A Bronx Tale: Bus Rapid Transit in New York City.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Symantec 2010 Windows 7 Migration EMEA Results. Methodology Applied Research performed survey 1,360 enterprises worldwide SMBs and enterprises Cross-industry.
Advertisements

Symantec 2010 Windows 7 Migration Global Results.
Tysons Tysons Corner Circulator Study Board Transportation Committee June 12, 2012.
County of Fairfax, Virginia Board Transportation Committee Updates on Alternatives for Improving Roadway Services in Fairfax County Discussion of Converting.
Metropolitan Transportation Authority November 2008 Financial Plan /15/ :22 AM 1 Metropolitan Transportation Authority November 20,
2008 MTA NYC Travel Survey Summary of Selected Results June 22, 2009.
Status Report: Evaluation of Private Sector Data in Minneapolis Shawn Turner Texas Transportation.
Break Time Remaining 10:00.
1 The Role of Bus Transit in the Regional Transportation, Present and Future Howard Benn, Chair, TPB Regional Bus Subcommittee TPB Regional Priority Bus.
West Michigan Transit Linkages Study Wednesday, June 4 th, :00 a.m. Grand Valley State University Kirkhof Center Conference Room 2266.
Los Angeles Bus Rapid Transit Tour Lessons Learned.
Division Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project August 2012.
Charlotte Area Transit System Sprinter Enhanced Bus Project Implementation NCAMPO Conference May 2012 Travis Pollack, AICP.
A sample problem. The cash in bank account for J. B. Lindsay Co. at May 31 of the current year indicated a balance of $14, after both the cash receipts.
SCATTER workshop, Milan, 24 October 2003 Testing selected solutions to control urban sprawl The Brussels case city.
MAC -- Update on CTfastrak October 16, What is CTfastrak? Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) –Fast, frequent, reliable service throughout.
Riverside Community College District Free Bus Ride Program.
EFFICIENT TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS IN MINNESOTA A JOINT PRESENTATION TO THE Transportation Funding Advisory Committee September 14, 2012.
Urban Partnership Agreement Summary Metropolitan Council Meeting September 12, 2007.
Before Between After.
1 presented to Policy Steering Committee presented by AC Transit May 15, 2009 East Bay Bus Rapid Transit.
CITY OF MIAMI CITY OF MIAMI. Health District Traffic Study July 21, 2008 Miami Partnership.
Subtraction: Adding UP
Political Support Needed to Improve Transportation 06 | 25 | 2013 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA SFMTA | Municipal Transportation Agency Image: Market and Geary.
9/7/2012 MBS UU.
MBTA Key Bus Route Improvement Program Joanne Haracz, AICP responsive client solutions since 1976 Pennsylvania Public Transportation Association April.
NEW YORK CITY TRAFFIC CONGESTION MITIGATION COMMISSION NYSDOT Comments on New York City Traffic Congestion Mitigation Plan Bob Zerrillo, Director, Office.
Regional Transportation Commission, Washoe County Lee Gibson, Executive Director Roger Hanson, Senior Planner.
Presentation to the AMP Leadership Team Moving forward. April 17, 2013.
Swift BUS RAPID TRANSIT (BRT) ITS Washington November 12, 2008.
Advanced Public Transit Systems (APTS) Transit ITS CEE582.
Freedom to work Freedom to text Freedom to read.
1 Presentation to TAC June 17, 2009 Overview of Rapid Bus Measures and Effectiveness And Case Studies.
1 Research go bus Impact Study TRB National Transportation Planning Applications Conference Atlantic City, May 2015.
1 Corridor Cities Transitway Presented to: Amberfield HOA January 15, 2015.
South/West Corridor Improvements Service and Facility Alternatives September 9, 2014 Planning & Project Development Committee March 3, 2015.
ITS for BRT Systems: How Does Boston’s Silver Line Compare With Other BRT Systems? Carol Schweiger, Assistant Vice President ITS Georgia Annual Meeting.
Definition - CommuterLink CommuterLink is an interagency transportation management system. What does that mean? Put another way, it is the use of computer.
Mark Phillips BSDA/Metro Long-Range Planner. The Foundation: Moving Transit Forward.
Metrobus 30s Line Study Improving Your Customer’s Transit Experience Virginia Transit Association May 20,
South/West Corridor Transit Improvements PRIMO & ENHANCED AMENITIES PLANNING PHASE September 9, 2014 Planning & Project Development Committee August 11,
The Transit “T” Craig Lamothe UPA Transit Project Manager City of Minneapolis City of Lakes Innovative Choices for Congestion Relief.
Implementation Transit Priority System and Mobile Internet Passenger System in the City of Los Angeles Kang Hu and Chun Wong City of Los Angeles Department.
New York State DOT Statewide Perspective BRT Project Development Lessons Learned from Los Angeles Site Visit.
Transit Signal Priority (TSP). Problem: Transit vehicles are slow Problem: Transit vehicles are effected even more than cars by traffic lights –The number.
Shreya Gadepalli Regional Director (India) August 2015 The BRT Standard Bus Rapid Transit Best Practices.
1 Presented to the Transportation Planning Board October 15, 2008 Item 9 Metrobus Priority Corridor Network.
TRB/APTA 2004 Bus Rapid Transit Conference Implementing a BRT Project: The Preliminary Steps 8:30 – 9:50 a.m. Frank SpielbergBMI-SG Incoming Chair, TRB.
City of Alexandria, Virginia Crystal City Potomac Yard Transitway Montgomery County Rapid Transit Steering Committee April 30,
Weighing the Scenarios: The Costs and Benefits of Future Transit Service Produced for MTDB by The Mission Group © 2000 by The Mission Group. 1 Dave Schumacher.
TRB/APTA 2004 Bus Rapid Transit Conference The Results of Selected BRT Projects 2:00 – 3:20 p.m. Walt Kulyk Director, FTA Office of Mobility Innovation.
DICK RUDDELL EAST LANCASTER BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT ______________________.
Section 3: New and Experimental Technologies
Express/Rapid Bus Opportunities for Priority Bus Transit in the Washington Region Sponsored by National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board Chun.
Transit Signal Priority: The Importance of AVL Data David T. Crout Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon (TriMet) Presented at Transportation.
South/West Corridor Transit Improvements ZARZAMORA AND MILITARY PRIMO BRT PROJECTS ENVIRONMENTAL AND PRELIMINARY DESIGN PHASE September 9, 2014 VIA Community.
GRTC Bus Rapid Transit Project July 17, Agenda 1.BRT Concept 2.Project Goals 3.Project Benefits 4.Project Corridor 5.Proposed Multimodal Access.
Service Guidelines and Standards Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority Board of Directors Meeting September 2015 capmetro.org |1.
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) ACEC Presentation May 25, 2017
Arizona Conference on Roads and Streets Multimodal Cities: Addressing Issues in Transit Corridors March 24, 2016.
D Line Station Plan Overview
D Line Station Plan Overview
D Line Station Plan Overview
D Line Station Plan Overview
D Line Station Plan Overview
Bus Rapid Transit Study
City of Alexandria Virginia Transportation and Environmental Services
D Line Project Overview
M14A/D Select Bus Service
Central Avenue Rapid Transit
Presentation transcript:

A Bronx Tale: Bus Rapid Transit in New York City

integrated systemFlexible, integrated, high performance system with a quality image and a strong brand identity. Essential elements – Speed – Reliability – Attractiveness Definition of BRT

Select Bus Service is the name for New York Citys BRT System. Primary features include: proof-of-payment fare collection, transit signal priority, and expanded bus lanes. The first Select Bus Service route is the Fordham Road-Pelham Parkway Bx12 corridor in the Bronx. Service launched on June 29, 2008

Trend: Bus Speeds Dropping MPHMPH

Slow Bus Travel in NYC

Sources of Bus Delay Other Delays 3%

BRT Corridor Screening

BRT Benefits are based on the following metrics: 1. Base BRT Ridership 2. Ability to support Frequent/All-Day Service 3. Potential Travel Time Savings 4. Ridership Trend/Future Growth 5. System Connectivity Potential Benefits

BRT Compatibility is based on the following metrics: 1. Traffic impacts on corridor 2. Parking regulation changes required 3. Ability to provide full range of station amenities 4. Extent of dedicated running ways on corridors BRT Compatibility

Overall Corridor Rankings

Public Involvement New York City Transit and New York Department of Transportation Staff have participated in over 100 Public Meetings on this project. There were meetings with elected officials, community groups, businessmens associations and other groups. There were over 40 Meetings specifically for the Fordham Road-Pelham Parkway Corridor

Bx12 Select Bus Service Fordham Road-Pelham Parkway

Corridor Ridership Bus Route Weekday Ridership (2006) Bx1242,410 Bx1710,964 Bx927,199 Bx2217,695 W60-61 (Westchester Co.)6,427 TOTAL:104,695

Fewer Stops Station SBS Station Local Limited

Expanded/Improved Bus Lanes Expanded: –Existing peak period bus lanes expanded to all-day operation –Bus lanes extended geographically Improved: –High visibility red bus lanes –Overhead signage –Increased NYPD bus lane enforcement

Transit Signal Priority Opticom Radio/GPS signal priority system Installed at about 20 of the 35 intersections along the route in both directions Early green/extended green available based on existing signal parameters Signals timings also optimized

Proof-of-Payment Fare Collection Customers pay at fare payment machines and obtain a proof-of-payment receipt before boarding Customers board the bus at either door and hold receipt for inspection – receipt valid for 1 hour Two types of machines in use –Re-purposed MetroCard express machine for customers with MetroCards –Re-purposed Parkeon multi-space parking meter for customers with coins

Proof-of-Payment Fare Inspection Fare inspectors on vehicles and at stations (not police/peace officers) On-board cameras to document incidents Anyone without receipt is subject to $100 summons

Additional Features Leading Bus Interval Branding Stations Customer Ambassadors On-Board Cameras Accommodating Deliveries

Leading Bus Interval / Queue Jump Provides 6 second advance green for all buses approaching in the bus lane Bus lane operates at all times to provide free path for bus Currently activated on every signal phase; may be actuated in the future

Branding

Special Marketing Elements

Stations

Customer Ambassadors

On-Board Cameras Currently used for security and liability protection Potential future uses –Bus lane enforcement –Running time

Fordham Road Delivery Window 12:00pm-14:00: North Side 10:00am-12:00: South Side

Costs Capital Costs for this project were very low. Approximately $10.5 M for a 8.5 Mile corridor. The increase in Annual Operating Costs is approximately $6M. This includes additional service, and new staff for maintaining fare equipment, revenue collection and enforcement.

Early Findings – Physical Elements Bus lanes operate well with proper enforcement; improved signs/markings also effective. NYPD issued over 7155 summonses since the start of the program TSP is working well; too early to fully measure effectiveness Shelters and station elements holding up well

Early Findings – Fare Collection Both types of machines operating dependably (98% availability) –Transaction time for MetroCard machines = 3 sec. –Transaction time for Coin machines slower –Occasional power issues at stations NYCT personnel perform all maintenance and revenue collection Customer understanding is good, particularly for regular riders Early spot checks indicate 3% fare evasion rate. –1547 warnings, 3268 summonses issued to date.

Ridership But Corridor Ridership is Increasing –August Corridor ridership increased 8.5% over 2007 –October Corridor ridership increased 11.5% over 2007 SBS –MetroCard Fare Collector Sales are 31,000 per weekday –SBS Cash Fare Collector Sales are 1500 per weekday (7%) Corridor mode share already exceptionally high; fewer than 10% of shoppers on Fordham Road arrive by car

Findings – Running Time 19% faster running time, depending on direction and time of day Running time improvements better on weekdays when bus lane and TSP in effect Future running time analysis –On-board cameras –TSP system –Hand-held real time devices for dispatchers

Findings – Running Time Before 57 m 54 s After 46 m 44 s In Motion 49.2% 28 m 30 s In Motion 60.7 % 28 m 22 s Dwell Time 27.4% 15 m 51 s Signal Delay 20.8% 12 m 02 s Dwell Time 20.5% 9 m 34 s Signal Delay 16.0% 7 m 29 s

Findings – Customer Response 89% of customers said that SBS service is better than the limited. Limited/BRT/SBS 74% of Customers said service improved since two months ago. 32% of local customers said service improved 30% of customers said that they were riding more frequently than before 68% of customers said that paying on the street was more convenient 84% of customers said that SBS was faster than the limited

Next Steps Refine and expand TSP implementation Continue to monitor all aspects of service delivery including proof-of-payment fare system; Bus Operator procedures, etc Monitor impact on ridership, travel time, and economic development

Future Bus Rapid Transit Bus Priority in Manhattan - 34 th Street - Fifth Avenue/Madison Avenue Additional Select Bus Service - Nostrand Avenue/Rogers Avenue - First Avenue/Second Avenue Transitway Treatments - 34 th Street - Hylan Boulevard Future Plans - Additional BRT routes - Widely deploy state of the art bus priority improvements