DOCSLIB.ORG

Workshop 1 Materials

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Workshop 1 Materials ATTACHMENT 1: WORKSHOP 1 MATERIALS Embark Richmond Highway Bus Rapid Transit Workshop #1 April 21, 2016 Workshop Outcomes – Workshop #1 • Identify key design questions • Identify applicable BRT elements • Apply lessons learned from peer BRT systems – Workshop #2 • Confirm framework for defining right-of-way limits and station area plans • Develop concepts for South County and Woodlawn stations 2 Agenda 1. Introductions and workshop objectives (15 min) 2. What is BRT? - brief overview of characteristics (15 min) 3. Richmond Highway context for Bus Rapid Transit (15 min) 4. BRT building blocks - guideway, stations, passenger interface (60 min) 5. Recent BRT project case studies and application to Richmond Highway (60 min) 3 What is BRT? Healthline BRT Cleveland, Ohio 4 BRT System Components: An Integrated Package Vehicles Running Ways Stations & Terminals Systems Service Plan 5 BRT Passenger Experience: High-quality Transit Image: Convenient easy route Frequent service (no schedule needed) map VIVA map Simple Route Structure All-door boarding Image: Faster dedicated bus lane- Dedicated Lanes Mexico Longer Stop Spacing City Traffic Signal Priority Comfortable Station Shelters, seating Vehicle comfort & amenities 6 RICHMOND HIGHWAY CONTEXT 7 Alternatives Analysis (AA) Outcomes • Recommend a program of multimodal transportation improvements for adoption by Fairfax County and Prince William County • Define transit, roadway, and bicycle/pedestrian projects that could be advanced for implementation. 8 Transit Alternatives Evaluated – Alternative 1: Bus Rapid Transit 1- Curbside – Alternative 2: Bus Rapid Transit 2- Median – Alternative 3: Light Rail Transit – Alternative 4: BRT- Median (near-term); Metrorail (long-term) 9 Recommendations from Multimodal AA – Roadway: Consistent, 6 vehicular lanes along the corridor – Bike/Ped: 10-foot multiuse path (Note: implementation of recommended section varies along the corridor) – Transit: Median running Bus Rapid Transit 10 Phasing and Implementation Phase I-III: Implement Phase IV: Multimodal Extend Metrorail to Improvements and BRT Hybla Valley (Median Running) 11 County Comprehensive Plan: Typical Section 12 General Concept Graphic: Beacon Hill, Comp Plan Projections within ½ mile Numbers on buildings = # of stories 13 Beacon Hill Transit Oriented Development at BRT-supportive Activity Levels N 14 Exercise: Identify Key Themes and Questions In context of the Richmond Highway BRT program, what themes and questions should the workshops focus on? 15 2. BRT Building Blocks 16 BRT Guideway Basics Topic Variations Guideway Mixed Traffic* Configuration Curbside* Median Exclusive* Service One way with bypass lanes Configurations All inline Two-way with bypass lanes Safety Pedestrian Crossings Considerations Auto barriers Anti-Jaywalking Emergency vehicles * Not applicable to Fairfax BRT project but presented for comparison 17 Guideway Basics: Configurations None - Mixed Traffic* Curbside* Median Reservation Exclusive* Viva, Ontario Brisbane, Australia 18 * Not applicable to Fairfax BRT project but presented for comparison Service Configurations Single-lane* Inline Stations France Vancouver Two way with Express Lanes* * Not applicable to Fairfax BRT project but presented for comparison Ottawa 19 BRT Guideway Basics Overlay services: • Base: all-day, all- stop service • Peak express services Ghangzou, China 20 BRT Guideway Safety Source: http://www.ite.org/css/online/img/Figure9-16.jpg Pedestrian Refuge, detectable warnings (Eugene) Z-crossings (Eugene) 21 BRT Guideway Safety Chicago, IL 22 BRT Station Basics Topic Variations Platform Length Center vs. Side Near-side vs. Far Side Curb Height Fare Collection Onboard* Offboard fare barriers Offboard Proof of Payment (POP) Onboard Smart Card ADAAG Accessibility Detectable warnings Curb ramps * Not applicable to Fairfax BRT project but presented for comparison 23 BRT Passenger Experience: At the Station 1. Arrive on platform 2. Purchase/validate ticket 3. Check next bus arrival 4. Have a seat 5. Board the bus at any door Viva, Ontario 24 Sizing the Platform Bus Bus 25 Typical Intersection at BRT Station 26 Median- Far side platform – Far Side Pros: • Preserves left-turn lanes • Passengers cross behind stopped buses • Improved sight distance for left turns – Cons: • Double-stopping buses 27 Median – center platform – Center Platform Pros: • Lower capital costs • Narrower station footprint – Center Platform Cons: • Left-door buses or • Counter-flow operation, or • Crossover 28 BRT Vehicle Interface: Left and Right Side Doors 29 Station Basics: Fare Collection Mexico City Onboard Offboard – Fare Barriers* Los Angeles Offboard – Proof of Payment (POP) * Not applicable to Fairfax BRT project but presented for comparison 30 Viva, Ontario 31 32 Viva, Ontario Val de Marne, France 33 Proof of Payment: Ticket Vending 34 BRT Station Amenities Topic Variations Passenger Information • Static Signage • Variable Message Signs • Maps Shelters • Fully Enclosed • Canopies • Seating • Lighting 35 Passenger Information – Bus Arrival Information San Francisco, CA Viva, Ontario 36 Passenger Information – Static Signage Brisbane, Australia Los Angeles, CA 37 38 Signage for Multiple Services 39 Shelters VIVA, Ontario Los Angeles 40 Shelters Eugene, Oregon Vancouver Val de Marne, France Rouen,France 41 BRT Guideway Features Topic Variations Auto separation Domes Mountable Color Landscaping Streetscape Landscaping Hardscape 42 Guideways Mexico City Viva - Ontario 43 Guideways - Pavement Lynx, Orlando Rouen, France 44 Guideways - Landscaping Lynx, Orlando 45 “Branding” the Physical Elements Exterior Facilities Interiors “Brand Creative” Stations Name Journey Touchpoints Logotypes Guideways Colors Fare Collection Vehicles Signage Route Maps 46 Discussion: Key Themes and Questions 47 3. Case Studies Metroway (Alexandria/Arlington, VA) METRO Red Line (Twin Cities, MN) Webster Avenue (Bronx, NY) HealthLine (Cleveland, OH) 48 Arlington/Alexandria Metroway BRT − 5 miles, 2.5 miles of dedicated transit lanes − 15 station stops − 6-minute peak service in Arlington portion; 12-minute service in Alexandria portion − Raised curb at boarding platforms − Traffic signal optimization to ensure Metroway maintains its schedule − Real-time bus arrival displays − Future Off-board fare collection and use of all-door boarding 49 Arlington/Alexandria, VA Metroway BRT Alexandria portion open 2014, Median Dedicated Transit Source: www.flickr.com/BeyondDC 50 Arlington Segment Open April 2016 51 South Glebe Station, Arlington Exclusive two-way guideway along one side of street 52 East Glebe Station, Alexandria Exclusive two-way median guideway 53 East Glebe Station, Alexandria Signal operations – general traffic left turn 54 East Glebe Station, Alexandria Signal operations: bus-only phase 55 27th & Crystal Station, Arlington Design approach and passenger amenities 56 27th & Crystal Station, Arlington Pedestrian “Z – crossing” example 57 18th & Crystal Station, Arlington Curb-side station; dedicated bus lane during peak-period only 58 23rd & Crystal Station, Arlington Curb-side station; note 10” curb, bike lane configuration at curb 59 METRO Red Line – Twin Cities, MN – ~10 miles, 5 stops – Connects Mall of America, MSP Airport via Blue Line LRT – Opened June 2013 – 15-min peak service 60 METRO Red Line – Curb lanes for BRT and right turns only – Channeled left turns Enclosed station Curb lane Pedestrian bridge 61 METRO Red Line 62 Level Boarding Level boarding 63 64 Decision-Making for METRO Red Line 65 METRO Red Line Phases – 2015-2020 Program • Land use/station area plans • Reconstruct Mall of America Station (underway) • Improve Cedar Grove METRO Red Line Station access (underway) Mall of America Transit Station • Expand Apple Valley Station park-and-ride – By 2040 • Expand to Lakeville/215th Ave Cedar Grove Station 66 Transit Station Access 67 Webster Avenue Select- Bronx, NY New York City DOT – 5.3 miles corridor, 12 stops – 8 miles of offset bus lanes (4 miles in each direction) – Opened in June 2013 – 6-12 minute service weekdays; 12 minute service weekends 68 Webster Ave Select – The Bronx, NY – Constrained right-of-way – Three bus lane concepts – Implementation/staging concepts 69 Before 2012 70 Photo: Photo: NYCDOT Curbside Bus Lanes Concept rendering 71 Median Bus Lanes Concept rendering 72 Traffic Offset Bus Lanes improvements at Implemented 2013 / Planned 2015 key intersections Pedestrian safety improvements, including refuge islands, neckdowns, and extended medians (2013/2015) Transit Signal Priority Off-board fare collection Bus stop and curb regulation changes Red painted off- set bus lanes Bus bulbs at SBS stations (2015) 73 Photo: Photo: NYCDOT Concept Design – Safety Improvements Narrower and less Bus bulbs extend lanes reduce sidewalks and speeding reduce pedestrian crowding Dedicated bus lanes reduce interaction Pedestrian refuge with non transit islands and medians vehicles reduce widths of pedestrian crossings Clearly visible lane markings and Neckdowns reduce turning bays reduce widths of pedestrian unsafe manoeuvers crossings Vision Zero – Elements of Safety Improvements: • Eliminate unsafe turn movements • Designate lanes • Pedestrian safety islands • Clear merges and transitions • Extend curbs to bring pedestrians into the • Add crosswalks line of sight for drivers • Open up intersections to improve visibility • Accessibility improvements 74 • Create new left turn lanes 74 Webster Avenue: Outcomes – Key project results include: • 19-23% improvement in Select Bus speeds
Load more

Recommended publications
  • BRTOD – State of the Practice in the United States
    BRTOD – State of the Practice in the United States By: Andrew Degerstrom September 2018 Contents Introduction .............................................................................................1 Purpose of this Report .............................................................................1 Economic Development and Transit-Oriented Development ...................2 Definition of Bus Rapid Transit .................................................................2 Literature Review ..................................................................................3 BRT Economic Development Outcomes ...................................................3 Factors that Affect the Success of BRTOD Implementation .....................5 Case Studies ...........................................................................................7 Cleveland HealthLine ................................................................................7 Pittsburgh Martin Luther King, Jr. East Busway East Liberty Station ..... 11 Pittsburgh Uptown-Oakland BRT and the EcoInnovation District .......... 16 BRTOD at home, the rapid bus A Line and the METRO Gold Line .........20 Conclusion .............................................................................................23 References .............................................................................................24 Artist rendering of Pittsburgh's East Liberty neighborhood and the Martin Luther King, Jr. East Busway Introduction Purpose of this Report If Light Rail Transit (LRT)
    [Show full text]
  • 2016 Annual Regional Park-And-Ride System Report
    2016 ANNUAL REGIONAL PARK-AND-RIDE SYSTEM REPORT JANUARY 2017 Prepared for: Metropolitan Council Metro Transit Minnesota Valley Transit Authority SouthWest Transit Maple Grove Transit Plymouth Metrolink Northstar Corridor Development Authority Minnesota Department of Transportation Wisconsin Department of Transportation Prepared by: Rachel Auerbach and Jake Rueter Metro Transit Engineering and Facilities, Planning and Urban Design Table of Contents Executive Summary .....................................................................................................................................3 Overview ......................................................................................................................................................7 Regional System Profile ...............................................................................................................................8 Capacity Changes........................................................................................................................................9 System Capacity and Usage by Travel Corridor .......................................................................................11 System Capacity and Usage by Transitway ..............................................................................................13 Facilities with Significant Utilization Changes ..........................................................................................15 Usage Increases ...................................................................................................................................15
    [Show full text]
  • Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) What Is the MUTCD?
    National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Bus/BRT Applications Introduction • I am Steve Andrle from TRB standing in for Randy McCourt, DKS Associates and 2019 ITE International Vice President • I co-manage with Claire Randall15 TRB public transit standing committees. • I want to bring you up to date on planned bus- oriented improvements to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) What is the MUTCD? • Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) – Standards for roadway signs, signals, and markings • Authorized in 23 CFR, Part 655: It is an FHWA document. • National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (NCUTCD) develops content • Sponsored by 19 organizations including ITE, AASHTO, APTA and ATSSA (American Traffic Safety Services Association) Background • Bus rapid transit, busways, and other bus applications have expanded greatly since the last edition of the MUTCD in 2009 • The bus-related sections need to be updated • Much of the available research speaks to proposed systems, not actual experience • The NCUTCD felt it was a good time to survey actual systems to see what has worked, what didn’t work, and to identify gaps. National Survey • The NCUTCD established a task force with APTA and FTA • Working together they issued a survey in April of 2018. I am sure some of you received it. • The results will be released to the NCUTCD on June 20 – effectively now • I cannot give you any details until the NCUTCD releases the findings Survey Questions • Have you participated in design and/or operations of
    [Show full text]
  • Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority
    Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority Joe Calabrese - General Manager RTA Ridership by Mode ! 500 Buses - 75 % ! 60 Heavy Rail Vehicles - 10% ! 24 RTV’s (BRT) - 8% ! 48 Light Rail Vehicles - 6% ! Paratransit - 100 vehicles - 1% RTA Fleet GCRTA HealthLine Euclid Avenue Transformation Euclid Avenue History Euclid Avenue History Alternatives Analysis - late 1990’s ! Subway ! Light Rail ! Do Nothing (keep the #6 bus) ! Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Mode Selection Criteria ! Capacity (30,000 + daily customers) ! Connectivity ! Funding possibilities (FTA) ! Cost - capital and operating ! Economic development potential " Renew Aging Infrastructure Vision for the “Silver Line” BRT ! “Rail Like” Image ! Fast ! Simple ! Safe ! First Class ! Help Revitalize Corridor Euclid Corridor Project ! 9.38 miles long ! 36 stations (from 100 bus stops) ! Travel time from 40 to 28 minutes ! Building face to building face ! Pedestrian and bicycle friendly ! Landscape/hardscape treatment ! Pubic Art - Integrated/stand-alone Exclusive Right of Way Funding Pie Charts FTA 80% ODOT 20% 2000 ODOT FTA 25% 50% City MPO RTA 2004 Ground Breaking October 2004 “Silver Line” Construction “Silver Line” Construction (3.5 years) “Silver Line” Construction “Silver Line” Construction “Silver Line” Construction “Rail Like” Image ! Reduced Travel Time " Multi-Door Boarding " Exclusive Right-of-Way " Traffic Signal Prioritization " Higher Travel Speeds " Level Boarding " Precision Docking " Rear Facing Wheel Chair Restraints " Off-Board Fare Collection “Rail Like” Image ! Hi-Frequency
    [Show full text]
  • Potomac Yard
    Alexandria Transit Vision Plan – POTOMAC YARD The Potomac Yard community is generally located in northeastern Alexandria along Richmond Highway, between Slaters Lane and Four Mile Run. It is currently served by one Metrobus route (Metroway), and two DASH routes (AT-9 and AT-10). For Potomac Yard, the key changes for the 2030 ATV Network include: • AT-9 replaced by the “N8”. The existing AT-9 will be replaced by the new “N8” route with all-day, frequent service from the new Potomac Yard Metro to Arlandria, Shirlington, Mark Center, the West End and Van Dorn Metro. Route will operate every 15 minutes or better, seven days per week, providing significant improvements in transit access for Potomac Yard residents and businesses. • New “N6 route with direct connection to Old Town Alexandria. The new “N6” route will run between Potomac Yard and Old Town Alexandria (King/Washington) via Slater Lane and Old Town North. The direct connection between the new Potomac Yard Metrorail and the heart of Old Town Alexandria will run every 30 minutes, seven days per week. • DASH AT-10 stays the same. The AT-10 route will maintain its current alignment and service levels between Potomac Yard, Del Ray and King Street Metro. • Metroway remain the same. The 2030 network maintains the existing Metroway route at existing levels of service. What can I access via transit in 30 minutes from Potomac Yard at 12pm in 2030? Existing Network 2030 Network % Change Residents 64,272 87,571 +36% Jobs 63,878 88,351 +38% (See reverse side for www.dashbus.com/transitvision more information.) For Potomac Yard, the key changes for the 2022 ATV Network include: • AT-9 replaced by the “N8”.
    [Show full text]
  • Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Toolbox: BRT Person Throughput-Vehicle Congestion Tradeoffs
    Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Toolbox: BRT Person Throughput-Vehicle Congestion Tradeoffs Jingquan Li, Jacob Tsao, Ching-yao Chan, Kun Zhou, and Wei-Bin Zhang UCB-ITS-PRR-2015-02 California PATH University of California Berkeley March 11, 2015 Page 1 of 54 ADA Notice Individuals with sensory disabilities, this document is available in alternative formats. For information call (916) 654-6410, or TDD (916) 654-3880 or write STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Records and forms Management, 1120 N Street, MS- 89, Sacramento, CA 95814 TECHNICAL REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE TR0003 (REV. 10/98) 1. REPORT NUMBER 2. GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATION NUMBER 3. RECIPIENT’S CATALOG NUMBER CA 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. REPORT DATE December 2014 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Toolbox: BRT Person Throughput- 6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE Vehicle Congestion Tradeoffs 7. AUTHOR(S) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO. Jingquan Li, Jacob Tsao, Ching-yao Chan, Kun Zhou, UCB-ITS-PRR-2015-02 and Wei-Bin Zhang 9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. WORK UNIT NUMBER California PATH Program, University of California at Berkeley 1357 46th St., Richmond, CA 94804 11. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California at Irvine 4000 Anteater Instruction and Research Bldg., Irvine, CA 92697 12. SPONSORING AGENCY AND ADDRESS 13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED California Department of Transportation Division of Research and Innovation 14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE P.O. Box 942873, MS 83 Sacramento, CA 94273-0001 15. SUPPLEMENTAL NOTES 16. ABSTRACT This report documents a research effort to understand the current practice and issues associated with Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) planning and deployment.
    [Show full text]
  • Ctfastrak Existing Condition
    Hartford Line TOD Action Plan Desire & Readiness Workshop: Town of Windsor Locks October 20, 2016 State Project No. 170-3396 1 Task 8 Agenda 1. Project Background and Overview 2. TOD Principles and Precedents 3. CTrail Hartford Line Station Area Assessment • TOD Desire & Readiness Criteria • Initial Observations from the Project Team 4. Interactive Workshop • Preliminary Areas of Focus • Instructions 2 Project Background Establishing a Point of Departure in Windsor Locks • Hartford Line TOD Action Plan • Town of Windsor Locks POCD Update • Main Street Property Acquisition and • Windsor Locks TOD Study Pre-Development (OPM) • Making it Happen • CRCOG Regional Complete Streets Policy and Action Plan (OPM) • Historic Train Station Reuse Study Windsor Locks Downtown • Capitol Region Master Plan Transportation Plan 2007 2008 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Ongoing/Forthcoming • Incentive Housing Downtown TIF Zone Study District Master Plan • Capital Region POCD Town of Windsor Locks EA/EIE for NHHS Rail Program POCD 3 Project Background Initial Thoughts from the Project Team: Key Issues to Advance TOD in Windsor Locks Reinvigorate downtown/Main Street Activate and maximize development as a destination potential of catalytic sites in the station area . Address lasting impacts of urban . Target sites and recommended sequencing renewal, and change the mindset of Main have been identified, but there are Street as a pass through outstanding questions: . Find a balance between maintaining • What can be done to make sites more traffic flow and creating a pedestrian- attractive to potential developers? and bicycle-friendly downtown • Are there opportunities to assemble a critical mass of sites to enable a larger . Consider developing a downtown development proposition? parking strategy 4 Source: Windsor Locks TOD Study Project Background Funding through FTA Pilot Program for TOD Planning .
    [Show full text]
  • Sunrail.Com Not to Scale
    WELCOME ABOARD! BROCHURE LYMMO is your ride to great places M around Downtown Orlando. Whether you’re heading to work, a meal, or one of the many attractions Downtown, LYMMO’s frequent service and bus-only lanes will get you there faster. LYNX is the public transit provider for LYMMO Orange, Lime and And when you’re riding LYMMO, you Orange, Osceola and Seminole counties. never have to worry about parking. Additional connectivity with Grapefruit Lines If you don’t see your destination here, Lake and Polk counties. CONTACT US and we can connect you DIRECT SERVICE TO: to the right LYMMO. CONTACT US for information on fares, bus stops, schedules and trip planning: Amway Center Heritage Square Ready to roll? Look inside for more info... Bob Carr Theater Lake Eola Park 407-841-5969 phone County Courthouse LYNX Central Station 407-423-0787 tdd County Health Dept Orlando City Stadium Dr Phillips Center Parramore Notice of Title VI Rights: LYNX operates its programs and services without regard to race, color, golynx.com web religion, gender, age, national origin, disability, or family status in accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Any person who believes Effective: he or she has been aggrieved by any unlawful discriminatory practice APRIL 2017 related to Title VI may file a complaint in writing to LYNX Title VI Officer Desna Hunte, 455 N. Garland Avenue, Orlando, Florida 32801 or by calling THANK YOU FOR RIDING LYNX! 407-254-6117, email [email protected] or www.golynx.com. Information in other languages or accessible formats available upon request.
    [Show full text]
  • Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority
    Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority Joe Calabrese – General Manager Greater Cleveland RTA Overview . Service Area 59 municipalities 500 square miles Population of 1.5 million . Customers Served 200,000 on a typical weekday 1 RTA Overview . Services Modes 500 Buses 100 Paratransit Vans 20 Job Access Vans 60 Heavy Rail Vehicles 48 Light Rail Vehicles 24 RTV’s - (HealthLine BRT) 2 RTA Fleet 3 GCRTA HealthLine Euclid Avenue Transformation Euclid Avenue History 4 Euclid Avenue History Euclid Avenue History . Streetcars disappeared in 1954 . # 6 Bus Route put in service Great Service with Low Image . Alternative Analysis Subway or Light Rail Do Nothing (keep the #6 bus) Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) 5 Mode Selection Criteria . Capacity (30,000 + daily customers) . Connectivity . Funding possibilities (FTA) . Cost Capital Operating . Economic development potential Vision for the “Silver Line” . “Rail-Like” Image . Fast . Simple . Safe . First Class . Promote Economic Development 6 Euclid Corridor Project – 9.38 Miles . 36 stations . Travel time from 28 to 40 minutes . Building face to building face . Pedestrian friendly with bike lanes . Landscape/hardscape treatment 1,500 trees with irrigation . Integrated/stand-alone public art 7 Ground Breaking October 2004 8 Funding Pie Charts - $200 Million FTA 80% ODOT 20% 2000 ODOT FTA 25% 50% City MPO RTA 2004 Exclusive Right of Way 9 10 11 “Rail-Like” Characteristics . Quicker Travel Times Exclusive Right-of-Way Higher Travel Speed Limit Traffic Signal Prioritization Precision Docking Level Boarding “Stations” Off Board Fare Collection 12 “Rail-Like” Service and Image . Hi-Frequency Service 24x7 Peak every 5 minutes Off-Peak every 8 to 15 minutes .
    [Show full text]
  • TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD Metropolitan Council Building, 390 North Robert Street, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101
    TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD Metropolitan Council Building, 390 North Robert Street, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 TAB POLICY COMMITTEE Meeting Minutes: December 15, 2010 Ramsey County Regional Railroad Offices at the Union Depot Members Present: Ken Johnson Co Chair, Russ Stark, Co-Chair, David Gepner, Ron Have, Bill Hargis, Dennis Hegberg, Paul Krause, Peggy Leppik, Randy Maluchnik, Scott McBride, Lisa Peilen, James Meyers. Guests and Staff: Gary Warren, Metropolitan Airports Commission. Mary Karlsson, Metropolitan Council Transportation Services. Connie Kozlak, Metropolitan Council Transportation Services. Tom Randall, Metro Transit. Kevin Roggenbuck, TAB Coordinator. _________________________________________________________________________ I. Call to Order. Co Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 12:30 PM. II. Adoption of the Agenda. Ms. Leppik moved, seconded by Mr. Krause, to adopt the agenda. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote. III. Approval of the Minutes from October 20, 2010. Ms. Peilen moved, seconded by Ms. Leppik, to approve the minutes from the October 20, 2010 TAB Policy Committee meeting. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote. IV. Information Items and Action Transmittals. a. 2010-73: 2011-2017 Metropolitan Airports Commission Capital Improvements Program. Ms. Kozlak presented this item to the committee. Ms. Kozlak explained that under state statutes, the Metropolitan Council must determine the adequacy of the public participation process conducted by the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC), approve any projects that meet certain dollar thresholds and “significant effects” criteria and review and comment on all projects as appropriate. Mr. Warren described the sources of funding and revenue the MAC uses for capital projects. Mr. Warren also discussed development plans at MSP Airport.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Effective Strategies for Congestion Management
    EFFECTIVE PRACTICES FOR CONGESTION MANAGEMENT: FINAL REPORT Requested by: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Prepared by: Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Cambridge, MA Resource Systems Group, Inc. Burlington, VT November 2008 The information contained in this report was prepared as part of NCHRP Project 20-24(63), National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board. Acknowledgements This study was requested by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), and conducted as part of National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Project 20-24. The NCHRP is supported by annual voluntary contributions from the state Departments of Transportation (DOTs). Project 20-24 is intended to fund studies of interest to the leadership of AASHTO and its member DOTs. Christopher Porter of Cambridge Systematics was the lead author of the report, working with John Suhrbier of Cambridge Systematics and Peter Plumeau and Erica Campbell of Resource Systems Group. The work was guided by a task group chaired by Constance Sorrell which included Daniela Bremmer, Mara Campbell, Ken De Crescenzo, Eric Kalivoda, Ronald Kirby, Sheila Moore, Michael Morris, Janet Oakley, Gerald Ross, Steve Simmons, Dick Smith, Kevin Thibault, Mary Lynn Tischer, and Robert Zerrillo. The project was managed by Andrew C. Lemer, Ph. D., NCHRP Senior Program Officer. Disclaimer The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied are those of the research agency that performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Trans- portation Research Board or its sponsors. The information contained in this document was taken directly from the submission of the author(s). This docu- ment is not a report of the Transportation Research Board or of the National Research Council.
    [Show full text]