DOCSLIB.ORG

Multimodal Alternatives Analysis

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Multimodal Alternatives Analysis Welcome Route 1 Multimodal Alternatives Analysis Public Meeting October 8, 2014 October 9, 2014 Belmont Elementary School South County Government Center Prince William County, VA Fairfax County, VA Project Schedule Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 K KICK OFF PUBLIC PUBLIC PUBLIC 1 MEETING 2 MEETING 3 MEETING Data Collection (WE ARE HERE) Purpose and Need Multimodal Alternatives Development & Evaluation 7UD̪F,PSDFW$QDO\VLVDQG7UDYHO'HPDQG0RGHOLQJ 1 Public Meeting #1 October 9, 2013 Land Use Assessment and • Purpose and Need, Goals and Economic Impact Analysis Objectives • Initial Set of Alternatives Funding Analysis 2 Public Meeting #2 March 26, 2014 Environmental Scan • 5HͤQHG$OWHUQDWLYHV • Forecasting Results • Land Use Assessment $GGLWLRQDO7UD̪F$QDO\VLV 3 Public Meeting #3 Project Phasing Approaches October 8-9, 2014 • Draft • Evaluation of Alternatives • Project Phasing Recommendation • $GGLWLRQDO/DQG8VH 7UDͦF Approaches • Environmental Scan Analysis • Implementation RECOMMEND LOCALLY PREFERRED Considerations ALTERNATIVE Purpose & Need, Goals and Objectives Purpose Goals and Objectives The purpose of the project is to provide improved performance for Expand attractive multimodal travel options to transit, bicycle and pedestrian, and vehicular conditions and facilities improve local and regional mobility along the Route 1 corridor that support long-term growth and economic • Increase transit ridership • Improve transit to reduce travel times and increase frequency, development. reliability, and attractiveness • Increase transportation system productivity (passengers per hour) Needs within the corridor • Increase comfort, connectivity, and attractiveness of bicycle and Needs pedestrian networks to and along the corridor • Integrate with existing and planned transit systems and services • Peak and off-peak transit service is infrequent Improve safety; increase accessibility • High transit dependent population Attractive and • Provide accessible pathways to and from transit service and local competitive transit destinations Transit • 6TCHƒEFGNC[UTGFWEGVTCPUKVTGNKCDKNKV[ service • Reduce modal conflicts • High ridership potential for quality transit • Improve pedestrian crossings • Minimize negative impact on transit and auto operations in the • Pedestrian networks along and surrounding corridor Safe and the corridor are disjointed, limiting pedestrian • /CKPVCKPVTCHƒEFGNC[UCVCEEGRVCDNGNGXGNU Pedestrian/ travel and reducing access to transit accessible Bicycle pedestrian and Increase economic viability and vitality of the corridor • $KE[ENGCEEGUUKUFKHƒEWNVYKVJHGYCNVGTPCVKXG bicycle access paths $ • Improve connectivity to local and regional activity centers • Encourage and support compact, higher density, mixed use development consistent with local plans, policies, and economic • 7UGTUGZRGTKGPEGUKIPKƒECPVEQPIGUVKQPCNQPI objectives Route 1 during peak periods Appropriate • 5GEWTGRWDNKECPFKPXGUVQTEQPƒFGPEGKPFGNKXGT[CPFUWUVCKPCDKNKV[ Vehicular level of vehicle of new transit investments • Travel times are highly variable and accommodation unpredictable • Provide high-capacity transit facilities at locations where existing and future land uses make them mutually supportive • 5KIPKƒECPVRQRWNCVKQPCPFGORNQ[OGPV Support community health and minimize impacts on Land Use/ growth is anticipated regionally and along Support and community resources Route 1 corridor accommodate Economic more robust land • Minimize negative impacts to the natural environment • Current development patterns fail to optimize development • Contribute to improvements in regional air quality Development development potential • Increase opportunities for bicycling and walking to improve health and the environment Refined Transit Alternatives Alternative 1: Proposed Alignment Alternative 2: Proposed Alignment Bus Rapid Transit - Curb Running Huntington Bus Rapid Transit - Median Huntington Penn Daw (@ North Kings Hwy) Penn Daw (@ North Kings Hwy) Summary Beacon Hill Summary Beacon Hill Lockheed Blvd Lockheed Blvd Hybla Valley (@ Boswell Ave) Hybla Valley (@ Boswell Ave) Fort Belvoir Fort Belvoir Gum Springs • Bus operates in curb, dedicated transit Pohick Rd North Gum Springs • Bus operates in median in dedicated Pohick Rd North Lorton Station Blvd (@ Sherwood Hall Ln) Lorton Station Blvd (@ Sherwood Hall Ln) South County Center South County Center lanes from Huntington to (@ Mohawk Ln) lanes for the entire length of the (@ Mohawk Ln) (@ Iry Rd) (@ Iry Rd) Pohick Road North FRUULGRUDQGLQPL[HGWUD̩FLQ Woodlawn Woodlawn Gunston Rd Gunston Rd P Prince William County P • %XVRSHUDWHVLQPL[HGWUD̩FVRXWKRI Pohick Road to Woodbridge %57LQ0L[HG7UD̩F %57LQ0L[HG7UD̩F BRT in Dedicated Lanes BRT in Dedicated Lanes P Woodbridge (@VRE) P Woodbridge (@VRE) P Proposed Park and Ride P Proposed Park and Ride Key Factors Typical Intersection Key Factors Typical Intersection Average Weekday Ridership Average Weekday Ridership 15,200 16,600 (2035) (2035) Conceptual Capital Cost $832 M Conceptual Capital Cost $1.01 B Annual O&M Cost $18 M Annual O&M Cost $17 M Cost Effectiveness Cost Effectiveness (Annualized capital + $19 (Annualized capital + $20 operating cost per rider) operating cost per rider) Alternative 3: Proposed Alignment Alternative 4: Proposed Alignment Light Rail Transit Huntington Metrorail/BRT Hybrid Huntington Penn Daw (@ North Kings Hwy) Summary Beacon Hill Summary Beacon Hill Lockheed Blvd Hybla Valley (@ Boswell Ave) Hybla Valley (@ Boswell Ave) Fort Belvoir Fort Belvoir • Metrorail underground from Gum Springs • Light Rail operates in the median Pohick Rd North Gum Springs Pohick Rd North Lorton Station Blvd (@ Sherwood Hall Ln) Lorton Station Blvd (@ Sherwood Hall Ln) South County Center Huntington to Hybla Valley; transfer South County Center dedicated lanes for the entire length of (@ Mohawk Ln) (@ Mohawk Ln) (@ Iry Rd) (@ Iry Rd) the corridor to BRT service from Hybla Valley to Woodlawn Woodlawn Gunston Rd Gunston Rd P Woodbridge P • BRT operates in dedicated lanes DQGWUDQVLWLRQVLQWRPL[HGWUD̩FLQ %57LQ0L[HG7UD̩F BRT in Dedicated Lanes LRT in Dedicated Lanes Prince William County Metrorail (Underground) P Woodbridge (@VRE) P P Proposed Park and Ride Woodbridge (@VRE) P Proposed Park and Ride Key Factors Typical Intersection Key Factors Typical Intersection Average Weekday Ridership Average Weekday Ridership 18,400 26,500* (2035) (2035) (BRT 10,600; Metrorail 22,900) Conceptual Capital Cost $1.56 M Conceptual Capital Cost $2.46 B Annual O&M Cost $24 M Annual O&M Cost $31 M Cost Effectiveness Cost Effectiveness (Annualized capital + $28 (Annualized capital + $27 (BRT $29; Metrorail $28) operating cost per rider) operating cost per rider) *Corridor ridership, excluding transfers between Metrorail and BRT Portions Evaluation of Multimodal Alternatives Evaluation Criteria EvaluationMultimodal Alternatives Process Evaluation Process Evaluation measures were used to assess how well each potential mode and cross-section TRANSIT VEHICULAR BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN met the project goals. Based on feedback from community members and other stakeholders (including members of the Technical Advisory Committee, Executive Steering Committee, and LIGHT RAIL BUS RAPID Community Involvement Committee), certain measures were weighted double or triple to reflect METRORAIL MONORAIL EXPANDED CONVERTED MINIMUM OPTIMAL BUFFERED TRANSIT TRANSIT LANES LANE STANDARD 1 Range of their importance. Bold measures below were weighted double, while italics indicate that a Alternatives measure’s weight was tripled. ENHANCED EXPRESS LOCAL CONSISTENT EXISTING STREETCAR MULTIUSE PATH SHARED (RAPID) BUS (SKIP-STOP) BUS BUS VEHICLE LANES VEHICLE LANES Goals Evaluation Measures • Project ridership • Number of transit dependent riders Goal 1: • Transit travel time savings 2 SCREEN 1: Local and • Provides connection to existing transit network Basic Requirements regional • New transit riders Initial EXPANDED CONVERTED 3 LANES LANE mobility • Person throughput Alternatives METRORAIL LIGHT RAIL BUS ENHANCED OPTIMAL BUFFERED MULTIUSE PATH SHARED • Number of riders who walked to access transit TRANSIT RAPID TRANSIT (RAPID) BUS STANDARD • Provides improved bicycle and pedestrian facilities CONSISTENT EXISTING VEHICLE LANES VEHICLE LANES • Auto Network Delay Goal 2: • Pedestrian access to stops 4 SCREEN 2: Safety and • Pedestrian crossing time Qualitative and Quantitative Measures accessibility • Auto travel time • Impacts due to turns • Preserves flexibility for bike lane Multimodal Alternative 1: Alternative 2: Alternative 3: Alternative 4: • Potential to begin transit within 10 years 5 BRT Curb BRT Median LRT Median Metrorail/BRT Hybrid Median Goal 3A: Alternatives • Tendency to encourage additional development for Further Economic Evaluation • Jobs within 60 minutes BRT 1 CONSISTENT MULTIUSE PATH BRT 2: CONSISTENT MULTIUSE PATH LIGHT RAIL CONSISTENT MULTIUSE PATH BRT and METRO CONSISTENT MULTIUSE PATH Development CURB RUNNING VEHICLE LANES MEDIAN VEHICLE LANES TRANSIT VEHICLE LANES HYBRID VEHICLE LANES • Per passenger O&M cost savings with growth • Tendency to accelerate development Goal 3B: • Cost per rider Cost • Estimated Capital Cost Effectiveness • Estimated Annual O&M cost • Change in VMT 6 Detailed Evaluation Goal 4: (Screen 3) Community • Total Right of Way health and • Trips diverted from I-95 See “Evaluation of Alternatives - Results” Board resources • Temporary construction
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]
  • Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) What Is the MUTCD?
    National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Bus/BRT Applications Introduction • I am Steve Andrle from TRB standing in for Randy McCourt, DKS Associates and 2019 ITE International Vice President • I co-manage with Claire Randall15 TRB public transit standing committees. • I want to bring you up to date on planned bus- oriented improvements to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) What is the MUTCD? • Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) – Standards for roadway signs, signals, and markings • Authorized in 23 CFR, Part 655: It is an FHWA document. • National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (NCUTCD) develops content • Sponsored by 19 organizations including ITE, AASHTO, APTA and ATSSA (American Traffic Safety Services Association) Background • Bus rapid transit, busways, and other bus applications have expanded greatly since the last edition of the MUTCD in 2009 • The bus-related sections need to be updated • Much of the available research speaks to proposed systems, not actual experience • The NCUTCD felt it was a good time to survey actual systems to see what has worked, what didn’t work, and to identify gaps. National Survey • The NCUTCD established a task force with APTA and FTA • Working together they issued a survey in April of 2018. I am sure some of you received it. • The results will be released to the NCUTCD on June 20 – effectively now • I cannot give you any details until the NCUTCD releases the findings Survey Questions • Have you participated in design and/or operations of
    [Show full text]
  • Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority
    Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority Joe Calabrese - General Manager RTA Ridership by Mode ! 500 Buses - 75 % ! 60 Heavy Rail Vehicles - 10% ! 24 RTV’s (BRT) - 8% ! 48 Light Rail Vehicles - 6% ! Paratransit - 100 vehicles - 1% RTA Fleet GCRTA HealthLine Euclid Avenue Transformation Euclid Avenue History Euclid Avenue History Alternatives Analysis - late 1990’s ! Subway ! Light Rail ! Do Nothing (keep the #6 bus) ! Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Mode Selection Criteria ! Capacity (30,000 + daily customers) ! Connectivity ! Funding possibilities (FTA) ! Cost - capital and operating ! Economic development potential " Renew Aging Infrastructure Vision for the “Silver Line” BRT ! “Rail Like” Image ! Fast ! Simple ! Safe ! First Class ! Help Revitalize Corridor Euclid Corridor Project ! 9.38 miles long ! 36 stations (from 100 bus stops) ! Travel time from 40 to 28 minutes ! Building face to building face ! Pedestrian and bicycle friendly ! Landscape/hardscape treatment ! Pubic Art - Integrated/stand-alone Exclusive Right of Way Funding Pie Charts FTA 80% ODOT 20% 2000 ODOT FTA 25% 50% City MPO RTA 2004 Ground Breaking October 2004 “Silver Line” Construction “Silver Line” Construction (3.5 years) “Silver Line” Construction “Silver Line” Construction “Silver Line” Construction “Rail Like” Image ! Reduced Travel Time " Multi-Door Boarding " Exclusive Right-of-Way " Traffic Signal Prioritization " Higher Travel Speeds " Level Boarding " Precision Docking " Rear Facing Wheel Chair Restraints " Off-Board Fare Collection “Rail Like” Image ! Hi-Frequency
    [Show full text]
  • Potomac Yard
    Alexandria Transit Vision Plan – POTOMAC YARD The Potomac Yard community is generally located in northeastern Alexandria along Richmond Highway, between Slaters Lane and Four Mile Run. It is currently served by one Metrobus route (Metroway), and two DASH routes (AT-9 and AT-10). For Potomac Yard, the key changes for the 2030 ATV Network include: • AT-9 replaced by the “N8”. The existing AT-9 will be replaced by the new “N8” route with all-day, frequent service from the new Potomac Yard Metro to Arlandria, Shirlington, Mark Center, the West End and Van Dorn Metro. Route will operate every 15 minutes or better, seven days per week, providing significant improvements in transit access for Potomac Yard residents and businesses. • New “N6 route with direct connection to Old Town Alexandria. The new “N6” route will run between Potomac Yard and Old Town Alexandria (King/Washington) via Slater Lane and Old Town North. The direct connection between the new Potomac Yard Metrorail and the heart of Old Town Alexandria will run every 30 minutes, seven days per week. • DASH AT-10 stays the same. The AT-10 route will maintain its current alignment and service levels between Potomac Yard, Del Ray and King Street Metro. • Metroway remain the same. The 2030 network maintains the existing Metroway route at existing levels of service. What can I access via transit in 30 minutes from Potomac Yard at 12pm in 2030? Existing Network 2030 Network % Change Residents 64,272 87,571 +36% Jobs 63,878 88,351 +38% (See reverse side for www.dashbus.com/transitvision more information.) For Potomac Yard, the key changes for the 2022 ATV Network include: • AT-9 replaced by the “N8”.
    [Show full text]
  • BUS STATIONS AS TOD ANCHORS REPORT Prepared in Accordance with California Senate Bill 961, 2017-2018 Regular Session
    Housing Financing Tools and Equitable, Location-Efficient Development in California BUS STATIONS AS TOD ANCHORS REPORT Prepared in Accordance with California Senate Bill 961, 2017-2018 Regular Session Prepared for: Governor's Office of Planning and Research December 29, 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................... 1 I. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 5 Report Purpose ....................................................................................................................... 5 Report Organization ................................................................................................................ 5 II. BACKGROUND ON THE SECOND NEIGHBORHOOD INFILL FINANCE AND TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS ACT ................................................................................................................ 7 Definition of Bus Transit ......................................................................................................... 7 Extent of Use ........................................................................................................................... 7 III. LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................................ 9 Literature Overview ................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Toolbox: BRT Person Throughput-Vehicle Congestion Tradeoffs
    Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Toolbox: BRT Person Throughput-Vehicle Congestion Tradeoffs Jingquan Li, Jacob Tsao, Ching-yao Chan, Kun Zhou, and Wei-Bin Zhang UCB-ITS-PRR-2015-02 California PATH University of California Berkeley March 11, 2015 Page 1 of 54 ADA Notice Individuals with sensory disabilities, this document is available in alternative formats. For information call (916) 654-6410, or TDD (916) 654-3880 or write STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Records and forms Management, 1120 N Street, MS- 89, Sacramento, CA 95814 TECHNICAL REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE TR0003 (REV. 10/98) 1. REPORT NUMBER 2. GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATION NUMBER 3. RECIPIENT’S CATALOG NUMBER CA 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. REPORT DATE December 2014 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Toolbox: BRT Person Throughput- 6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE Vehicle Congestion Tradeoffs 7. AUTHOR(S) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO. Jingquan Li, Jacob Tsao, Ching-yao Chan, Kun Zhou, UCB-ITS-PRR-2015-02 and Wei-Bin Zhang 9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. WORK UNIT NUMBER California PATH Program, University of California at Berkeley 1357 46th St., Richmond, CA 94804 11. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California at Irvine 4000 Anteater Instruction and Research Bldg., Irvine, CA 92697 12. SPONSORING AGENCY AND ADDRESS 13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED California Department of Transportation Division of Research and Innovation 14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE P.O. Box 942873, MS 83 Sacramento, CA 94273-0001 15. SUPPLEMENTAL NOTES 16. ABSTRACT This report documents a research effort to understand the current practice and issues associated with Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) planning and deployment.
    [Show full text]
  • Ctfastrak Existing Condition
    Hartford Line TOD Action Plan Desire & Readiness Workshop: Town of Windsor Locks October 20, 2016 State Project No. 170-3396 1 Task 8 Agenda 1. Project Background and Overview 2. TOD Principles and Precedents 3. CTrail Hartford Line Station Area Assessment • TOD Desire & Readiness Criteria • Initial Observations from the Project Team 4. Interactive Workshop • Preliminary Areas of Focus • Instructions 2 Project Background Establishing a Point of Departure in Windsor Locks • Hartford Line TOD Action Plan • Town of Windsor Locks POCD Update • Main Street Property Acquisition and • Windsor Locks TOD Study Pre-Development (OPM) • Making it Happen • CRCOG Regional Complete Streets Policy and Action Plan (OPM) • Historic Train Station Reuse Study Windsor Locks Downtown • Capitol Region Master Plan Transportation Plan 2007 2008 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Ongoing/Forthcoming • Incentive Housing Downtown TIF Zone Study District Master Plan • Capital Region POCD Town of Windsor Locks EA/EIE for NHHS Rail Program POCD 3 Project Background Initial Thoughts from the Project Team: Key Issues to Advance TOD in Windsor Locks Reinvigorate downtown/Main Street Activate and maximize development as a destination potential of catalytic sites in the station area . Address lasting impacts of urban . Target sites and recommended sequencing renewal, and change the mindset of Main have been identified, but there are Street as a pass through outstanding questions: . Find a balance between maintaining • What can be done to make sites more traffic flow and creating a pedestrian- attractive to potential developers? and bicycle-friendly downtown • Are there opportunities to assemble a critical mass of sites to enable a larger . Consider developing a downtown development proposition? parking strategy 4 Source: Windsor Locks TOD Study Project Background Funding through FTA Pilot Program for TOD Planning .
    [Show full text]
  • Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority
    Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority Joe Calabrese – General Manager Greater Cleveland RTA Overview . Service Area 59 municipalities 500 square miles Population of 1.5 million . Customers Served 200,000 on a typical weekday 1 RTA Overview . Services Modes 500 Buses 100 Paratransit Vans 20 Job Access Vans 60 Heavy Rail Vehicles 48 Light Rail Vehicles 24 RTV’s - (HealthLine BRT) 2 RTA Fleet 3 GCRTA HealthLine Euclid Avenue Transformation Euclid Avenue History 4 Euclid Avenue History Euclid Avenue History . Streetcars disappeared in 1954 . # 6 Bus Route put in service Great Service with Low Image . Alternative Analysis Subway or Light Rail Do Nothing (keep the #6 bus) Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) 5 Mode Selection Criteria . Capacity (30,000 + daily customers) . Connectivity . Funding possibilities (FTA) . Cost Capital Operating . Economic development potential Vision for the “Silver Line” . “Rail-Like” Image . Fast . Simple . Safe . First Class . Promote Economic Development 6 Euclid Corridor Project – 9.38 Miles . 36 stations . Travel time from 28 to 40 minutes . Building face to building face . Pedestrian friendly with bike lanes . Landscape/hardscape treatment 1,500 trees with irrigation . Integrated/stand-alone public art 7 Ground Breaking October 2004 8 Funding Pie Charts - $200 Million FTA 80% ODOT 20% 2000 ODOT FTA 25% 50% City MPO RTA 2004 Exclusive Right of Way 9 10 11 “Rail-Like” Characteristics . Quicker Travel Times Exclusive Right-of-Way Higher Travel Speed Limit Traffic Signal Prioritization Precision Docking Level Boarding “Stations” Off Board Fare Collection 12 “Rail-Like” Service and Image . Hi-Frequency Service 24x7 Peak every 5 minutes Off-Peak every 8 to 15 minutes .
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • 2013 APTA Public Transportation Fact Book
    2013 Public Transportation Fact Book 2013 PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION FACT BOOK 64th Edition October 2013 PUBLISHED BY American Public Transportation Association Fact book historical tables and additional data are available at: http://www.apta.com/resources/statistics/Pages/transitstats.aspx American Public Transportation Association 1666 K Street, N.W., Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20006 TELEPHONE: (202) 496-4800 E-MAIL: [email protected] www.apta.com APTA’s Vision Statement Be the leading force in advancing public transportation. APTA’s Mission Statement APTA serves and leads its diverse membership through advocacy, innovation, and information sharing to strengthen and expand public transportation. prepared by John Neff, Senior Policy Researcher (202) 496-4812 [email protected] Matthew Dickens, Policy Analyst (202) 496-4817 [email protected] PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION FACT BOOK American Public Transportation Association Washington, DC October 2013 Material from the 2013 Public Transportation Fact Book may be quoted or reproduced without obtaining the permission of the American Public Transportation Association. Suggested Identification: American Public Transportation Association: 2013 Public Transportation Fact Book, Washington, DC, October, 2013. TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents APTA AND THE FACT BOOK ......................................... 5 Figure 11: Percent of Systems with Arrival Time Formats .................................................................. 15 NATIONAL DATA SUMMARY ......................................... 6 VEHICLES .....................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • BRT Arlington
    Reconsider the Curb MAITE Conference Curb Space is Limited & in High Demand Transit Delivery Ride Hailing (Uber/Lyft) Bicycle Access Curb Space is Limited & in High Demand Reconsider the Curb: 1 City Block Reconsider the Curb: 1 City Block Reconsider the Curb: 1 City Block 2,000 1,800 1,750 What Does a Curb Space Represent? 1,500 1 car = ~1.1 people / hr. 1,250 1,000 OR 750 500 30 drop-offs = 33+ people / hr. 250 2 minutes per drop-off / pick-up (avg.) Uber, Lyft, Taxi, Micro-Transit, Robot Taxis Reconsider the Curb Chicago, IL ATLANTA DOWNTOWN ATLANTA DOWNTOWN Reconsider the Curb Huntington, NY McKinney, TX Somerville, MA New York, NY (NACTO) Boston, MA Reconsider the Curb: 1 City Block BostonBRT & Local Bus Pilots 2018 Julia Wallerce, Boston Program Manager Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP) September 26th, 2019 ITDP’s Mission: To promote sustainable and equitable transport to create inclusive, people‐oriented cities Our Focus on BRT…. Bus Rapid Transit: • High capacity • High speed • Customer oriented Not an old bus running in a bus lane! Defining BRT Dedicated bus lanes at least 1.9 miles long Use Keywords The BRT Standard online 5 BRT Basics Dar es Salaam Busway Alignment: Bus lanes separated from traffic with a median alignment Eugene, Oregon: Emerald Express (EmX) Off‐board Fare Collection Mexico City, Mexico: Metrobus Platform Level Boarding Ahmedabad, India: Janmarg High‐quality stations: Wide, weather protected, safe, well‐lit Yichang, China Buses with multiple, very wide doors Bogota, Colombia: TransMilenio BRT in the US: 11 cities, 12 corridors U.S.
    [Show full text]