DOCSLIB.ORG

Characteristics of BUS RAPID TRANSIT for Decision-Making

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

United States Federal Transit Administration Department of Transportation Office of Research, Demonstration and Innovation Characteristics of BUS RAPID TRANSIT for Decision-Making Project No. FTA-FL-26-7109.2009.1 February 2009 Photo courtesy of Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Characteristics of BUS RAPID TRANSIT for Decision-Making funded by the Federal Transit Administration FTA Project Manager: Helen M. Tann Transportation Program Specialist Federal Transit Administration Office of Research, Demonstration and Innovation 1200 New Jersey Ave, SE Washington, DC 20590 Principal Investigator: Dennis Hinebaugh Director, National BRT Institute Center for Urban Transportation Research University of South Florida (USF) 4202 E. Fowler Ave, CUT100 Tampa, FL 33620 © February 2009 Federal Transit Administration U.S. Department of Transportation NOTICE This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the United States Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange.The United States government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers.Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the objective of this report. REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20503. 1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND February 2009 DATES COVERED 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision-Making (CBRT) NUMBERS 6. AUTHOR(S) Roderick B. Diaz (editor) Dennis Hinebaugh, National Bus Rapid Transit Institute (Director) FL-26-7109 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION National Bus Rapid Transit Institute REPORT NUMBER Center for Urban Transportation Research University of South Florida FL-26-7109-05 4202 E. Fowler Avenue, CUT100 Tampa, FL 33620 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/ U.S. Department of Transportation MONITORING Federal Transit Administration AGENCY REPORT Office of Research, Demonstration and Innovation (TRI) NUMBER 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 FTA-FL-26-7109.2009.1 11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION Available From: National Bus Rapid Transit Institute, Center for Urban Transportation Research, CODE University of South Florida, 4202 E. Fowler Avenue, CUT100, Tampa, FL 33620 Also available through NBRTI web site: https://www.nbrti.org 13. ABSTRACT The Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision-Making (CBRT) report was prepared to provide transportation planners and decision makers with basic information and data to support the development and evaluation of bus rapid transit concepts as one of many options during alternatives analyses and subsequent project planning. This report provides information on BRT systems in a single, easy to use reference tool for transportation planners in selecting from the large array of BRT elements and integrating them into comprehensive systems. The CBRT report explores BRT through a progression of three different perspectives. First, seven major elements of BRT are presented along with their respective features and attributes. Second, the BRT elements are related to attributes of system performance. Finally, the benefits of BRT systems are discussed. This order of the discussion suggests the relationship between BRT elements, system performance and system benefits. BRT systems are constructed by choosing and integrating among BRT elements. The integration of elements improves system performance and improves the experience for customers. Improvements to system performance (in combination with features of BRT elements) generate benefits to transit agencies and communities. 15. NUMBER OF 14. SUBJECT TERMS PAGES 410 Bus Rapid Transit, BRT, Transit, Public Transportation, Characteristics 16. PRICE CODE 17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 20. LIMITATION OF REPORT OF THIS PAGE OF ABSTRACT OF ABSTRACT Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89) III METRIC/ENGLISH CONVERSION FACTORS ENGLISH- TO METRIC-- METRIC-- TO E_NGLISH- LENGTH (APPROXIMATE) LENGTH (APPROXIMATE) 1 Inch (In) = 2.5 centimeters (cm) 1 millimeter (mm) = 0.04 Inch (In) 1 foot (ft) = 30 centimeters (cm) 1 centimeter (cm) = 0.4 Inch (In) 1 yard (yd) = 0.9 meter (m) 1 meter (m) = 3.3 feet (ft) 1 mile (ml) = 1.6 kilometers (km) 1 meter (m) = 1.1 yards (yd) 1 kilometer (km) = 0.6 mile (ml) AREA (APPROXIMATE) AREA (APPROXIMATE) 1 square Inch (sq In, In') = 6.5 square centimeters 1 square centimeter (cm') = 0.16 square Inch (sq In, In') (cm') 1 square foot (sq ft, ft') = 0.09 square meter (m') 1 square meter (m') = 1.2 square yards (sq yd, yd' ) 1 square yard (sq yd, yd') = 0.8 square meter (m') 1 square kilometer (km') = 0.4 square mile (sq ml, ml') 1 square mile (sq ml, m~) = 2.6 square kilometers 10,000 square meters (m') = 1 hectare (ha) = 2.5 acres (km') 1 acre = 0.4 hectare (he) = 4,000 square meters (m') MASS - WEIGHT (APPROXIMATE) MASS - WEIGHT (APPROXIMATE) 1 ounce (oz) = 28 grams (gm) 1 gram (gm) = 0.036 ounce (oz) 1 pound (lb) = 0.45 kilogram (kg) 1 kilogram (kg) = 2.2 pounds (lb) 1 short ton = 2,000 = 0.9 ~ (I) 1 !9.0J)!(t) = 1,000 kilograms (kg) pounds (lb) = 1.1 short tons VOLUME (APPROXIMATE) VOLUME (APPROXIMATE) 1 teaspoon (tsp) = 5 milliliters (ml) 1 milliliter (ml) = 0.03 fluid ounce (fl oz) 1 tablespoon (tbsp) = 15 milliliters (ml) 1 liter (I) = 2.1 pints (pt) 1 fluid ounce (fl oz) = 30 milliliters (ml) 1 liter (I) = 1.06 quarts (qt) 1 cup (c) = 0.24 liter (I) 1 liter (I) = 0.26 gallon (gal) 1 pint (pt) = 0.47 liter (I) 1 quart (qt) = 0.96 liter (I) 1 gallon (gal) = 3.8 liters (I) 1 cubic foot (cu ft, ft') = 0.03 cubic meter (m' ) 1 cubic meter (m' ) = 36 cubic feet (cu ft, ft' ) 1 cubic yard (cu yd, yd') = 0.76 cubic meter (m' ) 1 cubic meter (m' ) = 1.3 cubic yards (cu yd, yd ') TEMPERATURE CEXACTJ TEMPERATURE (EXACT) [(x-32)(519)) • F = y •c [(915) y + 32] ° C = x ° F QUICK INCH - CENTIMETER LENGTH CONVERSION 0 1 2 3 4 5 Inches I I I I . I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I Centimeters o 1 2 3 4 s 6 7 s 9 10 11 12 13 QUICK FAHRENHEIT- CELSIUS TEMPERATURE CONVERSION °F -4-0° -22° -4° 14° 32° 50° 68° 86° 104° 122° 140° 158° 176° 194° 212° °C -4-0° -30° -20° -10° 0° 10° 20° 30° 40° 50° 60° 70° 80° 90° 100° For more exact and or other conversion factors, see NIST Miscellaneous Publication 286, Units of Weights and Measures. Price S2.50 SD Catalog No. C13 10286 v"'""'."'"" AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This information document was updated and revised for the United States De­ Joseph Calabrese, Greater Cleveland (Ohio) Regional Transit Authority partment of Transportation’s (U.S. DOT) Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Rex Gephart, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority by a consortium of organizations led by the National Bus Rapid Transit Institute (NBRTI) at the Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Alan Danaher, Parsons Brinckerhoff Florida. The consortium includes Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc., STV Incorporated, TranSystems, Washington Group International, and Weststart-CALSTART. Cliff Henke, Parsons Brinckerhoff Roderick Diaz was the principal editor of this document, with editorial contribu­ Peter Koonce, ITS Consultant tions from Lisa Callaghan Jerram, Georges Darido, and Paul Schimek. Contribut­ Herb Levinson, Private Consultant ing authors include Jennifer Flynn, Cheryl Thole, Alasdair Cain, and Victoria Perk of the National Bus Rapid Transit Institute; Richard Laver and Travis Dunn of Ted Orosz, New York City Transit Booz Allen Hamilton; Pilar Rodriguez and Rosemary Gerty of TranSystems; Paul Lurae Stuart, APTA Schimek of Washington Group International; and Greg Moscoe and Lawrence Wnuk of Weststart-CALSTART. Additional data on international BRT systems Stefano Viggiano, Lane Transit District, Eugene, Oregon was collected by Graham Currie of Monash University and Daniel Haufschild of MRC McLean Hazel. Other contributors include Wendy Teague, report de­ Bill Vincent, Breakthrough Technologies sign; Patricia Ball, copy editing; and Pamella Clark and Lisa Ravenscroft, process David Wohlwill, Port Authority of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania coordinators. FTA Project Manager was Helen Tann, Transportation Program Specialist. Nigel Wilson, MIT We are grateful to Renee Haider of the National Transit Institute and to the Sam Zimmerman, World Bank NBRTI Advisory Board for external review and feedback: V TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...............................................................................................................E-1 CHAPTER 4: BRT SYSTEM BENEFITS ...............................................................................
Recommended publications
  • Mobility in Southeast Florida: a New Approach Based on Pricing and Bus Rapid Transit by Robert W

    Mobility in Southeast Florida: a New Approach Based on Pricing and Bus Rapid Transit by Robert W

    Policy Study 400 March 2012 Increasing Mobility in Southeast Florida: A New Approach Based on Pricing and Bus Rapid Transit by Robert W. Poole, Jr. with Thomas A. Rubin, CPA and Chris Swenson, PE Acknowledgement This policy study is the independent work product of Reason Foundation, a non-profit, tax-exempt research institute headquartered in Los Angeles. It was funded by the Galvin Foundation of Chicago as part of a series of urban-region mobility studies in various parts of the United States. The project team received outstanding cooperation from the various agencies in Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach Counties responsible for transportation policy, planning, investment and operations. These include the Florida Department of Transportation Districts 4 and 6, the Miami-Dade Expressway Author- ity, Florida’s Turnpike Enterprise, Miami-Dade Transit, Broward County Transit, PalmTran, the Palm Beach Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), the Broward County MPO, the Miami-Dade County MPO and the Southeast Florida Transportation Council. We gratefully acknowledge their provision of extensive data, response to numerous questions, and review of a draft of this report. Needless to say, the findings and recommendations in this report are those of the authors and Reason Foundation, and do not necessarily reflect the views of any of the region’s transportation agencies. Reason Foundation Reason Foundation’s mission is to advance a free society by developing, applying and promoting libertarian principles, including individual liberty, free markets and the rule of law. We use journalism and public policy research to influence the frameworks and actions of policymakers, journalists and opinion leaders.
  • Ventura/Lompoc Smart Card Demonstration Evaluation: Final Report Volume 1 Technical Performance, User Response, and Institutional Analysis Genevieve Giuliano, James E

    Ventura/Lompoc Smart Card Demonstration Evaluation: Final Report Volume 1 Technical Performance, User Response, and Institutional Analysis Genevieve Giuliano, James E

    CALIFORNIA PATH PROGRAM INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTATION STUDIES UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY Ventura/Lompoc Smart Card Demonstration Evaluation: Final Report Volume 1 Technical Performance, User Response, and Institutional Analysis Genevieve Giuliano, James E. Moore II, Jacqueline Golob California PATH Research Report UCB-ITS-PRR-99-30 This work was performed as part of the California PATH Program of the University of California, in cooperation with the State of California Business, Transportation, and Housing Agency, Department of Transportation; and the United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the State of California. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. Report for RTA 65V313-7 August 1999 ISSN 1055-1425 CALIFORNIA PARTNERS FOR ADVANCED TRANSIT AND HIGHWAYS Ventura/Lompoc Smart Card Demonstration Evaluation: Final Report Volume 1 Technical Performance, User Response, and Institutional Analysis Genevieve Giuliano, James E. Moore II, Jacqueline Golob Research Report MOU RTA 65V313-7 July 1999 DISCLAIMER This work was performed as part of the California PATH Program of the University of California, in cooperation with the State of California Business, Transportation, and Housing Agency, Department of Transportation; and the United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the State of California.
  • Intelligent Transportation Systems: Helping Public Transit Support Welfare to Work Initiatives

    Intelligent Transportation Systems: Helping Public Transit Support Welfare to Work Initiatives

    INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS: HELPING PUBLIC TRANSIT SUPPORT WELFARE TO WORK INITIATIVES Jill A. Hough* Crystal Bahe Mary Lou Murphy Jennifer Swenson Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute North Dakota State University P.O. Box 5074 Fargo, ND 58105 701.231.7767 www.ugpti.org May 2002 *Hough is an Associate Research Fellow, Bahe is a Student Research Assistant, Murphy and Swenson are former UGPTI Student Research Assistants that assisted with this study. Acknowledgments The report has been prepared with funds provided by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) through the Intelligent Transportation System Joint Program Office (ITS JPO) and by the Mountain Plains Consortium (MPC). The MPC receives funding from the U.S. Department of Transportation. Other MPC member universities include North Dakota State University, Colorado State University, University of Wyoming, and Utah State University. The authors would like to thank Bridgewater State College and the Community Transportation Association of America for providing mailing lists. Thanks are extended to the many transit operators that completed the questionnaires. Thank you to Laurel Benson for assistance with the data entry. Thanks also are extended to Kiel Ova and Matthew Martimo for technical assistance in the follow-up Web-based survey. Thank you to Paul Colton of the Metropolitan Council in St. Paul, Minn., for hosting the site visit to Metro. Finally, thank you to Ayman Smadi for his helpful suggestions. Disclaimer The contents of this report reflect the views of the author, who is responsible for the facts and accuracy of the information presented herein. This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation, University Transportation Centers Program, and the Federal Transit Administration, in the interest of information exchange.
  • Attachment A: FY16Q1 Status Update

    Attachment A: FY16Q1 Status Update

    ATTACHMENT A FY16Q1 STATUS UPDATE ON RIDERSHIP AND CUSTOMER SERVICE INITIATIVES MARKET RESEARCH Analysis of Service to Regional Employment Centers Employment is the primary external factor influencing ridership, particularly on our rail and BRT system. Downtown LA can be considered the region’s primary Central Business District (CBD), and as such, is already well served by transit. However, Operations has identified an additional 24 employment centers throughout the region with high densities of employment, regional destinations, and activities. Once identified, ridership in these areas was compared to journey to work data to evaluate current and potential ridership. This information will assist Operations in adjusting services to better meet these employment travel demands. Social Media Research The Communications team is embarking on several efforts to better understand existing and potential new riders through social and electronic media. To better understand existing riders, Communications is partnering with the TAP team to collect rider email addresses to be matched against social media accounts to gain a deeper understanding of rider demographics. Improvements to our Customer Relationship Manager (CRM) system should also provide an opportunity to connect rider information between their TAP usage, social media information, and customer service calls. Communications is also procuring services of a social media advertising buyer tasked with identifying existing and potential riders for targeted advertisement. Using our existing email lists, social media follower information, look-a-like modeling, and third party marketing sources that create customized client lists based on a vast array of consumer information, we will be able to gain insight into the demographic and psychographic characteristics of various rider and non-rider market segments.
  • Bloomington Public Transportation Corporation

    Bloomington Public Transportation Corporation

    Bloomington Public Transportation Corporation Request for Proposals Mobile Ticketing Solution Issued: 6/10/20 Bloomington Public Transportation Corporation 130 West Grimes Lane Bloomington, Indiana 47403 1 BLOOMINGTON PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION CORPORATION REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) FOR MOBILE TICKETING PLATFORM 1. GENERAL Date of issue: 6/10/20 Proposal due date: July 9, 2020 4:00pm EST Contracting agency: Bloomington Public Transportation Corporation (BPTC) 130 W. Grimes Lane Bloomington, Indiana 47403 Funding: This project is financed through grants from the Federal Transit Administration, and any contract entered into is subject to the provisions of applicable laws governing that grant. The successful proposer and all subcontractors shall be required to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations. Federally required contract clauses are included in Appendix A. 2. NOTICE TO PROPOSERS Proposals will be received by Bloomington Public Transportation Corporation (BPTC) for the provision of an app-based mobile ticketing platform to complement its current fare collection system. Such proposals shall be received by BPTC, 130 W. Grimes Lane, Bloomington, Indiana, 47403, until 4:00pm (EST) on July 9, 2020, at which time and place all proposals will be publicly opened. Any requests for exceptions or deviations to this RFP must be received by BPTC by June 19, 2020. Such requests for exceptions or deviations shall be subject to approval by BPTC. Otherwise, it shall be construed that items offered are in strict compliance with the specifications detailed in this RFP, and the successful offeror shall be held responsible for meeting all aspects of the RFP. BPTC reserves the following rights: to waive clarifications and exceptions in awarding a contract in the best interest of BPTC, to accept or reject any or all proposals, to waive any or all irregularities, and to award the contract to the responsive and responsible offeror whose proposal is determined by BPTC to be in its best interest.
  • Detailed Project Report Extension of Mumbai Metro Line-4 from Kasarvadavali to Gaimukh

    Detailed Project Report Extension of Mumbai Metro Line-4 from Kasarvadavali to Gaimukh

    DETAILED PROJECT REPORT EXTENSION OF MUMBAI METRO LINE-4 FROM KASARVADAVALI TO GAIMUKH MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (MMRDA) Prepared By DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD. October, 2017 DETAILED PROJECT REPORT EXTENSION OF MUMBAI METRO LINE-4 FROM KASARVADAVALI TO GAIMUKH MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (MMRDA) Prepared By DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD. October, 2017 Contents Pages Abbreviations i-iii Salient Features 1-3 Executive Summary 4-40 Chapter 1 Introduction 41-49 Chapter 2 Traffic Demand Forecast 50-61 Chapter 3 System Design 62-100 Chapter 4 Civil Engineering 101-137 Chapter 5 Station Planning 138-153 Chapter 6 Train Operation Plan 154-168 Chapter 7 Maintenance Depot 169-187 Chapter 8 Power Supply Arrangements 188-203 Chapter 9 Environment and Social Impact 204-264 Assessment Chapter 10 Multi Model Traffic Integration 265-267 Chapter 11 Friendly Features for Differently Abled 268-287 Chapter 12 Security Measures for a Metro System 288-291 Chapter 13 Disaster Management Measures 292-297 Chapter 14 Cost Estimates 298-304 Chapter 15 Financing Options, Fare Structure and 305-316 Financial Viability Chapter 16 Economical Appraisal 317-326 Chapter 17 Implementation 327-336 Chapter 18 Conclusions and Recommendations 337-338 Appendix 339-340 DPR for Extension of Mumbai Metro Line-4 from Kasarvadavali to Gaimukh October 2017 Salient Features 1 Gauge 2 Route Length 3 Number of Stations 4 Traffic Projection 5 Train Operation 6 Speed 7 Traction Power Supply 8 Rolling Stock 9 Maintenance Facilities
  • The Transit Advocate

    The Transit Advocate

    How to join SO.CA.TA: Yearly dues are $30.00 cates. In all other cases, permission must be ($12.00 low income). Dues are prorated on a secured from the copyright holder. quarterly basis. Disclaimer: The Southern California Transit THE TRANSIT ADVOCATE Submission of materials: ALL materials for the Advocates is not affiliated with any governmental TRANSIT ADVOCATE newsletter go to Andrew agency or transportation provider. Names and Newsletter of the Southern California Transit Advocates Novak at P.O. Box 2383, Downey California 90242 logos of agencies appear for information and or to [email protected]. Please enclose a self reference purposes only. November 2011 Vol. 19, No. 11 ISSN 1525-2892 addressed stamped envelope for returns. SO.CA.TA officers, 2011 Newsletter deadlines are the Fridays a week President: Nate Zablen before SO.CA.TA meetings, at 6:00 p.m. Pacific Vice President: Kent Landfield time, unless otherwise announced. Recording Secretary: Edmund Buckley Executive Secretary: Dana Gabbard Opinions: Unless clearly marked as "Editorial" or Treasurer: Dave Snowden "Position Paper", all written material within, Directors at Large: Ken Ruben including all inserted flyers and postcards, are the J.K. Drummond expressed opinions of the authors and not Joe Dunn necessarily that of the Southern California Transit ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Advocates. Newsletter Editor: Andrew Novak Newsletter Prod. Mgr: Dana Gabbard Copyright: © 2011 Southern California Transit Webmaster: Charles Hobbs Advocates. Permission is freely granted to repro-
  • IV. Environmental Impact Analysis G. Land Use

    IV. Environmental Impact Analysis G. Land Use

    IV. Environmental Impact Analysis G. Land Use 1. Introduction This section of the Draft EIR analyzes the proposed Project’s potential impacts with regard to land use. Specifically, this section analyzes the proposed Project’s consistency with relevant land use plans, policies, and regulations and evaluates the relationship of the proposed Project with surrounding land uses. 2. Environmental Setting a. Existing Conditions (1) Project Site The Project site is comprised of approximately 207 net acres located approximately 1.5 miles southwest of downtown Los Angeles within the South Los Angeles and Southeast Los Angeles Community Plan areas of the City of Los Angeles (City). The Project site is generally bounded by 30th Street and the alley south of 30th Street to the north, Jefferson Boulevard to the northeast, Exposition Boulevard to the south, Hoover Street and Flower Street to the east, and Vermont Avenue to the west. In addition, the Project site also includes a small area to the south of Exposition Boulevard and a second area to the east of the Harbor Freeway (I-110), adjacent to Jefferson Boulevard between Hope and Hill Streets. Of this area, approximately 202.5 net acres are currently owned by the University and approximately 4.5 net acres are owned by others (discussed in detail below).1 In general, these University-owned areas include academic space and University-affiliated uses, student and faculty housing uses, and retail/commercial uses. An overview of existing conditions within each of the Subareas of the Project site is provided below: 1 Non-owned University properties include a gas station (0.5 acres) and the United University Church (0.6 acres) in Subarea 1 and the Jessie L.
  • Ttc Fare Collection Study

    Ttc Fare Collection Study

    TTC FARE COLLECTION STUDY October 2000 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................................3 2. OVERVIEW OF FARE COLLECTION SYSTEMS .........................................................................3 3. CURRENT TTC FARE COLLECTION SYSTEM ............................................................................6 3.1 THE PASSENGERS’ PERSPECTIVE ........................................................................................................6 3.2 FARE REVENUE ACCOUNTING AND PROCESSING...................................................................................9 3.3 FARE EVASION ..................................................................................................................................10 3.4 FARE ARRANGEMENTS BETWEEN THE TTC AND OTHER GTA TRANSIT OPERATORS.............................12 3.5 RECAP OF THE TTC’S CURRENT FARE COLLECTION SYSTEM..............................................................14 4. AUTOMATIC FARE COLLECTION (AFC) TECHNOLOGY.........................................................15 4.1 ADVANCED MAGNETICS .....................................................................................................................15 4.2 SMART CARDS ..................................................................................................................................17 4.3 ADVANCED FARE-VENDING MACHINES AND DISTRIBUTION NETWORKS ................................................20
  • Evolution of the Silver Streak “BRT- Like” Service

    Evolution of the Silver Streak “BRT- Like” Service

    Evolution of the Silver Streak “BRT- Like” Service BRT Conference June 18, 2018 FOOTHILL TRANSIT FACTS • 327 Square Miles • 359 Buses In Fleet • San Gabriel Valley • 329 CNG Buses • Pomona Valley • 30 All Electric Proterra Buses • 37 Lines SLOW POPULATION GROWTH FOOTHILL TRANSIT FACTS • Began Service in December of 1988 • Formed to provide improved service • Increase local control of regional transit • UniqueSLOW Public/Private POPULATION Partnership GROWTH • Public: Joint Powers Authority • 22 member-cities • Los Angeles County • Administration Foothill Transit Employees • Private: Contracted Operations • Pomona Operation Facility – Keolis • Irwindale/ Arcadia Operations Facility – TransDev • Call Center/ Transit Stores/ Bus Stop Technicians- TransDev JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY 22 Cities and the County of Los Angeles Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 • Claremont • Azusa • Arcadia • La VerneSLOW POPULATION• Baldwin GROWTH Park • Bradbury • Pomona • Covina • Duarte • San Dimas • Glendora • Monrovia • Walnut • Irwindale • Pasadena Cluster 4 • West Covina • Temple City • Diamond Bar Cluster 5 • El Monte • First District, County of L.A. • Industry • Fourth District, County of L.A. • La Puente • Fifth District, County of L.A. • South El Monte What is the Silver Streak • A high-speed bus system which operates like a rail line on rubber tires • Incorporates high-tech vehicles, uniform fare structure, stations not stops, and frequent service Vehicles • 60-foot articulated buses • 58-passenger seating capacity • SmartBUS equipped • Boarding through three doors Service • Replace current Line 480 • Easy connections to Metro, Metrolink, Omni, and Foothill Transit local routes Service Map • Reduce travel time by 30-40 minutes • Simple, easy to understand route SILVER STREAK BRT FEATURES (2007) • Unique Branding • Dedicated Fleet • WiSLOW-Fi POPULATION GROWTH • All Door Boarding • Exclusive Right of Way • El Monte Busway (El Monte – Union Station) TAP CARD (2009) SLOW POPULATION GROWTH .
  • TTC RFP Responseq

    TTC RFP Responseq

    TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION BUSINESS CASE ANALYSIS for a SMARTCARD FARE COLLECTION SYSTEM FINAL REPORT May 2007 Business Case Analysis for a Smartcard Fare Collection System – May 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................ i 1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND..................................................................................................................... 3 3.0 OVERVIEW OF A SMARTCARD FARE COLLECTION SYSTEM ......................................................... 6 3.1 FARE COLLECTION – EVOLUTION AND SMARTCARD REVIEW ......................................... 6 3.2 RELATED SERVICES AND CONVENIENCES ......................................................................... 10 3.3 ADVANTAGES OF SMARTCARD FARE COLLECTION .......................................................... 11 3.4 CONVENTIONAL MODEL OF SMARTCARD FARE COLLECTION ........................................ 12 4.0 EXPERIENCE OF OTHER CITIES AND TRANSIT SYSTEMS.............................................................. 14 4.1 OCTOPUS CARDS LIMITED, HONG KONG ............................................................................ 14 4.2 LONDON TRANSPORT............................................................................................................
  • First Impression : the Study of Entry in Architecture

    First Impression : the Study of Entry in Architecture

    Copyright Warning & Restrictions The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Under certain conditions specified in the law, libraries and archives are authorized to furnish a photocopy or other reproduction. One of these specified conditions is that the photocopy or reproduction is not to be “used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research.” If a, user makes a request for, or later uses, a photocopy or reproduction for purposes in excess of “fair use” that user may be liable for copyright infringement, This institution reserves the right to refuse to accept a copying order if, in its judgment, fulfillment of the order would involve violation of copyright law. Please Note: The author retains the copyright while the New Jersey Institute of Technology reserves the right to distribute this thesis or dissertation Printing note: If you do not wish to print this page, then select “Pages from: first page # to: last page #” on the print dialog screen The Van Houten library has removed some of the personal information and all signatures from the approval page and biographical sketches of theses and dissertations in order to protect the identity of NJIT graduates and faculty. FIRST IMPRESSION: THE STUDY OF ENTRY IN ARCHITECTURE by Siriwan Polpuech Thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the New Jersey Institute of Technology in partial fulfilment of the requirement for the degree of Master of Science in Architectural Studies 1989 APPROVAL SHEET Title of Thesis: First Impression: The Study of Entry in Architecture Name of Candidate: Siriwan Polpuech Master of Science in Architectural Studies, 1989 Thesis and Abstract Approved: Prof.