Bellevue Transit Briefing Report
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Chapter 2: Trends and Conditions
Chapter 2: Trends and Conditions Introduction Policies, demographics, economic conditions, land use, environmental factors, and travel patterns all change continuously, and each has an influence on which strategies will be effective in providing travelers in Redmond with safe, reliable travel choices. This chapter examines the changes that have influenced this update of the TMP, reports on the current state of the City of Redmond and, where possible, forecasts the conditions that will affect our transportation system in the future. Policy Developments Key Trends In 2011 Mayor John Marchione unveiled his vision for the City of Redmond: “Redmond is a city with two vibrant urban centers — Downtown and Overlake — and connected neighborhoods, providing high quality, responsive services to an engaged citizenry.” Since adoption of the first Transportation Master Plan in 2005, policy actions by the City and regional agencies have refined and reinforced Redmond’s urban center strategy, as well as its goal of increasing the diversity and sustainability of the transportation system. City Vision The vision is intended to influence all City work, from the biennial budget process to Comprehensive Plan updates, and was a guiding force for the Development of multi‑story, TMP. The TMP responds to the community vision through its urban centers mixed land uses with strategy, its attention to neighborhood connections, and its investments to improve mobility citywide for all users. The vision also influenced the residential spaces above development process of the TMP, which included a robust public outreach and engagement component. The comments and opinions voiced by commercial spaces will participants were key to establishing the direction of the plan, which is a spur the local market refinement of the direction established in the 2005 TMP. -
Central Link Initial Segment and Airport Link Before & After Study
Central Link Initial Segment and Airport Link Before & After Study Final Report February 2014 (this page left blank intentionally) Initial Segment and Airport Link Before and After Study – Final Report (Feb 2014) Table of Contents Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................... 1 Before and After Study Requirement and Purposes ................................................................................................... 1 Project Characteristics ............................................................................................................................................... 1 Milestones .................................................................................................................................................................. 1 Data Collection in the Fall .......................................................................................................................................... 2 Organization of the Report ........................................................................................................................................ 2 History of Project Planning and Development ....................................................................................................... 2 Characteristic 1 - Project Scope .............................................................................................................................. 6 Characteristic -
Commuter Parking Needs Analysis Report
Draft COMMUTER PARKING NEEDS ANALYSIS REPORT CITY OF BELLEVUE December 2013 Transportation Department Draft PHOTO BY WSDOT CONTENTS INTRODUCTION . 1 Purpose . 2 CONTEXT . 3 Comprehensive Plan Policies . 3 Transit Master Plan . 4 METHODOLOGY . 6 Transit Corridors . 6 Travel Demand Modeling . 8 PARK-AND-RIDE USE . 10 Modeling Results . 10 South Bellevue Park-and-Ride . 11 Eastgate Park-and-Ride . 12 CONCLUSIONS . 15 Recommendations . 15 REFERENCES . 17 APPENDICES . 18 Acknowledgements . 21 Draft Draft PHOTO BY John Tiscornia INTRODUCTION Commuter parking facilities play an important role in concentrating transit rider demand, often in lower-density areas that would otherwise be unable to support frequent services . These facilities provide convenient access to transit via automobile or bicycle for people who do not live within convenient walking distance of a standard bus stop . Park-and-ride facilities also serve as a meeting place for carpool and vanpool partners . As the regional inventory of housing and employment grows, the demand for roadway capacity increases . Because roadway capacity and the ability to expand roadways is limited, park-and-ride lots provide an important amenity that supports the use of alternatives to the single-occupant vehicle, thereby requiring less overall roadway capacity . Further, by concentrating transit boardings at a single point, a more frequent level of service can be supported . This report reviews commuter parking demand assessments for the greater Bellevue area and considers this demand in light of existing parking facilities . BELLEVUE TRANSIT MASTER PLAN 1 Purpose It is commonly observed that not every park-and- ride lot has the necessary capacity to meet its current demand . -
Rapidride K Line: Speed and Reliability Improvements 2
1 of 14 Funding Application Competition Regional FTA Application Type Main Competition Status submitted Submitted: April 27th, 2020 3:29 PM Prepopulated with screening form? Yes Project Information 1. Project Title RapidRide K Line: Speed and Reliability Improvements 2. Regional Transportation Plan ID 1027 3. Sponsoring Agency King County Metro 4. Cosponsors N/A 5. Does the sponsoring agency have "Certification Acceptance" status from WSDOT? N/A 6. If not, which agency will serve as your CA sponsor? N/A 7. Is your agency a designated recipient for FTA funds? Yes 8. Designated recipient concurrence N/A Contact Information 1. Contact name Eric Irelan 2. Contact phone 206-477-3862 3. Contact email [email protected] Project Description 1. Project Scope This project scope will construct and implement transit speed and reliability improvements for the RapidRide K Line which is scheduled to begin service in 2025. RapidRide K Line will operate between the Kirkland Totem Lake Regional Growth Center and the Eastgate Park and Ride in Bellevue. This new RapidRide Line will replace portions of Metro Route 239, 250, 255, and 271. The K Line will provide service to Downtown Kirkland (a proposed Regional Growth Center), Bellevue Regional Growth Center and local centers along the corridor such as Bellevue College. College. 2 of 14 Proposed improvements include construction of bus lanes, queue jumps, turning restrictions, bus bulbs, signal timing optimization, bus stop spacing management, transit signal priority, turn lanes, traffic channelization improvements, and layover improvements to enhance bus operations. These improvements will provide faster travel times, improve on-time reliability, and safer more convenient access to destinations and transit centers served across the entire 15.24 mile RapidRide I Line corridor. -
The Growing Transit Communities Strategy
The Growing Transit Communities Strategy October 2013 Puget Sound Regional Council PSRC The Growing Transit Communities Partnership is funded by the Sustainable Communities Regional Planning Grant Program of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Additional funding for this document provided in part by member jurisdictions, grants from the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Federal Highway Administration and Washington State Department of Transportation. The work that provided the basis for this publication was supported by funding under an award with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The substance and findings of the work are dedicated to the public. The author and publisher are solely responsible for the accuracy of the statements and interpretations contained in this publication. Such interpretations do not necessarily reflect the views of the Government. PSRC fully complies with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and related statutes and regulations in all programs and activities. For more information, or to obtain a Title VI Complaint Form, see http://www.psrc.org/about/public/titlevi or call 206-464-4819. American with Disabilities Act (ADA) Information: Individuals requiring reasonable accommodations may request written materials in alternate formats, sign language interpreters, physical accessibility accommodations, or other reasonable accommodations by contacting the ADA Coordinator, Thu Le, at 206.464.6175, with two weeks’ advance notice. Persons who are deaf or hard of hearing may contact the ADA Coordinator, Thu Le, through TTY relay 711. Servicios de Traducción Disponible 206-971-3052, Diana Martinez. Có dịch vụ thông dịch sang tiếng Việt. -
Sound Transit Staff Report Motion No. M2008-50
SOUND TRANSIT STAFF REPORT MOTION NO. M2008-50 Declaration of ST Express Buses as Surplus Meeting: Date: Type of Action: Staff Contact: Phone: Finance Committee 5/1/08 Discussion/Possible Action Bonnie Todd, (206) 398-5367 Transportation Services Director John May, Interim (206) 398-5016 Manager, ST Express Bus Operations Contract/Agreement Type: Requested Action: Competitive Procurement Execute New Contract/Agreement Sole Source Amend Existing Contract/Agreement Agreement with Other Jurisdiction(s) Budget Amendment Real Estate Property Acquisition PROJECT NAME ST Express Fleet Replacement PROPOSED ACTION Authorizes the chief executive officer to declare 27 Sound Transit Express buses as surplus and offer them for sale to the public. KEY FEATURES OF PROPOSED ACTION • These 27 1994 Orion coaches have exceeded their useful life of twelve years and have over 500,000 miles each. • These coaches have been replaced by the acquisition of seven new 45-foot MCI coaches and twenty 40-foot Gillig coaches. The coaches have been delivered and are now in service on ST Express routes operated by Pierce Transit. • Pierce Transit will deliver the Orion coaches to an auctioneer for sale; the estimated sale price is $1,000 per bus. The total for 27 surplus buses is estimated to be approximately $27,000. The limited availability of CNG fueling sites negatively affects the resale value of these vehicles. • Revenue from the sale of the vehicles will be returned to the general fund apportioned to the Pierce and South King County subareas. • Sound Transit Administrative Policy #14 allows for the surplus of assets in accordance with RCW 81.112.080. -
Sound Transit 3: Appendix A
June 2016 APPENDIX A Detailed Description of Facilities and Estimated Costs The Regional Transit System Plan for Central Puget Sound TABLE OF CONTENTS Sound Transit 3 Plan Map ................................................................................................................................................................A-1 Total Agency Projects .......................................................................................................................................................................................A-2 Sources and Uses of Funds ..........................................................................................................................................................A-3 Financial Plan (Sources and Uses Summary for ST3) .....................................................................................................................A-5 Snohomish County Subarea Map of Subarea Projects ..............................................................................................................................................................A-7 Summary of Estimated ST3 Program Costs and Revenues ............................................................................................................A-8 North King County Subarea Map of Subarea Projects ..............................................................................................................................................................A-9 Summary of Estimated ST3 Program Costs and Revenues ..........................................................................................................A-10 -
METRO CONNECTS Technical Appendices
METRO CONNECTS Technical Appendices Table of Contents Appendix A. Service Network .................................................... A-2 Appendix B. Capital Costing Methodology ................................ B-1 Appendix C. Speed and Reliability ............................................. C-1 Appendix D. Access to Transit .................................................. D-1 Appendix E. Passenger Facilities .............................................. E-1 Appendix F. Critical Service Supports ........................................F-1 Appendix G. RapidRide Expansion Report ................................ G-1 A-1 Appendix B: METRO CONNECTS Capital Facilities – Passenger Facility Improvements Appendix A. Service Network Service Terms Glossary Alternative services: Transportation services tailored to meet specific community needs. Metro plans and provides these services with partner support throughout King County. Often, the served community lacks the infrastructure, density or land rights to support traditional, fixed-route bus service. Metro’s alternative services include: VanPool, VanShare, Community Access Transportation (CAT), Dial-a-Ride Transit (DART), Community Shuttles, Community Hub and Flexible Rideshare. (See definitions of these services below.) Bus Bulb: Bus bulbs are curb extensions that align the bus stop with the parking lane, allowing buses to stop and board passengers without ever leaving the travel lane. Bus bulbs help buses move faster and more reliably by decreasing the amount of time lost when merging in and out of traffic. Carpool: Commuters travelling similar routes can connect on the Metro Rideshare website and share rides in personal vehicles. Community Access Transportation (CAT): A program that complements paratransit (ACCESS) service by filling service gaps in partnership with nonprofit agencies, such as those serving seniors or people with disabilities. Custom Bus: A program that serves King County commuters and students who travel to locations not well served by fixed-route transit. -
Full Issue 20(1)
Volume 20, No. 1, 2017 David A. King Access to Taxicabs for Unbanked Households: Juan Francisco Saldarriaga An Exploratory Analysis in New York City Dea van Lierop A New Market Segmentation Approach: Ahmed El-Geneidy Evidence from Two Canadian Cities Seyed Amir Hosein Mortazavi A Framework for Measuring the Spatial Equity in the Meisam Akbarzadeh Distribution of Public Transportation Benefits Erkan Isikli Identifying Key Factors of Rail Transit Service Quality: Nezir Aydin An Empirical Analysis for Istanbul Erkan Celik Alev Taskin Gumus Orion T. Stewart The Causal Effect of Bus Rapid Transit Anne Vernez Moudon on Changes in Transit Ridership Brian E. Saelens Xiaodong Liu Impact of Different Bus Stop Designs Yao Yang on Bus Operating Time Components Meng Meng Andreas Rau John Perry Measuring the Accuracy of Bus Rapid Transit Forecasts Inge Brechan Effect of Price Reduction and Increased Service Frequency on Public Transport Travel N C T R Joel Volinski, Editor Lisa Ravenscroft, Assistant to the Editor Patricia Ball, Managing Editor EDITORIAL BOARD Robert B. Cervero, Ph.D. William W. Millar University of California, Berkeley American Public Transportation Association Chester E. Colby Steven E. Polzin, Ph.D., P.E. E & J Consulting University of South Florida Gordon Fielding, Ph.D. Lawrence Schulman University of California, Irvine LS Associates Jose A. Gómez-Ibáñez, Ph.D. George Smerk, D.B.A. Harvard University Indiana University Naomi W. Ledé, Ph.D. Vukan R. Vuchic, Ph.D., P.E. Texas Transportation Institute University of Pennsylvania The contents of this document reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the information presented herein. -
Managed Lanes 2018 Onsite Program.Pub
FINAL PROGRAM Managing Roadways and Transit Together to Move People into a New Age of Technology Joint Midyear Conference September 25–27, 2018 Hilton Bellevue Bellevue, Washington Sponsored by TRB Standing Committees on Managed Lanes, Freeway Operations, and Transit Management and Performance and Joint Subcommittee on Active Traffic Management Supported by Washington State Department of Transportation Sound Transit Community Transit King County Department of Transportation Puget Sound Regional Council Seattle Department of Transportation CONFERENCE PLANNING COMMITTEE Technical Program Committee Carlos Campo, WSP, Co-Lead Organizer Lisa Klein, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Co-Lead Organizer Lisa Burgess, Kimley–Horn Yvonne Carney, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Chadi Chazbek, HNTB, Technical Sessions Steve Corbin, Kapsch Mike Davis, RS&H, Conference Patrons Daniel Lukasik, Parsons, Conference Flyer Phil Masters, Parsons Jon Obenberger, FHWA Chris Pangilinan, Transit Center Dominick Tribone, Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority Nick Wood, Texas A&M Transportation Institute, Student Awards & Scholarships Local Arrangements Committee Ed Barry, Washington State Department of Transportation Jamyang Dorjee, Community Transit Peter Heffernan, King County Transit Mark Leth, Washington State Department of Transportation Kelly McGourty, Puget Sound Regional Council Tyler Patterson, Washington State Department of Transportation Karen Rosenzweig, King County Transit Bernard Van De Kamp, Sound Transit Rachel VerBoort, -
Rapidride B Line Customer Satisfaction Report
Rider Satisfaction Study February 2020 Prepared for: Mobility Division Research Conducted by: 2 Table of Contents Page 4-5 Background and Objectives Page 34-42 Travel Behaviors/RapidRide Usage Page 6-8 Methodology Page 34 Transit Trips Taken Page 9-10 Reporting Conventions Page 35 Length of Metro Ridership Page 11-13 Key Findings Page 36 Day and Times of Riding Page 14- 51 Detailed Findings Page 37 Reason for Riding Page 15-16 Demographics/Travel Behavior Dashboards Page 38 Transfer Page 17-18 Rider Profile Page 39 Usage Decline Page 19-25 Service Satisfaction Page 40-42 Fares: Mode of Payment/Enforcement Experience Page 19 Overall Satisfaction with RapidRide Page 43-56 Past Wave Comparison Page 20 Experience Page 45 Rider Profile Page 21 Travel Time and Reliability Page 46 Service Satisfaction Summary Page 22 Condition of Buses and Bus Shelters Page 47 Overall Satisfaction Page 23 Cleanliness of Buses and Bus Shelters Page 48-50 Past Wave Comparison with Service Elements (detail) Page 24 Personal Safety – During the Day Page 51 RapidRide B to Other Metro Bus Service Comparison Page 25 Personal Safety – At Night Page 52-56 Travel Behaviors/RapidRide Usage Page 26 Willing to Recommend Page 52 Transit Trips Taken Page 27-28 Recommendations for Improvement Page 53 Reason for Riding Page 29-31 Avoidance/Recommendations for Personal Safety Page 54 Transfer Page 32-33 RapidRide B to Other Metro Bus Service Comparison Page 55-56 Fares: Mode of payment/Enforcement Experience Page 57-59 Appendix Page 58-59 Questionnaire 3 Background and Objectives The goal of this survey effort is to refresh Metro’s understanding of RapidRide customer satisfaction on a line-by-line and system-wide basis. -
Sounder Stations Access Study
Sounder Stations Access Study Report September 2012 Prepared for: Prepared by the URS Team Table of Contents Chapter 1: Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1-1 Why are we conducting this planning study? ......................................................................... 1-1 What will you find in this report? ............................................................................................ 1-3 Chapter 2: Inventory of Existing Conditions/Data Collection and Access Deficiency Assessment (Phases 2 and 3) ............................................................................ 2-1 How have we reached the community? ................................................................................. 2-1 What is the state of each Sounder station? ............................................................................ 2-3 Chapter 3: Evaluation Criteria (Phase 4) ............................................................................. 3-1 Sounder Access Study Evaluation Criteria ............................................................................... 3-1 Chapter 4: Alternatives Analysis (Phase 5).......................................................................... 4-1 Methods .................................................................................................................................. 4-3 Station-by-Station Access Summary ......................................................................................