Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: WorldTransport Forum New Mobility Thoroughfares

Expand Messages
  • Richard Layman
    wrt the original post, I have made similar examples, not so much per hour but per day, for Georgia Avenue and H Street NE in DC, and Columbia Pike in Arlington
    Message 1 of 6 , Aug 17, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      wrt the original post, I have made similar examples, not so much per hour but per day, for Georgia Avenue and H Street NE in DC, and Columbia Pike in Arlington County, Virginia.  They are mostly 4 lane roads, two lanes in each direction.

      In each case about 25,000 vehicles move through the corridor during an average day.  Of these, between 250-300 vehicles are buses, and move about 15,000 people through the corridor.  While I don't know the truck breakdown, it's fair to say that about 40,000 people move through the corridor/day, 37.5% of them on bus, in vehicles that are a mix of 40' and 60' in length, taking up 3-5 car lengths, but moving far more people.

      It's great that you see fit to regularize this research, which is related to the space utilization arguments made elsewhere:



      Richard Layman
      Washington, DC


      From: Richard Layman <rlaymandc@...>
      To: "WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com" <WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com>
      Cc: Paul Minett <paulminett@...>; "WorldCarShare@yahoogroups.com" <WorldCarShare@yahoogroups.com>; "NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com" <NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com>; "CarFreeCafe@yahoogroups.com" <CarFreeCafe@yahoogroups.com>; "Cities-for-Mobility@yahoogroups.com" <Cities-for-Mobility@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 9:28 AM
      Subject: Re: WorldTransport Forum New Mobility Thoroughfares

      one issue with this, at least as it relates to the U.S., is that U.S. people don't tolerate the same levels of in-bus density, "crush loads."  So buses that in the U.S. are rated for 80 passengers carry 2x that many in Curitiba or Bogota or Santiago.  That's part of the reason that BRT works well in South America, but doesn't in North America.  (Plus the whole passenger entrance/exit/multidoor system.)  In the U.S., running 2x the number of buses reduces the purported cost advantages of buses over light rail.  

      And the recent ITDP report on BRT in the U.S. did not consistently disclose ridership information over all of the case examples--e.g., using percentage increase without providing base numbers.   I think probably because many of the examples aren't that great.  (E.g., the Silver Line in Boston has anemic ridership.)  Plus there is puffery about ancillary real estate development.  E.g., with regard to the Health Line in Cleveland, much of the development was already in the pipeline, as it serves the areas of Cleveland that are still relevant in terms of being prime centers of commercial, health care, and university/academic activity.


      From: Dave Holladay <Tramsol@...>
      To: WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com
      Cc: Paul Minett <paulminett@...>; WorldCarShare@yahoogroups.com; NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com; CarFreeCafe@yahoogroups.com; Cities-for-Mobility@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 9:01 AM
      Subject: Re: WorldTransport Forum New Mobility Thoroughfares

      Take a look at the Street Films reports on Curitiba and Bogota (Milremo) BRT systems flat out they are describing between 35,000 and 40,000 pax/hr on close headway, fast boarding (200-300 pax/bus) buses - on the video watch c 100 pax board via 4 double doors in under 60 secs(?)

      (?) - I recall that the egress rating for a double door fire exit is 80 persons/minute, which makes a lane width operating at maximum moving density = 2 x double fire doors - = 160 ppm = 9600 pph, possibly higher when crush load operation, and allowing for integration of 2 doorways.

      Dave H

      Better Paul, to examine the true door to desk trip, and add the access times to the car doorstep to car, and car park to office, and then offer a doubling in size of your workstation - move out of the 6 sq m in a typical open plan office and take over the 12.5 sq m you have for your car as your new office.  - Would make an interesting image - transhipping an cramped open plan office to the parking lot and giving each worker twice as much working space!

      Anywhere good to set this up as a picture?

      Could do something similar with a retail store - with the car park outside turned in to an expanded retail space - or a market - and the earnings per sq m figure posted, a car park, and a retail premises likewise.  With the question who is making best use of their assets?

      On 17/08/11 11:59, Paul Minett wrote:


      Ridesharing Institute
       
      Dear Colleagues
       
      The New Mobility Agenda emphasises ‘people throughput’ as a central consideration for sustainable transportation.  It has been a central plank for some years.
      Now we are planning a research programme where we will be seeking to find the most successful ‘New Mobility Thoroughfares’.  Put more succinctly, “Which roads have the greatest person throughput per lane hour?”
      In Auckland, NZ we have a piece of ‘motorway’ where we calculate that there are about 3,000 people per lane hour at the peak of the peak.  We think this is p retty good, but we are sure there must be other places where the total is greater. 
      We would like to build a database of ‘nominated’ roads (call them freeways, highways, streets, arterials, boulevards, parkways, turnpikes, or whatever local term works for you) and rank them by the New Mobility Success Metric of ‘people throughput’.
      The research will then seek to understand the combination of factors that led to success.
      The calculation for that piece of motorway in Auckland looks like this:
       
      imap://tramsol@...:993/fetch%3EUID%3E/INBOX%3E30285427?header=quotebody&part=1.2&filename=image002.png
       
      At this location t he motorway is four lanes wide, so the New Mobility Success Metric is 3,050 people per lane hour. (12,200/4).
      At this point we are keen to start a conversation about this, to find out who is thinking this way, and what the questions are that come up when we try to think this way.  If you are aware of any previous research that looks at the same idea, please let me know.  One thought is that we might have different categories, such as bus-only lanes, HOV lanes, general use lanes.  Perhaps cycle lanes will be contenders as well?  Maybe we need categories by different speeds.
      I look forward to hearing your questions and suggestions, and of course, your nominations.
      Kind regards
      Paul Minett
      Ridesharing Institute
      PS  Follow the exploits of the Ridesharing Institute by ‘liking’ us on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Ridesharing-Institute/226523247393284. PM
       







    • Paul Minett
      In the case of the Minett table, that motorway has no sidewalks so the only ‘person throughput’ is what occurs on the four lanes of road. I was not seeking
      Message 2 of 6 , Aug 19, 2011
      • 0 Attachment

        In the case of the Minett table, that motorway has no sidewalks so the only ‘person throughput’ is what occurs on the four lanes of road.

         

        I was not seeking solutions, though they are very welcome, but rather to gather factual data.  In particular, though perhaps I didn’t explain this well, I am interested in finding examples of mixed use (also called general purpose) lanes, and where average occupancy of cars is above the usual 1.1, and a number of buses use the road as well, regardless of how long the trips are. 

         

        Congestion is not caused by the length of the trip, but by the vehicle being there.  Much congestion on our system in Auckland, for example, is caused by ‘local traffic’ that gets on at one ramp and off at the next.

         

        Curitiba and Bogota aside, where the ‘roads’ in question are dedicated BRT (and they are deserving of recognition in our table, don’t get me wrong), which roads are getting the highest ‘person throughput’?  After how many years of the new mobility agenda, with person throughput as a key metric, can we compile a table that shows what is being achieved, in particular in the peak hour (or hours) rather than just capacity for the whole day?

         

        Paul Minett

        Ridesharing Institute

        64 21 289 8444

        64 9 524 9850

         

         

        From: WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com [mailto:WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Chris Bradshaw
        Sent: Saturday, 20 August 2011 12:47 p.m.
        To: WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: WorldTransport Forum New Mobility Thoroughfares

         

         

        

        I don't have any resources to cite regarding thoroughfare capacity, but do have a couple comments.

         

        Throughput is pretty much a product of the footprint of the mode, but is independent of the speed of movement, since as speed goes up, so does the buffer in between road users, pretty much in proportion (since the space on either side of faster vehicles also needs to increase, capacity, or throughput, per square metre, actually declines with speed for any one mode).  Another factor of throughput is the amount of time out of every hour that traffic can move (when cross traffic doesn't have to be given time to move).  Having few intersections per kilometre and having them be subservient (and get a smaller part of the signal cycle) makes for better throughput.

         

        But the Minnett table lacks the two other modes, walking and cycling, that occur in two other "lanes", the sidewalks (both sides, each two-way) and the 'gutter' that cyclists use (where lanes haven't been provided).

         

        But this whole exercise also ignores the total distance of each trip.  The roads aren't just providing for a certain number of people and their vehicles to move, but over a particular distance.  Share of the entire trip does each kilometre represent?  Much of the growth in congestion in the recent decades is the result of the lengthening of each commute.  Many of you would say it is a shift in mode (and a decline in persons per car), but mode is more likely a dependent variable, related to trip length, since the longer the trip, the more likely the traveler will feel the need to travel more 'formally,' thanks to difficulties with logistics, weather, and their own stamina.

         

        Finally, there is one other point.  How many of the roads are available to use for achieving throughput?  In a true grid, each street is available -- although the efficiency of each declines because of lost time for cross traffic to also move.  Paralleling the increase in distance of commutes (and the accompanying shift to more formal modes) is the growth of the hierarchical road system, in which only a few roads are straight and move traffic directly towards various destinations; the rest serve 'feeder' roles on a hiearchy, with most of those roads moving the travelers in a direction other than toward their respective destinations, just to reach an arterial or a road ('circle,' crescent,' even 'walk'), making the trip actually longer, but supposedly pleasing local residents by reducing the load on their streets.

         

        The solution, therefore, may not be increasing throughput on the 10 percent of roads that are arterials, but shortening commutes (by getting employees and employers to co-locate better) and by opening up roads to allow more of them to provide more direct movement and lesensing the amount of traffic at each intersection (see the work by Reid Ewing on this interesting point) so that there are simply fewer vehicles per hour passing through any one intersection, and thus making each work on a shorter cycle, reducing waits, and disenfranchising less the three modes that should be favoured: walking, cycling, and transit.

         

        Chris Bradshaw

        Ottawa

         

         

         

        ----- Original Message -----

        Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 9:28 AM

        Subject: Re: WorldTransport Forum New Mobility Thoroughfares

         

        one issue with this, at least as it relates to the U.S., is that U.S. people don't tolerate the same levels of in-bus density, "crush loads."  So buses that in the U.S. are rated for 80 passengers carry 2x that many in Curitiba or Bogota or Santiago.  That's part of the reason that BRT works well in South America, but doesn't in North America.  (Plus the whole passenger entrance/exit/multidoor system.)  In the U.S., running 2x the number of buses reduces the purported cost advantages of buses over light rail.  

         

        And the recent ITDP report on BRT in the U.S. did not consistently disclose ridership information over all of the case examples--e.g., using percentage increase without providing base numbers.   I think probably because many of the examples aren't that great.  (E.g., the Silver Line in Boston has anemic ridership.)  Plus there is puffery about ancillary real estate development.  E.g., with regard to the Health Line in Cleveland, much of the development was already in the pipeline, as it serves the areas of Cleveland that are still relevant in terms of being prime centers of commercial, health care, and university/academic activity.

         


        From: Dave Holladay <Tramsol@...>
        To: WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com
        Cc: Paul Minett <paulminett@...>; WorldCarShare@yahoogroups.com; NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com; CarFreeCafe@yahoogroups.com; Cities-for-Mobility@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 9:01 AM
        Subject: Re: WorldTransport Forum New Mobility Thoroughfares

        Take a look at the Street Films reports on Curitiba and Bogota (Milremo) BRT systems flat out they are describing between 35,000 and 40,000 pax/hr on close headway, fast boarding (200-300 pax/bus) buses - on the video watch c 100 pax board via 4 double doors in under 60 secs(?)

        (?) - I recall that the egress rating for a double door fire exit is 80 persons/minute, which makes a lane width operating at maximum moving density = 2 x double fire doors - = 160 ppm = 9600 pph, possibly higher when crush load operation, and allowing for integration of 2 doorways.

        Dave H

        Better Paul, to examine the true door to desk trip, and add the access times to the car doorstep to car, and car park to office, and then offer a doubling in size of your workstation - move out of the 6 sq m in a typical open plan office and take over the 12.5 sq m you have for your car as your new office.  - Would make an interesting image - transhipping an cramped open plan office to the parking lot and giving each worker twice as much working space!

        Anywhere good to set this up as a picture?

        Could do something similar with a retail store - with the car park outside turned in to an expanded retail space - or a market - and the earnings per sq m figure posted, a car park, and a retail premises likewise.  With the question who is making best use of their assets?

        On 17/08/11 11:59, Paul Minett wrote:

         

        Ridesharing Institute

        Dear Colleagues

        The New Mobility Agenda emphasises ‘people throughput’ as a central consideration for sustainable transportation.  It has been a central plank for some years.

        Now we are planning a research programme where we will be seeking to find the most successful ‘New Mobility Thoroughfares’.  Put more succinctly, “Which roads have the greatest person throughput per lane hour?”

        In Auckland, NZ we have a piece of ‘motorway’ where we calculate that there are about 3,000 people per lane hour at the peak of the peak.  We think this is p retty good, but we are sure there must be other places where the total is greater. 

        We would like to build a database of ‘nominated’ roads (call them freeways, highways, streets, arterials, boulevards, parkways, turnpikes, or whatever local term works for you) and rank them by the New Mobility Success Metric of ‘people throughput’.

        The research will then seek to understand the combination of factors that led to success.

        The calculation for that piece of motorway in Auckland looks like this:

         

        imap://tramsol@...:993/fetch%3EUID%3E/INBOX%3E30285427?header=quotebody&part=1.2&filename=image002.png

         

        At this location t he motorway is four lanes wide, so the New Mobility Success Metric is 3,050 people per lane hour. (12,200/4).

        At this point we are keen to start a conversation about this, to find out who is thinking this way, and what the questions are that come up when we try to think this way.  If you are aware of any previous research that looks at the same idea, please let me know.  One thought is that we might have different categories, such as bus-only lanes, HOV lanes, general use lanes.  Perhaps cycle lanes will be contenders as well?  Maybe we need categories by different speeds.

        I look forward to hearing your questions and suggestions, and of course, your nominations.

        Kind regards

        Paul Minett

        Ridesharing Institute

        PS  Follow the exploits of the Ridesharing Institute by ‘liking’ us on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Ridesharing-Institute/226523247393284. PM

         

         

         

         

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.