DOCSLIB.ORG

Bus Routes, Customers Will Be Able to Use a New App to Flag Or Call the Next Available Bus to Alternate Pickup Locations

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Bus Routes, Customers Will Be Able to Use a New App to Flag Or Call the Next Available Bus to Alternate Pickup Locations T&E COMMITTEE #1-10 April 25, 2019 MEMORANDUM April 23, 2019 TO: County Councileo FROM: Glenn Orlin, Deputy Director SUBJECT: FYI 9-24 Capital Improvements Program (CIP): amendments FY20 Operating Budget: Department of Transportation (DOT), Vacuum Leaf Collection Fund, General Fund, and Mass Transit Fund; Homeowners' Association Road Maintenance Reimbursement NDA; Rockville Parking District NDA; Vision Zero NDA, and Snow Removal and Storm Cleanup NDA Supplemental Appropriation to the FY19 Operating Budget, Montgomery County Government: Snow Removal/Wind and Rain Storm Cleanup, Department of Transportation- $11,584,423; Department of General Services - $3,641,663 Supplemental Appropriation to the FY19 Capital Budget, Montgomery County Government: Resurfacing: Residential/Rural Roads - $3,885,000 PURPOSE: Develop recommendations on CIP amendments and on the above portions of the FY20 Operating Budget1 Those expected to attend this worksession include: Al Roshdieh, Director, DOT Emil Wolanin, Deputy Director, DOT Christopher Conklin, Deputy Director for Transportation Policy, DOT Tim Cupples, Chief, Division of Transportation Engineering, DOT Richard Dorsey, Chief, Division of Highway Services, DOT Dan Hibbert, Chief, Division of Transit Services, DOT Fred Lees, Chief, Management Services, DOT Michael Paylor, Chief, Division of Transportation Engineering and Operations, DOT Brady Goldsmith, Alison Dollar-Sibal, and Deborah Lambert, Budget Analysts, Office of Management and Budget (0MB) I. FY19-24 CIP: transportation amendments (except Parking Lot Districts) 1. Resurfacing: Residential/Rural Roads (©I-4). In January the Executive recommended accelerating $1 million from FY22 to FYI 9-for which he requested a supplemental appropriation-and accelerating $400,000 in FY23 and $ I million from FY24 to FY20. The six-year total would be unchanged. The Council held a public hearing on the supplemental appropriation on February 12. The Executive is now recommending amending this recommendation to add another $2,885,000 in FY19, utilizing the balance of the FY19 General Obligation set aside. 1 Key words: #FY20budget, plus search terms transportation, snow, transit. Over the years the Council has significantly increased the resources for residential street resurfacing, patching, and rehabilitation, but the annual funding levels remain an order of magnitude smaller than what is optimal. In nearly every year recently the Council has augmented the funding for residential street resurfacing by accelerating funds into the first year of a CIP when the CIP is reconciled in May, if there is fiscal space to do so. This is one of the few local government programs that can spend capital resources quickly, once they are approved. When the Council reviewed the original request this winter, it decided to postpone action on the supplemental appropriation and CIP amendment until CIP Reconciliation in May. The same rationale holds true for this larger amended request. At the Council's CIP Reconciliation it will be known how much funding can be accelerated, which may be less, the same, or more than the Executive's current recommendation. In any event, whatever funds are accelerated would be spent later this spring, so there is no need to act on this updated request now. Council staff recommendation: Confirm the earlier decision not to approve this supplemental appropriation and CIP amendment until after CIP Reconciliation. 2. Bus Rapid Transit: System Development (©5-6). The Executive is recommending $500,000 more in Current Revenue to initiate an environmental study for the MD 355 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) corridor. In his March 15 transmittal he notes that: By Summer 2019, the Department of Transportation will have a Recommended Alternative for BRT on MD 355. The next stage to advancing the project will be to commence environmental work, either under the Federal or State environmental law, depending on the source of funding expected to implement the project. In its CIP worksession this past winter, Councilmember Riemer recommended accelerating the Veirs Mill Road BRT project by three years, from FY23 to FY20. At the urging of DOT, the Committee agreed to postpone a decision on this acceleration until this summer, when it would be able to review both it and the DOT's recommended alternative for the MD 355 BRT. At that time the Council might chose to proceed first with the recommended alternative for the Veirs Mill Road BRT (Alternative 2.5), the MD 355 BRT, or, if funding were available, both simultaneously. Until then, approving the Executive's requested $500,000 for the MD 355 BRT study is premature. Council staff recommendation: Do not include the $500,000 in the CIP now. When the two BRT routes are reviewed this summer, Council staff will prepare draft CIP amendments for each BRT route for the Council to choose from. 3. Facility Planning-Transportation (©7-8). Potential transportation projects are evaluated under this program. During Phase I of facility planning alternatives are identified and broadly analyzed for their relative benefits and impacts; the result is usually a single alternative retained for detailed study. During Phase II of facility planning the selected alternative is further defined to the point where all the significant benefits and impacts are known, and there is a reliable cost estimate. At the end of Phase II the project is likely to be brought before the Council for its consideration for design and construction funding in the CIP. Facility planning work is funded with forms of current revenue (i.e., cash, not bond proceeds) since there is no guarantee that completion of facility planning will result in a project that is built. 2 North High Street. The Executive has recommended deferring two facility planning studies (©7- 8). Although not explicitly stated, the delays are likely being recommended to create some additional current revenue "space" in FY20 to help fund the FY20 Operating Budget. One project study he recommends deferring is for the extension of North High Street in Olney by one year, shifting $150,000 from FY20 to FY2 l. This would be a very short project-literally, about 150 feet-from the west end of North High Street to Morningwood Drive. The Greater Olney Citizens Association (GOCA) requested this funding two years ago to help improve circulation to and from the Town Center, and its representatives have advised Council staff that it is not in favor of deferring the study. Council staff recommendation: Do not delay this study. Summit Avenue Extended. The Executive also recommends delaying much of Phase II of facility planning for Summit A venue Extended in Kensington. First identified as a need in the 2012 Kensington Sector Plan, this extension would divert traffic away from the Connecticut Avenue intersections with Plyers Mill Road and with Knowles Avenue, both of which are exceedingly congested during peak periods. The road is also central to the Town's plans for the redevelopment of the northwest portion of its business district. Phase I of facility planning was been completed, and last fall the T &E Committee reviewed the alternatives and recommended a particular alternative to carry forward into Phase II (©9). Phase II is underway, but the Executive recommends stopping the study in early FY20 and not picking it up again until late in FY23, a three-year delay. Both the Mayor of Kensington and Councilmember Friedson have written in opposition to the proposed delay (©10-12). Council staff recommendation: Do not delay this study either. This project is needed sooner than later. Furthermore, stopping the study in midstream would disrupt the study's continuity. Understanding the need to limit the use of cash in Facility Planning-Transportation, Council staff recommends these further changes: • Clarksburg Transit Center. Currently Phase I facility planning is programmed for $65,000 in FY21 and $130,000 in FY23. (Phase II is programmed at $130,000 in FY24 and $260,000 in FY25.) It is unrealistic for any phase of facility planning to have a gap year. Council staff recommendation: Defer the $65,000 in FY21 to FY22. This would not affect the completion year for facility planning, which would still be FY25. • Old Columbia Pike. This is facility planning for the master-planned widening of Old Columbia Pike between Stewart Lane in White Oak and Cherry Hill Road in Fairland, including the construction of a new bridge over Paint Branch. Currently the study is spread out over six years: 2½ years for Phase I (FY20 through mid-FY22) and 3½ years for Phase II (mid-FY22 through FY25). The main purpose for the project is to provide a means to carry local traffic between the built-out Viva White Oak and the White Oak Shopping Center area without having to mix with the more regional traffic on US 29. However, since this facility planning funding schedule was established, the first phase of Viva White Oak has progressed more slowly, which means that the balance of the development is also lagging. Council staff recommendation: Compress the schedule from 6 years to 5 (2 years for Phase I, 3 years for Phase II), starting Phase I in FY22 and completing Phase II in FY26. • Non-transit miscellaneous studies. The program sets aside a small amount of funds each year for miscellaneous studies. There is an amount for transit studies and non-transit studies. The 3 Approved CIP has $65,000 annually set aside for miscellaneous non-transit studies. The Executive is recommending accelerating $30,000 from the FY2 l set-aside to FY20. Council staff recommendation: Do not accelerate $30,000; retain the annual level of $65,000. The net result of these five recommendations, compared to the Executive's recommendations, are shown below (in $000) and on ©13-14. The FY20 level would be $100,000 higher than the Executive, but most of the later years would be lower Total 6-Yr Total FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 Bevond 6 Years North Hieb Street 0 0 0 +150 -150 0 0 0 0 Summit Avenue Extended 0 0 0 +145 +480 0 -145 -480 0 Clarksburn Town Center 0 0 0 0 -65 +65 0 0 0 Old Columbia Pike 0 -590 0 -165 -495 0 -65 +135 +590 Non-transit misc.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Transportation
    visionHagerstown 2035 5 | Transportation Transportation Introduction An adequate vehicular circulation system is vital for Hagerstown to remain a desirable place to live, work, and visit. Road projects that add highway capacity and new road links will be necessary to meet the Comprehensive Plan’s goals for growth management, economic development, and the downtown. This chapter addresses the City of Hagerstown’s existing transportation system and establishes priorities for improvements to roads, transit, and pedestrian and bicycle facilities over the next 20 years. Goals 1. The city’s transportation network, including roads, transit, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities, will meet the mobility needs of its residents, businesses, and visitors of all ages, abilities, and socioeconomic backgrounds. 2. Transportation projects will support the City’s growth management goals. 3. Long-distance traffic will use major highways to travel around Hagerstown rather than through the city. Issues Addressed by this Element 1. Hagerstown’s transportation network needs to be enhanced to maintain safe and efficient flow of people and goods in and around the city. 2. Hagerstown’s network of major roads is generally complete, with many missing or partially complete segments in the Medium-Range Growth Area. 3. Without upgrades, the existing road network will not be sufficient to accommodate future traffic in and around Hagerstown. 4. Hagerstown’s transportation network needs more alternatives to the automobile, including transit and bicycle facilities and pedestrian opportunities. Existing Transportation Network Known as “Hub City,” Hagerstown has long served as a transportation center, first as a waypoint on the National Road—America’s first Dual Highway (US Route 40) federally funded highway—and later as a railway node.
    [Show full text]
  • FY 2020 Status of the Appalachian Development Highway System
    Status of the Appalachian Development Highway System as of September 30, 2020 December 2020 Status of the Appalachian Development Highway System as of September 30, 2020 APPALACHIAN DEVELOPMENT HIGHWAY SYSTEM as of September 30, 2020 N EW Y ORK W ISCONSIN T M ICHIGAN T U-1 U P ENNSYLVANIA P O-1 P-1 O M M I LLINOIS I NDIANA O HIO M O EW N N ERSEY M J C E AR WARE C-1 YLAND A D D H EL C D B-1 WEST VIRGINIA D B L B G R I B ENTUCKY V IRGINIA K I HART Q B Q J F J F B S J-1 B T ENNESSEE N ORTH C AROLINA J K K A W V V V A-2 A A-1 S OUTH C AROLINA X X-1 MISSISSIPPI G EORGIA A LABAMA ADHS Miles Open to Traffic ADHS Miles Not Open to Traffic Interstate Highway System Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS) FY 2020 Accomplishments & Future Outlook Status of Completion of the ADHS At the end of FY 2020, a total of 2,814.0 miles, or 91.1 percent of the 3,090.1 miles authorized for the ADHS, were either complete, currently meeting traffic needs, open to traffic or under construction; 44.7 miles were in the final design or right-of-way acquisition phase, and 231.4 miles were in the location studies phase (pre- environmental). See Table 1 for the latest mileage totals by status category and state. See Appendix A for the latest mileage totals by ADHS Corridor, status category and state.
    [Show full text]
  • Changes to Transit Service in the MBTA District 1964-Present
    Changes to Transit Service in the MBTA district 1964-2021 By Jonathan Belcher with thanks to Richard Barber and Thomas J. Humphrey Compilation of this data would not have been possible without the information and input provided by Mr. Barber and Mr. Humphrey. Sources of data used in compiling this information include public timetables, maps, newspaper articles, MBTA press releases, Department of Public Utilities records, and MBTA records. Thanks also to Tadd Anderson, Charles Bahne, Alan Castaline, George Chiasson, Bradley Clarke, Robert Hussey, Scott Moore, Edward Ramsdell, George Sanborn, David Sindel, James Teed, and George Zeiba for additional comments and information. Thomas J. Humphrey’s original 1974 research on the origin and development of the MBTA bus network is now available here and has been updated through August 2020: http://www.transithistory.org/roster/MBTABUSDEV.pdf August 29, 2021 Version Discussion of changes is broken down into seven sections: 1) MBTA bus routes inherited from the MTA 2) MBTA bus routes inherited from the Eastern Mass. St. Ry. Co. Norwood Area Quincy Area Lynn Area Melrose Area Lowell Area Lawrence Area Brockton Area 3) MBTA bus routes inherited from the Middlesex and Boston St. Ry. Co 4) MBTA bus routes inherited from Service Bus Lines and Brush Hill Transportation 5) MBTA bus routes initiated by the MBTA 1964-present ROLLSIGN 3 5b) Silver Line bus rapid transit service 6) Private carrier transit and commuter bus routes within or to the MBTA district 7) The Suburban Transportation (mini-bus) Program 8) Rail routes 4 ROLLSIGN Changes in MBTA Bus Routes 1964-present Section 1) MBTA bus routes inherited from the MTA The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) succeeded the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) on August 3, 1964.
    [Show full text]
  • Click on Directory to Download
    2021.directory.pages_Layout 1 10/13/20 10:45 AM Page 5 We hope you find this edion of the Directory of Maryland Community Colleges useful. The Maryland Associaon of Community Colleges (MACC) staff makes every effort to keep this informaon accurate and up­to­date. Please help us maintain this valuable resource; if your college’s informaon changes during the year, please send your updates to Jane Thomas at: [email protected] or contact her at 410­974­8117. Throughout the year, your changes will be made to the online PDF version of the directory that is posted on the MACC website at www.mdacc.org. We appreciate your support and look forward to a successful year ahead for our colleges and the students we serve. i 2021.directory.pages_Layout 1 10/13/20 10:45 AM Page 6 ii 2021.directory.pages_Layout 1 10/13/20 10:46 AM Page 7 Foreword..................................................................................................................... i Purpose, Philosophy, and Mission ............................................................................1 Staff of the Maryland Associaon of Community Colleges.....................................3 Direcons to the MACC office ...................................................................................4 Execuve Commiee .................................................................................................5 Board of Directors ......................................................................................................6 Affinity Groups and Chief Officers.............................................................................7
    [Show full text]
  • Route(S) Description 26 the Increased Frequency on the 26 Makes the Entire Southwestern Portion of the Network Vastly More Useful
    Route(s) Description 26 The increased frequency on the 26 makes the entire southwestern portion of the network vastly more useful. Please keep it. The 57, 60, and 61 came south to the area but having frequent service in two directions makes it much better, and riders from these routes can connect to the 26 and have much more areas open to them. Thank you. Green Line The increased weekend service on the Green line to every twenty minutes is a good addition of service for Campbell which is seeing markedly better service under this plan. Please keep the increased service. Multiple Please assuage public concerns about the 65 and 83 by quantifying the impact the removal of these routes would have, and possible cheaper ways to reduce this impact. The fact is that at least for the 65, the vast majority of the route is duplicative, and within walking distances of other routes. Only south of Hillsdale are there more meaningful gaps. Mapping the people who would be left more than a half mile (walkable distance) away from service as a result of the cancellation would help the public see what could be done to address the service gap, and quantifying the amount of people affected may show that service simply cannot be justified. One idea for a route would be service from winchester transit center to Princeton plaza mall along camden and blossom hill. This could be done with a single bus at a cheaper cost than the current 65. And nobody would be cut off. As far as the 83 is concerned, I am surprised the current plan does not route the 64 along Mcabee, where it would be eq..
    [Show full text]
  • Centennial District TROLLEY SERVICE CONCEPT EVALUATION
    Centennial District TROLLEY SERVICE CONCEPT EVALUATION OCTOBER 2019 MD dDELAWARE VALLEY DVR PC's vision for the Greater Philadelphia Region is a prosperous, innovative, equitable, e'J.,JffPC resilient, and sustainable region that increases PLANNING COMMISSION mobility choices by investing in a safe and modern transportation system; that protects and preserves our natural resources while creating healthy communities; and that fosters greater opportunities for all. DVRPC's mission is to achieve this vision by convening the widest array of partners to inform and facilitate data-driven decision-making. We are engaged across the region, and strive to be leaders and innovators, exploring new ideas and creating best practices. TITLE VI COMPLIANCE / DVRPC fully complies with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 7964, the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 7987, Executive Order 72898 on Environmental Justice, and related nondiscrimination mandates in all programs and activities. DVRPC's website, www.dvrpc.org, may be translated into multiple languages. Publications and other public documents can usually be made available in alternative languages and formats, if requested. DVRPC's public meetings are always held in ADA-accessible facilities, and held in transit-accessible locations whenever possible. Translation, interpretation, or other auxiliary services can be provided to individuals who submit a request at least seven days prior to a public meeting. Translation and interpretation services for DVRPC's projects, products, and planning processes are available, generally free of charge, by calling (275) 592-7800. All requests will be accommodated to the greatest extent possible. Any person who believes they have been aggrieved by an unlawful discriminatory practice by DVRPC under Title VI has a right to file a formal complaint.
    [Show full text]
  • Anne Arundel County Transportation Center Feasibility Study
    Anne Arundel County Transportation Center Feasibility Study January 2020 Anne Arundel County Transportation Center Feasibility Study January 2020 Table of Contents 1.0 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. 1 2.0 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 3 3.0 Existing Service and Previous Studies ................................................................................. 4 3.1 AAOT ............................................................................................................................... 4 3.2 Annapolis Transit .............................................................................................................. 6 3.2 Regional Transportation Agency (RTA) Existing Service .................................................. 8 3.3 Other Transit Services .....................................................................................................10 3.4 MDOT MTA .....................................................................................................................10 3.4.1 MDOT MTA LocalLink 67: Marley Neck (Energy Parkway) to Downtown (City Hall) ..11 3.4.2 MDOT MTA LocalLink 69/70: Patapsco Light Rail Station to Annapolis/Jumpers Hole .......................................................................................................................................12 3.4.3 MDOT MTA LocalLink 75: Patapsco
    [Show full text]
  • INTERMODAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EFFICIENCY ACT of 1991 [Public Law 102–240; December 18, 1991] [As Amended Through P.L
    G:\COMP\INFRA\INTERMODAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EFFICIENCY ....XML INTERMODAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EFFICIENCY ACT OF 1991 [Public Law 102–240; December 18, 1991] [As Amended Through P.L. 116–94, Enacted December 20, 2019] øCurrency: This publication is a compilation of Public Law 102–240. It was last amended by the public law listed in the As Amended Through note above and below at the bottom of each page of the pdf version and reflects current law through the date of the enactment of the public law listed at https:// www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/comps/¿ øNote: While this publication does not represent an official version of any Federal statute, substantial efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of its contents. The official version of Federal law is found in the United States Statutes at Large and in the United States Code. The legal effect to be given to the Statutes at Large and the United States Code is established by statute (1 U.S.C. 112, 204).¿ AN ACT To develop a national intermodal surface transportation system, to author- ize funds for construction of highways, for highway safety programs, and for mass transit programs, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Sec. 1. Short title. Sec. 2. øRepealed.¿ Sec. 3. Secretary defined. TITLE I—SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PART A—TITLE 23 PROGRAMS Sec. 1001. Completion of interstate system. Sec. 1002. Obligation ceiling. Sec. 1003. Authorization of appropriations. Sec. 1004. Budget compliance.
    [Show full text]
  • Central Square Bus Access and Circulation Study
    Final Report Central Square Access and Circulation Study Prepared for City of Cambridge by IBI Group with CDM Smith July 14, 2015 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT CENTRAL SQUARE ACCESS AND CIRCULATION STUDY Prepared for City of Cambridge Document Control Page CLIENT: City of Cambridge PROJECT NAME: Central Square Access and Circulation Study REPORT TITLE: Central Square Existing Conditions Analysis IBI REFERENCE: 36888 DELIVERABLE NUMBER: 4 VERSION: ORIGINATOR: Nihit Jain REVIEWER: Duncan Allen AUTHORIZATION: CIRCULATION LIST: HISTORY: JULY 14, 2015 2 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT CENTRAL SQUARE ACCESS AND CIRCULATION STUDY Prepared for City of Cambridge Table of Contents Table of Contents ............................................................................................................... 3 1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 5 1.1 Study Purpose and Scope ............................................................................ 5 1.2 Study Process ............................................................................................... 8 1.3 Report Structure and Contents ..................................................................... 8 1.4 Summary of Recommendations ................................................................... 8 2 Identification of Issues .......................................................................................... 10 2.1 Methodology ..............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Board Action/Information Summary
    Report by Finance and Capital Committee (A) 11-19-2020 Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Board Action/Information Summary MEAD Number: Resolution: Action Information 202224 Yes No TITLE: FY2021 Budget Amendment PRESENTATION SUMMARY: Staff will review public outreach results related to the proposed service changes, request Board acceptance of the Public Outreach and Input report, seek approval of the Title VI Equity Analysis, as well as the FY2021 Operating Budget amendment, and repeal the previously approved FY2021 fare and service adjustments. PURPOSE: To seek Board acceptance and approval of the Public Outreach and Input report, Title VI Equity Analysis, and amendment to the FY2021 Operating Budget, and to repeal the previously approved FY2021 fare and service adjustments that have not been implemented due to Covid-19. DESCRIPTION: Identification of Parties with an interest in Metro’s budget: The following list includes Metro's top non-personnel multi-year contractors through FY2021 and to date ($500 million) as well as the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (MWAA). Some vendors have contracts spanning through FY2022 as well. l Kiewit Infrastructure Company l Kawasaki Rail Car Inc. l PNC Bank National Association l SunTrust Bank l C3M Power Systems, LLC l Transdev Services, Inc. l Gannett Fleming-Parsons Joint Venture II l Mott MacDonald I&E, LLC l New Flyer of America, Inc. l Bank of America NA l Wells Fargo Commercial Services l Clerk, U.S. Court l Motorola Solutions Inc. l M.C. Dean, Inc. l Mythics, Inc. l Potomac Yard Constructors l First Transit, Inc. l Diamond Transportation Service, Inc. l Dell Marketing LP l HNTB Corporation l Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (MWAA) A full list of Procurement Awards is available at: https:// www.wmata.com/business/procurement/solicitations/index.cfm#main-content Metro has labor agreements with the following collective bargaining units: l Fraternal Order of Police/Metro Transit Police Labor Committee, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Existing Services Chapter 4 Existing Services
    Chapter 4: Existing Services Chapter 4 Existing Services OVERVIEW OF EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICES This TDP is intended to address future transit services over a five-year period in Howard County and Anne Arundel County, and this chapter provides an overview of existing transit services in the region. Howard and Anne Arundel Counties are jointly served by the Regional Transit Agency of Central Maryland (RTA), which provides fixed-route service in both counties, ADA complementary paratransit, and demand-response service for seniors and persons with disabilities in Howard County. The RTA also provides fixed-route service in Prince George’s County, which is addressed in this plan as it is an integral part of RTA service offerings. The study region is also served by other transit providers. Central Maryland is located between the Washington, D.C. and Baltimore metropolitan areas, and there are transit routes from each urban area linking them with the RTA, including Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) services from Howard and Anne Arundel Counties to Baltimore; and Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) services providing connections from Anne Arundel County (Thurgood Marshall Baltimore-Washington International Airport (BWI) and Crofton) to the Washington Metro rail system; and in the City of Laurel and Prince George’s County. In addition, there are regional services provided by the MTA through its MARC commuter rail services and commuter bus program. There are also intercity connections in the region, including Amtrak. Specialized transportation services, including demand-response service for seniors and persons with disabilities are provided by the Anne Arundel County Office of Transportation (OOT), and similar services are provided by the RTA for Howard County.
    [Show full text]
  • A Plan to Connect Baltimore What Is Baltimorelink?
    A Plan to Connect Baltimore What is BaltimoreLink? . Improve service quality and reliability Linking Modes . Maximize access to high-frequency transit Places People . Strengthen connections between the MTA’s bus and rail routes Improving . Align the network with existing and emerging Safety Efficiency job centers Reliability . Involve riders, employees, communities, and Customer Service elected officials in the planning process 2 Existing Service We’ve heard the existing transit system is… Broken Disconnected Crowded Unclean Major Problems: Unreliable • Lengthy Routes – Long east-west and north-south routes Not connected to • Highly Congested – Buses bottleneck due to jobs network design • Unreliable – Network design hinders MTA’s ability to provide reliable service 3 The Solution - The BaltimoreLink Network . High-frequency routes into and throughout urban core • Color-coded routes • All lines access Downtown • 24 hours of service per day • Designed to connect to all other CityLink routes and to Rail Stations . Local Routes connecting to CityLink routes • Neighborhood connectivity • Suburb-to-urban core connectivity . Limited stop routes into urban core and suburb-to-suburb • Connecting to Regional Job Centers and Downtown To be integrated seamlessly with: 4 1st Draft Outreach October 2015 – February 2016 . BaltimoreLink Outreach built upon the effort accomplished as part of the 2013 Baltimore Network Improvement Project (BNIP) 13 public workshops over 790 . and 4 pop- attendees MTA gathered over 1,280 ups comments from 67 key events 26 24 elected stakeholder officials and briefed community group meetings 5 st 4% 1 Draft Outreach 6% Comment Submittal and Topic 7% 9% 61% submitted online (mySideWalk or Survey Monkey) 60% 11% 24% submitted comment form 11% Specific BaltimoreLink Route Proposal 15% submitted in other formats Forced Transfer (hotline, email, verbal, or other) Safety/Cleanliness Information/ Resources .
    [Show full text]