DOCSLIB.ORG

Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis Final Report August 2018 Prepared for Greater Roanoke Transit Company Table of Contents Chapter 1: Introduction Introduction .................................................................................................... 1-1 COA Goals and Recommendations................................................................ 1-2 COA Draft Report and Methodology ............................................................... 1-2 Chapter 2: Transfer Analysis and Opportunities Introduction .................................................................................................... 2-1 Strategy #1 - Change the Route Network from Pulse to Direct....................... 2-2 Strategy #2 - Reduce the Number of Vehicles that Meet at the Same Time ... 2-5 Strategy #3 - Move the Transfer Facility ......................................................... 2-11 Strategy #4 - A Combined Approach .............................................................. 2-19 Chapter 3: Route Analysis and Recommendations Introduction .................................................................................................... 3-1 Detailed Operating Statistics and Analysis ..................................................... 3-1 Boarding/Alighting Data by Route and Stop and Proposed Route Changes ... 3-6 Potential New Routes ..................................................................................... 3-57 Chapter 4: Schedule Analysis and Recommendations Introduction ..................................................................................................... 4-1 Ridership by Run ............................................................................................. 4-1 Ridership by Time of Day ................................................................................ 4-2 30-Minute Frequency Recommendations ........................................................ 4-4 Change in Pulse Transfer ................................................................................ 4-6 Chapter 5: Passenger Facilities and Other Recommendations Introduction ..................................................................................................... 5-1 Passenger Facilities ........................................................................................ 5-1 Marketing and Advertising ............................................................................... 5-4 Service Planning ............................................................................................. 5-5 Appendix A: Ridership by Time of Day for Each Route Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis i Chapter 1: Introduction Chapter 1 Introduction INTRODUCTION The Greater Roanoke Transit Company, doing business as Valley Metro, provides fixed route public transit services within the cities of Roanoke and Salem and parts of Roanoke County, including the Town of Vinton. Complementary ADA paratransit, termed Specialized Transit – Arranged Rides (STAR) is provided by Unified Human Services Transportation Systems, Inc., Roanoke Area Dial-A-Ride (RADAR), under a contractual arrangement. Valley Metro also operates intercity bus service between the New River Valley and Roanoke (the Smart Way Commuter and the Smart Way Express). This report documents the Comprehensive Operational Analysis (COA) that has been conducted for Valley Metro. The COA was initiated in November 2017, with the draft recommendations provided in May 2018. The COA work was completed mid-way through the development of a Transit Development Plan (TDP), which is a six to ten-year transit plan required by the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT). KFH Group was under contract to DRPT to complete the TDP. During the TDP process, Valley Metro determined that a more comprehensive examination of the routes and schedules for the fixed route system than is typically conducted for a TDP was needed, and requested that the TDP study team also conduct a COA. Valley Metro and the Roanoke Valley Transportation Planning Organization (RVTPO) provided funding for the COA tasks that were above and beyond the task work being completed for the TDP. These transit planning projects follow the comprehensive Roanoke Valley Transit Vision Plan (TVP), which was completed over a three-year period and led by the RVTPO. The TVP included a significant outreach effort and developed short-term, mid-term, and long- term recommendations for improving public transportation in the region. While the process provided a detailed vision for the future of public transportation in the Roanoke Valley, an in-depth analysis of the functioning of each route was not conducted. The TVP recommendations include significant expansion and improvement of transit services for the entire Roanoke Valley region. The plan was completed in the fall of 2016. One of the recommendations within the TVP was “to evaluate individual routes for efficiencies and enhancements to save or maximize time and investment.” The COA recommendations serve to accomplish this task. Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 1-1 Chapter 1: Introduction COA GOALS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The primary goals of the COA are to: 1. Improve and strengthen the operational foundation of Valley Metro’s existing service delivery network focusing on the adjustments needed to implement all three phases of the TVP. 2. Reduce transit vehicle and passenger congestion by reducing to the most practical level possible the number of buses currently terminating in downtown Roanoke at the Campbell Court Bus Station, thereby identifying plausible transfer opportunities outside of the downtown area. While the basic COA service recommendations are generally cost-neutral, there are a few system recommendations that will require additional investment. Because the COA recommendations are meant to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the current routes, they do include reductions in the number of routes that offer 30-minute service. This is not in keeping with the recommendations contained within the TVP that serve to improve frequencies, but reflects the current ridership trends and the need to re-deploy the existing resources for higher ridership potential. The COA recommendations are short-term in nature and focus on improving the current transit network. The intent of the COA is to make the existing system as efficient as possible prior to starting the process of implementing the series of expansions called for in the TVP. The recommended expansions outlined in the TVP include a higher level of service for the current routes, including Sunday service, service later in the evenings, and an increase in service frequency. Geographic expansion of the transit network and connecting routes are also featured in the TVP. The second important goal of the COA, to reduce the number of vehicles that terminate in downtown Roanoke, was problematic to achieve given the road network, natural and man-made travel barriers, and size of the transit network. The recommendations do include significantly fewer vehicles meeting at one time, which partially achieves the goal and solves the short-term problem of limited capacity at the Campbell Court Station. COA REPORT AND METHODOLOGY The COA report is organized into the following sections: Chapter 1 – Introduction Chapter 2 – Transfer Analysis and Opportunities Chapter 3 – Route Analysis and Recommendations Chapter 4 – Schedule Analysis and Recommendations Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 1-2 Chapter 1: Introduction Chapter 5 – Passenger Facilities and Other Recommendations Data used for the route and schedule analysis were derived from boarding/alighting counts and time checks conducted by the Roanoke Valley- Alleghany Regional Commission (RVARC) staff during FY2017 for the purposes of National Transit Database reporting. Data used for the transfer analysis and the ridership by run and time of day were provided by Valley Metro, as recorded through the GFI Genfare fareboxes. A ten-day sample from October 2017 was used for the transfer analysis and a ten-day sample from November 2017 was used for the ridership by run and time of day. All of the Valley Metro regular fixed routes that meet at Campbell Court were examined for the COA. Most of the recommended route changes are minor and serve to either improve running time or reduce the probability of vehicular conflicts or roadway safety hazards. There are more significant changes recommended for the 30 series, the 41/42, the 81/82, and the 91/92 to reflect ridership patterns. Two new routes are recommended for the short-term using existing resources and another two are proposed if expansion funds for services outside the City of Roanoke are available. There are also significant changes recommended for the pulse transfer so that fewer buses meet at the same time in downtown Roanoke. This change is necessary as Campbell Court is at capacity and the most recent buses purchased by Valley Metro are longer and wider than the buses that they are replacing. There are also recommendations with regard to the time of day that 30-minute service is provided, as well as which routes are served with 30-minute service. The final chapter addresses recommendations with regard to passenger facilities, marketing and advertising, and service planning. Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 1-3 Chapter 2: Transfer Analysis and Opportunities Chapter 2 Transfer Analysis and Opportunities INTRODUCTION One of the important
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Resolution #20-9
    BALTIMORE METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION BALTIMORE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION BOARD RESOLUTION #20-9 RESOLUTION TO ENDORSE THE UPDATED BALTIMORE REGION COORDINATED PUBLIC TRANSIT – HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION PLAN WHEREAS, the Baltimore Regional Transportation Board (BRTB) is the designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the Baltimore region, encompassing the Baltimore Urbanized Area, and includes official representatives of the cities of Annapolis and Baltimore; the counties of Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Carroll, Harford, Howard, and Queen Anne’s; and representatives of the Maryland Departments of Transportation, the Environment, Planning, the Maryland Transit Administration, Harford Transit; and WHEREAS, the Baltimore Regional Transportation Board as the Metropolitan Planning Organization for the Baltimore region, has responsibility under the provisions of the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act for developing and carrying out a continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive transportation planning process for the metropolitan area; and WHEREAS, the Federal Transit Administration, a modal division of the U.S. Department of Transportation, requires under FAST Act the establishment of a locally developed, coordinated public transit-human services transportation plan. Previously, under MAP-21, legislation combined the New Freedom Program and the Elderly Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities Program into a new Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities Program, better known as Section 5310. Guidance on the new program was provided in Federal Transit Administration Circular 9070.1G released on June 6, 2014; and WHEREAS, the Federal Transit Administration requires a plan to be developed and periodically updated by a process that includes representatives of public, private, and nonprofit transportation and human services providers and participation by the public.
    [Show full text]
  • Norristown Transportation Center to Graterford
    SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY SUBURBAN TRANSIT AND CONTRACT OPERATIONS ______________________________________ TARIFF NO. 155 SUPPLEMENT NO. 26 ______________________________________ LOCAL RATES OF FARE AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE FURNISHING OF PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION ON REGULAR SCHEDULED SERVICE ______________________________________ ISSUED: March 17, 2010 APPROVED: AMENDED: EFFECTIVE: ISSUED BY: Joseph M. Casey General Manager 1234 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19107-3780 CHANGES MADE BY THIS TARIFF 1. The title cover and related text in sections 3, 4, 10 and 20 has been changed from Suburban Transit Division to Suburban Transit and Contract Operations to reflect the nature of Suburban Transit routes operated by Victory and Frontier Districts, as well as transit services contracted to a private carrier. 2. Fare Zones are revised on the following routes as part of the FY 2012 Annual Service Plan: 92, 95, 98, 115, 119, 127, 130 and 139. New Routes 126 and 133 are included. Routes 304 and 314 would be discontinued. These fare zone changes would take effect upon SEPTA Board approval of the FY 2012 Annual Service Plan and funding availability. 3. Fare Zones are revised on the following routes as part of the FY 2011 Annual Service Plan: 97, 105 and 106. 4. Route 100 is now known as Norristown High Speed Line. 5. All references to 69th Street Terminal are changed to read 69th Street Transportation Center (69th Street TC). 6. Route 129 references to Torresdale have been updated to reflect what is printed on the public timetable and destination signs. 7. Fare zone information is revised for Routes 204, 205 and 306. 8. Information regarding Route 305 has been removed 9.
    [Show full text]
  • Changes to Transit Service in the MBTA District 1964-Present
    Changes to Transit Service in the MBTA district 1964-2021 By Jonathan Belcher with thanks to Richard Barber and Thomas J. Humphrey Compilation of this data would not have been possible without the information and input provided by Mr. Barber and Mr. Humphrey. Sources of data used in compiling this information include public timetables, maps, newspaper articles, MBTA press releases, Department of Public Utilities records, and MBTA records. Thanks also to Tadd Anderson, Charles Bahne, Alan Castaline, George Chiasson, Bradley Clarke, Robert Hussey, Scott Moore, Edward Ramsdell, George Sanborn, David Sindel, James Teed, and George Zeiba for additional comments and information. Thomas J. Humphrey’s original 1974 research on the origin and development of the MBTA bus network is now available here and has been updated through August 2020: http://www.transithistory.org/roster/MBTABUSDEV.pdf August 29, 2021 Version Discussion of changes is broken down into seven sections: 1) MBTA bus routes inherited from the MTA 2) MBTA bus routes inherited from the Eastern Mass. St. Ry. Co. Norwood Area Quincy Area Lynn Area Melrose Area Lowell Area Lawrence Area Brockton Area 3) MBTA bus routes inherited from the Middlesex and Boston St. Ry. Co 4) MBTA bus routes inherited from Service Bus Lines and Brush Hill Transportation 5) MBTA bus routes initiated by the MBTA 1964-present ROLLSIGN 3 5b) Silver Line bus rapid transit service 6) Private carrier transit and commuter bus routes within or to the MBTA district 7) The Suburban Transportation (mini-bus) Program 8) Rail routes 4 ROLLSIGN Changes in MBTA Bus Routes 1964-present Section 1) MBTA bus routes inherited from the MTA The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) succeeded the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) on August 3, 1964.
    [Show full text]
  • Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes Interim Handbook
    TCRP Web Document 12 (Project B-12): Contractor’s Interim Handbook Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes Interim Handbook Prepared for: Transit Cooperative Research Program Transportation Research Board National Research Council TCRP Project B-12 Submitted by: Richard H. Pratt, Consultant, Inc. Garrett Park, Maryland and Texas Transportation Institute Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. SG Associates, Inc. McCollom Management Consulting, Inc. March 2000 ACKNOWLEDGMENT This work was sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and was conducted through the Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP), which is administered by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) of the National Research Council. DISCLAIMER The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in the report are those of the research agency. They are not necessarily those of the TRB, the National Research Council, the FTA, the Transit Development Corporation, or the U.S. Government. This report has not been edited by TRB. ii Table of Contents Page Foreword by TRB Staff viii Report Organization ix Author and Contributor Acknowledgments ix TCRP Project B-12 Panel xi 1 — INTRODUCTION 1-1 Genesis and Status of the Handbook 1-1 Scope and Development of the Handbook 1-4 Use of the Handbook 1-7 References 1-17 MULTIMODAL/INTERMODAL FACILITIES 2 — HOV Facilities 2-1 Objectives of HOV Facilities 2-2 Types of HOV Facilities and Treatments 2-2 Analytical Considerations 2-4 Traveler Response Summary 2-5 Traveler Response to Type
    [Show full text]
  • Central West Baltimore Choice Neighborhood Transformation Plan
    CENTRAL WEST BALTIMORE TRANSFORMATION PLAN Choice Neighborhoods Acknowledgements PLANNING COMMITTEE MEMBERS PROJECT PARTNERS Association of Black Charities Wanda Best Pamela Johnson Jubilee Baltimore Business Interface, LLC James Blue Verna L. Jones-Rodwell Foresight Affordable Housing of Maryland Jobs Opportunity Task Force Ellis Brown Elizabeth Kennedy Kevin Jordan CITY GOVERNMENT Len Clay Steva Komay Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake PARTNERS Bill Cole Gabriel Kroiz Councilmember William Cole Druid Heights Community Development Corporation Talya Constable Carrie Little Councilmember Nick Mosby Eutaw Place Association Dr. Kevin Daniels Kelly Little Commissioner Paul Graziano, Department of Housing and Community Madison Park Improvement Association Keith Davis Steve Marker Development Historic Marble Hill Association Charlie Duff Richard May Department of Planning Thomas Stosur, Director, Morgan State University Polly Duke Bronwyn Mayden Chief Operating Officer, Baltimore City Public Schools Dr. Andres Alonso, Mt. Royal Improvement Association Jay Erbe Jonathan Midgett Director, City of Baltimore, Mayor’s Office of Employment Karen Sitnick, Pedestal Gardens Residents’ Association Laurie Feinberg Nick Mosby Development Reservoir Hill Improvement Council Mel Freeman Chet Myers Mary Sloat, Assist. Director, City of Baltimore, Mayor’s Office of Employment Development Upton Planning Committee Neal Friedlander Rebecca Nagle Thomasina Hiers, Deputy Chief of Staff, Director- Mayor’s Office of Human Angela Gravely-Smith Morgan Nelson Services PLANNING
    [Show full text]
  • Traffic Volume Report
    CARROLL COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS TRAFFIC VOLUME REPORT ROAD # ROADNAME LOCATION ADT DATE 344 140 VILLAGE ROAD NORTH OF EAST MAIN STREET ** 4433 11/17/2011 455 ACADEMY DRIVE WEST OF COON CLUB ROAD 240 7/18/2016 260 ADAMS MILL ROAD EAST OF ROOPS MILL ROAD 71 4/23/2015 260 ADAMS MILL ROAD WEST OF BELL ROAD 78 4/23/2015 260 ADAMS MILL ROAD WEST OF MARYLAND 852 315 4/23/2015 133 ALBERT RILL ROAD EAST OF MARYLAND 27 ** 1600 4/10/2014 133 ALBERT RILL ROAD NORTH OF MARYLAND 27 ** 346 11/15/2013 133 ALBERT RILL ROAD NORTH OF SNYDERSBURG ROAD ** 381 11/7/2013 133 ALBERT RILL ROAD SOUTH OF FRIDINGER MILL ROAD 186 7/11/2013 133 ALBERT RILL ROAD SOUTH OF OLD FORT SCHOOLHOUSE ROAD* 348 11/15/2013 191 ALESIA ROAD EAST OF MILLERS STATION ROAD ** 810 5/16/2013 191 ALESIA ROAD WEST OF SCHALK ROAD #2 ** 900 5/23/2013 191 ALESIA ROAD WEST OF ALESIA TO LINEBORO ROAD ** 779 6/13/2013 191 ALESIA ROAD SOUTH OF ROLLER ROAD ** 314 6/6/2013 191 ALESIA ROAD EAST OF SCHALK ROAD #2 ** 760 5/8/2013 191 ALESIA ROAD EAST OF HOFFMANVILLE ROAD ** 355 6/6/2013 192 ALESIA TO LINEBORO ROAD NORTH OF ALESIA ROAD ** 2181 6/13/2013 192 ALESIA TO LINEBORO ROAD SOUTH OF RUPP ROAD ** 1991 6/6/2013 192 ALESIA TO LINEBORO ROAD SOUTH OF CROSSROAD SCHOOLHOUSE ROAD 2057 6/6/2013 192 ALESIA TO LINEBORO ROAD SOUTH OF ALESIA ROAD ** 2694 6/6/2013 192 ALESIA TO LINEBORO ROAD NORTH OF YORK ROAD #1 ** 1952 5/23/2013 192 ALESIA TO LINEBORO ROAD NORTH OF SCHALK ROAD #1 ** 2073 6/6/2013 192 ALESIA TO LINEBORO ROAD NORTH OF RUPP ROAD ** 1941 6/6/2013 192 ALESIA TO LINEBORO ROAD NORTH
    [Show full text]
  • 1306 Act Nos. 528-529 LAWS of PENNSYLVANIA
    1306 Act Nos. 528-529 LAWS OF PENNSYLVANIA, approximately 0.76 mile in the City of Bethlehem, Lehigh County. Luzerne County. Route 40184. (Extending Route 40184) Beginning at Route 40184. the intersection of North Church Street (Legislative Route 170) and Stockton Road; thence in an easterly direction over Stockton Road to the City of Hazieton- Flazie Township Line and intersecting with Township Road 319, a distance of approximately 0.7 mile in the City of Hazleton, Luzerne County. Mercer County. Route 43141. Beginning at the intersection of Legis- Route 43141. lative Route 43032 (North Water Street) and Clark Street; thence in an easterly direction over Clark Street to its intersection with Legislative Route 238 (Sharps- yule Avenue), a distance of approximately 0.61 mile in the City of Sharon, Mercer County. Route 43142. Route 43142. Beginning at a point on Route 74 known as South Irvine Avenue; then in an easterly direction over Ohio Street crossing Shenango River and connect- ing Chestnut Street; then in northerly direction on Chestnut Street about 400 feet to the intersection of Depot and Chestnut; then in an easterly direction to the intersection of Depot Street and PAP Route 74 Parallel, a total distance of 4800 feet in the City of Sharon, Mercer County. Westinoreland Route 64289. Beginning at the intersection of the County. Lincoln Highway (Legislative Route 120) and Pennsyl- Route 64289. vania Boulevard; thence in a northerly and north- westerly direction over Pennsylvania Boulevard to its intersection with Lowry Avenue (Legislative Route 64216), a distance of approximately 0.73 mile in the City of Jeannette, Westmoreland County.
    [Show full text]
  • Central Square Bus Access and Circulation Study
    Final Report Central Square Access and Circulation Study Prepared for City of Cambridge by IBI Group with CDM Smith July 14, 2015 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT CENTRAL SQUARE ACCESS AND CIRCULATION STUDY Prepared for City of Cambridge Document Control Page CLIENT: City of Cambridge PROJECT NAME: Central Square Access and Circulation Study REPORT TITLE: Central Square Existing Conditions Analysis IBI REFERENCE: 36888 DELIVERABLE NUMBER: 4 VERSION: ORIGINATOR: Nihit Jain REVIEWER: Duncan Allen AUTHORIZATION: CIRCULATION LIST: HISTORY: JULY 14, 2015 2 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT CENTRAL SQUARE ACCESS AND CIRCULATION STUDY Prepared for City of Cambridge Table of Contents Table of Contents ............................................................................................................... 3 1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 5 1.1 Study Purpose and Scope ............................................................................ 5 1.2 Study Process ............................................................................................... 8 1.3 Report Structure and Contents ..................................................................... 8 1.4 Summary of Recommendations ................................................................... 8 2 Identification of Issues .......................................................................................... 10 2.1 Methodology ..............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • In PDF Format
    Attachment 1 Page 1 of 41 TEA-21 HIGH PRIORITY PROJECTS - FY 1999 ALLOCATIONS TEA-21 FY 1999 ALLOCATION DEMO ID SECT. 1602 STATE PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJ. NO. PROJECT STATE TOTALS AL002 957 Alabama Construct bridge over Tennessee River connecting Muscle Shoals and 1,500,000 Florence AL002 1498 Alabama Construct bridge over Tennessee River connecting Muscle Shoals and 150,000 Florence AL002 1837 Alabama Construct bridge over Tennessee River connecting Muscle Shoals and 150,000 Florence AL006 760 Alabama Construct new I-10 bridge over the Mobile River in Mobile, Alabama. 1,617,187 AL007 423 Alabama Construct the Montgomery Outer Loop from US-80 to I-85 via I-65 1,535,625 AL007 1506 Alabama Construct Montgomery outer loop from US 80 to I-85 via I-65 1,770,000 AL007 1835 Alabama Construct Montgomery Outer Loop from US 80 to I-85 via I-65 150,000 AL008 156 Alabama Construct Eastern Black Warrior River Bridge. 1,950,000 AL008 1500 Alabama Construction of Eastern Black Warrior River Bridge 1,162,500 AL009 777 Alabama Construct Anniston Eastern Bypass from I-20 to Fort McClellan in 6,021,000 Calhoun County AL009 1505 Alabama Construct Anniston Eastern Bypass from I-20 to Fort McClellan in 300,000 Calhoun County AL009 1832 Alabama Construct Anniston Eastern Bypass 150,000 AL011 102 Alabama Initiate construction on controlled access highway between the Eastern 450,000 edge of Madison County and Mississippi State line. AL015 189 Alabama Construct Crepe Myrtle Trail near Mobile, Alabama 180,000 AL016 206 Alabama Conduct engineering, acquire right-of-way and construct the 2,550,000 Birmingham Northern Beltline in Jefferson County.
    [Show full text]
  • Reverse Commuting for the Baltimore Metropolitan Area
    Executive Summary The purpose of this study is to explore the commute from low-income areas in the city to the suburban areas where newly created blue-collar or entry-level jobs are located. The study has four objectives: (1) to identify low-income areas of Baltimore for the establishment of an unemployed labor pool of city residents that depend on public transportation; (2) to identify job locations in the Baltimore Region that match the education and skill levels of the identified labor pool; (3) to access transportation services available to identified job areas; and (4) to present alternative solutions to the problem of inaccessibility. The report is presented to give a clear perspective of the problem facing Baltimore City and surrounding counties. Even though this case study of the Baltimore Region presents selective sampling, it offers a realistic picture of the problem of commuting from the city to the suburbs by those who are transit dependent. Aside from accomplishing the set objectives, this study will also make a contribution to previous studies in reverse commuting for the Baltimore Metropolitan Area. < The Baltimore Metropolitan Area is the study area of this investigation. The metropolitan area, located in the State of Maryland, presents a unique and interesting case study for reverse commuting. The area consists of Baltimore City and five neighboring counties: Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Carroll, Harford, and Howard. < The problem is connecting job opportunities with those individuals who are public transit dependent. The challenge is to provide public transit and other reverse commuting services economically and conveniently without sacrificing the present job accessibility of traditional commuting.
    [Show full text]
  • One Hundred Fifth Congress of the United States of America
    H. R. 2400 One Hundred Fifth Congress of the United States of America AT THE SECOND SESSION Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, the twenty-seventh day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-eight An Act To authorize funds for Federal-aid highways, highway safety programs, and transit programs, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS. (a) SHORT TITLE.ÐThis Act may be cited as the ``Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century''. (b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.ÐThe table of contents of this Act is as follows: Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents. Sec. 2. Definitions. TITLE IÐFEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS Subtitle AÐAuthorizations and Programs Sec. 1101. Authorization of appropriations. Sec. 1102. Obligation ceiling. Sec. 1103. Apportionments. Sec. 1104. Minimum guarantee. Sec. 1105. Revenue aligned budget authority. Sec. 1106. Federal-aid systems. Sec. 1107. Interstate maintenance program. Sec. 1108. Surface transportation program. Sec. 1109. Highway bridge program. Sec. 1110. Congestion mitigation and air quality improvement program. Sec. 1111. Federal share. Sec. 1112. Recreational trails program. Sec. 1113. Emergency relief. Sec. 1114. Highway use tax evasion projects. Sec. 1115. Federal lands highways program. Sec. 1116. Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge. Sec. 1117. Appalachian development highway system. Sec. 1118. National corridor planning and development program. Sec. 1119. Coordinated border infrastructure and safety program. Subtitle BÐGeneral Provisions Sec. 1201. Definitions. Sec. 1202. Bicycle transportation and pedestrian walkways. Sec. 1203. Metropolitan planning. Sec. 1204. Statewide planning.
    [Show full text]
  • Proposed Routes OCTOBER 2020
    Appendix A: Summary of Proposed Routes OCTOBER 2020 1 | Introduction & Executive Summary i Contents 2 Riverfront Streetcar ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 3 Loyola – French Market Streetcar .......................................................................................................................................................................... 4 11 Magazine ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 5 12 St. Charles Streetcar ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 6 15 Freret ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 7 16 MLK-Claiborne / 17 MLK-Hollygrove .................................................................................................................................................................... 8 27 Louisiana .............................................................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]