BRT Case Studies - Bus Rapid Transit Policy Center

BRT: Has it Worked?Maryland General Assembly, January 20, 2004Sam Zimmerman, Principal, Transportation Planning

“Bus Mythology”• Speeds• Ridership attraction• Capacity• O/M Costs• Development effects2

Sources of Information• Transportation Research Board Transit CooperativeResearch Program Project: BRT Planning andImplementation Guidelines• Federal Transit Sponsored Before-After Studies• “Bus Rapid Transit Shows Promise,” U.S. GeneralAccounting Office, 9/20013

TRB BRT Case StudiesSystems in Revenue ServiceU.S., Canada, Australia– Honolulu– Houston– Los Angeles– Miami-Dade– New York City– Pittsburgh– Seattle– Ottawa– Vancouver– Adelaide– BrisbaneEurope– Rouen, France– Leeds, U.K.– Runcorn, U.K.South America– Bogota– Quito– Belo Horizonte– Curitiba– Porto Alegre– Sao Paulo5

BRT Case StudiesProjects in Development– Cleveland– Hartford– Eugene-Springfield– Charlotte– Boston (Now Open)– Sydney, Australia (Now Open)6

BRT Service• Fast• Reliable7

Reported Travel Time Savings• Compared to Local BusBusways andFreeway Bus Lanes32 – 47%Arterial StreetBusways / BusLanes29 – 32 %8

Competitive Speeds *Los AngelesSan JoseSan DiegoDenverPittsburghLRT2316211114BRT17**32243529* “Bus Rapid Transit Shows Promise,” U.S. General Accounting Office, 9/2001** All mixed traffic operation9

Ridership• Attractive to customers withchoices10

Net Corridor Ridership GainsSystemLAMiamiRidership Gain+35% (3 Yrs, Strike)+70% (6 Yrs.)From Cars30%Brisbane+60% (18 months)30%Vancouver, BC+30% (2 Yr., strike)20%Boston+100% (15 months)Oakland+29% (2 months)11

Characteristics of Customers:Houston Transitway System*% Riders,HouseholdIncomes >$50,000/Yr% Riders,HouseholdIncomes>$75,000/Yr%Riders,Households with > 2VehiclesBRT Services(Park/Ride)70%50%61%Local Bus11%-16%Houston Metro, 2001 On-Board Survey12

Development Effects• Attractive to Developers andOwners• Attractive to Market13

Land Development BenefitsPittsburgh$375 M in development around stations, 80’s throughmid – 1990’sOttawa$1B (CDN) in development around stations, 80’sthrough mid – 1990’sBrisbane20% increase in residential values near stations afterone yearBoston$500m in development and redevelopment sinceconstruction began14

Boston MBTA: Silver Line, Phase IMixed Use Development15

Boston MBTA: Silver Line, Phase IIOffices, Hotel Residential16

Ottawa TransitwaysSt. Laurent Mall: Highest Grossing(per Sq. Ft) In Ottawa17

Ottawa TransitwaysMixed Use18

“Brisbane Courier Mail,” 1/26/0219

Brisbane: SE BuswayOffice, Retail20

Carrying Capacity• Not a Problem21

Capacity to Meet Highest U.S. DemandsSystemBRTRail TransitPittsburgh MLKOttawaBrisbaneBogotaCalgary LRTLineSeattle Downtown Bus TunnelToronto King Street StreetcarBoston Green Line, Park St.TunnelWashington Blue/Orange LineMetrorail Tunnel* Highest in*HighestU.S. outsidein U.S.NYCPeak Direction PeakHour Volume5,40010,0004,2007,000+25,000+10,0004,50010,000*17,500*22

Operating and Maintenance Costs• Modest at U.S. Volumes– High speed operation– Large vehicles– Low maintenance costs of all kinds– Economies of scale– Amenable to competitive contracting• Competitive with other Rapid Transit Modes23

Operating, Maintenance Costs*per Equivalent LRT Vehicle HourSan JosePortlandDallasLos AngelesSacramentoSan DiegoLRT$217.69$143.17$214.90$313.20$177.23$ 97.62BRT$233.61$141.60$170.89$172.40$161.62$108.00*Source: FTA, National Transit Database, 2000Bus costs are regional averages and include only vehicleO/M and Admin.; LRT numbers cover all O/M activitiesFigures adjusted for vehicle capacity24= Av. # seats+ standees @ 3/Mtr2

Total Operating, Maintenance CostsPittsburgh (Port Authority of Alleghany County)*$/Rev.Veh.MiRev.Veh.Mi.$/Rev.Veh.HrRev.Veh.Hr.$/Pass.-Mi.$/BrdngPAT WestBusway$ 6.40$81.90$ 0.65$ 2.73PAT LRT$ 15.25$222.37$ 0.84$ 3.78* FTA Evaluation of Port Authority of Alleghany CountyWest Busway Bus Rapid Transit Project, 4-200325

Modest Implementation Costs• Limited dedicated ROW needed• Maximum use of:– existing street/highway/HOV system,O/M facilities– current and/or off-thethe-shelf equipmentand systems• Running ways inexpensive to build• Maximum use of local contractors• Relatively low cost vehicles26

Modest Implementation Costs*LRT(18 corridors, 13 cities) $34.79m/Mi.***Busways(9 corridors, 4 cities) $13.49m/Mi.*HOV Facilities (8(8 corridors, 5 cities) $ 8.97m/Mi.*Arterial Bus Fclts. . (3(Cors., 2 cities) $ .68m/Mi.Rouen TEOR (3 corridors)Brisbane SE BuswaySilver Line Phase I$11.00m/Mi.**$19.00m/Mi.$25.00m/Mi.***U.S. General Accounting Office Report, “Bus Rapid Transit Shows Promise,” 9/2001; Year 2000 $ U.S.**Includes Vehicles27

Lessons Learned• BRT is a high quality, highperformance rapid transit option• Plan for BRT as for any potentiallycost-effective rapid transit mode28

Lessons Learned• Use an open, objective process• Start with nature of issues andproblems• Objectively evaluate alternativesolutions, including BRT29

FY2004 Approps. Conference Report“... the alternatives analysis made byapplicants must fully weigh viablealternatives and ensure thatquantitative measures are used inchoosing the locally preferredalternative.”30