DOCSLIB.ORG

Baltimorelink Implementation Status Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Baltimorelink Implementation Status Report BaltimoreLink Implementation February 2018 Status Report Report to the Maryland State Legislature Joint Chairmen’s Report J00H01 BaltimoreLink Performance Report to the Maryland State Legislature Executive Summary BaltimoreLink, implemented on June 18, 2017, is the complete overhaul and rebranding of the core transit system operating within Baltimore City and the greater Baltimore region. The purpose of this document is to provide the Maryland State Legislature with a summary of BaltimoreLink performance in its first full six months of operation (July 2017 to December 2017) based on three key metrics: Ridership, On-Time Performance, and Customer Satisfaction. An analysis of safety has also been provided. The analysis begins with July 2017 when a full month of data was available. The performance analysis consists of an evaluation of performance at an MDOT MTA system-wide level as well as an evaluation of performance at the route and route category level (CityLink, LocalLink, Express BusLink). Further, the system- wide analysis also includes a comparison to data for the same six-month evaluation period in 2016. Executive Summary ES-1 BaltimoreLink Performance Report to the Maryland State Legislature Ridership Ridership Performance Snapshot Average Daily Ridership by Month: 2016 vs. 2017 Average Daily Ridership – 2016 vs. 2017 Monthly ridership declines in 2017 compared to 2016 reflect the overall declines in ridership during the 6-month evaluation period. However, there is a growing convergence in monthly ridership between 2016 and 2017 in the Weekday, Saturday, and Sunday ridership declined in 2017 when compared to 2016 later months of the year, especially for weekend ridership. for the six months evaluated. The weekday ridership decline between 2016 and 2017 was approximately 10%, the Saturday ridership decline was approximately 9%, and Average Daily Weekday Ridership by Month Average Daily Weekend Ridership by Month the Sunday ridership decline was approximately 5%. Consistent with other system - July Through December - 2016 vs. 2017 - July Through December - 2016 vs. 2017 redesigns throughout the country, declines were expected due to the transition to erae ail eeka ieri erae ail eeken ieri the new system, but also reflect national trends such as less expensive gas and the l ro ecemer l ro ecemer greater use of car-share services. Ridership is down 5% nationally during the same 260,000 250,000 252,657 time period analyzed in this report. Similar systems throughout the country have 238,439 240,000 250,000 233,910 231,906 241,282 also seen declines in ridership including Washington, D.C. (-9%), Cleveland (-11%), 230,000 240,000 Philadelphia (-12%), and Miami (-13%). Out of the top 20 bus systems in the country, 219,690 228,891 228,743 220,000 230,000 226,106 225,322 211,923 210,976 210,370 222,547 206,879 19 out of 20 experienced ridership declines. 220,983 210,000 204,985 220,000 Ridership 215,406 Ridership 200,000 Average Daily Ridership – July Through December: Comparison of 2016 to 2017 191,307 210,000 187,095 203,343 190,000 196,759 178,755 200,000 194,114 180,000 erae ail ieri 190,000 170,000 L AUG S OCT NOV DEC L AUG S OCT NOV DEC ont of l ro ecemer 2016 2017 2016 2017 Automatic Onboard Source: MDOT MTA Counting System Passenger Automatic Onboard Source: MDOT MTA Counting System Passenger The forecasted December 2017 average weekday ridership contained in the January 24, 2018 “Overview and Status Update” presented to the Legislature by MDOT MTA Administrator Kevin Quinn is higher than the actual presented above. Forecasted data was utilized in the presentation because actual data was not yet available as the 250,000 232,776 presentation was being developed. The forecasted number used in the presentation was based on detailed analysis of ridership numbers on individual routes as well as overall ridership trends from previous months. 209,916 200,000 Other Ridership Findings 150,000 134,411 122,321 CityLink – Daily Average Ridership by Route LocalLink – Daily Average Ridership by Route Ridership 100,000 CityLink routes were designed to be the backbone of LocalLink routes provide service to a wide range of 84,372 79,936 the BaltimoreLink system, with high service frequencies different transit markets and the service design of throughout the day, extensive hours of service, and LocalLink routes reflect the markets they serve. A key 50,000 direct routing that connects major activity centers trend identified in the LocalLink ridership analysis was throughout the Baltimore region. Average daily that the highest ridership LocalLink routes (LocalLink 0 weekday CityLink ridership ranges from 6,100 to routes 22 (8,300 riders), 80 (7,500 riders), and 54 Weeday Saturday Sunday 11,600. The highest ridership CityLink routes include the (7,200 riders)) actually have average daily ridership 2016 2017 CityLink Red (11,600 riders), running between Towson that is comparable to, or exceeds, ridership on many and downtown Baltimore, the CityLink Gold (9,600 CityLink routes, highlighting their importance within Source: MDOT MTA Onboard Automatic Passenger Counting System riders), which runs between Walbrook Junction and the BaltimoreLink system. Other LocalLink routes have Canton via North Avenue and Wolfe and Washington ridership under 1,000 riders per day, highlighting the Streets, and the CityLink Orange (9,500 riders), which wide differences between individual LocalLink routes. runs between downtown Baltimore and Essex via Eastern Avenue. ES-2 Executive Summary BaltimoreLink Performance Report to the Maryland State Legislature On-Time Performance On-Time Performance Snapshot CityLink Service Reliability CityLink Headway Reliability Average System-Wide On-Time Performance – Six-Month Evaluation Period High frequency CityLink routes are scheduled differently than LocalLink and Express BusLink – Percent of Trips Arriving at Scheduled Intervals Between Buses On-time performance in 2017 exceeds on-time performance in 2016, for the six routes. CityLink reliability performance monitoring is month evaluation period, showing the benefits of multiple elements of the overall itLink ote eaa eliailit focused on how well the scheduled intervals between BaltimoreLink redesign. Redesign elements helping the improvement in on-time l tro ecemer CityLink buses are maintained. The data shows that performance include more proactive service management, changes to route the average number of CityLink trips arriving at the structures to improve reliability, implementation of dedicated transit lanes, and 90% scheduled interval over the evaluation period is 76%. implementation of transit signal priority. On-time performance improved 7 percentage 85% points when comparing the 2016 and 2017 evaluation periods. 80% System-wide Bus On-Time Performance Comparison - July through December: 2016 vs. 2017 75% 70% temie nime omarion l tro 65% ecemer PreBaltimore Link to l tro 60% ecemer BaltimoreLink Wed 9/6/17 Tues 1/9/18 hurs 2/1/18Wed 2/7/18 Wed 8/16/17Tues 8/22/17Mon 8/28/17hurs 9/14/17hurs 9/21/17Tues 9/26/17Mon 10/2/17 Mon 11/6/17 Wed 12/6/17 hurs 1/18/18Wed 1/24/18 hurs 10/12/17Wed 10/18/17Tues 10/24/17Mon 10/30/17hurs 11/16/17Tues 11/21/17Wed 11/29/17Tues 12/12/17Mon 12/18/17 80% Wee ndingWee nding 7/2/17 7/9/17 Wee nding 7/16/17 Perentage o rips rriing at Sheduled eaday 70% 66.4% Trend 59.5% 60% Source: Field Data Collection 50% 40% Other On-Time Performance Findings 30% Perent n ie Perent 22.1% % % 20.7 On-Time Performance On LocalLink Routes Changes in On-Time Performance Due to Route 20% 18.4 12.9% On time performance on LocalLink routes ranges Restructurings and Capital Improvements Such as 10% from a low of approximately 40% to a high of Dedicated Transit Lanes 0% approximately 75%. The average across all LocalLink Comparison of the on-time performance of pre- 2016 2017 routes in 2017 was 66%. This compares to an average BaltimoreLink routes to new redesigned BaltimoreLink arly nie Late on-time performance on local routes in the same routes shows an improvement in on-time performance months of 2016 of 60%, an improvement on LocalLink due to route restructuring, capital improvements, routes of 6 percentage points. and reducing the number of bus stops on a route. Source: MDOT MTA Onboard Automatic Passenger Counting System Redesign examples include splitting long routes, restructuring routes serving large regional job centers, and providing dedicated transit lanes and transit System-wide on-time performance improved by signal priority approximately 7 percentage points in the first six months of BaltimoreLink operations compared to the same six months in 2016. Executive Summary ES-3 BaltimoreLink Performance Report to the Maryland State Legislature Customer Satisfaction Customer Satisfaction Snapshot Other Customer Satisfaction Findings Total Bus-Related Complaints - 2016 vs. 2017 Late, Early, No-Show Complaint Evaluation 2016 to 2017 Comparison - Complaints Related to Early and Late Bus Arrivals and Bus No-Shows 2017 passenger complaints covering all bus-related complaint types declined over Complaints related to early buses, late buses, and no-shows over the six month evaluation period the first six months of BaltimoreLink operations and also fell below 2016 in four of the eratinelate omlaint six months evaluated. 2017 total bus-related complaints fell 49% between a high were lower in 2017 than in 2016 in each complaint l ro ecemer in September to the low in December. This trend shows the BaltimoreLink redesign category. Complaints related
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Town of Leesburg
    DRAFT LOUDOUN COUNTY Transit Management Analysis Report Prepared for: Prepared by: October 2013 Table of Contents 1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................3 Background ..............................................................................................................................................................................................3 Study Purpose .......................................................................................................................................................................................3 2. Institutional Stakeholders and Existing Funding .....................................................................4 Loudoun County .................................................................................................................................................................................. 4 Town of Leesburg .............................................................................................................................................................................. 4 Northern Virginia Transportation Authority (NVTA) .................................................................................................. 4 Northern Virginia Transportation Commission (NVTC) ........................................................................................... 4 Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) ...............................................................................5
    [Show full text]
  • __History of Kew Depot and It's Routes
    HISTORY OF KEW DEPOT AND ITS ROUTES Page 1 HISTORY of KEW DEPOT and the ROUTES OPERATED by KEW Compiled and written by Hugh Waldron MCILT CA 1500 The word tram and tramway are derived from Scottish words indicating the type of truck and the tracks used in coal mines. 1807 The first Horse tram service in the world commences operation between Swansea and Mumbles in Wales. 12th September 1854 At 12.20 pm first train departs Flinders Street Station for Sandridge (Port Melbourne) First Steam operated railway line in Australia. The line is eventually converted to tram operation during December 1987 between the current Southbank Depot and Port Melbourne. The first rail lines in Australia operated in Newcastle Collieries operated by horses in 1829. Then a five-mile line on the Tasman Peninsula opened in 1836 and powered by convicts pushing the rail vehicle. The next line to open was on 18/5/1854 in South Australia (Goolwa) and operated by horses. 1864 Leonard John Flannagan was born in Richmond. After graduating he became an Architect and was responsible for being the Architect building Malvern Depot 1910, Kew Depot 1915 and Hawthorn Depot 1916. He died 2nd November 1945. September 1873 First cable tramway in the world opens in Clay Street, San Francisco, USA. 1877 Steam tramways commence. Victoria only had two steam tramways both opened 1890 between Sorrento Pier to Sorrento Back Beach closed on 20th March 1921 (This line also operated horse trams when passenger demand was not high.) and Bendigo to Eaglehawk converted to electric trams in 1903.
    [Show full text]
  • For the Record SOUTHERN STATES COOP
    The following is a list of MDE’s JOHNFor W. RITTER TRUCKING, the INC. - 8271 DAYSRecord COVE RUBBLE LANDFILL - DAVID YINGLING PROPERTY - 2300 Brock Bridge Road, Laurel, MD 20724. (98- HORIZONTAL EXPANSION - 6425 Days Hughes Shop, Westminster, MD 21158. permiting activity from OPT-6467) Oil operations permit for above Cove Road, White Marsh, MD 21162. Sewage sludge application on agricultural land February 15 - March 15, 1998 ground storage tank and transportation (98DP3261) Surface industrial discharge permit KENNETH FORD - 2867 Bird View Road, MARYLAND CITY WATER GAMSE LITHOGRAPHING COMPANY, INC. Westminster, MD 21157. Sewage sludge For more information RECLAMATION FACILITY - 462 Brock - 7413 Pulaski Highway, Baltimore, MD application on agricultural land on any of these permits, Bridge Road, Laurel, MD 20724. Sewage sludge 21237-2529. (TR 4626) Received an air LOIS G. PAULSON - 322 Klee Mill Road, application on agricultural land permit to construct for two printing presses Sykesville, MD 21784. Sewage sludge please call our PASADENA YACHT CLUB - 8631 Fort MARYLAND TRANSPORTATION AU- application on agricultural land Environmental Permits Smallwood Road, Pasadena, MD 21122. (TR THORITY - Reservoir Road and Peninsula MELVIN BLIZZARD - 1246 Deer Park Road, 4639) Received an air permit to construct for Expressway, Baltimore, MD 21219. (TR 4640) Westminster, MD 21157. Sewage sludge Service Center at one 4,000 gallon underground storage tank Received an air permit to construct for one application on agricultural land (410) 631-3772. PATUXENT WATER RECLAMATION groundwater remediation PRESTON GREEN, CA-17 - 3300 Sams Creek FACILITY - Cronson Boulevard, Crofton, MD MARYLAND STATE DEPARTMENT OF Road, New Windsor, MD 21776. Sewage sludge 21114. Sewage sludge application on agricul- GENERAL SERVICES - 3O1 W.
    [Show full text]
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • Resolution #20-9
    BALTIMORE METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION BALTIMORE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION BOARD RESOLUTION #20-9 RESOLUTION TO ENDORSE THE UPDATED BALTIMORE REGION COORDINATED PUBLIC TRANSIT – HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION PLAN WHEREAS, the Baltimore Regional Transportation Board (BRTB) is the designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the Baltimore region, encompassing the Baltimore Urbanized Area, and includes official representatives of the cities of Annapolis and Baltimore; the counties of Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Carroll, Harford, Howard, and Queen Anne’s; and representatives of the Maryland Departments of Transportation, the Environment, Planning, the Maryland Transit Administration, Harford Transit; and WHEREAS, the Baltimore Regional Transportation Board as the Metropolitan Planning Organization for the Baltimore region, has responsibility under the provisions of the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act for developing and carrying out a continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive transportation planning process for the metropolitan area; and WHEREAS, the Federal Transit Administration, a modal division of the U.S. Department of Transportation, requires under FAST Act the establishment of a locally developed, coordinated public transit-human services transportation plan. Previously, under MAP-21, legislation combined the New Freedom Program and the Elderly Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities Program into a new Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities Program, better known as Section 5310. Guidance on the new program was provided in Federal Transit Administration Circular 9070.1G released on June 6, 2014; and WHEREAS, the Federal Transit Administration requires a plan to be developed and periodically updated by a process that includes representatives of public, private, and nonprofit transportation and human services providers and participation by the public.
    [Show full text]
  • 5 Planned Transit Service Improvements
    Metro Transit Central-South (Sector 5) Final Plan 4.5 Public Outreach Conclusions Stakeholder and public comments provided guidance to improve various elements of the plan. About one fifth of the comments favored the plan. Four cities, one county and the University of Minnesota also supported the plan. Several neighborhood groups expressed concerns about specific elements of the plan. The majority of comments (over 60 percent) were in response to the proposed route elimination or service reductions on Routes 7, 8, 18, 19, 22, 52B, 84, 538 and 539. Another frequent comment was concern regarding increased transfers and loss of direct service to key destinations. For example, the proposed elimination of some direct service to the University of Minnesota was the source of many complaints. The Concept Plan was modified to address many of the stakeholder and customer concerns within the current operating budget and the tenants identified in the previous chapters. Of the 55 routes in the sector, 32 or 58 percent of routes were modified in response to public comment. The final plan preserves geographic coverage in all of the urban area, and most of the suburban areas, and direct service to the University of Minnesota from France Avenue/ W. 50th Street, Cedar Avenue/Portland Avenue and Snelling Avenue. This final plan, as modified to address the concerns raised during the public outreach phase, is supported by all five cities and the two counties found in the study area. 5 Planned Transit Service Improvements 5.1 Planned Transit Service Network The service improvement program begins with a high-to-medium frequency grid network of local service in high-density population and employment areas such as south Minneapolis and St.
    [Show full text]
  • The Bulletin STATEN ISLAND’S 157-YEAR-OLD RAILROAD
    ERA BULLETIN — SEPTEMBER, 2017 The Bulletin Electric Railroaders’ Association, Incorporated Vol. 60, No. 9 September, 2017 The Bulletin STATEN ISLAND’S 157-YEAR-OLD RAILROAD Published by the Electric (Continued from August, 2017 issue) Railroaders’ Association, Incorporated, PO Box Before the end of 1925, the railroad was Buses adjacent to the railroad appeared in 3323, New York, New able to operate full electric service from St. the 1920s, but the railroad still made a profit. York 10163-3323. George to Tottenville, South Beach, and Ar- Several years later, railroad riding declined lington with 100 new M.U. electric cars. The because of competition from the buses. For general inquiries, or fleet was composed of 90 motor cars num- When the Isle Transportation Company sur- Bulletin submissions, bered 300-389 and ten trailers numbered rendered its franchise on February 23, 1947, contact us at bulletin@ erausa.org. ERA’s 500-509, of which five were eventually con- the Board of Transportation started operating website is verted to motors. Freight was also carried on the buses immediately, retaining the five-cent www.erausa.org. nearly the entire line, including the non- fare with several five-cent zones depending electrified track extending from Arlington on the distance. On July 1, 1948, bus fares Editorial Staff: across the bridge to Cranford Junction, New were increased to seven cents, zone fares Editor-in-Chief: Bernard Linder Jersey. Because the passenger service usu- were abolished, and passengers could buy a Tri-State News and ally operated at a deficit, the company was 2-cent transfer valid on subway lines at Commuter Rail Editor: unable to spend $17 million to extend the South Ferry, Manhattan.
    [Show full text]
  • Citylink Route Booklet (PDF)
    SCHEDULE BOOKLET EFFECTIVE DATE: JUNE 4, 2018 � REVISION: JUNE 2019 1 3. Group Transit Orientation A travel trainer provides an overview of accessibility features in transit vehicles and how to plan trips, pay and travel safely in the community while using fixed-route buses. Groups and Individuals can sign up for travel training by calling 325-676- 6BUS Option 2. Fixed-Route Service Fixed-route bus service is CityLink’s core service. In this service, ADA compliant transit buses are operated over an established route structure on a fixed schedule. There are 14 routes (8 weekday and 6 Saturday routes) on the Welcome to CityLink! CityLink route system. Transfers occur at CityLink at 1189 S. 2nd Street. This service is offered from 6:15 a.m. CityLink is the public transit system for the City of Abilene. We to 6:15 p.m. Monday through Friday, and Saturday from provide safe, reliable, and affordable transportation for the 7:15 a.m. to 6:15 p.m., except for designated holidays. citizens of Abilene. For more information call 325-676-6BUS Option 1. What We Do ADA Paratransit We provide eight weekday and six Saturday fixed-route routes, which CityLink provides origin to destination transit service are distributed geographically across the city (See System Maps). In for persons with disabilities who are certified under addition, we provide door-to-door paratransit service and Evening the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Each curb-to-curb service. vehicle is equipped with wheelchair securement for Service Days passenger safety. Paratransit drivers are trained to assist passengers boarding and exiting the vehicles.
    [Show full text]
  • 2016 Long Range Transportation Plan Cumberland Area
    Prepared for: Cumberland Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Prepared by: with Crossroads Transportation Financial Assistance Provided By: February 26, 2016 MPO Adopted: March 24, 2016 Federal Concurrence: Table of Contents Chapter 1: The Process, Purpose, and the Plan ..................................................................................................................... 1‐2 1.1 What is Transportation Planning? ....................................................................................................................................... 1‐2 1.2 What Is the Role of an MPO in Regional Transportation Planning? .................................................................................... 1‐2 1.3 Why are MPOs required? .................................................................................................................................................... 1‐3 1.4 What is the Cumberland Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO)? ................................................................. 1‐4 1.5 Where is the CAMPO Region? ............................................................................................................................................. 1‐4 1.6 What is CAMPO’s Organizational Structure? ...................................................................................................................... 1‐6 1.7 What is Plan 2040? .............................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Changes to Transit Service in the MBTA District 1964-Present
    Changes to Transit Service in the MBTA district 1964-2021 By Jonathan Belcher with thanks to Richard Barber and Thomas J. Humphrey Compilation of this data would not have been possible without the information and input provided by Mr. Barber and Mr. Humphrey. Sources of data used in compiling this information include public timetables, maps, newspaper articles, MBTA press releases, Department of Public Utilities records, and MBTA records. Thanks also to Tadd Anderson, Charles Bahne, Alan Castaline, George Chiasson, Bradley Clarke, Robert Hussey, Scott Moore, Edward Ramsdell, George Sanborn, David Sindel, James Teed, and George Zeiba for additional comments and information. Thomas J. Humphrey’s original 1974 research on the origin and development of the MBTA bus network is now available here and has been updated through August 2020: http://www.transithistory.org/roster/MBTABUSDEV.pdf August 29, 2021 Version Discussion of changes is broken down into seven sections: 1) MBTA bus routes inherited from the MTA 2) MBTA bus routes inherited from the Eastern Mass. St. Ry. Co. Norwood Area Quincy Area Lynn Area Melrose Area Lowell Area Lawrence Area Brockton Area 3) MBTA bus routes inherited from the Middlesex and Boston St. Ry. Co 4) MBTA bus routes inherited from Service Bus Lines and Brush Hill Transportation 5) MBTA bus routes initiated by the MBTA 1964-present ROLLSIGN 3 5b) Silver Line bus rapid transit service 6) Private carrier transit and commuter bus routes within or to the MBTA district 7) The Suburban Transportation (mini-bus) Program 8) Rail routes 4 ROLLSIGN Changes in MBTA Bus Routes 1964-present Section 1) MBTA bus routes inherited from the MTA The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) succeeded the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) on August 3, 1964.
    [Show full text]
  • Washington Metropolitan Region Transportation Demand Management
    WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN REGION TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT RESOURCE GUIDE AND STRATEGIC MARKETING PLAN Version 12.0 FY09 Final Report December 2008 PREPARED BY: COG/TPB Staff in conjunction with the COMMUTER CONNECTIONS REGIONAL TDM MARKETING GROUP - Table of Contents - FY09 TDM Resource Guide and SMP ~ Section One ~ Background……………………………………………………………………………………………………… Page 4 Executive Summary………………………………………………………………………………………………Page 6 Regional Activity Centers………………………………………………………………………………………Page 8 Mission Statement ………………………………………………………………………………………………Page 9 Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………………………………Page 10 Guiding Principles of Strategic Marketing Plan……………………………………………………………Page 12 Key Findings and Strategic Implications……………………………………………………………………Page 13 Summary of Proposed Strategy for FY 2009…………………………………………………………………Page 15 ~ Section Two ~ Regional Profile……………………………………………………………………………………………………Page 17 Product Profiles……………………………………………………………………………………………………Page 19 Carpools and Vanpools…………………………………………………………………………………………Page 20 HOV Lanes………………………………………………………………………………………………………Page 23 Transit…………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Page 30 Table – Summary of Bus Activity………………………………………………………………………………Page 32 Table – Summary of Rail Activity………………………………………………………………………………Page 36 Table - Summary of Park & Ride Activity………………………………………………………………………Page 38 Telework………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Page 40 Bicycling………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Page 42 Bike Sharing……………………………………………………………….…….…………..………..….Page 45 Car Sharing………………………………………………………………………………………………………Page
    [Show full text]
  • Click on Directory to Download
    2021.directory.pages_Layout 1 10/13/20 10:45 AM Page 5 We hope you find this edion of the Directory of Maryland Community Colleges useful. The Maryland Associaon of Community Colleges (MACC) staff makes every effort to keep this informaon accurate and up­to­date. Please help us maintain this valuable resource; if your college’s informaon changes during the year, please send your updates to Jane Thomas at: [email protected] or contact her at 410­974­8117. Throughout the year, your changes will be made to the online PDF version of the directory that is posted on the MACC website at www.mdacc.org. We appreciate your support and look forward to a successful year ahead for our colleges and the students we serve. i 2021.directory.pages_Layout 1 10/13/20 10:45 AM Page 6 ii 2021.directory.pages_Layout 1 10/13/20 10:46 AM Page 7 Foreword..................................................................................................................... i Purpose, Philosophy, and Mission ............................................................................1 Staff of the Maryland Associaon of Community Colleges.....................................3 Direcons to the MACC office ...................................................................................4 Execuve Commiee .................................................................................................5 Board of Directors ......................................................................................................6 Affinity Groups and Chief Officers.............................................................................7
    [Show full text]