04 Week4

7/30/2019 04 Week4

1/66

Transport Modes and Technologies

A Walking Tour on LOS, Capacity

Urban Transportation PlanningMIT Course 1.252j/11.380j

Fall 2002

Mikel Murga, MIT Research Associate

September 27, 2002

7/30/2019 04 Week4

2/66

2

Urban Transportation Planning Fall 2002

Day 4

Transport Modes and Technologies

! The automobile

! Transit

! Bus

! Light Rail! Rapid Transit

!

Non Motorized Modes! Walking

! Biking

7/30/2019 04 Week4

3/66

3


Day 4

The Automobile - Infrastructure

! Road system:! Hierarchical system:

! From turnpike to local street

! From unimpeded movement toaccess to properties

! Uninterrupted segments:

! Turnpike (access control)

! Interrupted segments:

! Traffic signals, stops

Mobility

Land Access

Arterials

Collectors

Locals

7/30/2019 04 Week4

4/66

4


Day 4

The Automobile + Infrastructure

! Other support systems:

! Traffic Police

! Traffic Management Centers

! Parking! Gas stations

! Garages

7/30/2019 04 Week4

5/66

5


Day 4

The Automobile Demand Served

!

HBW: Home-based work! HBO: Home-based other:

! Shopping trips

! School trips! Personal and recreational trips

! NHB: Not home-based (ie: Business trips)

HBW represents less than 35%

Peak-spreading and latent demand

7/30/2019 04 Week4

6/666


Day 4

Highway Capacity

! The Power of LittleNumbers! Sophisticated models

are indeed needed

! But so, are littlenumbers in the back of

an envelope

! Who wants to be taken

for a ride?

7/30/2019 04 Week4

7/667


Day 4

Automobile Capacity =Throughput (Veh/hr/ln)

Level-Of-Service (LOS)= Flow/Capacity(or I/C or V/C)

Notice density and spacing

among vehicles

Level of Service A

Level of Service F

7/30/2019 04 Week4

8/668


Day 4

The Automobile Capacity

7/30/2019 04 Week4

9/669


Day 4

The Automobile Capacity and LOS

7/30/2019 04 Week4

10/6610


Day 4

LOS: A changing reality

! Human adaptation is the key

! From infrastructure construction tomanagement of the existing system

!

The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM)speed-flow curve:

! People learning to drive congested roads

! The initial dream of ITS

7/30/2019 04 Week4

11/6611


Day 4

Human adaptation

7/30/2019 04 Week4

12/6612


Day 4

The Automobile Capacity and LOS

7/30/2019 04 Week4

13/6613


Day 4


!

Vehicle throughput in controlledsections:

! Traffic signals, roundabouts, all-stops

!Automobiles and trucks reaction times

! Saturation and gridlock

7/30/2019 04 Week4

14/66

14


Day 4

The Automobile Capacity Reference Nos

7/30/2019 04 Week4

15/66

15


Day 4


! PEOPLE throughput :

!Vehicle throughput times OCCUPANCY

!Auto-occupancy (a non-technical issue)

!

HBW 1.1! HBO-shop 1.4

! HBO-social 1.7

! NHB 1.6

7/30/2019 04 Week4

16/66

16


Day 4

The Automobile Levels-Of-Service

! The power of A to F! From spot values to travel times

! Living under saturated conditions

7/30/2019 04 Week4

17/66

17


Day 4

The Automobile Costs

! Fixed Costs:

!Vehicle purchase

! Insurance

Not considered out-of-pocket expenses

7/30/2019 04 Week4

18/66

18


Day 4


!Variables Costs:

! Gasoline

! Oil and maintenance

! Parking! Tolls

!Automobile Industry -> Service Economy

Ratio between Fixed and Variable Costs

7/30/2019 04 Week4

19/66

19


Day 4


! Social costs:! Roads! Management of road system

! Environmental costs:! Accidents (Swedish Govt.)

! Noise (pedestrian areas)

! Air pollution: cold-start, f(speed)

! Land consumed

! Energy

! Segregation

!

7/30/2019 04 Week4

20/66

20


Day 4

Transit vs The Automobile

Courtesy of CERTU

7/30/2019 04 Week4

21/66

21


Day 4

Transit Demand Served

! HBW represents > 50%

! Peak hours

! Peak directional flows

Easy to accept overcrowding at peak to justifyservice during off-peak hours

7/30/2019 04 Week4

22/66

22


Day 4

Transit - Capacity

!Vehicle size

! Headway (and fleet size)

! Commercial speed

7/30/2019 04 Week4

23/66

23


Day 4

Transit - LOS

LOS related to Capacity and Quality of Service

7/30/2019 04 Week4

24/66

24


Day 4

Transit - LOS

! Occupancy

! Hours of service

! Headway

! Lateness or reliability

! Comfort

! . And other quality-related aspects

7/30/2019 04 Week4

25/66

25


Day 4

Transit - LOS

7/30/2019 04 Week4

26/66

26


Day 4

Transit - LOS

7/30/2019 04 Week4

27/66

27


Day 4

Transit - Cost

! Capital Costs:

! >50-75 years horizon

! Not included in operating costs

! Operating Costs:! Cop=Cd*veh-miles +Ct*veh-hr + Cs*fleet

!

Environmental Costs:!Accident rate

! Noise, soot

7/30/2019 04 Week4

28/66

28


Day 4

Buses

! Flexibility for route adjustments! Closer stop spacing

! In search of higher quality:! Low floor buses for an aging population

! Bus stops:

! Real time info on arrivals (and eventually downstream)

! Maps, transfers, info on ticketing and validation

7/30/2019 04 Week4

29/66

29


Day 4

Buses

! In search of higher quality:! Real time info on board (like a good subway car)

U b T i Pl i F ll 2002

7/30/2019 04 Week4

30/66

30


Day 4

Buses

! Capacity:! Bus type and size:

! Easy access and egress

! No of doors

! No of seated spaces andno of standees

! Commercial speed:! Mixed traffic! Bus lanes

! Signal priority

U b T t ti Pl i F ll 2002

7/30/2019 04 Week4

31/66

31


Day 4

Buses

! Capacity (Contd):! Headway: Peak-hour and off-peak

! Access and ticketing:!

No of doors! Access by the front door, other doors

! Egress by one or two doors

! Low floor

! Ticket validation:! By the bus driver

! On other machines on board

! On the bus stops

U b T t ti Pl i F ll 2002

7/30/2019 04 Week4

32/66

32


Day 4

Rail-based systems

! Mass transit

! Sense ofpermanence

! Separate R.O.W.


7/30/2019 04 Week4

33/66

33


Day 4

Rail-based systems

! Speed profiles


7/30/2019 04 Week4

34/66

34


Day 4

Rail-based systems

! Time-Space

Diagrams


7/30/2019 04 Week4

35/66

35


Day 4

Rail vs Bus

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

Viajeros anuales/310

10000

5000

2500

sube

Metro 90,000 viajerosen 11estaciones

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!! !!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

! !!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

! !!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!!!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

Viajeros 11/12/2000

3000

1500

750

suben

BilboBus 90,000 viajerosen >180 paradas


7/30/2019 04 Week4

36/66

36


Day 4

Light Rail

! From Rapid Rail Transit toLight Rail:

! Lower investments

! But more excitingthan buses! Mixed traffic segments

! Easier to garner support for

priority! Attracts local development


7/30/2019 04 Week4

37/66

37


Day 4

Light Rail

! Full reserved ROW or mixed traffic


7/30/2019 04 Week4

38/66

38


Day 4

Light Rail

! Priority easily awarded


7/30/2019 04 Week4

39/66

39


Day 4

From Public Transport

to Collective Transport

! Jitney service

! Taxi-Bus

! Dial-a-Ride

! Taxi

! Car Sharing


7/30/2019 04 Week4

40/66

40


Day 4

Some comparative numbers

10,000 to72,000

4,000 to20,000

2,400 to20,000

1,800 to2,600

720 to1,050

Capacity(pers/hr)

10-4040-9060-801500-2200600-800Veh/hr

25-7015-455-2060-12020-50Speed(km/hr)

140-2,20040-60040-3001.21.2Vehicleoccupancy

RapidTransit

Semi RapidTransit

Bus LRT

on MixedTraffic

Car onFreeway

Car on citystreets


7/30/2019 04 Week4

41/66

41

p g

Day 4

Walking

! Capacity and LOS:

! Moving (flat, stairs,escalators)

! Waiting

! Again, only related

to throughput?What about qualityof the experience?


7/30/2019 04 Week4

42/66

42

p g

Day 4

Walking

! Speed:

! 2.5 mph, really?! Jaywalking prohibited in Boston?


7/30/2019 04 Week4

43/66

43

p g

Day 4

Biking

! The power of a can of paint

! Safety first and foremost


7/30/2019 04 Week4

44/66

44Day 4

Biking

!A process:

! Target population?! Continuous O-D


7/30/2019 04 Week4

45/66

45Day 4

Biking

A process:Ideasabout

how toimport

this intoBoston??


7/30/2019 04 Week4

46/66

46Day 4

Modal Split: A Critical Issue

! Let us see a few examples from Census

Data (HBW):! Boston

!

Chicago! Los Angeles

! Manhattan

!Any other??


7/30/2019 04 Week4

47/66

47Day 4

Green=Walk to Work, Blue= Transit, Red=Automobile

Boston


7/30/2019 04 Week4

48/66

48Day 4


Chicago


7/30/2019 04 Week4

49/66

49Day 4


Los Angeles


7/30/2019 04 Week4

50/66

50Day 4


Manhattan


Assignment II:

7/30/2019 04 Week4

51/66

51Day 4

Assignment II:

The Millenium Cities Database

! This database is aworld tour thanks toJ.Kenworthy and F.Laube TheMillennium Cities. Database for SustainableTransport sponsoredby the UITP

! A follow-up to the1989 Cities and

AutomobileDependence byP.Newman andJ.Kenworthy


7/30/2019 04 Week4

52/66

52Day 4

The higher the density, the higher

the percentage of sustainable modes

U.S.A.

Western Europe


7/30/2019 04 Week4

53/66

53Day 4

Number of trips, nearly a constant

! The number oftrips result fromthe activities

profile! But be aware that

non-motorized

trips may gounaccounted for,in some surveys

Source ISTP-UITP


7/30/2019 04 Week4

54/66

54Day 4

Percentage of non-motorized trips

Is this a surprise?

Source ISTP-UITP


7/30/2019 04 Week4

55/66

55Day 4

not to be taken lightly

From Mean

Streets 2000 bythe SurfaceTransportation

Project Policy(STPP)

Source ISTP-UITP


7/30/2019 04 Week4

56/66

56Day 4

Automobile ownership

As the difference isnot as big as thesupply of roads

is congestion inWestern Europe

higher than in theStates?

Source ISTP-UITP


7/30/2019 04 Week4

57/66

57Day 4

The role of the automobile

Again, this should

come as nosurprise

Source ISTP-UITP


7/30/2019 04 Week4

58/66

58Day 4

Trip length by car

If the number of tripsare comparable

Does the average cartrip length increaseinversely

proportional to themetropolitandensity?

Source ISTP-UITP


7/30/2019 04 Week4

59/66

59Day 4

A congestion index

! In spite of thedifferences, a similarcongestion ratio

! One reason thehigher trip length inthe States

! Is traffic like anexpanding gas?

Source ISTP-UITP


7/30/2019 04 Week4

60/66

60Day 4

Parking supply in downtown

Again the U.S.

leads clearlyover WesternEurope

Source ISTP-UITP


7/30/2019 04 Week4

61/66

61Day 4

Transit coverage

Notice that theWestern

Europe ratiomore thandoubles the

US ratio

Source ISTP-UITP


7/30/2019 04 Week4

62/66

62Day 4

The high price of road fatalities

U.S.A.

Western Europe.


7/30/2019 04 Week4

63/66

63Day 4

CO emissions per capita

The Environmental cost

Source ISTP-UITP


7/30/2019 04 Week4

64/66

64Day 4

Economic efficiency

! The arguments

go well beyondenvironmentalconcerns,quality of lifeissues, moral

grounds! Clear

economic

consequencesSource ISTP-UITP


7/30/2019 04 Week4

65/66

65Day 4

The cost of a balanced system

Economic sustainability

U.S.A.

Western Europe


Assignment II:

7/30/2019 04 Week4

66/66

Assignment II:The Millenium Database

!An Open-Ended Exercise:

! Data Mining! Different interpretations

!

Raising the right questions is morechallenging than answering them properly

! Come out with your own findings

! Ortega y Gasset said

Documents

04 Week4