TREASURE VALLEY HIGH CAPACITY TRANSIT STUDY DOWNTOWN POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Monday, January 7, 2008 3:30 p.m.
LOCATION: Capital City Development Corporation, Conference Room 805 W. Idaho, Boise, Idaho
**AGENDA**
Item Speaker Time/
Documentation
1. Review Minutes
Draft minutes from the December 10, 2007 meeting are attached. (Page 2)
Dale Higer 5 Min
Information Attached
2. Site Evaluation and Concept Plan Update
Bob Post will provide an update on the site evaluation process.
Bob Post
25 MinInformation
To Be Distributed at meeting
3. Alignment Alternative Review
Bob Post will review preliminary system plans for circulator alignments as they pertain to the proposed site locations for the multimodal center. (Page 5)
Bob Post 15 Min
Information Attached and Presented At
Meeting
4. Review Mode Option Guide
Bob Post will review and take comments regarding the Mode Option Guide. (Page 8)
Bob Post 20 Min
Information Attached
5. Regional Plan Review
Kelli Fairless will review the Regional Plan.
Kelli Fairless
15 Min
6. Public Outreach Update Team staff will discuss preparations for the January 17, 2007 public meeting.
Consulting Team 10 Min
7. Information Items
Updated DPAC/DTAC Schedule, Agenda & Action Items.
N/A
N/A
T:\FY08\600 Projects\631 TVHCTS\Meetings\DPAC\Agendas\1-7-08\Agenda 1-07-08.doc
1
Treasure Valley High Capacity Transit Study – Downtown Policy Advisory Committee December 10, 2007 Meeting
Treasure Valley High Capacity Transit Study
Downtown Policy Advisory Committee December 10, 2007 Meeting Minutes
Capital City Development Corp. Boise, Idaho
Attendees: Rebecca Arnold, Commissioner, Ada County Highway District
A.J. Balukoff, Community Planning Association Representative Cheryl Larabee, Capital City Development Corporation Board of Directors Ed Dahlberg, Boise Metro Chamber of Commerce Representative David Eberle, Councilman, City of Boise Dale Higer, Private Sector Representative – At Large
Monte McClure, Idaho Transportation Board Jim Tomlinson, Downtown Boise Association Representative Paul Woods, Commissioner, Ada County
Members Absent: Rob Hopper, Councilman, City of Caldwell, Valley Regional Transit Representative
Others: Jon Cecil, Capital City Development Corporation
John Cunningham, Community Planning Association Chris Danley, ACHD Kelli Fairless, Valley Regional Transit Bryant Forrester, Urban Concepts Miguel Gaddi, HDR Dean Gunderson, Ada County Linda Ihli, Valley Regional Transit
Phil Kushlan, Capital City Development Corporation Mark McLaren, HDR
Bob Post, URS Corporation Tom Ryder, J.R. Simplot Company Matt Stoll, Community Planning Association
1. Welcome and Introductions Chair Dale Higer called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. 2. Minutes Jim Tomlinson moved and Cheryl Larabee seconded approval of the November 19, 2007 meeting minutes. Motion passed unanimously. 3. Site Short-List Recommendation Mark McLaren of HDR reviewed the November 19th meeting discussion. Bob Post reviewed the technical group and executive group recommendation of sites A-B-C and C-2 on multi-modal sites to be moved forward in the process for further evaluation. A correction was made to page 7 of the packet under the Site Size and Configuration category under the Measure column which should read less than
22
Treasure Valley High Capacity Transit Study – Downtown Policy Advisory Committee December 10, 2007 Meeting
50,000 square feet is least desirable. A correction was also made to page 8 under the Financial category under the Measure column which should read: Low = <2.0 million; Medium = $2.0 -$2.5 million; High = $2.5 million and above. Bob Post recommended the four names sites be moved forward.
Discussion was held regarding adding a site by the railroad tracks. Rebecca Arnold distributed a map of suggested location.
Following discussion, Dave Eberle moved that this group recommend sites A, B, C, and C2 to be advanced to the next step including a detailed analysis and developing of site concepts design. In addition, the consultant team should identify two additional sites for preliminary analysis, one located near the railroad corridor and one west of downtown between 14th and 16th; seconded by Rebecca Arnold.
Following discussion, a vote by show of hands showed Paul Woods-yes, Dave Eberle-yes, Rebecca Arnold-yes, Jim Tomlinson-no, A.J. Balukoff-no, Ed Dahlberg-no, Cheryl Larabee-no, Monte McClure-no. The motion failed with four votes no and three votes yes.
Following discussion regarding looking at alternative sites options outside the core, Dave Eberle moved to add two criteria elements: 1 - that ranks access to the Circulator and Multimodal Center 2 - criteria under alternative design – a vertical structure versus horizontal structure 3 - criteria rated on transfers. The motion was seconded by Jim Tomlinson.
After further discussion, the question was called for. The motion was approved unanimously. Jim Tomlinson left the meeting at 4:40 p.m.
Dave Eberle moved to recommend the list be narrowed to sites A, B, C, and C2 to be advanced including concept design, and the project team also investigate alternative sites in the event that these sites fail some fundamental criteria; seconded by Cheryl Larabee.
Following discussion, the motion was restated as - Narrow site down to A, B, C, and C2 and further direct consultants and vested parties to investigate alternate sites that incorporate the regional connection. Following discussion, the motion was approved unanimously. 4. Alignment Alternatives Bob Post distributed a handout titled Circulator Alignment Selection Process and discussed alignment alternatives for the Downtown Circulator as the alignment pertains to the potential locations for the Multi-modal Center. Bob pointed out the task was to look at options in downtown Boise. Following discussion, Bob explained the next step is to start looking at connecting functions and get some ideas out there as to what the members want to connect to. 5. Site Visits Kelli Fairless distributed a list of potential projects to visit in other regions of the United States. A sign-up sheet was passed around listing staff as host for the various locations. The members were asked to sign up to participate in the site visits. Following the visits, members would come back with a report to educate the group about what they learned from their trips. Agencies will sponsor staff and members going on the trip. The trips will be taken January through March. An email will be sent out asking members to sign up.
6. Next Steps/Next Agenda
33
Treasure Valley High Capacity Transit Study – Downtown Policy Advisory Committee December 10, 2007 Meeting
The next meeting is January 7, 2008. Members were asked to note that the January 28th meeting has been cancelled. 7. Open Discussion - None Adjournment A.J. Balukoff moved to adjourn the meeting at 5:05 p.m.; seconded by Monte McClure. The motion was approved unanimously. T:\FY08\600 Projects\631 TVHCTS\Meetings\DPAC\Minutes\12-10-07.doc
44
A
B
FRONT ST
13TH
ST
12TH
ST
C
D
11TH
ST
10TH
ST
BANNOCK ST
13TH
ST
12TH
ST
11TH
ST
10TH
ST
MYRTLE ST
BROAD ST
BORAH ST
Þ
Þ
Þ
Þ
Þ
ÞÞ
Þ Þ
Þ Þ
ÞÞ
Þ
Þ
Þ
Þ
ÞÞ
Þ
Þ Þ
FRONT ST
Þ ÞÞ
GROVE ST
3RD
ST
5TH
ST
4TH
ST
MYRTLE STÞ Þ Þ
Þ
ÞBANNOCK ST
MAIN STÞ Þ Þ
2ND
ST
IDAHO ST
ÞÞ Þ
ÞÞ
ÞÞ
ÞÞ
ÞÞ
JEFFERSON ST
Þ Þ ÞÞ
ÞÞ
Þ Þ Þ
ÞÞ
ÞÞ
Þ
ÞÞ
Þ
ÞÞ
Þ Þ
Þ Þ
ÞÞ
ÞÞ
Þ
ÞÞÞ
ÞÞ
Þ Þ
Þ
Þ
Þ
Þ
Þ
Þ Þ Þ
Þ Þ Þ
GROVE ST
C2
Þ Þ
Þ
Þ Þ
Þ
Þ
Þ
Þ
Þ
14TH
ST
9TH
ST
MAIN ST
Þ
IDAHO ST
W Fa
irview
Ave
W Main St
S 30th St
N 30th St
ÞÞ
ÞÞ
ÞÞ
ÞÞ
ÞÞ
ÞÞ
ÞÞ
ÞÞ
ÞÞ
Þ
Þ
Þ
ÞÞ
ÞÞ
Þ ÞÞ Þ ÞÞ
Þ
Þ
Þ
ÞÞ
Þ Þ ÞÞ Þ
ÞÞ
ÞÞ
ÞÞ
ÞÞ
Þ
ÞÞ
Þ
Þ
Þ
Þ
Þ
Þ
Þ
Þ
Þ
Þ
Þ
Þ
Þ
Þ
ÞÞÞÞ
ÞÞÞÞ
S Am
eric
ana
Blv
d
E
30TH STREET30TH STREET
HOUSINGHOUSING
CONVENTION CENTER
CONVENTION CENTER
INFILLINFILL DOWNTOWN CORE
DOWNTOWN CORE
THE CAPITOL
THE CAPITOL
MIXED USEMIXED USE
ST. LUKE'S MEDICAL CENTER
ST. LUKE'S MEDICAL CENTER
OFFICEOFFICE
BOISE STATE UNIVERSITYBOISE STATE UNIVERSITY
MIXED USEMIXED USE
MIXED USE
MIXED USE
INFILLINFILL
COURTHOUSE CORRIDORCOURTHOUSE CORRIDOR
MIXED USE
MIXED USE
0 0.50.25Mile
N
K:\Boise_HCT\MXD\MajorDestinations.mxd 1:12000
URS HDR Nelson\Nygaard
0 2,0001,000Feet
MajorDestinationsProposed Downtown Circulator
Phase 1
Phase 2
Railroad
Parks
Major Destinations
Treasure Valley High Capacity Transit Study
Multi-Modal CenterDowntown Boise Circulator
55
A
B
FRONT ST
13TH
ST
12TH
ST
C
D
11TH
ST
10TH
ST
BANNOCK ST
13TH
ST
12TH
ST
11TH
ST
10TH
ST
MYRTLE ST
BROAD ST
BORAH ST
Þ
Þ
Þ
Þ
Þ
ÞÞ
Þ Þ
Þ Þ
ÞÞ
Þ
Þ
Þ
Þ
ÞÞ
Þ
Þ Þ
FRONT ST
Þ ÞÞ
GROVE ST
3RD
ST
5TH
ST
4TH
ST
MYRTLE STÞ Þ Þ
Þ
ÞBANNOCK ST
MAIN STÞ Þ Þ
2ND
ST
IDAHO ST
ÞÞ Þ
ÞÞ
ÞÞ
ÞÞ
ÞÞ
JEFFERSON ST
Þ Þ ÞÞ
ÞÞ
Þ Þ Þ
ÞÞ
ÞÞ
Þ
ÞÞ
Þ
ÞÞ
Þ Þ
Þ Þ
ÞÞ
ÞÞ
Þ
Þ ÞÞ
ÞÞ
Þ Þ
Þ
Þ
Þ
Þ
Þ
Þ Þ Þ
Þ Þ Þ
GROVE ST
C2
Þ Þ
Þ
Þ Þ
Þ
Þ
Þ
Þ
Þ
14TH
ST
9TH
ST
MAIN ST
Þ
IDAHO ST
W Fa
irview
Ave
W Main St
S 30th St
N 30th St
ÞÞ
ÞÞ
ÞÞ
ÞÞ
ÞÞ
ÞÞ
ÞÞ
ÞÞ
ÞÞ
Þ
Þ
Þ
ÞÞ
ÞÞ
Þ ÞÞ Þ ÞÞ
Þ
Þ
Þ
ÞÞ
Þ Þ ÞÞ Þ
ÞÞ
ÞÞ
ÞÞ
ÞÞ
Þ
ÞÞ
Þ
Þ
Þ
Þ
Þ
Þ
Þ
Þ
Þ
Þ
Þ
Þ
Þ
Þ
ÞÞÞÞ
ÞÞÞÞ
S A
mer
ican
a B
lvd
E
30TH STREET30TH STREET
HOUSINGHOUSING
DOWNTOWN CORE
DOWNTOWN CORE
THE CAPITOL
THE CAPITOL
MIXED USEMIXED USE
COURTHOUSE CORRIDORCOURTHOUSE CORRIDOR
ST. LUKE'S MEDICAL CENTER
ST. LUKE'S MEDICAL CENTER
OFFICEOFFICE
BOISE STATE UNIVERSITYBOISE STATE UNIVERSITY
CONVENTIONCENTER
CONVENTIONCENTER
MIXED USE
MIXED USE
MIXED USEMIXED USE
INFILLINFILL
INFILLINFILL
MIXED USE
MIXED USE
0 0.50.25Mile
N
K:\Boise_HCT\MXD\MajorDestinations_PotentialAlignment1.mxd 1:12000
URS HDR Nelson\Nygaard
0 2,0001,000Feet
Major Destinationsand Potential Circulator Alignments A and B
Treasure Valley High Capacity Transit Study
Multi-Modal CenterDowntown Boise Circulator
Railroad
Parks
Major Destinations
Proposed Downtown Circulator
Alignment A
Alignment B
66
A
B
FRONT ST
13TH
ST
12TH
ST
C
D
11TH
ST
10TH
ST
BANNOCK ST
13TH
ST
12TH
ST
11TH
ST
10TH
ST
MYRTLE ST
BROAD ST
BORAH ST
Þ
Þ
Þ
Þ
Þ
ÞÞ
Þ Þ
Þ Þ
ÞÞ
Þ
Þ
Þ
Þ
ÞÞ
Þ
Þ Þ
FRONT ST
Þ ÞÞ
GROVE ST
3RD
ST
5TH
ST
4TH
ST
MYRTLE STÞ Þ Þ
Þ
ÞBANNOCK ST
MAIN STÞ Þ Þ
2ND
ST
IDAHO ST
ÞÞ Þ
ÞÞ
ÞÞ
ÞÞ
ÞÞ
JEFFERSON ST
Þ Þ ÞÞ
ÞÞ
Þ Þ Þ
ÞÞ
ÞÞ
Þ
ÞÞ
Þ
ÞÞ
Þ Þ
Þ Þ
ÞÞ
ÞÞ
Þ
ÞÞÞ
ÞÞ
Þ Þ
Þ
Þ
Þ
Þ
Þ
Þ Þ Þ
Þ Þ Þ
GROVE ST
C2
Þ Þ
Þ
Þ Þ
Þ
Þ
Þ
Þ
Þ
14TH
ST
9TH
ST
MAIN ST
Þ
IDAHO ST
W Fairv
iew A
ve
W Main St
S 30th St
N 30th St
ÞÞ
ÞÞ
ÞÞ
ÞÞ
Þ
ÞÞ
ÞÞ
ÞÞ
ÞÞ
Þ
ÞÞ
Þ
Þ
Þ
Þ
ÞÞ
Þ
ÞÞ
Þ
Þ ÞÞ Þ ÞÞ
Þ
Þ
Þ
ÞÞ
Þ Þ ÞÞ Þ
ÞÞ
ÞÞ
ÞÞ
ÞÞ
Þ
ÞÞ
Þ
Þ
Þ
Þ
Þ
Þ
Þ
Þ
Þ
Þ
Þ
Þ
Þ
Þ
ÞÞÞÞ
ÞÞÞÞ
S A
mer
ican
a B
lvd
E
DOWNTOWN CORE
DOWNTOWN CORE
COURTHOUSE CORRIDORCOURTHOUSE CORRIDOR
MIXED USEMIXED USE
MIXED USE
MIXED USE
INFILLINFILL
MIXED USE
MIXED USE
BOISE STATE UNIVERSITYBOISE STATE UNIVERSITY
OFFICEOFFICE
30TH STREET30TH STREET
HOUSINGHOUSING
INFILLINFILL
MIXED USEMIXED USE
THE CAPITOL
THE CAPITOL
ST. LUKE'S MEDICAL CENTER
ST. LUKE'S MEDICAL CENTER
CONVENTION CENTER
CONVENTION CENTER
0 0.50.25Mile
N
K:\Boise_HCT\MXD\MajorDestinations_PotentialAlignment2.mxd 1:12000
URS HDR Nelson\Nygaard
0 2,0001,000Feet
Major Destinationsand Potential Circulator Alignments C and D
Alignment C
Alignment D
Proposed Downtown Circulator
Railroad
Parks
Major Destinations
Treasure Valley High Capacity Transit Study
Multi-Modal CenterDowntown Boise Circulator
77
106
I N T R O D U C T I O N
D E V E L O P M E N T S
T R A N S I T
G L O S S A R Y
A P P E N D I X
# T R A N S I T T E C H N O L O G Y T Y P E
1 0 6 TRANSIT TECHNOLOGIES: BY FAMILIES
1 0 7 PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY CHART
1 0 8 RIDESHARE: CARPOOL & VANPOOL
1 1 0 EXPRESS BUS
1 1 2 BUS RAPID TRANSIT (BRT)1 1 4 HERITAGE TROLLEY
1 1 6 MODERN STREETCAR
1 1 8 LIGHT RAIL
1 2 0 COMMUTER RAIL: DIESEL MULTIPLE UNIT
1 2 2 COMMUTER RAIL: LOCOMOTIVE
S E C T I O N 2
We envision a Treasure Valley where quality of life is enhanced and communities are connected by an innovative, effective, multi-modal transportation system.
DRAFTTT E C H N O L O G Y T Y PT E C H N O L O G
ECHNOLOGIESECHN : BY FFAMILIESAMIL
TIVETIVE CAPACITY CHART
SHARESHAR : CARPOOLPOOL & VANPOOL
XPRESSS B BUSUS
BUS RAPID TTRANSITRA (BRT)HHERITAGEER TROLLEYOLLE
6 MMODERNODERN SSTREETCARTCAR
1 8 LLIGHT RRAILAIL
1 2 01 CCOMMUTEROMMUT RAILIL
1 2 21 2 2 CCOMMUTEROM R
88
107
“Albuquerque RailRunner”
“ValleyRide Transit”COMPASS“North American Bus Industries Demonstration Bus”
“Tacoma Streetcar”
PHOTO CREDITS (TOP TO BOTTOM)
DATA SOURCES:1. APTA, http://www.heritagetrolley.com2. TCRP 90 - Bus Rapid Transit, http://www.lightrail.com3. Brian Richards. DART Technology Review Report, “Future Transport in Cities.” 4. Vukan R. Vuchic. “Urban Public Transportation - Systems and Technol-ogy.”
DRAFTT
99
108
Section 2Section 2
108
TRANSIT TECHNOLOGIESGrouped by Families
Com
mut
er R
ail
locomotive
DieselMultipleUnit
Lig
ht R
ail
lightrail
Stre
etca
r
modern streetcar
heritage trolley
Bus
BRT
expressbus
Rid
esha
re
carpool
vanpool
increasing capacity
DRAFTuter RailRailTLig
ht R
ail
Lig
ht R
ail
AFT
DRRAmoder
stre
DR
increasing capacityincre
1010
109109
Light Rail (on street)
CBD Bus Lane
Bus (in mixed traffic)
Ave
rag
e T
rave
l S
pee
d (m
ph)
10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,0000
10
20
30
40
50
60
Person Capacity (peak direction passengers/hour)
Commuter Rail
Bus(HOV lane)
Bus(exclusive
lane)
Light Rail (Exclusive ROW)
PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY
‡ As adapted from: -Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual - 2nd Ed.-“TCQSM speed and capacity estimation procedures” -TCRP Report 13 (R5)-Transportation Planning Handbook (R2)-Characteristics of Urban Transportation Systems (R1)
on stop spacing and dwell time. Capacity ranges primarily
of cars per train. Peak hour factor and passenger loading
of US and Canadian Transit Modes
Productive Capacity: the product of passenger capacity and speed
ROW: Right-of-way
QUICK TERMS
This graph compares typical travel speed and capacity ranges for various transit modes on different types of facilities. The travel speeds include
DRAFTT
DRRARADRRAAFFTT
DRAFT
DRDRDRDRDRDDLight Rail (on street)
ne
Bus (in mixed traffic)
10,000000
PerPe
RAFT
RAFTFTFT
RARARARAht Rail (Exclusive ROW)
ee
AFous ous
clude clude
1111
Section 2Section 2
1108 units/acre 25-45 units/acre
P R I M A R Y P R E M I U M
RIDESHARECarpool & Vanpool
DRA
oooo
1212
111
Rideshare Carpool & VanpoolVanpools & carpools are an element of the transit system that allow groups of people to share a vehicle
to achieve savings in fuel and vehicle operating costs. The key concept is that people share the ride from home or one or more common meeting locations & travel together to a common destination or work center. Pool vehicles may be provided by individuals, individuals in cooperation with various public & private support programs, through a program operated by or on behalf of an element of government, or a program operated by or on behalf of an employer.
Status in the USAbundant examples in cities and regions across the United States
Projected Costs per MileCosts of operating similar to the cost of operating a private vehicle (as some of them are) with costs divided by the number of pool members
Service Type/Land Use SettingFalls between private vehicles and public transit
Average Operating SpeedVaries
Station TypeCommon meeting areas (i.e. park and ride lots) used for pool members to congregate**
Distance Between StationsNA
Service FrequencyNA
AlignmentIn the same right of way as any auto-mobile
Right of Way WidthNA
Turning RadiusNA
Vehicle LengthPrivate autos or 15 passenger vans
Typical Power SourceNA
Can Operate Concurrently with Freight Service?NA
‡ As adapted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanpool
*From “2002 Treasure Valley Household Characteristics Study”**The end of the trip is typically one or two common workplaces which could have pref-erential parking for rideshare vehicles.
{NO
TAB
LEC
HA
RA
CT
ERIS
TIC
S
• Typically, the most unused capacity available in a congested roadway is in the empty seats of vehicles. That capacity is already “in service” but otherwise unoccupied.• Work trips in the Treasure Valley = average of 1.1 persons/vehicle*•ACHD Commuterride Facts:
-Oldest multi-employer vanpool program in the nation-Runs longest running single vanpool route in the US (Southwest Boise to Downtown)-More info: http://www.commuteride.com
{DRAFT
D
TTr to the cost to the
vehicle (as some vehicle (as soosts divided by theosts divided by th
membersmembe
e/Land Use Settingand Use Settingween private vehicles and vate vehicles a
c transittransit
Average Operating SpeedAverage Operating SpVariesVari
Station TypeStatioCommon meeting areas (i.eCommon meeting areas (
lots) used for pool m lots) used for pool mgate**gate**
tweetweeDRDDARA
AlignmentmentIn the same right of way me rightmobilemob
Right of Way WRight of Way WNAN
TurningNAAFAA
ted ted is already is already
persons/vehicle*persons/vehicle*
ram in the nationram in tool route in the US (Southool route
mmuteride.commuterid
{{1313
Section 2Section 2
1128 units/acre 25-45 units/acre
P R I M A R YS E C O N DA RY P R E M I U M
EXPRESSBus
ValleyRide Bus Service(Note: Some ValleyRide intercounty routes are running near or at capacity)
Las Vegas Express Metro Express Bus
DRAFT
y routes are running near or at capacity)ning near or at cap
1414
113
Express Bus An Express Bus system is a bus service that is intended to run faster than
normal bus lines, typically with very limited stops. These buses usually run between the downtown sections of cities and the more residential suburbs.
Status in the USAny city with a bus system
Projected Costs per Mile$1 - 2 Million
Service Type/Land Use SettingRegionalUrban
Average Operating Speed15-19 MPH
Station TypeSidewalk SignPlatform
Distance Between StationsLimited stops along normal bus routes
Service Frequency10 - 20 Minutes
AlignmentIn street with traffic
Right of Way WidthStreet Width
Turning Radius33 - 50 feet
Vehicle Length30 - 50 feet
Typical Power SourceDiesel
Can Operate Concurrently with Freight Service?NA
‡ As adapted from “Transit Technologies Worksheet” by Reconnecting Americahttp://www.reconnectingamerica.org/public/download/bestpractice175
{NO
TAB
LEC
HA
RA
CT
ERIS
TIC
S
• Some mechanisms can be implemented with express service to improve performance such as signal preemption and preferential treatment at intersections (queue jump lanes).• Can be considered a bridge between conventional bus service and Bus Rapid Transit, particularly when combined with the aforementioned techniques.• Typically used during peak periods, such as commute hours.
{DRAFT
D
TSettingSetting
erating Speedating SpH
on Typeon Typeidewalk Signidewalk Sign
PlatformPlatfo
Distance Between StationsDistance Between StationLimited stops along normal bLimited stops along norm
e Frequencye FrequencyMinutesMinutes
RADRDRDARA
AlignmentmentIn street with trafficwith tra
Right of Way WidthRight of Way WidthStreet WidthStreet Width
Turning RadT33 - 50 fe
VehV33AFAA
service to service to d preferential d preferential
ntional bus service ntionalmbined with the mbined
such as commute hours.such as commute hou
{{1515
Section 2Section 2
1148 units/acre 25-45 units/acre
P R I M A R YS E C O N DA RY P R E M I U M
BUS RAPID TRANSIT(BRT)
Phoenix BRT
Eugene EmX
Las Vegas Max
DRAFT
D1616
115
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is a relatively new umbrella term for urban mass
transportation services utilizing buses to perform premium services on existing roadways or dedicated rights-of-way. Operations of BRT systems can mimic rail operations with off board fare collection, level boarding and increased vehicle capacity.
Status in the US: Rising InterestLas Vegas, NV (in service)Salt Lake City, UT (planning stages)Phoenix, AZ (in service)Eugene, OR (in service)
Projected Costs per Mile$4 - 40 Million
Service Type/Land Use SettingRegionalUrban
Average Operating Speed8 - 25 MPH
Station TypeSidewalk SignStationPlatform
Distance Between Stations0.25 - 2 Miles
Service Frequency8 - 20 Minutes
AlignmentHOV lanes or separated right of way in median or on curb
Right of Way Width12 Feet (Pittsburgh single lane)28 Feet (Pittsburgh double lane)
Turning Radius40 - 70 Feet
Vehicle Length30 - 50 Feet
Typical Power SourceDieselElectric
Can Operate Concurrently with Freight Service?NA
*BRT is an extremely flexible vehicle that is applicable in a variety of environments: dedicated right of way, mixed with traffic (with and without preemption mechanisms), and a variety of station spacing. This flexibility is reflected in its operating characteristics
‡ As adapted from “Transit Technologies Worksheet” by Reconnecting Americahttp://www.reconnectingamerica.org/public/download/bestpractice175
{NO
TAB
LEC
HA
RA
CT
ERIS
TIC
S
• Meant to emulate light rail:-Operation in dedicated right of way (but flexible enough to mix with auto traffic)-Off-board fare collection-Sleek vehicles
• Does not require specialized construction capabilities• Typically serves commute corridors• Potential to be substantially less expensive than light rail• Ability to be a catalyst for development is not yet well established
{DRAFT
DRT
e
nd Use Settingnd Use
rage Operating Speedage Operating Speed- 25 MPH- 25 MP
Station TypeStaSidewalk SignSidewStationStation
tformtform
Between StBetween StesesDRDRDRARA
AlignmentmentHOV lanes or separated res or semedian or on curbmedian or on curb
Right of Way WidRight of Way W12 Feet (Pittsbu12 Feet (Pittsbu28 Feet (Pitt2
Turnin40 4AFA
e enough to e enough t
capabilitiescapabili
nsive than light railnsive than light railment is not yet well establishedment is not yet well esta
{{1717
Section 2Section 2
1168 units/acre 25-45 units/acre
P R I M A R YS E C O N DA RY P R E M I U M
HERITAGETrolley
Photo by APTA, San Francisco F Linehttp://heritagetrolley.org
Photo by Jeremy Atherton, Memphis Main Street Trolley Linehttp://www.commons.wikimedia.org
Galveston Trolleyhttps://www.utmb.edu/psychology/images/GalvestonTrolley.JPG
DRAFT
F LineF Line
1818
117
Heritage Trolley The terms “Heritage Trolley” and “Vintage Trolley” are used to describe modern use
of trolleys of a design dating from roughly 1900 to 1950. The terms can be used to refer either to
or to an original preserved car restored to accurate or nearly accurate standards (APTA).
Status in the US: Currently Operating in a Variety of CitiesNew Orleans (operating)Memphis (operating)Little Rock (operating)Kenosha (operating)Galveston (operating)
Projected Costs per Mile$2 - 12 Million
Service Type/Land Use SettingUrban Circulator (as opposed to cor-ridor service)
Average Operating Speed8-12 MPH
Station TypeSidewalk SignStationPlatform
Distance Between StationsApproximately 0.25 Miles
Service Frequency8 - 15 Minutes
AlignmentIn the street with traffic with no grade separation
Right of Way Width19 - 24 (double track)11 - 13 (single track)
Turning Radius40 - 50 feet
Vehicle Length35 - 50 feet
Typical Power SourceElectric
Can Operate Concurrently with Freight Service?No
‡ As adapted from “Transit Technologies Worksheet” by Reconnecting Americahttp://www.reconnectingamerica.org/public/download/bestpractice175
{NO
TAB
LEC
HA
RA
CT
ERIS
TIC
S
• “Achieving Americans with Disabilities Act” compliance with this type of vehicle typically requires modification.
{DRAFT
DRTTT
er Mileer Mile
pe/Land Use Settingd Use SettingCirculator (as opposed to cor-rculator (as opposed
r service) service)
Average Operating SpeedAverage Operating Spee8-12 MPH8-1
Station TypeStation Tewalk Signewalk SDRDD
AlignmentmentIn the street with traffic weet withseparationsep
Right of Way WidRight of Way W19 - 24 (doubl19 - 24 (doubl11 - 13 (sing1
Turnin40 4RARAAFA
ompliance with this ompliance with this n.n.
{{1919
Section 2Section 2
1188 units/acre 25-45 units/acre
P R I M A R YS E C O N DA RY P R E M I U M
MODERNStreetcar
Tacoma Streetcar
PDX Streetcar Tucson (planning stages)http://www.tucsontransitstudy.com
DRAFT
2020
119
Modern Streetcar The US term “streetcar” is generic to most forms of common forms of common
carrier rail transit that runs or has run on streets, providing a local service and picking up and discharging passengers at any street corner, unless otherwise marked.
Status in the US: Gaining PopularityPortland (in use)Seattle (design phase)Washington DC (under construction)Tacoma, WA (planning stages)
Projected Costs per Mile**$10 - 25 Million
Service Type/Land Use SettingUrban Circulator (as opposed to corridor service)
Average Operating Speed8-12 MPH
Station TypeSidewalk SignStationPlatform
Distance Between StationsApproximately 0.25 Miles
Service Frequency8-15 Minutes
AlignmentIn street with traffic with no grade separation
Right of Way Width19-24 Feet (double track)11-13 Feet (single track)
Turning Radius50-100 Feet
Vehicle Length40 - 80 feet per car
Typical Power SourceElectric
Can Operate Concurrently with Freight Service?NA
** Modern Streetcar and Light Rail systems are often lumped in with road and utility reconstruction, increasing the costs.
‡ As adapted from “Transit Technologies Worksheet” by Reconnecting Americahttp://www.reconnectingamerica.org/public/download/bestpractice175
• Can be viewed as a pedestrian-scaled subset of light rail• Operates in lanes with autos (limited to speed of adjacent traffic)• Stops can be every block and of simple design• Ability to be a catalyst for development in a downtown area• Used to reduce secondary trips within a downtown area• Intended to be inexpensive and quick to implement (retrofit rather than reconstruction of street, no grade separation, very light vehicles requiring only a shallow track slab)
{••••••tr
NO
TAB
LEC
HA
RA
CT
ERIS
TIC
S
DRT
tion))
e**e**
and Use Settingand Uselator (as opposed to or (as opposed to
ervice)
rage Operating Speedrage Operating Speed12 MPH12 MPH
Station TypeStaSidewalk SignSidewStationStation
tformtform
Between StBetween Stely 0.2ely 0.2
AlignmentmentIn street with traffic with nwith traseparationsep
Right of Way WidRight of Way W19-24 Feet (do19-24 Feet (do11-13 Feet (1
Turnin50-5RARADRDRDAFA
cent traffic)cent traffic)
wntown areawntownwntown areawntown
mplement (retrofit rather mplemeparation, very light vehicles paration, very lighFT
2121
Section 2Section 2
8 units/acre 25-45 units/acreP R I M A R YS E C O N DA RY P R E M I U M
LIGHTRail
TRAX light rail
Houston light rail
DRAFT
DD2222
The term light rail refers more to this mode’s relative simplicity and operational
Status in the US: Accepted ModeSalt Lake City, UT (in service)Denver, CO (in service)Minneapolis, MN (in service)Dallas, TX (in service)Houston, TX (in service)
Projected Costs per Mile$20 - 60 Million ($56m)2
Service Type/Land Use SettingRegionalIntra-urban
Average Operating Speed20-60 MPH
Station TypeSidewalk SignStationPlatform
Distance Between Stations>1 Mile
Service Frequency5-30 Minutes
AlignmentAligned center or side of street corridor on separate right of way
Right of Way Width19-33 Feet (double track)11-13 Feet (single track)
Turning Radius50-100 Feet
Vehicle Length50 - 80 feet per car (Up to 4 car trains)
Typical Power SourceElectric
Can Operate Concurrently with Freight Service?No
-‡ As adapted from “Transit Technologies Worksheet” by Reconnecting America
• A dominant mode pre-WWII (think “interurban”)• Approximately 14 new lines since 1980• Most flexible steel wheel technology: can operate in mixed traffic, pedestrian mall, tunnels, elevated, exclusive ROW, etc.• Grade separations are required at roadway crossings• Typically serves commute corridors• Higher capacity service that can act as a network spine• Ability to be a catalyst for development within nodes along a corridor
{•••p••••
NO
TAB
LEC
HA
RA
CT
ERIS
TIC
S {
orrFTin mixed traffic, n mixed traffic,
etc. etc
DRAFT
D
TMileMile
$56m)$56m)22
/Land Use Settingand Use Setting
ban
verage Operating Speedverage Operating Sp20-60 MPH20-60
Station TypeStatioSidewalk SignSidewal
tiontionrmrm
etweenetween
AlignmentmentAligned center or side of scenter oon separate right of waon separate right of
Right of Way WidRight of Way W19-33 Feet (do19-33 Feet (do11-13 Feet (1
Turnin50-5AFARARADRDRD
rossingsrossings
a network spinea netwoent within nodes along a corridorent within nodes along
{{{
or
2323
Section 2Section 2
8 units/acre 25-45 units/acreP R I M A R YS E C O N DA RY P R E M I U M
COMMUTER RAIL(DMU Based)
DRAFT
2424
Status in the USCamden-Trenton, NJSan Diego, CA (to begin 2007)Orlando, FL (to begin 2009)Southern Florida
Projected Costs per Mile$3 - 32 Million
Service TypeRegionalIntra-urban
Average Operating Speed30 - 90 MPH
Station TypeStationPlatform
Distance Between Stations1 - 5 Miles
Service Frequency5 - 30 Minutes
AlignmentGenerally built on existing tracks at grade street crossings
Right of Way Width33 - 37 Feet
Turning Radius140 - 250 Feet
Vehicle Length50 - 90 Feet/car
Typical Power SourceOn-board diesel engines
Can Operate Concurrently with Freight Service?Depends on vehicle
{NO
TAB
LEC
HA
RA
CT
ERIS
TIC
S
• Power plants onboard each car allows for trains to be split and joined en-route, and for power to be scaled along with passenger capacity• Distribution of the propulsion among cars also results in a system less vulnerable to single-point-of-failure outages• Because each car has a self-contained power plant, there is no need for overhead electric lines or electrified tracks, which can result in lower system construction costs relative to a system which requires electrification
{DRAFT
D
Tee
n
rage Operating Speedrage Operating Speed0 - 90 MPH0 - 90 MPH
Station TypeStaStationStatioPlatformPlatform
nce Between Statince Between StatiesesDRDDDR
AlignmentmentGenerally built on existingy built ograde street crossingsgrade street crossin
Right of Way WidRight of Way W33 - 37 Feet33 - 37 Feet
Turning R140 -
VVRARAAFAA
plit and plit and passenger passenger
results in a system results in a system eses
wer plant, there is no wer plafied tracks, which can fied tra
sts relative to a system which sts relative to a system
{{2525
Section 2Section 2
8 units/acre 25-45 units/acreP R I M A R YS E C O N DA RY P R E M I U M
COMMUTER RAIL(Locomotive Based)
DR2626
suburbs.
Status in the US: Well Documented AcceptanceDallas - Fort Worth, TX (in service)Albuquerque, NM (in service)Salt Lake City, UT (planned opening late 2008)Boston, MA (in service)
Projected Costs per Mile$3 - 25 Million**
Service TypeRegionalIntra-urban
Average Operating Speed30-60 MPH
Station TypeStationPlatform
Distance Between Stations2-5 Miles
Service Frequency20-30 Minutes
AlignmentGenerally built on existing tracks at grade street crossings
Right of Way Width37+ feet
Turning Radius140 - 460 feet
Vehicle Length150 - 500 feet(Engine and Coaches)
Typical Power SourceDiesel
Can Operate Concurrently with Freight Service?Yes
‡ As adapted from “Transit Technologies Worksheet” by Reconnecting America **
• Typically implemented using existing infrastructure• Not grade separated• Locomotive pulls trailer coaches (see DMU)• Typically operates in peak period• Potentially inexpensive to implement• Regulated by FRA
History: [Past] Served long journey to work, enabled suburban growth [Currently] Focus on reducing auto congestion/dependence
{••••••
NO
TAB
LEC
HA
RA
CT
ERIS
TIC
S {DRAFT
DRT
pening
er Mileer Mile****
peal
-urban-urban
Average Operating SpeedAverage Operating Spee30-60 MPH30
Station TypeStation Ttiontion
rmrm
etweenetweenDRDDRARA
AlignmentmentGenerally built on existingy built ograde street crossingsgrade street crossin
Right of Way WidRight of Way W37+ feet37+
Turning R140 - 4
VVAFAAenabled suburban growthenabled suburban grow
to congestion/dependencecongestion/dependence
{{2727