DOCSLIB.ORG

Bus Rapid Transit Assessment Route 8 & Waterbury Branch Line Corridor

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Bus Rapid Transit Assessment Route 8 & Waterbury Branch Line Corridor CDM Smith Planning4Places Harriman Zuvic and Carr Bus Rapid Transit Assessment Route 8 & Waterbury Branch Line Corridor Transit-Oriented Development & Alternate Transit Modes Assessment Project April 2019 BRT Alternatives TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................................ i BRT Alternatives ............................................................................................................................................................. i BRT Elements ................................................................................................................................................................ ii 1. Elements of BRT ............................................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Running Ways.......................................................................................................................................................... 2 1.2 Stations ................................................................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Vehicles ................................................................................................................................................................... 3 1.4 Fare Collection ........................................................................................................................................................ 4 1.5 Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) .................................................................................................................. 4 1.6 Service and Operating Plans .................................................................................................................................... 5 1.7Branding Elements ................................................................................................................................................... 5 2. BRT Alternatives ............................................................................................................................................................ 6 2.1 Median Running BRT System ................................................................................................................................... 8 2.2 Shoulder Running BRT ........................................................................................................................................... 10 2.3 Enhanced GBT Route 22x ....................................................................................................................................... 12 2.4 Waterbury Express Bus Service .............................................................................................................................. 15 2.5 Full BRT ................................................................................................................................................................. 16 3. Magnitude of Costs ...................................................................................................................................................... 20 TABLES Table 0-1. BRT Alternatives Summary ............................................................................................................................... iii Table 2-1. Alternatives BRT Elements ............................................................................................................................... 7 Table 3-1. Alternatives Capital Cost .................................................................................................................................20 Table 3-2 Alternative Capital Cost by Line Item ...............................................................................................................21 Table 3-3. Alternative Unit Quantities .............................................................................................................................21 Table 3-4. Unit Costs and Descriptions ............................................................................................................................22 BRT Alternatives FIGURES Figure 1-1. BRT Elements ................................................................................................................................................. 1 Figure 1-2. BRT Running Way Types ................................................................................................................................. 2 Figure 1-3. BRT Station – CTfastrak .................................................................................................................................. 3 Figure 1-4. Bus with Boarding on Both Sides – Cleveland Healthline ................................................................................. 3 Figure 1-5. Level Boarding - CTfastrak .............................................................................................................................. 3 Figure 1-6. Off-Board Fare Collection - VelociRFTA ........................................................................................................... 4 Figure 1-7. Transit Signal Priority ...................................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 1-8. Branding of the sbX line for San Bernardino .................................................................................................... 5 Figure 2-1. BRT Alternative 1 Map .................................................................................................................................... 8 Figure 2-2. Median Running way BRT Cross-section.......................................................................................................... 8 Figure 2-3. Alternative 1 Constraints Map ........................................................................................................................ 9 Figure 2-5. Bus on Shoulder BRT Cross Section ................................................................................................................10 Figure 2-4. BRT Alterative 2 Map .....................................................................................................................................11 Figure 2-6. Alternative 2 Constraints ...............................................................................................................................12 Figure 2-7. BRT Alternative 3 Map ...................................................................................................................................13 Figure 2-9. Alternative 4 Map ..........................................................................................................................................15 Figure 2-10. Alternative 5 Map ........................................................................................................................................16 Figure 2-11. Option 5A Routing .......................................................................................................................................16 Figure 2-12. Option 5B Routing .......................................................................................................................................17 Figure 2-14. Option 5 Bridgeport Ave ..............................................................................................................................18 Figure 2-13. BRT to Bridgeport Station ............................................................................................................................19 Figure 2-15. BRT to Proposed Future Barnum Station ......................................................................................................19 Figure 3-1 BRT Elements Costed Out ...............................................................................................................................20 BRT Alternatives Page left blank intentionally BRT Alternatives EXECUTIVE SUMMARY When looking at alternate transportation modes to Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is a cost-effective approach to connect the Naugatuck Valley to coastal Connecticut transit service that blends the positive features of rail centers of employment and services and regional with the flexibility of bus transit, to make riding the bus centers beyond, both commuter rail service on the a higher-end service alternative. Implementing BRT Waterbury Branch Line and transit service along the service along the Route 8 corridor could reduce traffic Route 8 corridor are viable options. However, today delays, improve connectivity to alternative modes, and neither system offers the level of service that would be support economic development. attractive to and convenient for commuters. With targeted investment, they have the potential to BRT Alternatives effectively serve two different markets and provide Five BRT alternatives were explored for the Route 8 alternatives to driving. corridor based on the following criteria: Enhanced and expanded service on the WBL will better · Availability of land/lanes to operate in a dedicated serve those travelling from the Naugatuck Valley region right-of-way. to Stamford and New York City areas, but the WBL · Ability to provide express service where land cannot serve commuters travelling to, from
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]
  • 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.
    [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]
  • Transit Service Design Guidelines
    Transit Service Design Guidelines Department of Rail and Public Transportation November 2008 Transit Service Design Guidelines Why were these guidelines for new transit service developed? In FY2008 alone, six communities in Virginia contacted the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation about starting new transit service in their community. They and many other communities throughout Virginia are interested in learning how new transit services can enhance travel choices and mobility and help to achieve other goals, such as quality of life, economic opportunity, and environmental quality. They have heard about or seen successful transit systems in other parts of the state, the nation, or the world, and wonder how similar systems might serve their communities. They need objective and understandable information about transit and whether it might be appropriate for them. These guidelines will help local governments, transit providers and citizens better understand the types of transit systems and services that are available to meet community and regional transportation needs. The guidelines also help the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT) in making recommendations to the Commonwealth Transportation Board for transit investments, by 1) providing information on the types of systems or services that are best matched to community needs and local land use decisions, and 2) ensuring that resources are used effectively to achieve local, regional, and Commonwealth goals. Who were these guidelines developed for? These guidelines are intended for three different audiences: local governments, transit providers and citizens. Therefore, some will choose to read the entire document while others may only be interested in certain sections.
    [Show full text]
  • The Relationship Between Safety, Capacity, and Operating Speed on Bus Rapid Transit
    THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SAFETY, CAPACITY, AND OPERATING SPEED ON BUS RAPID TRANSIT NICOLAE DUDUTA,EMBARQ CLAUDIA ADRIAZOLA-STEIL,EMBARQ DARIO HIDALGO, EMBARQ LUIS ANTONIO LINDAU,EMBARQ PAULA MANOELA DOS SANTOS, EMBARQ EMAIL FOR CORRESPONDENCE: [email protected] This is an abridged version of the paper presented at the conference. The full version is being submitted elsewhere. Details on the full paper can be obtained from the author. The Relationship between Safety, Capacity, and Operating Speed on Bus Rapid Transit DUDUTA, Nicolae; ADRIAZOLA-STEIL Claudia; HIDALGO, Dario; LINDAU, Luis Antonio; SANTOS, Paula Manoela; THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SAFETY, CAPACITY, AND OPERATING SPEED ON BUS RAPID TRANSIT CASE STUDY: TRANSOESTE BRT, RIO DE JANEIRO Nicolae Duduta1, Claudia Adriazola-Steil1, Dario Hidalgo1, Luis Antonio Lindau2, Paula Manoela dos Santos2 1: EMBARQ – the WRI Center for Sustainable Transport, 10 G St. NE Suite 800, Washington DC, 2: EMBARQ Brasil, Rua Luciana de Abreu, 471/801 90570-060 Porto Alegre/RS, Brazil Email for correspondence: [email protected] th 13 WCTR, 2013 – Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 1 The Relationship between Safety, Capacity, and Operating Speed on Bus Rapid Transit DUDUTA, Nicolae; ADRIAZOLA-STEIL Claudia; HIDALGO, Dario; LINDAU, Luis Antonio; SANTOS, Paula Manoela; ABSTRACT There is a growing body of research on the traffic safety aspects of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) corridors in Latin American cities. The findings suggest that some BRT design features – such as center lane configurations, left turn prohibitions, and signalized mid-block pedestrian crossings with refuge islands – can significantly improve safety on the corridors where BRTs operate. However, there is still a gap in knowledge about how the different safety features might impact the operational performance of the BRT.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparison Between Bus Rapid Transit and Light-Rail Transit Systems: a Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Approach
    Urban Transport XXIII 143 COMPARISON BETWEEN BUS RAPID TRANSIT AND LIGHT-RAIL TRANSIT SYSTEMS: A MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION ANALYSIS APPROACH MARÍA EUGENIA LÓPEZ LAMBAS1, NADIA GIUFFRIDA2, MATTEO IGNACCOLO2 & GIUSEPPE INTURRI2 1TRANSyT, Transport Research Centre, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Spain 2Department of Civil Engineering and Architecture (DICAR), University of Catania, Italy ABSTRACT The construction choice between two different transport systems in urban areas, as in the case of Light-Rail Transit (LRT) and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) solutions, is often performed on the basis of cost-benefit analysis and geometrical constraints due to the available space for the infrastructure. Classical economic analysis techniques are often unable to take into account some of the non-monetary parameters which have a huge impact on the final result of the choice, since they often include social acceptance and sustainability aspects. The application of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) techniques can aid decision makers in the selection process, with the possibility to compare non-homogeneous criteria, both qualitative and quantitative, and allowing the generation of an objective ranking of the different alternatives. The coupling of MCDA and Geographic Information System (GIS) environments also permits an easier and faster analysis of spatial parameters, and a clearer representation of indicator comparisons. Based on these assumptions, a LRT and BRT system will be analysed according to their own transportation, economic, social and environmental impacts as a hypothetical exercise; moreover, through the use of MCDA techniques a global score for both systems will be determined, in order to allow for a fully comprehensive comparison. Keywords: BHLS, urban transport, transit systems, TOPSIS.
    [Show full text]
  • Transit Element
    Town of Cary Comprehensive Transportation Pllan Chapter 6 – Introduction At the time of the 2001 Comprehensive Transportation Plan, the Town of Cary had no bus service other than Route 301 operated by the Triangle Transit Authority (TTA). Since then, Cary has expanded its transit Transit services considerably, with a new local fixed-route service for the public and demand-responsive paratransit for seniors and persons with disabilities. TTA has added routes as well. As the Town’s Element population continues rising and travel demand increases, the Town plans to expand its local service, capturing riders coming from and going to planned residential and commercial developments. Situated amidst the Research Triangle of Raleigh, Durham, and Chapel Hill, Cary is served today by multiple transit providers. Fixed route bus services within Cary are provided by C-Tran and TTA. C-Tran, Wake Coordinated Transportation Services (WCTS), and the Center for Volunteer Caregiving provide demand-responsive paratransit services. WCTS also provides rural general public transit via its TRACS service program; however, services are not provided for urban trips within Cary. Amtrak operates daily train service. This chapter describes current fixed-route transit and paratransit conditions, projected growth in the Town, and proposed future service changes. C-Tran Overview C-Tran is the Town of Cary’s sponsored transit service which originated as a door-to-door service for seniors and disabled residents in 2001. In July 2002, door-to-door services were expanded
    [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]
  • 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]
  • 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 .................................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Advanced Urban Transit Technologies Market Testing Final Report
    Advanced Urban Transit Technologies – Worldwide Market Testing Report summarising the feedback received through the Market Testing March 2020 £69.6 Billion GVA A region packed with ambition and untapped potential In partnership with: Institute for Transport Studies Table of Contents 1. PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT ................................................................................................................................. 4 Who is undertaking the Market Testing? .................................................................................................................. 5 What Happens Next? ................................................................................................................................................ 5 2. BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT ........................................................................................................................... 6 This report ................................................................................................................................................................. 7 3. SUMMARY OF KEY MESSAGES ........................................................................................................................... 8 4. FEEDBACK ON DISCUSSION AREA 1A ................................................................................................................12 Illustrative Quotes from Respondents ..................................................................................................................... 12 Points raised
    [Show full text]