Preliminary TRANSFER SYSTEM AND ROUTE SYSTEM ANALYSIS

PreliminaryTRANSFER STATIONAND ROUTE SYSTEMANALYSISDan Scott, AIA, MBAJuly 26, 2011Cliffs Notes Version

Educational backgroundEconomic Geography minor while getting my Bachelors in Environmental Design and Bachelors of Architecture.At the time, this was a prerequisite to a Masters in Urban Planning.Decided to get an MBA instead of the MUP, but the influence is still with me.

Professional backgroundInducted into the inaugural class of a professional designation called Citizen Architect.This AIA award is for contributions to my community and to the profession of architecture.

Personal backgroundNative of Springfield and care very deeply about my community.Visionary personalityan innate desire to improve things around me.Travels to 24 +/- countries has provided a broad experience in mass transit.

Why am I interested?Best Practices in Transit System PlanningFlorida Department of Transportation Research Center March 2009

Identify best practices and develop a generic model approach for fixed route transit planning.

Best Practices in TransitSeattle Urban Mobility Plan January 2008

Transitmust be seen as a positive choice compared to driving.Design and Evaluation CriteriaOR

ROUTESTRANSFER STATIONWhich came first?

Routes!

Routes have a greater ability to improve service to the transit customer.

Def: Customer Service = Get passengers between two points FASTER!

Improvement options include: shorter routes, more busses, easier fare collection, priority signaling, bypass lanes, transit only lanes.

Conversely, an improperly located Transfer Stations can harm service by forcing routes through a fixed location that may not align with passenger destinations. (Transystems Route Study)

Why routes?A transfer station location should be determined as a result of a fully optimized route system.

PS: i.e., let the chicken decide where to lay the egg

PS2: and dont tell the chicken she can only lay downtown.The ResultDevelop a modeling technique that allow an apple-to-apples comparison between varying system strategies. (i.e. quantifiable abstraction)

Develop the models around Florida Best Practices for Transit System Planning.

Compare varying route and transfer station strategies in order to determine which strategies MAY best fit our needs.

Suggest a range of possible solutions for further study.It is in no way intended as, Here it is. Ive got it figured out.

Analysis MethodologyEXISTING CU SYSTEM

GRAPHIC MODEL

SYSTEM STATISTICSROUTEEXISTINGLENGTHSYSTEM30 MIN345 MIN260 MIN7HEADWAY30 MIN760 MIN5*# OF BUSSESFOR 30 MINHEADWAYSYSTEMWIDE20AVERAGETRIP TIME52.2MAXIMUMTRIP TIME111EXISTING CU SYSTEM

EXISTING CU SYSTEMEXISTING SYSTEM TRANSFER STATION TRAVEL TIMES1-KANSAS EXP2-EAST DALE4-CENTRAL5-GLENSTONE6-COLLEGE7-CAMPBELL9-FORT10-CDRBROOK11-SUNSHINE12-NATIONAL13-NICHOLS14-ATLANTICABCABCABCABCABCABCABCABCABCABCABCABCA53453753453745372960524460524460524460524475675995877960524445372960524414-ATLANTICB615345615345534537686052686052686052686052837567103958768605253453786052C6961536961536153457668607668607668607668609183781111039576686061534516860A38302238302230221445372945372945372945372959514480726445372960524413-NICHOLSB46383046383038302253453753453753453753453767595288807253453786052C54463854463846383061534561534561534561534575676096888061534516860A53453753453745372960524460524460524460524475675925524460524412-NATIONALB615345615345534537686052686052686052686052837567336052686052C696153696153615345766860766860766860766860918378416860766860A524436524436453729054060524460524460524459514360524411-SUNSHINEB6052446052445345378584868605268605268605267595186052C68605268605261534516645676686076686076686053675916860A6052442315760524475675975675975675975675930221410-CDRBROOKB68605231231568605283756783756783756783756783022C76686039312376686091837891837891837891837816830A5345375345377567596052446052446052446052449-FORTB61534561534583756768605268605268605286052C69615369615391837876686076686076686016860A5345375345374537296052446052446052447-CAMPBELLB61534561534553453768605268605286052C69615369615361534576686076686016860A5345375345374537296052446052446-COLLEGEB61534561534553453768605286052C69615369615361534576686016860A5345375345374537296052445-GLENSTONEB61534561534553453786052C69615369615361534516860A3830223830223022144-CENTRALB46383046383083022C54463854463816830A4537294537292-EAST DALEB53453784537C61534516845A4537291-KANSAS EXPB84537C16845TOTAL TRIP TIME =1986174315001716149712781575136511581536150713951512138012511308120010951104102093993286478375682578956749542324325526784120156AVG TRIP TIME =55484252453953463957565263585262575261575262585263696663554741434528405252.2= AVERAGE OVERALL TRIP TIME(FOR 702 TOTAL TRIPS)

OUR CITY, USA

BEST PRACTICES Characteristics of a transit system to attract riders:

30 MINUTE ROUTESMaximum 7.5 mile routes at 15 mphMaximum 10.0 mile routes at 20 mph

30 MINUTE HEADWAYS

ROUTE DIRECTNESS

TRAVEL TIME that is competitive to automobile.Dividing Our City, USA into twelve sections gives us the best opportunity to meet Best PracticesTRANSFER LOCATION DECISIONAre there reasons to think beyond a Single Transfer Station?Look at best practices in other cities

FTA ranked 77 of the Best Small Transit Intensive Cities

The top 20 of that 77 are listed

The Top 20 Small Transit Intensive Cities average number of stations is 3.6

Small Transit Intensive CitiesTotalTotalUrbanized Area# Routes# StationsBremerton, WA4710Eugene-Springfield, OR3910Richland-Kennewick-Pasco, WA248Santa Cruz, CA324Champaign-Urbana, IL173Santa Barbara, CA251Seaside-Monterey, CA383Brockton, MA111Laredo, TX221Olympia, WA175Bellingham, WA252Boulder, CO202Davis, CA183Florence, SC61Palm Springs, CA103Santa Rosa, CA195Winston-Salem, NC243Ithaca, NY283New Bedford, MA132Binghamton, NY13222.43.6SINGLE TRANSFER STATION

SYSTEM STATISTICSROUTEEXISTINGSINGLELENGTHSYSTEMTS SYSTEM30 MIN3445 MIN2460 MIN74HEADWAY30 MIN71260 MIN50# OF BUSSESFOR 30 MINHEADWAYSYSTEMWIDE2018AVERAGETRIP TIME52.242.8(-17%)MAXIMUMTRIP TIME11176but how does the system expand as the city grow?DUAL TRANSFER STATIONS(and smaller, too!)

SYSTEM STATISTICSROUTEEXISTINGSINGLEDUALLENGTHSYSTEMTS SYSTEMTS SYSTEM30 MIN34845 MIN24460 MIN740HEADWAY30 MIN7121260 MIN500# OF BUSSESFOR 30 MINHEADWAYSYSTEMWIDE201816AVERAGETRIP TIME52.242.840.1(-17%)(-23%)MAXIMUMTRIP TIME1117676greater expandability?TRIPLE TRANSFER STATION(and even smaller!)

SYSTEM STATISTICSROUTEEXISTINGSINGLEDUALTRIPLELENGTHSYSTEMTS SYSTEMTS SYSTEMTS SYSTEM30 MIN3481245 MIN244060 MIN7400HEADWAY30 MIN712121260 MIN5000# OF BUSSESFOR 30 MINHEADWAYSYSTEMWIDE20181616AVERAGETRIP TIME52.242.840.140.8(-17%)(-23%)(-21%)MAXIMUMTRIP TIME111767676greater expandability?THE SPINE (LOS ANGELES B.R.T.)SYSTEM STATISTICSROUTEEXISTINGSINGLEDUALTRIPLESPINELENGTHSYSTEMTS SYSTEMTS SYSTEMTS SYSTEMSYSTEM30 MIN348121245 MIN2440060 MIN74000HEADWAY30 MIN71212121260 MIN50000# OF BUSSESFOR 30 MINHEADWAYSYSTEMWIDE2018161416AVERAGETRIP TIME52.242.840.140.834.2(REDUCTION)(-17%)(-23%)(-21%)(-35%)*MAXIMUMTRIP TIME11176767665

WHAT MIGHT THIS SYSTEM LOOK LIKE?FEATURES:All core routes are 30 min. in length

All core routes are 15 or 30 min. headways

Travel times are more direct and competitive to driving

System is easily expandable

System operates on only 17 - 22 busses for full daytime service

Customers spend up to 36 min./day less in average travel time

CAN WE AFFORD IT?We can either run the system cheaper or longer!Budget Comparison

CU System$5,824,373

Matching Level of Service$4,983,676

ExtendedLevel of Service$6,899,089TRANSFER LOCATION DECISIONHow does this information effect the decision where to locate a Transfer Station?Of the five scenarios presented, the two depicting single station solutions were ranked 4th and 5th out of five.

Multiple station solutions improve system performance in all criteria.

Multiple station solutions reduces the size of Transfer Station to 5 8 busses.

Reduces the impact on neighborhoods and mitigates NIMBY concerns.

Provides for future expandability and support for regional transit.

It allows us to consider whether the best transfer station location also supports the best route system.

It allows CU Transit to refocus on the goal of getting the transit customer between two points F-A-S-T-E-R-!!

RECOMMENDATONSStart believing that customer service means getting passengers between two points FASTER

Consider routes first (with TS in mind) so routes can be optimized

Abandon single station plan, especially one that is not on arterial streets

Remember that the FTA indicates the top 20 Small Transit Intensive Cities have an average of 3.6 transfer stations

Align a 2-station, 3-station or B.R.T. Spine along Campbell or NationalA 2-station or 3-station scheme requires much smaller propertiesMost of which are already in public ownershipAny of these choices supports regional transit better

The B.R.T. system requires only double length turn-outs at 6 or 12 locationSpend most of the grants expanding transit campus to the north.

Keep repeating that customer service means getting passengers between two points FASTER.NEXT STEPSA quantifiable response

Good Community Committee recommendation for presentation to full Board of Public Utility

Peer review of proposal content by routes study consultant, and transfer station consultant

Invitation to serve on the OTO Project Steering Committee

Presentation to joint meeting of CU Board, City Council and OTO Board

Community comment

I am very excited about this -- bringing the travel times down is like increasing reliability and convenience to our customers of other services - it should be paramount in our priorities, while still keeping the same level of modest funding.Brian Hamburg

Questions?THANK YOU!