TR Circular E-C058_9th LRT Conference_2003.pdf - Florida ...

Demery and Higgins 363
passengers (6.1 p/m) based on 76 seated passengers and four standees per square meter. This
loading standard was based on (West) German experience (19).
Levinson and St. Jacques (2) present “suggested bus passenger service volumes for
planning purposes” of 7,500-10,125 phd, requiring 81-135 vhd. These figures, which imply 75-
96 p/v and 6.1-7.9 p/m, are unrealistically high. The authors have found only one case since the
crush-loading years of World War II where published data support an observed PVO exceeding
4.8 p/m for any U.S. or Canadian bus service. This is 5.6 p/m for bus services on Hillside
Avenue, Queens, New York City, circa 1962 (20).
Boyd et al. (21) postulated 576 vhd to provide a “capacity” of 31,600 phd, implying PVO
of 50 p/v. The supply level is nearly 300% greater than the maximum yet offered on any U.S. or
Canadian BRT facility other than the Lincoln Tunnel with its unique CBD terminal. 7 Biehler
(22) assumed PVO levels of 200 p/v for LRT and 100 p/v for articulated buses, well above those
suggested by empirical data. Meyer et al. (23) postulated 79 seats per railcar, 50 seats per bus,
and service levels sufficient to provide seats for all passengers. 8 The “no-standee” model
underestimates peak vehicle occupancy, for RRT in particular, and therefore overestimates
supply levels necessary to attract and move given traffic volumes. The capacity of a two-lane
busway, based on observed highway-lane capacity, was projected at 480 vhd. This would require
extraordinary preferential-lane measures involving multiple CBD streets or a large off-street
terminal. RRT capacity figures, 320-720 vhd depending on line and terminal configuration, were
based on theoretical maxima calculated by Lang and Soberman (24), and were not compared
with actual operating experience. Much has been published in the nearly four decades since this
pioneering study, but more recent studies do not include peak service supply and PVO details.
Rubin and Moore (25) overestimate peak service supply and peak vehicle occupancy in
egregious fashion for the El Monte Transitway in Los Angeles. The postulated theoretical
maximum of 194,400 phd was based on 1) three-section double-articulated buses as used in
Curitiba, Brazil; 2) peak service supply of 720 vhd; and 3) PVO of 270 p/v, or 11 p/m. The
service supply level is entirely unrealistic without a large off-street terminal, the PVO level far
exceeds those observed in the U.S. and Canada, and the estimated peak volume far exceeds
levels achieved in actual service, anywhere.
Performance evaluations of existing U.S. fixed-guideway facilities seldom consider
supply issues, focusing exclusively on demand parameters and demand analysis. This curious
and consistent oversight is difficult to explain; only a few examples can be cited here. Hamer
(26) wrote before most projects he considered had been completed. But Webber (27) considered
only the BART system, and was certainly aware of the large peak-capacity shortfall. Hall (28)
could have analyzed the impact of service-supply levels on BART ridership over the initial six
years of operation. But neither addressed service-supply issues.
The critical role of peak service supply in increasing transit use and attracting patronage
from private autos has also been ignored. For example, Hensher (29) states that the failure to
attract significant new patronage to RRT over the past two decades is due largely to lack of
disincentives to automobile use. But San Francisco planners recognized 40 years ago that
diversion of RRT patronage from automobiles would not occur uniformly throughout the day,
but would instead be concentrated into peak commute hours (30). Large-scale diversion of auto
trips to public transit is not likely unless existing and planned systems provide levels of peakperiod
comfort acceptable to consumers and provide this comfort on a scale large enough to
accommodate a significant share of consumers who now use private autos.