DOCSLIB.ORG

Quantifying the Benefits of Bus Rapid Transit Elements

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Quantifying the Benefits of Bus Rapid Transit Elements Quantifying the Benefits of Bus Rapid Transit Elements August 2010 FTA-DC-26-7308-2010.1 Quantifying the Benefits of Bus Rapid Transit Elements Funded by the Federal Transit Administration Project Manager: Helen M. Tann Transportation Program Specialist FTA Office of Mobility Innovation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 1 Quantifying the Benefits of Bus Rapid Transit Elements Project Team: William Vincent, Breakthrough Technologies Institute John Niles, Global Telematics Elizabeth Delmont, Breakthrough Technologies Institute Sandra Curtin, Breakthrough Technologies Institute August 2010 NOTICE This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. 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 of manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the objective of this report. 2 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors wish to thank Mr. Walter Kulyk, Mr. Venkat Pindiprolu, and Ms. Helen Tann of FTA’s Office of Mobility Innovation for their support and guidance in implementing this project. The authors also want to thank the many organizations that participated in the workshop organized at the beginning of this project, including: • Chicago Transit Authority • Center for Urban Transportation Research/National Bus Rapid Transit Institute, University of South Florida • Federal Transit Administration • Lane Transit District • City of Los Angeles • Maryland Transit Administration • Montgomery County DOT • Nelson/Nygaard • Pace Suburban Bus • Parsons Brinckerhoff • Santa Clara VTA • University of Washington • Washington State DOT • Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority • The World Bank The authors would also like to thank the transit agencies that provided data for this project: • Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority • TransLink Vancouver, British Columbia • Metro Transit King County, Washington • Chicago Transit Authority • Lane Transit District, Eugene, Oregon • Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada, Las Vegas • Kansas City Area Transportation Authority • Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority • York Region Transit, Ontario 3 Form Approved REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB No. 0704-0188 1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES August 2010 COVERED 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING/GRANT Quantifying the Benefits of Bus Rapid Transit Elements NUMBER 6. AUTHOR(S William Vincent, John Niles, Elizabeth Delmont, Sandra Curtin DC-26-7308 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT Breakthrough Technologies Institute Global Telematics NUMBER 1100 H Street, NW. Suite 800 4005 20th Avenue West, Suite 111 Washington, DC 20005 Seattle, Washington 98199 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING Federal Transit Administration AGENCY REPORT U.S. Department of Transportation Website: NUMBER 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE http://www.fta.dot.gov/research Washington, DC 20590 FTA-DC-26-7308-2010.1 11. SUPPLEMNTARY NOTES 12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE Available From: National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, VA 22161. Phone 703.605.6000, Fax 703.605.6900, Email [[email protected]] 13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words). The purpose of this study was to quantify the benefits of elements of Bus Rapid Transit. Data was collected through voluntary surveys sent to transit agencies across North America, and information was solicited from European systems as well. The final data set included information on 119 individual rapid bus and BRT lines from 9 different transit agencies across North America. Agencies included Los Angeles, Eugene, King County, Vancouver, Las Vegas, Chicago, Kansas City, Washington D.C., and York Region. From the collected data, datasets were built for the AM peak, PM peak, and the combined AM/PM Peak. A stepwise regression was conducted using travel time as the dependant variable. Independent variables included route length, station density, dedicated lanes, traffic signal priority (TSP), low floor buses, and number of boarding doors. The effects of other BRT elements, such as off-board fare collection, are believed to be implicitly captured by the model. The results found significant and consistent travel time benefits for a number of BRT elements. However, the travel time benefits for TSP were not conclusive, in some cases showing decreased travel times, while in other cases showing increased travel times. Additional research is needed to better understand the travel time benefits of TSP. Moreover, future research would benefit from standardized data reporting and collection, to ensure that metrics and data are consistent across transit agencies. 14. SUBJECT TERMS: Bus rapid transit, BRT, elements, components, travel time 15. NUMBER OF PAGES savings, benefits, rapid bus 77 16. PRICE CODE 17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 18. SECURITY 19. SECURITY 20. LIMITATION OF OF REPORT CLASSIFICATION CLASSIFICATION ABSTRACT Unclassified OF THIS PAGE OF ABSTRACT Unclassified Unclassified 4 5 Contents ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................................ 3 LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................................... 7 LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................................ 8 TABLE OF ACRONYMS ............................................................................................................................ 9 FOREWORD .............................................................................................................................................. 10 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................ 11 I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 16 a. Background ..................................................................................................................................... 16 b. Study Objectives ............................................................................................................................. 17 c. Approach ......................................................................................................................................... 17 II. STUDY CONTEXT ............................................................................................................................ 18 a. Defining BRT .................................................................................................................................. 18 b. Description of BRT Routes Included in the Study.......................................................................... 21 i. Los Angeles, California- Metro Rapid and Orange Line Busway .............................................. 22 ii. Vancouver, British Columbia – B-Line and TransLink Frequent Service Network .................. 23 iii. King County, Washington – King County Metro ....................................................................... 24 iv. Chicago, Illinois - Express and Limited Bus Lines .................................................................... 24 v. Eugene and Springfield, Oregon- EmX ...................................................................................... 25 vi. Las Vegas, Nevada - MAX ........................................................................................................ 26 vii. Kansas City, Missouri - MAX .................................................................................................. 26 viii. Washington, DC Metro Area – Express Bus Service ................................................................ 27 ix. York Region, Ontario - VIVA ................................................................................................... 28 III. LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................................... 30 a. Running Way .................................................................................................................................. 33 b. Stations ............................................................................................................................................ 34 c. Vehicles........................................................................................................................................... 36 d. Fare Collection ................................................................................................................................ 38 e. Intelligent Transportation Systems ................................................................................................. 39 f. Service and Operations ................................................................................................................... 42 g. Branding .......................................................................................................................................... 43 IV. QUANTIATIVE ASSESSMENT OF BRT ELEMENTS .............................................................
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]
  • For Transit Information, Including Real-Time Next Bus, Please Call 604.953.3333 Or Visit Translink.Ca
    Metro Vancouver Transit Map Effective Until Dec. 19, 2016 259 to Lions Bay Ferries to Vancouver Island, C12 to Brunswick Beach Bowen Island and Sunshine Coast Downtown Vancouver Transit Services £ m C Grouse Mountain Skyride minute walk SkyTrain Horseshoe Bay COAL HARBOUR C West End Coal Harbour C WEST Community Community High frequency rail service. Canada Line Centre Centre Waterfront END Early morning to late Vancouver Convention evening. £ Centre C Canada Expo Line Burrard Tourism Place Vancouver Millennium Line C Capilano Salmon Millennium Line Hatchery C Evergreen Extension Caulfeild ROBSON C SFU Harbour Evelyne Capilano Buses Vancouver Centre Suspension GASTOWN Saller City Centre BCIT Centre Bridge Vancouver £ Lynn Canyon Frequent bus service, with SFU Ecology Centre Art Gallery B-Line Woodward's limited stops. UBC Robson Sq £ VFS £ C Regular Bus Service Library Municipal St Paul's Vancouver Carnegie Service at least once an hour Law Edgemont Hall Community Centre CHINATOWN Lynn Hospital Courts during the daytime (or College Village Westview Valley Queen
    [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]
  • Sunrail.Com Not to Scale
    WELCOME ABOARD! BROCHURE LYMMO is your ride to great places M around Downtown Orlando. Whether you’re heading to work, a meal, or one of the many attractions Downtown, LYMMO’s frequent service and bus-only lanes will get you there faster. LYNX is the public transit provider for LYMMO Orange, Lime and And when you’re riding LYMMO, you Orange, Osceola and Seminole counties. never have to worry about parking. Additional connectivity with Grapefruit Lines If you don’t see your destination here, Lake and Polk counties. CONTACT US and we can connect you DIRECT SERVICE TO: to the right LYMMO. CONTACT US for information on fares, bus stops, schedules and trip planning: Amway Center Heritage Square Ready to roll? Look inside for more info... Bob Carr Theater Lake Eola Park 407-841-5969 phone County Courthouse LYNX Central Station 407-423-0787 tdd County Health Dept Orlando City Stadium Dr Phillips Center Parramore Notice of Title VI Rights: LYNX operates its programs and services without regard to race, color, golynx.com web religion, gender, age, national origin, disability, or family status in accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Any person who believes Effective: he or she has been aggrieved by any unlawful discriminatory practice APRIL 2017 related to Title VI may file a complaint in writing to LYNX Title VI Officer Desna Hunte, 455 N. Garland Avenue, Orlando, Florida 32801 or by calling THANK YOU FOR RIDING LYNX! 407-254-6117, email [email protected] or www.golynx.com. Information in other languages or accessible formats available upon request.
    [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]
  • 2018 Transit Service Guidelines
    2018 TRANSIT SERVICE GUIDELINES DRAFT: June 6, 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION 2 3 REFERENCE INFORMATION 48 1.1 What are the Transit Service Guidelines? 3 3.1 Vehicle Capacity Reference Table 49 1.2 Using the Transit Service Guidelines 5 3.2 Service Productivity Reference Tables 50 1.3 Understanding Service Types 7 2 TRANSIT SERVICE GUIDELINES 10 APPENDIX 54 2.1 Overview 11 A Glossary 55 2.2 Layout and Organization 12 B References 59 DI Demand-oriented Service 14 C Acknowledgements 60 D.1 Transit-supportive Land Use and Demand 16 U Useful Service 20 U.1 Passenger Load 21 U.2 Stop Spacing 24 U.3 Service Frequency 26 U.4 Span of Service 28 U.5 Punctuality and Regularity 30 U.6 Route Design 34 PE Productive and Efficient Service 38 PE.1 Boardings per Revenue Hour 40 PE.2 Capacity Utilization 42 PE.3 Passenger Turnover 44 PE.4 Cost per Boarded Passenger 46 2 TransLink Transit Service Guidelines 1 Introduction 1. Introduction 1.1 What are the Transit Service Guidelines? 1.2 Using the Transit Service Guidelines 1.3 Understanding Service Types TransLink is the transportation authority for the Vancouver metropolitan area. It has responsibility for planning, managing, and delivering an integrated regional transit network—including rapid transit, commuter rail, and bus services—to provide access and mobility for people across the region. In consultation with stakeholders and customers, TransLink determines where demand is greatest, what types of service are most appropriate, and how resources are prioritized. The Transit Service Guidelines provide a framework for achieving these objectives and delivering a transit network useful to the greatest number of people.
    [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]
  • Effective Strategies for Congestion Management
    EFFECTIVE PRACTICES FOR CONGESTION MANAGEMENT: FINAL REPORT Requested by: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Prepared by: Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Cambridge, MA Resource Systems Group, Inc. Burlington, VT November 2008 The information contained in this report was prepared as part of NCHRP Project 20-24(63), National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board. Acknowledgements This study was requested by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), and conducted as part of National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Project 20-24. The NCHRP is supported by annual voluntary contributions from the state Departments of Transportation (DOTs). Project 20-24 is intended to fund studies of interest to the leadership of AASHTO and its member DOTs. Christopher Porter of Cambridge Systematics was the lead author of the report, working with John Suhrbier of Cambridge Systematics and Peter Plumeau and Erica Campbell of Resource Systems Group. The work was guided by a task group chaired by Constance Sorrell which included Daniela Bremmer, Mara Campbell, Ken De Crescenzo, Eric Kalivoda, Ronald Kirby, Sheila Moore, Michael Morris, Janet Oakley, Gerald Ross, Steve Simmons, Dick Smith, Kevin Thibault, Mary Lynn Tischer, and Robert Zerrillo. The project was managed by Andrew C. Lemer, Ph. D., NCHRP Senior Program Officer. Disclaimer The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied are those of the research agency that performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Trans- portation Research Board or its sponsors. The information contained in this document was taken directly from the submission of the author(s). This docu- ment is not a report of the Transportation Research Board or of the National Research Council.
    [Show full text]
  • Sunrail Connections 1, 9, 11, 14, 18, 23, 34, 40, 42, 45, Riding LYNX Is Also Easy on Your Wallet
    WELCOME ABOARD! BROCHURE SUNRAIL LYNX operates 85 Links to great places R throughout Central Florida. If you don’t see CONNECTIONS your destination here, CONTACT US and we can connect you to the right Link for your trip. LYNX SunRail Connections 1, 9, 11, 14, 18, 23, 34, 40, 42, 45, Riding LYNX is also easy on your wallet. LYNX is the public transit provider for 46E-W, 102, 111, 125, 208, FL 418, You can pay for your trip as you board the bus: Orange, Osceola and Seminole counties. 434, 436N, 443, 505 Additional connectivity with ONE RIDE ALL-DAY Links 204, 208, 416, and Lake and Polk counties. 427 observe a different $2.00 $4.50 fare structure. CONNECTING BUS SERVICE TO SUNRAIL STATIONS: Please see individual CONTACT US for information on fares, Sanford Florida Hospital Regular Regular Link schedules for more bus stops, schedules and trip planning: Health Village information. Lake Mary $1.00 $2.25 Longwood LYNX Central Station with LYNX with LYNX EXACT FARE REQUIRED discount fare ID discount fare ID No change given. 407-841-5969 phone Altamonte Springs Church Street Maitland Orlando Health/Amtrak Ready to roll? Look inside for more info... 407-423-0787 tdd Winter Park Sand Lake Road Notice of Title VI Rights: LYNX operates its programs and services without regard to race, color, golynx.com web religion, gender, age, national origin, disability, or family status in accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Any person who believes Effective: he or she has been aggrieved by any unlawful discriminatory practice APRIL 2014 related to Title VI may file a complaint in writing to LYNX Title VI Officer Desna Hunte, 455 N.
    [Show full text]