DOCSLIB.ORG

Regional Transitway Guidelines Technical Report May 2011 1

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Regional Transitway Guidelines Technical Report May 2011 1 Transitway Guidelines Technical Report Regional Transitway Guidelines May 2011 Chapter 1: Introduction Regional Transitway Guidelines Technical Report May 2011 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. PURPOSE OF GUIDELINES The purpose of the Regional Transitway Guidelines is to provide technical guidance, based in best practices, that supports the development and operation of transitways in a way that is consistent, equitable, and efficient, and delivers an effective, integrated, and user-friendly transit system throughout the Twin Cities region. Existing practices have been documented; best practices have been researched; and recommendations on guidelines for future transitway planning and implementation have been developed on many issues. The guidelines will continue to evolve over time as the region’s experience with transitway implementation grows and as new technologies and best practices emerge. Regional transitway guidelines are needed for three primary reasons: • The region’s progressively growing transitway system. The region’s transitway system is growing quickly and the region has learned a great deal from the implementation of the first commuter rail and light rail lines. Those lessons will help to guide the implementation of future transitways. This is important for leveraging future investments, for proceeding efficiently through planning and design (not reinventing the wheel each time), and for achieving the regional goal of doubling transit ridership by 2030. • Multiple agencies involved in transitway implementation. There are multiple agencies involved in the planning and implementation of transitways in the Twin Cities region. Local governments, particularly counties and regional railroad authorities, play a lead role in the planning of transitway corridors and recommending locally preferred alternatives. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT), Metropolitan Council and Metro Transit, Counties Transit Improvement Board (CTIB), counties, and cities are involved in the funding, design, and construction of transitway facilities and services. There are also agencies that are involved in the operation of transitway service. As the region moves toward implementation of multiple transitway corridors, it is important that the assumptions used to plan transitways and the decisions made to implement them are consistent and equitable throughout the region. • The region is taking initial steps to implement BRT. The region is implementing its first bus-rapid transit (BRT) corridors in which a family of services will operate. These corridors also have the flexibility to be implemented in phases as ridership develops over time. While this can be beneficial from a funding perspective, it can lead to confusion about what constitutes BRT service and BRT facilities and the appropriate timing of implementation in phases. 1.2. TRANSITWAY MODES ADDRESSED IN THE GUIDELINES The Regional Transitway Guidelines address and apply to regionally identified transitways as included in the region’s long-range Transportation Policy Plan (TPP) (see Figure 1-1). These facilities enable reliable travel times and a predictable passenger experience on high-demand corridors in the region, whether by rail or by bus. Transitways give transit passengers a travel time advantage over congested roadways by providing a dedicated right-of-way or other transit advantages such as ramp meter bypasses, signal priority, and/or bus-only shoulders. Transitways link major employment centers and destinations in the region and promote transit-oriented development patterns. The Guidelines address four transitway modes: (1) Commuter Rail, (2) Light-Rail Transit (LRT), (3) Highway Bus-Rapid Transit, and (4) Arterial Bus-Rapid Transit. The Guidelines currently do not directly address the Express Bus with Transit Advantages, Dedicated Busway, or Streetcar modes. However, transitway projects in 1 Chapter 1: Introduction Regional Transitway Guidelines Technical Report May 2011 planning stages where these modes are being considered can use the general information in the Guidelines as a base for decision-making. It is anticipated that the Guidelines will be updated in the future to include these modes. Figure 1-1 – 2030 Transitway System Plan 1.2.1. Commuter Rail Commuter Rail operates on existing freight railroad tracks. Commuter Rail vehicles may use diesel multiple unit (DMU) vehicles or conventional diesel locomotives pulling passenger coaches. Commuter Rail may operate on freight railroad tracks that also carry intercity passenger rail traffic operated by Amtrak, potentially using common stations. Lines are typically 20 or more miles long, with stations typically spaced five or more miles apart. Station areas are primarily oriented to park-and-ride uses. Commuter Rail services operate at 20- to 30-minute frequencies during peak periods, with limited or no midday or reverse-direction service. 2 Chapter 1: Introduction Regional Transitway Guidelines Technical Report May 2011 1.2.2. Light-Rail Transit LRT operates on rails primarily in exclusive rights-of- way. Vehicles are powered by overhead electrical wires. Stations are typically spaced about one-half to one mile or more apart. Typical LRT lines are 10 to 15 miles long. LRT trains operate all day, with bidirectional service at frequencies of 10 minutes or better during peak periods. Typical characteristics of LRT include dedicated right-of-way, specialized stations and vehicles, off-board fare collection, and traffic signal priority. 1.2.3. Highway Bus-Rapid Transit Highway BRT is a transitway mode that uses bus vehicles while incorporating many of the characteristics of Light Rail or Commuter Rail. Highway BRT operates on freeways or expressways. It can use bus-only shoulders, managed lanes, ramp meter bypasses, priced dynamic lanes, and other running-way advantages. In addition to peak express service, Highway BRT also incorporates high frequency, all-day service, branded vehicles, and improved stations, including park-and-ride facilities and online stations. Bus-rapid transit improvements can also be used by other types of bus service like regular express buses, limited stop service, or routes that are partly local service and partly express. 1.2.4. Arterial Bus Rapid Transit Arterial BRT provides limited stop service in high- ridership corridors along existing roadways. The 2030 Transit Master Study showed that substantial ridership growth could be achieved through faster and higher frequency service on high-ridership arterial corridors. These corridors are all in highly developed areas with very limited right-of-way availability, meaning that LRT or dedicated busways are most likely not feasible. Arterial BRT could provide limited-stop service and use technology improvements to provide a faster trip in these corridors and use branding to differentiate the service from regular bus routes. The Arterial Transitway Corridors Study (ATCS) began in late 2010 and is scheduled to conclude in late 2011. The study will develop a facility and service plan to enhance efficiency, speed, reliability, customer amenities, and transit market competitiveness on the nine corridors identified the TPP, on Hennepin Avenue, and in the Lake Street/Midtown Greenway corridor. 1.3. TRANSITWAY CHARACTERISTICS Four operating characteristics differentiate transitways from regular transit service: • Speed - how fast a transit vehicle operates 3 Chapter 1: Introduction Regional Transitway Guidelines Technical Report May 2011 • Travel time reliability - how predictable and consistent each trip is for passengers and transit vehicles • Accessibility - the number and spacing of stops, how convenient stops are for passengers, and how coordinated stops are with connecting travel modes • Service availability - how frequent vehicles service each stop and how early and late in the day vehicles run Using these characteristics, the transitway modes included in the guidelines were categorized to better communicate the relationship between regular transit service and transitway services and the relationship between transitway services (see Table 1-1). Similar tables were developed by several technical committees and can be found in the technical memoranda. 1.4. GUIDELINES DEVELOPMENT PROCESS More than 100 people and 25 organizations participated in 10 technical committees charged with drafting initial guidelines for consideration by an Advisory Committee. (see Figure 1-2 and Table 1-3 – Regional Transitway Guidelines Technical CommitteesTable 1-2). The Advisory Committee recommended the guidelines to be adopted by the Metropolitan Council. 4 Table 1-1 – Transit Service Descriptions Local Bus All-day Frequent Service Commuter Express Service Frequent, bidirectional, all-day service that is faster Primarily peak-period, peak-direction, fast commuter than local bus service to concentrated employment areas Local Bus Highway BRT Express Bus Highway BRT Arterial BRT Light Rail Commuter Rail (Benchmark) Station-to-Station (Benchmark) Express Description Frequent stops All-day, frequent, All-day frequent All-day frequent rail Longer routes Express bus service Fast commuter on fixed routes limited stop bus bus service on service on supported by transit operating in highway service operating on that maximizes service operated highway corridors exclusive tracks advantages and BRT corridor with traditional rail lines access and on more local, with transit with stations, high- designed for runningway greater with farther station mobility to a arterial streets with advantages
Load more

Recommended publications
  • BRTOD – State of the Practice in the United States
    BRTOD – State of the Practice in the United States By: Andrew Degerstrom September 2018 Contents Introduction .............................................................................................1 Purpose of this Report .............................................................................1 Economic Development and Transit-Oriented Development ...................2 Definition of Bus Rapid Transit .................................................................2 Literature Review ..................................................................................3 BRT Economic Development Outcomes ...................................................3 Factors that Affect the Success of BRTOD Implementation .....................5 Case Studies ...........................................................................................7 Cleveland HealthLine ................................................................................7 Pittsburgh Martin Luther King, Jr. East Busway East Liberty Station ..... 11 Pittsburgh Uptown-Oakland BRT and the EcoInnovation District .......... 16 BRTOD at home, the rapid bus A Line and the METRO Gold Line .........20 Conclusion .............................................................................................23 References .............................................................................................24 Artist rendering of Pittsburgh's East Liberty neighborhood and the Martin Luther King, Jr. East Busway Introduction Purpose of this Report If Light Rail Transit (LRT)
    [Show full text]
  • CHAPTER 2 Progress Since the Last PMT
    CHAPTER 2 Progress Since the Last PMT The 2003 PMT outlined the actions needed to bring the MBTA transit system into a state of good repair (SGR). It evaluated and prioritized a number of specific enhancement and expansion projects proposed to improve the system and better serve the regional mobility needs of Commonwealth residents. In the inter- vening years, the MBTA has funded and implemented many of the 2003 PMT priorities. The transit improvements highlighted in this chapter have been accomplished in spite of the unsus- tainable condition of the Authority’s present financial structure. A 2009 report issued by the MBTA Advisory Board1 effectively summarized the Authority’s financial dilemma: For the past several years the MBTA has only balanced its budgets by restructuring debt liquidat- ing cash reserves, selling land, and other one-time actions. Today, with credit markets frozen, cash reserves depleted and the real estate market at a stand still, the MBTA has used up these options. This recession has laid bare the fact that the MBTA is mired in a structural, on-going deficit that threatens its viability. In 2000 the MBTA was re-born with the passage of the Forward Funding legislation.This legislation dedicated 20% of all sales taxes collected state-wide to the MBTA. It also transferred over $3.3 billion in Commonwealth debt from the State’s books to the T’s books. In essence, the MBTA was born broke. Throughout the 1990’s the Massachusetts sales tax grew at an average of 6.5% per year. This decade the sales tax has barely averaged 1% annual growth.
    [Show full text]
  • Regional Transit Technical Advisory Committee October 29, 2014 Full
    MEETING OF THE REGIONAL TRANSIT TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Wednesday, October 29, 2014 10:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. SCAG Los Angeles Main Office 818 W. 7th Street, 12th Floor, Policy Committee Room A Los Angeles, California 90017 (213) 236-1800 Teleconferencing Available: Please RSVP with Ed Rodriguez at [email protected] 24 hours in advance. Videoconferencing Available: Orange SCAG Office Ventura SCAG Office 600 S. Main St, Ste. 906 Orange, CA 92863 950 County Square Dr, Ste 101 Ventura, CA 93003 Imperial SCAG Office Riverside SCAG Office 1405 North Imperial Ave., Suite 1 , CA 92243 3403 10th Street, Suite 805 Riverside, CA 92501 SCAG San Bernardino Office 1170 W. 3rd St, Ste. 140 San Bernardino, CA 92410 If members of the public wish to review the attachments or have any questions on any of the agenda items, please contact Matt Gleason at (213) 236-1832 or [email protected]. REGIONALTRANSIT TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE AGENDA October 29, 2014 The Regional Transit Technical Advisory Committee may consider and act upon any TIME PG# of the items listed on the agenda regardless of whether they are listed as information or action items. 1.0 CALL TO ORDER (Wayne Wassell, Metro, Regional Transit TAC Chair) 2.0 PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD - Members of the public desiring to speak on items on the agenda, or items not on the agenda, but within the purview of the Regional Transit Technical Advisory Committee, must fill out and present a speaker’s card to the assistant prior to speaking. Comments will be limited to three minutes.
    [Show full text]
  • Transportation & Shuttle Bus Schedule
    MORNING ROUTES Kendal Green Shuttle ​(Fitchburg Commuter 7:55 AM Meets the 7:50 AM Inbound Train Rail Line) 8:15 AM Meets the 8:13 AM Outbound Train CSW 1 TRANSPORTATION & Wellesley Farms ​(Framingham/Worcester 7:55 AM Meets the 7:37 AM Inbound Train Commuter Rail Line) Meets the 7:54 AM Outbound Train SHUTTLE BUS Riverside Station ​(Newton) 8:05 AM MBTA Green Line CSW 2 SCHEDULE Alewife Station ​(Cambridge) 7:30 AM MBTA Red Line Belmont Center 7:40 AM Belmont Center at Leonard Street and • Wellesley Farms is a new stop for the Concord Avenue CSW shuttle. The morning pick up time Arlington 7:45 AM Wadsworth Road and Dow Avenue off is subject to change depending on Route 2 actual arrival time at CSW. We will CSW 3 monitor this during module 1 and will Wedgemere Station ​(Winchester - Lowell 7:20 AM Meets the 7:05 AM Inbound Train communicate any necessary Commuter Rail Line) Meets the 6:54 AM Outbound Train adjustments. Lexington 7:35 AM Lexington Center on Mass Avenue at Waltham Street • Arrival times at afternoon drop off AFTERNOON ROUTES MONDAY - FRIDAY locations are dependent upon traffic CSW 1 each day. Wellesley Farms ​(Framingham/Worcester 4:20 PM Meets the 4:52 PM Inbound Train Commuter Rail Line) Meets the 5:01 PM Outbound Train • The sequence of stops during the 5:10 PM Meets the 5:42 PM Outbound Train afternoon shuttle to Alewife, Arlington, Meets the 6:01 PM Inbound Train and Belmont will be dependent upon Riverside Station ​(Newton) 4:20 PM traffic and will be at the drivers discretion.
    [Show full text]
  • Proposed Program of High Capacity Transit Improvements City of Atlanta DRAFT
    Proposed Program of High Capacity Transit Improvements City of Atlanta DRAFT Estimated Capital Cost (Base Year in Estimated O&M Cost (Base Year in Millions) Millions) Project Description Total Miles Local Federal O&M Cost Over 20 Total Capital Cost Annual O&M Cost Share Share Years Two (2) miles of heavy rail transit (HRT) from HE Holmes station to a I‐20 West Heavy Rail Transit 2 $250.0 $250.0 $500.0 $13.0 $312.0 new station at MLK Jr Dr and I‐285 Seven (7) miles of BRT from the Atlanta Metropolitan State College Northside Drive Bus Rapid Transit (south of I‐20) to a new regional bus system transfer point at I‐75 7 $40.0 N/A $40.0 $7.0 $168.0 north Clifton Light Rail Four (4) miles of grade separated light rail transit (LRT) service from 4 $600.0 $600.0 $1,200.0 $10.0 $240.0 Contingent Multi‐ Transit* Lindbergh station to a new station at Emory Rollins Jurisdicitional Projects I‐20 East Bus Rapid Three (3) miles of bus rapid transit (BRT) service from Five Points to 3 $28.0 $12.0 $40.0 $3.0 $72.0 Transit* Moreland Ave with two (2) new stops and one new station Atlanta BeltLine Twenty‐two (22) miles of bi‐directional at‐grade light rail transit (LRT) 22 $830 $830 $1,660 $44.0 $1,056.0 Central Loop service along the Atlanta BeltLine corridor Over three (3) miles of bi‐directional in‐street running light rail transit Irwin – AUC Line (LRT) service along Fair St/MLK Jr Dr/Luckie St/Auburn 3.4 $153 $153 $306.00 $7.0 $168.0 Ave/Edgewood Ave/Irwin St Over two (2) miles of in‐street bi‐directional running light rail transit Downtown – Capitol
    [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]
  • SUPREME COURT of NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Orlov V. Halifax Regional Municipality (Halifax Transit), 2018 NSSC 152
    SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Orlov v. Halifax Regional Municipality (Halifax Transit), 2018 NSSC 152 Date: 20180620 Docket: Hfx No. 386163 Registry: Halifax Between: Stanislav Orlov 2018 NSSC 152 (CanLII) Plaintiff v. The Halifax Regional Municipality, a body corporate duly incorporated pursuant to the laws of Nova Scotia c.o.b. under the name of Metro Transit and Joey Williams Defendants D E C I S I O N Judge: The Honourable Justice Christa M. Brothers Heard: December 13, 14, 18, 19, and 20, 2017, in Halifax, Nova Scotia Decision: June 20, 2018 Counsel: Wayne Bacchus and Igor Yushchenko, for the plaintiff Guy Harfouche and Brandon Knill, Articled Clerk, for the defendants Page 2 Brothers J.: Overview [1] On the afternoon of May 16, 2011, the plaintiff, Mr. Orlov, boarded a Metro Transit Bus instead of walking to work at Mount Saint Vincent University (“MSVU”), where he was employed as a Librarian. It was a rainy, wet day. Metro Transit Bus No. 971 (the “bus”) stopped at 357 Bedford Highway, headed towards Halifax when the plaintiff boarded. The plaintiff was an experienced bus passenger. While holding his wallet, a bag and a transfer, the plaintiff walked 2018 NSSC 152 (CanLII) toward the back of the bus, fell, and broke his ankle (the “accident”). The sole issue for determination is liability. Damages have been agreed to by the parties. [2] What caused the plaintiff to fall? The plaintiff advanced four theories of causation: 1. The speed of the bus leaving the stop was excessive; 2. The floor of the bus was worn and caused the plaintiff to slip; 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Monday Through Friday Mt
    New printed schedules will not be issued if trips are adjusted Monday through Friday All trips accessible by five minutes or less. Please visit www.go-metro.com for the go smart... go METRO 24 most up-to-date schedule. 24 Mt. Lookout–Uptown–Anderson Riding Metro From Anderson / To Downtown From Downtown / To Anderson . 1 No food, beverages or smoking on Metro. 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2. Offer front seats to older adults and people with disabilities. METRO* PLUS 3. All Metro buses are 100% accessible for people 38X with disabilities. 46 UNIVERSITY OF 4. Use headphones with all audio equipment 51 CINCINNATI GOODMAN DANA MEDICAL CENTER HIGHLAND including cell phones. Anderson Center Station P&R Salem Rd. & Beacon St. & Beechmont Ave. St. Corbly & Ave. Linwood Delta Ave. & Madison Ave. Observatory Ave. Martin Luther King & Reading Rd. & Auburn Ave. McMillan St. Liberty St. & Sycamore St. Square Government Area B Square Government Area B Liberty St. & Sycamore St. & Auburn Ave. McMillan St. Martin Luther King & Reading Rd. & Madison Ave. Observatory Ave. & Ave. Linwood Delta Ave. & Beechmont Ave. St. Corbly Salem Rd. & Beacon St. Anderson Center Station P&R 11 ZONE 2 ZONE 1 ZONE 1 ZONE 1 ZONE 1 ZONE 1 ZONE 1 ZONE 1 ZONE 1 ZONE 1 ZONE 1 ZONE 1 ZONE 1 ZONE 1 ZONE 1 ZONE 1 ZONE 1 ZONE 2 43 5. Fold strollers and carts. BURNET MT. LOOKOUT AM AM 38X 4:38 4:49 4:57 5:05 5:11 5:20 5:29 5:35 5:40 — — — — 4:10 4:15 4:23 — 4:35 OBSERVATORY READING O’BRYONVILLE LINWOOD 6.
    [Show full text]
  • Metropolitan Council 2020 Capital Budget With
    Metropolitan Council Projects Summary ($ in thousands) Project Requests for Gov's Gov's Planning State Funds Rec Estimates Project Title Rank Fund 2020 2022 2024 2020 2022 2024 Busway Capital Improvement Program Bus 1 GO 55,000 50,000 50,000 55,000 0 0 Rapid Transit Regional Parks and Trails Grant Program 2 GO 15,000 15,000 15,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 Inflow and Infiltration Grant Program 3 GO 9,500 9,500 9,500 5,000 5,000 5,000 Total Project Requests 79,500 74,500 74,500 70,000 15,000 15,000 General Obligation Bonds (GO) Total 79,500 74,500 74,500 70,000 15,000 15,000 State of Minnesota Final Capital Budget Requests January 2020 Page 1 Metropolitan Council Agency Profile metrocouncil.org/ AT A GLANCE • 3.1 million residents in the seven-county area in 2017 (55 percent of total state population) • 888,000 more people from 2010 to 2040 (31% increase) per Council forecasts • 419,000 more households from 2010 to 2040 (38% increase) per Council forecasts • 495,000 more jobs from 2010 to 2040 (32% increase) per Council forecasts • 94.2 million transit rides in 2017 • 2.38 million rides on Metro Mobility in 2017 • 250 million gallons of wastewater treated daily • 110 communities provided with wastewater treatment in 2018 • Nine treatment plants and 600 miles of regional sewers • 59 million regional park visits in 2017 • 56 regional parks and park reserves totaling 55,000 acres in the seven-county metropolitan area • 49 regional trails totaling nearly 400 miles • 7,200 low-income households provided affordable housing by the Council’s Metro HRA in 2017 PURPOSE The Metropolitan Council is the regional policy-making body, planning agency, and provider of essential services for the Twin Cities metropolitan region.
    [Show full text]
  • WMATA State of Good Repair Years of Underfunding and Tremendous
    RECOMMENDATIONS WMATA State of Good Repair Years of underfunding and tremendous regional growth have resulted in underinvestment and significant deterioration of the Washington Metrorail’s core transit infrastructure and assets, creating substantial obstacles to consistently delivering safe, reliable, and resilient service to its customers. In an effort to bring the system up to a state of good repair, WMATA created Momentum, a strategic 10-year plan that has set short-term and long-term actions to accelerate core capital investment in state of good repair and sustain investment into the future. Momentum identifies a $6 billion list of immediate and critical capital investments, called Metro 2025, aimed at (1) maximizing the existing rail system by operating all 8-car trains during rush hour, (2) improving high-volume rail transfer stations and underground pedestrian connections, (3) enhancing bus service, (4) restoring peak service connections, (5) integrating fare technology across the region’s multiple transit operators and upgrading communication systems, (6) expanding the bus fleet and storage and maintenance facilities, and (7) improving the flexibility of the transit infrastructure. With the first capital investment alone, WMATA estimates a capacity increase of 35,000 more passengers per hour during rush hour, which is the equivalent of building 18 new lanes of highway in Washington, DC. The second investment is a “quick win” to relieve crowding in the system’s largest bottlenecks and bring its most valuable core infrastructure up to a state of good repair. MTA Transportation Reinvention Commission Report ~ 31 ~ RECOMMENDATIONS Improving the System: Régie Autonome des Transports Parisiens (RATP) and Transport for London (TfL) Major cities around the world, notably London and Paris, are investing in their core system by maintaining and renewing their assets.
    [Show full text]
  • Passenger Rail System
    Minnesota Comprehensive Statewide Freight and Passenger Rail Plan Passenger Rail System draft technical memorandum 3 prepared for Minnesota Department of Transportation prepared by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. TKDA, Inc. July 17, 2009 www.camsys.com technical memorandum 3 Minnesota Comprehensive Statewide Freight and Passenger Rail Plan Passenger Rail System prepared for Minnesota Department of Transportation prepared by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 100 CambridgePark Drive, Suite 400 Cambridge, Massachusetts 02140 July 17, 2009 Minnesota Comprehensive Statewide Freight and Passenger Rail Plan Passenger Rail System Technical Memorandum Table of Contents Executive Summary .............................................................................................................. ES-1 1.0 Objective ........................................................................................................................ 1-1 2.0 Methodology ................................................................................................................. 2-1 3.0 Overview of Findings .................................................................................................. 3-1 4.0 Operating and Capacity Conditions and Existing Ridership Forecasts for Potential Passenger Rail Corridors ........................................................................... 4-1 4.1 CP: Rochester-Winona......................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 CP: St. Paul-Red
    [Show full text]
  • The Effects of Fare-Collection Strategies on Transit Level of Service
    Transportation Research Record 1036 79 The Effects of Fare-Collection Strategies on Transit Level of Service UPALI VANDEBONA and ANTHONY J. RICHARDSON ABSTRACT It is known that different fare-collection strategies have different passenger boarding and alighting rates for street-based public transport services. In this pape r, various models of stop service times are reviewed, the available empirical observations of boarding and alighting rates are summarized, and the effects of different average boarding rates and coefficients of variation of boarding rates on the route performance of a tram (light rail transit) service are examined. The analysis is conducted using the TRAMS (Transit Route Anima­ tion and Modeling by Simulation) package. This modeling package is briefly described with particular attention to the passenger demand subroutine as well as the tram stop service times subroutine. As a result o f the analysis , it was found that slower boarding rates produce a slower and less reliable service along the route. The variability of boarding rates has no effect on route travel time but does contribute to greater unreliability in level of service. It is concluded that these level-of-service effects need to be considered when assessing the effect of changes in fare-collection strategies. Public transport operators and managers have found systems to proof-of-payment systems will generally themselves under increasing pressure in recent years bring about significant level-of-service improve­ because of conflicting expectations from different ments that should be considered in any analysis of groups in the community. On the one hand, public such fare collection strategies.
    [Show full text]