DOCSLIB.ORG

Volume 1: Detailed Definition of Alternatives Technical Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Volume 1: Detailed Definition of Alternatives Technical Report Durham-Orange County Corridor Alternatives Analysis JULY 2011 Prepared for: Triangle Transit Prepared by: U RS Team Detailed Definition of Alternatives Technical Report TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... ES-1 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ................................................................................................................... ES-1 EVALUATION RESULTS ........................................................................................................................... ES-2 LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE (LPA) RECOMMENDATION ..................................................................... ES-5 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................1-1 2. Definition of Alternatives .........................................................................................................2-1 2.1. NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE .............................................................................................................. 2-1 2.1.1. Roadway Improvements ........................................................................................... 2-1 2.1.2. Bus Network .............................................................................................................. 2-2 2.2. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVE .................................................................. 2-4 2.2.1. Technology ................................................................................................................ 2-5 2.2.2. Alignment .................................................................................................................. 2-5 2.2.3. Bus Stops and Park and Ride Locations ..................................................................... 2-7 2.2.4. Bus Network .............................................................................................................. 2-7 2.2.5. Roadway Improvements ........................................................................................... 2-9 2.2.6. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) .......................................................... 2-9 2.3. LRT ALTERNATIVE ..................................................................................................................... 2-10 2.3.1. Technology .............................................................................................................. 2-10 2.3.2. Alignment ................................................................................................................ 2-10 2.3.3. Station Locations ..................................................................................................... 2-14 2.3.4. Bus Network ............................................................................................................ 2-18 2.4. BRT-HIGH ALTERNATIVE ............................................................................................................ 2-19 2.4.1. Technology .............................................................................................................. 2-20 2.4.2. Alignment ................................................................................................................ 2-20 2.4.3. Station Locations ..................................................................................................... 2-20 2.4.4. Bus Network ............................................................................................................ 2-20 2.5. BRT-LOW ALTERNATIVE ............................................................................................................ 2-22 2.5.1. Technology .............................................................................................................. 2-22 2.5.2. Alignment ................................................................................................................ 2-22 2.5.3. Station Locations ..................................................................................................... 2-24 2.5.4. Bus Network ............................................................................................................ 2-26 2.6. OPERATING PLANS .................................................................................................................... 2-26 2.6.1. Service Levels .......................................................................................................... 2-26 2.6.2. End-to-End Operating Characteristics ..................................................................... 2-26 2.6.3. Station-to-Station Distance, Speed, and Travel Time ............................................. 2-26 2.6.4. Fleet Size .................................................................................................................. 2-28 2.7. STORAGE YARD AND MAINTENANCE FACILITY ................................................................................ 2-28 3. Evaluation of Alternatives ........................................................................................................3-1 3.1. DETAILED EVALUATION CRITERIA ................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2. EVALUATION RESULTS .................................................................................................................. 3-2 3.2.1. Ridership .................................................................................................................... 3-2 3.2.2. Transportation Operations ...................................................................................... 3-11 3.2.3. Expansion Potential ................................................................................................. 3-16 Durham-Orange County Corridor Alternatives Analysis | July 2011 | i Detailed Definition of Alternatives Technical Report 3.2.4. Public and Agency Support ...................................................................................... 3-17 3.2.5. Economic Development Potential ........................................................................... 3-18 3.2.6. Environmental impacts ........................................................................................... 3-25 3.2.7. Cost .......................................................................................................................... 3-36 3.2.8. Summary of Evaluation Results ............................................................................... 3-41 4. References ..............................................................................................................................4-1 Appendix A – Station Evaluation Appendix B – Construction Impacts LIST OF TABLES Table ES-1 Summary of Evaluation Results for LRT, BRT-High, and BRT-Low Alternatives ..................... ES-3 Table 2-1 2035 LRTP Roadway Projects in Durham-Orange Corridor ........................................................ 2-1 Table 2-2 No-Build Alternative Bus Network ............................................................................................. 2-2 Table 2-3 TSM Alternative Bus Network Changes from the No-Build Alternative .................................... 2-8 Table 2-4 Proposed LRT Station Locations ............................................................................................... 2-15 Table 2-5 LRT Bus Network Changes from the No-Build Alternative ....................................................... 2-18 Table 2-6 BRT-Low Station Locations ....................................................................................................... 2-25 Table 2-7 Summary of Service Characteristics for Build Alternatives ...................................................... 2-26 Table 2-8 End-to-End Operating Characteristics ...................................................................................... 2-26 Table 2-9 Station-to-Station Operating Characteristics ........................................................................... 2-27 Table 2-10 Build Alternatives Fleet Characteristics ................................................................................. 2-28 Table 2-11 Summary of LRT Maintenance Sites ...................................................................................... 2-31 Table 3-1 Build Alternatives Evaluation Criteria ........................................................................................ 3-1 Table 3-2 Potential Forecasting Uncertainties with Triangle Regional Model .......................................... 3-4 Table 3-3 Forecast 2035 Daily Boardings ................................................................................................. 3-10 Table 3-4 Forecast 2035 Daily System-Wide Transit Trips ....................................................................... 3-11 Table 3-5 Traffic Impacts Rating .............................................................................................................. 3-15 Table 3-6 End-to-End Travel Times for Build Alternatives ....................................................................... 3-16 Table 3-7 Expansion Potential Ratings ..................................................................................................... 3-17 Table 3-8 Public and Stakeholder Support Rating ..................................................................................
Recommended publications

  • Final Report

    Nashville Southeast Corridor High-Performance Transit Alternatives Study Final Report August 2007 - Nashville Southeast Corridor High-Capacity Transit Alternatives Analysis Table of Contents Chapter 1 – Introduction Chapter 2 – Public Involvement Plan Chapter 3 – Needs Assessment and Evaluation Methodology Chapter 4 – Phase I Screening of Alternatives Chapter 5 – Phase II Screening of Alternatives Chapter 6 – Transit Technology Assessment Chapter 8 – Travel Demand Forecasting Chapter 9 – Capital and Operating/Maintenance Cost Estimates Chapter 10 – Evaluation and Selection of the Locally Preferred Alternative Strategy Chapter 11 – Financial Assessment List of Figures Page Figure 3-1 Southeast Corridor Study Area 3-3 Figure 3-2 Major Activity Centers 3-14 Figure 3-3 Commuting Patterns in the Region 3-20 Figure 3-4 Trips from Davidson and Rutherford Counties to Major Destinations within Study 3-21 Area (2002 & 2005) Figure 3-5 SE Corridor Interzonal and Intrazonal Trips, All Trip Purposes, 2002 3-22 Figure 3-6 SE Corridor, Distribution of Interzonal Trips, All Trip Purposes, 2002 3-23 Figure 3-7 SE Corridor Interzonal and Intrazonal Trips, All Trip Purposes, 2025 3-24 Figure 3-8 SE Corridor, Distribution of Interzonal Trips, All Trip Purposes, 2025 3-25 Figure 3-9 SE Corridor Interzonal and Intrazonal Home Based Work Trips, 2002 3-25 Figure 3-10 SE Corridor Interzonal Home Based Work Trips, 2002 3-26 Figure 3-11 SE Corridor Interzonal and Intrazonal Home Based Work Trips, 2025 3-27 Figure 3-12 SE Corridor Distribution of Interzonal Home
  • W Miamirtach 961 MIAMI BEACH

    W Miamirtach 961 MIAMI BEACH

    COMMI5SION IIIM SUMMARY Condensed Title: 1. A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEAGH, FLORIDA, ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY MANAGER WITH RESPECT TO THE RANKING OF pRoposALS, PURSUANT TO PROPOSAL REQUTREMENTS DOCUMENT (PRD) NO. 2016-071-KB, NOTICE OF RECEIPT OF UNSOLICITED PROPOSAL FOR LIGHT RAIUMODERN STREETCAR PROJECT lN MIAMI BEACH; AND AUTHORIZING NEGOTIATIONS FOR AN INTERIM AGREEMENT WITH THE TOP- RANKED PROPOSER, GREATER MIAMI TRAMLINK PARTNERS, AND SHOULD NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE TOP RANKED PROPOSOR NOT BE SUCCESSFUL, AUTHORIZING NEGOTIATIONS FOR AN INTERIM AGREEMENT WITH THE SECOND RANKED PROPOSER, CONNECT MIAMI BEACH. 2. A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, APPROVING THE INTERIM AGREEMENT TERM SHEET AND KEY CONCEPTS FOR A COMPREHENSIVE AGREEMENT WITH A PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNER FOR A LIGHT RAIUMODERN STREETCAR PROJECT IN MIAMI BEACH. Ensure all modes the citv. Data Environmental Scan. etc: N/A Item Summarv/Recommendation : On December 1 6, 201 5, the Mayor and Commission adopted Resolution No. 201 5-29247, accepting receipt of an unsolicited proposal from Greater Miami Tramlink Partners for a Light Rail/Modern Streetcar Project in Miami Beach, and authorizing the Administration to solicit alternative proposals for a public/private partnership ("P3"), in accordance with Florida Statute 287.05712, for an off-wire or "wireless" light rail/modern streetcar system (the "Project"). ln the Proposal Requirements Document (PRD) issued on January 12,2016,
  • Altoona–Pittsburgh Passenger Rail Study Final Report

    Altoona–Pittsburgh Passenger Rail Study Final Report

    Altoona – Pittsburgh Passenger Rail Study Final Report June 2019 prepared for: prepared by: Table of Contents Executive Summary .............................................................................. 1 Past Study Review ................................................................................ 4 Service Alternatives .............................................................................. 5 Infrastructure and Capital Costs ............................................................. 8 Conclusion & Potential Next Steps ........................................................ 11 Appendix A: Previous Studies Summary ................................................ 14 Appendix B: Service Alternatives Report ................................................ 25 Appendix C: Infrastructure and Capital Costs Report ............................... 83 i Executive Summary The Altoona – Pittsburgh Passenger Rail Study is an effort by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) to explore the feasibility of additional passenger rail service, in particular, commuter service between Altoona, PA, Pittsburgh, PA, including intermediate stops. The corridor is 117 route miles from Altoona to Pittsburgh has three intermediate stations (see Table 1). Table 1. Stations and Distance Station Route Miles to Next Station Route Miles to Pittsburgh Altoona 39 117 Johnstown 37 78 Latrobe 10 41 Greensburg 31 31 Pittsburgh -- -- Source: Amtrak, Pennsylvanian Schedule, Effective March 10, 2018 A high-level market assessment model was used
  • The Transportation Experience : Policy, Planning, and Deployment

    The Transportation Experience : Policy, Planning, and Deployment

    THE TRANSPORTATION EXPERIENCE This page intentionally left blank The Transportation Experience Policy, Planning, and Deployment William L. Garrison David M. Levinson 3 2006 3 Oxford University Press, Inc., publishes works that further Oxford University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education. Oxford New York Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto With offices in Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore South Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam Copyright 2006 by Oxford University Press, Inc. Published by Oxford University Press, Inc. 198 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016 Oxford is a registered trademark of Oxford University Press www.oup.com All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of Oxford University Press. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Garrison, William Louis [date] The transportation experience: policy, planning, and deployment / William L. Garrison and David M. Levinson. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN-13 978-0-19-517250-8; 978-0-19-517251-5 (pbk.) ISBN 0-19-517250-7; ISBN 0-19-517251-5 (pbk.) 1. Transportation and state—United States—History. 2. Transportation and state—Great Britain—History. I. Levinson, David M. [date] II. Title. HE203.G37 2004 388′.0973—dc22 2003028117 987654321 Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper Dedication Marcia S.