1. Where should buses run and with what frequency?

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Tysons Tysons Corner Circulator Study Board Transportation Committee June 12, 2012.
Advertisements

Mass Transit OSullivan Chapter 11. Outline of the Chapter Analyze some empirical facts about public transit in the United States Analyze the commuters.
1 The Role of Bus Transit in the Regional Transportation, Present and Future Howard Benn, Chair, TPB Regional Bus Subcommittee TPB Regional Priority Bus.
Salt Lake City Downtown Transportation Master Plan Light Rail & Bus; Presentation Background and Introduction August 23, 2006.
Blueprint for Transportation Excellence Downtown CAG January 16, 2014.
SR 50/UCF Connector Alternatives Analysis Orange County Board of County Commissioners January 13, 2015.
Management and Operations In MPO Planning Christopher O’Neill.
Materials developed by K. Watkins, J. LaMondia and C. Brakewood TODs & Complete Streets Unit 6: Station Design & Access.
Three Phases of Commuting Trip 1.Collection Phase – the trip from home to the main travel vehicle Cost: a.basically zero for automobile b.time costs and.
South/West Corridor Improvements Service and Facility Alternatives September 9, 2014 Planning & Project Development Committee March 3, 2015.
TRB Transportation Planning Applications Conference Houston, Texas May 2009 Ann Arbor Transportation Plan Update-- Connecting the Land Use & Transportation.
Transportation leadership you can trust. presented to TRB Planning Applications Conference presented by Vamsee Modugula Cambridge Systematics, Inc. May.
Materials developed by K. Watkins, J. LaMondia and C. Brakewood Service Planning & Standards Unit 4: Service Planning & Network Design.
TRB/APTA 2004 Bus Rapid Transit Conference When is BRT the Best Option? the Best Option? 1:30 – 2:40 p.m. Paul Larrousse Director, National Transit Institute.
0 Christopher A. Pangilinan, P.E. Special Assistant to the Deputy Administrator Research and Innovative Technology Administration, ITS Joint Program Office.
Cal y Mayor y Asociados, S.C. Atizapan – El Rosario Light Rail Transit Demand Study October th International EMME/2 UGM.
Freeway Congestion In The Washington Region Presentation to National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board February 15, 2006 Item # 9.
TRB/APTA 2004 Bus Rapid Transit Conference The Results of Selected BRT Projects 2:00 – 3:20 p.m. Walt Kulyk Director, FTA Office of Mobility Innovation.
Materials developed by K. Watkins, J. LaMondia and C. Brakewood Frequency Determination Unit 5: Staff & Fleet Scheduling.
The Regional Mobility and Accessibility Study Initial Results of CLRP/CLRP+ Analysis with Round 6.4 Growth Forecasts and Five Alternative Land Use Scenarios.
GRTC Bus Rapid Transit Project July 17, Agenda 1.BRT Concept 2.Project Goals 3.Project Benefits 4.Project Corridor 5.Proposed Multimodal Access.
MODULE 4, LESSON 4 Developing Service: Measuring Quality of Service.
TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS AND SERVICE OPTIONS JUNE 14, 2016.
The Partnership between Transportation and Technology Jennifer Mitchell, Director Department of Rail and Public Transportation ITSVA Conference.
Yoram Shiftan and Shlomo Bekhor Transportation Research Institute Technion – Israel Institute of Technology Sustainable Transportation In Israel.
Proposed Route Modifications
MOVING CITIES FORWARD Uber Transportation Partnerships
Regional Bus Subcommittee: 2011 Work Programme
Integrating Transit and Highway Solutions In High Volume Corridors
Car, walk or public transport?
Comprehensive Route Network Analysis
Local Government Roundtable Session Arlington, Virginia
Sustainable Curitiba.
Gunnison Valley Transportation Authority (RTA) 2016 Transit Planning Process Funded through a Section 5304 Planning Grant 5/23/2018.
East & I-225 Rail Corridors Preliminary Service Plan
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) ACEC Presentation May 25, 2017
CET Service Proposal.
US 36 BRT/ Flatiron Flyer Proposed Service Plan
NGTA Halton Planning and Public Works Committee
CET Service Proposal.
Service Routes and Community Transit Hubs: Right Sizing Transit
DISTRICT IMPACTS OPTION A OPTION B OPTION G INSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES
D Line Station Plan Overview
Developing Service: Measuring Quality of Service
San Mateo Countywide Transportation Plan update
HB 2017 Transit Advisory Committee January 19, 2018
Comprehensive Operational Analysis (COA)
D Line Station Plan Overview
Proposed Service Changes
Transit Competitiveness and Market Potential
D Line Station Plan Overview
Travel patterns in a city
D Line Station Plan Overview
Ventura County Traffic Model (VCTM) VCTC Update
D Line Station Plan Overview
Bus Rapid Transit Study
A B A B C D C D A B A B C D C D A B A B C D C D A B A B C D C D
Transit Signal Priority: The Importance of AVL Data
Travel patterns in a city
Introduction to Micro-Transit / Demand Responsive Transit
Mass Transit Usage According to IBISWorld, the public transportation industry increased 14.3%, from $63 billion during 2013 to $72 billion for 2017,
Justin Tippy, Transit Manager Texas A&M Transportation Services
Chattanooga Transportation Data Collection Review
1. Introduction Today: Markham’s traffic problem
M14A/D Select Bus Service
Bus Network Analysis for Potential Transit Priority
Arapahoe County Low Income Transportation Gaps Analysis
Reimagine RTS Public Hearing
Draft Fiscal Year Bus Service Plan
HRT Workshop: Transit Strategic Plan and Aug-Dec working items
Presentation transcript:

1. Where should buses run and with what frequency? Bus Service Everywhere The bus is available throughout the region, enabling short walks to bus stops for everyone. To provide extensive coverage, the bus runs less frequently (waits of up to an hour). High-Frequency Service The bus runs very frequently (for example, 10 minutes during peak times, 15 minutes during off-peak) on highly traveled corridors. To provide the high frequency, some parts of the region with low ridership may no longer have service, and some bus stops are further from where people live and work. Strong Preference Strong Preference Preference Neutral Preference

2. What types of trips should be prioritized (geographically)? Connect Within Jurisdictions Bus service should be optimized to provide the most effective connections within each jurisdiction. Connect Across Jurisdictions Bus service should be optimized to provide the most effective connections across all jurisdictions. Strong Preference Strong Preference Preference Neutral Preference

3. What types of trips should be prioritized (temporally)? Equal Priority Across the Day The bus should serve the AM and PM peak periods with the same frequency as the early morning, midday, evening and late night periods. Service during the peak periods may not meet demand, but service during off-peak periods would better serve people who use the bus outside of traditional commuting hours. Peak Period Commute Trips The bus should run very frequent service during the AM peak and PM peak periods, geared toward transporting commuters who work roughly from 9 AM to 5 PM. Early morning, midday, evening, and late night service would run at lower frequencies. Strong Preference Strong Preference Preference Neutral Preference

4. Should buses receive priority treatment on roadways? No Preferential Treatment for Buses Buses should operate in mixed-traffic, like they do today, even if providing preferential treatment would speed buses up. Preferential Treatment for Buses Buses should have preferential treatment on roadways, such as through bus-only lanes, transit signal priority, or other measures. This would speed up buses. Depending on the types of bus priority methods chosen, vehicles besides buses may be impacted. Strong Preference Strong Preference Preference Neutral Preference

5. Should regional bus service standards be created and applied? Jurisdiction-Level Bus Service Standards Hours of service, frequency of buses, bus service coverage, and other standards should be determined jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction as appropriate. Regional Bus Service Standards Hours of service, frequency of buses, bus service coverage, and other standards should be consistent across all jurisdictions. Strong Preference Strong Preference Preference Neutral Preference