TREASURE ALLEY IGH CAPACITY RANSIT TUDY … · Kelli Fairless will review the Regional Plan. ......

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


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


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


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


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


HOUSINGHOUSING

DOWNTOWN CORE

DOWNTOWN CORE

THE CAPITOL

THE CAPITOL

MIXED USEMIXED USE




OFFICEOFFICE


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


0 2,0001,000Feet

Major Destinationsand Potential Circulator Alignments A and B



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


MIXED USEMIXED USE

MIXED USE

MIXED USE

INFILLINFILL

MIXED USE

MIXED USE


OFFICEOFFICE


HOUSINGHOUSING

INFILLINFILL

MIXED USEMIXED USE

THE CAPITOL

THE CAPITOL



CONVENTION CENTER

CONVENTION CENTER

0 0.50.25Mile

N

K:\Boise_HCT\MXD\MajorDestinations_PotentialAlignment2.mxd 1:12000


0 2,0001,000Feet

Major Destinationsand Potential Circulator Alignments C and D

Alignment C

Alignment D

Proposed Downtown Circulator

Railroad

Parks

Major Destinations



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


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


‡ 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



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)


Service Type/Land Use SettingRegionalUrban

Average Operating Speed8 - 25 MPH

Station TypeSidewalk SignStationPlatform

Distance Between Stations0.25 - 2 Miles


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


*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


{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



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)


Service Type/Land Use SettingUrban Circulator (as opposed to cor-ridor service)



Distance Between StationsApproximately 0.25 Miles


AlignmentIn the street with traffic with no grade separation

Right of Way Width19 - 24 (double track)11 - 13 (single track)


Vehicle Length35 - 50 feet

Typical Power SourceElectric

Can Operate Concurrently with Freight Service?No


{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



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)



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



** Modern Streetcar and Light Rail systems are often lumped in with road and utility reconstruction, increasing the costs.


• 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



Distance Between Stations>1 Mile


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)


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


COMMUTER RAIL(DMU Based)

DRAFT

2424

Status in the USCamden-Trenton, NJSan Diego, CA (to begin 2007)Orlando, FL (to begin 2009)Southern Florida


Service TypeRegionalIntra-urban

Average Operating Speed30 - 90 MPH

Station TypeStationPlatform

Distance Between Stations1 - 5 Miles


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


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


Station TypeStationPlatform

Distance Between Stations2-5 Miles


AlignmentGenerally built on existing tracks at grade street crossings

Right of Way Width37+ 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

TREASURE ALLEY IGH CAPACITY RANSIT TUDY … · Kelli Fairless will review the Regional Plan. ......

Documents

Transcript of TREASURE ALLEY IGH CAPACITY RANSIT TUDY … · Kelli Fairless will review the Regional Plan. ......