LA Metro Rapid - Considerations in Identifying BRT Corridors. Martha Butler LACMTA, Transportation Planning Manager Los Angeles, California

Transcription

1 LA Metro Rapid - Considerations in Identifying BRT Corridors Martha Butler LACMTA, Transportation Planning Manager Los Angeles, California

2 LA Metro Transportation planner/coordinator, designer, builder & operator for one of country's largest, most populous counties More than 9.6 million people within the 1,433 square mile service area At critical planning juncture as agency seeks to create a better multi-modal, regional transportation system

3 Initial Things to Consider Understand customer needs as well as agency constraints and opportunities Should design to attract and retain new and existing riders implement key attributes to extent possible Consider both current and future passenger demand

4 Why BRT In Los Angeles? Average bus speeds had declined by 10% since late 1980s Congestion slowed buses Increased travel times for transit customers Increased operating costs LADOT/Metro found that 50% of the time a bus was in service it was stopped Survey and customer comments showed public dissatisfied with slow bus service

5 Goals & Objectives Develop creative solutions to meet transportation needs of LA County residents Introduce a faster mode of transit offering faster travel choices and complimenting our rail system Provide simple, user friendly service using key BRT attributes to better serve existing riders and attract new ones: Frequent service Improved reliability Faster travel times Improved passenger amenities Implement quickly & incrementally

6 Metro Rapid Program Focused first on high ridership/high density corridors Began as demonstration project on two corridors: Wilshire/Whittier (29% decrease in travel time 40% ridership increase) Ventura (23% decrease in travel time 26% increase in ridership) Based on success of demo project, Board adopted Metro Rapid Expansion Program and BRT as new system mode Created network of Metro Rapid lines to improve regional mobility and connectivity

7 Metro Rapid System Map

8 Review Process Rigorous selection process conducted to identify corridors where enhanced service would best meet needs of transit patrons Corridors evaluated on: Existing success (current transit service) Potential success (corridor transit potential) Need for transit (corridor transit dependence)

9 Existing Success Current Transit Service Multi-level selection process developed for identifying candidate corridors First lines that met tier one criteria including: Serve major regional corridors Provide key network connections for longer distance travel High passenger use

10 Existing Success - Current Transit Service Next - prioritized lines meeting above requirements based on secondary criteria including: Weekday unlinked passengers Average passenger trip length Revenue operating speed Annual passengers per route mile Weekday seat utilization Weekday riders retained on weekends Weekday passengers per bus hour Operating ratio

11 Potential Success Corridor Transit Potential In looking at potential for future success, identified key areas of employment within one-half mile buffer

12 Potential Success Corridor Transit Potential Also looked at population by census block using one-half mile buffer

13 Need For Transit Corridor Transit Dependence Identified those households with zero vehicles/below poverty level within one-half mile buffer

14 Additional Considerations Candidate corridors also evaluated for: Current frequency levels (ability to support Metro Rapid frequencies) Multiple levels of regional service (e.g., express, limited-stop, local, and community) Duplication with other comparable rapid transit (generally a one-mile spacing between continuous lines) Route length minimum 10 miles to benefit from travel time savings

15 Other Factors Other factors that you can t ignore: Social equity issues Politics

16 Performance Monitoring Performance measurement and monitoring is an important element of all service design Serves as basis for reallocating or adjusting service levels or determining whether a particular service is right for corridor

17 Performance Monitoring Service reliability (in service on-time performance) is important measure of system performance and customer experience & should be given high priority Effectiveness measures to ensure service is costeffective: Boardings per service hour Passenger miles per seat mile Subsidy per passenger Cost per passenger mile Rider surveys New ridership Retention of existing ridership Customer satisfaction

18 Post Implementation Evaluation Criteria Five measurable review criteria used for Rapid evaluation: Round-trip operating time should be at least 20% faster than local service Bus stop spacing should average at least 0.7 mile to ensure speed advantage not degraded Should be operated at least every 10 minutes during peaks Boardings per revenue hour should be at least 80% of system average Average trip length should be at least 25% longer than average trip length of local

19 Lessons Learned Thresholds (e.g., ridership, etc.) set for identifying corridors for higher quality service should be set high enough Need to have good coordination when lines operate within multiple jurisdictions Every corridor is unique in some way and may not warrant a BRT service Continue to look at ways to maintain and improve service

20 Next Steps Dedicated bus lanes: Wilshire BRT Project Countywide BRT study All-Door Boarding Wilshire pilot Countywide BRT study

21 Contact Information Contact Information: Martha Butler Transportation Planning Manager (213)