© 2007 Noblis, Inc.

BUS RAPID TRANSIT AS A CATALYST FOR LAND USE CHANGE: THE ROUTE 1 CORRIDOR CASE STUDY

11th TRB National Transportation Planning Applications ConferenceMay 9, 2007

Matthew Hardy, Lead Transportation EngineerDonald Roberts, Senior Principal Manager

2

Overview

• Background• Literature Review• Research Question and Hypothesis• Methodology and Analysis• Hypothesis Testing• Conclusion

3

Background

• 2005 BRAC Recommendations:– Consolidate 21,000 government employees from

Crystal City to Ft. Belvoir

• Transportation infrastructure consists of 4-lane Route 1– Limited bus service, no rail service

• Current transportation planning not focused on Route 1 Corridor

• This research provides first systematic evaluation of transit aspects for Route 1 Corridor

4

The Route 1 Corridor

Ft. Belvoir

Crystal City

Rt. 1 Corridor

5

Crystal City

6

Ft. Belvoir

7

Literature Review

1) BRAC Impacts2) Transportation & Land Use3) Bus Rapid Transit

8

BRAC Impacts

• 2005 BRAC recommendation unique for the National Capital Region– Calls for major intra-region consolidation– 1988, 1991, 1993 and 1995 recommendations focused

on inter-region consolidation

• WashCOG BRAC Impact Analysis– Limited impact on the region– Possible localized impact (Arlington/Fairfax County)

9

Transportation & Land Use

• Role of Government–Insure mixed-use components?–Free market activities?–Economic Realities?

• Transit and Land Use–Focus on Rail. Why?

“increasingly en vogue with policy-makers, the media and researchers due to nostalgia, potential environmental

efficiency, ease of provision of high frequency service and attractiveness of guaranteed service”

10

Bus Rapid Transit

Major Elements of BRT

System Performance

System Benefits

Right-of-Way Stations Vehicles Fare Collection Intelligent Transportation

Systems Service and Operations

Plan

Travel Time Savings Reliability Safety & Security Capacity Identity and Image

Ridership Transit – Supportive Land

Development Capital Cost Effectiveness Operating Efficiency Environmental Quality Land Development

• Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit (CBRT)

• ITS & BRT Assessment Tool– Developed by Noblis– Sketch planning tool that “automates” CBRT

11

Research Statements

12

Research Questions

• Can a transit system be implemented in the Route 1 Corridor that provides high-quality service as defined in the literature review?

• Can a transit service be constructed such that the opportunity cost associated with it does not preclude other corridors from receiving transit service?

• Will or can a bus-based transit service foster land use change?

• What type of transit system can be operational by 2011?

13

Hypothesis

BRT systems provide high-quality transit service in terms of travel time and system capacity, reduce opportunity costs over other transportation options (thus enable funding for additional transit service in other corridors in the application region), and act as a catalyst for land use change.

14

Methodology

1) Comparable BRT and LRT Systems2) ITS & BRT Assessment Tool

15

Comparable BRT and LRT Systems

• Silver Line: Boston, MA• MAX: Las Vegas, NV• San Pablo RAPID: Oakland, CA• Brisbane South East Busway: Brisbane, Australia• TransMillenio: Bogota, Columbia• LRT: Developed from Comparison of Bus Rapid

Transit & Light Rail Transit Characteristics

16

Transit Modeling SpectrumS

imp

leC

om

plex

Paramics

VISSIM

SCRITS

IDASSTEAM

ITS & BRT Assessment Tool

SPASM

CBRT

TLOS

ITSUP

TransCAD

FTIS

SmartBRT

4-Step Process

Benefit-cost

Analysis

TCQOS

Limited, Rough Estimation, Short Run Times,Limited Training, Lower Set-Up Costs,

Quicker Development

Comprehensive, Precise Calculation, Longer Run Times, Training Required,

Higher Set-Up Costs, Longer Development

17

Role of CBRT and IBAT

Final Design and Construction

PreliminaryEngineering

Level of Detail

Alternative Analysis

Number of Alternatives

Final Design and Construction

AlternativesAnalysis

CBRTSystems/SketchPlanning Supported

by IBAT

18

ITS & BRT Assessment Tool

Running WayFare CollectionStation DesignVehicle

CharacteristicsMarketing/ImageService PlanLegacy ITSNetwork/Corridor

InputsInputs AnalysisAnalysis OutputsOutputs

Packages of ITSMin, Avg, Max

CostsBenefitsROIImpact Measures

ITS Impact Algorithm

Network/Corridor Analysis Algorithm

System PerformanceMeasures

ITS Decision Tree(Hierarchy)

ITS Refinement

ITS Enhanced BRTCharacteristics of BRTBRT Impact Database

Characteristics of BRTTCRP A-23TCRP A-23a

19

Analysis

1) System Performance Measures2) Opportunity Costs3) Land Use Impact

20

System Evaluation TableB C D E F G H

San Pablo RAPID MAX Silver Line Brisbane South East Busway TransMillenio

Oakland, CA Las Vegas, CA Boston, MA Brisbane, Australia Bogota, Columbia

Length 14 Miles 7.6 Miles 2.4 Miles 10.5 Miles 26 miles -- 8.5 miles

Type Mixed Traffic Designated Arterial Designated Arterial Dedicated ROW Dedicated ROW -- Dedicated ROW

Pay On-Board Proof-of-Payment Pay On-Board Off-Board Off-Board Off-Board Off-Board

60' Articulated & 60' Articulated &

40' Standard 40' Standard

Peak Headway 12 minutes 12 minutes 10 minutes 1 to 6 minutes 2 minutes 5 minutes 5 minutes

Off-Peak Headway 12 minutes 15 minutes 15 minutes 5 to 15 minutes 10 minutes 10 minutes 10 minutes

Quantity 27 11 12 10 61 -- 11

Transit Station

Designated Station

Enhanced Shelter

Spacing 0.5 miles 0.75 miles 0.2 miles 1 mile 0.25 miles -- 0.75 Miles

770 1440 1264 11,000 41,000 9,600 5,400

13.3 mph 15 mph 8 mph n/a 13 mph 12 mph 12.7 mph

Daily Boardings 5,899 5,000 (2004) 13,018 60,000 1,050,000 n/a 14,000

Increase 66% 25% 96% 47% n/a n/a n/a

New Riders 45% 25% 17% n/a 9% n/a n/a

Total $3,200,000 $20,290,414 $27,290,000 $175,000,000 $240,000,000 n/a $90,000,000

per mile $230,000 $2,640,000 $11,000,000 $16,600,000 $9,375,000 $50,000,000 $10,600,000

NoneTwo additional stations paid for by private company after system operational.

$1.22 billion in new development within the corridor.

20% increase in property values within 6 miles of busway.

Proximity to transit stations has increased property values.

n/a n/a

Capital Costs

Land Use Impacts

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e

Me

as

ure

s System Capacity (pphpd)

Average Operating Speed

Be

ne

fits

Ridership

60' Articulated

Operations

Stations Style Enhanced Shelter Designated Station Enhanced Shelter Transit Stations -- Designated Station

40' Stylized BRT 60' Articulated Specialized BRT 60' Articulated Stylized BRT --

Ele

me

nts

ROW

Fare Collection

Vehicles

A

System NameComparable LRT Route 1 BRT

Location

21

System Performance Measures

• Average Operating Speeds– BRT: 8 to 15 mph– LRT: 12 mph– Route 1 BRT: 12.7 mph

• System Capacity– BRT: 1440 pphpd (U.S.) and 41,000 pphpd (Bogota)– LRT: 9600 pphpd– Route 1 BRT: 5400 pphpd

System capacity is not a limiting factor for BRT given the estimated passenger demand.

22

Opportunity Costs

• Capital Costs– BRT: $230k to $16,600k per mile– LRT: $50,000k per mile– Route 1 BRT: $10,600k per mile

• Operating Costs– No comparable BRT/LRT figures– Operating costs for bus systems (not BRT) are 1/3 to

1/2 those of LRT

23

Land Use Impacts

• Quantifiable data difficult to obtain• No formal land use impact evaluation of U.S. BRT

system– Boston Silver Line ex post assessment real estate data

suggest $1.22 billion in real estate investment

• International Data– Brisbane: 20% increase in land values within 6 miles of

BRT station (2 to 3 times higher rate than elsewhere)– TransMillenio purpose centered around land use

changes

24

Hypothesis Testing

Hypothesis Support Evidence

1. BRT systems provide high-quality transit service.

Strong Five BRT systems had similar average operating speeds as compared to LRT service.

2. BRT systems reduce opportunity costs.

Strong Evidence suggests that the opportunity cost of BRT (measured in terms of capital and operating costs) is strong. However, limited data regarding operating costs.

3. BRT systems act as a catalyst for land use change.

Weak Limited data specific to U.S. BRT systems.

25

Conclusions

26

Route 1 BRT Analysis

• There is strong evidence that BRT is a viable transit option for the Route 1 Corridor– Faster development cycle, innovative operating characteristics,

lower opportunity costs– IBAT tool sufficient to model BRT for sketch planning purposes

• Policy Implications– BRT versus LRT Opportunity Costs– BRT Service Flexibility– Financing Transit

• Future Research– Development of evaluation model for U.S. BRT deployments– BRT and land use connection

27

Thank You.

Matt HardyLead Transportation Engineer

(202) 863-2982matthew.hardy@noblis.org

Don RobertsSenior Principal Manager

(202) 863-2976dlrobert@noblis.org