Oakland Airport Connector Options Analysis Analysis of the Options
August 2010
Service frequencies for AirBART are based on current operation: 10‐minute headways correspond to 6 departures per hour. The Rapid Bus and Full BRT options use the same assumption as the Quality Bus option in the FEIR/FEIS (11): 4‐minute headways, corresponding to 15 departures per hour. Service frequencies for AGT are taken from the Flatiron/Parsons/Doppelmayr Executive Summary (13): 275‐second headways, corresponding to 13 departures per hour. Seats and passenger spaces per vehicle are as described in Section 3 of this report. Peak hour demand is based on data provided by the Port of Oakland, which shows that 12.1% of Friday daily passenger trips occurred during the busiest hour of the day during May and June 2010. Therefore, peak directional demand is calculated as (daily ridership) * (12.1%) * (50%), with the 50% factor representing an assumed 50/50 split between passengers going to and from the airport between 5 and 6 pm on a Friday. Table 9 summarizes the capacity and demand analysis. Table 9
Directional Hourly Capacity and Demand AirBART
Rapid Bus
Full BRT
AGT
6
15
15
13
Vehicle capacity (persons/vehicle)
42
60
60
150
Seated capacity (seats/vehicle)
32
47
47
40
Peak person capacity (persons/hour/dir)
250
900
900
1,950
Peak seated capacity (seats/hour/dir)
192
705
705
520
2013 peak demand (persons/h/dir)
125
175
185
185
2030 peak demand (low) (persons/h/dir)
210
275
310
310
2030 peak demand (high) (persons/h/dir)
270
375
400
400
45
25
27
31
Peak frequency (vehicles/hour)
Average persons/vehicle (2030 high)
Table 9 shows that all of the non‐AirBART options provide sufficient capacity to meet the high demand forecasts through 2030, with the AGT option providing far more total person capacity than is required. The Rapid Bus and Full BRT options offer a higher seated capacity than AGT, though. According to the Oakland Airport Master Plan (14), the airport will reach its capacity at or before 30 million annual passengers, or approximately 50% higher passenger volumes than used for the 2030 high forecast. The Master Plan indicates that expanding capacity would require adding a new runway, which the airport does not plan to do. All of the non‐AirBART options would, therefore, accommodate the airport’s maximum passenger levels, assuming no changes in mode split due to external factors (e.g., gasoline or parking prices). When considering practical capacities (25% lower than shown in Table 9), all of the non‐AirBART options could still accommodate demand without short‐term overcrowding occurring during typical Friday peak hours. If additional capacity was required, additional Rapid Bus and Full BRT buses could be operated. The longest traffic signal cycle length in the corridor sets a practical limit on the minimum headway that could be operated without bus bunching occurring routinely, but decreasing the headway to 3 minutes, for example, would increase Rapid Bus and Full BRT capacity by 33%. Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
40