DOCSLIB.ORG

Effective Strategies for Congestion Management

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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. NCHRP 20-24A, Task 63: Effective Strategies for Congestion Management Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction .........................................................................................................1-1 2.0 Relationship Between Congestion and Economic Growth ........................2-1 2.1 Overview......................................................................................................2-1 2.2 Transportation’s Benefits to the Economy ..............................................2-2 2.3 Definition, Sources, and Types of Congestion........................................2-6 2.4 Congestion Trends and Projections .........................................................2-9 2.5 Congestion’s Impacts on Economic Activity ........................................2-11 2.6 Studies of Congestion’s Economic Impacts ..........................................2-15 2.7 The Effects of Rising Fuel Prices.............................................................2-17 3.0 Summary of Congestion Management Strategies and Effectiveness .......3-1 3.1 Introduction.................................................................................................3-1 3.2 Discussion of Measures..............................................................................3-2 3.3 Interactive Effects .....................................................................................3-10 3.4 Implications of Rising Fuel Prices ..........................................................3-11 3.5 Other Benefits and Disbenefits of Congestion Management Strategies....................................................................................................3-12 3.6 List of Strategies........................................................................................3-14 3.7 Category A – Adding Capacity/Physical Improvements ..................3-15 3.8 Category B – Using Existing Capacity More Efficiently/ Operational Improvements .....................................................................3-35 3.9 Category C – Reducing Demand for Vehicle-Travel ...........................3-68 3.10 Category D – Reducing Congestion on Transit Vehicles ....................3-84 4.0 Case Studies.........................................................................................................4-1 4.1 Introduction.................................................................................................4-1 4.2 Noteworthy Findings.................................................................................4-3 4.3 Conclusions .................................................................................................4-5 5.0 Keys to Implementing Effective Strategies for Congestion Management ........................................................................................................5-7 A. Dallas-Fort Worth Metropolitan Area............................................................A-1 A.1 Introduction and Background..................................................................A-1 A.2 Planning Process........................................................................................A-1 A.3 Congestion Management Approaches ...................................................A-3 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. i 7994.063 Table of Contents, continued A.4 Performance Measurement ......................................................................A-6 A.5 Partnerships and Public Outreach...........................................................A-9 A.6 Funding.....................................................................................................A-10 A.7 Concluding Observations.......................................................................A-11 B. Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Area...................................................... B-1 B.1 Introduction and Background.................................................................. B-1 B.2 Planning Process........................................................................................ B-2 B.3 Congestion Management Approaches ................................................... B-3 B.4 Performance Measurement ...................................................................... B-9 B.5 Partnerships.............................................................................................. B-10 B.6 Funding..................................................................................................... B-11 B.7 Concluding Observations....................................................................... B-12 C. Orlando Metropolitan Area .............................................................................C-1 C.1 Introduction and Background..................................................................C-1 C.2 Planning Process........................................................................................C-2 C.3 Congestion Management Approaches ...................................................C-2 C.4 Performance Measurement ......................................................................C-5 C.5 Partnerships and Public Outreach...........................................................C-8 C.6 Funding.......................................................................................................C-9 C.7 Concluding Observations.......................................................................C-10 D. San Diego Metropolitan Area..........................................................................D-1 D.1 Introduction and Background..................................................................D-1 D.2 Planning Process........................................................................................D-2 D.3 Congestion Management Approaches ...................................................D-3 D.4 Performance Measurement ......................................................................D-8 D.5 Partnerships and Public Outreach.........................................................D-13 D.6 Funding.....................................................................................................D-14 D.7 Concluding Observations.......................................................................D-15 E. References ........................................................................................................... E-1 ii Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 7994.063 NCHRP 20-24A, Task 63: Effective Strategies for Congestion Management List of Tables Table 2.1 Measures of Congestion, 10 Most Congested Urban Areas ................2-7 Table 3.1 Congestion Management Strategies: Summary of Effectiveness and Implementation Potential.................................................................3-4 Table 4.1 Comparison of Metropolitan Area Congestion and Population Statistics (2005) ..........................................................................................4-2 Table A.1 NCTCOG Primary Congestion Management Performance Measures ....................................................................................................A-8 Table C.1 Toll Revenues in Orlando Metro Area ..................................................A-9 Table D.1 Summary Description of ITS Applications in SANDAG Region ......A-6 Table D.2 Regional Performance Measures............................................................A-9 Table D.3 TransNet-Funded Projects Underway...................................................D-14 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. iii NCHRP 20-24A, Task 63: Effective Strategies for Congestion Management List of Figures Figure 2.1 Sources of Congestion...............................................................................2-8 Figure A.1 NCTCOG Regional
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Induced Demand: an Urban and Metropolitan Perspective
    Induced Demand: An Urban and Metropolitan Perspective Robert Cervero, Professor Department of City and Regional Planning University of California Berkeley, California E-Mail: [email protected] Paper prepared for Policy Forum: Working Together to Address Induced Demand U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation Eno Transportation Foundation, Incorporated March 2001 Second Revision Induced Demand: An Urban and Metropolitan Perspective Most studies of induced travel demand have been carried out at a fine to medium grain of analysis – either the project, corridor, county, or metropolitan levels. The focus has been on urban settings since cities and suburbs are where the politics of road investments most dramatically get played out. The problems assigned to induced demand – like the inability to stave off traffic congestion and curb air pollution – are quintessentially urban in nature. This paper reviews, assesses, and critiques the state-of-the-field in studying induced travel demand at metropolitan and sub-metropolitan grains of analysis. Its focus is on empirical and ex post examinations of the induced demand phenomenon as opposed to forecasts or simulations. A meta-analysis is conducted with an eye toward presenting an overall average elasticity estimate of induced demand effects based on the best, most reliable research to date. 1. URBAN HIGHWAYS AND TRAVEL: THE POLICY DEBATE Few contemporary issues in the urban transportation field have elicited such strong reactions and polarized political factions as claims of induced travel demand. Highway critics charge that road improvements provide only ephemeral relief – within a few year’s time, most facilities are back to square one, just as congested as they were prior to the investment.
    [Show full text]
  • The Fundamental Law of Road Congestion: Evidence from US Cities
    University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons Real Estate Papers Wharton Faculty Research 10-2011 The Fundamental Law of Road Congestion: Evidence From US Cities Gilles Duranton University of Pennsylvania Matthew A. Turner Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/real-estate_papers Part of the Economics Commons, and the Real Estate Commons Recommended Citation Duranton, G., & Turner, M. A. (2011). The Fundamental Law of Road Congestion: Evidence From US Cities. American Economic Review, 101 (6), 2616-2652. http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/aer.101.6.2616 This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/real-estate_papers/3 For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Fundamental Law of Road Congestion: Evidence From US Cities Abstract We investigate the effect of lane kilometers of roads on vehicle-kilometers traveled (VKT) in US cities. VKT increases proportionately to roadway lane kilometers for interstate highways and probably slightly less rapidly for other types of roads. The sources for this extra VKT are increases in driving by current residents, increases in commercial traffic, and migration. Increasing lane kilometers for one type of road diverts little traffic omfr other types of road. We find no evidence that the provision of public transportation affects VKT. We conclude that increased provision of roads or public transit is unlikely to relieve congestion. Disciplines Economics | Real Estate This journal article is available at ScholarlyCommons: https://repository.upenn.edu/real-estate_papers/3 American Economic Review 101 (October 2011): 2616–2652 http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi 10.1257/aer.101.6.2616 = The Fundamental Law of Road Congestion: Evidence from US Cities† By Gilles Duranton and Matthew A.
    [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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development
    Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development final memorandum prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council Greater Bridgeport Regional Planning Agency South Western Regional Planning Agency prepared by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. with Eng-Wong Taub & Associates Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc. Gruzen Samton Architects, Planners & Int. Designers HydroQual Inc. M.G. McLaren, PC Management and Transportation Associates, Inc. STV, Inc. September 30, 2003 www.camsys.com final technical memorandum Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council Greater Bridgeport Regional Planning Agency South Western Regional Planning Agency prepared by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 4445 Willard Avenue, Suite 300 Chevy Chase, Maryland 20815 with Eng-Wong Taub & Associates Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc. Gruzen Samton Architects, Planners & Int. Designers HydroQual Inc. M.G. McLaren, PC Management and Transportation Associates, Inc. STV, Inc. September 30, 2003 Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2 Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction.................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Purpose and Need.................................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 The National Policy Imperative ..........................................................................
    [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]
  • A FORK in the ROAD a New Direction for Congestion Management in Sydney
    A FORK IN THE ROAD A new direction for congestion management in Sydney COMMITTEE FOR SYDNEY ISSUES PAPER 12 APRIL 2016 INTRODUCTION The Committee for Sydney believes there is an urgent need for a better civic dialogue about transport options in Sydney. With notable exceptions,1 the current debate appears to be too polarised, ideological and mode-led, characterised more by heat than light. There is a need for a cooler, more evidence-based approach and a recognition that cities are complex and multi-faceted and no one transport mode will meet all needs. That approach brings challenges for government agencies and the community. For government agencies, it means having robust and transparent appraisal methods for selecting one transport mode or policy over another, and a respect for the concerns of communities affected by significant infrastructure projects. For communities, it means accepting necessary change when the broader public benefits have been shown. Addressing congestion must be part of this. But we must also not lose sight of the objective: reducing congestion means commuters in Sydney will spend less time stuck in traffic – and more time with family and contributing to our city. This has significant economic benefit for the city and for the community. In our view, Sydneysiders will support whatever transport mode or intervention is shown to be required to meet the city’s needs. But they will expect that the appraisal process used is mode-neutral, transparent and evidence-based, resulting in transport projects or interventions which deliver maximum public benefit and the best strategic outcomes for Sydney.
    [Show full text]
  • Wake BRT: Western Blvd. Corridor Study
    TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT (TOD) PRECEDENT BOOK CITY OF RALEIGH DECEMBER 2020 CITY OF RALEIGH TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT (TOD) PRECEDENT BOOK DECEMBER 2020 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Transit-Oriented Development Precedent Book was prepared by WSP USA, on behalf of the City Planning Department and through a collaborative process. RALEIGH TOD PRECEDENT BOOK INTRODUCTION The TOD Precedent Book (the book) builds on the ETOD Guidebook and provides guidance to developers who want to participate in the dynamic evolution of Raleigh’s BRT corridors. Transit-oriented development (TOD) INTRODUCTION offers unique advantages to developers but is not without challenges. For this reason, this book focuses on lessons learned. This book explains 1 why TOD locations enjoy more market demand than auto-dependent locations, and describes critical factors for market-based success and opportunities to apply Equitable TOD principles. Lessons learned have been derived from TOD case studies and literature. Case studies Raleigh is the fastest-growing city in North Carolina and one of the selected capture places where original conditions are similar in context fastest-growing regions in America. With a population of more than to the BRT Corridors of Wake County. The lessons learned consider how 470,000 in 2018, Raleigh (the City) is expected to reach 600,000 TOD development came to be, and describe important features for by 2030. As Raleigh and Wake County continues to grow, traffic economic feasibility and community benefits. congestion will also increase. Recognizing the role of transit in serving the needs of a growing population, Wake County voters approved a plan in November 2016 for focused investment in public transit, which includes building approximately 20 miles of Bus Rapid Transit BRT and TOD (BRT) lines.
    [Show full text]
  • Integrative Freight Demand Management in the New York City Metropolitan Area
    INTEGRATIVE FREIGHT DEMAND MANAGEMENT IN THE NEW YORK CITY METROPOLITAN AREA Cooperative Agreement #DTOS59-07-H-0002 Final Report Submitted to: United States Department of Transportation Prepared by: José Holguín-Veras, Ph.D., P.E. Professor, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Kaan Ozbay, Ph.D. Professor, Rutgers University Alain Kornhauser, Ph.D. Chairman, ALK Technologies Anthony Shorris Director, Rudin Center for Transportation Policy and Management Satish Ukkusuri, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Purdue University September 30, 2010 DISCLAIMER STATEMENT The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the United States Department of Transportation. This report does not constitute a standard, specification or regulation. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The project team would like to acknowledge the significant contributions made by the various participants and collaborators in this path breaking project. It is important to start with the project‘s industrial partners: Sysco, Whole Foods Market, Foot Locker, and New Deal Logistics, and the other participants: Just Salad, Gotham Bistro, 63 bites, Midtown Restaurant, Overlook, brgr, Kolache Mama, Pipa Restaurant, Baldor Specialty Foods, Chris‘s Cookies, Gourmet Guru, McMahon‘s Farm, Mossé Beverage Industries, and Peet‘s Coffee. These businesses deserve all the credit, not only for taking proactive steps toward sustainable deliveries, but for the leadership demonstrated by participating in a research project. Their participation in the project brought into the picture the real life challenges and potential of the effort. The project team acknowledges the significant contributions of: Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • ACCESS-A-RIDE Ways to Do the Right Thing More Efficiently
    ACCESS-A-RIDE Ways to Do the Right Thing More Efficiently September 2016 FOREWORD Founded in 1932, the Citizens Budget Commission (CBC) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan civic organization devoted to influencing constructive change in the finances and services of New York State and New York City governments. A major activity of CBC is conducting research on the financial and management practices of the State and the City and their authorities. All CBC research is overseen by a committee of trustees. This report was prepared under the auspices of the Transportation Committee, which we co-chair. The other members of the Committee are Eric Altman, Ken Bond, Thomas Brodsky, Robert Burch, Lawrence Buttenwieser, Vishaan Chakrabarti, Herman Charbonneau, Steve Cohen, Rob Dailey, David Dantzler, Douglas Durst, Jake Elghanayan, Mary Francoeur, Bud Gibbs, William J. Gilbane, III; Martin Grant, Walter Harris, Peter Hein, Dale Hemmerdinger, Brian Horey, David Javdan, Steven Kantor, Andrew Kimball, Robert Krinsky, William Levine, James Lipscomb, Anthony Mannarino, Jim Normile, Charles John O’Byrne, Geoff Proulx, Carol Rosenthal, Michael Ryan, Brian Sanvidge, David Schiff, Dominick Servedio, Timothy Sheehan, Sonia Toledo, Claudia Wagner, Ron Weiner, and Edward Skyler, ex-officio. The Committee’s work has focused on the finances of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA). Since 2004 the Committee has studied the MTA’s operating and capital budgets. This report explores the past, present, and future of Access-A-Ride, the MTA’s nearly half-billion dollar paratransit program that provides service for the mobility impaired in New York City. Jamison Dague, Director of Infrastructure Studies, researched and prepared this report.
    [Show full text]
  • | Intercity Transit
    AGENDA INTERCITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY SPECIAL MEETING December 21, 2011 5:30 P.M. CALL TO ORDER 1) APPROVAL OF AGENDA 1 min. 2) PUBLIC COMMENT 10 min. Public Comment Note: This is the place on the agenda where the public is invited to address the Authority on any issue. The person speaking is requested to sign-in on the General Public Comment Form for submittal to the Clerk of the Board. When your name is called, step up to the podium and give your name and address for the audio record. If you are unable to utilize the podium, you will be provided a microphone at your seat. Citizens testifying are asked to limit testimony to three minutes. 3) INTRODUCTIONS & RECOGNITIONS – 15 min. A. Farewell to Citizen Representative Eve Johnson (Chair Romero) 4) APPROVAL OF DISCOUNTED BUS PASS PROGRAM (Mike Harbour) 5 min. 5) APPOINTMENT OF A CITIZEN REPRESENTATIVE (Rhodetta Seward) 5 min. 6) LEADERSHIP APTA PROJECT PRESENTATION (Meg Kester) 25 min. 7) AUTHORITY ISSUES 10 min. 8) MEETING EVALUATION 5 min. ADJOURNMENT INTERCITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY SPECIAL PROGRAM AGENDA ITEM NO. 4 MEETING DATE: December 21, 2011 FOR: Intercity Transit Authority FROM: Mike Harbour, ext. 5855 SUBJECT: Proposed Grants For Award for the Discounted Bus Pass Program ______________________________________________________________________________ 1) The Issue: To approve the award of grants under the Discounted Bus Pass Program. ____________________________________________________________________________ 2) Recommended Action: Approve grant awards to applicants who met award criteria. Staff will provide a list of proposed awards prior to the December 21, 2011, meeting. ____________________________________________________________________________ 3) Policy Analysis: The Discounted Bus Pass Program is a relatively new program approved by the Authority in December 2010.
    [Show full text]