DOCSLIB.ORG

Baltimore Bicycle Infrastructure and Study Site

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

FINAL REPORT Bicycle Justice or Just Bicycles? Analyzing Equity in Baltimore’s Bike Share Program August 2018 Celeste Chavis, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Morgan State University Philip Barnes, Ph.D., Associate Policy Scientist, Institute for Public Administration (IPA), University of Delaware Susan Grasso, Doctoral Candidate and Public Administration Fellow, University of Delaware Istiak A. Bhuyan, Graduate Student, Morgan State University Amirreza Nickkar, Graduate Student, Morgan State University Prepared by: Department of Transportation and Urban Infrastructure Studies Morgan State University 1700 E. Cold Springs Lane Baltimore, MD 21251 Prepared for: Virginia Center for Transportation Innovation and Research 530 Edgemont Road Charlottesville, VA 22903 1 Acknowledgements The research team would like to thank the City of Baltimore Department of Transportation, Bewegen Technologies, Equitable Cities LLC, and the Southeast Community Development Corporation for their active participation in this research effort. The team would also like to thank the patient users of Baltimore Bike Share and those individuals who took the time to respond to the survey solicitations and attend the focus groups. Disclaimer The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the information presented herein. This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation’s University Transportation Centers Program, in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the contents or use thereof. 2 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. 1. Report No. 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Bicycle Justice or Just Bicycles? Analyzing Equity in Baltimore’s September 2018 Bike Share Program 6. Performing Organization Code 8. Performing Organization Report No. 7. Author(s) Celeste Chavis, Philip Barnes, Susan Grasso, Istiak A. Bhuyan, Amirreza Nickkar 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS Department of Transportation and Urban Infrastructure Studies 11. Contract or Grant No. Morgan State University DTRT13-G-UTC33 1700 E. Cold Springs Lane Baltimore, MD 21251 13. Type of Report and Period Covered 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address US Department of Transportation Final Report 6/1/17 – 9/30/18 Office of the Secretary-Research UTC Program, RDT-30 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590 15. Supplementary Notes 16. Abstract Bike share systems have become a common feature of the modern urban landscape and provide residents and visitors with an active transportation mode. Yet these systems have sustained equity-focused criticism for serving a narrow demographic band of residents and visitors, while others lack access and face barriers to usage. The City of Baltimore, Maryland, launched a bike share system in 2016. This study evaluates Baltimore’s new system from an equity-focused lens using two complementary approaches. The first approach, which is a GIS-based equity gap analysis, develops a population-density-normalized Bike Equity Index to quantitatively assess the spatial distribution of the city’s bicycle infrastructure supply and how it serves (or doesn’t serve) Baltimore’s transit-dependent and environmental justice communities. The second analytic orientation, which applies a user and barrier analysis, utilizes survey data to identify the low-equity groups and the variables that limit (or don’t limit) their demand for the city’s bike share program. When combined, the two perspectives—one top-down and the other bottom-up—present a more comprehensive picture and nuanced understanding of the current system’s equity performance. The research findings demonstrate that Baltimore Bike Share infrastructure is unevenly distributed across the city’s many communities and is undersupplied in areas with residents who are transit-dependent. Furthermore, the results support claims of a demographic mismatch between current bike share system users and the general population. The communities underrepresented among Baltimore Bike Share users are less educated, lower-income, non- whites, Hispanics, and females. The research indicates that females express concern over certain barriers to 3 accessing and using Baltimore Bike Share, including how to use the system, personal safety, helmet use, harassment, and hygiene. No significant barriers were identified for the other underrepresented demographic groups. To enhance the equity of the system, the research team recommends that the City of Baltimore prioritize bike share system expansion into the neighborhoods east and west of the downtown corridor. A robust community outreach strategy that targets underrepresented populations is also recommended and should include initiatives such as a grassroots bike share ambassador program and organized community rides. The bike share docking stations can also be leveraged for their advertising potential and should contain marketing materials that speak directly to underrepresented communities. 18. Distribution Statement 17. Key Words Baltimore, bike share, equity, urban mobility, gap analysis, bike No restrictions. This document is available equity index, equity analysis, survey research, policy analysis from the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161 20. Security Classif. (of this 21. No. of Pages 22. Price 19. Security Classif. (of this page) report) 130 Unclassified Unclassified 4 Table of Contents Preface ............................................................................................................................................................................. 9 1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................... 10 2. The Baltimore Bike Share Program ......................................................................................................... 11 2.1 History of Baltimore Bike Share Program .................................................................................... 11 2.1.1 Phase 1A ............................................................................................................................................ 12 2.1.2 Phase 1B ............................................................................................................................................ 13 2.1.3 Toward Dockless Bike Share ..................................................................................................... 14 3. Literature Review ........................................................................................................................................... 15 3.1 Equity in Transportation ..................................................................................................................... 15 3.2 Bicycling, Barriers, and Equity Communities .............................................................................. 16 3.2.1 Barriers to Biking in Equity Communities ........................................................................... 16 3.2.2 Barriers to Bike Share in Equity Communities .................................................................. 18 4. Supply of Bike Share Infrastructure: Equity Gap Analysis ............................................................. 21 4.1 Scope of Analysis and Study Area .................................................................................................... 21 4.2 Data Sources ............................................................................................................................................. 22 4.3 Bike Equity Index Development ....................................................................................................... 22 4.4 Results and Discussion ......................................................................................................................... 26 5. Demand for Bike Share: User and Barrier Analyses ......................................................................... 30 5.1 Data Collection......................................................................................................................................... 30 5.1.1 User Data Collection ..................................................................................................................... 30 5.1.2 Non-User Data Collection ........................................................................................................... 31 5.2 Analytic Approach .................................................................................................................................. 32 5.3 User Analysis ............................................................................................................................................ 33 5.4 Barrier Analysis ...................................................................................................................................... 34 5.4.1 Intercept Survey Descriptive Statistics ................................................................................. 34 5.4.2 Regression Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 36 5.5 Discussion ................................................................................................................................................. 43 6. Equity Best Practices ...................................................................................................................................
Recommended publications
  • Exploring the Relationship of Bikeshare and Transit in the United States of America

    Exploring the Relationship of Bikeshare and Transit in the United States of America

    Portland State University PDXScholar Civil and Environmental Engineering Master's Project Reports Civil and Environmental Engineering Summer 2018 Exploring the Relationship of Bikeshare and Transit in the United States of America David Soto Padín Portland State University Follow this and additional works at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cengin_gradprojects Part of the Civil and Environmental Engineering Commons Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Soto Padín, David, "Exploring the Relationship of Bikeshare and Transit in the United States of America" (2018). Civil and Environmental Engineering Master's Project Reports. 52. https://doi.org/10.15760/CCEMP.51 This Project is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Civil and Environmental Engineering Master's Project Reports by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. Please contact us if we can make this document more accessible: [email protected]. EXPLORING THE RELATIONSHIP OF BIKESHARE AND TRANSIT IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BY DAVID RAFAEL SOTO PADÍN A research project report submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE IN CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING Project Advisor: Kelly J. Clifton Portland State University ©2018 Final Draft ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express my gratitude for the academic guidance provided by my advisor Dr. Kelly J. Clifton. This project would not have been possible without the support and feedback of my fellow graduate students in the transportation lab of Portland State University. Any errors or omissions are the sole responsibility of the author. The author would like to thank bikeshare operators for making their data available, including Motivate and Bicycle Transportation Systems.
  • Amazon + Baltimore: Building the American City of Tomorrow

    Amazon + Baltimore: Building the American City of Tomorrow

    HQ2 @ Amazon + Baltimore: Building the American City of Tomorrow Page 02 Location, location, Let’s talk Building Port location talent Covington Maryland is your It’s ranked in the top The first master- gateway to everywhere five most educated planned smart city regions in the U.S., and is here Page 07 Baltimore businesses Page 25 couldn’t be happier Page 10 /01 A Letter from our Mayor CATHERINE E. PUGH MAYOR OF BALTIMORE Baltimore. This Must Be the Place. Amazon will have a great impact on the city chosen for Amazon HQ2, but that city will have a great impact on Amazon. The right city must have a talented workforce, a passion for innovation, a commitment to diversity and inclusion, and environmentally-friendly and sustainable design. The city you choose will share Amazon’s culture and values; Amazon and its HQ2 city will share in each other’s momentum. Baltimore, as you will see, is a city on the rise like no other. When it comes to Amazon HQ2, I am confident you will agree ‘This Must Be the Place.’ Baltimore is located at the epicenter of talent, education and innovation, borne out of its strategic, central location in the heart of the Northeast Corridor of the United States, and decades of collaboration between government, private enterprise, academia, the military and venture capital. As port and rail traffic blends with fiber-optic connections, makerspaces and tech start- ups, Baltimore is the only city with the grit, history and innovative spirit to lead the synergistic union of American commerce and technology for the 21st century.
  • Accessibility and the Crowded Sidewalk: Micromobility’S Impact on Public Space CYNTHIA L

    Accessibility and the Crowded Sidewalk: Micromobility’S Impact on Public Space CYNTHIA L

    Accessibility and The Crowded Sidewalk: Micromobility’s Impact on Public Space CYNTHIA L. BENNETT Carnegie Mellon University, [email protected] EMILY E. ACKERMAN Univerisity of Pittsburgh, [email protected] BONNIE FAN Carnegie Mellon University, [email protected] JEFFREY P. BIGHAM Carnegie Mellon University, [email protected] PATRICK CARRINGTON Carnegie Mellon University, [email protected] SARAH E. FOX Carnegie Mellon University, [email protected] Over the past several years, micromobility devices—small-scale, networked vehicles used to travel short distances—have begun to pervade cities, bringing promises of sustainable transportation and decreased congestion. Though proponents herald their role in offering lightweight solutions to disconnected transit, smart scooters and autonomous delivery robots increasingly occupy pedestrian pathways, reanimating tensions around the right to public space. Drawing on interviews with disabled activists, government officials, and commercial representatives, we chart how devices and policies co-evolve to fulfill municipal sustainability goals, while creating obstacles for people with disabilities whose activism has long resisted inaccessible infrastructure. We reflect on efforts to redistribute space, institute tech governance, and offer accountability to those who involuntarily encounter interventions on the ground. In studying micromobility within spatial and political context, we call for the HCI community to consider how innovation transforms as it moves out from centers of development toward peripheries of design consideration. CCS CONCEPTS • Human-centered computing~Accessibility~Empirical studies in accessibility Additional Keywords and Phrases: Micromobility, Accessibility, Activism, Governance, Public space ACM Reference Format: Cynthia L. Bennett, Emily E. Ackerman, Bonnie Fan, Jeffrey P. Bigham, Patrick Carrington, and Sarah E. Fox. 2021. Accessibility and The Crowded Sidewalk: Micromobility’s Impact on Public Space.
  • DATE: January 4, 2019

    DATE: January 4, 2019

    DATE: January 4, 2019 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Daryl Grigsby, Director of Public Works VIA: Derek Johnson, City Manager ENC: NACTO Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Transportation (Version 1: July 2018) PREPARED BY: Greg Hermann, Interim Deputy City Manager Adam Fukushima, Active Transportation Manager SUBJECT: SHARED ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION DEVICES The purpose of this memorandum is to respond to inquiries about the proposed operation of shared active transportation devices, such as scooters and bicycles. This memo provides pertinent background information, an overview of relevant City ordinances, policy and safety considerations and potential next steps for City Council consideration. Background In September 2018, the City was informed that Bird, an electric scooter sharing company, had unannounced plans to launch in San Luis Obispo without the proper permits or licenses. City staff reached out to Bird representatives and invited them to take part in a dialogue before beginning a “rogue launch” similar to the company’s practice in other cities. Bird responded favorably, traveled to San Luis Obispo and met with City staff to discuss their business model and has so far agreed to follow City policy and procedures relating to their business. Since then, four other scooter share companies have also inquired about operating in the City. They include Lime, Spin, Gotcha, and Uscooter. Staff has been in discussion with these companies and has informed them that a memo would be distributed to the Council outlining issues and potential paths and that no City actions would take place until such time as Council provided direction on whether to proceed with any ordinance changes and provide input on outreach, vendor selection, etc.
  • The Oregonian Apartment Construction Is Drying Up. Is

    The Oregonian Apartment Construction Is Drying Up. Is

    The Oregonian Apartment Construction is Drying Up. Is Affordable Housing Measure to Blame? By Elliot Njus February 19, 2018 Portland’s apartment-building binge appears to be headed off a cliff. Applications for new housing developments have nearly ground to a halt over the past year, and there are plenty of reasons for that. Construction costs have ballooned, as have land prices. The glut of new construction, meanwhile, has taken the wind out of rising rents, at least at the high end. But Portland officials are increasingly worried the city’s inclusionary zoning policy, which compels developers to set aside rent-restricted units in large apartment and condo projects, might be playing a role, too. And if home construction dries up, it could ultimately push housing costs even higher. Only 12 privately financed developments large enough to trigger the mandate, totaling 654 units, have sought building permits since the policy took effect last year. A more typical year in the recent housing boom has seen thousands of new apartments proposed. Those projects would create 89 units geared toward households earning significantly less than the median income. It’s difficult to say, given the many conflicting variables, whether or to what extent inclusionary zoning is to blame for the drop-off. Meanwhile, there’s a backlog of projects that had been submitted before the rules took effect, representing up to two years of future development. Nonetheless, a city economic planner tasked with monitoring the program says it might be time to consider changes that could give developers a better deal — or risk putting an artificial cap on the housing supply, driving rents higher in the long run.
  • City of Reston Bike Share Feasibility Study

    City of Reston Bike Share Feasibility Study

    City of Reston BikeReston Share Bike Feasibility Share Feasibility Study Study Fairfax County Final Report FinalJune Report2011 PREPAREDJune 2014 BY: Alta Planning + Design PREPARED BY: AltaPREPARED Planning FOR: + Design Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments PREPAREDon behalf of FOR: MetropolitanFairfax County Washington Department Council of Transportation of Governments on behalf of Fairfax County Department of Transportation TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... 1 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 3 2 WHAT IS BIKE SHARING? ............................................................................................................... 5 2.1 DEVELOPMENT OF BIKE SHARE TECHNOLOGY .......................................................................................... 5 2.2 SYSTEM ELEMENTS ............................................................................................................................. 6 2.3 LOCAL BIKE SHARE SYSTEM .................................................................................................................. 8 2.4 FUNDING AND PRICING OF BIKE SHARE SYSTEMS ..................................................................................... 9 3 BIKE SHARING IN RESTON ..........................................................................................................
  • April 30, 2014 Bicycle Sharing in the USA – State Of

    April 30, 2014 Bicycle Sharing in the USA – State Of

    April 30, 2014 Bicycle Sharing in the U.S.A. – State of the Art (Session 3A) By: Robert Kahn, P.E. RK Engineering Group, Inc. Introduction Bike Sharing in the United States (U.S.A) has been on the rise for the last several years. In September 2012, I published an article in the ITE Journal that summarized the latest status of Bike Sharing in the U.S.A. At that time, there were less than 20 programs, but since that time, the number of programs has more than doubled. Bike sharing programs are expanding in the east, mid-west and western portions of the U.S.A at an astounding rate and more are planned in the near future. I first got interested in Bike Sharing in the Fall of 2007, when I visited Paris, France, and I was introduced to the Vélib' Bicycle Sharing System. At that time, the Vélib' program included approximately 10,000 bicycles with 750 docking stations. Since then, it has expanded to include over 20,000 bicycles with 1,451 docking stations covering the entire City of Paris. Bike Sharing is a short-term bicycle rental system that allows users to make relatively short trips of 30 minutes to an hour, instead of using other modes of transportation (i.e. auto, public transit, taxicab, walking, etc.). Bicycle sharing is not geared towards longer distance recreational trips and generally serves local trips to work, shopping, and nearby destinations. In an April 2008 article published by WesternITE – a publication of the Western District of the Institute of Transportation Engineers – I provided a detailed discussion of the Vélib' program.
  • Asemattomien Kaupunkipyörien Ohjeistus Kunnille Sisällys

    Asemattomien Kaupunkipyörien Ohjeistus Kunnille Sisällys

    Liikenneviraston tutkimuksia ja selvityksiä 27/2018 Asemattomien kaupunkipyörien ohjeistus kunnille Sisällys Tiivistelmä sivu 3 Esipuhe sivu 4 Ohjeistuksen tausta ja tavoitteet sivu 5 Terminologia sivu 6 1. Asemattomien kaupunkipyörien lyhyt historia sivut 7-11 Liikenneviraston tutkimuksia ja 2. Asemattomien kaupunkipyörien tunnuspiirteet sivut 12-18 selvityksiä 3. Osana liikennejärjestelmää ja matkaketjuja sivut 19-23 4. Palvelun laatu ja käyttäjäkokemus sivut 24-30 27/2018 5. Pyöräilyn ja kaupunkipyörien imago sivut 31-34 6. Ansaintalogiikka ja rahoitusmallit sivut 35-43 7. Asemattomien kaupunkipyörien nykytila maailmalla ja Suomessa sivut 44-55 Verkkojulkaisu pdf 8. Sähköavusteiset kaupunkipyörät sivut 56-64 (www.liikennevirasto.fi) ISSN-L 1798-6656 9. Lainsäädäntö ja sen tulkinta sivut 65-71 ISSN 1798-6664 10. Suositukset ja pelisäännöt sivut 72-84 ISBN 978-952-317-547-1 Esimerkkejä kaupunkikohtaisista pelisäännöistä ja ohjeista sivu 85 Lähteet sivu 86 Liite: Keskeisimmät lainkohdat sivut 87-95 Tiivistelmä Asemattomat kaupunkipyörät perustuvat digitalisaation Suoraan lainsäädännöstä kumpuavat kuntien keinot ohjata tuomiin mahdollisuuksiin, kuten älykkäisiin lukkojärjestelmiin asemattomien kaupunkipyöräjärjestelmien toimittajia ja ja niitä tukeviin älypuhelinsovelluksiin. Nämä mahdollistavat operaattoreita ennakoivasti ovat rajalliset. pyörän jakamisen usean käyttäjän kesken ilman tarvetta erillisiin asemiin. Pyörät voivat olla pysäköitynä vapaisiin Voidakseen ohjata prosessia kunnan kannattaa aktiivisesti pyörätelineisiin tai niille
  • Bike Share's Impact on Car

    Bike Share's Impact on Car

    Transportation Research Part D 31 (2014) 13–20 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Transportation Research Part D journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/trd Bike share’s impact on car use: Evidence from the United States, Great Britain, and Australia ⇑ Elliot Fishman a, , Simon Washington b,1, Narelle Haworth c,2 a Healthy Urban Living, Department Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Faculty of Geosciences, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 2, 3584 CS Utrecht, The Netherlands b Queensland Transport and Main Roads Chair School of Urban Development, Faculty of Built Environment and Engineering and Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety (CARRS-Q), Faculty of Health Queensland University of Technology, 2 George St GPO Box 2434, Brisbane, Qld 4001, Australia c Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety – Queensland, K Block, Queensland University of Technology, 130 Victoria Park Road, Kelvin Grove, Qld 4059, Australia article info abstract Keywords: There are currently more than 700 cities operating bike share programs. Purported benefits Bike share of bike share include flexible mobility, physical activity, reduced congestion, emissions and Car use fuel use. Implicit or explicit in the calculation of program benefits are assumptions City regarding the modes of travel replaced by bike share journeys. This paper examines the Bicycle degree to which car trips are replaced by bike share, through an examination of survey Sustainable and trip data from bike share programs in Melbourne, Brisbane, Washington, D.C., London, Transport and Minneapolis/St. Paul. A secondary and unique component of this analysis examines motor vehicle support services required for bike share fleet rebalancing and maintenance. These two components are then combined to estimate bike share’s overall contribution to changes in vehicle kilometers traveled.
  • Shared Mobility Pilot Program

    Shared Mobility Pilot Program

    RESPONSE TO RFA: SHARED MOBILITY PILOT PROGRAM Prepared by Lyft Bikes and Scooters, LLC for the City of Santa Monica Primary Contact Information Name: David Fairbank Address: 1705 Stewart St., Santa Monica, CA 90404 Telephone #: < > Email: [email protected] CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT Please note that the information designated as confidential herein contains proprietary and confi- dential trade secrets, and/or commercial and financial data, the disclosure of which would cause substantial competitive harm to Lyft. Accordingly, Lyft requests that the City of Santa Monica main- tain the confidentiality of this information. Lyft further requests that, should any third party request access to this information for any reason, the City of Santa Monica promptly notify Lyft and allow Lyft thirty (30) days to object to the disclosure of the information and, if appropriate, redact any in- formation that Lyft deems non-responsive to the request before any disclosure is made. We have clearly marked each page of our proposal that contains trade secrets or personally identi- fying information that we believe are exempt from disclosure. The header of each page with confidential information is marked as illustrated to the TRADE SECRET - PROPRIETARY right: The specific written content on each page subject to these restrictions are bracketed < This specific content marked with the following symbols < >, as in this confidential and proprietary.> illustrative example to the right: Visual content and tables (e.g. images, screenshots) on each page subject to these restrictions will be highlighted with a pink border, as in this illustrative example below: The bracketed sections and highlighted visual content and tables are exempt from disclosure.
  • 2018 Update to Nice Ride Nonprofit Business Plan

    2018 Update to Nice Ride Nonprofit Business Plan

    2018 Update to Nonprofit Business Plan This Business Plan Update has been approved by the Nice Ride Board of Directors. It is subject to approval by the City of Minneapolis and is incorporated by reference in the proposed Third Amendment to Grant Funded Agreement by and between the City of Minneapolis and Nice Ride Minnesota. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Since its launch in 2010, Nice Ride has followed the core elements of the December 3, 2008, Nonprofit Business Plan for Twin Cities Bike Share System (“2008 Business Plan”). Core elements included: station-based bike share; capitalized through combination of public funds and title sponsorship by Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota (“Blue Cross MN”); operated by nonprofit staff with costs covered by sales revenue plus station sponsorship. In 2010, NRM and The City of Minneapolis entered into a Grant Funded Agreement (“GFA”), which expires in August of 20211. In that Agreement, Nice Ride agreed to operate “the Program” using the grant-funded equipment. “The Program” was the 2008 Business Plan. Core goals included: establishing bike sharing as a convenient and reliable form of transportation, increasing bicycle mode share, and increasing cultural acceptance of active transportation. The 2008 Business Plan was successful. NRM has achieved public goals, expanded using funds from multiple public sources, and become a model for over 50 similar nonprofits in other cities. In 2017, the market and technology assumptions underlying the 2008 Business Plan fundamentally changed. Over $3 billion in private capital flowed into the bike sharing industry worldwide. Over 20 million bikes were deployed in cities worldwide.
  • Dedicated Bus Lanes Dedicated Bus Lanes

    Dedicated Bus Lanes Dedicated Bus Lanes

    Rebuilding an Urban Bus Network in the 21st Century BaltimoreLink Goals . 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 Safety . Align the network with existing and emerging Efficiency job centers Reliability . Involve riders, employees, communities, and Customer Service elected officials in the planning process 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 Not connected to routes jobs • Highly Congested – Buses bottleneck due to network design • Unreliable – Network design hinders MTA’s ability to provide reliable service The Solution – The BaltimoreLink Network BaltimoreLink is a new kind of “grid and spoke” transit network offering three classes of service that reinforce the existing Metro SubwayLink, Light RailLink, and MARC Train systems: CityLink These color-coded “BRT ready” routes offer frequent, 24-hour service, form a downtown grid, and radiate out from the city on major streets. LocalLink These operate on neighborhood streets between the CityLinks and form crosstown “rings.” Express BusLink These offer limited-stop service between outlying areas and downtown. In Spring 2016 an express beltway “ring” was also created for the first time ever! Components of a Frequent Transit Network New Frequent Service Current Frequent Service Dramatic Expansion in Accessibility (will remain under B-Link) The new network offers frequent service to 30% MORE PEOPLE across the region: note the new “spokes and rings” at right! Forget About Schedules A frequent network permits passengers to travel freely around the region without building their lives around rigid schedules.