CCP 02-22-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . . . Metro Transit Sectors 1 and 2 Restructuring Study Volume II: Service Plan PROTECTING SPEED AND RELIABILITY e Most transit systems in growing communities are very gradually slowing down. Many agencies lose 1 % or more per year in average operating speed, due to a combination of rising patronage (which increases boarding times) and increased traffic congestion. Traditionally, major transit agencies have set aside a portion of their expansion resources for 'headway maintenance,' which means adding buses to a line so that R has more time to complete its cycle. This may be lhe only solution to a running time problem in the short term, but it does nothing to arrest the downward slide in operating speeds. Instead, the transR agency simply pays more drivers to endure ever-increasing delays, and tolerates the gradual deterioration in the speed of the service. When talking about transit speed, we are referring to traveltime. The buses do not have to travel at faster speeds. The system must eliminate as much delay as possibility. Transit operating speed is a crucial consideration for two reasons. First, time is money; the longer R takes to complete the cycle of a line, the more it will cost to operate a given frequency. Second, the discretionary transit rider is very sensitive to speed. Because transR must stop to pick up passengers, it will usually be slower than cars driving on the same street. If R is too much slower, R will lose passengers to the automobile. For these reasons, every major transit agency needs a comprehensive speed-protection strategy. The goal of such a strategy should be to set and maintain an average service speed policy on every line even as congestion, ridership, and other factors increase. The policy speed, of course, would vary with the line, but the slowest services - urban locals - are also the most crowded, so even the loss of 1 mph in speed can have cost and ridership impacts. Ultimately, the policy speed should be included in the street classification system of the local jurisdiction, so that a deficiency in transR speed becomes visible as a problem just as deteriorations in traffic Level of Service do. e Eventually, protecting the policy speed requires joint action between the transR agency and the local jurisdiction that manages the roadway in question. In some cases, Metro TransR can take the lead in making changes that improve speed. In other cases, the local jurisdiction that controls the roadway would take the lead. Virtually all of these measures, however, require cooperation between Metro Transit and the local jurisdiction in question. The following brief descriptions identify the typical lead agency in each case. Stop Spacing On many major Metro Transit lines, stops are extremely close together. Often, they are located at every intersection, which in the core cities can mean every 300 feet or less. An ideal stop spacing is close enough that everyone in the surrounding area can walk to a bus stop, but no closer. Two blocks, typically about 600 feet, is a common spacing standard in the industry, and even this spacing, if applied uniformly at Metro Transit, would speed up service noticeably. However, the maximum tolerable spacing for local lines is usually in the range of 800-1000 feet, or about three city blocks. e Nelson \Nygaard Consulting 7-2 November 2, 1999