Volume 17, No. 3, 2014 Joshua K. Anderson Integrating Livability Principles into Transit Planning: Josh Ellis Screening Chicago Bus Rapid Transit Opportunities Sisinnio Concas The Effect of Density and Trip-Chaining on the Interaction between Joseph S. DeSalvo Urban Form and Transit Demand Sudhir Gota Improving Fuel Efficiency and Reducing Carbon Emissions Parthaa Bosu from Buses in India Sameera Kumar Anthapur Gaurav V. Jain Critical Appraisal of Web-Based Passenger Information Systems S. S. Jain Manoranjan Parida Diem-Trinh Le-Klähn Analysis of Visitor Satisfaction with Public Transport in Munich C. Michael Hall Regine Gerike Michael Litschi Evaluating the Effectiveness of Onboard Video Feedback Systems Peter Haas on Reducing Transit Collisions and Injuries Gregory L. Newmark HOT for Transit? Transit’s Experience of High-Occupancy Toll Lanes Hao Wang Intelligent Taxi Dispatch System for Advance Reservations Ruey Long Cheu Der-Horng Lee Xin Zhang A Transit-Based Evacuation Model for Metropolitan Areas Gang-len Chang N C T R Joel Volinski, Editor Lisa Ravenscroft, Assistant to the Editor EDITORIAL BOARD Robert B. Cervero, Ph.D. William W. Millar University of California, Berkeley American Public Transportation Association Chester E. Colby Steven E. Polzin, Ph.D., P.E. E & J Consulting University of South Florida Gordon Fielding, Ph.D. Lawrence Schulman University of California, Irvine LS Associates Jose A. Gómez-Ibáñez, Ph.D. George Smerk, D.B.A. Harvard University Indiana University Naomi W. Ledé, Ph.D. Vukan R. Vuchic, Ph.D., P.E. Texas Transportation Institute University of Pennsylvania The contents of this document reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the information presented herein. This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation, University Research Institute Program, in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the contents or use thereof. Volume 17, No. 3, 2014 ISSN 1077-291X TheJournal of Public Transportation is published quarterly by National Center for Transit Research Center for Urban Transportation Research University of South Florida • College of Engineering 4202 East Fowler Avenue, CUT100 Tampa, Florida 33620-5375 Phone: (813) 974-3120 Fax: (813) 974-5168 Email: [email protected] Website: www.nctr.usf.edu/journal © 2014 Center for Urban Transportation Research Volume 17, No. 3, 2014 ISSN 1077-291X CONTENTS Integrating Livability Principles into Transit Planning: Screening Chicago Bus Rapid Transit Opportunities Joshua K. Anderson, Josh Ellis...............................................................................................................1 The Effect of Density and Trip-Chaining on the Interaction between Urban Form and Transit Demand Sisinnio Concas, Joseph S. DeSalvo ..................................................................................................16 Improving Fuel Efficiency and Reducing Carbon Emissions from Buses in India Sudhir Gota, Parthaa Bosu, Sameera Kumar Anthapur......................................................39 Critical Appraisal of Web-Based Passenger Information Systems Gaurav V. Jain, S. S. Jain, Manoranjan Parida ...........................................................................51 Analysis of Visitor Satisfaction with Public Transport in Munich Diem-Trinh Le-Klähn, C. Michael Hall, Regine Gerike ........................................................... 68 Evaluating the Effectiveness of Onboard Video Feedback Systems on Reducing Transit Collisions and Injuries Michael Litschi, Peter Haas ................................................................................................................ 86 HOT for Transit? Transit’s Experience of High-Occupancy Toll Lanes Gregory L. Newmark ..............................................................................................................................97 Intelligent Taxi Dispatch System for Advance Reservations Hao Wang, Ruey Long Cheu, Der-Horng Lee ............................................................................115 A Transit-Based Evacuation Model for Metropolitan Areas Xin Zhang, Gang-len Chang .............................................................................................................129 i Integrating Livability Principles into Transit Planning: Screening Chicago Bus Rapid Transit Opportunities Joshua K. Anderson, University of Chicago Office of Civic Engagement Josh Ellis, Metropolitan Planning Council Abstract Pilot Chicago Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) routes proposed in 2008 were impractical to build, did not meet Institute for Transportation and Development Policy defined “gold standard” BRT, and were selected without considering the Livability Principles guiding investment by the U.S. government. Streets incompatible with BRT and not meeting basic constructabil- ity standards were eliminated. The remaining contiguous street sections were scored on the weighted performance of 14 quantitative proxies for the Livability Principles. Transit connectivity considerations further refined the pool to produce potential BRT routes. For discussion purposes, these routes were organized into a hypothetical BRT network to com- plement the existing rapid transit system; potential 2010 travel demand impacts were mod- eled. This study identified 10 potential BRT routes for further consideration. The integration of the Livability Principles into the study was promising but had limited impact because of the greater than anticipated influence of right-of-way width requirements. Introduction In 2008, the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) chose four proposals submit- ted by the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) as potential locations for a demonstration bus rapid transit (BRT) project (Chicago Transit Authority 2008). The four proposals had enhancements with elements similar to BRT, but were not “gold standard” BRT (i.e., ded- icated bus lanes, at-grade boarding, pay-before-you-board stations, and signal-prioritized intersections) as defined by the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP) prior to their establishment of the point-based “BRT Standard” in January 2012 (Weinstock et al. 2011; Institute for Transportation & Development Policy 2013). The 2008 CTA proposal ultimately failed. In 2009, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (USHUD), and USDOT formed an interagency collaboration, Partnership for Sustainable Communities, to better coordinate community investment. The Partnership was guided by six strategies—“Livability Principles”—that sought to bet- Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 17, No. 3, 2014 1 Integrating Livability Principles into Transit Planning: Screening Chicago Bus Rapid Transit Opportunities ter integrate the housing, transportation, environmental, and equity goals of the three agencies (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2009). Following renewed interest in a BRT system in Chicago in 2011, this study was undertaken to assist decision makers in identifying BRT opportunities in Chicago and demonstrate that the Livability Principles could be quantitatively integrated into the transportation planning process. This was a screening study intended to produce, as Kittelson & Associ- ates (2003b, 2-2) noted, “alternatives for further refinement and/or analysis.” This study adhered to ITDP’s characterization of the “gold standard” BRT as best practice; however, it is not the sole commentary on BRT (Weinstock et al. 2011). The variability of operational BRT systems is well-documented by the work of Levinson et al. (2003a), Wright and Hook (2007), Deng and Nelson (2011), and Weinstock et al. (2011)—some “gold standard” and some not. As of 2012, federal funding of 20 BRT systems in the United States had not been predicated on adherence to the gold standard (Government Accountability Office 2012). Subsequent to this study, the “BRT Standard” had both guided Chicago Department of Transportation’s (CDOT) design efforts and provided funding opportunities for upcoming Chicago BRT routes (ITDP 2013; City of Chicago 2013). Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) revisions to 49 U.S.C. §5309 divided BRT projects into fixed guideway (New Starts) and corridor-based (Small Starts)—definitions generally differentiated by the presence and absence, respectively, of “gold standard” required dedicated right-of-way (ROW). At the time of this study, there was no explicit consideration of the Livability Principles in a transportation study; however, 49 U.S.C. §5309(d)—under the Safe, Affordable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) and, to a greater extent, MAP-21 had land use and economic development project justifications comple- mentary to the spirit of the Livability Principles. The requirements of 49U.SC . §5309(d) (2008) had been reflected in the BRT transportation planning guidance provided by Kit- telson & Associates (2007). Some project sponsors of existing BRT systems in the United States had at least hoped for ancillary benefits beyond mobility improvements (Govern- ment Accountability Office 2012). From 2009–2012, the Partnership for Sustainable Communities cited various examples of projects that aligned with the Livability Principles (Partnership for Sustainable Com- munities 2012). The Partnership also jointly reviewed the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Alternative Analysis Planning