Labels

9-line access access management access point accessibility ADA air quality alignment amenity antiplanner atlanta BART BID bike Blogs boston branded bus branded buses brookings brt bus Bus Rapid Transit BYU capacity car pool cars central link Centrality certification commuter rail condo congestion congestion pricing connections consistency coverage crossings CRT cycling DART dedicated dedicated right of way density denver depreciation developers development economics efficiency Envision Utah equity eugene exclusive extension FAQ favela Federal Funding Flex Bus florida free fare zone freeways Frequent Transit Network frontrunner frontunner Gallivan garden cities gas prices geotagging goat Google grade-separation Granary District growth headway heavy rail hedonic High Speed Rail history housing housing affordability housing bubble housing prices HOV income infill innovative intersections intensity ITS junk science LA land use LEED legacy city light rail linear park location LRT lyft M/ART malls mapping maps metrics metro MetroRail missoula mixed mixed traffic mixed-traffic mobile mode choice Mode Share multi-family MXD neighborhood networks news NIMBY office online op-ed open letter Operations parking parking meters peak travel pedestrian environment phasing Photomorphing planning Portland property property values Provo proximity quality_transit rail railvolution rant rapid rapid transit RDA real estate redevelopment reliability research retail Ridership ridesharing right of way roadway network ROW salt lake city san diego schedule schedule span seattle separated shuttle silver line single family SLC SLC transit master plan slums smartphone snow sprawl standing stop spacing streetcar streetscape streetscaping subdivision subsidy Sugarhouse Sugarhouse Streetcar Tacoma taxi technology tenure termini time-separation TOD townhouse traffic signal tram transit transit networks transit oriented development Transit Planning transponder transportation travel time TRAX trip planning trolley tunnel uber university of utah urban design urban economics urban land UTA UTA 2 Go Trip Planner utah Utah County Utah Transit Authority vmt walking distance web welfare transit Westside Connector WFRC wheelchairs zoning

Thursday, May 18, 2017

BRT vs. Traffic Lane 2

A traffic engineer friend of mine was good enough to point out some issues with my earlier post. 


One flaw in your math is that 1900 is not what arterial streets carry.  That is the “ideal saturation flow rate” which means if there were green lights all the time and no other interference, you’d probably measure 1900.  From there you apply reduction factors. The biggest factor is the green-time factor, which may be .6 on arterials, and .35 or so for collectors.  So .6*1900 = 1100.  But in truth, a road like the Provo BRT corridor will be closer to 750 or 800 vphpl.  Then you have the occupancy factor, which at peak times might be 1.3 or 1.4.  So say 800*1.4 = 1100 people/hr/lane, if carried in cars.

Taking this into account, I'll set forth another set of scenarios:



First set is a full BRT with 90 person on it. This is a bit flattering to BRT, because it assumes that the BRT is 'full' all the time.  It was a simplifying assumption. But the ideal BRT would move more people than the ideal traffic lane. (2439 vs. 1596).

But if we make that more realistic, and assume that the bus is half full during the peak hour (perhaps generous, but plausible), the numbers are much less flattering to BRT. Even at max buses/hour, it moves about as many as an actual travel lane (1215 vs. 1330/1064). However, during rush hour, 30 buses/hour compares favorably: 1215 vs. 1045/836. Hence, during rush hour, a BRT simply carries more persons than any traffic lane, even at 50% full.

 However, dropping the number of buses per hour significantly undermines that advantage. As 5 minute headway (12 buses/hour), a half-full BRT only has a capacity of 486, less than half of that for traffic lane, even during rush hour. Each bus would need to be full (90 people) during rush hour, to equal the capacity of a traffic lane. 

For automobile travel, passengers per vehicle is the real wild-card. As the chart shows, an HOV lane, even minimally loaded (2 persons) at its worse (1520) carries more persons than all the BRT systems except the full loaded BRT at 3 or 4 minute headways. 

This suggests a system of on-arterial HOV lanes would be a more effective strategy than BRT. But that will be the topic for a later post.