DOCSLIB.ORG

B Line Faster Transit Is Coming to the Route 21 Corridor

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
B Line Faster Transit Is Coming to the Route 21 Corridor The METRO B Line Faster transit is coming to the Route 21 Corridor. West Lake St West Lake St Knox/East Bde Maka Ska Dean/WestKnox/East Bde Bde Maka Maka Ska Ska Dean/West Bde Maka Ska Hennepin Lyndale NicolletI-35W4th/5th & Lake Chicago AveSt BloomingtonCedar Lake St/MidtownMinnehaha31st Ave36th Ave 44th Ave Otis CretinCleveland Fairview Robert St Hennepin Lyndale NicolletI-35W4th/5th & Lake Chicago AveSt BloomingtonCedar Lake St/MidtownMinnehaha31st Ave36th Ave 44th Ave Otis CretinCleveland Fairview JohnJohn Ireland Ireland && MarshallMarshall Snelling & Dayton Rice Park/Hamm Plaza Snelling & Dayton Rice Park/Hamm Plaza Hamline Lexington Victoria Dale Western M Hamline Lexington Victoria Dale Western M Lake I Marshall S Lake I Marshall Union BDE S E LINE S Union BDE I D LINE S E LINE S Depot MAKA D LINE I S Selby S Depot MAKA Selby S SKA I A LINE P Smith Ave SKA I A LINE P P Hennepin I-35W Chicago Smith Ave Minnesota St P I Hennepin I-35W Chicago Snelling Minnesota St MINNEAPOLIS ST. PAUL I R Snelling MINNEAPOLIS ST. PAUL I R V I E V R E Metro Transit will continue study of B Line R Metrolocal Transit bus service will continue options betweenstudy of wouldB Line serve local Midway,bus service Selby options Avenue, between and Goldwould Line serve stations Midway,downtown Selby Avenue, St. Paul. and Goldin downtownLine stations downtown St. Paul. in downtownSt. Paul. St. Paul. The METRO B Line is a planned bus rapid Finalized Station Location METRO A Line Planned Rush Line transit line that will provide faster and more Finalized Station Location METRO(Bus Rapid A Line Transit) Planned(Bus Rapid Rush Transit) Line Shared Station Location (Bus Rapid Transit) (Bus Rapid Transit) reliable transit service in the Route 21 corridor. Shared Station Location Planned METRO METRO Blue Line (Light Rail) Bus rapid transit is a package of transit Recommended PlannedBus Rapid METRO Transit METRO Blue Line (Light Rail) RecommendedStation Area Bus Rapid Transit METRO Green Line (Light Rail) enhancements that adds up to a faster trip and Station Area Planned METRO Gold Line METRO Green Line (Light Rail) Recommended Planned(Bus Rapid METRO Transit) Gold Line Planned METRO Green Line an improved experience on Metro Transit’s RecommendedMETRO B Line Route (Bus Rapid Transit) PlannedExtension METRO (Light Rail)Green Line METRO(Bus BRapid Line Transit)Route Planned METRO Orange Line Extension (Light Rail) busiest bus routes. 00-05-108017-19 (Bus Rapid Transit) Planned(Bus Rapid METRO Transit) Orange Line (Bus Rapid Transit) 00-05-108017-19 Each weekday, customers take more than 10,000 rides on Route 21, Metro Transit’s second busiest bus route. Buses carry approximately 20% of people traveling by vehicle on Lake Street today, and make up less than 2% of vehicle traffic. But Lake Street is also one of the slowest transit corridors in the region. During rush hours, buses regularly slow to average speeds of 8 miles per hour. Frequent stops, lines of customers waiting to board and red lights mean that buses are moving less than half the time. How will the B Line be faster? The B Line is planned to be a substantial upgrade to the speed and reliability of transit in the Route 21 corridor. The goal of the B Line is to make service approximately 20% faster by stopping less often, allowing customers to board faster and stopping at fewer red lights. Buses will make limited stops at stations spaced farther apart. Fares will be collected at stations — just like light rail — and not on the bus. Raised curbs at platforms will make it easier to step onto the bus. Complete snow removal will improve winter boarding. B Line buses will also communicate with traffic signals to shorten red lights. How much will the B Line cost to build? The preliminary estimated cost of the B Line project is between $55 million and $65 million. This includes the cost of stations and related technology/fare collection elements, new BRT vehicles, transit signal priority and the cost of designing and delivering the line. Cost estimates will be refined as planning and engineering progress. $26 million of federal and Metropolitan Council funds have been identified for the B Line project to date. PRELIMINARY PROJECT SCHEDULE (subject to change) 2019-2020 2020-2021 2022 PLANNING ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION Pending project funding PROJECT CONTACT: Cody Olson [email protected] metrotransit.org/b-line-project 612-349-7390 What makes the B Line better? metrotransit.org/b-line-project Limited stops, frequent service Curb bumpouts for speed and space Today, Route 21 serves the corridor with frequent service, Where B Line buses run in general traffic, stations will stopping every other block for most of the route. be built on curb bumpouts to avoid delay caused by merging back into traffic. Today: Route 21 Typical Current Bus Stop 1/8 mile between stops The B Line would be the primary service in the corridor with high frequency service all day, and on nights and weekends. Local service on Route 21 would run every 30 minutes on the portion between Hennepin Avenue and Minnehaha Avenue. Metro Transit will also continue study of local bus Today, buses stop outside of the through lane with little space for customer amenities. Merging back into traffic causes delay. service options between Midway, Selby and downtown St. Paul. Future: B Line \Curb Extension Station 1/3 to 1/2 mile between stations Transit advantages throughout the corridor Transit advantages at key locations along BRT lines will help keep buses moving. Transit advantages could include transit signal priority, where B Line buses "ask" Curb bumpouts provide space for station amenities and pedestrians. traffic signals for early or extended green lights. Transit advantages could also include dedicated space for B Neighborhood-scale stations with amenities Line buses at intersections or along the corridor, such as Stations are equipped with features for a safe and queue jump lanes, bus approach lanes or bus-only lanes. comfortable experience, similar to light rail. Standard features include heat, lighting, security features, NexTrip Pay before boarding for faster stops real-time departure information signs and trash cans. For speedier boarding through all doors, B Line buses won't have fareboxes. Customers will purchase a ticket or tap a Go-To Card at the station, just like light rail. Metro Transit Police officers check fare payment. 11-08-112601-19.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Your Paper's Title Starts Here
    Dual Rated Speeds Escalator in Rapid Transit System with Extended Ramping Up and Down KC Gan, LF Cai, SC Cheah, Hadi Wijaya, Melvyn Thong Land Transport Authority, Singapore Keywords: Dual rated speeds, automatic switching, rapid transit system, acceleration, ramping up, ramping down, vibration, jerkiness. Abstract. To cater for different needs of escalator operating speeds in rapid transit systems (i.e. higher rated speed of 0.75m/s during peak hours is for effective discharging of passengers while slower rated speed of 0.50m/s during off-peak hours is for elderly passengers), we have introduced the dual rated speed escalator. Conventionally, the switching between 2 rated speeds can be done either manually through a key switch or automatically when no passengers are detected on the escalators at pre-set timing. However, there is a possibility of not being able to change speed if there are constant passengers coming into the rapid transit station, taking the escalators. Therefore, this shortcoming will be overcome by setting up a schedule timetable to do the safe switching of escalator rated speeds with passengers riding on the escalators with extended ramping up and down without comprising any safety requirements. This paper presents the case studies conducted on an existing station where a performance–based approach was adopted. The timing for the speed ramping up/down between the 2 rated speeds has been increased to 30 seconds in order to reduce the acceleration which results in minimizing the acceleration (vibration) and the rate of change of this acceleration (jerk). The objective is to ensure that the passenger’s perception are imperceptible and do not experience any abnormal and sudden change of vibration and jerk during the switching of dual rated speeds with extended ramping up and down.
    [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]
  • 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]
  • Rice-Robert Arterial Bus Rapid Transit Little Canada – Roseville – Maplewood – Saint Paul – West Saint Paul
    Rice-Robert Arterial Bus Rapid Transit Little Canada – Roseville – Maplewood – Saint Paul – West Saint Paul The Rice-Robert Project is a proposed 11-mile Arterial Bus Rapid Transit (ABRT) line roughly along Rice St and Robert St, serving the communities of Little Canada, Roseville, Maplewood, Saint Paul, and West Saint Paul. Rice-Robert ABRT would serve a wide variety of communities, from the jobs and destinations of downtown Saint Paul to many of the poorest and most transit- dependent neighborhoods in the East Metro. Both Rice St and Robert St are home to a wide variety of destinations ranging from a dozen schools and numerous parks to the State Capitol and the main service centers of Ramsey and Dakota Counties. It would also connect to numerous existing or planned transit improvements, including METRO Green Line, METRO Gold Line, Rush Line, Riverview, and METRO B Line on Selby. Rice-Robert ABRT is being considered for study and implementation as the METRO F Line in 2025. This timeline coincides with three major investments by state and local partners along the Rice-Robert corridor: Rice St Visioning Project (2022-24): Rice St from Pennsylvania Ave to Wheelock Pkwy is the subject of the ongoing Rice St Visioning Study, which will reimagine and redesign the corridor. Construction on the corridor between Pennsylvania and County Road B is scheduled to begin in phases in 2022. Rush Line Project (2024-26): Rush Line is a proposed BRT project from downtown Saint Paul to White Bear Lake. Rush Line would co-locate with Rice-Robert BRT from 12th St to 5th St in downtown Saint Paul.
    [Show full text]
  • Study on Medium Capacity Transit System Project in Metro Manila, the Republic of the Philippines
    Study on Economic Partnership Projects in Developing Countries in FY2014 Study on Medium Capacity Transit System Project in Metro Manila, The Republic of The Philippines Final Report February 2015 Prepared for: Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry Ernst & Young ShinNihon LLC Japan External Trade Organization Prepared by: TOSTEMS, Inc. Oriental Consultants Global Co., Ltd. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. Japan Transportation Planning Association Reproduction Prohibited Preface This report shows the result of “Study on Economic Partnership Projects in Developing Countries in FY2014” prepared by the study group of TOSTEMS, Inc., Oriental Consultants Global Co., Ltd., Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. and Japan Transportation Planning Association for Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry. This study “Study on Medium Capacity Transit System Project in Metro Manila, The Republic of The Philippines” was conducted to examine the feasibility of the project which construct the medium capacity transit system to approximately 18km route from Sta. Mesa area through Mandaluyong City, Ortigas CBD and reach to Taytay City with project cost of 150 billion Yen. The project aim to reduce traffic congestion, strengthen the east-west axis by installing track-guided transport system and form the railway network with connecting existing and planning lines. We hope this study will contribute to the project implementation, and will become helpful for the relevant parties. February 2015 TOSTEMS, Inc. Oriental Consultants Global Co., Ltd. Mitsubishi Heavy
    [Show full text]
  • METRO B Line Update and Preliminary Recommendations
    METRO B Line Update and Preliminary Recommendations Adam Smith, Senior Planner, BRT Projects Katie Roth, Manager, Arterial BRT Metro Transit October 28, 2019 1 B Line (Lake Street/Marshall Avenue) BRT • Planned 4th arterial bus rapid transit line • Substantial replacement of Route 21, region’s second-highest ridership but slowest in-service speed • 8.2-mile corridor (12.6 miles with potential extension to downtown St. Paul) • Service every 10 minutes, approximately 20% faster than existing Route 21 • Targeted opening 2023, pending full project funding • $26 million identified to date; budget to be updated following corridor definition 2 B Line initial planning questions • Should the B Line extend to downtown St. Paul? • If the B Line is extended to downtown St. Paul, how should it be routed? • Where should stops be placed to best balance speed and access? • Related question: based on the above, what should be the overall mix of service in the corridor? 3 B Line preliminary recommendations • Extend the B Line to Union Depot in downtown Saint Paul • Route the B Line along Marshall, Snelling, and Selby Avenues • 33 preliminary B Line station locations • Retain local service on Route 21 between Hennepin Avenue and Minnehaha Avenue; continue study of local bus service options between Midway, Selby Avenue, and downtown Saint Paul 4 Context for recommendations: existing bus service levels Service every 7-13 minutes during rush hour Service every 15-18 minutes during rush hour Service every 8-13 minutes midday/evening Service every 16-22 minutes
    [Show full text]
  • Passenger Rail Primer
    Passenger Rail Primer Thurston Passenger Rail Workgroup November 2005 Passenger Rail Characteristics This document is intended as a primer introducing and familiarizing the reader with the basic definitions of passenger rail and providing a comparison of common transit services in 2005. It was developed to facilitate a discussion of passenger rail and other transit options in the Thurston Region, in preparation of a regional rail plan. In the next section, Passenger Rail Overview, the fundamental characteristics of light rail, commuter rail and intercity rail are covered. Complementary and Alternative Transit Options (primarily common bus transit choices) provides a wider transit context within which the passenger rail modes coordinate and compete. After investigating transit options individually, they are compared and contrasted in a chart of their characteristics, Summarizing the Continuum of Services. Other Rail Transit Technologies provides a brief overview of less extensively used rail options and the Appendices provide additional details and information. Additional resources the reader may want to consult include: • The American Public Transportation Association (APTA) website at www.apta.com • The Victoria Transportation Policy Institute (VTPI) website at www.vtpi.org • Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) website at www.bts.gov Passenger Rail Overview Introduction Passenger rail modes may be distinguished from one another based on a variety of characteristics – level of service, technology, right-of-way and operations. These characteristics are discussed in more detail in the other sections of this chapter. Like other transit services, however, in the most basic sense passenger rail modes break down by three distinct geographies – local, regional, and statewide or interstate.
    [Show full text]
  • Fairfax County Transit Network
    Fairfax Connector Service Metrobus Service Metrorail Service Map Symbols Weekday, Saturday, and/or Sunday Service Rush Hour Only Service Limited-Stop and Express Service Metro MWY Metroway REX Orange Line Yellow Line Government Metrorail Station Middle School fairfaxconnector.com 630 301 432 557 641 924 Building FAIRFAX CONNECTOR Seasonal For Metrobus information visit wmata.com Blue Line Silver Line 340 558 640 981 305 461 622 642 926 396 or call 202-637-7000, TTY 202-962-2033 For Metrorail information visit wmata.com Transit Station Hospital High School 703-339-7200 TTY 703-339-1608 306 350 559 650 335 462 623 644 927 697 or call 202-637-7000, TTY 202-962-2033 City of Fairfax CUE Service BusTracker Park & Ride Police Station College/University 371 341 552 624 651 929 Service during most weekday hours. May also Virginia Railway Express (VRE) Service REAL-TIME SERVICE INFORMATION operate on Saturday and/or Sunday. GOLD GREEN @ffxconnector fairfaxconnector 467 351 553 631 652 980 Service during select weekday hours. Manassas Line Fredericksburg Line VRE Station Library Recreation Center 306 BEAC (Off-Peak or Rush Hour). May also operate For City of Fairfax CUE information visit H MILL 372 554 632 722 RD Fairfax County Department of Transportation (FCDOT) ensures nondiscrimination in all programs and activities in accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of on Saturday and/or Sunday. cuebus.org or call 703-385-7859, TTY 711 For VRE information visit vre.org or call (800) RIDE-VRE (743-3873) Limited-Stop or Express Service. Most operate Connector Store Airport 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
    [Show full text]
  • Heavy Rail CSt
    Policy Transit HEAVY RAIL CST TIE LN STATE O REGI NAL IPACT LOCAL RID OR OR C SPT H HURLES TRANSIT AENCY UNIN STATE More Information: tti.tamu.edu/policy/how-to-fix-congestion SUCCESS STORIES Description • Contributes to increasing New York City, New York Heavy rail (also called metro rail, sub- property values and preserves The New York City subway way, rapid transit, or rapid rail) is an elec- urban land for taxable is one of the world’s oldest tric railway on devoted rights-of-way development. public transit systems and that handles many passengers at once. is also the busiest rapid rail Implementation Issues Tracks may be placed in subway tunnels transit system in the United (like in New York City), on elevated struc- Heavy rail remains extremely expensive States. tures (like in Chicago), or on fenced-off, to build due to its need for tunnels, ele- ground-level tracks that do not cross vated structures, or other fully devoted roads. rights-of-way. However, high ridership Chicago, Illinois offsets high costs. Although a heavy-rail Target Market system is, on average, more than four Heavy rail works best in very dense times as expensive as a light-rail system, 1892 Chicago and the South urban settings, where large populations heavy rail costs less per rider and per Side Rapid Transit Railroad primarily want to move toward and with- passenger mile. opened the first L line. in a major city’s central business district. Heavy rail needs a population of 3 million When implementing a heavy-rail transit to 15 million people to be successful.
    [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]
  • Support Material Agenda Item No
    Support Material Agenda Item No. 17 Board of Directors Meeting November 4, 2020 10:00 AM MEETING ACCESSIBLE VIA ZOOM AT: https://gosbcta.zoom.us/j/99354182777 Teleconference Dial: 1-669-900-6833 Meeting ID: 993 5418 2777 CONSENT CALENDAR Transit 17. Task 3: Innovative Transit Review of the Metro-Valley Receive and file Task 3: Innovative Transit Review of the Metro-Valley Report. Task 3: Innovative Transit Review Report is being provided as a separate attachment. SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY CONSOLIDATION STUDY AND INNOVATIVE TRANSIT REVIEW TASK 3—INNOVATIVE TRANSIT ANALYSIS AND CONCEPTS OCTOBER 1, 2020 This page intentionally left blank. CONSOLIDATION STUDY AND INNOVATIVE TRANSIT REVIEW TASK 3—INNOVATIVE TRANSIT ANALYSIS AND CONCEPTS SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY SUBMITTAL (VERSION 2.0) PROJECT NO.: 12771C70, TASK NO. 3 202012771C70, TASK NO. 3 2020 DATE: OCTOBER 1, 2020 WSP SUITE 350 862 E. HOSPITALITY LANE SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408 TEL.: +1 909 888-1106 FAX: +1 909 889-1884 WSP.COM This page intentionally left blank. October 1, 2020 Beatriz Valdez, Director of Special Projects and Strategic Initiatives San Bernardino County Transportation Authority 1170 W. Third Street, 1st Floor San Bernardino, CA 92410 Dear Ms.Valdez: Client ref.: Contract No. C14086, CTO No. 70 Contract No. C14086, CTO No. 70 WSP is pleased to submit this Draft Task 3 Innovative Service Analysis and Concepts Report as part of the Consolidation Study and Innovative Transit Review. Upon receipt of comments from SBCTA and your partners, we will prepare and submit a final version of this report. Yours sincerely, Cliff Henke AVP/Project Leader, Global ZEB/BRT Coordinator XX/xx Encl.
    [Show full text]
  • Ride Into Summer with Metrolink
    5 6 JUNE | JULY 2014 GO SMART WITH THE SAN BERNARDINO FARE CONNECTIVITY IMPROVEMENTS UNDERWAY ADJUSTMENT NEW Go511 APP EFFECTIVE Go511 offers commuters Construction began earlier this year on two major projects — the rail, bus rapid transit, along with local and regional bus services. The Transit JULY 1! and riders a smarter way to Downtown San Bernardino Passenger Rail Project and the San Bernardino Center will provide enhanced benefits to current transit users and make travel. You’ll get up-to-the- Transit Center – that will make commuting to and from the Inland Empire these travel modes more attractive to future riders in the region. With 13 easier. Instead of ending at the historic Santa Fe Depot, the Downtown San local Omnitrans bus routes, the new sbX Bus Rapid Transit service, Victor IMPORTANT NEWS FOR YOUR COMMUTE minute traffic updates plus RIDE INTO SUMMER real-time and scheduled Bernardino Passenger Rail Project will extend Metrolink’s track one mile Valley Transit Authority, Mountain Area Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) bus In April 2004, the Metrolink Board of Directors approved a 10-year transit information for five east and connect with the future San Bernardino Transit Center. As a result service, and Metrolink trains all connecting at this central hub, connectivity fare restructuring program beginning July 1, 2005, which changed the counties in Southern Cali- of the construction activity, Metrolink will be implementing modifications to within the Inland Empire will be more efficient than ever. Metrolink fare structure from a zone-based system to a driving fornia: Los Angeles, Orange, schedules and train set sizes to accommodate the projects.
    [Show full text]