1. Bus Rapid Transit Study
Technical Advisory Committee
January 13, 2017

2. Introductions

3. Today’s Meeting Purpose
Overall review of feasibility of BRT on SH 7
Review ridership results
Review cost results
Consider running way options

4. Is BRT feasible on SH 7? O&D patterns Projected development densities
Community transportation plans
Community corridor visions
RTD service standards
Top Vision Concepts
Top Goal Concepts
Safe
A corridor that safely and comfortably accommodates all modes of travel
Time-competitive bus travel
Competes with single-occupant vehicles for travel time & trips
Rapid transit
A corridor that is accessible to all users regardless of age, ability, and income
Market (O-D)
Community one-on-ones

7. What would BRT look like on SH 7?
Branded
Premium vehicles
Station amenities
Transit signal prioritization (TSP) & queue jumps
Routing
Station spacing
Lane type

8. What would the station amenities include?
Weather protection
Lighting
Real-time arrival information
Off-board fare collection
Platform-level boarding & other accessibility features
DISCUSSION POINTS
Prepaid/off-board fare collection
Station amenities (real-time arrival information, weather protection, bicycle parking/lockers, lighting, other safety features, etc.)
Pedestrian facilities (sidewalks and crosswalks) connecting stations to nearby PnRs, activity centers, and other connection points
Near-level passenger boarding
ADA compliance: platform-level boarding, ramps and sidewalks surrounding station to meet accessibility requirements
Source: American Public Transportation Association

9. What are the assumptions for ridership forecasts?
2040 model (PEL laneage)
7.5-minute peak / 15-minute off-peak headway
Local community feeder routes
10 stations (7 with parking)
Connections to
North Metro
NATE II BRT
Boulder Junction

10. What were the ridership results?
6,500 riders per day in 2040
Varies depending on routing, running way, operating plan
Quality of service
Travel time

11. How would SH7 BRT compare?
6,500 riders per day
Not enough demand for rail
Source:
Source: RTD Service Performance, 2015
*SH 7 BRT with 7.5-minute headways (2040 boardings)
**SH 7 BRT with 15-minute headways (2040 boardings)

12. How would SH7 BRT compare?
18 boardings per vehicle hour
$4 subsidy per boarding
6,500 riders per day
Not enough demand for rail
Source:
SH 7 BRT
Source: RTD Service Performance, 2015
*SH 7 BRT reflects 2040 annual boardings

13. What are the base BRT scenario results?

14. What additional stations make sense?

15. What route options make sense?

16. What route patterns make sense?

17. Capital & Operating Costs
Base Scenario Operating In:
Stations
Running Way
TSP
Vehicles
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
TOTAL ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS
Mixed Traffic
$0.5 M
$30 M
$12.1 M
Managed – Add a Lane
$26 M
$10.2 M
Managed – Repurpose a Lane
Dedicated – Add a Lane
$23 M
$10.7 M
Dedicated – Repurpose a Lane

18. Are dedicated lanes appropriate?
Advantages
Best ridership, travel time
Provides transit identity for corridor
Supports study vision
Implement by adding a lane
High cost
Doesn’t meet person-carrying threshold
Implement by repurposing a PEL lane
Results in very poor vehicle LOS

19. Are managed lanes appropriate?
Advantages
Better ridership, travel time (than mixed lane operations)
TSP and queue jumps provide additional travel time benefits
Provides some corridor transit identity
Supportive of study vision
Implement by adding a lane
High cost
Adds unneeded vehicular capacity
Implement by repurposing a PEL lane
May degrade vehicular LOS

20. Is running in mixed traffic appropriate?
Advantages
Good ridership
TSP and queue jumps provide travel time benefits
Low cost
Easy to implement
Disadvantages
Less supportive of study vision
Less corridor transit identity

21. Small group discussion
Running way
Route patterns
Route options

22. Where are managed & dedicated lanes appropriate?

23. Holly Buck, PE, PTP holly.buck@fhueng.com
Thank You!
Holly Buck, PE, PTP
Christopher Primus, PTP