 |
Yeah well, it's just too bad arterial bus lanes don't improve bus speeds, but now we have SB 743.."math" free traffic planning...
Author: BOB2
Date: 11-27-2019 - 00:18
I've seen this "thesis". It makes some interesting points and states some BS, too.
About half of the loss of bus patrons is from bus switching, from some of MTA's own passenger surveys over the last 20 years as rail lines have opened, and about half of the bus ridership has been lost as a result of immigrant drivers licensing, which is promoted to encourage insurance coverage. So that claim is dubious.
Then there is the nonsense about the arterial creating the arterial bus lane, so the busses will have "priority" over those "evil" auto, will allow the buses to operate "just like" the wonderful "Orangeline" busway in the Valley, which has been stuck at about 25,000-30,009 riders in it best years.
I was tasked with testing this concept and "theory" that exclusive arterial bus lanes would "save" travel time, back in the days before "faith based" transit planning and common core math back in the 90's.
We tested this hypothesis, by using actual "time in motion" studies, which identified all bus delay factors, boarding passengers, alighting passengers, pulling into traffic, pulling out, wait time at intersecting traffic signals, etc.. We went out and did it on Tuesday and Wednesday during the PM peak, (busiest most congested times), and on Sunday mornings (virtually no traffic congestion to test the "free flow" speed that might be offered by an exclusive lane) of the proposed arterial busway routes then "advocated" for such treatments, including some still being studied today. We also tested the only exclusive bus lane on Spring Street between 8th and 1st Streets.
It was found that such exclusive bus lanes would likely NOT improve average bus speeds or travel times for users. In fact, we did the same test for Spring Street, and found that buses using the mixed flow (non exclusive) travel lanes on Spring actually had a faster travel time, than the buses using the reverse flow "exclusive" bus lane. Worse, we found that the (then still RTD) MTA's accident rate on that segment of Spring on the contra flow "exclusive" bus lane, was among the highest on the MTA.
We did find that traffic signal "prioritization" could have a 3-8 percent range improvement in speeds, however. But, found NO effect on speeds from the bus lanes themselves. But, we found that they would have serious impacts on mixed flow traffic congestion, significantly increasing travel times for auto users, fuel use, and CO2 emissions. However, to those who belief that personal mobility is "evil" this "punish" the "evil" car, such "math" is "heresy", of the most politically inconvenient sort, these days.
Of course, I'm a "dinosaur" from the age of "math" based traffic engineering, transportation economics, and environmental planning, using "obsolete" "science", doing things like collecting "data" and "observations" of "real" conditions, and testing these sort of things.
Now, of course, in California we have passed SB 745, which eliminates "travel delay" and congested travel times, or the need for "measuring" congestion impacts in CEQA, an only use "aggregate" VMT (vehicle miles of travel) to "measure" traffic...(intersection level analysis is also "eliminated", regardless of how many signals you may have to sit through)…
And, in this "math free" world of "miracles" and the "magic pixie dust", SB 743 doesn't count any new VMT generated by new projects of any sort within 11/2 mile a "transit station", as the "magic pixie dust" contained in SB743 makes all of those cars at all of those TOD's "magically" "disappear"....
Who benefits? Developers, who get more density, without having to do traffic congestion mitigation... of course... Go figure? As I've observed in the past, we do have the "best gubmint" that money can buy... Politicians still understand that math...
About half of the loss of bus patrons is from bus switching, from some of MTA's own passenger surveys over the last 20 years as rail lines have opened, and about half of the bus ridership has been lost as a result of immigrant drivers licensing, which is promoted to encourage insurance coverage. So that claim is dubious.
Then there is the nonsense about the arterial creating the arterial bus lane, so the busses will have "priority" over those "evil" auto, will allow the buses to operate "just like" the wonderful "Orangeline" busway in the Valley, which has been stuck at about 25,000-30,009 riders in it best years.
I was tasked with testing this concept and "theory" that exclusive arterial bus lanes would "save" travel time, back in the days before "faith based" transit planning and common core math back in the 90's.
We tested this hypothesis, by using actual "time in motion" studies, which identified all bus delay factors, boarding passengers, alighting passengers, pulling into traffic, pulling out, wait time at intersecting traffic signals, etc.. We went out and did it on Tuesday and Wednesday during the PM peak, (busiest most congested times), and on Sunday mornings (virtually no traffic congestion to test the "free flow" speed that might be offered by an exclusive lane) of the proposed arterial busway routes then "advocated" for such treatments, including some still being studied today. We also tested the only exclusive bus lane on Spring Street between 8th and 1st Streets.
It was found that such exclusive bus lanes would likely NOT improve average bus speeds or travel times for users. In fact, we did the same test for Spring Street, and found that buses using the mixed flow (non exclusive) travel lanes on Spring actually had a faster travel time, than the buses using the reverse flow "exclusive" bus lane. Worse, we found that the (then still RTD) MTA's accident rate on that segment of Spring on the contra flow "exclusive" bus lane, was among the highest on the MTA.
We did find that traffic signal "prioritization" could have a 3-8 percent range improvement in speeds, however. But, found NO effect on speeds from the bus lanes themselves. But, we found that they would have serious impacts on mixed flow traffic congestion, significantly increasing travel times for auto users, fuel use, and CO2 emissions. However, to those who belief that personal mobility is "evil" this "punish" the "evil" car, such "math" is "heresy", of the most politically inconvenient sort, these days.
Of course, I'm a "dinosaur" from the age of "math" based traffic engineering, transportation economics, and environmental planning, using "obsolete" "science", doing things like collecting "data" and "observations" of "real" conditions, and testing these sort of things.
Now, of course, in California we have passed SB 745, which eliminates "travel delay" and congested travel times, or the need for "measuring" congestion impacts in CEQA, an only use "aggregate" VMT (vehicle miles of travel) to "measure" traffic...(intersection level analysis is also "eliminated", regardless of how many signals you may have to sit through)…
And, in this "math free" world of "miracles" and the "magic pixie dust", SB 743 doesn't count any new VMT generated by new projects of any sort within 11/2 mile a "transit station", as the "magic pixie dust" contained in SB743 makes all of those cars at all of those TOD's "magically" "disappear"....
Who benefits? Developers, who get more density, without having to do traffic congestion mitigation... of course... Go figure? As I've observed in the past, we do have the "best gubmint" that money can buy... Politicians still understand that math...
