DOCSLIB.ORG

Agency Assessment Report and Appendices

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Agency Assessment Report and Appendices SANBAG County-Wide Transit Efficiency Study Agency Assessment Report Prepared for: September 17, 2015 Prepared by: SANBAG County-wide Transit Efficiency Study Task 1.5—Agency Assessment Report September 17, 2015 Prepared for: SANBAG Prepared by: Parsons Brinckerhoff Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND STUDY PURPOSE ................................................................. 1-1 2.0 TRANSPORTATION PROVIDERS AND AGENCIES ................................................. 2-1 2.1 Local Transit .................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1.1 Barstow Area Transit ............................................................................ 2-1 2.1.2 Morongo Basin Transit Authority .......................................................... 2-9 2.1.3 Mountain Area Regional Transit Authority .......................................... 2-17 2.1.4 City of Needles ................................................................................... 2-26 2.1.5 Omnitrans ........................................................................................... 2-30 2.1.6 Victor Valley Transit Authority............................................................. 2-44 2.2 Other Transportation Agencies ...................................................................... 2-55 2.2.1 SANBAG ............................................................................................ 2-55 2.2.2 Valley Transportation Services ........................................................... 2-58 3.0 FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT OF THE TRANSIT AGENCIES .................................. 3-1 3.1 Agency Overview ............................................................................................. 3-1 3.2 Current Transit Services Provided ................................................................... 3-5 3.3 Service Planning .............................................................................................. 3-6 3.4 Operations and Administrative Support Functions............................................ 3-8 3.5 Management Information Systems/Information Technology ............................. 3-9 3.6 Fixed Asset Review ....................................................................................... 3-10 4.0 PERFORMANCE REVIEW OF THE TRANSIT AGENCIES ........................................ 4-1 4.1 Standardized Performance Review on Key Indicators ...................................... 4-2 4.1.1 Barstow Area Transit ............................................................................ 4-4 4.1.2 Morongo Basin Transit Authority .......................................................... 4-6 4.1.3 Mountain Area Regional Transit Authority ............................................ 4-7 4.1.4 City of Needles ..................................................................................... 4-8 4.1.5 Omnitrans........................................................................................... 4-10 4.1.6 Victor Valley Transit Authority............................................................. 4-11 4.2 Internal Agency Performance Review ............................................................ 4-14 4.2.1 Barstow Area Transit .......................................................................... 4-14 4.2.2 Morongo Basin Transit Authority ........................................................ 4-14 4.2.3 Mountain Area Regional Transit Authority .......................................... 4-16 4.2.4 City of Needles ................................................................................... 4-21 4.2.5 Omnitrans........................................................................................... 4-22 4.2.6 Victor Valley Transit Authority............................................................. 4-24 4.3 Peer Agency Performance Review................................................................. 4-29 4.3.1 Barstow Area Transit Peer Review ..................................................... 4-31 4.3.2 Morongo Basin Transit Authority Peer Review.................................... 4-35 4.3.3 Mountain Area Regional Transit Authority Peer Review ..................... 4-40 4.3.4 City of Needles Peer Review .............................................................. 4-45 4.3.1 Omnitrans Peer Review...................................................................... 4-46 4.3.2 Victor Valley Transit Authority Peer Review ........................................ 4-51 4.4 Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations ............................................ 4-58 4.4.1 Barstow Area Transit .......................................................................... 4-58 4.4.2 Morongo Basin Transit Authority ........................................................ 4-58 4.4.3 Mountain Area Regional Transit Authority .......................................... 4-59 SANBAG COUNTY-WIDE TRANSIT EFFICIENCY STUDY September 17, 2015 i 4.4.4 City of Needles ................................................................................... 4-61 4.4.5 Omnitrans........................................................................................... 4-61 4.4.6 Victor Valley Transit Authority............................................................. 4-62 5.0 FINANCIAL REVIEW .................................................................................................. 5-1 5.1 Methodology .................................................................................................... 5-1 5.2 Strategy Evaluations ........................................................................................ 5-5 5.2.1 High-Level Potential Cost Saving Items ................................................ 5-5 5.2.2 Low- to Mid-Level Potential Cost Saving Items ................................... 5-25 5.2.3 Items without Major Cost Savings but Likely to Improve Services....... 5-33 5.3 Financial Review Conclusions........................................................................ 5-44 List of Figures Figure 1-1. San Bernardino County by Subarea ................................................................. 1-3 Figure 2-1. BAT Revenue Vehicle ...................................................................................... 2-6 Figure 2-2. BAT Maintenance Facility ................................................................................ 2-7 Figure 2-3. MBTA Revenue Vehicle ................................................................................. 2-14 Figure 2-4. MBTA CNG Facilities ..................................................................................... 2-14 Figure 2-5. MBTA Facility ................................................................................................. 2-15 Figure 2-6. MARTA Revenue Vehicle .............................................................................. 2-23 Figure 2-7. MARTA Big Bear Facility................................................................................ 2-24 Figure 2-8. Omnitrans’ New sbX Service.......................................................................... 2-31 Figure 2-9. Omnitrans sbX Revenue Vehicle and Fleet in Yard........................................ 2-40 Figure 2-10. Omnitrans CNG Fuel ..................................................................................... 2-41 Figure 2-11. Omnitrans East Valley Facility........................................................................ 2-42 Figure 2-12. VVTA Revenue Vehicle.................................................................................. 2-52 Figure 2-13. VVTA CNG Fuel............................................................................................. 2-53 Figure 2-14. VVTA Facility ................................................................................................. 2-53 Figure 2-15. VVTA Repair Shop......................................................................................... 2-54 Figure 2-16. SANBAG Management .................................................................................. 2-57 Figure 2-17. VTrans Leased Maintenance Facility ............................................................. 2-61 Figure 4-1. BAT Cost and Financial Efficiency Performance Comparison ........................ 4-33 Figure 4-2. BAT Service Effectiveness Performance Comparison .................................... 4-34 Figure 4-3. BAT Cost Effectiveness Performance Comparison ........................................ 4-35 Figure 4-4. MBTA Cost and Financial Efficiency Performance Comparison ..................... 4-37 Figure 4-5. MBTA Service Effectiveness Performance Comparison ................................. 4-38 Figure 4-6. MBTA Cost Effectiveness Performance Comparison ..................................... 4-39 Figure 4-7. MARTA Cost and Financial Efficiency Performance Comparison ................... 4-42 Figure 4-8. MARTA Service Effectiveness Performance Comparison .............................. 4-43 Figure 4-9. MARTA Cost Effectiveness Performance Comparison ................................... 4-44 SANBAG COUNTY-WIDE TRANSIT EFFICIENCY STUDY ii September 17, 2015 Figure 4-10. City of Needles Service Effectiveness Performance Comparison ................... 4-45 Figure 4-11. Omnitrans Cost and Financial Efficiency Performance Comparison ............... 4-49 Figure 4-12. Omnitrans Service Effectiveness Performance Comparison .......................... 4-50 Figure 4-13. Omnitrans Cost Effectiveness Performance Comparison ..............................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Transit Energy Use Reduction Plan
    Lake Country Transit Energy Use Reduction Plan Energy Use Reduction, Capital Expenditure, Funding and Management/Training Plan December 2015 Prepared by ICF International 620 Folsom St, Suite 200 San Francisco, CA 94107 415.677.7100 Lake Country Transit Energy Use Reduction Plan Table of Contents Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. 1 1 Energy Use Reduction Plan ............................................................................................................ 4 1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 4 1.2 Facility ......................................................................................................................................... 6 1.2.1 Review of Existing Facility and Operations .................................................................................6 1.2.2 Facility, Operations and Maintenance Strategies .......................................................................7 1.3 Vehicle Fleet and Alternative Fuels .......................................................................................... 16 1.3.1 Review of Fleet Operations ...................................................................................................... 16 1.3.2 Alternative Fuel Options .........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Woodland Transit Study
    Woodland Transit Study Prepared for the Yolo County Transportation District Prepared by LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Woodland Transit Study Prepared for the Yolo County Transportation District 350 Industrial Way Woodland, CA 95776 530 402-2819 Prepared by LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. P.O. Box 5875 2690 Lake Forest Road, Suite C Tahoe City, California 96145 530 583-4053 April 27, 2016 LSC #157020 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page 1 Introduction and Key Study Issues ............................................................................... 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1 Study Issues ................................................................................................................ 1 2 Existing Community Conditions .................................................................................... 3 Geography of Yolo County .......................................................................................... 3 Demographics ............................................................................................................. 3 Economy ................................................................................................................... 13 3 Review of Existing Transit Services ............................................................................ 19 Yolo County Transportation District ........................................................................... 19 Existing Woodland
    [Show full text]
  • Double Line Image Rotation Amir Hossein Ashtari, Member, IEEE,Mdjannordin,Member, IEEE, and Seyed Mostafa Mousavi Kahaki, Member, IEEE
    3370 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON IMAGE PROCESSING, VOL. 24, NO. 11, NOVEMBER 2015 Double Line Image Rotation Amir Hossein Ashtari, Member, IEEE,MdJanNordin,Member, IEEE, and Seyed Mostafa Mousavi Kahaki, Member, IEEE Abstract— This paper proposes a fast algorithm for rotating rotation transformation has been expressed in (2). The direct images while preserving their quality. The new approach rotates determination of the rotated points is a one-pass method. images based on vertical or horizontal lines in the original image and their rotated equation in the target image. The proposed xr cos α − sin α xt method is a one-pass method that determines a based-line = . (2) yr sin α cos α yt equation in the target image and extracts all corresponding pixels on the base-line. Floating-point multiplications are performed Determining the rotated point directly using a single to calculate the base-line in the target image, and other line function such as (2) is a one-pass technique, whereas cal- coordinates are calculated using integer addition or subtraction and logical justifications from the base-line pixel coordinates in culating the rotated point using multiple functions such the target image. To avoid a heterogeneous distance between as (3), (4), and (5) is a multi-pass technique. Compared with rotated pixels in the target image, each line rotates to two multi-pass methods, one-pass methods are simple and usually adjacent lines. The proposed method yields good performance more accurate [2], [5]. However, although one-pass methods in terms of speed and quality according to the results of an are accurate, they are still inefficient because multiple analysis of the computation speed and accuracy.
    [Show full text]
  • Lake County/City Area Planning Council on an Annual Basis; And
    Lisa Davey-Bates, Executive Director Wanda Gray, Regional Director Administration Operations 367 North State Street, Ste. 204 P.O. Box 698 Ukiah, CA 95482 Lower Lake, CA 95457 (707) 263-7868 (707) 994-3384 www.laketransit.org DATE: June 3, 2020 TIME: 10:00 a.m. (or as soon thereafter as the Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies Meeting Adjourns) PLACE: Audioconference Dial-in number: 1 (669) 900-6833 / Meeting ID: 937 5301 2617# *Zoom link provided to Board Members in distribution email and to public by request. In accordance with the modified Brown Act Requirements established by Governor Newsom’s Executive Order N-29-20, and to facilitate Social Distancing due to COVID-19, Lake Transit Authority’s Board meeting will be by audioconference. Public comments will be available during Wednesday's meeting on any agenda item. Please send comments to our Board Secretary, Charlene Parker, at [email protected] and note the agenda item number being addressed. Oral comments will also be accepted by telephone during the meeting when public comment is invited by the Chair. 1. Call Meeting to Order 2. Roll Call PUBLIC EXPRESSION 3. Public input on any unmet transit need or any other item within the jurisdiction of this agency, but which is not otherwise on the above agenda CONSENT CALENDAR 4. Approval of Minutes of the May 6, 2020 meeting Review and proposed approval 5. Technical Revision of the Amendment between Lake Transit Authority and Paratransit Services, Inc. Review and proposed approval REGULAR CALENDAR 6. Fiscal Year 2018-19 Federal Single Audit Report and Financial Statements Review and proposed approval 7.
    [Show full text]
  • Solanoexpress Bus Routes Transit Information Fairfield Transportation Center Fairfield
    Regional Transit Map Transit REGIONAL TRANSIT DIAGRAM To To Eureka Clearlake Information Mendocino Transit DOWNTOWN AREA TRANSIT CONNECTIONS Authority To Ukiah Lake Oakland Mendocino Transit 12th Street Oakland City Center BART: Greyhound BART, AC Transit FA FA 19th Street Oakland BART: FA BART, AC Transit Cloverdale San Francisco Yolobus To Davis Civic Center/UN Plaza BART: Winters Fairfi eld and Suisun Transit SolanoExpress is Solano SolanoExpress is Solano BART, Muni, Golden Gate Transit, SamTrans Fairfield 101 Embarcadero BART & Ferry Terminal: County’s intercity transit connection. County’s intercity transit connection. BART, Golden Gate Transit, Muni, SamTrans, (FAST) is the local transit system Baylink, Alameda/Oakland Ferry, Alameda Harbor Faireld and Healdsburg Bay Ferry, Blue & Gold Fleet, Amtrak CA Thruway Suisun Transit SolanoExpress routes connect cities SolanoExpress routes connect cities Transit To Sacramento for Fairfi eld and Suisun City and also Mongomery Street BART: Healdsburg BART, Muni, Golden Gate Transit, SamTrans Dixon within the county and provide service within the county and provide service Calistoga Readi- operates many of the SolanoExpress (Operated by FAST) (Operated by SolTrans) Handi Powell Street BART: Transportation Ride Van Calistoga BART, Muni, Golden Gate Transit, SamTrans regional routes. Please visit www.fasttransit. to neighboring counties, BART, and the ferry. to neighboring counties, BART, and the ferry. San Francisco Caltrain at 4th & King: Dixon Windsor Deer Caltrain, Muni, Amtrak CA Thruway org or call 707-422-BUSS (707-422-2877) for For more information, call (800) 535-6883 or For more information, call (800) 535-6883 or Park Transbay Temporary Terminal: Guerneville AC Transit, Muni, Golden Gate Transit, SamTrans, 80 visit www.solanoexpress.com.
    [Show full text]
  • How to Win Back America's Transit Riders
    Who’sDrew to add cover On Board 11 Charts done 2019 How to Win Back America’s Transit Riders TransitCenter works to improve public transit in ways that make cities more just, environmentally sustainable, and economically vibrant. We believe that fresh thinking can change the transportation landscape and improve the overall livability of cities. We commission and conduct research, convene events, and produce publications that inform and improve public transit and urban transportation. For more information, please visit www.transitcenter.org. Publication Date: February 2019 1 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor, New York, NY 10004 www.TransitCenter.org @transitcenter Facebook.com/transitctr Who’s On Board 2019 How to Win Back America’s Transit Riders Acknowledgments Steven Higashide and Mary Buchanan of TransitCenter are the authors of this report. David Bragdon and Tabitha Decker provided additional writing and editorial review. The authors are grateful for thoughtful review from Evelyn Blumenberg, Nicholas Klein, Alan Lehto, Tom Mills, Michelle Poyourow, Jarrett Walker, Aaron Weinstein, and TransitCenter’s Jon Orcutt and Hayley Richardson. Resource Systems Group (RSG) served as the lead research consultant, conducting focus groups, developing the survey questionnaire, and analyzing survey results. The authors gratefully acknowledge RSG’s project manager Ben Cummins. Greg Spitz and Alex Levin of RSG and Jed Lam of Aeffect also contributed to the research. The authors thank Emily Drexler of the Chicago Transit Authority for assistance with recruiting for focus groups, as well as Linda Young and Preeti Shankar of the Center for Neighborhood Technology for providing AllTransit data. Contents Executive Summary 1 All Transit Ridership is Local 6 Findings 14 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Smart Location Database Technical Documentation and User Guide
    SMART LOCATION DATABASE TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATION AND USER GUIDE Version 3.0 Updated: June 2021 Authors: Jim Chapman, MSCE, Managing Principal, Urban Design 4 Health, Inc. (UD4H) Eric H. Fox, MScP, Senior Planner, UD4H William Bachman, Ph.D., Senior Analyst, UD4H Lawrence D. Frank, Ph.D., President, UD4H John Thomas, Ph.D., U.S. EPA Office of Community Revitalization Alexis Rourk Reyes, MSCRP, U.S. EPA Office of Community Revitalization About This Report The Smart Location Database is a publicly available data product and service provided by the U.S. EPA Smart Growth Program. This version 3.0 documentation builds on, and updates where needed, the version 2.0 document.1 Urban Design 4 Health, Inc. updated this guide for the project called Updating the EPA GSA Smart Location Database. Acknowledgements Urban Design 4 Health was contracted by the U.S. EPA with support from the General Services Administration’s Center for Urban Development to update the Smart Location Database and this User Guide. As the Project Manager for this study, Jim Chapman supervised the data development and authored this updated user guide. Mr. Eric Fox and Dr. William Bachman led all data acquisition, geoprocessing, and spatial analyses undertaken in the development of version 3.0 of the Smart Location Database and co- authored the user guide through substantive contributions to the methods and information provided. Dr. Larry Frank provided data development input and reviewed the report providing critical input and feedback. The authors would like to acknowledge the guidance, review, and support provided by: • Ruth Kroeger, U.S. General Services Administration • Frank Giblin, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • West Marin Transit Needs Assessment Existing Conditions Report
    MARIN TRANSIT West Marin Transit Needs Assessment Existing Conditions Report March 2009 West Marin Transit Needs Assessment Existing Conditions MARIN TRANSIT Table of Contents Page Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... 1 Background and Project Goals ................................................................................................. 1 Existing Services ...................................................................................................................... 1 Stakeholder Consultation and Public Outreach ........................................................................ 2 Financial Overview ................................................................................................................... 4 Next Steps ................................................................................................................................ 4 Chapter 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................... 5 Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 5 Study Area ................................................................................................................................ 5 Report Organization ................................................................................................................. 8 Chapter 2. Demographic
    [Show full text]
  • Solano Express Bus Routes Transit Information Pleasant Hill Station Area Contra Costa Centre
    Fare Information effective January 1, 2016 Senior3 Adult/ (65+) Youth2 County Connection & (6-64) For more detailed information about BART Disabled service, please see the BART Schedule, BART 1 Transit CASH FARES (exact change only) Regional Transit Map System Map, and other BART information REGIONAL TRANSIT DIAGRAM displays in this station. Regular Ride $2.00 $1.00 To To Express Ride (900 series route numbers) $2.25 $1.00 Eureka Clearlake Information Mendocino Transit DOWNTOWN AREA TRANSIT CONNECTIONS PREPAID FARES Authority To Ukiah Lake Oakland ® 4 $2.00 $1.00 Mendocino Transit 12th Street Oakland City Center BART: Clipper Cash Value Greyhound BART, AC Transit 19th Street Oakland BART: 5 $3.75 $1.75 BART, AC Transit Day Pass Cloverdale San Francisco Yolobus To Davis Discount Regular/Express 20-Ride Pass N/A $15.00 Civic Center/UN Plaza BART: Winters BART, Muni, Golden Gate Transit, SamTrans Commuter Card (20 Regular+BART Transfer-Rides) $40.00 N/A Pleasant Hill 101 Embarcadero BART & Ferry Terminal: BART, Golden Gate Transit, Muni, SamTrans, Baylink, Alameda/Oakland Ferry, Alameda Harbor Faireld and 6 $60.00 N/A Healdsburg Bay Ferry, Blue & Gold Fleet, Amtrak CA Thruway Suisun Transit East Bay Regional Local 31-Day Transit To Sacramento Mongomery Street BART: Healdsburg BART, Muni, Golden Gate Transit, SamTrans Dixon 6 $70.00 N/A Calistoga Readi- County Connection (CCCTA) effective January 1, 2016 East Bay Regional Express 31-Day Handi Powell Street BART: San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Fare Information Station Area Ride BART Red* Ticket
    [Show full text]
  • Homelessness in Transit Environments Volume I: Findings from a Survey of Public Transit Operators
    UC Office of the President ITS reports Title Homelessness in Transit Environments Volume I: Findings from a Survey of Public Transit Operators Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/55d481p8 Authors Loukaitou-Sideris, Anastasia Wasserman, Jacob Caro, Ryan et al. Publication Date 2020-12-17 eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California RESEARCH REPORT Institute of Transportation Studies Homelessness in Transit Environments Volume I: Findings from a Survey of Public Transit Operators Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris, PhD, Distinguished Professor of Urban Planning, UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs Jacob Wasserman, Research Project Manager Ryan Caro, Graduate Student Researcher Hao Ding, Graduate Student Researcher UCLA Institute of Transportation Studies December 2020 Report No.: UC-ITS-2021-13 | DOI: 10.17610/T6V317 Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. UC-ITS-2021-13 N/A N/A 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Homelessness in Transit Environments December 2020 Volume I: Findings from a Survey of Public Transit Operators 6. Performing Organization Code UCLA-ITS 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris, Ph.D., https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0186-4751; Jacob N/A Wasserman https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2212-5798; Ryan Caro, https://orcid. org/0000-0002-2795-7270; Hao Ding, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5286-3367 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. Institute of Transportation Studies, UCLA N/A 3320 Public Affairs Building 11. Contract or Grant No. Los Angeles, CA 90095-1656 UC-ITS-2021-13 12.
    [Show full text]
  • National Assessment of Urban Rail Noise
    , REPORT NO UMTA-MA-06-0099-79-2 JJ DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF TRANSPORTATION URBAN RAIL NOISE J UN 6 */9/y Gregory Ch i s holm LIBRARY Herbert Boge n Michael Di nn i ng Michael Prim eggi a . of T ra ns port a t i o n U S . department Research and Special P rogr ams Admi n i s t r a t i o n Transportati on Sys terns Cen ter i 021 42 Cambr dge , MA Of TRaa. MARC H 1979 FINAL REPORT DOCUMENT IS AVAILABLE TO THE U.S. PUBLIC THROUGH THE NATIONAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICE, SPRINGFIELD, VIRGINIA 22161 Prepared for U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION URBAN MASS TRANSPORTATION ADMINISTRATION Office of Technology Development and Deployment Office of Rail and Construction Technology Washington DC 20590 NOTICE This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Govern- ment assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. NOTICE The United States Government does not endorse pro- ducts or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers' names appear herein solely because they are con- sidered essential to the object of this report. Technico! Report Documentation Pag 1 . Report N o 2 Government Accession No. 3. Recipient s Cotolog No. UMTA-MA-06-0Q9 9-7 9-2 S 5. Report Date natioVal assessment OF URBAN RAIL NOISE March 1979 6. Performing Orgomzotion Code 8. Performing Orgoni zotion Report No 7. Author s' Gregory Chisholm, et al. DOT-TSC-UMTA-7 9-10 9. Performing Orgom lotion Nome and Address 10 Work Unit No IT RAIS) U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • East-West Corridor High Capacity Transit Plan Rapid Transit Evaluation Results
    East-West Corridor High Capacity Transit Plan Rapid Transit Evaluation Results About the Corridor The AECOM consultant team conducted a high-level analysis of commuter rail, light rail transit (LRT), streetcar and bus rapid transit (BRT) to determine the most appropriate mode for the East- West Corridor. Based on the corridor fit, ridership capacity, cost per mile to build/operate and available right-of-way, BRT will move forward for more detailed analysis. This fact sheet provides, in more detail, how BRT and LRT compared and why BRT was determined to be the best fit. BRT with LRT Screening Results Below are the similarities and differences between bus rapid transit (BRT) and light rail transit (LRT). Features Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Light Rail Transit (LRT) Service Frequency Frequent service during peak hrs. (5–15 min.) Frequent service during peak hrs. (5–15 min.) Typical Corridor Length 5–25 mi. 10–20 mi. Range of Operating Speed 25–55 MPH 30–55 MPH Right-of-Way Dedicated lanes and/or mixed traffic Dedicated lanes with overhead electrical systems Typical Station Spacing ½ and one mile apart One mile apart, outside of downtowns Level boarding at high-quality stations Level boarding at high-quality stations Vehicle Types 40- or 60-ft. buses that have multiple doors 1–3 car trains; low floor vehicles Technology Traffic signal priority Traffic signal priority Real-time passenger info Real-time passenger info Off-board fare payment Off-board fare payment Typical Operating Cost per Hr. $100–$200 $200–$400 Typical Capital Cost per Mi. $2.5 million–$20 million $140 million+ Ridership Capacity by Mode Best Poor Current East-West Corridor Ridership (6.9k–8.7k riders) Modern Streetcar Light Rail Transit (1.5k–6k riders) (20k–90k riders) Bus Rapid Transit (4k–15k riders) Commuter Rail (3k–20k riders) Ridership Mode Capacity by 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000 The chart above demonstrates that BRT and commuter rail both have the needed capacity to meet ridership needs.
    [Show full text]