reviewer 1: no responses - transportation research …docs.trb.org/prp/16-4339.pdf · 16-4339: b44...

16-4339: B44 Select Bus Service on Nostrand Avenue: Bus Rapid Transit-Induced Mode Shift and

Route Shift in Transit-Dense Brooklyn

Authors’ Responses to Reviewer Comments/Questions (indicated in blue)

Reviewer 1:

No responses

Reviewer 2:

It would be helpful to have baseline data for changes in employment in the area

Some demographic data is discussed in the Project Background section, though no

comparison between before and after demographics is made. The authors didn’t include data

on employment changes because it is unlikely to shed light on the relevant piece of the

ridership puzzle. The B44 gained ridership at the expense of other buses that run along the

very same corridors. If employment was a factor, it would likely have affected all of the

nearby bus routes.

The text should also describe any advertising or promotional efforts and indicate whether there were

any changes to fares, parking rates, etc. Even if these things show no correlation with the changes in

ridership it will help to isolate the factors that account for the observed results.

Public-focused efforts can be better described as community outreach, rather than promotion.

The authors consider these efforts to be part of the general process of notifying bus

customers, store owners, and citizens about changes relevant to their community and their

commutes. Language was added to the end of the Transit Operations subsection of the

Implementation section to reflect this. There were no changes to transit fares or parking rates,

though parking regulations were changed, as explained in first paragraph of the Curb

Management and Signal Changes subsection in the Street Design and Traffic Operations

section.

Was there a change in the number of peak period standees?

MTA does not officially record this data, and because any calculations based on number of

seats and ridership would be at best estimations, the authors chose not to include these

statistics. However, the authors hypothesize that the switch to larger buses with more seats

has probably decreased crowding and the proportion of standees. Some language was added

to the last paragraph of the Transit Operations subsection to reflect this.

There is an extensive literature dealing with elasticity of demand for transit service. This paper would

be improved by referring to that work. Is there reason to think the value of the travel time savings are

sufficiently large to explain the increase in ridership for B44 SBS relative to other routes in the area?

The authors added a Literature Review subsection in the Introduction section, just before the

Project Background subsection to briefly discuss the elasticity of demand literature. The

authors believe the travel time savings is one of the primary reasons for the recent increases

in ridership, though increased comfort and information likely also play significant roles in

attracting riders. However, the statistical examination of the relative importance of these

factors in generating new ridership is considered outside the scope of this paper.

The paper describes impressive improvements in bus speed but there is no discussion of whether

similar improvements were achieved for on-time performance/schedule adherence. It would also be

helpful to know if headways were improved as part of this effort.

The B44 Limited/SBS schedule was not altered as part of the immediate conversion to Select

Bus Service. Although the buses serving the route got larger, buses have not been added to

the route, so headways have remained unaltered. Before and after on-time performance

comparisons are difficult because GPS-based methods that are currently used were not

available before construction began on the project corridors.

Though it goes a little beyond the scope of the paper it would be interesting to include a few of the

standard transit performance metrics such as boardings per service hour and operating cost per

boarding.

The authors agree that reporting these metrics is beyond the scope of the paper, and would be

difficult to fit in.

Reviewer 3:

A literature review needs to be included in the paper covering findings by others in relation to SBS or

similar implementations and/or research on this mode.

The authors added a Literature Review subsection in the Introduction section, just before the

Project Background subsection to briefly discuss the effects of similar Select Bus Service

implementations.

Figures need to be mentioned in the text in advance of their presentation.

The authors have tried to balance data presentation and the discussion of that data, often

opting to place the visuals first within a given section.

Some of the streets mentioned in the text are not shown in Figure 1 and this makes it difficult for

readers to interpret the figure.

Relevant labels have been added and street name mentions removed where applicable.

Page 7 line 14 - should Figure 4 read Figure 3?

Fixed

Although the authors say they will compare before and after data, the actual measurement data seems

very limited e.g. the actual ridership levels in 2011 are not shown - only those after implementation

are mentioned with some general statements in percentage terms as to how they compare with the

pre- situation. Such general statements are not satisfactory in terms of presentation of research

output.

Additional raw-number statistics have been added to the ridership data section to address this.

Figure 6 gives average values for travel times but no detail is given about how many times travel

time was measured and over what period, and the relevant statistics behind those measurements e.g.

what the range was.

The travel time results were obtained using cell-phone probe data. This is mentioned in the

Assessment Methodology section. Though fine-grained data is provided, it is aggregated for

the protection of the privacy of individuals. For this reason, the exact number and timing of

trips is not known. Data on the range and distribution of these data points has been added to

the General Traffic Travel Time subsection of the Results Section.

Some additional validation of the statements on page 11 e.g. 'are likely attributable' need to be

provided.

The phrase has been removed and data on the factors contributing to travel time savings has

been added. The paper’s purpose is to present travel time, volume, and ridership changes

more generally, and to discuss their implications for route and mode shift, not to establish the

root causes for travel time changes.

The paragraph on Page 12 is not at all clear. Explain more fully what this statement means ' in the

absence of borough wide traffic volume data, the volume reductions on Nostrand Avenue are

compared with the volume changes on neighboring parallel streets'.

Traffic volumes were collected before and after implementation on Nostrand Avenue and

parallel alternative southbound streets in order to assess whether vehicles shifted from

Nostrand onto those streets.

Further into the paragraph, the statement ‘A good case can therefore be made for diversion from

Nostrand southbound in the PM’ again is not clear.

The fact that volumes decreased on Nostrand Avenue and increased on parallel southbound

streets provides evidence for route shift from Nostrand onto those streets after project

implementation.

Detail on the measurement program used to measure the travel times presented in Figure 9 and the

accompanying statistics need to be included.

The nature and source of this data is briefly discussed in the Assessment Methodology

section, and additional statistics are provided in the General Traffic Travel Time subsection

of the Results Section.

Safran, Beaton, Thompson, Wan, Chiarmonte, and Joseph 1

B44 Select Bus Service on Nostrand Avenue: Bus Rapid Transit-Induced Mode Shift and 1

Route Shift in Transit-Dense Brooklyn 2

3 Original Submission Date: 7/31/2015 4 5 Corresponding Author: 6 Jeremy S. Safran 7 New York City Department of Transportation 8 55 Water Street, 6th Floor 9 New York, NY 10041 10 Phone: 212-839-7727 11 Email: [email protected] 12 13 Co-Authors (alphabetical): 14 15 Eric B. Beaton 16 New York City Department of Transportation 17 55 Water Street, 6th Floor 18 New York, NY 10041 19 Phone: 212-839-6697 20 Email: [email protected] 21 22 Robert Thompson 23 MTA New York City Transit 24 2 Broadway, 17

th Floor 25

New York, NY 10004 26 Phone: 646-252-5623 27 Email: [email protected] 28 29 Dan Wan 30 Department of Civil Engineering, City College of New York 31 160 Convent Avenue, Marshak Building, Suite MR-910 32 New York, NY 10031 33 Phone: 212-650-8071 34 Email: [email protected] 35 36 Jonathan Joseph 37 MTA New York City Transit 38 2 Broadway, 17

th Floor 39

New York, NY 10004 40 Phone: 646-252-5526 41 Email: [email protected] 42 43 Joseph Chiarmonte 44 MTA New York City Transit 45 2 Broadway, 17

th Floor 46

New York, NY 10004 47 Phone: 646-252-5639 48 Email: [email protected] 49 50 51 52

Word Count: 5,244 53 Tables & Figures: 2,250 (9x250 words) 54

Total Count: 7,494 55


ABSTRACT 1

2 Transportation investments have the potential to affect both mode choice and route choice for 3

trip-making. The dense urban environment in Brooklyn, New York allows its residents to have 4

choices both between modes and within modes, to eventually select a route. This paper tracks the 5

changes to the transportation network and the decisions of its users that resulted from the 6

implementation of the B44 Select Bus Service (SBS) in Brooklyn, and explores the connection 7

between mode shift and route shift on the project corridors. The SBS implementation process 8

involved a re-routing of the northbound bus, the removal of stops, a reconfiguring of street 9

geometry, signal changes to intersections along the route, and the installation of bus bulbs with 10

new bus shelters and off-board fare payment kiosks to make the bus faster and more reliable. The 11

post-implementation data shows that the project realized its goals of making the B44 faster and 12

gaining new ridership, while not having large detrimental effects on car travel in the area. The 13

B44 SBS project demonstrates that a BRT project can change mode share along a corridor, 14

whether by route shift or mode shift, to a more transit-friendly equilibrium, in a dense urban 15

street environment. 16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46


INTRODUCTION 1

2 Mode shift is most commonly discussed by the travel demand management community as an 3

induced switch from one mode of transportation to another for a given trip (1). In streets grids, 4

however, people also have the choice within a single mode to take different corridors, so 5

discussions of shifting should include both changing mode and route choice behavior in response 6

to transportation investments. This paper tracks the changes to the transportation network and the 7

decisions of its users that resulted from the implementation of the B44 Select Bus Service in 8

Brooklyn, New York. 9

Select Bus Service (SBS) is a joint program between MTA New York City Transit 10

(NYCT) and the New York City Department of Transportation (NYCDOT), which aims to 11

improve transit service through the application of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) principles to New 12

York City’s busiest bus routes. Therefore, this paper serves as a case study of the shifts that 13

result when a bus route is improved, and associated changes are made to the on-street 14

transportation infrastructure. 15

As the 3rd

highest ridership bus route in Brooklyn, and the 6th

highest in all of New York 16

City, the B44 bus (Local and Limited/SBS) has historically carried about 40,000 people on an 17

average weekday and 13.6 million annual riders (2). While the B44 parallels a subway line for a 18

portion of its route, the majority of the route provides critical north-south connectivity, with 19

transfers available to numerous east-west subway lines into Downtown Brooklyn & Manhattan. 20

For these reasons, New York City Transit and the New York City Department of Transportation 21

selected the B44 for upgrade to Select Bus Service. 22

Using the B44 Select Bus Service project area as a case study for the development of a 23

working definition of mode shift potentially requires a departure from traditional definitions. In 24

this area of Brooklyn, transit is too pervasive and diverse to be thought of as a one mode, with 25

multiple bus routes and subway lines providing a grid network. Brooklyn’s street grid also offers 26

many parallel alternative routes for car travel. Additionally, the B44 SBS route itself does not 27

serve a traditional CBD, so there are many potential start and end points along the route. 28

Shifts in travel behaviors are not limited to mode choice, but also to route choice on both 29

the transit and roadway networks. Even if mode share on the project corridors changes only 30

because car trips shifted to another corridor and transit passengers were attracted to Nostrand 31

Avenue, this shift is measurable and potentially correlated to the service changes, installation of 32

amenities, and reallocation of roadway space that occurred as part of the B44 SBS 33

implementation. 34

35

Literature Review 36 37

Select Bus Service conversions have led to increased speed and ridership on other corridors 38

including 1st Avenue in Manhattan, Fordham Road and Webster Avenue in the Bronx, and Hylan 39

Boulevard in Staten Island (3, 4, 5, 6). A less well understood feature of SBS is where these new 40

riders are coming from because these prior studies did not attempt to match up ridership data 41

with survey data or ridership on parallel alternative bus routes. 42

The literature on mode shift and demand elasticity for transit more generally is extensive, 43

though much of it is focused on fares, which do not change as part of Select Bus Service 44

conversions. A 2012 case study of the Atlanta regional transit system performed by the Mineta 45

Transportation Institute found in-vehicle travel time to be among the most important factors in 46


determining demand for a transit mode (either rail or bus) (7). On the contrary, a 2014 study of 1

transit mode switching in regional Toronto found that travel time attributes were less important 2

in mode switching than comfort attributes such as level of crowding and number of transfers (8). 3

In exploring travel demand elasticity and mode share on a corridor level, this study attempts to 4

clarify the more nuanced notions of route shift and mode mix in the context of a transit 5

implementation project, rather than as part of a regional modeling effort or travel demand 6

management initiative. 7

8

Project Background 9

10

11 FIGURE 1 B44 SBS project corridors and context. 12 13

The B44 Select Bus Service, implemented in November of 2013, operates between Williamsburg 14

Bridge Bus Plaza and Emmons Avenue, exclusively in Brooklyn, NY. The southbound route 15


runs 9.3 miles along Nostrand Avenue, which is unidirectional southbound north of Farragut 1

Road and bidirectional south of Farragut. The northbound route is slightly longer, traveling on 2

Nostrand Avenue, then using a short segment of Flatbush Avenue to access Rogers Avenue 3

going north. Rogers Avenue is unidirectional northbound, paralleling Nostrand Avenue. Over the 4

course of its route, the B44 SBS crosses numerous subway lines, bus routes, and the Long Island 5

Railroad, presenting many opportunities for transfers and contributing to ridership. Competition 6

for north-south transit travel in the project area is limited to the 2, 5, B, and Q trains in certain 7

stretches, along with the B49 bus route for trips south of Fulton Street. Personal car travel, taxis, 8

and commuter vans also present competition. 9

In discussing travel changes on these corridors, it is important to understand the general 10

travel patterns that predominate in the project area. In the AM, the peak direction for both 11

general traffic and transit on the project corridors is northbound, towards connections to 12

downtown Brooklyn and the main access points to Manhattan. In the PM, southbound is the peak 13

direction, back towards the residential neighborhoods to the south and east of downtown 14

Brooklyn and Manhattan. While travel demand is peaked, there is substantial all day travel 15

demand in both directions due to the multi-centered nature of the project corridors. 16

The route runs through a diverse set of neighborhoods, each containing residents with 17

different transit-riding habits. This amounts to 300,000 residents within a 1/4 mile of the project 18

corridor, of which approximately 60% commute from this travel zone by transit, including 15% 19

primarily by bus (2). More than half of the households within a quarter mile of the project 20

corridors do not own a car (2). Because the majority of residents on the corridor already take 21

transit for work and shopping trips, there is only so much shifting to transit that can occur. The 22

fact that 60% of residents use transit, but only 15% commute primarily by bus speaks to the 23

abundance of transit options in the project area and the bus’s importance in connecting to the 24

subway via free transfer, since the census allows only one mode to be selected (2). 25

26

IMPLEMENTATION 27

28

29 FIGURE 2 B44 SBS project implementation timeline. 30 31

This paper tracks the B44 SBS project from before implementation work began in February 2012 32

until the present day, well after the B44 SBS became operational in November 2013. The main 33

project timeline, shown at the top, displays the timing of bus bulb, bus shelter, and fare machine 34

SBS Construction on Nostrand Avenue south of Atlantic Avenue, and on Bedford and Rogers Avenues

Nostrand Avenue Reconstruction: Flushing Avenue to Atlantic Avenue

Fall

2014

Winter

2014

Spring

2015

Summer

2015

Fall

2015

Summer

2014

Fall

2011

Winter

2011

Spring

2012

Summer

2012

Fall

2012

Winter

2012

Spring

2013

Summer

2013

Fall

2013

Winter

2013

Spring

2014

Construction

FinalDesign

Contract Bidding

Construction SBS Service Operating

Utility Work

Start ofSBS

Service


construction and installation. Most of the roadway on the project corridors was resurfaced, with 1

the new pavement markings installed on top of new asphalt. 2

The portion of Nostrand Avenue between Flushing Avenue and Atlantic Avenue, 3

however, was reconstructed because of its age, requiring significant subsurface and utility work 4

unrelated to Select Bus Service. The roadway reconstruction was substantially complete in late 5

September 2014, impacting the southbound B44 SBS for almost a year after the start of service. 6

Because of this long construction timeline, pre-implementation data was collected in late 2011 7

and post-implementation data was collected in late 2014. 8

9

Transit Operations 10 In order to turn the B44 Limited into the B44 Select Bus Service, lesser used stops, especially in 11

the northern and southern portions of the route, were eliminated (Figure 1). Extended stop 12

spacing is one of the core tools in the bus rapid transit toolkit, thought to reduce bus travel time 13

by reducing delay caused by dwell time (9). While eliminating stops may not seem like the most 14

intuitive way to induce mode shift (or even maintain existing ridership) in the short term, the 15

resulting increase in bus speed over the route can make the service more attractive against 16

alternatives. 17

Stop changes were accompanied by route change for the northbound bus route. Instead of 18

continuing its path northbound north of Flatbush Avenue on New York Avenue like the B44 19

Limited did, the B44 SBS was moved to Rogers Avenue instead. The B44 Local service was 20

maintained on New York Avenue to continue serving that customer base, including access to a 21

major medical center. The rerouting to Rogers Avenue allowed the northbound route to benefit 22

from being on a wider street with multiple travel lanes. This helped the bus avoid being slowed 23

by parking maneuvers or being trapped behind double parked vehicles, and made the installation 24

of bus lanes and bus bulbs possible. Though rerouting the SBS away from New York Avenue’s 25

established transit market may have impacted ridership negatively at first, there was untapped 26

potential for new ridership on Rogers Avenue, and greater possibility for luring new riders 27

through the reduced travel times and increased reliability allowed by Rogers Avenue. 28

Another operational improvement implemented as part of the conversion to Select Bus 29

Service was off-board fare collection, which also reduces dwell time (3, 4, 5, 9). Before the bus 30

arrives, passengers swipe their fare-payment cards or insert coins in machines installed 31

throughout the route and keep the issued ticket. When the bus arrives, customers can board the 32

bus through any door and do not need to interface with the bus operator. Prior to its 33

implementation, customers had to line up at the front of the bus and dip their Metrocards or 34

insert change one by one, a lengthy process. Much like the practice of eliminating stops, off-35

board fare can help the bus become more attractive to residents who value trip speed. 36

The buses themselves added capacity too, making it easier to serve larger numbers of 37

riders and reducing crowding. The 40 foot long, 2 door B44 Limited buses were replaced by 60 38

foot long 3 door buses for Select Bus Service. Data from previous SBS routes has shown that the 39

increased number of doors combined with off-board fare collection can greatly speed up 40

passenger loading (3, 4, 5). 41

All of these changes were informed by an extensive community outreach process, which 42

is typical for transit service changes of this magnitude. No additional promotional marketing 43

occurred as part of the outreach process. 44

45

46


Street Design and Traffic Operations 1

2

3 (a) (b) 4

FIGURE 3 Cross-section of Nostrand Avenue (a) Pre-implementation and (b) Post-5

implementation. 6

7 Bus Lanes 8

Some of the tools in the Select Bus Service toolkit are not simply improvements to bus service or 9

the amenities provided to bus customers, but can also be seen as having effects on general traffic 10

speed. The implementation of bus lanes on Nostrand and Rogers Avenues (mostly between 11

Fulton Street and Flatbush Avenue) were reallocations of roadway space in an attempt to better 12

match infrastructure provision to mode share and to the needs of all street users. 13

Figure 3 shows the alignment of Nostrand Avenue before and after Select Bus Service 14

implementation. The main difference is the addition of an offset bus lane, which uses the travel 15

lane adjacent to the curbside lane for near-exclusive bus travel. The offset configuration was 16

selected because of its increased effectiveness in remaining blockage-free and generating higher 17

rates of usage than curbside bus lanes (10). This change has a complex effect on roadway 18

capacity that varies by time of day. While removing a general traffic lane and replacing it with a 19

bus lane would seem to directly reduce capacity, the bus lane accommodates the high volume of 20

buses, as well as any vehicles turning right at the next intersection (11). The bus lane, therefore, 21

serves a large portion of general traffic. 22

23

Curb Management and Signal Changes 24

The capacity of regular travel lanes can be limited by double parking, regular parking 25

maneuvers, right and left turning vehicles, and buses pulling into and out of stops. Though 26

Nostrand Avenue reserved its two middle lanes for general traffic before SBS implementation, 27

double parking and buses pulling into and out of stops prevented full utilization and resulted in 28

only one effective lane for large portions of the day. As part of the SBS implementation, curb 29

regulations were changed to better accommodate deliveries and truck loading, resulting in more 30

effective curb management and reduced double parking. Though parking rates were not changed 31

as part of this process, metered parking and paid commercial loading were added in places where 32

unregulated parking had previously existed. The issue of buses pulling into and out of traffic was 33

alleviated by using offset bus lanes and bus bulbs. As Figure 4a shows, the bus can access the 34


stop at a bus bulb without leaving the offset bus lane. With double-parked vehicles, buses, and 1

right-turning vehicles out of the way, the one remaining middle travel lane becomes highly 2

reliable for through vehicles. 3

Another aspect of curb management utilized and adapted during SBS implementation 4

was peak period curbside travel lanes. The peak and reverse peak period (southbound in the AM 5

& northbound in the PM) parking restriction and curbside travel lane on Nostrand was moved 6

from the west side to the east side of the street as part of the SBS implementation process. 7

Moving the parking restriction cleared the curb for left turners rather than right turners (right 8

turners were already accommodated by the bus lane), and eliminated the condition where buses 9

were stopping in the curbside travel lane during peak periods. These changes created a 10 AM – 10

4PM window of time for deliveries, truck loading, or customer parking to occur on the eastern 11

curb in the middle of the day. 12

In addition to street design changes, signal timing changes were instituted along the 13

project corridors to alleviate bus delay and to better match geometric capacity with signal 14

capacity. Where network considerations allowed, signal timing changes were made at 15

intersections with particularly high bus delay. For instance, northbound-southbound green time 16

was added at Linden Boulevard, and the coordination of the offsets and green progressions 17

approaching Eastern Parkway was improved. 18

The overall capacity puzzle is therefore complicated by curb management, time of day 19

regulations, bus lanes, and signal timing changes. Considering all factors, capacity was likely 20

added in the reverse peak directions, with only two travel lanes before implementation, and two 21

travel lanes plus a bus/right turn lane after implementation. For peak direction travel, capacity 22

was slightly reduced, with one fewer travel lane in each direction. 23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46


Rider-focused Amenities 1

2

3 (a) (b) 4 FIGURE 4 (a) B44 SBS in offset bus lane leaving bus bulb station and (b) Rider at bus 5

bulb station with real-time bus information sign. 6

7 Bus customers want speed, but they also want comfort and information. One type of rider-8

focused improvement implemented along the B44 route is the bus bulb (Figure 4b). Bus bulbs 9

are locations where sidewalks have been widened to meet an offset bus lane or general travel 10

lane. Bus bulbs provide more room for people to wait, create more space for amenities like bus 11

shelters, benches, and greenery, and allow buses to pull straight into and out stations without 12

pulling over. These are important amenities for existing bus customers, and may also serve as 13

attractors for potential bus customers who can now wait for the bus in a bus shelter, shaded by 14

trees, away from a crowded sidewalk. 15

Real time information signs are also planned for installation at busy stops along the route 16

to give passengers bus arrival information and wayfinding to orient them to their place along the 17

route and their location within the city. A pilot sign was installed at the Church Avenue stop on 18

Nostrand Avenue as of the November 2013 launch. Additionally, real time bus arrival 19

information is available at any stop in New York City via text message or web interfaces. 20

Residents who would otherwise steer clear of the bus because of uncertainty about the reliability 21

of the service or waiting time may instead choose to take a bus that they know is on its way. 22

23

ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY 24 25

In order to assess the performance of the B44 Select Bus Service and nearby traffic, five main 26

types of data were collected: bus ridership data from MetroCards and on-board checks, bus speed 27

data from on-board GPS devices, traffic volume data from automatic traffic recorders, traffic 28

speed data from cell-phone-based probes, and survey data collected in-person from B44 SBS 29

riders. Each of these data types was collected in 2011 before construction started to serve as pre-30

implementation data and in 2014 after service was implemented and normalized to serve as post-31

implementation data. Where appropriate, this same data was also collected on other corridors to 32

capture whether there were changes only on the project corridor, or also on parallel routes. 33

Of these methods, the use of floating cellular probe data for general traffic speed analysis 34

was the most unfamiliar to NYCDOT. Floating cellular data is similar to floating car data, 35

whereby cellular network data is harnessed as an anonymous source of location-based data, and a 36

mobile phone in a car becomes a traffic probe. Because this data is derived from individual cell 37


phone users, the exact nature of individual trips is kept private. NYCDOT received an 1

aggregated form of this data which was compiled into 15 minute speed averages over small 2

geographic segments. NYCDOT selected this methodology because of the large sample size and 3

relatively low cost compared to traditional floating car methods. 4

5

RESULTS 6

7

Bus Ridership 8

9

10 FIGURE 5 Average weekday ridership from 2014 to present for B44 SBS, B44 Local, and 11

B49 routes. 12

13 Total B44 ridership (Local and Limited/SBS) was 39,516 in 2011 before SBS implementation. 14

From 2012 to 2013, while construction ramped up on the project corridors, B44 total ridership 15

fell from 39,661 to 37,786, a 4.7% reduction. This drop was likely due to the construction and 16

the resulting slowdowns and stop relocations facing bus customers. Between 2013 and 2014, 17

from construction to post-implementation, B44 ridership dropped another 4.7% to 36,016. This 18

reduction was likely caused in part by the bus rerouting and stop elimination changes, as well as 19

ongoing construction along a substantial portion of the route. 20

More recent data, however, paints a more positive picture for the B44 SBS. From the first 21

5 months of 2014 to the first five months of 2015, B44 SBS ridership increased by 14.8%, 22

recovering to pre-construction levels and continuing to trend upward (Figure 5). Over this same 23

time period, B44 Local ridership dropped 6.1%, and B49 ridership dropped 5.9%. In this context, 24

the fact that B44 SBS ridership has been trending up greatly since late 2014 is a very positive 25


sign, likely attributable to the stabilization of infrastructural and operational change on the 1

project corridors, and possibly even ridership gains at the expense of the B49 and the B44 Local. 2

3

Bus Travel Time 4

5 FIGURE 6 B44 travel time change. 6 7

Based on the findings displayed in Figure 6, the operational and infrastructural improvements 8

made as part of the conversion to SBS resulted in significantly faster travel times for the B44. 9

This was true in both directions for the AM & PM peak time periods, but especially for 10

northbound trips in the AM. This reduction in overall travel time is attributable to a 40% 11

reduction in overall dwell time, a 45% reduction in time spent at red lights, and a 12% increase 12

in the proportion of time spent in motion . The large northbound travel time reductions can also 13

be attributed to the rerouting from New York Avenue to the wider, more bus-friendly Rogers 14

Avenue. Taken together, these percentage reductions in travel time amount to 18-29 minutes 15

saved for commuters traveling the majority of the route in either direction. 16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

89

77.7 83.1 82.9

60.2 59.3 64.6 64.8

Northbound Southbound Northbound Southbound

AM Peak (6AM-10 AM) PM Peak (3PM-7PM)

B44 Travel Time (in minutes)- Entire Route

Pre SBS Post SBS

24% 32% 22% 22%


Traffic Volume 1 2

3 (a) (b) 4

5 (c) (d) 6 7

FIGURE 7 Southbound volume change on Nostrand and parallel streets in the (a) AM 8

Peak and (b) PM Peak, and Northbound volume change on Rogers and parallel streets in 9

the (a) AM Peak and (b) PM Peak at Empire Boulevard 10 11

In Figure 7 (a & b), the volume reductions on Nostrand Avenue are compared to the volume 12

changes on neighboring, parallel streets. Because Nostrand Avenue is southbound-only at 13


Empire Boulevard, the peak volume time period is the PM peak. From 5:15 to 6:15 PM, the 13% 1

average volume reductions on Nostrand coincide with 18% average volume additions on all 2

parallel southbound streets. A good case can therefore be made for diversion from Nostrand 3

southbound in the PM. In the AM, the 11% average volume reduction on Nostrand did not 4

coincide with volume additions on parallel corridors. Without immediately invoking mode shift, 5

it is not clear where these vehicles rerouted or if they dispersed within the larger Brooklyn street 6

grid. 7

8

Figure 7 (c & d) show similar volume reductions on Rogers Avenue, with evidence of route 9

shifting observed on parallel northbound streets in the AM peak direction. Between 7:45 and 10

8:45 AM, three out of the four northbound parallel streets saw added volume coinciding with 9% 11

average volume reductions on Rogers. Kingston Avenue likely did not show added volume 12

because it is a poor northbound alternative. In the PM, reduced volume on Rogers Avenue did 13

not coincide systematically with added volume on neighboring streets. In fact, three out of four 14

of the northbound alternatives actually lost volume at Empire Boulevard indicating that the 15

volume lost from Rogers did not divert to local parallel routes. 16

17

General Traffic Travel Time 18 19

20 FIGURE 8 General traffic travel time change north of Flatbush Avenue. 21 22

As noted earlier, the addition of bus lanes north of Flatbush Avenue resulted in capacity changes 23

to the project corridors. These capacity changes are reflected in the travel time changes shown in 24

Figure 8, which displays the averages of a sampling of trips on weekdays in October 2011 and 25

2014. Northbound Rogers Avenue travel times increased in the AM, reflecting the reduction in 26

capacity caused by the addition of the bus lane, and decreased in the PM, reflecting the capacity 27

added by the reverse peak parking restriction. In 2011, northbound trips had a standard deviation 28

of 1.8 minutes and a range of 4.1 minutes between minimum and maximum speed trips, 29

increasing in 2014 to a standard deviation of 2.0 minutes and a range of 6.1 minutes. 30

19.0

21.8

18.3

21.8 19.8

21.5

16.7

22.6

Northbound Southbound Northbound Southbound

AM Peak (7:45 - 8:45 AM) PM Peak (5:15 - 6:15 PM)

General Traffic Travel Time (minutes)- North of Flatbush Ave

Pre-SBS Post-SBS

9% 4% 2% 4%


Southbound Nostrand Avenue travel times decreased in the AM, and increased in the 1

PM, corresponding to the reduction in capacity caused by the bus lane in the PM and the increase 2

in capacity caused by the reverse peak parking restriction in the AM. The signal mitigations at 3

Linden Boulevard and Eastern Parkway also showed direct benefits, resulting in .5 to 2.5 MPH 4

increases in average speed approaching these intersections in the peak direction and .5 to 5 MPH 5

increases approaching in the non-peak direction. Southbound trips had a standard deviation of 6

2.0 minutes and a range of 4.1 minutes between minimum and maximum speed trips in 2011, 7

both increasing to a standard deviation of 2.3 minutes and a range of 6.1 minutes in 2014. 8

9

Survey Data 10 11

As part of the after-study, B44 riders were randomly interviewed at bus stops and on-board 12

buses. The results are presented in Table 1. 13

14

TABLE 1 B44 SBS (a) Rider Experience and (b) Reasons for Riding 15

Previous B44 Riders? Percentage

Yes 80%

No 18%

Cannot recall 2%

(a)

New riders' reasons for riding B44 SBS Percentage

Better service 43%

Better accessibility 12%

More comfortable 6%

No other choice available now 29%

Other 10% (b) 16 17

Of the 387 B44 SBS riders surveyed, 18% had not been B44 riders, and therefore shifted to the 18

SBS from some other means. 43% of those new riders chose to become B44 SBS riders because 19

of the better service. The fact that 29% of new riders selected “No other choice available now” 20

indicates new trips being taken by new transit-dependent residents, workers, or shoppers in the 21

area, as it would otherwise be unlikely for people to have no other choice but to take a new 22

service without having been riders of the service it replaced. At the same time, 61% of new 23

riders indicated that they were attracted by features of the new service, indicating that the BRT 24

features likely are inducing some mode shift, route shift, and/or induced travel. 25

26

DISCUSSION 27 28

Taken alone, these strands of evidence cannot speak to mode shift directly. However, route shift 29

was observed in both bus transit and vehicular modes. In Brooklyn’s dense urban grid with an 30

abundance of transportation options, it can be difficult to distinguish between mode shift and 31

route shift without considering all modes in parallel, and investigating the changing dynamic 32

between routes and between modes that can result from project implementation. These changing 33


dynamics are what served as the driving forces behind the route shift and mode shift that has 1

already occurred, and any shifts that will occur in the future. 2

In particular, despite overall losses in B44 ridership from 2012 to 2014, likely caused 3

mostly by construction and partly by elimination of stops and bus rerouting, there is considerable 4

evidence that a customer base is shifting towards the B44 SBS. With larger forces driving down 5

bus ridership borough-wide, the upward trend in B44 SBS ridership shown from 2014 to 2015 is 6

unusual. Considering these ridership increases in combination with decreases observed on the 7

B49 and B44 Local, it is likely that some route shifting between these other routes and the B44 8

SBS occurred. The reasons for this recent increase in ridership can be seen in the bus travel time 9

and customer survey data. 10

The large reduction in travel times observed on the B44 SBS as compared to the Limited 11

service it replaced are being noticed by customers, with their responses indicating that the most 12

common reason for being a new B44 SBS rider is the better service. The B44 SBS is now the 13

faster transit travel option for those in the project area. 14

The other type of route shifting observed in the data was vehicular traffic shifting 15

between parallel streets. For peak direction travel especially, a portion of the vehicular volume 16

shifted away from the project corridors, and the dense Brooklyn grid absorbed it. In this way, a 17

large portion of the inconvenience to motorists caused by bus lane or bus bulb infrastructure was 18

alleviated by route shift, even if few of those motorists became transit riders. Though the 19

conversion to Select Bus Service project greatly reduced bus travel times, only mixed effects on 20

car travel times, and decreased reliability, were observed on the project corridors. Bus passenger 21

capacity was also added to the project corridors as a result of using larger buses, which may 22

become increasingly important with SBS ridership trending up. Here, route shift, mode shift, and 23

changing street dynamics are combining to create a different, more balanced and transit-friendly 24

set of choices for users. Thus, even as one to one shifting of modes might be difficult to detect, 25

evidence has been found here for route shifting and an overall shifting of the mode share towards 26

a new, more transit-friendly equilibrium as a consequence of the B44 Select Bus Service 27

implementation. 28

29

REFERENCES 30

31 1. Gopalakrishna, Deepak et al. Integrating Demand Management into the Transportation 32

Planning Process: A Desk Reference. Publication FHWA-HOP-12-035. U.S. Department 33

of Transportation & Federal Highway Administration, 2012. 34

35

2. Select Bus Service- Nostrand and Rogers Avenues- Borough of Brooklyn, New York: 36

Categorical Exclusion. Federal Transit Administration and NYC Department of 37

Transportation, 2010. 38

39

3. Beaton, E. B., et al. Select Bus Service on M15 in New York City: Bus Rapid Transit 40

Partnership. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research 41

Board, No. 2277, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, 42

Washington, D.C., 2012, pp. 1–10. 43

44

4. Barr, J. E., et al. Select Bus Service on Bx12 in New York City: Bus Rapid Transit 45

Partnership of New York City DOT and Metropolitan Transportation Authority New 46


York City Transit. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation 1

Research Board, No. 2145, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, 2

Washington, D.C., 2010, pp. 40–48. 3

4

5. Beaton, E., et al. Designing Bus Rapid Transit Facilities for Constrained Urban Arterials: 5

Case Study of the Selection Process for the Webster Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Running 6

Way Design in New York City. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the 7

Transportation Research Board, No. 2352, Transportation Research Board of the 8

National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2013, pp. 50–60. 9

10

6. Beaton, E.B., et al. A Limited for the 21st Century: Applying BRT Principles to Create 11

Select Bus Service on Hylan Boulevard. Presented at 93rd Annual Meeting of 4 the 12

Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C. 2014. 13

14

7. Thompson, Gregory, et al. Understanding Transit Ridership Demand for a Multi-15

Destination, Multimodal Transit Network in an American Metropolitan Area: Lessons for 16

Increasing Choice Ridership While Maintaining Transit Dependent Ridership. MTI 17

Report 11-06, January 2012. 18

19

8. Idris A.O., et al. Dissecting the Role of Transit Service Attributes in Attracting 20

Commuters: Lessons from a Comprehensive RP-SP Study on Commuting Mode 21

Switching Behaviour in Toronto. Presented at 93rd Annual Meeting of 4 the 22

Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C. 2014. 23

24

9. Tann, Helen M. & D. Hinebaugh. Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision-25

Making. Publication FTA-FL-26-7109.2009.1. Federal Transit Administration & 26

National BRT Institute, 2009. 27

28

10. Safran, Jeremy et al. Factors Contributing to Bus Lane Obstruction and Usage in New 29

York City: Does Design Matter? Transportation Research Record: Journal of the 30

Transportation Research Board, No. 2418, Transportation Research Board of the 31

National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2014, pp. 58–65. 32

33

11. Title 34: Chapter 4: Traffic Rules. City of New York, Department of Transportation, 34

2012. 35

reviewer 1: no responses - transportation research …docs.trb.org/prp/16-4339.pdf · 16-4339: b44...

Documents