR SAMTRANS
Based on other counterpart entities in Section 3.3, Table 4-1 presents the potential attributes for Rapid and Full BRT service tiers for the SamTrans and El Camino Real context.
TABLE 4-1: ATTRIBUTES FOR SAMTRANS RAPID VS. FULL BRT
Typical BRT Attribute Specific Strategy/Strategies Rapid Full BRT
Frequent All-Day Service Frequent bi-directional service X X
Longer stop spacing X X
Operational measures
o Turn prohibitions / exemptions X X
o Low-floor vehicles X X
o Level boarding facilities X
o All-door boarding/alighting X
o Off-board fare payment X
o Transportation system management enhancements X X Fast and Reliable Service Transit priority measures
o Transit Signal Priority (TSP) X X
o Bulbouts X X
o Queue jump lanes X X
o Dedicated transit lanes
. Reserved lanes X
. At-grade busway X
. Grade-separated busway X
Enhanced Passenger More substantial stations X Amenities Real-time information X X
Distinctive Branded Branded and specially marketed service X X Service Specialized vehicles X X
30
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review October 2013
5.0 CASE STUDIES
This section presents four case studies, which were selected due to their perceived applicability to SamTrans and the El Camino Corridor. Acknowledging that current and short-term corridor conditions would be more supportive of Rapid services rather than Full BRT, this case study review focuses on Rapid type systems which are most applicable to the corridor in the short-term. Three Rapid systems are presented. One BRT case study is also reviewed though to highlight the long-term possibilities in the Corridor if ridership grows and transit-supportive development and densities arise.
The four case studies are as follows in the table below:
TABLE 5-1: LIST OF FOUR CASE STUDY SYSTEMS
Type of Service Name of Service Region Operator
Rapid Metro Rapid Los Angeles, CA (USA) LA Metro
Rapid Rapid Oakland, CA (USA) AC Transit
Rapid Rapid 522 * Santa Clara County, CA (USA) VTA
Full BRT EmX Eugene, OR (USA) LTD
* Limited performance data is available for this case study. The others have been analyzed by the FTA or the local agency.
Each case study is described in four sections:
Description of the System – This section describes the transit operator and service network, as well as the BRT services offered by the operator (including length and coverage).
Key Attributes – This section describes the BRT corridor in terms of infrastructure elements such as dedicated bus lanes, queue jump lanes, and vehicles are detailed. Capital costs and O&M costs (if available) are also detailed. In addition, operating characteristics such as the span of service, frequency of service, as well as any transit priority and Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) applications that improve operating performance and the passenger experience are noted.
Performance and Benefits – This section highlights key operating performance metrics such as travel time savings and ridership as available.
Applicability to SamTrans – This section highlights the key lessons learned from each case study, particularly, how such lessons may be applicable to the SamTrans case.
As a reference, Appendix A presents a table depicting the expected travel time savings from implementation of various transit priority measures for the on-going San Francisco MTA’s Transit
31
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review October 2013
Effectiveness Project or TEP. Anticipated TEP time savings benefits are quantified discretely from other measures such as longer stop spacing, stop relocation, etc.
5.1 CASE STUDY 1: METRO RAPID – LOS ANGELES, CA
5.1.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE SYSTEM
In the summer of 2000, LA Metro initiated two mixed-traffic Rapid demonstration lines in major east-west corridors. Called Metro Rapid, the first two lines were along: (i) Wilshire and Whittier boulevards in central Los Angeles, a 25.7-mile route; and (ii) Ventura Boulevard in the San Fernando Valley, a 16.7-mile route.
Currently, 24 Metro Rapid lines serve Los Source: LA Metro, 2013. Angeles County, spanning nearly 400 miles – an outgrowth of the success of these two initial demonstration projects. Although Metro Rapid operates in mixed flow travel lanes, Metro Rapid benefits from TSP (allowing for green extension or red truncation), low-floor buses allowing for level boarding, and longer stop spacing. Metro Rapid vehicles are detected by Automatic Vehicle Location sensors that allow real-time monitoring and dispatch of vehicles, as well as provision of real-time vehicle arrival information.
LA Metro also operates a premium BRT service known as Metro Liner, which operates in extensive dedicated transit lanes with limited at-grade interaction with mixed flow traffic. Two Metro Liner routes exists in Los Angeles: (i) the Source: flickr.com Orange Line which is an outgrowth of the initial Ventura Metro Rapid line, which operates in an abandoned rail
32
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review October 2013
right-of-way in the San Fernando Valley connecting to the northern terminus of the Red Line (a rail rapid transit line that serves Downtown Los Angeles); and (ii) the Silver Line, which operates in dedicated median lanes of the El Monte Busway and Harbor Transitway.
The focus of this case study review is on Metro Rapid services, which are most applicable to the current and short-range SamTrans context.
5.1.2 KEY ATTRIBUTES9
Key operating and infrastructure attributes for Metro Rapid are as follows below. Due to the size of the current system, information cited below is generalized for the Metro Rapid service as a whole rather than a single route. Where applicable, information for a single route will be presented and noted specifically.
TABLE 5-2: LA METRO RAPID ATTRIBUTES (SYSTEM-WIDE)
Key Attributes Description
Weekday (Peak): 3-10 minutes (typical) Headway Weekday (Off-Peak): 15-20 minutes (typical) Weekend: Reduced compared to weekday Frequent All- Day Service Weekday: 5:00AM-9:00PM (typical) Span of Service Weekend: Reduced span of service compared to weekday
Bi-Directional Service Yes
Average Stop Spacing ~0.75 miles apart
Low-floor vehicles help riders to load and unload quickly. Operational Measures Metro Rapid stops are at the far-side, while local bus stops are at the near-side.
TSP is implemented at over 1,000 intersections in the City and was Fast and collaboratively developed by the Los Angeles Department of Reliable Transportation and Metro for use in the City of Los Angeles. Services Transit Signal Priority Priority is conditional – only buses that are 50% or more behind schedule are granted priority. Rapid vehicles receive priority through early green or green extension (up to 10 seconds in both cases).
None – Metro Rapid services operate in mixed flow traffic along the Dedicated Transit Lanes entirety of their routes. Metro Liner routes operate in dedicated transit lanes.
9 Much of this information is from the LA Metro website (http://www.metro.net/projects/rapid/) as well as the Wilshire and Venture Metro Rapid: Final Report, Los Angeles Metro Rapid Demonstration Program, LA Metro, 2002.
33
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review October 2013
TABLE 5-2: LA METRO RAPID ATTRIBUTES (SYSTEM-WIDE)
Key Attributes Description
More Substantial Metro Rapid stations have enhanced passenger amenities including Enhanced Stations transit information, lighting, and canopies. Passenger Amenities Real-Time Information Most stations have “Next Bus” displays.
Specially Branded Metro Rapid is a separate branded service different from local buses Service with distinctive red and silver colors. Branding and Marketing Some routes use stylized, 60’ articulated vehicles, clearly Specialized distinguishable from more “boxy” local bus routes. Infrastructure Metro Rapid stations are typically separated from local bus stops.
Wilshire Metro Rapid: $5.0 million (2000) or $200,000 / mile (roughly Capital Costs (YOE) split between stations and TSP) Ventura Metro Rapid: $3.3 million (2000) or $180,000 / mile Costs Wilshire & Ventura Metro Rapid Lines: $12.7 million annually (2000) or O&M Costs (YOE) $300,000 / mile
5.1.3 PERFORMANCE AND BENEFITS10
Key Metro Rapid performance highlights and system benefits are detailed below. Much of these results are from the initial Wilshire and Ventura demonstration projects.
TABLE 5-3: LA METRO RAPID PERFORMANCE AND SYSTEM BENEFITS
Component Description of Performance / Benefits
Wilshire Metro Rapid: Average end-to-end travel time was reduced by approximately 28%, with three-quarters of this reduction from wider stop spacing and level boarding, and the rest due to TSP. Ventura Metro Rapid: Average end-to-end travel time was reduced by 23%, with Travel Time Savings three-quarters of this reduction from wider stop spacing and level boarding, and the rest due to TSP. Broadway Metro Rapid: Average travel time was reduced by 35%. Vermont Metro Rapid: Average travel time was reduced by 40%.
10 Sources: (i) Wilshire and Venture Metro Rapid: Final Report, Los Angeles Metro Rapid Demonstration Program, LA Metro, 2002; (ii) Broadway and Vermont Metro Rapids (LA Metro – www.metro.net), 2012; and (iii) Metro Rapid TSP and ATSAC: (US Department of Transportation, Intelligent Transportation Systems Joint Program Home - http://www.itsbenefits.its.dot.gov), 2012.
34
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review October 2013
TABLE 5-3: LA METRO RAPID PERFORMANCE AND SYSTEM BENEFITS
Component Description of Performance / Benefits
Wilshire Metro Rapid: TSP reduced traffic signal delay by 33%. Ventura Metro Rapid: TSP reduced traffic signal delay by 36%. In general, Metro Rapid TSP reduced: (i) bus travel time variability by 35%; (ii) AM Improved Reliability and peak intersection bus delay by 13%; and (iii) the number of times a bus stops at a On-Time Performance red light by 50%. TSP parameters (for instance granting less than 7 to 10 seconds of green per call), can reduce bus delays and also have negligible impacts on cross-street traffic.
Improved Rider Experience Metro Rapid ratings were higher for all attributes compared to the prior service. (for Wilshire/Ventura Metro The largest improvements in ratings were in cleanliness, travel time on the bus, Rapid only) and bus frequency.
Wilshire Metro Rapid: Corridor ridership increased by 42%, while the share of new riders grew by 33%. Ventura Metro Rapid: Corridor ridership increased by 27%, while the share of new riders grew by 26%. Increased Ridership Wilshire/Ventura Metro Rapid: 14% of Metro Rapid riders began using transit service after Metro Rapid services were established. Broadway Metro Rapid: Corridor ridership increased by 17%. Vermont Metro Rapid: Corridor ridership increased by 4%.
5.1.4 APPLICABILITY TO SAMTRANS
Key lessons learned from the Metro Rapid context include:
Combined, Low-Floor Vehicles and Longer Stop Spacing Reduces Travel Times – The Metro Rapid results estimate that nearly 75% of travel time savings is from both reducing stops and operating low-floor vehicles. This result suggests that combinations of attributes are most effective at achieving desired travel time savings and reliability.
Specific TSP Operating Parameters Can Optimize Performance – LA Metro operates conditional priority for its TSP system – thus only late buses are granted priority. Furthermore, a TCRP study found that modest early green or green extension (e.g., less than 7 to 10 seconds per cycle) can reduce bus delays with negligible impacts on cross-street traffic. For the SamTrans context, it may be worthwhile to consider implementing conditional priority to reduce impacts on cross traffic.
TSP May Be More Useful to Maintain Reliability Rather than Reduce Travel Time - The Metro Rapid results estimate that only about 25% of travel time savings is directly attributable to TSP. At the same time however, TSP significantly reduced the number of times buses stopped at
35
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review October 2013
intersections and the amount of time they were stopped – both factors that determine how reliable and on-time service is.
An Extensive TSP Network Has Facilitated Metro Rapid Operations – TSP is implemented on over 1,000 streets in Downtown Los Angeles to facilitate transit movements. Long, continuous stretches of TSP maximizes the benefit of priority, especially if signals are coordinated throughout the corridor.
Separate Metro Rapid and Local Bus Stops Differentiate the Brand – Metro Rapid stops are not only designed differently than those for local bus stops, they are placed at different locations. Metro Rapid stops are located at the far-side of intersections, while local stops are at the near- side. While there is a capital cost associated with separating these facilities, this approach can help differentiate services in the minds of the public and accentuate the premium nature of Rapid or BRT services.
5.2 CASE STUDY 2: AC TRANSIT RAPID – OAKLAND, CA
5.2.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE SYSTEM
In 2003, AC Transit initiated Rapid service along San Pablo Avenue (Line 72R also known as the San Pablo Rapid). Rapid service operates in mixed flow travel lanes. Rapid service operates with increased frequency, reduced travel time by reducing stops and implementing TSP, and real- time arrivals information at select locations.
The weekday-only 72R operates for 14.0 miles from Contra Costa College in San Pablo to Downtown Oakland and Jack London Square. The 72R replaced the 72L, which provided limited stop service. Two local routes (72 Source: showbus.com and 73) were maintained in the corridor.
In 2007, a second Rapid line, Line 1R (also known as the International Rapid), was started along Telegraph Avenue, International Boulevard and East 14th Street from UC Berkeley to Bay Fair BART Station. The International Rapid line is 18 miles long and serves Berkeley, Oakland, and San Leandro. Weekend service is from Oakland and San Leandro only.
36
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review October 2013
AC Transit’s first full-fledged BRT service will commence in 2016 between Downtown Oakland and San Leandro, essentially replacing the southern portion of the 1R’s route, operating in dedicated transit lane segments with enhanced median stations and other rail-like amenities such as TVMs.
5.2.2 KEY ATTRIBUTES
Key operating and infrastructure attributes for the AC Transit Rapid are as follows:
TABLE 5-4: AC TRANSIT RAPID ATTRIBUTES
Key Attributes Description
Weekday: 12 minutes all-day (1R/72R) Headway Weekend: 15 minutes all-day (1R) Frequent All- Weekday: 5:30AM-8:30PM (1R) / 6:00AM-8:00PM (72R) Day Service Span of Service Weekend: 8:30AM-7:00PM (1R)
Bi-Directional Service Yes
Average Stop Spacing ~0.50 miles (26 stops over 14 miles for 72R only)
Low-floor vehicles with three to four doors help riders to load and Operational Measures unload quickly.
Signal coordination and TSP was implemented for the Rapid. TSP is conditional meaning only late vehicles are provided priority. Transit Signal Priority Rapid vehicles receive priority through early green or green extension. All 63 intersections for the 72R are TSP enabled, yet only the Rapid Fast and bus can trigger the system. Reliable Services Two short queue jump lanes were installed on San Pablo Avenue for Other Measures the 72R. (Bulbouts & Queue No queue jump lanes were installed for the 1R due to insufficient Jump Lanes) street width.
None – Rapid services operate in mixed flow traffic along the entirety of their routes. Dedicated Transit Lanes Dedicated transit lanes will be built for the new BRT project opening in 2016 on International Blvd.
More Substantial Enhanced Stops are not enhanced. Rapid stops also function as local bus stops. Stations Passenger Amenities Real-Time Information Select stations are equipped with NextBus real-time arrival screens.
Bus shelters and distinctive signs with the Rapid logo are located at Branding and Specially Branded most of the 51 stops, which are also used by local buses. Marketing Service Buses also have the Rapid logo.
37
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review October 2013
TABLE 5-4: AC TRANSIT RAPID ATTRIBUTES
Key Attributes Description
No specialized buses or stops were implemented as part of the Rapid Specialized program. Vehicles used for Rapid service are also used for local Infrastructure service.
72R: $3.2 million (2003$), which did not include the vehicle cost, while some capital costs were split between TSP and on-street Capital Costs (YOE) improvements. Costs Cost per mile: $230,000 / mile (excluding vehicles)
O&M Costs (YOE) Data unavailable
5.2.3 PERFORMANCE AND BENEFITS11
Key AC Transit Rapid performance highlights and system benefits are detailed below. Note – only performance of the initial 14.0-mile 72R service is described below.
TABLE 5-5: AC TRANSIT RAPID PERFORMANCE AND SYSTEM BENEFITS (72R ONLY)
Component Description of Performance / Benefits
Average end-to-end travel time was reduced by approximately 12 minutes, equating to a 21% reduction compared to local service and 17% reduction compared to the old 72L. This meets the goal of a 20% reduction in travel time set Travel Time Savings by AC Transit. It was estimated that about a third of travel time savings was from reducing stops, a third was from signal progression improvements (or signal coordination), a sixth from TSP, and a sixth from moving stops to the far-side.
72R reliability is still impacted by heavy congestion. Improved Reliability and Service reliability has been maintained by providing additional vehicles in the On-Time Performance afternoon.
11 Source: The San Pablo Rapid BRT Project Evaluation, Final Report – June 2006, Federal Transit Administration, 2006.
38
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review October 2013
TABLE 5-5: AC TRANSIT RAPID PERFORMANCE AND SYSTEM BENEFITS (72R ONLY)
Component Description of Performance / Benefits
72R service received an average rider rating of 4.2, which is higher than the 3.7 for other services. 80% of users perceived the 72R as faster than the previous service, with Improved Rider Experience almost half of respondents indicated the service was at least 15 minutes faster. 90% of customers stated that the “ease of Bus identification” was “good” or “very good”
72R ridership grew by 22% in the year after implementation System-wide ridership grew by about 4.5% from 2003-04 during which 72R began operations. Increased Ridership One survey of Rapid Bus users found that 40-50% of those using the line were new riders, with 19% having previously driven to their destination and 10-15% previously rode BART.
5.2.4 APPLICABILITY TO SAMTRANS
Key lessons learned from the AC Transit context include:
Targeted Investment Can Increase Ridership and Choice Rider Capture – Average capital cost per mile for Rapid service is very low compared to other similar BRT systems. The majority of the costs were for TSP and other on-street improvements. However, the Rapid met its goal of 20% travel time savings over the replaced limited service, while capturing choice riders. Thus, even small targeted investments can be effective at meeting goals.
Traffic Signal Coordination May Be Just As Important as TSP – It was estimated that a third of travel time savings came from better traffic signal coordination, while a sixth of the savings came from TSP. This means that while TSP shows promise, better coordination of signals can have significant benefits as well. Since Rapid operates solely in mixed flow lanes, this lesson may be especially applicable to SamTrans.
72R Implements TSP at All Intersections – TSP is implemented on all Line 72R intersections. Long, continuous stretches of TSP maximizes the benefit of priority, especially if signals are coordinated throughout the corridor.
Sharing of Vehicles and Stops Can Dilute the Brand – Although Rapid services are distinct and have a distinct logo (as 90% of customers noted identification of the system was “good” or “very good”, Rapid vehicles and stations are essentially indistinguishable from local service. Rapid vehicles look no different than local buses, in fact some Rapid vehicles are used on local service.
39
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review October 2013
Bus stops have Rapid signs, but these stops are used by both Rapid and local services. This “blending” of the two services may cause rider confusion, as well as the loss of premium brand recognition. This issue, at least for AC Transit, will be solved when the new BRT system opens with dedicated stations and new vehicles.
5.3 CASE STUDY 3: RAPID 522 – SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CA
5.3.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE SYSTEM
The VTA initiated Rapid 522 service in mid-2005, as its first foray into enhanced bus service. The Rapid 522 replaced the Limited Stop 300 and operates on a 26.0-mile route from the Palo Alto Transit Center in Palo Alto to the Eastridge Mall in East San Jose on El Camino Real, the Alameda, Alum Rock Avenue, and Capitol Expressway. The Local 22 provides local coverage along the route.
Rapid 522 operates frequent all-day service at 15-minute Source: VTA headways, with longer stop spacing than the Local 22 (operating at 12-minute headways), all low-floor vehicles, and TSP as well as two queue jump lanes. The Rapid 522 is specially branded and marketed, with buses having a unique red and blue wrap.
Rapid 522 is the first step towards developing a full- fledged BRT system in Santa Clara County. The planned Valley Rapid will include three BRT corridors – the El Camino, Alum Rock, and Stevens Creek.
Valley Rapid will operate in median bus lanes (and mixed flow lanes in some areas) with rail-like stations and vehicles. Ultimately, Valley Rapid will operate at 10-minute headways, with a local overlay Source: VTA at 15 minutes.
40
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review October 2013
The focus of this case study review is on the VTA Rapid 522, which is most applicable to the SamTrans context.
5.3.2 KEY ATTRIBUTES12
Key operating and infrastructure attributes for the Rapid 522 are as follows below.
TABLE 5-6: VTA RAPID 522 ATTRIBUTES
Key Attributes Description
Weekday: 15 minutes all-day; 20-25 minutes in the early morning and late night Headway Weekend: 15 minutes all-day; 20 minutes in the early morning and Frequent All- late night Day Service Weekday: 4:45AM-9:00PM Span of Service Saturday: 7:30AM-8:30PM
Bi-Directional Service Yes
Average Stop Spacing 0.5-1.0 mile (compared to 0.25 miles for local buses)
Low-floor vehicles help riders to load and unload quickly. Rapid 522 stops are typically at the far-side of the intersection. Operational Measures Queue jump lanes exist along El Camino Real at the Page Mill and Arastradero intersections in Palo Alto. (Note – in the BRT attributes section, these are referred to as exemptions)
Rapid 522 vehicles receive priority through early green or green extension. No other routes receive priority. Fast and Unconditional priority is granted, thus early or late vehicles still Reliable receive TSP. Services Transit Signal Priority Railroad preemption takes precedent over any TSP call by the Rapid 522 Consecutive TSP calls at a single location are not allowed. TSP is installed in continuous stretches along the entire 26.0-mile corridor except on the southern end on the Capitol Expressway.
None – Rapid 522 operate in mixed flow traffic along the entirety of the routes. Dedicated Transit Lanes Valley Rapid services will operate in mixed flow traffic as well as segments of dedicated median transit lanes.
Enhanced More Substantial Metro Rapid stations have enhanced passenger amenities including Passenger Stations transit information, lighting, and canopies.
12 Much of this information is from the VTA website (http://www.vta.org/projects/line22brt.html).
41
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review October 2013
TABLE 5-6: VTA RAPID 522 ATTRIBUTES
Key Attributes Description
Amenities Real-Time Information Most stations have “Next Bus” displays.
Rapid 522 is a distinctive branded service. Vehicles have a special wrap, and stations have branded Rapid signs Specially Branded attached to the bus poles. Service Branding and Branding was a significant piece of the BRT Strategic Plan and Marketing development the future Valley Rapid.
Specialized Rapid 522 has no specialized infrastructure. Conventional buses are Infrastructure used, but wrapped with the unique branding.
Capital cost: $3.5 million (includes $1.6 million for queue jump lanes Capital Costs (YOE) and TSP implementation) Costs Cost per mile: $140,000 / mile
O&M Costs (YOE) Not available
5.3.3 PERFORMANCE AND BENEFITS13
Key Rapid 522 performance highlights are detailed below (if available).
TABLE 5-7: VTA RAPID 522 PERFORMANCE AND SYSTEM BENEFITS
Component Description of Performance / Benefits
Travel Time Savings VTA expected Rapid 522 to generate travel time savings on the order of 10-25%
Improved Reliability and No information available. On-Time Performance
Improved Rider Experience No information available.
In September 2007, the Rapid 522 served 8,300 daily riders, its highest total since being started in 2005. Increased Ridership In September 2007, the combined Local 22 / Rapid 522 handled over 27,000 daily riders, representing significant growth over the “pre-Rapid” corridor ridership of about 20,000 daily riders.
13 Sources: (i) VTA BRT Strategic Plan, VTA, 2009; and (ii) http://www.vta.org/projects/line22brt.html.
42
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review October 2013
5.3.4 APPLICABILITY TO SAMTRANS
Key lessons learned from the Rapid 522 include:
VTA Implements TSP on Long Continuous Stretches – As noted, Rapid 522 enjoys transit signal priority for most of its route, except at the very end on its 26.0-mile route. Continuous stretches of TSP maximizes the benefit of priority, especially if signals are coordinated throughout the corridor. This is particularly instructive for SamTrans, as the Rapid 522 operates through multiple jurisdictions (including that of Caltrans).
Rapid 522 and Local Service Perform Effectively Together – The Rapid 522 provides skipped stop service along the corridor, while the local service provides continuity and mobility to areas not served by the Rapid 522. This combination has been effective at increasing ridership as seen in the 2007 corridor transit travel volumes. Interestingly, the Rapid 522 operates at 15-minute headways, while the Local 22 operates at 12-minute headways.
Conditional TSP Could Improve Performance – VTA currently grants unconditional priority to the Rapid 522, regardless of whether a vehicle is early or late. In the SamTrans context, it may be worth exploring how conditional or unconditional priority would impact Rapid service as well as cross-traffic. In addition, it would be instructive to discuss with VTA how Caltrain pre-emption and TSP calls are handled for cross streets along El Camino, particularly in Palo Alto, which has similarly configured grade-crossings as in San Mateo County.
Marketing Was a Key Focus of VTA’s BRT Development Effort – An initial marketing effort was undertaken to develop the Rapid 522 brand and logo. During the planning for VTA’s BRT system, significant focus in the BRT Strategic Plan was placed on branding, focus groups, and outreach to develop a new logo, scheme, and name for BRT. Eventually this effort led to the Valley Rapid name. Branding again here is key to differentiate service and elevate a premium tier of service, this time from Rapid service to BRT service.
43
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review October 2013
5.4 CASE STUDY 4: EMX – EUGENE, OR
5.4.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE SYSTEM
Eugene’s LTD initiated BRT service, called Emerald Express or EmX, on its Franklin Corridor in January 2007. It replaced the western portion of the popular 11- Thurston line, which now terminates at Springfield Station.
EmX represents one of the first full-BRT systems to operate in the United States, running in dedicated median lanes physically separated from adjacent mixed flow lanes with a high level of transit priority. EmX operates with 63’ articulated vehicles.
The initial Franklin Corridor is a 4.0-mile corridor connecting downtown Eugene and downtown Springfield, the two principal Source: Wildish Land Co. hubs in LTD’s network. A 7.8-mile extension north to the Gateway Mall and Sacred Heart Medical Center was opened in January 2011. An extension to West Eugene from the current Eugene Station is in the planning phases.
5.4.2 KEY ATTRIBUTES
Key operating and infrastructure attributes for the EmX are as follows:
TABLE 5-8: EMX ATTRIBUTES
Key Attributes Description
Weekday: 10 minutes all-day; 15-30 minutes in early morning / late evening Headway Saturday: 15 minutes all-day Sunday: 30 minutes all-day Frequent All- Day Service Weekday: 5:30AM-11:30PM Span of Service Saturday: 6:45AM-11:30PM Sunday: 7:45AM-8:30PM
Bi-Directional Service Yes
44
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review October 2013
TABLE 5-8: EMX ATTRIBUTES
Key Attributes Description
Average Stop Spacing ~0.5 miles (23 stops over 12 miles)
Low-floor vehicles and all-door speed entry and exit. Operational Measures Ticket vending machines allow for off-board fare payment. All stops are at the far-side of the intersection.
TSP is unconditional and given regardless of whether or not the vehicle is running on-time or late. Transit Signal Priority EmX vehicles receive priority through early green or green extension. 16 of 45 intersections along the Franklin Corridor are TSP enabled. Fast and Other Measures Reliable Queue jump and bulbouts are employed at several signalized (Bulbouts & Queue Services intersections. Jump Lanes)
EmX operates in both mixed flow lanes and exclusive lanes. For the 4.0-mile Franklin Corridor, EmX operates in exclusive lanes for 65% of the journey. Half of the exclusive lanes are delineated by painted lanes and are located in both the median or alongside one Dedicated Transit Lanes side of the street. The remainder of exclusive lanes is located in the median and is physically separated from adjacent traffic by low curbs. Most exclusive segments have one lane only and allow for reversible, bi-directional operations.
More Substantial Stations are stylized with enhanced passenger amenities and appear Enhanced Stations similar to LRT stations. Passenger Amenities Real-Time Information Real-time displays added in 2012 to all EmX stations.
Specially Branded The EmX is a specially branded service that stands apart from other Service LTD services. It has a unique logo and green color scheme. Branding and Marketing Vehicles are 63’ low-floor articulated hybrid-electric New Flyer units Specialized with a streamlined design and special color scheme. Infrastructure Each vehicle holds 39 passengers and allows for dual-side boarding.
Franklin Corridor: $25 million (2007), including $12 million to build, $6 million to design, and $6 million for six vehicles Capital Costs (YOE) Cost per mile: $6.3 million / mile (including vehicles); $4.5 million / Costs mile (without vehicles)
O&M Costs (YOE) Data unavailable
45
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review October 2013
5.4.3 PERFORMANCE AND BENEFITS14
Key EmX performance highlights and system benefits are detailed below. Note – only performance of the initial 4.0-mile Franklin EmX service is described below.
TABLE 5-9: EMX PERFORMANCE AND SYSTEM BENEFITS (FRANKLIN CORRIDOR ONLY)
Component Description of Performance / Benefits
Average end-to-end travel time was reduced by approximately 1.0 minutes compared to the original Route 11 operating on the corridor. Travel Time Savings This equates to a 4% reduction in travel time compared to the local service. Travel time decreased due to reductions in signal delay (28%), dwell time (10%), and time in transit (18%).
Improved Reliability and Service reliability and schedule adherence improved over Route 11. On-Time Performance Variability of travel times was reduced.
80% of users perceived the EmX as faster than the previous service, with almost half of respondents indicating the service was at least 15 minutes faster. Improved Rider Experience Customers rated reliability as “good”, compared to “fair” for Route 11. 85% of customers stated that the “ease of Bus identification” was “good” or “very good”
Since operations started, EmX has continually increased ridership (with ridership increasing from 4,000 riders in February 2007 to 5,400 in April 2008). Increased Ridership LTD system ridership also increased commensurate with the opening of EmX. 16% of EmX users previously drove.
One negative was that eight accidents were recorded in the first year of operation, Other with all accidents being the fault of the other party involved.
5.4.4 APPLICABILITY TO SAMTRANS
Although EmX, with its rail-like amenities and dedicated transit lanes, represents one long-term vision for BRT on the El Camino Corridor, several key lessons are applicable to SamTrans and the El Camino Corridor:
Perceived Travel Time May Be More Important than Actual Travel Time – EmX service was shown to have improved travel times by 4% - however riders perceived a much greater level of travel time savings, in some cases up to 15 minutes. This implies that the total package of BRT improvements (new vehicles, nicer stations, and dedicated lanes and transit priority) can have a
14 Source: EmX Franklin Corridor – BRT Project Evaluation, Final Report, Federal Transit Administration (FTA), April 2009.
46
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review October 2013
significant psychological impact on riders and serve as a way to attract choice riders (as 13% previously drove).
Selective Implementation of TSP Can Be Effective, But Only in Low Density and Low Activity Corridors - Of the 45 intersections in the Franklin Corridor, only 16 of them were equipped with TSP. One result of the TSP (as well as select queue jump lanes) was a 28% reduction in signal delay (not overall travel time savings). The selective implementation of TSP in Eugene reflects the light traffic volumes and lower density of development in its operating environment – which do not necessitate TSP at every intersection (as done in the other case studies).
Branding Helps People to Recognize the Service and its Transit Benefits - EmX was marketed with branded vehicles with special colors and logos. This scheme was applied to all marketing materials and infrastructure. This helped riders and the community to publically identify and recognize BRT service and its transit benefits.
Implementation of Expensive, But Non-Essential BRT Elements Can Be Postponed – Ticket vending machines and real-time passenger information were expensive, but were non-essential elements that were implemented years later after initial service began. The initial capital focus was on improving travel time and the passenger riding experience with dedicated lanes, TSP, and specialized vehicles instead. Thus, not all the “bells and whistles” of the system need to be introduced from the start, but can be added incrementally as demand grows.
5.5 SUMMARY OF KEY LESSONS LEARNED
From the case studies, several recurring themes are apparent, which are applicable to the future planning of the SamTrans El Camino BRT:
“Packages” of Strategies Are Most Effective at Reducing Travel Time and Improving Reliability - No single strategy “outweighs” the synergistic benefits of packaging optimal strategies together to achieve maximum time savings or reliability. All elements contribute to the effectiveness of BRT – whether it is longer stop spacing, level boarding, or TSP, etc. As noted below though, longer stop spacing (or skip stop service) is most effective at reducing travel times and is typically part of the initial phasing of any BRT system. Other measures complement longer stop spacing to incrementally improve travel time and/or reliability such as TSP and level boarding. The findings from Appendix A for the SFMTA’s TEP show the relative effectiveness of these packages.
Longer Stop Spacing Is Viewed As Most Effective – From the travel time savings breakdowns and anecdotal evidence, reducing stops comprised the largest element in travel time savings. This is also the easiest strategy to implement. There is some question, however, over what is the second most effective strategy – some agencies identify traffic signal coordination, while others
47
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review October 2013
identify level boarding. What is important to take away though is that the combination of these strategies generates the highest benefits.
Significant Benefits Can Still Be Generated with Minimal Capital Investment – Significant benefits can be generated from low-cost strategies such as reducing the number of stops, TSP, and signal coordination. While dedicated lanes and rail-like stations can generate certain benefits, they come with a significant added capital investment that may not be worth the marginal benefit.
Most Agencies Implement TSP on Continuous Stretches to Maximize Benefit – VTA, AC Transit, and LA Metro all implement TSP along most portions of their Rapid systems. EmX provides TSP on only one-third of intersections along the route – however this should be viewed more as an anomaly than the norm, as Eugene is significantly smaller and less dense than the other three cities/regions.
Conditional TSP Should Be Considered – AC Transit and LA Metro provide conditional TSP for their Rapid systems. This prevents early buses that are “running hot” from receiving priority and can help balance headways and prevent bus bunching from an early bus catching up to a late bus.
5.6 NEXT STEPS
The findings from the BRT Industry Review and the El Camino Real Existing Conditions Report establish the groundwork for the development of the conceptual short-term Rapid and long-term Full BRT alternatives. The upcoming activities for this study include:
Developing objectives and evaluation criteria;
Developing Rapid and Full BRT alternatives and then collaborating with SamTrans and other stakeholders to refine these alternatives; and
Selection of up to two alternatives to carry forward for more detailed analysis.
48
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review October 2013
APPENDIX A – TRAVEL TIME SAVINGS BENEFITS FROM TRANSIT PRIORITY ENHANCEMENTS (SFMTA)
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review August 2013
TABLE A-1: ANTICIPATED BENEFITS FROM TEP TRAVEL TIME REDUCTION PROPOSALS ON EIGHT CORRIDORS Additional One-Way Length of One-Way Current Non-TSP TEP TSP Travel Service Management and Operational Service Type Daily Travel Time Enhanced Time Optimization Strategies Proposed Ridership Savings Segment Savings (% Savings) (% Savings) Increase stop spacing to between 2-3 blocks Optimize bus stop location at 15 locations (relocate stops) Add bus bulb at 17 locations Replace all-way STOP-controlled intersections with traffic signals or calming measures at 5 Local 5.6 miles 6.0 min 1.5 min 19,000 9 intersections Fulton Bus (9.0 km) (18%) (5%) Add right-turn lanes at 11 intersections Implement a road diet on a 6 block segment Add peak-period parking restrictions Add pedestrian bulbs or islands at 8 intersections Replace all-way STOP-controlled intersections with traffic signals or calming measures at 5 intersections Optimize bus stop location at 7 intersections (relocate stops) 8X Express 5.0 miles 7.0 min 1.5 min Establish 1.6 km of transit-only lanes 23,000 Bayshore Bus (8.0 km) (18%) (4%) Increase stop spacing from 2 to 2.5 blocks Add turn pockets at up to 8 intersections Add transit bulbs at 7 intersections Elongate transit stops at 6 intersections Create right-turn lane at key intersections Convert side-running transit-only lanes to center-running transit-only lanes in 5 block segment Add transit boarding islands at 6 intersections Create signalized transit queue jumps at 3 locations Increase bus stop spacing from 1 to 2 blocks 14 Local 7.5 miles 10.0 min 4.0 min 24,600 Optimize bus stop location at 6 intersections (relocate stops) Mission Bus (12.1 km) (14%) (6%) Add bus bulbs at 6 intersections Elongate existing transit stops at 2 locations Replace all-way STOP-controlled intersections with traffic signals or calming measures at 2 intersections Restrict turns at 14 intersections Reconfigure roadway Shift route to serve new residential area 22 Local 2.2 miles 6.0 min 1.0 min Create center-running transit-only lanes for several blocks 18,000 Fillmore Bus (3.5 km) (28%) (5%) Create peak-period curb side transit-only lanes through lane conversion and parking removal for several blocks
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review August 2013
TABLE A-1: ANTICIPATED BENEFITS FROM TEP TRAVEL TIME REDUCTION PROPOSALS ON EIGHT CORRIDORS Additional One-Way Length of One-Way Current Non-TSP TEP TSP Travel Service Management and Operational Service Type Daily Travel Time Enhanced Time Optimization Strategies Proposed Ridership Savings Segment Savings (% Savings) (% Savings) Restrict left turns at most locations Add new traffic lights at 4 locations Improve pedestrian environment Remove 14 stops at 7 intersections Optimize 6 stops at 5 intersections (relocate stops) 28 & 28L Local & 3.4 miles 5.5 min 0.5 min Add bus bulbs at 21 locations 19th Limited 17,500 (5.5 km) (26%) (2%) Add pedestrian bulbs at 19 locations Avenue Bus Add 31 right-turn lanes at 19 intersections Remove one left turn lane at one intersection Increase stop spacing from 1 to 2 blocks Optimize bus stop location at 5 intersections (relocate stops) 30 Local 2.2 miles 3.5 min 2.0 min 28,000 Add bus bulbs at 11 locations Stockton Bus (3.5 km) (15%) (9%) Elongate existing bus bulbs at 4 locations (for multiple buses) Add transit-only lanes at three locations Replace all-way STOP-controlled intersections with traffic signals or calming measures at TSP 4 intersections benefits not 4.0 miles 3.0 min Optimize transit locations at 3 intersections (relocate stops) J Church LRT 14,000 calculated (6.4 km) (12%) Create more consistent stop spacing for this Add transit bulbs at 7 intersections route Extend boarding islands at 2 intersections Unclear at Replace all-way STOP-controlled intersections with traffic signals or calming measures at this time if 8 intersections 3.4 miles 10.0 min TSP will be Optimize transit locations at 4 intersections (relocate stops) N Judah LRT 40,000+ (5.5 km) (19%) imple- Increase transit stop spacing from 2-3 blocks to 3-4 blocks mented on Add transit bulbs at 6 intersections this route Extend boarding islands at 13 intersections Source: SFMTA, 2012 (http://www.sfmta.com/cms/mtep/tepover.htm) Note: Other changes such as operational improvements and network enhancements could further improve travel times along the corridor.