geary_app_c perancangan terminal bus

7/28/2019 Geary_App_C Perancangan Terminal Bus

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gearyappc-perancangan-terminal-bus 1/6

O:\BRT\Geary\Appendices for Final Feasibility Study\C - Evaluation\Evaluation Framework.doc of 6

Geary Corridor Bus Rapid Transit Evaluation Framework Geary Citizens Advisory Committee - March 23, 2006

The evaluation phase of the study will focus on understanding the benefits and impacts of each conceptual alternative compared to a no-projectalternative and compared to each other. The proposed evaluation framework was developed by the inter-agency study team and is grounded in theproject goals. The primary categories for the evaluation framework are as follows:

Benefits. 1) Transit Operations & Performance; 2) Transit Rider Experience; 3) Pedestrian Safety & Access; and 4) Urban Design & Landscaping

Impacts/Constraints. 5) Traffic & Parking Impacts; 6) Capital & Operating Costs; and 7) Construction Impacts

The qualitative and quantitative metrics described below are used in combination to capture the key attributes of each category. We will presentthe evaluation results to the public in June. In addition we will report key informational statistics (e.g., changes in transit travel time).

Sample Summary Table

Option X Option Y Option Z

Transit Operations & Performance High Medium Medium

Transit Rider Experience Medium High Medium

Pedestrian Safety & Access High Medium Low

Urban Design & Landscaping Medium Medium High

Traffic & Parking Impacts High Low Medium

Capital & Operating Costs Medium High Low

Construction Impacts Medium Medium Low

The evaluation framework is tied to the study goals, approved by the Geary Citizens Advisory Committee in June 2004. The study goals are:

Goal 1 - Robust and Stable Ridership. Decrease travel times; improve service reliability; improve in-vehicle comfort; improve passenger waiting

experience; improve the quality and safety of transit access for all modes including pedestrians and bicyclists; and increase accessibility for Geary neighborhoods.

Goal 2 - Efficient, Effective, and Equitable Transit Service. Increase service efficiency and effectiveness through cost effective improvements;reduce operator stress; support demand generated by existing and planned development; and distribute passenger benefits across all users and trippurposes.




Goal 3 - Neighborhood Livability andCommercial Viability. Support existing andplanned land use; enhance safety and security

for all travelers and others in the community;establish attractive transit stations that serveactivity nodes; link transit route to thecommunity through design treatments; reduceemissions relative to no-project condition;minimize the negative impacts of the project onlocal residents and businesses.

Goal 4 - Transit Priority Network System

Development. Establish an identity thatenhances the image of transit on Geary;integrate the Geary Corridor into the citywiderapid transit system; provide clear,understandable, and accessible passengerinformation; apply and advance BRTtechnology; improve connectivity between theGeary Corridor and the local and regionaltransit network; create a sense of permanence

that inspires confidence in long-terminvestment; and serve as a model for BRTapplications in other urban areas.

The proposed metrics and methodology for each evaluation category is presented below:

Transit Operations/Performance

* Robust and Stable Ridership* Efficient, Effective, and Equitable Transit Service

Sub-criteria Methodology/Definition Source

Transit travel time and speed by route VISSIMChange in transit travel time

Transit travel time vs. auto travel time VISSIM

Headway coefficient of variation (standard deviation/mean) VISSIM

Travel time coefficient of variation (standard deviation/mean) VISSIMChange in service reliability

Percent of bunched buses (headways<1 min) VISSIM

Matching Up the Study Goals and the Evaluation Framework

1) Transit Operations & Performance

2) Transit Rider ExperienceRobust and Stable Ridership

3) Pedestrian Safety & Access

2) Transit Operations & Performance Efficient, Effective, andEquitable Transit Service 6) Capital & Operating Costs

3) Pedestrian Safety & Access

4) Urban Design & Landscaping

5) Traffic & Parking Impacts

Neighborhood Livability andCommercial Vitality

7) Construction Impacts

2) Transit Rider Experience Transit Priority Network SystemDevelopment 4) Urban Design & Landscaping




Transit Operations/Performance (continued)

Operator views Survey

Miles in mixed traffic Physical Designs

Extent of weaving (#of transit lane weaves) Physical DesignsEase of operation

Enforceability Qualitative

Distribution of benefitsChange in benefits, e.g., overall travel time, for transit-dependent groups (e.g.,zero car HHs, low-income HHs) relative to general population

Travel Demand Model

Transit mode share Travel Demand ModelAttract/retain transit riders

Ridership Travel Demand Model

Transit Rider Experience* Robust and Stable Ridership* Transit Priority Network System Development


Average wait time (headway/2) Service Plan

Headway coefficient of variation (standard deviation/mean) Service PlanPlatform width (proxy for crowding) Physical Designs

Quality of waiting andboarding experience

Buffer from traffic Physical Designs

Extent of weaving (#of transit lane weaves) Physical Designs

Passenger load at maximum load point Travel Demand ModelQuality of in-vehicleexperience

Miles in mixed traffic Physical Designs

Direction of travel (#of directionality changes) Physical Designs

Combined stops vs local only at the curb Physical DesignsWayfinding ability Transfer experience (including vertical circulation) Qualitative

Security of waiting riders Visibility to other passengers and adjacent land uses Qualitative

BRT transit route branding /identity

Recognizable as a special service Qualitative




Access and Pedestrian Safety* Robust and Stable Ridership

* Neighborhood Livability and Commercial VitalitySub-criteria Methodology/Definition Source

Average number of lanes between refuges Physical Designs

Refuge width (average, #fewer than 6 ft) Physical DesignsCrossing experience

Average crossing distance Physical Designs

Average sidewalk width Physical Designs

Number of pedestrian crossing opportunities added/removed Physical Designs

Speed of adjacent traffic VISSIM

Pedestrian safety andaccessibility

Buffer from traffic Physical Designs

Average lane width adjacent to parking Physical DesignsQuality of bicycle access

Degree of pinching (#of curb extension locations >6 ft) Physical Designs

Number of jobs w/in 30 min radius (by mode) Travel Demand ModelIncrease employment, retailand consumer accessibilityfor neighborhoods Number of retail jobs w/in 15 min; #hhs w/in 15 min (by mode) Travel Demand Model

Urban Design/Landscape* Neighborhood Livability and Commercial Vitality* Transit Priority Network System Development


Street identity Recognizable design theme or street elements Qualitative

Integration with adjacent landuses Access between bus stops and adjacent land uses Qualitative

Ability to create useablepublic open space

Edge-area ratio of landscape "borrow-able" by adjacent land uses Physical Designs

Square feet of softscape Physical Designs

Consistency of landscape footprint throughout corridor Qualitative

Square feet of canopy at maturity Physical Designs

Quality, quantity, andcharacter of landscaping

Change in number of healthy existing trees Qualitative




Urban Design/Landscape (continued)

Percentage of permeable surfaces Physical DesignsQuality of sustainable storm

water managementtreatments Number of mature trees Physical Designs

Traffic Impacts and Parking* Neighborhood Livability and Commercial Vitality


Change in person delay Total intersection person-delay (various movements by mode) VISSIM

Intersection LOS VISSIMAccommodate trafficcirculation and access Number of turn restrictions Physical Design

Change in traffic volumes onparallel streets

Traffic volumes at screen line locations (Intersection LOS where known) Travel DemandModel/ Synchro

Presence of on-street parking Net change in on-street parking capacity by segment Physical Designs

Cost (capital/operating)

* Efficient, Effective and Equitable Transit Service


Capital cost Total construction costs including hard and soft costs Cost Estimate

Operating and maintenancecosts

Total operating cost (vehicles x hours) and maintenance costsMuni Cost ModelDPW Estimates

Operating expense per vehicle hourMuni Cost Model/

Service Plans

Operating expense per unlinked passenger trip Muni Cost Model/ Travel Demand Model

Service efficiency andeffectiveness

Unlinked passenger trips per vehicle revenue hour Travel Demand Model

Service Plans




Construction Impacts* Neighborhood Livability and Commercial Vitality


Construction period length Construction EstimateMaintain access to localbusinesses Construction period intensity Construction Estimate

geary_app_c perancangan terminal bus

Documents