DOCSLIB.ORG

Durham County Transit Plan Through 2045 Approved April 24, 2017 | E Ective April 28, 2017

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Durham County Transit Plan through 2045 Approved April 24, 2017 | E ective April 28, 2017 2017 Durham County Transit Plan and Orange County Transit Plan Governing Boards Durham County Board of Commissioners Orange County Board of Commissioners Wendy Jacobs, Chair Mark Dorosin, Chair James Hill, Vice Chair Penny Rich, Vice Chair Heidi Carter Mia Day Burroughs Brenda A. Howerton Barry Jacobs Ellen W. Reckhow Mark Marcoplos Wendell Davis, County Manager Earl McKee Renee Price Bonnie Hammersley, County Manager Durham‐Chapel Hill‐Carrboro GoTriangle Metropolitan Planning Organization Policy Board Board of Trustees Steve Schewel, Chair Jennifer Robinson, Chair Damon Seils, Vice Chair Ellen W. Reckhow, Vice Chair Ed Harrison Will Allen III, Secretary Pam Hemminger Ed Harrison, Treasurer Karen Howard Mary‐Ann Baldwin Barry Jacobs William V. “Bill” Bell Brian J. Lowen Sig Hutchinson Don Moffitt Barry Jacobs Ellen W. Reckhow Wendy Jacobs Nina Szlosberg‐Landis Vivian Jones William V. “Bill” Bell Jeff Mann, General Manager James G. Crawford Wendy Jacobs Lydia Lavelle Michael Parker Penny Rich Jenn Weaver John Sullivan Felix Nwoko, MPO Administrator 2017 Durham County Transit Plan and Orange County Transit Plan Members of the Staff Working Groups and other staff participants in the preparation of the Plans Orange County GoTriangle Durham County Tom Altieri Tammy Bouchelle Jessica Brown‐Linton Craig Benedict Katharine Eggleston Drew Cummings Max Bushell Juan Carlos Erickson Willie Darby Gary Donaldson Saundra Freeman George Quick Theo Letman Geoff Green Linda Thomas‐Wallace Peter Murphy Jennifer Green Travis Myren Tom Henry City of Durham John Roberts Erik Landfried Ellen Beckmann Patrick McDonough Terry Bellamy Town of Chapel Hill Mary Kate Morookian David Boyd David Bonk Danny Rogers Harmon Crutchfield Brian Litchfield Sharita Seibles Pierre Osei‐Owusu Ken Pennoyer Marisol Suarez Nick Pittman Jeffrey Sullivan Kayla Seibel John Tallmadge Mila Vega Mindy Taylor Bergen Watterson Gary Tober Town of Carrboro DCHC MPO Tina Moon Aaron Cain Felix Nwoko Town of Hillsborough Meg Scully Margaret Hauth Triangle J Council of Governments University of North Carolina John Hodges‐Copple Kurt Stolka Matthew Day Durham County Transit Plan Effective Date: April 28, 2017 Table of Contents Wake‐Durham Commuter Rail Project ........................ 21 3.4.1 Federal Funding Assumptions ............................................. 21 Executive Summary .......................................................... ES‐1 3.4.2 State Funding Assumptions ................................................. 21 3.4.3 Local Funding Assumptions ................................................. 21 1 About this Plan ............................................................. 6 4 Program of Projects and Services ................................ 22 Why Transit? ................................................................ 6 Bus Service ................................................................. 22 Goals of this Transit Plan .............................................. 8 4.1.1 Increased Cost of Existing Service ....................................... 23 Transit Providers .......................................................... 9 4.1.2 Continuing Expansion Bus Service ...................................... 23 4.1.3 Additional Expansion Bus Service ....................................... 24 Plan Governance ........................................................ 10 4.1.4 Operating Costs, Schedule, and Funding Assumptions ....... 25 4.1.5 Upcoming Activities ............................................................ 25 2 Status of Planned Projects and Services from the 2011 Vehicle Purchases ....................................................... 26 Plan ................................................................................... 11 4.2.1 Capital Costs, Schedule, and Funding Assumptions ............ 26 Bus Service Expansion ................................................ 12 4.2.2 Upcoming Activities ............................................................ 26 Bus Facilities ............................................................... 14 Bus Facilities .............................................................. 26 Durham‐Orange Light Rail Transit Project ................... 14 4.3.1 Transit stop improvements ................................................. 28 4.3.2 Transit Emphasis Corridors ................................................. 28 Wake‐Durham Commuter Rail Transit Project ............ 16 4.3.3 Park‐and‐Ride Facilities ....................................................... 29 4.3.4 Transit Centers .................................................................... 29 Meeting Additional Needs in Original Plan – Light Rail 4.3.5 Capital Costs, Schedule, and Funding Assumptions ............ 29 Dividend ................................................................................. 16 4.3.6 Operating Costs, Schedule, and Funding Assumptions ....... 30 4.3.7 Upcoming Activities ............................................................ 30 3 Status of Funding Assumptions ................................... 18 Durham‐Orange Light Rail Transit Project ................... 32 Bus Services ................................................................ 18 4.4.1 Capital Cost, Schedule, and Funding Assumptions ............. 32 Vehicles and Bus Facilities .......................................... 18 4.4.2 Operating Cost and Funding Assumptions .......................... 34 4.4.3 State of Good Repair Costs, Schedule, and Funding 3.2.1 Federal Funding Assumptions ............................................. 18 Assumptions ...................................................................................... 34 3.2.2 State Funding Assumptions ................................................ 19 4.4.4 Upcoming Activities ............................................................ 34 Durham‐Orange Light Rail Project ............................... 19 Wake‐Durham Commuter Rail Project ........................ 36 3.3.1 Federal Funding Assumptions ............................................. 19 4.5.1 Capital Cost, Schedule, and Funding Assumptions ............. 37 3.3.2 State Funding Assumptions ................................................ 20 4.5.2 Operating Cost and Funding Assumptions .......................... 37 3.3.3 Cost‐Share Assumptions ..................................................... 20 Final i Durham County Transit Plan Effective Date: April 28, 2017 Administrative and Service Support ............................ 37 Light Rail Cost‐Sharing Agreement.............................. 58 4.6.1 Operating Costs, Schedule, and Funding Assumptions ....... 38 Project‐Specific Agreements ....................................... 58 Additional Needs Identified in this Plan ...................... 38 Annual Budgets .......................................................... 58 4.7.1 Bus Service .......................................................................... 38 4.7.2 Vehicles ............................................................................... 39 Work Plans ................................................................. 59 4.7.3 Bus Facilities ........................................................................ 39 Updating the Plan ...................................................... 59 4.7.4 Durham‐Orange Light Rail Transit Project .......................... 40 4.7.5 Wake‐Durham Commuter Rail Transit Project ................... 40 7 Development of this Plan and Public Involvement ...... 60 4.7.6 Administrative and Service Support ................................... 41 Notification of Availability .......................................... 60 5 Financial Plan .............................................................. 42 Opportunities to Provide Public Comment ................. 60 Dedicated Tax District Revenues ................................. 44 Opportunities to Learn About the Transit Plans .......... 61 5.1.1 Article 43 Half‐Cent Sales Tax ............................................. 44 5.1.2 Article 50 GoTriangle Vehicle Rental Tax ............................ 45 Dissemination of Comments ....................................... 61 5.1.3 Article 51 Three Dollar Vehicle Registration Fee ................ 45 Summary of Comments .............................................. 62 5.1.4 Article 52 Seven Dollar Vehicle Registration Fee ................ 46 5.1.5 Actual Tax District Revenue, Fiscal Years 2014 through 2016 7.5.1 Online Survey ...................................................................... 63 46 5.1.6 Projected Transit Tax Revenues, Fiscal Years 2017 through 2045 47 Financing Assumptions ............................................... 47 Transit Plan adopted by Interest Rates ............................................................. 49 Debt Service Coverage ................................................ 49 Durham County Board of Commissioners on April 24, 2017 Reserves ..................................................................... 52 Durham‐Chapel Hill‐Carrboro Metropolitan Planning 5.5.1 Operations and maintenance ............................................. 52 Organization Policy Board on April 28, 2017 5.5.2 Debt service ........................................................................ 52 GoTriangle Board of Trustees on April 28, 2017 Cash Flow Summary ................................................... 52 Key Financial Issues ...................................................
Recommended publications
  • Countywide Bus Rapid Transit Study Consultant’S Report (Final) July 2011

    Countywide Bus Rapid Transit Study Consultant’S Report (Final) July 2011

    Barrier system (from TOA) Countywide Bus Rapid Transit Study Consultant’s Report (Final) July 2011 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION COUNTYWIDE BUS RAPID TRANSIT STUDY Consultant’s Report (Final) July 2011 Countywide Bus Rapid Transit Study Table of Contents Executive Summary .............................................................................................................. ES-1 1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Key additional elements of BRT network ...................................................................... 2 1.1.1 Relationship to land use ........................................................................................ 2 1.1.2 Station access ...................................................................................................... 3 1.1.3 Brand identity ........................................................................................................ 4 1.2 Organization of report .................................................................................................. 5 1.3 Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................ 5 2 Study Methodology ............................................................................................................. 7 2.1 High-level roadway screening ...................................................................................... 9 2.2 Corridor development and initial
  • Transit Optimization Plan September 2017

    Transit Optimization Plan September 2017

    Transit Optimization Plan September 2017 Prepared by: Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................6 Goals and Focus ........................................................................................................... 6 Study Process ............................................................................................................... 7 Report Contents ........................................................................................................... 8 Existing Conditions .....................................................................................................................9 Market Assessment ...................................................................................................... 9 Population ..........................................................................................................................9 Employment .......................................................................................................................9 Development Patterns ........................................................................................................9 Regional Growth ............................................................................................................... 10 Growth in Senior Population ............................................................................................. 10 Transit’s Role in Mobility ..................................................................................................
  • Part 1: Downtown Transit Center and Circulator Shuttle

    Part 1: Downtown Transit Center and Circulator Shuttle

    Howard Research and Development Corporation Downtown Columbia Downtown Transit Center and Circulator Shuttle Feasibility Study: Part 1 - Downtown Transit Center & Downtown Circulator Shuttle (Part of CEPPA #5) DRAFTDecember 2011 Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................. iv Chapter 1. Downtown Columbia Transit Center ....................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 2. Downtown Columbia Circulator Shuttle ............................................................................................... 12 Appendix A. Regional Transit System Evaluation .............................................................................................. 21 Appendix B. Regional Transit Market Analysis .................................................................................................. 46 Appendix C. Transit Circulator Design ................................................................................................................ 64 Appendix D. Transit Center Site Evaluation ...................................................................................................... 764 Appendix E. Transit Development Plan ............................................................................................................... 79 DRAFT Page i• Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Table of Figures Figure 1 Existing
  • Operations and Financial Analysis

    Operations and Financial Analysis

    OPERATIONS AND FINANCIAL ANALYSIS APRIL 22, 2015 PREPARED BY: LOUIS BERGER WATER SERVICES TABLE OF CONTENTS A) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY B) OPERATIONS ANALYSIS C) FINANCIAL ANALYSIS D) APPENDICES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction Louis Berger was tasked by the Baltimore City Department of Transportation (BCDOT) to evaluate the Charm City Circulator (CCC) bus operation and analyze financial performance, and develop route operations alternatives that maximize ridership while minimizing costs. Objective The objective is to develop and evaluate alternatives to eliminate the annual deficits while providing maximum service to riders within existing financial resources. Description of Current System Existing Condition The CCC consists of four routes, Purple, Orange, Green and Banner providing “Fast. Friendly. Free.” service throughout downtown Baltimore 362 days per year, with hours of service varying by day type and by season. Key characteristics of each route: Purple Route- runs north - south from Federal Hill to Historic Mount Vernon. Ten (10) minute headways require six (6) buses to operate. Heaviest ridership of all the routes. Orange Route- runs east – west from Historic Fell’s Point and Harbor Point in the east beyond University of Maryland, Baltimore in the west. Ten (10) minute headways require five (5) buses to operate. Ridership is second best in the system. Green Route- roughly U shaped route serves Johns Hopkins University Hospital East Baltimore Campus (JHUH) connecting south to Harbor Point and Harbor East, then northwest to park and ride lots, looping down near City Center then back around. Ten (10) minute headways require six (6) buses. Longest route, least productive in terms of riders. Banner Route- angles southeast of the city past Federal Hill to Fort McHenry.
  • Chapter 12: Transportation Page 231 CITY of WESTMINSTER Transportation 2009

    Chapter 12: Transportation Page 231 CITY of WESTMINSTER Transportation 2009

    Transportation 2009 2009 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Transportation 2009 Chapter 12: Transportation Page 231 CITY OF WESTMINSTER Transportation 2009 What is the Transportation Element? Community Vision for At the 1997 session, the General Assembly passed five Transportation pieces of legislation and budget initiatives known collectively as "Smart Growth." Maryland has adopted the principles of Smart Growth to be incorporated into the According to the 2008 Community Survey, Comprehensive Plan. Westminster drivers are concerned with the difficulties they encounter turning on and The following Smart Growth principle relates to the Transportation Element: off roads due to issues with visibility or merging. Some residents suggested that the Facilitate an adequate mix of transportation modes City should consider the addition of lanes, roundabouts, or left turn signals. A second To reduce traffic congestion throughout the City challenge with driving in Westminster is the To coordinate land use and transportation high volume of traffic. Residents describe traffic to be an issue on Route 140 during To create resiliency, and connectivity within the City commuting times in the early morning or road networks early evening because of the high number of To ensure connectivity between pedestrian, bike, commuters that leave Westminster everyday to work outside of Carroll County. transit, and road facilities From the timing to the synchronization, Revitalize existing neighborhoods into safe, residents listed challenges with traffic lights walkable, and livable communities throughout Westminster. In some cases, it is not the use of a traffic light, but rather the To mix land uses and build compactly, thus reducing lack of a traffic light that most concerned trips and make walking a more viable alternative residents.
  • May 18 2016 TC Presentation Revised

    May 18 2016 TC Presentation Revised

    Transportation Commission WORK SESSION May 18, 2016 2016 Transportation Long Range Plan Work Session Proposed Schedule April Overview / Guidance / Methodology for LRP update (Study Session) May Review draft of new LRP projects / Removed projects (Study Session) June Initial screening of projects July Finalize screening of projects (Draft LRP) Sept. Public Hearing Adoption of LRP by Transportation Commission 3 Removed Projects • #15-21 – S. Van Dorn Street Improvements • #15-23 – West End Commuter Hub 4 Projects moved to Developer Contingent List • #15-4 - Pedestrian / Bicycle connection from Potomac Yard to Four Mile Run Trail • #15-18 – Library Lane Extension • #15-22 – Elizabeth Lane Extension • #15-26 – New road to Four Mile Run Park 5 Consolidated Projects • #15-5 – Mt. Vernon at Russell Road New 01 • #15-6 – Mt. Vernon at Four Mile Road • #15-7 – Mt. Vernon at E/W Glebe Road New • #15-24 – Van Dorn at Braddock Road 02 • #15-25 – Beauregard at Braddock Road • #15-28 – Quaker at Seminary (Consolidate with New project #10) 6 Studies for Removal • #15-7 – Edsall from Van Dorn to S. Pickett • #15-8 – Commonwealth Ave / Reed Ave Signal Studies to be Consolidated • #15-3 – Feasibility of a pedestrian connection between the Braddock Metrorail station and the Northern gateway through Braddock Place development • #15-4 – Feasibility of a walking route along the road parallel to the Metrorail embankment to also include transit and bike New Study • #New 02 – Braddock Road Multimodal Connections (Removed from CIP) 7 2016 LRP New Projects • Two
  • Maryland State Rail Plan

    Maryland State Rail Plan

    Larry Hogan, Governor Boyd Rutherford, Lt. Governor Pete K. Rahn, Secretary of Transportation April 2015 www.camsys.com Maryland Statewide Rail Plan prepared for Maryland Department of Transportation prepared by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 4800 Hampden Lane, Suite 800 Bethesda, MD 20814 date April 2015 Maryland Statewide Rail Plan Table of Contents 1.0 About the Plan ..................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Plan Development ...................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Plan Organization ....................................................................................... 1-3 1.3 Purpose of the Rail Plan ............................................................................. 1-3 1.4 Federal Compliance .................................................................................... 1-4 2.0 Maryland’s Rail History .................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Amtrak and Conrail ................................................................................... 2-3 2.2 MARC ........................................................................................................... 2-3 2.3 Short Lines ................................................................................................... 2-4 2.4 Summary ...................................................................................................... 2-5 3.0 Mission, Vision, and Goals ..............................................................................
  • Prince George's County Transit System Map Thebus

    Prince George's County Transit System Map Thebus

    M ON TG MA D OM IN R ERY S ILL ST T M ND BO GORMAN 5 AV 2 N E M RD MANGU D C V 201 A !( A P P L InsetT 1 B E S L E 1 T D 5 IL M C N O Prince George's County TransitHER Anne Arundel County H US FederalN Courthouse RY W S LN T Y O E N C N GreenbeltV H L E ER A R A Southern District R P Y V D LN R A A R T T S I A D " 1 R G H R D 5 RO 3 T A C E I M 5 LT N BE W EN S GRE " Laurel Regional E N T Greenbelt L v® Hospital T T R P C TheBus System Map E VA K N N D N US Y E Metrorail Station A N C D T RD O 11 I R R S N D L E A T U G D L E J E E ID O R V O O R A R D !(197 C IVY LN W S D 11 15X 16 A E E P G W N D 2 B 5 E E O V E H O A L IVY D T D LN D O D R R I R 3 L R O R QU 5 N E O S £1 IS P H D ¤ S R W N I T N Y W L G HU H O D R D IL T R D O 15X N P O L E N SC S O D RE 11 R N T R N C L B U R W Y R A G 197 C O E K !( R T D E N R O N A D O P A E L S L YW H L I R N E M D B O C ER L L Muirkirk I D E 95 H E A C T B I H R §¨¦ M L I E G n¤ D C G N MARC Station G K T H S I Y O E A N R R N K I V H E G A N Y A R P R M W D R S I P H LA N S T Y K V S T E V P O O IE I R R O W T N I N C BREEZEWO N O I L OD CT F R A G R C R R R M T K H W A AP E L L P S D I D I E N L P W T O L M L N O UIRKI T A B N D E RK RD L E C E C B N T E T RD P B E N K E O L L B L A N M E T K E T D 1 BRE 16 A N £¤ A EZE D A E R N WOO I E M D DR S M L K E E O M H N A O N A E E C R N S I S M O H I R T T L T H S O W W I G M D L T N Y O E D C V A U T A L B E R PARATRANSIT DISTRICT 1 O N A D P S T K R O D B IT H E M L E W Y C O I A L L D L F R L Beltway Plaza 495V A E E E D ¨¦§E I R A R S R R BR
  • Kolkata Train

    Kolkata Train

    Here is the complete history of Kolkata tram routes, from 1873 to 2020. HORSE TRAM ERA 1873 – Opening of horse tram as meter gauge, closure in the same year. 1880 – Final opening of horse tram as a permanent system. Calcutta Tramways Company was established. 1881 – Dalhousie Square – Lalbazar - Bowbazar – Lebutala - Sealdah Station. (Later route 14) Esplanade – Lalbazar – Pagyapatti – Companybagan - Shobhabazar - Kumortuli. (Later route 7 after extension) Dalhousie Square – Esplanade. (Later route 22, 24, 25 & 29) Esplanade – Planetarium - Hazra Park - Kalighat. (Later route 30) 1882 - Esplanade – Wellington Square – Bowbazar – Boipara - Hatibagan - Shyambazar Junction. (Later route 5) Wellington Square – Moula Ali - Sealdah Station. (Later route 12 after extension) Dalhousie Square – Metcalfe Hall - High Court. (Later route 14 extension) Metcalfe Hall – Howrah Bridge - Nimtala. (Later route 19). Steam tram service was thought. STEAM TRAM ERA 1883 - Esplanade – Racecourse - Wattganj - Khidirpur. (Later route 36) 1884 - Wellington Square – Park Street. (Later route 21 & 22 after extension) 1900 - Nimtala – Companybagan (non-revenue service only). Electrification & conversion to standard gauge was started. ELECTRIC TRAM ERA 1902 - Khidirpur & Kalighat routes were electrified. Shobhabazar – Hatibagan. (Later route 9 & 10) Nonapukur Workshop opened with Royd Street – Nonapukur (Later route 21 & 22 after re-extension). Royd Street – Park Street closed. 1903 – Shyambazar terminus opened with Shyambazar – Belgachhia. (Later route 1, 2, 3, 4 & 11) Kalighat – Tollyganj. (Later route 29 & 32) 1904 - Kumortuli – Bagbazar. Kumortuli terminus closed. (Later route 7 & 8) 1905 - Howrah Bridge – Pagyapatti – Boipara – Purabi Cinema - Sealdah Station (Later route 15). All remaining then-opened routes were electrified. 1907 - Moula Ali – Nonapukur. (Later route 20 & 26 after extension) Wattganj – Mominpur (via direct access through Ofphanganjbazar).
  • Montebello Bus Lines

    Montebello Bus Lines

    Transit Development Plan Update for FAST Final Report May 14, 2014 Fayetteville Area System of Transit (FAST) Transit Development Plan Update Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................ ES-1 Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1-1 Chapter 2 ROUTE PROFILES ............................................................................................ 2-1 2.0 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Overall Findings ................................................................................................. 2-1 2.2 Route Profiles ..................................................................................................... 2.4 Route 3 Southeast ........................................................................................ 2-5 Route 4 Downtown – DSS – VA Medical Center ........................................ 2-15 Route 5 Ramsey Street .............................................................................. 2-25 Route 6 University Estates – Cross Creek ................................................. 2-35 Route 7 Downtown – Cape Fear Valley Health System via Robeson/ Raeford ..................................................................................... 2-45 Route 8 Downtown – Cape Fear Valley Health System via Southern ........ 2-55 Route
  • Walk Across West Virginia Route Descriptions

    Walk Across West Virginia Route Descriptions

    WWAALLKK AACCRROOSSSS WWEESSTT VVIIRRGGIINNIIAA RROOUUTTEE DDEESSCCRRIIPPTTIIOONNSS Few of us have the time to actually Walk Across West Virginia (WAWV), but we can do a virtual Walk Across West Virginia by walking a distance equal to walking across the state. On the following pages are descriptions of five routes across West Virginia. Two are existing trails, two are hypothetical straight line routes through the geographical center of the state and one is a combination of trails and public roads. The longest route across the state is 281 miles. If you walked 5.5 miles a week or 21.5 miles a month, in your local neighborhood, you would equal the longest distance in less than a year. So why not set a personal goal of Walking Across West Virginia this year! Record the date you reach a specific mileage point on one of the routes to track your progress. You can use the mileage tracking chart found on the WAWV website to track your accumulated miles. Include your family members in your trip. You might enhance the “virtual” experience by actually walking parts of the existing trails nearest you, or by visiting some of the areas traversed by the hypothetical routes. The West to East route across the state also includes “trivia questions” about West Virginia. See how much you know about West Virginia.! Allegheny Trail Milage Listing Date Mileage Elevation Description _____ 0.0 2182 Pennsylvania/West Virginia State Line close to Bruceton Mills on Local Route 4 _____ 8.0 1495 Cross under I-68 _____ 13.3 1693 Mt.
  • Baltimorelink Implementation Status Report

    Baltimorelink Implementation Status Report

    BaltimoreLink Implementation February 2018 Status Report Report to the Maryland State Legislature Joint Chairmen’s Report J00H01 BaltimoreLink Performance Report to the Maryland State Legislature Executive Summary BaltimoreLink, implemented on June 18, 2017, is the complete overhaul and rebranding of the core transit system operating within Baltimore City and the greater Baltimore region. The purpose of this document is to provide the Maryland State Legislature with a summary of BaltimoreLink performance in its first full six months of operation (July 2017 to December 2017) based on three key metrics: Ridership, On-Time Performance, and Customer Satisfaction. An analysis of safety has also been provided. The analysis begins with July 2017 when a full month of data was available. The performance analysis consists of an evaluation of performance at an MDOT MTA system-wide level as well as an evaluation of performance at the route and route category level (CityLink, LocalLink, Express BusLink). Further, the system- wide analysis also includes a comparison to data for the same six-month evaluation period in 2016. Executive Summary ES-1 BaltimoreLink Performance Report to the Maryland State Legislature Ridership Ridership Performance Snapshot Average Daily Ridership by Month: 2016 vs. 2017 Average Daily Ridership – 2016 vs. 2017 Monthly ridership declines in 2017 compared to 2016 reflect the overall declines in ridership during the 6-month evaluation period. However, there is a growing convergence in monthly ridership between 2016 and 2017 in the Weekday, Saturday, and Sunday ridership declined in 2017 when compared to 2016 later months of the year, especially for weekend ridership. for the six months evaluated.