LT4: A comparison of ridership response to incremental BRT upgrades considering land use and network...
Transcript of LT4: A comparison of ridership response to incremental BRT upgrades considering land use and network...
A Comparison of Ridership Response to Incremental BRT Upgrades Considering Land-Use and Network Effects
Anson Stewart January 15th, 2013
1
Overview • Incremental BRT in car-centric cities • Pre/post analysis • Direct ridership modeling • Cross-sectional analysis
2
BRT – Integrated or Incremental? • “The major components of BRT are planned with the objective of
improving the key attributes of speed, reliability, and identity. Collectively, as an integrated package, they form a complete rapid-transit system with significant customer convenience and transit level of service benefits” (TRB, 2001).
Vs.
• “Incremental development of BRT will often be desirable. Incremental development may provide an early opportunity to demonstrate BRT’s potential benefits to riders, decision makers, and the general public, while still enabling system expansion and possible upgrading.” (TCRP 90, 2003)
3
Benefits of BRT Elements
4
• TCRP 90 – Bus Rapid Transit – Case Studies and Implementation Guidelines
• TCRP 118 – Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide
• Characteristics of BRT for Decision-Making (2009)
• “Quantifying the Benefits of Bus Rapid Transit Elements” (2010)
Research Objective
• Determine which incremental upgrades to conventional bus service most effectively improve productivity and quality in the context of larger more developed cities
5
External Factors?
BRT Service Characteristics • Priority lanes • Signal priority • All-door boarding • Increased stop spacing
Ridership and Productivity • Boardings • Boardings per service
hour • Boardings per veh. mile
Performance Indicators • Commercial Speed • Loading • Reliability
Overview • Incremental BRT in car-centric cities • Pre/post analysis • Direct ridership modeling • Cross-sectional analysis
6
Pre/Post Analysis • Comparing longitudinal changes • Dependent variable
• Percent increase in ridership • Independent variables
• Percent of corridor with dedicated lanes • Percent of intersections with signal priority • Percent of stops with all-door boarding • Percent increase in speed • Percent increase in stop spacing
7
Pre/Post Analysis
City Corridor
Pct Dedicated Lanes Pct TSP
Pct All-door Boarding
Pct Speed Increase
Pct Stop Spacing Increase
Pct Ridership Increase
Miami Busway 1 0 0 0.29 1.79 Orlando Lymmo 1 0 1 0.33 Los Angeles Orange Line 0.93 1 1 0.16 0.51 Boston Washington Street 0.92 0 0 0.09 0.64 0.92 New York M34 SBS 0.67 0.06 1 0.23 0.01 0.31 Eugene EmX 0.65 1 1 0.06 2.52 1.32 Kansas City MAX 0.63 0.89 0 0.25 1.32 0.5 New York M15 SBS 0.62 0.4 1 0.2 0.1 0.12 Cleveland HealthLine 0.62 0 1 0.26 1.24 0.58 Las Vegas North Las Vegas MAX 0.6 0.6 1 0.25 1.69 0.43 New York Bx12 SBS 0.28 0.57 1 0.19 1.40 0.12 Albuquerque Rapid Ride 0.05 0.8 0 0.26 2.48 0.67 Los Angeles Wilshire/Whittier Rapid 0 1 0 0.29 4.60 0.33 Los Angeles Ventura Rapid 0 1 0 0.23 2.23 0.26 Oakland Rapid San Pablo Corridor 0 1 0 0.17 1.42 0.13 San Jose Rapid 522 0 0.44 0 0.2 2.64 0.18
8
9
Coefficients: Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|) (Intercept) 0.2290 0.1729 1.325 0.2064 Pct.Dedicated.Lanes 0.6067 0.2779 2.183 0.0466 * --- Adjusted R-squared: 0.2006
Avg. 31% Increase
Avg. 54% Increase
Avg. 89% Increase
Percent Ridership Increase vs. Percent Dedicated Lanes
Percent Speed Increase vs. Percent Dedicated Lanes
10
R2 = -0.02
Percent Speed Increase vs. Percent Stop Spacing Increase
R2 = -0.03
11
Percent Ridership Increase vs. Percent Speed Increase
12
Percent Ridership Gain
Coefficients:
Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
(Intercept) 0.21682 0.31495 0.688 0.50855
Pct.Dedicated.Lanes 0.84899 0.25843 3.285 0.00945 **
Speed.Increase -2.23115 1.01773 -2.192 0.05604 .
Stop.Spacing.Increase 0.21319 0.06806 3.132 0.01208 *
---
Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1
Adjusted R-squared: 0.618
13
14
-0.50
0.00
0.50
1.00
WashingtonStreet
Wilshire/WhittierRapid
Ventura Rapid Bx12 SBS M15 SBS
Boston Los Angeles Los Angeles New York New York
% Change in Ridership%Change in Boardings per Service Hour
Ridership and Productivity
Overview • Incremental BRT in car-centric cities • Pre/post analysis • Direct ridership modeling • Cross-sectional analysis
15
Stop-level Sketch Planning • TCRP 16 • Lane et al. (2006). “Sketch Models to Forecast Commuter
and Light Rail Ridership” • Stop-level ridership model for 17 US regions
16
Direct Ridership Modeling • Cervero (2010)
17
Direct Ridership Modeling • Extending stop-level DRM to corridor-level analysis
• Revise binary consideration of right-of-way • Scale branches based on frequency • Consider network-length buffers (“reach” metric)
18
Overview • Incremental BRT in car-centric cities • Pre/post analysis • Direct ridership modeling • Cross-sectional analysis
19
Cross-Sectional Analysis • Dependent Variables
• Boardings per service hour
• Independent Variables • Percentage of corridor with priority lanes • Percentage of intersections with signal priority • Percentage of stops with all-door boarding • Stop spacing
• Population density along corridor • Auto ownership along corridor • Employment density along corridor
• Transfers from other services/modes
20
Land Use, from GIS
Network, from alighting estimation or GTFS Transfer Potential
Land Use
21
City Data Year Route Corridor Average Weekday Boardings
Weekday Boardings/ Service Hour
Weekday Boardings/ Service Mile
Weekday Boardings/ Route Mile
Land Area Within 0.5 miles of Stop
Population Density Within 0.5 Miles of Stop
NYC 2011 M15 SBS1st/2nd Ave 33,467 77.9 8.0 86,456 NYC 2009 Bx12 SBSFordham 30,490 94.5 7.4 42,903 NYC 2011 B41 Flatbush 33,948 52.0 9.6 40,628 NYC 2011 Q12 Sanford Ave/Nort 10,571 47.9 5.9 27,186 LOS 2011 754 Vermont 21,275 93.4 14.0 23,244 LOS 2011 204 Vermont 28,032 97.9 14.0 23,244 BOS 2009, 2011 SL4/5 Washington St. 15,086 88.7 12.7 3142.9 3.1 22,241 LOS 2011 720 Wilshire 40,106 60.6 27.4 17,053 LOS 2011 18 Wilshire 24,844 76.2 27.4 17,053 LOS 2011 20 Wilshire 16,630 55.1 27.4 17,053 VAN 2010 B-99 Broadway 57,050 193.8 9.8 14,705 LOS 2011 910 Silver Line 10,423 47.9 11.2 9,779 VAN 2010 99 Broadway 57,050 248.3 14.1 3565.6 7.2 9,601 LOS 2011 901 Orange Line 24,867 81.6 10.7 8,837 MSP 2010, 2009 21 Lake 12,886 58.8 5.9 1451.8 12.9 8,020 MSP 2010, 2009 5 Chicago 16,325 57.6 4.7 1189.0 19.1 6,899 MSP 2010, 2009 10 Central 7,330 43.9 3.4 632.8 16.9 5,020 MSP 2010, 2009 84 Snelling 3,583 38.2 2.4 341.1 12.2 4,934 BOS 2009, 2011 SL1/2 Waterfront 14,940 80.5 10.7 2490.0 3.0 4,432
Network Effects
22
Network Effects Hadas (2012): Stop Transfer Potential at the network level
23
𝑇 → 𝑋𝑋𝐴
𝑇 → 0.5𝑋𝑋𝐴
Network Effects Scale transfer opportunities according to proportion of corridor trips serving a station
24
Transfer Potential - Boston
25
Transfer Potential – Los Angeles
26
Land Use - Circular Buffer
27
Land Use - Street Network Buffer
28
A Comparison of Ridership Response to Incremental BRT Upgrades Considering Land-Use and Network Effects
Anson Stewart January 15th, 2013
29