DOCSLIB.ORG

Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Webinar Valley Metro Commute Solutions

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Webinar Valley Metro Commute Solutions Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Webinar Valley Metro Commute Solutions June 24, 2020 Tech Tips • Your microphone is muted. You can ask questions and give input using the controls on your screen. • Click on Handout to open the PDF and access live links or print to take notes. • The symbol indicates an audience poll. Get ready to share your input! • Webinar will be recorded, and a link emailed. 2 Introductions Speakers Joshua Matthews, AICP Sara Kotecki, PE Matthew Taunton Jennifer Valentine Senior Transit Planner BRT Administrator Senior Transit PM Transportation Planner III Valley Metro City of Phoenix HDR MAG 4 Agenda 1. Introductions 2. Overview of BRT 3. City of Phoenix BRT Program 4. MAG Regional BRT Study 5. Q&A Period 5 Overview of BRT What is BRT? • BRT stands for “bus rapid transit” • Higher frequency and greater capacity bus service • Amenities and service levels similar to light rail 7 National Examples Los Angeles G Line Emerald Express Albuquerque Rapid Transit Connecticut CTfastrak Cleveland HealthLine 8 Registrant Feedback No Express/RAPID BRT Responses to the registration question “Have you ridden Bus Rapid Transit and if so, where?” BRT Routes ridden include: East Valley Link in Mesa, the Silver Line in Boston, Seattle's RapidRide C-Line, Kansas City. City of Phoenix BRT Program PhoenixPHOENIXBRTBRT BRT Webinar June 24, 2020 T2050 Overview • In 2015, Phoenix voters approved Prop 104, creating the 35-year street and transit plan • Provide transportation solutions considering growth • Transit is the most space efficient way of moving people • BRT identified as a component of T2050 12 What is Bus Rapid Transit? 13 BRT is • High capacity bus service that focuses on improved speed, Advanced Bus reliability and convenience Service • No universal standard for BRT • Can be planned and designed to best meet the needs of a community • Common elements found in BRT systems 14 Enhanced Stations • Center or side stations • Wide platforms • Level boarding • Large canopies or shelters • Seating and leaning rails • Real-time information • Ticket vending machines 15 Custom Buses • Low floor • Articulated • Multiple doors (both sides if center stations) • Higher passenger capacity • USB chargers • Bikes on board 16 Advanced Fare Collection • Off board fare payment • Mobile fare payment • Reloadable smart cards • Validators 17 Unique Branding • Differentiate this mode from other modes • Naming convention • Overall service and lines • Numbers, colors, letters 18 Potential for Dedicated Lanes • Separate buses from traffic to increase speed and reliability • Can be implemented for a portion of the corridor or entire alignment • Evaluate appropriateness 19 Transit Spot Improvements - Queue Jump Lanes • Tool to improve transit operations • Consists of an additional lane at an intersection • Allows buses to merge smoothly • Gives buses a brief head start ahead of traffic 20 Transit Spot Improvements - Transit Signal Priority • Tool to improve transit operations • Modifies the normal signal operation process to better accommodate buses • Priority request generator – hold green longer or shorten red time • Saves fuel • Fewer delays 21 Corridor Analysis: What we took into consideration Ridership Forecasting BRT Corridors Transit Transit Performance Propensity 22 Potential BRT corridors based on: • transit propensity • transit performance • ridership forecasting 23 Transit Performance, Propensity, and Ridership 24 Phoenix Bus Service 101 Phoenix carries approximately Traveling “across the grid” 2/3 of all transit passengers could be improved Current bus network has Challenge is to improve transit plateaued in some corridors speed and reliability 25 How do Phoenix corridors compare? 12000 Local Bus BRT 10000 8000 6000 Ridership 4000 2000 0 Main A Line D Line Thomas Indian School 35th Ave Kansas City Minneapolis Seattle Phoenix 26 Average Daily Boardings and Boardings per Revenue Mile 27 Ridership by Segment (1-Mile) 28 Composite Transit Propensity • Population • Employment • Low income households • Minority persons • Persons with disabilities • Zero automobile households • Persons under 18 years • Persons over 64 years 29 Ridership by Segment and Transit Propensity 30 Potential BRT corridors based on: • transit propensity • transit performance • ridership forecasting 31 BRT Corridor Optimization 32 Camelback/24th St • Desert Sky Transit Center to future 24th St SkyTrain • 18.5 miles • 11,109 daily boardings (2019) • 18,280 daily boardings (2040) 33 Indian School/24th St • Desert Sky Transit Center to future 24th St SkyTrain • 16.5 miles • 9,580 daily boardings (2019) • 15,029 daily boardings (2040) 34 Thomas/44th St • Desert Sky Transit Center to 44th St SkyTrain • 16.1 miles • 13,502 daily boardings (2019) • 16,078 daily boardings (2040) 35 McDowell/44th St • 35th Ave (future Capitol/I-10 LRT) to 44th St SkyTrain • 9.8 miles • 5,064 daily boardings (2019) • 7,344 daily boardings (2040) 36 35th Ave/Van Buren • Metrocenter Transit Center to Central Station • 13.6 miles • 8,641 daily boardings (2019) • 9,626 daily boardings (2040) 37 19th Ave/Van Buren • Sunnyslope Transit Center to Central Station • 11.3 miles • 5,463 daily boardings (2019) • 8,470 daily boardings (2040) 38 What makes a • Geographic coverage and spacing (minimum 2 miles good BRT network between corridors) scenario? • Intersecting BRT corridors • Connections with light rail and frequent local bus service • Termini that are also origins and destinations 39 What are potential BRT network scenarios? 40 BRT Network Comparison Camelback/24th St Camelback/24th St Indian School/24th St Indian School/24th St Thomas/44th St Thomas/44th St McDowell/44th St McDowell/44th St 35th Ave/Van Buren 19th Ave/Van Buren 35th Ave/Van Buren 19th Ave/Van Buren 41 Updates, Next Steps, Goal • Webpage went live February 27, 2020: Phoenix.gov/BRT • BRT 101 Video, Survey, and Factsheet live June 2020 • BRT public education & outreach on the six potential corridors • June to December • Present at Citizens Transportation Commission and Transportation, Infrastructure & Innovation subcommittee for BRT foundation network approval • Identify BRT foundation network consisting of 3 corridors 42 Phoenix.gov/BRT MAG Regional BRT Study REGIONAL BUS RAPID TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY JUNE 24, 2020 STUDY OVERVIEW • Gauge the interest in and feasibility of implementing BRT in the MAG region • Recommend a preliminary set of locations where a regional BRT network could connect to planned City of Phoenix investments • Include significant coordination with ongoing City of Phoenix BRT Program, especially the outreach component • Focus on public and stakeholder education 47 48 49 STUDY AREA 50 REVIEW AND ANALYSIS 51 POTENTIAL CITY OF PHOENIX BRT ROUTES 52 TRANSIT PROPENSITY • Minority populations • Low-income residents • < 18 years old • > 64 years old • Zero-vehicle households • People with disabilities • Public transit users 53 ACTIVITY CENTERS 54 BRT CORRIDOR TOOLBOX 55 BRT EXAMPLES Transit Lanes & Bus Bulbs Transit Corridor Bus Boarding Islands & Bike Lanes In-street Transit Center 56 COLLABORATION + OUTREACH • Educational video • Online survey • Interactive comment map • Technical advisory group • Stakeholder interviews • Public meeting 57 Q&A Period Links & Contact Info • Valley Metro (Link) • Joshua Matthews: [email protected] • City of Phoenix BRT Program (Link) • Sara Kotecki: [email protected] • Matthew Taunton: [email protected] • Phoenix Educational Videos: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL22YB12L5NbTEP2tAJvSBBwDfnU872o3t • MAG Regional BRT Feasibility Study (Link) • Jennifer Valentine: [email protected] • MAG Educational Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkdDJyD65mg 59 Thank You Transportation Coordinator Update June 24, 2020 ShareTheRide is Evolving • Later this summer, the smart commute landscape is changing! • ShareTheRide.com is unveiling a new platform and app that will revolutionize your commute! • The new system helps people organize carpools, check traffic, select transit routes, participate in challenges, and win rewards. • Special options for TCs. • Details coming soon. TRP Variance Extended In a continuing response to COVID-19, the TRP Regional Task Force has extended the original annual survey and plan submittal variance through September 30, 2020. The variance extension suspends organizational deadlines for TRP surveys and initial travel reduction plan submittals and suspends the requirement for issuing incentives to employees during the variance extension period. It does not exclude, limit, or exempt companies from program participation. We encourage organizations to continue to promote their travel reduction programs. If your organization is subject to the variance but you would like to submit the required surveys and travel reduction plans as normally scheduled, or you have additional questions, please contact TRP staff. E-Survey Special Webinar • In response to the COVID- 19 pandemic, Maricopa County Travel Reduction Program (TRP) surveys will be done electronically moving forward. • Join us for a special session June 25 at 10 a.m. to learn more. COVID-19 Response • Valley Metro now requires riders to wear face coverings on all public transit: bus, light rail, paratransit, Dial-a- Ride and vanpools. This includes on board vehicles and at stops, stations and transit centers. • We encourage riders to practice social distancing of six feet while waiting and onboard. See how we’re keeping riders safe. Public Transit Survey • Valley Metro has enhanced the cleaning
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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority
    Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority Joe Calabrese - General Manager RTA Ridership by Mode ! 500 Buses - 75 % ! 60 Heavy Rail Vehicles - 10% ! 24 RTV’s (BRT) - 8% ! 48 Light Rail Vehicles - 6% ! Paratransit - 100 vehicles - 1% RTA Fleet GCRTA HealthLine Euclid Avenue Transformation Euclid Avenue History Euclid Avenue History Alternatives Analysis - late 1990’s ! Subway ! Light Rail ! Do Nothing (keep the #6 bus) ! Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Mode Selection Criteria ! Capacity (30,000 + daily customers) ! Connectivity ! Funding possibilities (FTA) ! Cost - capital and operating ! Economic development potential " Renew Aging Infrastructure Vision for the “Silver Line” BRT ! “Rail Like” Image ! Fast ! Simple ! Safe ! First Class ! Help Revitalize Corridor Euclid Corridor Project ! 9.38 miles long ! 36 stations (from 100 bus stops) ! Travel time from 40 to 28 minutes ! Building face to building face ! Pedestrian and bicycle friendly ! Landscape/hardscape treatment ! Pubic Art - Integrated/stand-alone Exclusive Right of Way Funding Pie Charts FTA 80% ODOT 20% 2000 ODOT FTA 25% 50% City MPO RTA 2004 Ground Breaking October 2004 “Silver Line” Construction “Silver Line” Construction (3.5 years) “Silver Line” Construction “Silver Line” Construction “Silver Line” Construction “Rail Like” Image ! Reduced Travel Time " Multi-Door Boarding " Exclusive Right-of-Way " Traffic Signal Prioritization " Higher Travel Speeds " Level Boarding " Precision Docking " Rear Facing Wheel Chair Restraints " Off-Board Fare Collection “Rail Like” Image ! Hi-Frequency
    [Show full text]
  • Motion No. M2020-69 Funding Agreement for Capped Contribution for Rapidride C Line Improvements
    Motion No. M2020-69 Funding Agreement for Capped Contribution for RapidRide C Line Improvements Meeting: Date: Type of action: Staff contact: System Expansion Committee 11/12/2020 Recommend to Board Don Billen, Executive Director, Board 11/19/2020 Final action PEPD Cathal Ridge, Executive Corridor Director- Central Corridor Chris Rule, HCT Project Manager – Central Corridor Proposed action Authorizes the chief executive officer to execute an agreement with the City of Seattle and King County to reimburse the City of Seattle for $1,730,000 and King County Metro for $2,800,000 to provide a total funding contribution of $4,530,000 for bus speed and reliability improvements to the RapidRide C Line serving West Seattle to South Lake Union. Key features summary • This action authorizes Sound Transit to enter into an inter-local agreement with the City of Seattle and King County to reimburse the City and County for costs of up to $4.53 million for speed and reliability improvements to the RapidRide C Line. • The Sound Transit 3 (ST3) System Plan includes a capped capital contribution of $65 million for bus capital enhancements to design and construct transit priority improvements that improve speed and reliability for the Madison BRT project and the RapidRide C and D Lines. • In 2018 the Sound Transit Board established the RapidRide C and D Improvements project and approved an initial study of potential improvements performed by the West Seattle and Ballard Link Extensions project team. • In September the Board of Directors moved that staff bring forward an agreement for a limited near- term authorization for RapidRide C Line improvements pending a more comprehensive program realignment.
    [Show full text]
  • City Council Work Session Agenda Section Work Session Meeting Date April 5, 2021
    CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION AGENDA SECTION WORK SESSION MEETING DATE APRIL 5, 2021 ITEM: BUS RAPID TRANSIT (BRT) LINES DEPARTMENT: Public Works BY/DATE: Kevin Hansen/April 1, 2021 CITY STRATEGY: (please indicate areas that apply by adding a bold “X” in front of the selected text below) X_Safe Community _Diverse, Welcoming “Small-Town” Feel _Economic Strength _Excellent Housing/Neighborhoods _Equity and Affordability X_Strong Infrastructure/Public Services _Opportunities for Play and Learning _Engaged, Multi-Generational, Multi-Cultural Population BACKGROUND: ‘NetworkNext’ is a 20-year plan initiated by Metro Transit for expanding and improving the bus network serving the metro area. Transit improvements under consideration include improved local and express routes, integrated shared mobility options, and new arterial bus rapid transit (BRT) lines. Bus rapid transit (BRT) provides an improved customer experience with frequent service and faster trips in our the Metro’s busiest bus corridors. Metro Transit first studied a dozen potential BRT lines in 2011-2012. This study led to the implementation of the METRO A Line in 2016 and the METRO C Line in 2019. Metro Transit has reported both lines have been very successful in increasing ridership and customers satisfaction. In 2020 and 2021, Metro Transit engaged the public to help identify the Metro’s next BRT priorities. Each step was based on four principles that guided the planning process for BRT, rooted in public engagement, Metropolitan Council transit policy, and the performance of the bus network: Advance equity and reduce regional racial disparities Build on success to grow ridership Design a network that supports a transit-oriented lifestyle Ensure the long-term sustainable growth of the bus network In February 2021, following months of analysis and community engagement, Metro Transit finalized recommendations for the next expansions in the BRT network: The METRO F Line will serve the Central Avenue corridor, modifying Route 10 from downtown Minneapolis to Northtown Mall via Central and University avenues.
    [Show full text]
  • BUS STATIONS AS TOD ANCHORS REPORT Prepared in Accordance with California Senate Bill 961, 2017-2018 Regular Session
    Housing Financing Tools and Equitable, Location-Efficient Development in California BUS STATIONS AS TOD ANCHORS REPORT Prepared in Accordance with California Senate Bill 961, 2017-2018 Regular Session Prepared for: Governor's Office of Planning and Research December 29, 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................... 1 I. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 5 Report Purpose ....................................................................................................................... 5 Report Organization ................................................................................................................ 5 II. BACKGROUND ON THE SECOND NEIGHBORHOOD INFILL FINANCE AND TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS ACT ................................................................................................................ 7 Definition of Bus Transit ......................................................................................................... 7 Extent of Use ........................................................................................................................... 7 III. LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................................ 9 Literature Overview ................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Toolbox: BRT Person Throughput-Vehicle Congestion Tradeoffs
    Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Toolbox: BRT Person Throughput-Vehicle Congestion Tradeoffs Jingquan Li, Jacob Tsao, Ching-yao Chan, Kun Zhou, and Wei-Bin Zhang UCB-ITS-PRR-2015-02 California PATH University of California Berkeley March 11, 2015 Page 1 of 54 ADA Notice Individuals with sensory disabilities, this document is available in alternative formats. For information call (916) 654-6410, or TDD (916) 654-3880 or write STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Records and forms Management, 1120 N Street, MS- 89, Sacramento, CA 95814 TECHNICAL REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE TR0003 (REV. 10/98) 1. REPORT NUMBER 2. GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATION NUMBER 3. RECIPIENT’S CATALOG NUMBER CA 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. REPORT DATE December 2014 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Toolbox: BRT Person Throughput- 6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE Vehicle Congestion Tradeoffs 7. AUTHOR(S) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO. Jingquan Li, Jacob Tsao, Ching-yao Chan, Kun Zhou, UCB-ITS-PRR-2015-02 and Wei-Bin Zhang 9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. WORK UNIT NUMBER California PATH Program, University of California at Berkeley 1357 46th St., Richmond, CA 94804 11. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California at Irvine 4000 Anteater Instruction and Research Bldg., Irvine, CA 92697 12. SPONSORING AGENCY AND ADDRESS 13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED California Department of Transportation Division of Research and Innovation 14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE P.O. Box 942873, MS 83 Sacramento, CA 94273-0001 15. SUPPLEMENTAL NOTES 16. ABSTRACT This report documents a research effort to understand the current practice and issues associated with Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) planning and deployment.
    [Show full text]
  • Work Session Virtual Meeting Held Via Webex December 8, 2020 6:15 Pm
    WORK SESSION VIRTUAL MEETING HELD VIA WEBEX DECEMBER 8, 2020 6:15 PM Call to order 1. Metropolitan Transit Project Manager Shahin Khazrajafari will be presenting an overview of the forthcoming Metro Transit D Line Bus Rapid Transit project, the anticipated construction timeline, and will be available to answer any questions. Adjournment Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be made at least 96 hours in advance to the City Clerk at 612-861-9738. AGENDA SECTION: Work Session Items AGENDA ITEM # 1. WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT NO. 31 WORK SESSION 12/8/2020 REPORT PREPARED BY: Joe Powers, Assistant City Engineer DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: Kristin Asher, Public Works Director/City Engineer 12/2/2020 OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: N/A CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager 12/2/2020 ITEM FOR WORK SESSION: Metropolitan Transit Project Manager Shahin Khazrajafari will be presenting an overview of the forthcoming Metro Transit D Line Bus Rapid Transit project, the anticipated construction timeline, and will be available to answer any questions. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Metro Transit is moving towards construction of planned improvements to the Route 5 corridor with the D Line Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project after securing final project funding at the legislature in the recent bonding bill. The project will be a positive asset to the City of Richfield and enhance the overall metro transit system in our region. The D Line will substantially replace Route 5, running primarily on Portland Avenue within Richfield and on Chicago, Emerson and Fremont Avenues in Minneapolis. Rapid bus brings better amenities, such as: Faster, more frequent service; Pre-boarding fare payment for faster stops; Neighborhood-scale stations with amenities; Enhanced security; and, Larger & specialized vehicles.
    [Show full text]
  • Ctfastrak Existing Condition
    Hartford Line TOD Action Plan Desire & Readiness Workshop: Town of Windsor Locks October 20, 2016 State Project No. 170-3396 1 Task 8 Agenda 1. Project Background and Overview 2. TOD Principles and Precedents 3. CTrail Hartford Line Station Area Assessment • TOD Desire & Readiness Criteria • Initial Observations from the Project Team 4. Interactive Workshop • Preliminary Areas of Focus • Instructions 2 Project Background Establishing a Point of Departure in Windsor Locks • Hartford Line TOD Action Plan • Town of Windsor Locks POCD Update • Main Street Property Acquisition and • Windsor Locks TOD Study Pre-Development (OPM) • Making it Happen • CRCOG Regional Complete Streets Policy and Action Plan (OPM) • Historic Train Station Reuse Study Windsor Locks Downtown • Capitol Region Master Plan Transportation Plan 2007 2008 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Ongoing/Forthcoming • Incentive Housing Downtown TIF Zone Study District Master Plan • Capital Region POCD Town of Windsor Locks EA/EIE for NHHS Rail Program POCD 3 Project Background Initial Thoughts from the Project Team: Key Issues to Advance TOD in Windsor Locks Reinvigorate downtown/Main Street Activate and maximize development as a destination potential of catalytic sites in the station area . Address lasting impacts of urban . Target sites and recommended sequencing renewal, and change the mindset of Main have been identified, but there are Street as a pass through outstanding questions: . Find a balance between maintaining • What can be done to make sites more traffic flow and creating a pedestrian- attractive to potential developers? and bicycle-friendly downtown • Are there opportunities to assemble a critical mass of sites to enable a larger . Consider developing a downtown development proposition? parking strategy 4 Source: Windsor Locks TOD Study Project Background Funding through FTA Pilot Program for TOD Planning .
    [Show full text]
  • Planning a Public Transportation System with a View Towards Passengers’ Convenience
    Planning a Public Transportation System with a View Towards Passengers’ Convenience by Jonas Harbering Planning a Public Transportation System with a View Towards Passengers’ Convenience Dissertation zur Erlangung des mathematisch-naturwissenschaftlichen Doktorgrades ”Doctor rerum naturalium” der Georg-August-Universit¨atG¨ottingen im Promotionsprogramm ”PhD School of Mathematical Sciences” (SMS) der Georg-August University School of Science (GAUSS) vorgelegt von Jonas Harbering aus Flemhude G¨ottingen,2015 Betreuungsausschuss Prof. Dr. Anita Sch¨obel, Institut f¨urNumerische und Angewandte Mathematik, Georg- August-Universit¨atG¨ottingen Prof. Dr. Stephan Westphal, Institut f¨urAngewandte Stochastik und Operations Research, Technische Universit¨atClausthal Mitglieder der Pr¨ufungskommision Referentin: Prof. Dr. Anita Sch¨obel, Institut f¨urNumerische und Angewandte Mathe- matik, Georg-August-Universit¨atG¨ottingen Koreferent: Prof. Dr. Juan Antonio Mesa, Institut f¨urAngewandte Mathematik, Univer- sit¨atSevilla Weitere Mitglieder der Pr¨ufungskommision Prof. Dr. Stephan Westphal, Institut f¨urAngewandte Stochastik und Operations Research, Technische Universit¨atClausthal Prof. Dr. Andrea Krajina, Institut f¨urMathematische Stochastik, Georg-August-Universit¨at G¨ottingen Prof. Dr. Preda Mihailescu, Mathematisches Institut, Georg-August-Universit¨atG¨ottingen Prof. Dr. Jens Grabowski, Institut f¨urInformatik, Georg-August-Universit¨atG¨ottingen Tag der m¨undlichen Pr¨ufung: 1. Februar 2016 ii Contents 1. Introduction 1 2. General Literature
    [Show full text]
  • Regional Bus Rapid Transit Feasiblity Study
    TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 2 MODES AND TRENDS THAT FACILITATE BRT ........................................................................................................................................................ 2 2.1 Microtransit ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 2 2.2 Shared Mobility .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 2.3 Mobility Hubs ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 3 2.4 Curbside Management .............................................................................................................................................................................. 3 3 VEHICLES THAT SUPPORT BRT OPERATIONS ....................................................................................................................................................... 4 3.1 Automated Vehicles .................................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]