Traffic Engineering for Transit Operations

Transcription

1 Traffic Engineering for Transit Operations Improving Speed & Reliability Owen Kehoe, PE, PTOE King County Metro Transit Systems & Traffic Engineering Group

2 OVERVIEW Speed & Reliability Tools Transit Signal Priority (TSP) Legacy System New/RapidRide ITS Bus Stop Consolidation & Spacing Past Projects The New Way

3 Source: King County Metro Rider / Non-Rider Survey 2009 Barriers to Taking the Bus

4 Speed & Reliability Tools Engineering solutions to solve transit operations problems. Spot Improvements Corridor Study Examples: Queue Jump Signal Transit Lane/Parking Removal Signal Timing/Phasing Transit Signal Priority Bus stop Consolidation/Spacing

5 Queue Jump Signal Special bus signal Provides advance green for waiting buses Columbia St & 2 nd Ave NE 45 th St & 7 th Ave (I-5 NB Ramp)

6 Queue Jump Signal Montlake Blvd & NE Pacific St (HOV lane)

7 Bus Bulbs Convert pull-out stop to in-lane stop Eliminates merging delay Additional space for customers & amenities University Way

8 Bus Bulbs N 45 th St & Woodlawn Ave N

9 Parking Removal Free the curb lane for transit use Simple to implement; but opposition can be fierce Wallingford Ave N & N 85th St Delridge Way SW

10 161st AVE NE 160th AVE NE Channelization Change in Lane Configuration 14 th Ave & E Union St WB BUS ZONE NE 85th ST NE 85 th St (Redmond)

11 Transit Lane Transit-Only / Bus-Only Transit/HOV Lane Business Access &Transit Lane (BAT Lane) Transit & Right-Turn-Only Lane Aurora Ave N Avalon Way SW

12 SDOT Paintline Sketch: Madison St & Boren Ave

13 Turn Radius Improvements Intersection changes ease turning maneuvers 16th Ave SW & SW 107th St (Route 120)

14 Signal Timing/Phasing Re-time signals to improve general traffic flow Special considerations for transit movements. Change signal phasing (e.g. add left turn arrow) Broadway Ave & E Pine St

15 Bus Stop Capacity Improvements Reduce queuing & dwell time at busy bus stops Lengthen bus stop Skip-Stop Operations

16 Bus Stop Capacity Improvements Preparations for Pay-on-Entry Operations i.e., The end of the Ride Free Area Simulations Identify Operational Improvements Move Routes and Skip- Stop Assignments Transit Tunnel Pay-on-Entry Simulation

17 Transit Signal Priority (TSP) Using bus detection technology to give transit vehicles preferential treatment at traffic signals The King County Legacy TSP System

18 Legacy TSP System Roadside Reader Antenna RFID Tag

19 TPR Generator Interfaces with traffic controller. Determines if bus is eligible for priority. Stores logs and priority logic.

20 Next Generation TSP Rapid Ride ITS Continuous vehicle-toroadside communication using 4.9 GHz Wireless Access Points (WAP) Fiber-Optic communication backbone

21 Traffic/ITS Cabinet Transit Section Traffic Section Type-VI signal cabinet with Transit-ITS compartment

22 RapidRide ITS Architecture Roadside Network Operation and Maintenance RapidRide TSP Architecture ITS Architecture Central Systems IP Transport, VPN Roadside IP Network intersection KC WAN KC Enterprise Firewall KC Corridor Router Switch Wi-fi transceiver Wi-fi Antenna Wi-fi transceiver Wi-fi Access Pt/Bridge TPRG Signal Controller Passenger Info Sign SAFTP RF Tag Tag Reader Tech Pylon RapidRide Coach

23 Other Detection Strategies South Bellevue P&R Buses detected using traffic loop detectors, calls TSP. Blue light tells operators when bus is detected

24 TSP Strategies Allowed Green Extension Red Truncation City Restrictions NORMAL GREEN Shall not shorten any minimum or clearance intervals (vehicle or ped) Shall not skip any phases TSP NORMAL RED TSP Shall not break coordination Shall yield to high priority calls CYCLE LENGTH NORMAL RED RECOVERY NORMAL GREEN RECOVERY Recovery strategy depends on controller type

25 Bus Stop Consolidation a.k.a. Bus Stop Spacing Program Closing/relocating selected stops on established bus route

26 Bus Stop Spacing Goals Speed Travel Time Reliability Schedule Deviation Reduce fuel consumption and emissions Improve ride comfort Reduce operating and maintenance cost Fewer stops to maintain Higher usage at stops, more amenities

27 Disadvantages Some riders have a longer walk to the bus stop Potential diversion to paratransit Potential initial drop in ridership Potential impacts to friends and former graduate school advisors

28 Past Bus Stop Consolidation Routes 5, 7, 48, 120, 358, 522, and others Significant amount of public involvement Often tied to corridor projects or service changes Example: Route 48 Project December 2002 October 2003 Extensive community outreach, data collection Route split into segments/phases 41 out of 240 total bus stops closed (26%) Corridor Traffic Operations Analysis followed

29 2010 Bus Stop Spacing Program Budget shortfall Emphasis on scheduling efficiencies 8 routes/corridors selected Template-based analysis and implementation Consolidated public outreach Focus on the riders and their bus stops rather than highlevel discussion

30 Criteria Goal: ¼-mile spacing where possible Closures chosen based on: Ridership relative to nearby stops Consider origins/destinations Evidence of Hide & Ride Traffic control at intersections Seniors and people with disabilities Sidewalk conditions / topography Lighting and security History and investment

31 Criteria Example of a candidate bus stop closure (Route 28)

32 8TH AVE NW 6TH AVE NW 3RD AVE NW 1ST AVE NW GREENWOOD AVE N ¼ mile coverage Identify lost coverage areas NW 85TH ST RETAINED BUS STOPS CLOSED BUS STOPS 1/4 MILE WALK ZONE WITH NEW STOP PATTERN LOST COVERAGE

33 4 weeks! Current Process Field visit and data gathering Preliminary Plan Post Rider Alerts Public Comment Period 2 weeks Plan refinement 1 week Prepare for closures 1 week Remove or hood signs Monitor for issues ongoing

34 Public Reaction General support for fewer stops Stop-specific feedback 80%-90% negative. Feedback per bus stop pair: Question: Highest: 162 comments Lowest: 0 comments Typical: 2-20 comments One approach that Metro could take is to remove some stops, spacing them about a quarter of a mile apart along bus routes. This could speed up your bus trip, however, resulting in a longer walk. Strongly Support Somewhat Support Neutral Somewhat Oppose Strongly Oppose Source: King County Metro Rider / Non-Rider Survey 2009

35 Number of Stops 2010 Results 736 bus stops analyzed 157 closed (21%) 32 stops retained based on feedback Route 28 Stop Spacing Distribution Before After 0 0 1/8 1/4 3/8 1/2 Distance Between Stops (miles)

36 Completed 2011 Plan Currently Posted 8 more routes planned 36, 60, 73, 41, 67, 2, 11, and 44 Routes chosen based on: Qualitative factors Routes connecting urban centers Ridership and service The number of potential closures Potential for scheduling improvements

37 Running time [min] 23:00 22:00 21:00 20:00 19:00 18:00 17:00 16:00 15:00 14:00 13:00 12:00 11:00 10:00 9:00 8:00 7:00 6:00 5:00 Running time [min] 23:00 22:00 21:00 20:00 19:00 18:00 17:00 16:00 15:00 14:00 13:00 12:00 11:00 10:00 9:00 8:00 7:00 6:00 5:00 Route 48 North Trip Run times: 2002 Results: Trip times Route 48 North Trip Run times: Scheduled time 5 - Scheduled time Sched Average O Average for specific trip O Average for specific trip Sched Average 0 0 Time of Day Time of Day Daily average savings: Almost 1 minute per trip

38 } Autumn 2002: 11,590 avg. weekday rides Autumn 2003: 12,430 avg. weekday rides 7% increase Results: Ridership Some trips added Spring 2008: 14,080 Bus Stop Consolidation Process

39 Wrap Up Speed & Reliability Important to Riders Variety of Tools Available City Cooperation often required Optimize person-delay, not vehicle-delay New Opportunities ITS Network Advanced TSP Systems Budget Constraints Stop Spacing Program

40 Traffic Engineering for Transit Operations Improving Speed & Reliability Owen Kehoe, PE, PTOE King County Metro Transit Systems & Traffic Engineering Group Acknowledgements: Mike Cechvala, PE, for the Bus Stop Spacing slides John Toone, for the fancy RapidRide ITS slides