DOCSLIB.ORG

Transit Network Report 2020

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Transit Network Report 2020 OREGON TRANSIT NETWORK 2019 Report JUNE 2020 Oregon KITTELSON JJ L Department � lnof Transportation I� & ASSOCIATES Oregon Transit Network Report June 1, 2020 This page intentionally left blank. 2 Oregon Transit Network Report June 1, 2020 CONTENTS ODOT Team ....................................................................................................................................................................….. 4 Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) members ........................................................................................................... 4 Consultant Team ................................................................................................................................................................. 4 Introduction .....................................................................................................................................................................…. 5 Report Purpose ........................................................................................................................................................ 5 Report Organization ............................................................................................................................................... 5 Data Sources and Timeline .................................................................................................................................... 6 Notable Transit Service Changes and Planned Changes .................................................................................. 7 Key Definitions ......................................................................................................................................................... 8 Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................................................... 11 Oregon Transit Service Overview ................................................................................................................................... 16 What Kind of Transit Service is Provided in Oregon? ......................................................................................... 16 Who Provides Transit Service in Oregon?............................................................................................................ 18 How is Transit Service Funded in Oregon? .......................................................................................................... 19 Statewide Summary Statistics .............................................................................................................................. 24 Transit Connectivity .......................................................................................................................................................... 32 Temporal Connectivity ......................................................................................................................................... 32 Spatial Connectivity.............................................................................................................................................. 36 Accessibility ........................................................................................................................................................................ 43 Route Miles by Region, County, Provide Type, and Urban Scale .................................................................... 43 Percent of Population and Employment Served by Transit .............................................................................. 47 Population Density Around Stops ........................................................................................................................ 53 Urban and Rural Transit Coverage ...................................................................................................................... 56 Title VI Population Overall and at Level of Service ............................................................................................ 56 Mobility ............................................................................................................................................................................... 58 Service Miles by Region, County, Provider Type, and Urban Scale ................................................................. 59 Weekly Frequency ................................................................................................................................................ 62 Service Level .......................................................................................................................................................... 65 Demand-Response Service .................................................................................................................................. 67 Aspirational Measure: Regional Frequency ....................................................................................................... 71 Coordination ..................................................................................................................................................................... 72 Operational Coordination Strategies.................................................................................................................. 72 Institutional Coordination Strategies ................................................................................................................... 74 Glossary of Terms............................................................................................................................................................... 76 Appendix ............................................................................................................................................................................ 83 Summary Tables .................................................................................................................................................... 83 Transit Connectivity................................................................................................................................................. 83 Spatial Connectivity .................................................................................................................................... 83 Accessibility .............................................................................................................................................................. 86 Route Miles by Region, County, Provide Type, and Urban Scale ........................................................... 86 Mobility ...................................................................................................................................................................... 97 Service Miles by Region, County, Provider Type, and Urban Scale ........................................................ 97 Service Level .............................................................................................................................................. 103 Demand-Response Service ...................................................................................................................... 118 3 Oregon Transit Network Report June 1, 2020 The development of this Transit Network Report was guided by ODOT, the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), and the Public Transportation Advisory Committee (PTAC). ODOT TEAM Matthew Barnes Mel Hanna Transit Network Coordinator Technical Resource Center Coordinator Marsha Hoskins Mark Bernard Public Transportation Manager Regional Transit Coordinator – Region 2B Frank Thomas Patrick DePriest Regional Transit Coordinator - Region 5, STIF Public Transportation Coordinator ODOT Hal Gard, Administrator Naomi Zwerdling Rail and Public Transit Division (retired) Transit Program and Policy Lead Sarah Hackett Statewide Transit Network Analyst TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC) MEMBERS Kathryn Bernhardt Sandra Hikari General Manager, Curry Public Transit Scenic Byways Program, ODOT Angie Jones Alex Bettinardi Executive Director, Grant County People Senior Integrated Analysis Engineer, ODOT Mover Dwight Brashear Doug Pilant Transit Director, South Metro Area Regional General Manager, Tillamook County Transit Transportation District Terry Cole Cosette Rees Planning and Development Section Director of Customer and Specialized Manager - Region 2, ODOT Services, Lane Transit District Marne Duke Michael Stinson Senior Public Affairs Specialist, Metro General Manager, Basin Transit Service CONSULTANT TEAM Kittelson & Associates, Jacobs Inc. Trillium Solutions, Inc. Susan Wright, PE Ryan Farncomb Aaron Antrim Krista Purser Giovanni Corti Bincy Koshy 4 Oregon Transit Network Report May 29, 2020 INTRODUCTION Report Purpose The purpose of the Transit Network Report is to support a detailed understanding of the function, interconnectedness, and needs of Oregon’s transit network; create a useful tool that illuminates opportunities that could be capitalized on by ODOT and transit providers; emphasize the importance of service across the state; and better understand gaps, strengths, and weaknesses in the statewide transit network. The Report provides a variety of metrics and primarily focuses on fixed-route transit in Oregon. The Report is intended to be used by ODOT, transit providers, and decision-makers to understand the state of transit service across Oregon and to inform transportation decision-making.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Las Vegas Monorail, an Innovative Solution for Public Transportation Problems Within the Resort Corridor
    UNLV Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers, and Capstones 4-1999 The Las Vegas Monorail, an innovative solution for public transportation problems within the resort corridor Cam C. Walker University of Nevada Las Vegas Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/thesesdissertations Part of the Public Administration Commons Repository Citation Walker, Cam C., "The Las Vegas Monorail, an innovative solution for public transportation problems within the resort corridor" (1999). UNLV Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers, and Capstones. 198. http://dx.doi.org/10.34917/1439111 This Thesis is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by Digital Scholarship@UNLV with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this Thesis in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/ or on the work itself. This Thesis has been accepted for inclusion in UNLV Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers, and Capstones by an authorized administrator of Digital Scholarship@UNLV. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Monorail 1 THE LAS VEGAS MONORAIL, AN INNOVATIVE SOLUTION The Las Vegas Monorail: An Innovative Solution for Public Transportation Problems within the Resort Corridor By Cam C. Walker Bachelor of Science Brigham Young
    [Show full text]
  • Southern California Rapid Transit District (SCRTD)
    Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Law ---------------------------------------------------------------------- With corresponding provisions of the Southern California Rapid Transit District Law and Los Angeles County Transportation Commission Law Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority California Public Utilities Code Page 2 of 110 Introduction The Southern California Rapid Transit District, also known as the SCRTD or the “District” (1964-1993) was created by the State as the successor to the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority or “LAMTA” (1958-1964). LAMTA was the first publicly governed transit operator in Los Angeles and also responsible for the planning of a new mass transit system to replace the aging remnants of the transit systems built by Pacific Electric (1899-1953) and Los Angeles Railway (1895-1945). Unfortunately, the LAMTA had no ability to raise tax revenues or powers of eminent domain, and its board was appointed by the Governor, making the task building local support for mass transit improvements difficult at best. Dissatisfaction with the underpowered LAMTA led to a complete re-write of its legislative authority. While referred to in state legislation as a merger, the District law completely overwrote the LAMTA Act of 1957. The Los Angeles County Transportation Commission, also known as LACTC or the “Commission” (1977-1993) was created by the State in 1976 as a separate countywide transportation planning agency, along with transportation commissions in San Bernardino, Riverside, and Orange counties. At the time the District was initially created, there were no transit or transportation grant programs available from the State or Federal governments. Once funding sources became available from the Urban Mass Transit Administration, now the Federal Transit Administration, the California Transportation Commission, and others, the creation of county transportation commissions ensured coordination of multimodal transportation planning and funding programs.
    [Show full text]
  • Joint Policy Advisory Committee On
    Date: December 1, 2020 To: Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation (JPACT) and interested parties From: Carrie MacLaren, Metro Attorney Michelle Bellia, Senior Attorney Margi Bradway, Planning & Development Deputy Director CC: Councilor Shirley Craddick, JPACT Chair Subject: JPACT Member and Alternate Appointment Process Purpose To provide guidance to cities and counties in the Portland Metro area about appointments to the Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation (JPACT) based on the JPACT bylaws, written and adopted by JPACT and the Metro Council in 1990 and amended in 2008. Background Metro is the federally mandated metropolitan planning organization (MPO) designated by the governor to develop an overall transportation plan and to program federal funds. Comprised of transportation representatives from across the region, JPACT recommends priorities and develops plans for the region. Before adopting transportation policies, the Metro Council must consider JPACT’s recommendations. Federal law, MAP-21, requires that MPOs representing areas with populations over 200,000 (known as Transportation Management Areas, or TMAs) have a decision-making structure that incorporates input from local elected officials, transit agencies, and appropriate state officials. Across the country, MPO boards vary in size. Federal regulations further define the role of the “policy advisory committee” in terms provide oversight and guidance to the MPO on transportation planning and funding. Metro’s Code and the JPACT Bylaws describe the makeup
    [Show full text]
  • City of Wilsonville Transit Master Plan
    City of Wilsonville Transit Master Plan CONVENIENCE SAFETY RELIABILITY EFFICIENCY FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY FRIENDLY SERVICE EQUITY & ACCESS ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY JUNE 2017 Acknowledgements The City of Wilsonville would like to acknowledge the following for their dedication to the development of this Transit Master Plan. Their insight and outlook toward the future of this City helped create a comprehensive plan that represents the needs of employers, residents and visitors of Wilsonville. Transit Master Plan Task Force Planning Commission Julie Fitzgerald, Chair* Jerry Greenfield, Chair Kristin Akervall Eric Postma, Vice Chair Caroline Berry Al Levit Paul Diller Phyllis Millan Lynnda Hale Peter Hurley Barb Leisy Simon Springall Peter Rapley Kamran Mesbah Pat Rehberg Jean Tsokos City Staff Stephanie Yager Dwight Brashear, Transit Director Eric Loomis, Operations Manager City Council Scott Simonton, Fleet Manager Tim Knapp, Mayor Gregg Johansen, Transit Field Supervisor Scott Star, President Patrick Edwards, Transit Field Supervisor Kristin Akervall Nicole Hendrix, Transit Management Analyst Charlotte Lehan Michelle Marston, Transit Program Coordinator Susie Stevens Brad Dillingham, Transit Planning Intern Julie Fitzgerald* Chris Neamtzu, Planning Director Charlie Tso, Assistant Planner Consultants Susan Cole, Finance Director Jarrett Walker Keith Katko, Finance Operations Manager Michelle Poyourow Tami Bergeron, Planning Administration Assistant Christian L Watchie Amanda Guile-Hinman, Assistant City Attorney Ellen Teninty Stephan Lashbrook,
    [Show full text]
  • Please Be Kind to One Another
    SERVING ORGANIZED LABOR IN OREGON AND SOUTHWEST WASHINGTON SINCE 1900 INSIDE OUTSIDE PAGES NORTHWEST HE TOFFICIAL PUBLICBATION UOF LLETIN LABOR Amalgamated Transit Union PRESS Local 757 VOLUME 121, NUMBER 23 PORTLAND, OREGON DECEMBER 4, 2020 President’s Vice President’s Report Roundup Please be kind to one another By Shirley Block By Jonathan Hunt out and getting into trouble when they normally Season’s greetings Sisters and Brothers, wouldn’t. I would like to encourage you to check in with Hello, Brothers and Sisters, I hope you are all able to have your fellow sisters and brothers! First, I want to say I hope everyone had a happy and safe Thanks - a safe holiday with your family. At this point in time it doesn’t appear we’re go - giving. I know this year has been hard on everyone and very dif - With so many things chang - ing to have regular Union Meetings for a while. ferent. I know that none of us thought we would still be dealing ing all around us, we need to However, we are having monthly check-ins and with this virus. And I know that it hits harder when it starts affecting give each other space. We need small Zoom discussions. Please reach out to me the holidays. Most folks that I know stayed home with the family to practice social distancing, but if your work group would like to have a Zoom they live with and relied on Zoom and phone calls to reach out to we also need to be kind to one meeting.
    [Show full text]
  • Canby Transit Choices Report DECEMBER 14, 2016
    Canby Transit Choices Report DECEMBER 14, 2016 For Canby Area Transit Table of Contents Summary . 4 Productivity . 28 Introduction Current Costs and Revenues . 29 The Variety of Transit Services in Canby . 6 Near Future . 30 Fixed-Route Transit . 6 Highway 99 corridor study . 30 Demand Responsive Transit . 8 Federal transit funding . 30 What causes transit ridership? . 10 Increasing hourly costs . 30 Transit’s conflicting goals . 12 Existing Ridership and Performance Choices for Canby . 13 Route 99 . 32 Market and Needs Assessment Dial-a-ride and ADA paratransit . 33 Density of Residents and Jobs . .15 . Operations Contract . 38 Low-Income Residents . .15 . Service Standards . 38 Younger and Older Residents . 15. Language . 39 Residents by Race/Ethnicity . 15 . Weekends . 39 Commuting Patterns . 23 Complexity . .41 History and Trends Future Alternatives Recent History . 25 Focus on Key Choices . 43 Amount of service provided . 26 Dial-a-ride and ADA Paratransit Efficiency . 43 Ridership . 27 Alternative 1: Local Fixed Route . 45 JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES Table of Contents Local circulator . 45 Dial-a-ride and ADA paratransit . 46 Route 99 . 46 Alternative 2: More Route 99 Service . 47 Route 99 . 47 Dial-a-ride and ADA paratransit . 47 Weekend Service . 52 Measuring Impacts to Key Populations . 52 JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES Canby’s answer to the first question were Following the release of this report, CAT Summary “Yes, we should slightly shift our invest- staff and consultants will be attending This report is the first step in the develop- ment toward fixed routes.” These two meetings, making presentations, distribut- ment of a new Transit Master Plan for the Alternatives show how much service of ing surveys, and taking input in other ways, City of Canby .
    [Show full text]
  • White Paper: Urban Application of Aerial Cableway Technology
    WHITE PAPER: URBAN APPLICATION OF AERIAL CABLEWAY TECHNOLOGY WSP USA | June 2018 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY WSP USA is pleased to present the following white paper that summarizes the benefits and items for consideration of aerial cableway technology; outlines the project development process; and addresses advantages, costs and challenges associated with developing aerial cableway systems in urban environments. Urban applications of aerial cableway technology have been successfully integrated into transit networks in numerous cities around the globe, including the Portland Aerial Tram (Portland, Oregon) and Roosevelt Island Tram (New York, NY). Interest in aerial cableway technology has grown considerably in the United States in recent years, and initial feasibility studies have been completed in several U.S. cities, including San Diego, CA; Washington DC; and Brooklyn, NY. WSP is evaluating aerial cableway technology as an innovative first- and last-mile connection to regional transit in urban areas. Aerial cableway technology offers multiple benefits, including: relatively lower costs compared to other transportation modes, the ability to overcome significant changes in topography and other obstacles in natural and man-made environments, the ability to bypass congested roadways and transportation corridors, the ability to move high volumes of passengers: the equivalent of one city bus every minute, a streamlined design that fits into the urban environment, the potential to integrate transit-oriented development (TOD) near stations, and the ability to provide service between residential areas and key destinations. Many of these benefits have been realized in existing systems in La Paz, Bolivia, and Medellin, Colombia. Specifically, Medellin’s Line K transports more than 40,000 passengers per day between residential areas and the city center, reducing some commute times from more than an hour to approximately 10 minutes.
    [Show full text]
  • Los Angeles Transportation Transit History – South LA
    Los Angeles Transportation Transit History – South LA Matthew Barrett Metro Transportation Research Library, Archive & Public Records - metro.net/library Transportation Research Library & Archive • Originally the library of the Los • Transportation research library for Angeles Railway (1895-1945), employees, consultants, students, and intended to serve as both academics, other government public outreach and an agencies and the general public. employee resource. • Partner of the National • Repository of federally funded Transportation Library, member of transportation research starting Transportation Knowledge in 1971. Networks, and affiliate of the National Academies’ Transportation • Began computer cataloging into Research Board (TRB). OCLC’s World Catalog using Library of Congress Subject • Largest transit operator-owned Headings and honoring library, forth largest transportation interlibrary loan requests from library collection after U.C. outside institutions in 1978. Berkeley, Northwestern University and the U.S. DOT’s Volpe Center. • Archive of Los Angeles transit history from 1873-present. • Member of Getty/USC’s L.A. as Subject forum. Accessing the Library • Online: metro.net/library – Library Catalog librarycat.metro.net – Daily aggregated transportation news headlines: headlines.metroprimaryresources.info – Highlights of current and historical documents in our collection: metroprimaryresources.info – Photos: flickr.com/metrolibraryarchive – Film/Video: youtube/metrolibrarian – Social Media: facebook, twitter, tumblr, google+,
    [Show full text]
  • Connecticut Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Paratransit Application Form
    CT_ADAApplication_Rev8_12-19 Connecticut Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Paratransit Application Form Instructions for Submission To request a copy of this application in an accessible format, please call (203) 365- 8522 Extension 2061. The purpose of this application is to determine eligibility for Connecticut complementary ADA Paratransit service. If you have a disability that prevent s you from using the public transit bus service in Connecticut, you may be eligible for ADA Paratransit service. ADA Paratransit is a shared ride, advanced reservation, origin-to-destination service for persons with disabilities who are unable to use the public bus service because of their disability. Service Criteria The Connecticut ADA Paratransit program is designed to meet the Americans with Disabilities Act service criteria established by the federal government. Service is provided only to individuals f ound eligible by a Connecticut regional ADA service provider and is operated under the following ADA guidelines: • Complementary service is only provided in areas where public buses operate. This does not include Express Commuter service, Intercity or Dial-A-Ride services. ADA Paratransit vehicles can only make pick-ups and drop-offs at places that are within three-quarters of a mile of a public bus route. • Service is provided only during the hours and days when public bus service in that area operates. • Rides must be reserved at least one day inadvance. • ADA Paratransit fares are typically double the cost of a full fare on a public bus route. • Service is not restricted by trip purpose but provided for all types of trips. ADA Definition of Disability Any person with a disability who is unable, as a result of a physical or mental impairment, and without the assistance of another individual (except the operator of a wheelchair lift), to board, ride, or disembark from any public bus.
    [Show full text]
  • Streetcar Plan Posters
    WELCOME Welcome! The purpose of this open house is to present draft recommendations from the Bicycle Master Plan and the Streetcar System Plan to the public. City sta! and citizen volunteers are here to present the material and to answer questions. The room is divided into three sections: one for the Bicycle Master Plan, one for the Streetcar System Plan, and one called “Integration Station,” where we tie the two concepts together. Refreshments and child care services are also available. The bicycle and streetcar networks will play a key role in Portland’s future. Together, they will reduce reliance on the automobile for daily tasks, they will reinforce urban land use patterns, and they will help the City achieve its goals to combat climate change. This is the beginning of a transportation transformation. WHY PLAN? PORTLAND HAS A HISTORY OF SUCCESSFUL LONG-RANGE PLANNING In 1904, landscape architect John C. Olmsted produced a report for the City Among the parks that resulted from the Olmsted Plan are Holladay Park, Irving Parks Board. The plan served as a blueprint for development of the highly Park, Mt. Tabor (shown above), Overlook Park, Rocky Butte, Sellwood Park, valued park system we enjoy today. Washington Park, and several others. Interstate MAX Opened 2004 Airport MAX Hillsboro MAX Opened 2001 Opened 1998 Portland Streetcar Opened 2001 MAX to Gresham Opened 1986 Clackamas MAX Opens fall 2009 Westside Express Service Opened Feb. 2009 In 1989, three years after the "rst MAX line opened from downtown to Gresham, 20 years later the regional rail system is well on its way to being constructed as planners laid out a vision for a regional rail system.
    [Show full text]
  • I. Applicant Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties
    FY19-FY21 Regional Coordination Program STIF FUNDING APPLICATION I. Applicant Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties and government operated transit providers are eligible to receive RCP funds and are therefore Grant Recipients. Other local government authorities, non-profit organizations, and private for-profit organizations are not directly eligible. However, such entities may be a Co-Applicant in an application. 1. Grant Recipient Name of Grant Recipient: Clackamas County Contact Person: Teresa Christopherson Address: 2051 Kaen Rd., Oregon City, OR 97045 Telephone: 503-650-5718 E-Mail: [email protected] 2. Type of Grant Recipient (check one) Clackamas County X Multnomah County Washington County Government Operated Transit Provider 3. Co-Applicant (if different than Grant Recipient) Name of Co-Applicant: Contact Person: Address: Telephone: E-Mail: Regional Coordination Program Page 1 Regional Coordination Program FY19-21 Application II. Project Details RCP eligible projects must appear in a Local Plan (see STIF Rules OARs 732-042-0015) and intend to improve or expand public transportation or maintain public transportation. 1. Project Details Project Title: Tualatin/West Linn/Oregon City Commuter Shuttle Start Date: January 1, 2019 End Date: Ongoing (application to 6/30/21) 2. Project Purpose (check one) Improve or Expand Public Transportation: X Maintain Public Transportation: 3. Local Plan Plan Name: TriMet Southwest Service Enhancement Plan Governing Body That TriMet Board of Directors Adopted Plan: Plan Adoption Date: December, 2015 Plan Web Address: https://trimet.org/future/ Plan Page Number P. 9, 13 Referencing Project: III. Funding Eligible use of STIF funds for the RCP may include planning, capital, and ongoing operations within the TriMet District.
    [Show full text]
  • TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN Adopted April 8Th, 2014 by Ordinance No
    CITY OF TROUTDALE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN Adopted April 8th, 2014 by Ordinance no. 820 Prepared for: Prepared by: City of Troutdale Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 219 E Historic Columbia River Highway 610 SW Alder, Suite 700 Troutdale, Oregon 97060 Portland, Oregon 97205 503.665.5175 503.228.5230 www.kittelson.com Transportation System Plan Troutdale Transportation System Plan Troutdale, Oregon Prepared For: City of Troutdale 219 E Historic Columbia River Highway Troutdale, Oregon 97060 (503) 665-5175 Prepared By: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 610 SW Alder, Suite 700 Portland, OR 97205 (503) 228-5230 Project Manager: Matt Hughart, AICP Project Principal: Mark Vandehey, P.E. Project No. 12560.0 March 2014 Table of Contents Transportation System Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1. Executive Summary ........................................................................................................... 1-1 Introduction.............................................................................................................................................................................. 1-1 Goals and Policies ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1-2 Transportation Plans ................................................................................................................................................................ 1-3 Financing ...............................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]