DOCSLIB.ORG

Support Material Agenda Item No

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Support Material Agenda Item No. 17 Board of Directors Meeting November 4, 2020 10:00 AM MEETING ACCESSIBLE VIA ZOOM AT: https://gosbcta.zoom.us/j/99354182777 Teleconference Dial: 1-669-900-6833 Meeting ID: 993 5418 2777 CONSENT CALENDAR Transit 17. Task 3: Innovative Transit Review of the Metro-Valley Receive and file Task 3: Innovative Transit Review of the Metro-Valley Report. Task 3: Innovative Transit Review Report is being provided as a separate attachment. SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY CONSOLIDATION STUDY AND INNOVATIVE TRANSIT REVIEW TASK 3—INNOVATIVE TRANSIT ANALYSIS AND CONCEPTS OCTOBER 1, 2020 This page intentionally left blank. CONSOLIDATION STUDY AND INNOVATIVE TRANSIT REVIEW TASK 3—INNOVATIVE TRANSIT ANALYSIS AND CONCEPTS SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY SUBMITTAL (VERSION 2.0) PROJECT NO.: 12771C70, TASK NO. 3 202012771C70, TASK NO. 3 2020 DATE: OCTOBER 1, 2020 WSP SUITE 350 862 E. HOSPITALITY LANE SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408 TEL.: +1 909 888-1106 FAX: +1 909 889-1884 WSP.COM This page intentionally left blank. October 1, 2020 Beatriz Valdez, Director of Special Projects and Strategic Initiatives San Bernardino County Transportation Authority 1170 W. Third Street, 1st Floor San Bernardino, CA 92410 Dear Ms.Valdez: Client ref.: Contract No. C14086, CTO No. 70 Contract No. C14086, CTO No. 70 WSP is pleased to submit this Draft Task 3 Innovative Service Analysis and Concepts Report as part of the Consolidation Study and Innovative Transit Review. Upon receipt of comments from SBCTA and your partners, we will prepare and submit a final version of this report. Yours sincerely, Cliff Henke AVP/Project Leader, Global ZEB/BRT Coordinator XX/xx Encl. cc: WSP ref.: 12771C70, Task No. 3 202012771C70, Task No. 3 2020 Suite 350 862 E. Hospitality Lane San Bernardino, CA 92408 Tel.: +1 909 888-1106 Fax: +1 909 889-1884 wsp.com QUALITY MANAGEMENT APPROVAL TECHNICAL BACKCHECK FOR FIRST ISSUE REVIEW QAQC REVIEW AND REVISION RELEASE Prepared by TR JH JH/TM CH Date 09/01/2020 09/02/2020 09/02/2020 09/02/2020 APPROVAL SECOND TECHNICAL BACKCHECK FOR ISSUE REVIEW QAQC REVIEW AND REVISION RELEASE Prepared by JH SH RM TR Date 10/01/2020 09/22/2020 09/22/2020 10/01/2020 SIGNATURES PREPARED BY Name, Designation Title REVIEWED BY Name, Designation Title [SAMPLE DISCLAIMER:] This report was prepared by WSP for the account of San Bernardino County Transportation Authority, in accordance with the professional services agreement. The disclosure of any information contained in this report is the sole responsibility of the intended recipient. The material in it reflects WSP's best judgement in light of the information available to it at the time of preparation. Any use which a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on or decisions to be made based on it, are the responsibility of such third parties. WSP accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions based on this report. This limitations statement is considered part of this report. The original of the technology-based document sent herewith has been authenticated and will be retained by WSP for a minimum of ten years. Since the file transmitted is now out of WSP's control and its integrity can no longer be ensured, no guarantee may be given with regards to any modifications made to this document. [Keep the notification if: a) the report is digitally transmitted to the client in Word format, or b) the report in Word format is converted in a PDF file and signed by someone who does not have a digital signature authorized by his/her professional corporation (example: Notarius). Remove the notification if : a) the report in Word format is converted in a PDF file and signed with a digital signature authorized by his/her professional corporation (example: Notarius), or b) the report in Word format is printed, hand-signed and transmitted to the client in hard copy. And remove these instructions in the final version of the document] CONSOLIDATION STUDY AND INNOVATIVE TRANSIT REVIEW WSP Project No. 12771C70, Task No. 3 2020 OCTOBER 1, 2020 San Bernardino County Transportation Authority Page iii PR ODUCTION TEAM CLIENT Director of Special Projects and Strategic Initiatives, SBCTA Beatriz Valdez Transit Manager, Transit and Rail Programs, SBCTA Nancy Strickert Director of Strategic Development, Omnitrans Jeremiah Bryant WSP Project Manager Cliff Henke Innovative Transit Review Lead Tim Reynolds Innovative Services Specialist Sahar Shirazi Transit Propensity and Origin-Destination Specialist Seth Torma Senior Planning Analyst Tim Rosenberger Data and Performance Analyst Tiyani Zhang Quality Assurance and Control John Heaton CONSOLIDATION STUDY AND INNOVATIVE TRANSIT REVIEW WSP Project No. 12771C70, Task No. 3 2020 OCTOBER 1, 2020 San Bernardino County Transportation Authority Page v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................ 1 TABLE OF 1.1 Overview ......................................................................... 1 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ........................................................ 3 2.1 Innovative Transit Working Group ................................ 4 INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS IN TRANSIT ................... 5 3.1 Background .................................................................... 5 3.2 Potential Innovations ..................................................... 6 3.2.1 State of The Industry ................................................................................................ 8 3.2.2 New Mobility Experience........................................................................................ 14 SERVICE ANALYSIS ............................................... 20 4.1 Background .................................................................. 20 4.2 Pre-Pandemic System Characteristics and Performance ................................................................. 21 4.3 Paratransit ..................................................................... 31 4.4 Revised System – September 2020 ............................. 32 4.5 Results .......................................................................... 35 5.2 Travel Market Analysis ................................................. 41 5.3 Key Potential Travel Markets ....................................... 42 SERVICE CONCEPTS ............................................. 67 6.1 Overview ....................................................................... 67 6.2 High Capacity/Frequent Service .................................. 68 6.2.1 Inter-Valley Limited Stop Network .........................................................................69 6.2.2 Expanded High-Frequency Local Network ...........................................................71 6.3 Mobility Hubs ................................................................ 71 6.4 Microtransit ................................................................... 74 6.4.1 OmniRide Home-to-Hub Microtransit ................................................................... 76 6.4.2 OmniRide Hub-to-Jobs Microtransit .....................................................................80 CONSOLIDATION STUDY AND INNOVATIVE TRANSIT REVIEW WSP Project No. 12771C70, Task No. 3 2020 August 2020 San Bernardino County Transportation Authority Page vii 6.5 Downtown San Bernardino .......................................... 83 6.5.1 Is a Shuttle Practical? ............................................................................................ 84 6.5.2 Use of Existing Local Routes ................................................................................ 84 6.6 Innovative Mobility ........................................................ 85 6.6.1 Ride-hailing ............................................................................................................ 85 6.6.2 Vehicle Sharing ...................................................................................................... 85 6.7 Improved Interface with Commuter Rail ...................... 86 6.7.1 Metrolink ................................................................................................................. 86 6.7.2 Arrow Service ......................................................................................................... 86 6.8 Cost Estimates .............................................................. 87 6.9 Implementation Issues and Timing .............................. 87 WSP CONSOLIDATION STUDY AND INNOVATIVE TRANSIT REVIEW OCTOBER 1, 2020 Project No. 12771C70, Task No. 3 2020 Page viii San Bernardino County Transportation Authority TABLES TABLE 1: SBCTA INNOVATIVE TRANSIT REVIEW WORKING GROUP ................................................ 4 TABLE 2: SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL TRANSIT INNOVATIONS ....................................................... 6 TABLE 3: CHARACTERISTICS OF STANDARD FIXED ROUTE AND NEW MOBILITY SERVICES ........................................................... 15 TABLE 4: STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF DIFFERENT NEW MOBILITY SERVICE OPERATING ALTERNATIVES ............................. 16 TABLE 5: PRE-PANDEMIC SYSTEM - HIGHEST AND LOWEST FREQUENCY ROUTES ....................... 22 TABLE 6: OMNITRANS SYSTEMWIDE RIDERSHIP TREND (2013-2018)............................................. 29 TABLE 7: WEEKDAY RIDERSHIP PRODUCTIVITY CHANGE BY ROUTE (2013-2019) ....................... 30 TABLE 8: PRE-PANDEMIC MAJOR PARATRANSIT DESTINATIONS ................................................... 32 TABLE 9: SEPTEMBER 2020 SYSTEM
Recommended publications
  • Regional Transit Technical Advisory Committee October 29, 2014 Full

    Regional Transit Technical Advisory Committee October 29, 2014 Full

    MEETING OF THE REGIONAL TRANSIT TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Wednesday, October 29, 2014 10:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. SCAG Los Angeles Main Office 818 W. 7th Street, 12th Floor, Policy Committee Room A Los Angeles, California 90017 (213) 236-1800 Teleconferencing Available: Please RSVP with Ed Rodriguez at [email protected] 24 hours in advance. Videoconferencing Available: Orange SCAG Office Ventura SCAG Office 600 S. Main St, Ste. 906 Orange, CA 92863 950 County Square Dr, Ste 101 Ventura, CA 93003 Imperial SCAG Office Riverside SCAG Office 1405 North Imperial Ave., Suite 1 , CA 92243 3403 10th Street, Suite 805 Riverside, CA 92501 SCAG San Bernardino Office 1170 W. 3rd St, Ste. 140 San Bernardino, CA 92410 If members of the public wish to review the attachments or have any questions on any of the agenda items, please contact Matt Gleason at (213) 236-1832 or [email protected]. REGIONALTRANSIT TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE AGENDA October 29, 2014 The Regional Transit Technical Advisory Committee may consider and act upon any TIME PG# of the items listed on the agenda regardless of whether they are listed as information or action items. 1.0 CALL TO ORDER (Wayne Wassell, Metro, Regional Transit TAC Chair) 2.0 PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD - Members of the public desiring to speak on items on the agenda, or items not on the agenda, but within the purview of the Regional Transit Technical Advisory Committee, must fill out and present a speaker’s card to the assistant prior to speaking. Comments will be limited to three minutes.
  • Virtual Construction Update Meeting March 30, 2021 | 6 PM Using Zoom & Submitting Questions

    Virtual Construction Update Meeting March 30, 2021 | 6 PM Using Zoom & Submitting Questions

    Virtual Construction Update Meeting March 30, 2021 | 6 PM Using Zoom & Submitting Questions This meeting is being recorded. Video file will be posted on our web site at metro.net/crenshaw Public video and mics are disabled. We cannot hear you or see you. Submit a question/comment via text: Please ask questions and submit comments via the Q&A feature or text us. Welcome, thank you for joining us! 10 min Project Overview Annette Cortez, Community Relations Manager 10 min North Segment Ron Macias, Principal Community Relations Officer 10 min South Segment Saroya Sandiford, Principal Community Relations Officer 15 min On The Move Riders Program Brittany Mullins, Principal Community Relations Officer Sidney Urmancheev, Transportation Associate 10 min Business Support Programs Kyle Wagner, (Interim) Business Interruption Fund Manager 5 min Eat Shop Play Program Jesus Galeno, Transportation Associate Robyn Lopez, Community Relations Officer 30 min Moderation / Q&A Isai Rosa, Principal Community Relations Officer 3 COVID-19 Compliance 4 Project Overview Walsh Shea Corridor Constructors (WSCC) Main Line & Stations Contractor​ Hensel Phelps Herzog (HPH) Southwestern Maintenance Yard Contractor​, Completed March 2019​ • 8.5-mile light-rail servicing the Cities of Los Angeles, Inglewood and El Segundo​ • 8 new stations:​ • 3 underground​ • 4 at-grade​ • 1 aerial • Life of Project Budget: $2.148 Billion • Project has reached 98% completion 5 Northern Segment Overview Crenshaw Bl between Metro E Line (Expo) and 67th St Structural Elements of Stations • Three underground • One at-grade Civil Elements of Tunnels and Trackwork​ • Dual parallel bored tunnels​ • Hyde Park “Cut and Cover” tunnel Street Restoration Segments • Underground station areas​ • Hyde Park underground tunnel Underground Station Construction Underground Station Construction • Expo/Crenshaw Station • Martin Luther King Jr.
  • Process for Congestion Relief Link and Project Priority Ranking for CIS FY 1322

    Process for Congestion Relief Link and Project Priority Ranking for CIS FY 1322

    Process for Congestion Relief Link and Project Priority Ranking for CIS FY 1322 Congestion Management System (CMS) congestion link priority rankings were developed for all the links in the CMS. These link rankings serve two purposes. First is to rank the links so that priority can be established by location so that the highest priority congested locations can be identified. Second, for highway projects that have already been identified, they can be prioritized for congestion. The link rankings were developed using scores from “0” to “10” for each measure and the weighted by the percent for each measure to obtain a 100% score. A score of “10” was given for the highest priority values for each given measure used. The Congestion Relief priority rankings are primarily based on congestion performance measures, with consideration also given to related roadway usage characteristics. Congestion performance measures include volume to capacity (V/C) ratios and delays. Roadway usage characteristics include AADT traffic volumes, function class and strategic network. The congestion performance measures comprise 70% of the ranking while the roadway usage characteristics comprise the remaining 30%. As V/C ratios have been the most common performance measure used for congestion priority rankings, the V/C ratio scores were given 40% of the overall weight for the overall score, split evenly between AM and PM V/C ratios. The highest one‐way AM V/C was given 20% of the overall weight, while the highest one‐way PM V/C was also given 20% of the overall weight. Delays were given 30% of the overall weight, split by two types of delays.
  • Work Session Virtual Meeting Held Via Webex December 8, 2020 6:15 Pm

    Work Session Virtual Meeting Held Via Webex December 8, 2020 6:15 Pm

    WORK SESSION VIRTUAL MEETING HELD VIA WEBEX DECEMBER 8, 2020 6:15 PM Call to order 1. Metropolitan Transit Project Manager Shahin Khazrajafari will be presenting an overview of the forthcoming Metro Transit D Line Bus Rapid Transit project, the anticipated construction timeline, and will be available to answer any questions. Adjournment Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be made at least 96 hours in advance to the City Clerk at 612-861-9738. AGENDA SECTION: Work Session Items AGENDA ITEM # 1. WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT NO. 31 WORK SESSION 12/8/2020 REPORT PREPARED BY: Joe Powers, Assistant City Engineer DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: Kristin Asher, Public Works Director/City Engineer 12/2/2020 OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: N/A CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager 12/2/2020 ITEM FOR WORK SESSION: Metropolitan Transit Project Manager Shahin Khazrajafari will be presenting an overview of the forthcoming Metro Transit D Line Bus Rapid Transit project, the anticipated construction timeline, and will be available to answer any questions. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Metro Transit is moving towards construction of planned improvements to the Route 5 corridor with the D Line Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project after securing final project funding at the legislature in the recent bonding bill. The project will be a positive asset to the City of Richfield and enhance the overall metro transit system in our region. The D Line will substantially replace Route 5, running primarily on Portland Avenue within Richfield and on Chicago, Emerson and Fremont Avenues in Minneapolis. Rapid bus brings better amenities, such as: Faster, more frequent service; Pre-boarding fare payment for faster stops; Neighborhood-scale stations with amenities; Enhanced security; and, Larger & specialized vehicles.
  • Emission Station List by County for the Web

    Emission Station List by County for the Web

    Emission Station List By County for the Web Run Date: June 20, 2018 Run Time: 7:24:12 AM Type of test performed OIS County Station Status Station Name Station Address Phone Number Number OBD Tailpipe Visual Dynamometer ADAMS Active 194 Imports Inc B067 680 HANOVER PIKE , LITTLESTOWN PA 17340 717-359-7752 X ADAMS Active Bankerts Auto Service L311 3001 HANOVER PIKE , HANOVER PA 17331 717-632-8464 X ADAMS Active Bankert'S Garage DB27 168 FERN DRIVE , NEW OXFORD PA 17350 717-624-0420 X ADAMS Active Bell'S Auto Repair Llc DN71 2825 CARLISLE PIKE , NEW OXFORD PA 17350 717-624-4752 X ADAMS Active Biglerville Tire & Auto 5260 301 E YORK ST , BIGLERVILLE PA 17307 -- ADAMS Active Chohany Auto Repr. Sales & Svc EJ73 2782 CARLISLE PIKE , NEW OXFORD PA 17350 717-479-5589 X 1489 CRANBERRY RD. , YORK SPRINGS PA ADAMS Active Clines Auto Worx Llc EQ02 717-321-4929 X 17372 611 MAIN STREET REAR , MCSHERRYSTOWN ADAMS Active Dodd'S Garage K149 717-637-1072 X PA 17344 ADAMS Active Gene Latta Ford Inc A809 1565 CARLISLE PIKE , HANOVER PA 17331 717-633-1999 X ADAMS Active Greg'S Auto And Truck Repair X994 1935 E BERLIN ROAD , NEW OXFORD PA 17350 717-624-2926 X ADAMS Active Hanover Nissan EG08 75 W EISENHOWER DR , HANOVER PA 17331 717-637-1121 X ADAMS Active Hanover Toyota X536 RT 94-1830 CARLISLE PK , HANOVER PA 17331 717-633-1818 X ADAMS Active Lawrence Motors Inc N318 1726 CARLISLE PIKE , HANOVER PA 17331 717-637-6664 X 630 HOOVER SCHOOL RD , EAST BERLIN PA ADAMS Active Leas Garage 6722 717-259-0311 X 17316-9571 586 W KING STREET , ABBOTTSTOWN PA ADAMS Active
  • Planning a Public Transportation System with a View Towards Passengers’ Convenience

    Planning a Public Transportation System with a View Towards Passengers’ Convenience

    Planning a Public Transportation System with a View Towards Passengers’ Convenience by Jonas Harbering Planning a Public Transportation System with a View Towards Passengers’ Convenience Dissertation zur Erlangung des mathematisch-naturwissenschaftlichen Doktorgrades ”Doctor rerum naturalium” der Georg-August-Universit¨atG¨ottingen im Promotionsprogramm ”PhD School of Mathematical Sciences” (SMS) der Georg-August University School of Science (GAUSS) vorgelegt von Jonas Harbering aus Flemhude G¨ottingen,2015 Betreuungsausschuss Prof. Dr. Anita Sch¨obel, Institut f¨urNumerische und Angewandte Mathematik, Georg- August-Universit¨atG¨ottingen Prof. Dr. Stephan Westphal, Institut f¨urAngewandte Stochastik und Operations Research, Technische Universit¨atClausthal Mitglieder der Pr¨ufungskommision Referentin: Prof. Dr. Anita Sch¨obel, Institut f¨urNumerische und Angewandte Mathe- matik, Georg-August-Universit¨atG¨ottingen Koreferent: Prof. Dr. Juan Antonio Mesa, Institut f¨urAngewandte Mathematik, Univer- sit¨atSevilla Weitere Mitglieder der Pr¨ufungskommision Prof. Dr. Stephan Westphal, Institut f¨urAngewandte Stochastik und Operations Research, Technische Universit¨atClausthal Prof. Dr. Andrea Krajina, Institut f¨urMathematische Stochastik, Georg-August-Universit¨at G¨ottingen Prof. Dr. Preda Mihailescu, Mathematisches Institut, Georg-August-Universit¨atG¨ottingen Prof. Dr. Jens Grabowski, Institut f¨urInformatik, Georg-August-Universit¨atG¨ottingen Tag der m¨undlichen Pr¨ufung: 1. Februar 2016 ii Contents 1. Introduction 1 2. General Literature
  • Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and Light Rail Transit

    Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and Light Rail Transit

    Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and Light Rail Transit (LRT) Performance Characteristics Stations Mixed Traffic Lanes* Service Characteristics Newest Corridor End‐to‐End Travel Departures Every 'X' Travel Speed (MPH) City Corridor Segment Open length (mi) # Spacing (mi) Miles % Time Minutes BRT Systems Boston Silver Line Washington Street ‐ SL5 2002 2.40 13 0.18 1.03 42.93% 19 7 7.58 Oakland San Pablo Rapid ‐ 72R 2003 14.79 52 0.28 14.79 100.00% 60 12 14.79 Albuquerque The Red Line (766) 2004 11.00 17 0.65 10.32 93.79% 44 18 15.00 Kansas City Main Street ‐ MAX "Orange Line" 2005 8.95 22 0.41 4.29 47.92% 40 10 13.42 Eugene Green Line 2007 3.98 10 0.40 1.59 40.00% 29 10 8.23 New York Bx12 SBS (Fordham Road ‐ Pelham Pkwy) 2008 9.00 18 0.50 5.20 57.73% 52 3 10.38 Cleveland HealthLine 2008 6.80 39 0.17 2.33 34.19% 38 8 10.74 Snohomish County Swift BRT ‐ Blue Line 2009 16.72 31 0.54 6.77 40.52% 43 12 23.33 Eugene Gateway Line 2011 7.76 14 0.55 2.59 33.33% 29 10 16.05 Kansas City Troost Avenue ‐ "Green Line" 2011 12.93 22 0.59 12.93 100.00% 50 10 15.51 New York M34 SBS (34th Street) 2011 2.00 13 0.15 2.00 100.00% 23 9 5.22 Stockton Route #44 ‐ Airport Corridor 2011 5.50 8 0.69 5.50 100.00% 23 20 14.35 Stockton Route #43 ‐ Hammer Corridor 2012 5.30 14 0.38 5.30 100.00% 28 12 11.35 Alexandria ‐ Arlington Metroway 2014 6.80 15 0.45 6.12 89.95% 24 12 17.00 Fort Collins Mason Corridor 2014 4.97 12 0.41 1.99 40.00% 24 10 12.43 San Bernardino sbX ‐ "Green Line" 2014 15.70 16 0.98 9.86 62.79% 56 10 16.82 Minneapolis A Line 2016 9.90 20 0.50 9.90 100.00% 28 10 21.21 Minneapolis Red Line 2013 13.00 5 2.60 2.00 15.38% 55 15 14.18 Chapel Hill N‐S Corridor Proposed 8.20 16 0.51 1.34 16.34% 30 7.5 16.40 LRT Systems St.
  • Countywide Bus Rapid Transit Study Consultant’S Report (Final) July 2011

    Countywide Bus Rapid Transit Study Consultant’S Report (Final) July 2011

    Barrier system (from TOA) Countywide Bus Rapid Transit Study Consultant’s Report (Final) July 2011 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION COUNTYWIDE BUS RAPID TRANSIT STUDY Consultant’s Report (Final) July 2011 Countywide Bus Rapid Transit Study Table of Contents Executive Summary .............................................................................................................. ES-1 1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Key additional elements of BRT network ...................................................................... 2 1.1.1 Relationship to land use ........................................................................................ 2 1.1.2 Station access ...................................................................................................... 3 1.1.3 Brand identity ........................................................................................................ 4 1.2 Organization of report .................................................................................................. 5 1.3 Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................ 5 2 Study Methodology ............................................................................................................. 7 2.1 High-level roadway screening ...................................................................................... 9 2.2 Corridor development and initial
  • Regional Bus Rapid Transit Feasiblity Study

    Regional Bus Rapid Transit Feasiblity Study

    TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 2 MODES AND TRENDS THAT FACILITATE BRT ........................................................................................................................................................ 2 2.1 Microtransit ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 2 2.2 Shared Mobility .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 2.3 Mobility Hubs ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 3 2.4 Curbside Management .............................................................................................................................................................................. 3 3 VEHICLES THAT SUPPORT BRT OPERATIONS ....................................................................................................................................................... 4 3.1 Automated Vehicles .................................................................................................................................................................................
  • Rice-Robert Arterial Bus Rapid Transit Little Canada – Roseville – Maplewood – Saint Paul – West Saint Paul

    Rice-Robert Arterial Bus Rapid Transit Little Canada – Roseville – Maplewood – Saint Paul – West Saint Paul

    Rice-Robert Arterial Bus Rapid Transit Little Canada – Roseville – Maplewood – Saint Paul – West Saint Paul The Rice-Robert Project is a proposed 11-mile Arterial Bus Rapid Transit (ABRT) line roughly along Rice St and Robert St, serving the communities of Little Canada, Roseville, Maplewood, Saint Paul, and West Saint Paul. Rice-Robert ABRT would serve a wide variety of communities, from the jobs and destinations of downtown Saint Paul to many of the poorest and most transit- dependent neighborhoods in the East Metro. Both Rice St and Robert St are home to a wide variety of destinations ranging from a dozen schools and numerous parks to the State Capitol and the main service centers of Ramsey and Dakota Counties. It would also connect to numerous existing or planned transit improvements, including METRO Green Line, METRO Gold Line, Rush Line, Riverview, and METRO B Line on Selby. Rice-Robert ABRT is being considered for study and implementation as the METRO F Line in 2025. This timeline coincides with three major investments by state and local partners along the Rice-Robert corridor: Rice St Visioning Project (2022-24): Rice St from Pennsylvania Ave to Wheelock Pkwy is the subject of the ongoing Rice St Visioning Study, which will reimagine and redesign the corridor. Construction on the corridor between Pennsylvania and County Road B is scheduled to begin in phases in 2022. Rush Line Project (2024-26): Rush Line is a proposed BRT project from downtown Saint Paul to White Bear Lake. Rush Line would co-locate with Rice-Robert BRT from 12th St to 5th St in downtown Saint Paul.
  • METRO B Line Update and Preliminary Recommendations

    METRO B Line Update and Preliminary Recommendations

    METRO B Line Update and Preliminary Recommendations Adam Smith, Senior Planner, BRT Projects Katie Roth, Manager, Arterial BRT Metro Transit October 28, 2019 1 B Line (Lake Street/Marshall Avenue) BRT • Planned 4th arterial bus rapid transit line • Substantial replacement of Route 21, region’s second-highest ridership but slowest in-service speed • 8.2-mile corridor (12.6 miles with potential extension to downtown St. Paul) • Service every 10 minutes, approximately 20% faster than existing Route 21 • Targeted opening 2023, pending full project funding • $26 million identified to date; budget to be updated following corridor definition 2 B Line initial planning questions • Should the B Line extend to downtown St. Paul? • If the B Line is extended to downtown St. Paul, how should it be routed? • Where should stops be placed to best balance speed and access? • Related question: based on the above, what should be the overall mix of service in the corridor? 3 B Line preliminary recommendations • Extend the B Line to Union Depot in downtown Saint Paul • Route the B Line along Marshall, Snelling, and Selby Avenues • 33 preliminary B Line station locations • Retain local service on Route 21 between Hennepin Avenue and Minnehaha Avenue; continue study of local bus service options between Midway, Selby Avenue, and downtown Saint Paul 4 Context for recommendations: existing bus service levels Service every 7-13 minutes during rush hour Service every 15-18 minutes during rush hour Service every 8-13 minutes midday/evening Service every 16-22 minutes
  • Arterial BRT Corridor Concepts

    Arterial BRT Corridor Concepts

    Arterial BRT Corridor Concepts December 2020 Central Concept Station Locations From north to south, the corridor begins at Northtown Mall in Blaine and ends in downtown Minneapolis. The Central preliminary concept identifies 30 station intersections over the approximately 13.0-mile corridor. Today, the corridor is primarily served by Route 10. Considerations in the corridor: • The station at University and 69th Avenue in Fridley differs from the station siting identified in the 2012 Arterial Transitway Corridors Study (ATCS) due to new developments in the area. The station would also serve Fridley city hall. • A station is sited to the west of the intersection of Central Avenue & 53rd Avenue, near Target. • Stations at 49th Avenue and 45th Avenue could be shifted to better serve the Hilltop mobile home community. • The station at 41st Avenue would be on-street, removing the current pull-in to the Columbia Heights Transit Center. • Station siting in the segment between the Columbia Heights Transit Center and Lowry Avenue in Minneapolis with low existing Route 10 ridership could be adjusted; planning should consider a station near apartment homes at 35th Avenue. • Mid-block station siting between University Avenue and 4th Street along Central would facilitate transfers to the METRO E Line. • The current alignment would partially operate on a new Washington Avenue transit spine in downtown Minneapolis. • Future planning should consider an alternative alignment that uses the Hennepin Avenue bridge to cross the Mississippi River, then travels along East Hennepin Avenue and Northeast 1st Avenue in northeast Minneapolis. Such may alleviate the potential for shared station and alignment issues along the proposed Washington Avenue transit spine at South 3rd Avenue & Washington Avenue.