DOCSLIB.ORG

Renewed Vision for Transit State of the System Report Final September 2013

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Renewed Vision for Transit State of the System Report Final September 2013 City Of Boulder Transportation Master Plan Update: Renewed Vision For Transit State Of The System Report Final September 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary Chapter Four: Transit in Boulder Why Transit, Why Now? . ES-1 Fixed Route Transit Service . 4-1 What’s Included in Key Transit Facilities . .4-13 the State of The System Report? . .ES-3 Who Rides Fixed Route Transit in Boulder? . .4-16 How is the Community Involved? . ES-3 Fixed Route Transit System Performance . .4-19 What are the Key Findings ? . .ES-4 Summary of Route Performance . .4-23 Fixed-Route Transit Funding . .4-25 Chapter One: Renewed Vision for Transit Other Transportation Service . .4-27 Key Issues to be Explored in the Renewed Vision for Transit . .4-29 The Transportation Master Plan Update . 1-1 Boulder’s Renewed Vision for Transit . 1-3 Chapter Five: Peer Review Why Focus on Transit? . 1-3 Overview: State of the System Report . 1-4 What is a “Peer Review?” . 5-1 Renewed Vision for Transit Schedule . 1-5 Why a Peer Review for Boulder? . 5-1 The Data . 5-1 Chapter Two: Our Challenge, Our Chance Key Findings . 5-4 Key Issues to be Explored in the Renewed Vision for Transit . 5-7 Community Outreach Process . 2-1 Key Issues and Opportunities from the Public . 2-2 Chapter Six: Transit innovations & Leading Practices Trends that Influence Transit Design . 2-4 Shared Vision with Boulder County Neighbors . 2-7 Transit Services . 6-1 Key Issues to be Explored in the Renewed Vision for Transit . 2-8 Transportation and Land Use . .6-11 Access and Connections . .6-21 Chapter Three: Land Use and Travel Demand Information . .6-31 Transit Amenities . 6-39 History of Land Use in Boulder . 3-1 Fares and Funding . 6-47 The Relationship Between Land Use and Transit Demand . 3-2 Travel Demand in Boulder . 3-11 Future Development In Boulder . .3-28 Appendix A: Route Profiles Future Local and Regional Growth . .3-30 Appendix B: Community Outreach Summary Housing Affordability . 3-30 Key Issues to be Explored in the Renewed Vision for Transit . .3-31 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT I TABLE OF FIGURES Figure ES-1 City of Boulder Mode Split for All Trips, 1990 - 2012 ......................................ES-4 Figure 3-14 Average Daily Ridership in Downtown Boulder ...............................................3-19 Figure ES-2 City of Boulder Average Weekday Daily Transit Ridership, Figure 3-15 Average Daily Ridership in Boulder and Boulder County ...........................3-20 2003 - 2012 ...............................................................................................................................ES-4 Figure 3-16 Average Daily Ridership in the Region....................................................................3-21 Figure ES-3 Average Weekday Ridership by Route, 2003 and 2012 ................................ES-5 Figure 3-17 Ridership Compared to Business Eco Pass Holders ........................................3-22 Figure ES-4 Cost Effectiveness (Cost per Boarding) of Local and Regional Routes ES-5 Figure 3-18 Ridership Compared to Neighborhood Eco Pass Holders ..........................3-23 Figure ES-5 Average Weekday Ridership Compared to In-Service Hours, Figure 3-19 Origin-Destination Pairs in Boulder (2010) ...........................................................3-24 2003 - 2012 ...............................................................................................................................ES-6 Figure 3-20 Origin-Destination Pairs in the Region (2010) ....................................................3-25 Figure ES-6 Route BOLT Ridership History, 2003 - 2012 ..........................................................ES-6 Figure 3-21 Top 10 Origin-Destination Pairs in Boulder (Projected Change Figure ES-7 Bus Ridership by Eco Pass Status: Percent of Respondents Who Made at 2010-2035) ................................................................................................................................3-26 Least One Trip per Week on the Bus, 1998-2012 ..............................................ES-7 Figure 3-22 Origin-Destination Pairs in the Region Figure ES-8 Average Daily Ridership in Boulder and Boulder County ...........................ES-7 (Projected Change 2010-2035) ....................................................................................3-27 Figure ES-9 Growth in Boulder In-Commute, 2006 - 2012 ....................................................ES-8 Figure 3-23 Boulder Projected Employment, Dwelling Unit, and Figure ES-10 Boulder In-Commute Mode Share ............................................................................ES-8 Population Growth, 2012 and 2035 ..........................................................................3-30 Figure ES-12 Projected RTD Service Costs vs. Hours (2001 – 2020) ....................................ES-9 Figure ES-13 City of Boulder Adopted Transportation Budget .............................................ES-9 Figure 4-1 Boulder Local Transit Service ..........................................................................................4-4 Figure ES-11 City Transit Buy-Up History, 2001-2011 ...................................................................ES-9 Figure 4-2 Boulder Regional Transit Service....................................................................................4-5 Figure ES-14 Future Land Use and Key Development Areas in 2035 .............................ES-10 Figure 4-3 Top 10 Local Midday Transit Frequency ...................................................................4-6 Figure ES-15 Intersection Density in West vs. East Boulder ..................................................ES-11 Figure 4-4 Top 10 Local Peak Hour Transit Frequency ...........................................................4-7 Figure ES-16 Top 10 Origin-Destination Pairs and Areas of Trip Growth, 2035.........ES-12 Figure 4-5 Regional Midday Transit Frequency .............................................................................4-8 Figure ES-17 Transit Dependent Riders and Choice Riders for Local and Figure 4-6 Regional Peak Hour Transit Frequency.......................................................................4-9 Regional Riders ...................................................................................................................ES-13 Figure 4-7 Weekday Frequency ..........................................................................................................4-10 Figure ES-17 US 36 BRT Corridor ...........................................................................................................ES-14 Figure 4-8 Saturday Frequency ...........................................................................................................4-11 Figure ES-18 Renewed Vision for Transit Schedule ....................................................................ES-16 Figure 4-9 Sunday / Holiday Frequency ........................................................................................4-12 Figure 4-10 Park-and-Ride Capacity and Utilization, 2012 .....................................................4-14 Figure 1-1 Projected Local Service Hours vs. RTD Service Cost, 2001-2020 ................1-4 Figure 4-11 Inventory of Bus Stops in Boulder..............................................................................4-15 Figure 1-2 Renewed Vision for Transit Schedule ..........................................................................1-5 Figure 4-12 Age of Local and Regional Riders ...............................................................................4-16 Figure 4-13 Transit Dependent Riders and Choice Riders for Local and Figure 2-1 Key Issues and Opportunities ..........................................................................................2-3 Regional Riders ......................................................................................................................4-16 Figure 2-2 Transportation Revenue and Decline in Purchasing Power .........................2-7 Figure 4-14 Vehicle Access ........................................................................................................................4-16 Figure 4-15 Ethnicity .....................................................................................................................................4-17 Figure 3-1 6Ds of Transit-Supportive Development .................................................................3-3 Figure 4-16 Reported Income .................................................................................................................4-18 Figure 3-2 Summary of “6D” Factors .....................................................................................................3-3 Figure 4-17 Type of Employment ..........................................................................................................4-18 Figure 3-3 City of Boulder Mode Split for All Trips, 1990 - 2012 ......................................3-11 Figure 4-18 Average Weekday Ridership Compared to In-Service Hours, Figure 3-4 City of Boulder Mode Split for Commute Trips, 1990 - 2012 .....................3-12 2003-2012 .................................................................................................................................4-19 Figure 3-5 Comparison of Commute Mode Share in Boulder, Denver MSA, Figure 4-19 Boardings per Hour (Productivity), 2003 - 2012 ................................................4-19 and the U.S. .............................................................................................................................3-12
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Full Draft Long Range Plan February 2018
    CONNECTING YOUR FUTURE Everett Transit DRAFT LONG RANGE PLAN Everett Transit Long Range Plan 1 Connecting Your Future 2 Connecting Your Future Table of CONTENTS i Executive Summary i 1 Why a Long Range Plan? 1 2 Transit Today and in the Future 4 3 Everett Transit’s Role 10 4 Our Plan to Move Forward 13 5 Our Financial Future 16 6 Strategy for Implementation 19 Everett Transit Draft Long Range Plan Everett Transit Long Range Plan 3 Connecting Your Future The Goals of the Plan Everett Transit provides safe, customer-focused, cost-efficient, and effective public transit and transportation management services in support of sustainable growth and a livable community. This Long Range Plan services three main goals: 1 Identify future transit service 2 Determine options for implementation 3 Establish service standards Everett Transit Draft Long Range Plan i Everett Transit Long Range Plan i How the Community Helped Develop a Growth Network Plan Everett Transit went out to the community throughout 2017 to help define the vision for transit in the future and to gather feedback on how service should be provided to support continued growth in the region. Respondents described the role they see for Everett Transit in the region and they highlighted their priorities for transit. What We Heard Provide a locally-focused transit network with high frequency and expanded service hours that connects to key destinations and regional transit services. Everett Transit Growth Network Route Frequency (Peak) !#"5 Marysville 15-20 MInutes 30 Minutes E M r a D ri
    [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]
  • What Is Bus Rapid Transit (Brt)?
    Community Transit’s Swift Bus Rapid Transit August 21, 2012 Community Transit Snohomish County is just north of King County. Everett is the largest city within Snohomish County, and is approx 30 miles north of Seattle State Route 99 The SR 99 corridor has the highest density of population and employment in Snohomish County Swift •Swift - all the elements of BRT: •Running Ways •Unique Brand •Vehicles •Fare Collection •Stations •ITS •Service & Operations Plan Swift SR 99 – Everett Station to Aurora Village Transit Center 16.7 miles 5 jurisdictions 28 stations 14 northbound 14 southbound Swift Corridor Infrastructure • Able to leverage existing investments in corridor • 6.7 miles of Business Access Transit (BAT) lanes • 10.5 miles of Transit Signal Priority (TSP) • TSP in City of Everett completed in August 2011 BAT LANES UNIQUE VEHICLES 15 Branded 62 foot articulated, hybrid vehicles Vehicle design contributes to Speed & Reliability On board bike racks for 3 bikes Passive restraint for wheelchairs Swift Station – “a sense of place” The station is located on an 10’x60’ easement - behind the sidewalk. Station elements include weather protection, information kiosk, fare collection, welcome mats, and jurisdictional artwork on the platform. Station Placement Innovative station design Innovative station design Swift Fare Collection Off Board fare collection: 2 Ticket Vending Machines at each station 2 Smart Card readers at each station Customers pay at the station, then board by any door Swift Ambassadors in the corridor randomly check fares SWIFT SERVICE Swift now runs 6 days per week • 5 a.m. until midnight M-F • 6 a.m. until midnight on Saturdays • No Sunday service systemwide 12 minute headways • 5 a.m.
    [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]
  • Best Practices for Engaging Anchor Institutions and Neighborhoods
    Capitol Region Council of Governments Building Corridors of Opportunity: Best Practices for Engaging Anchor Institutions and Neighborhoods Final Report December 1, 2016 Acknowledgements Building Corridors of Opportunity: Best Practices for Engaging Anchor Institutions and Neighborhoods, Final Report was prepared with financial support from the Hartford Foundation for Public Giving. The report was prepared for the Capitol Region Council of Governments by the consulting firm of HR&A Advisors, Inc. Building Corridors of Opportunity, Final Report 2 Table of Contents Executive Summary.........................................................05 Case Studies....................................................................19 Cleveland Healthline...............................................29 East Liberty Revitalization......................................42 Cortex Innovation Community................................52 Maryland TOD Initiative.........................................63 Urban Essex Coalition for Smart Growth............72 Emerald Express (EmX)...........................................82 Appendix..........................................................................90 Building Corridors of Opportunity, Final Report 3 Executive Summary CTfastrak is a bus rapid transit (BRT) service that began operation in 2015, running from downtown Hartford to downtown New Britain, Connecticut. • With a dedicated right-of-way, frequent service, pre-boarding payment system, and specially designed buses, it is one of the highest-rated systems
    [Show full text]
  • Shopping. Work. School. Errands. Swift Bus Rapid Transit. for the Way
    An expanded Swift network in Snohomish County Shopping. Work. School. Errands. Swift Bus Rapid Transit. Snohomish County has a vibrant future, drawing families to move here with a breathtaking setting, specialized services and For the way top-flight employment. For more information on Community Transit’s vision you live. to further increase Swift service, Community Transit is building a world-class visit www.communitytransit.org/Swift transit system to support and connect those growing communities, ensuring quality of life for generations to come. www.communitytransit.org (425) 353-RIDE (7433) 0915/10K Community Transit has changed LOCATION ECONOMIC IMPACT A proposed second line of Swift Bus Rapid Transit is designed to connect the Boeing/ There are currently about 65,000 jobs in the Boeing/Paine Field vicinity. And the way people use public transit Paine Field aerospace manufacturing area in Everett with the Canyon Park technology Snohomish County is the manufacturing center of Washington State. Fast, frequent center in Bothell. The Everett-to-Bothell corridor was chosen because of several factors: new bus service between Canyon Park and Paine Field will provide more incentive Swift instead of driving their cars. This eases in Snohomish County. • Existing lanes on part of the corridor that allow transit access for workers and shoppers to choose congestion and brings economic vitality to the area. • High-density housing and concentrated jobs located nearby • Corridor intersects with the first Swift line at Airport Road For local businesses, the Swift network will provide reliable and frequent options for • New transit facility planned for northern terminal: Seaway Transit Center employees to get to work and will reduce the need for expanded parking facilities.
    [Show full text]
  • Swift Green Line April 11, 2019 Overview
    Swift Green Line April 11, 2019 Overview • Swift BRT Overview • Swift Green Line Project • Snohomish County Partnership • Early Results Swift – Washington’s first BRT ✓ “Overlay BRT” ✓ Stations approx. 3/4-1 mile apart ✓10 minute frequencies – all day Swift Blue Line ➢SR 99 – Everett Station to Aurora Village Transit Center ➢16.7 miles ➢5 jurisdictions ➢29 stations ✓14 northbound ✓15 southbound ✓Stations approx 1 mile apart ➢ Overarching goal – 10 second dwell Swift vehicles: Vehicle design contributes to Speed & Reliability of the Service Station Features • Shelter & wind protection • Seating & Leaning rails • Iconic marker • Off board fare collection: • 2 Ticket Vending machines • 2 ORCA processors • Raised platforms – 10 inch curbs for ease of boarding • Tactile edges • Curb bumpers • Welcome mats with graphics to show where to board • Information kiosk • Lighting – dims at night when service is not operating • Next bus display with audible tone when bus approaches Swift Service Characteristics ◆ Swift runs 7 days per week – 4:20 a.m. – 11:30 p.m. • Every 10 minutes 6 a.m. – 7 p.m. M-F • Every 20 minutes early morning, evenings & weekends ◆ Compulsory stops at all stations ◆ Precision docking with rub rails ◆ Consistently meeting goal of 10 second dwell times System Ridership Swift ridership is more than triple the next closest route • 1 in 6 Community Transit boardings are on Swift December 2018 Swift Green Line – • building the Network Swift Green Line ⚫ Boeing/Paine Field MIC to Canyon Park Park & Ride ⚫ 12.5 miles ⚫ 15 station pairs ⚫ Service every 10 minutes throughout the day SEAWAY TRANSIT CENTER SEAWAY TRANSIT CENTER SEAWAY TRANSIT CENTER SEAWAY TRANSIT CENTER 128th WIDENING @ I-5 Station Construction Swift Coaches Project Cost ◆ Final Project cost estimate is $73,632,000 • Federal Small Starts Grant = $43,190,000 • Federal 5307 Grant funds = $3,360,000 • Regional Mobility Grants = $13,800,000 • Local funding = $13,282,000 (Incl.
    [Show full text]
  • VTA Daily News Coverage for Monday, January 8, 2018 1
    From: VTA Board Secretary Sent: Monday, January 08, 2018 3:07 PM To: VTA Board of Directors Subject: From VTA: January 8, 2018 Media Clips VTA Daily News Coverage for Monday, January 8, 2018 1. VTA introduces new fare app (Mountain View Voice) 2. Bill could add millions of new homes next to California's public transit stations (Silicon Valley Business Journal) 3. Here's what German rail exec says California high-speed rail needs to succeed (Silicon Valley Business Journal) 4. Openings and Construction Starts Planned for 2018 TheTransportPolitic.com VTA introduces new fare app (Mountain View Voice) The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority has unveiled a new, free mobile payment app called EZfare. The app, available for both Android and iPhone, allows transit riders to purchase single rides, day passes and express passes. Single ride fares that are purchased on the app are valid for two hours and include free transfers on buses and VTA's light-rail system. If any part of a rider's two-hour trip includes an express bus, express bus fare will be required. On their website, VTA officials use Levi's Stadium event fare as an example of a ticket that can be purchased. They emphasize the importance of checking the app prior to travel since ticket options do vary by event. Any purchases will be saved in the app history so that riders can access stored, active and expired tickets at any time. Rider history can also be accessed on other smart devices using the account created with the app and a function called "Retrieve My Tickets." Riders can view current pricing for cash or prepaid fares at vta.org/getting-around/fares.
    [Show full text]
  • Regional Priority Projects(Revision 1) 2021
    2021 Regional Priority Projects (revision 1) Needed Regional Priority Projects Legend I-5 - (164th St SW Texas T) $85 M A Needed Regional Priority Projects I-5 - (Poplar Wy Bridge) $39 M B Funded Connecting WA Projects I-5 @ SR 96/128th St SW Interchange $142 M C UGA/Regional Growth Center & D SR 9 - (Widening) $65 M $70 M Manufacturing/Industrial Center E US 2 - (US 2/SR 9 Interch Interim Improve) $9 M City F US 2 - (Trestle Replacement) $1.8 B Railroad G US 2 - Corridor Study $2 M High Capacity Transit H US 2 Design - Corr Widen, Monroe to Sultan $10 M Light Rail Transit (LRT) I US 2 Monroe Bypass $410 M LRT Station 2024 J SR 522 - (Interch & Widen) $157 M LRT Station 2036 K I-405 - (Second Express Toll Lane) * Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Network L SR 524 - (Widening) $100 M CT Blue Line 2009 M SR 527 - (Improve Supporting BRT) $55 M CT Green Line 2019 N SR 99 Revitalization Project - Edmonds $184 M CT Orange Line 2024 O SR 99 - BAT Lanes (148th St SW - Airport Rd) $25 M CT Gold Line 2027 P SR 530 - (Island Crossing Improve) $5.5 M CT Future Line TBD Q SR 531 Widen: 67th Av NE to SR 9 - Arlington $50 M ST3 BRT on I-405 - 2024 R Grove St. Railroad Overcrossing $24 M S 84th St NE Improve: SR 9 to SR 92 $2 M T Paine Field Access (100th St SW) $6.9 M U Alderwood Mall Pwy: SR 525 to 168th St SW $1 M V 36 Av W/35 Av W: 164 St SW - SR 99 $6.3 M W Community Transit Swift BRT Network $235 M X Snohomish County (Local PW Assist.
    [Show full text]
  • Crawley Proposes New T.C. Williams Campus Metroway Saved From
    Vol. 12, No. 44 Alexandria’s only independent hometown newspaper NOVEMBER 3, 2016 Crawley proposes new T.C. Williams campus New schools would solve and Matthew Maury elemen- “We’ve heard repeatedly from overcrowding issues tary schools. It also would add our parents … of the importance by 2027 a new elementary school — in of having the requisite learning BY CHRIS TEALE addition to the proposed new spaces, those optimal learning Schools Superintendent West End school using retrofit- environments, whether they are Alvin Crawley proposed an ted office space — as well as small spaces, whether they are ambitious plan to solve Alex- build a new middle school. classroom spaces, gymnasiums, andria City Public Schools’ The most dramatic aspect auditoriums, or playing fields. capacity crunch by 2027 as of the plan would be to com- Our students deserve the very he unveiled his capital budget pletely demolish the Minnie best that we can give them.” proposal last week. Howard campus of T.C. Wil- In data provided by ACPS Under the plan, between liams High School and replace staff during the Alexandria the 2018 and 2027 fiscal it with a building for ninth and City School Board’s Octo- years ACPS would appropri- 10th graders, adding 717 seats ber 27 meeting, the system ate $515.7 million on projects at a total cost of $118.5 million. is serving 15,354 students to expand capacity, includ- “This is an aggressive budget. during fiscal 2017, compared ing renovations at Douglas This is a budget that reflects a PHOTO/LOUISE KRAFFT MacArthur, George Mason sense of urgency,” Crawley said.
    [Show full text]
  • Swift Green Line
    Swift Green Line Community Transit is finalizing federal and state funding to build a second bus rapid transit line in Snohomish County. The Swift Green Line will run between Bothell/Canyon Park and Boeing/Paine Field, along the Bothell-Everett Highway, 128th/132nd Streets and Airport Road. Swift bus rapid transit is different than local bus service. Swift buses run every 10 minutes and stop at stations that are spaced about a mile apart, rather than the quarter-mile distances of local bus stops. Also, because riders pay their fares at the station and can board the bus through any of three doors, Swift buses are stopped for an average of 10 seconds. That’s why this service is called Swift! Swift Blue Line The Swift Blue Line began operation in late 2009 between Everett Station and Aurora Village Transit Center in Shoreline. It replaced local service operated by Community Transit and Everett Transit and eliminated a transfer at the city line (Hwy 99 & Airport Road). Within 18 months, the Swift Blue Line had broken its four-year ridership projections. Today, about 6,000 riders board the Swift Blue Line every weekday; about 110,000 each month and 1.6 million each year. It is Community Transit’s most popular route. In fact, one out of six Community Transit customers uses the Swift Blue Line. Who rides Swift? Surveys have shown that most people riding Swift are those that live and/or work along the corridor. People take short trips to run errands or grab lunch. Using an ORCA smart card, a single fare lasts for two hours, so many of these round-trips cost only $2.50.
    [Show full text]
  • Central Puget Sound Region Planned Public Transit Investments By
    TRANSPORTATION 2040 Appendix A ALTERNATIVES TECHNICAL REPORT Contents 1. Process of designing the alternatives ...................................................................................1 a. Organizational structure b. Organizational process 2. The alternatives....................................................................................................................3 a. Introduction to the alternatives ......................................................................................3 b. The baseline alternative .................................................................................................3 c. Core strategies for all action alternatives.....................................................................15 d. Alternative 1.................................................................................................................18 e. Alternative 2.................................................................................................................27 f. Alternative 3.................................................................................................................32 g. Alternative 4.................................................................................................................39 h. Alternative 5.................................................................................................................46 i. Preferred Alternative (Constrained) ........................................................................... 55 j. Preferred Alternative (Full
    [Show full text]