Surface Transportation Optimization and Bus Priority Measures Future of MBTA Bus Operations Project Sponsored by Thursday, May 29, 2014 Executive Summary • Bus transit is a critical component of the MBTA services and will be for the foreseeable future • Corridor study demonstrated ability to increase reliability for multiple routes • Some fleet replacement and maintenance facility issues coming to a head • Opportunities exist to cost‐effectively reduce MBTA’s carbon footprint through fleet and infrastructure investments 2 Agenda • Why Bus Transportation Important • Operational Reliability through Bus Priority Measures • Alternative Propulsion for a Sustainable Future • Bringing it all together: Pilot Opportunities 3 Why is Bus Transportation Important • Large percentage of MBTA ridership (~30%) o Still Growing…11% growth in unlinked passenger trips from Jan 2007 to Mar 2012 • Environmental justice Minority Low Income English Proficiency* Bus 37% 21% 0.63% Rapid Transit 27% 13% 0.14% Commuter Rail 11% 2% 0.02% 4 Why is Bus Transportation Important • Mobility o 34% of bus users have no household vehicle • Service availability (Coverage) o % of street miles covered by transit market Bus Subway Commuter Rail Total 73% 7% 3% • Lower capital cost to implement bus improvements vs. rail • Public transportation’s role in global warming 5 Project Methodology • Researched bus priority best practices • Researched alternative propulsion systems • Fact finding mission – London, UK • Developed corridor selection criteria/methodology • Developed conceptual design for corridor and modeled improvements 6 Cost Order of Magnitude Low Medium High Cost‐Benefit Comparison Exclusive Bus Lane Stop Consolidation Restricted Bus Lane High Proof of Payment (PoP) Center-to-Center Transit Signal Priority Two-Door Boarding Stop Placement Medium (near-side vs far-side) Effectiveness Queue Jump Curb Extension Low 7 WBC Corridor (Washington St/Belgrade Ave/Centre St) • 9 Bus routes on Washington Street North Station Trunk o 30, 34, 34E, 35, 36, 37, 40, 50, and 51 • Does not include Key Bus Route • Over 20,000 Weekday Daily Riders • Mixed residential and neighborhood retail Forest Hills • Passes through Environmental Justice area 8 Washington Street Corridor # Stops IB OB Existing 8 7 Change ‐3 ‐2 Key Net 5 5 Existing Signal Existing Signal (CC Intersection Applications # Existing Bus Stop New/Relocated Stop TSP 4 Bus Stop Eliminated Queue Jump 2 TSP Application Bus Advance Signal 0 Queue Jump Application TSP and Queue Jump Application Net 6 Curb Extension # New 0 Enhanced 0 Net 0 9 Belgrade Avenue Corridor # Stops IB OB Existing 8 9 Change ‐2 ‐2 Net 6 7 Intersection Applications # TSP 1 Queue Jump 1 Bus Advance Signal 0 Net 2 Curb Extension # Key New 0 Existing Signal Enhanced 0 Existing Signal (CC Net 0 Existing Bus Stop New/Relocated Stop Bus Stop Eliminated TSP Application Queue Jump Application TSP and Queue Jump Application 10 Key Existing Outbound Existing Inbound Revised Outbound Revised Inbound Existing Bus Stop New/Relocated Stop Bus Stop Eliminated TSP Application Queue Jump Application 11 Centre Street Corridor # Stops IB OB Existing 4 4 Key Change ‐10 Existing Signal Net 3 4 Existing Signal (CC Existing Bus Stop Intersection Applications # New/Relocated Stop Bus Stop Eliminated TSP 0 TSP Application Queue Jump 0 Queue Jump Application Bus Advance Signal 1 Bus Advance Signal New Curb Extension Net 1 Enhanced Curb Extension Curb Extension # New 2 Enhanced 3 Net 5 12 Improvement Packages • Low: o Require minimal capital improvements o Implemented with minimal cost and delay • Medium: TSP Queue Jumps o Require some capital improvements o Implemented in a short‐medium time‐frame. o Include all of the changes in the “low” category, as well as queue jumps and curb extensions. Bus Advance Signal Curb Extensions • High: o Relatively high capital cost o May require some policy alterations or additional inter‐agency coordination o Includes all bus priority treatments. Bus Stop Eliminations 13 Running Times ‐ Inbound Lagrange Street 00:54 00:57 00:52 00:36 00:36 Park Street 00:55 00:55 01:49 01:55 01:55 Belgrade Ave and Centre Street 02:42 02:42 02:55 03:04 02:59 Aldrich Street and Centre Street 02:47 02:47 03:07 03:17 03:07 Corinth Street and Washington Street 04:11 04:11 04:23 04:36 04:31 02:09 02:09 Granfield Avenue and Washington Street 02:27 02:29 02:34 Forest Hills Total Travel Time 15:35 16:23 15:54 13:20 13:20 (Percent below No Build) (3%) (19%) (19%) “No-Build” assumes 1% increase in travel time per year for five years Travel times for Low, Medium and High represent the high range of travel times 14 Time Savings – Inbound (AM Peak) 03:30 Total Time Total Time Savings per Trip = Savings per Trip = 3:03 3:03 03:00 00:36 00:36 02:30 00:30 00:30 Saved 02:00 Total Time Time Savings per Trip = 00:27 00:27 1:30 01:30 Travel Total 01:00 01:30 01:30 01:30 00:30 00:00 Low Medium High Alternative Bus Stop Elim TSP Queue Jump Bus Advance Curb Extension Other (Bus Reroute, FH Off‐board fare payment) 15 Running Times ‐ Outbound Forest Hills 02:48 03:46 03:58 03:48 03:18 Mosgrove Avenue 04:34 04:34 04:30 04:44 04:44 Roslindale Village 02:14 02:14 02:22 02:24 02:29 Aldrich Street and Belgrade Avenue 02:32 02:32 02:30 02:36 02:38 Belgrade Avenue and Centre Street 01:58 02:21 02:28 02:28 01:14 Richwood and Centre Street 02:28 01:14 01:25 Centre Street and Lagrange Street 01:29 01:29 Total Travel Time 16:54 17:46 17:29 16:20 15:20 (Percent below No Build) (2%) (8%) (15%) “No-Build” assumes 1% increase in travel time per year for five years Travel times for Low, Medium and High represent the high range of travel times 16 Time Savings – Outbound (PM Peak) 03:30 03:00 Total Time Savings per Trip = 2:17 02:30 Saved 02:00 Total Time 01:00 Time Savings per Trip = 1:26 01:30 Travel Total Time Savings per Trip = 00:15 00:15 Total 01:00 0:51 00:20 00:20 00:30 00:51 00:51 00:51 00:00 Low Medium High Alternative Bus Stop Elim TSP Queue Jump Bus Advance Curb Extension Other (Bus Reroute, FH Off‐board fare payment) 17 Bus Priority Measure Potential Impacts 00 Source: TCRP Report 26 18 Passenger Hour Savings = Day Total Daily Travel Time Savings for Passengers on Routes 35, 36, 37 19 Cost‐Effectiveness Calculation High Medium Low A Capital Cost $690,000 A Capital Cost $435,000 A Capital Cost $25,000 B Daily PAX‐hr Saved 160 hours B Daily PAX‐hr Saved 129 hours B Daily PAX‐hr Saved 24 hours C Annualization Factor 252 day/year C Annualization Factor 252 day/year C Annualization Factor 252 day/year D Annual PAX‐hr Saved 40,068 hours D Annual PAX‐hr Saved 32,508 hours D Annual PAX‐hr Saved 6,048 hours ECost per hour saved $17.22 ECost per hour saved $13.38 ECost per hour saved $8.20 (E=A/D) (E=A/D) (E=A/D) Rule of Thumb… anything under $20 cost per hour saved is good 20 Bus Priority Work Conclusion Images: MBTA • Work reinforces MBTA Key Bus Route project • Corridor (vs. route) level evaluation and implementation of bus priority measures has potential to improve travel time on several routes • Addition of bus priority measures in the WBC corridor is cost‐effective • Time savings along corridor during the peak period will provide passenger time savings and improve reliability 21 Pilot Opportunity to Demonstrate Bus Priority Measure Potential • Washington‐Belgrade‐Centre Corridor o Combined daily ridership of over 20,000 weekday daily riders o Environmental justice area o Increased reliability for several routes o Through several diverse, land‐use corridors o Opportunity to improve urban landscape o Additional corridors considered o Brookline Avenue (Longwood Medical Area) o E Broadway (South Boston) 22 MBTA’s Carbon Footprint • As a Producer… th o MBTA Emissions –13 Largest Source in Massachusetts • As a Reducer… o Mode Shifts o Higher Occupancy Mode o 0.85 lbs per transit passenger trip vs. 16.3 lbs per car trip o Congestion Relief o Fewer vehicles on the road o Land Use o Support dense urban living 23 3% 2012 MBTA Fleet 2% 3% 11% Diesel Alternative Propulsion Diesel (ECD) Research 34% CNG Diesel/Electric Hybrid 47% Diesel/Trackless trolley • Review current state of the MBTA fleet Electric • Review current state of the industry propulsion systems o Diesel o CNG o Hybrid‐Electric o Battery‐Electric o Hydrogen Fuel Cell • Lifecycle cost comparison and cost‐effectiveness comparison to reduce GHG emissions (relative to diesel) 24 Alternative Propulsion: State of the Fleet • MBTA procured 40 New Flyer diesel‐electric hybrid buses (May 2014) • Critical to procure replacement of existing dual‐mode articulated Silver Line buses • Evaluation of current bus maintenance facility is required to understand existing and future capacity to support alternative propulsion system 25 State of the Industry: Propulsion System Summary • DIESEL • NATURAL GAS o Pros o Pros o Mature and reliable technology o Mature and reliable technology o Good range and fuel efficiency o Relatively low fuel cost o MBTA has current infrastructure to support o MBTA familiarity with propulsion system system o Low emissions and no particulate matter o Cons o Domestically produced fuel o Generally non‐domestic fuel source o As reliable as diesel propulsion o Increasing fuel cost o Cons o Comparably louder than some other o Slightly higher per bus cost than diesel propulsion systems o May require additional maintenance facility o Releases more particulate matter and infrastructure to support additional buses nitrogen oxide pollutants than other systems 26 State of the Industry: Propulsion System Summary