Service Development 1600 Franklin Street, Oakland CA 94612

Similar documents
Active Transportation Facility Glossary

Southside Pilot Proposal

Mission-Geneva Transportation Study Community Workshop 2 July 8, 2006

Cycle Track Design Best Practices Cycle Track Sections

Memorandum. Sunday, July 13, Saturday, July 19, 2014

Richmond-Adelaide Cycle Tracks

Downtown BRT Corridor Alternatives Review: 1 st, 2 nd, 3 rd and 4 th Avenue. Bus Rapid and Conventional Transit Planning and Design Services

Toronto and East York Community Council. Director, Transportation Services, Toronto and East York District

Roadways. Roadways III.

Having held a public hearing, that Council approve:

Contents. Champaign-Urbana Mass Transit District Stop Placement Guidelines

Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) Preliminary Responses to Madison-Miller Community List of Site-Specific Concerns

Caltrans Sloat Boulevard Pedestrian Safety Project Response to Community Questions, Comments & Concerns

Figure 1: Vicinity Map of the Study Area

CURBSIDE ACTIVITY DESIGN

Chapter 3 BUS IMPROVEMENT CONCEPTS

C C C

MEMORANDUM. Charlotte Fleetwood, Transportation Planner

Station Plan: Penn & 43rd Avenue

1. Provide a dedicated westbound approach bus lane at the intersection;

Arlington Public Schools Thomas Jefferson Site Evaluation Transportation Networks. Thomas Jefferson Working Group Meeting #6 November 10, 2014

Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard Design Guidelines

Traffic Circulation Study for Neighborhood Southwest of Mockingbird Lane and Airline Road, Highland Park, Texas

Forest Hills Improvement Initiative

1 st and 2 nd Street Couplet FAQ s

Guidance. ATTACHMENT F: Draft Additional Pages for Bicycle Facility Design Toolkit Separated Bike Lanes: Two-Way to One-Way Transitions

Bicycle Facilities Planning

Typical Cross Section: DOWNTOWN (Observer Highway - 8th Street)

Scope of the Transit Priority Project

Draft North Industrial Area-Wide Traffic Plan

5. RUNNINGWAY GUIDELINES

Improving Cyclist Safety at the Dundas Street West and Sterling Road Intersection

Traffic Control Signals Review 4325 McCowan Road

Southwest Bus Rapid Transit (SW BRT) Functional Planning Study - Executive Summary January 19 LPT ATTACHMENT 2.

Providence Downtown Transit Connector STAKEHOLDER MEETING #2. Stakeholder Meeting #1 October 24, 2016

Coquitlam Cross-town Bike Route Improving Bicycle Facilities in a Mature Suburban Environment

Eliminate on-street parking where it will allow for a dedicated bus only lane %

MOBILITY WORKSHOP. Joint City Council and Transportation Commission May 5, 2014

Welcome! San Jose Avenue Open House August 25, 2015

Simulation Analysis of Intersection Treatments for Cycle Tracks

California Department of Transportation, District 4. Sloat Boulevard Project Skyline Blvd. to 19 th Ave. Community Update January 13, 2016

Geary Corridor Bus Rapid Transit

Corporate. Report COUNCIL DATE: May 25, 1998 NO: R1500 REGULAR COUNCIL. TO: Mayor & Council DATE: April 27, 1998

Bellevue Downtown Association Downtown Bike Series

TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN

Queensboro Bridge Bus Priority Study: Summary of Recommendations. Presentation to Manhattan Community Board 8 May 4, 2011

East 12 th Street Bikeway Feasibility Study

Blair/Williamson Intersection Expressed Needs

2014/2015 BIKE ROUTE PLAN 83 AVENUE PROTECTED BIKE LANE

Traffic Study North Shore School District 112

Princeton Avenue and Spruce Street Transportation and Site Access Enhancements Project

Clybourn Ave. Protected Bike Lane Study Halsted St. to Division St.

Public Works and Infrastructure Committee. General Manager, Transportation Services

ALLEY 24 TRAFFIC STUDY

102 Avenue Corridor Review

Main-McVay Transit Study: Phase 2 Options Definition and High Level Constraints Evaluation

25th Avenue Road Diet Project A One Year Evaluation. Transportation Fund for Clean Air Project #05R07

HIGHBURY AVENUE/HAMILTON ROAD INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS PUBLIC INFORMATION CENTRE 1 MAY 14, 2015

EUCLID AVENUE PARKING STUDY CITY OF SYRACUSE, ONONDAGA COUNTY, NEW YORK

Classification Criteria

Balancing Operation & Safety for Motorized and Non-Motorized Traffic

9. TRANSIT ACCOMMODATIONS

2014/2015 BIKE ROUTE PLAN 83 AVENUE PROTECTED BIKE LANE

Summary: Mercer County Princeton Avenue & Spruce Street Study January 2009

MEMORANDUM. Sutter Street Bicycle Lanes, Stockton, CA SF

M14A/D Select Bus Service

Protected Bike Lanes in San Francisco Mike Sallaberry SFMTA NACTO Workshop - Chicago IL

Appendix C. TRAFFIC CALMING PROGRAM TOOLBOX

MEMORANDUM. Earl Haugen and UND Transportation and Traffic Coordination Committee

San Pablo High Treatment applied incrementally at each N + ++

Shockoe Bottom Preliminary Traffic and Parking Analysis

Potential Bicycle Facility on Bayou Street Mobile, Alabama

STONY PLAIN ROAD STREETSCAPE

Welcome to the Quebec Alternatives Analysis Public Meeting

Station 1: Street & Sidewalk Upgrades

Vehicular turning and path of travel with a proposed curb bulb on the southwest corner of Mount Diablo Boulevard and Dewing Avenue.

Tunnel Reconstruction Brooklyn CB 1 August 14, 2018

Co-ordinator Transportation Committee. Director, Mobility Services and Corporate Fleet Services Environment and Transportation Department

Date: April 4, Project #: Re: A Street/Binford Street Traffic/Intersection Assessment

Fulton Market Streetscape

Board-Approved Funding Awards for Cycle 4 Active Transportation Grant Program Projects (in Order of Project Rankings) Approved on

CITY OF ALBANY TRAFFIC AND SAFETY COMMISSION

Mission Bay Loop (MBL) Public Meeting

9. TRANSIT ACCOMMODATIONS

Technical Working Group November 15, 2017

Welcome! Thank you for joining us today for a Geary Rapid project open house. Geary Rapid Project. SFMTA.com/GearyRapid

WELCOME TO OPEN HOUSE # 1 June 14, 2017

Complete Streets in Constrained Corridors: Chicago s Central Loop BRT

Corporate. Report COUNCIL DATE: June 26, 2006 NO: C012 COUNCIL-IN-COMMITTEE. TO: Mayor & Council DATE: June 22, 2006

Bay to Bay Boulevard Complete Streets Project

Chapter 2: Standards for Access, Non-Motorized, and Transit

Philadelphia Bus Network Choices Report

5858 N COLLEGE, LLC N College Avenue Traffic Impact Study

Completing the Street: Denning Drive

o n - m o t o r i z e d transportation is an overlooked element that can greatly enhance the overall quality of life for the community s residents.

Low Level Road Improvements Traffic Analysis. Report

CITY OF OAKLAND. 27th Street Bikeway Feasibility and Design. Final Report (v3) March 23, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

COWETA HIGH SCHOOL AND EAST HIGHWAY 51

DRAFT. A fifth objective, other considerations, has been added to capture considerations not captured by the four primary objectives.

Better Market Street Project. Project Update January 15, 2015

Transcription:

Service Development 1600 Franklin Street, Oakland CA 94612 January 11, 2018 Jeff Bond Community Development Director 1000 San Pablo Avenue Albany, CA 94706 Dear Mr. Bond, AC Transit is requesting that the City of Albany consider relocating the northbound bus stop at the intersection of San Pablo Avenue & Solano Avenue to the far side of the intersection. The relocation of the bus stop benefits the corridor and the operations of our bus service. AC Transit requests encroachment permits for the following new bus stops as a result: Relocate the southeast corner bus stop to the northeast corner for lines 72, 72M, 72R and 800. ( eliminates 2-3 limited-term on-street parking spaces on the north side and creates 2 new spaces on the south side) Create a new bus stop at the southwest corner of Solano A venue & Kains Avenue for lines 18 and G ( eliminates 4 on-street parking spaces on Solano) - there is currently an unpaired westbound bus stop in front of the movie theater at this intersection. In conjunction with the second request to relocate the 18 and G stop, there is also a request to partner with adjacent local businesses to construct a bus stop parklet at the proposed stop location on Solano at Kains. In the existing condition, buses serving the bus stop on San Pablo Avenue frequently block northbound vehicular traffic. Often times, cars will get stuck behind the bus and miss an entire signal cycle. This situation is significantly worse when another bus arrives to the stop while a bus is already there. A study conducted by AC Transit staff in 2013 at the San Pablo/Solano intersection for the northbound bus stop patterns quantified the effects of the location of this bus stop at the near side of the intersection and found that it has significant impacts to traffic as well as transit operations:

Effects on Traffic 1) Buses were dwelling (actively picking up/dropping off passengers) or delayed (stopped at the red light) 20% of the time (24 minutes out of 120 minutes of observation). 2) Buses were blocking the lane more than 50% of the time when they stopped (12.5 minutes out of 24 minutes). Buses blocked the lane when cars were parked in the two spaces behind the bus stop. 3) Every bus that passed this intersection stopped at the corner and thus blocked the lane. Creating a far side stop (72R/72M/72) and a new stop on Solano (18/G) would allow ALL buses to travel through the intersection before stopping, minimizing or eliminating traffic delay. Effects on Transit Operations: \ 1) The Rapid Bus arrived at the intersection during the green light 80% of the time, but was unable to take advantage of the green light because every Rapid Bus observed had to stop for pick-up/drop off. 2) Most buses waited between 1:15-2:00 minutes because they were forced to sit through an entire traffic signal cycle. If the stop were moved to the far side, the majority of buses would wait approximately 30 seconds or less. A bulb-out on the far-side could be a potential mitigation that would create opportunities to create urban place making. It is worth noting that the most active bus stop in the City is the northbound stop at San Pablo Avenue &Solano Avenue. AC Transit serves approximately 3,900 passengers on these lines and approximately 114 of these trips begin or end at this bus stop. The current delay affects the bus riders passing through Albany for whom transit reliability is of foremost importance. Another direct impact of buses blocking the lane of travel is traffic queueing extending through Buchanan Street, causing impacts, not only on hours of delay for motorists and freight, but also on local air quality by the increase in greenhouse gas emissions due to vehicle idling. Therefore, any improvements made to this stop, has the potential to positively affect transit users and non-transit users alike. Moreover, the level of pedestrian exposure that the relocation of the bus stop generates would likely increase patronage for local business storefronts, having the potential to improve local economy. AC Transit is anticipating this effect with the bus stop parklet currently under construction at Solano & Cornell. With the relocation of the bus stop to the northeast corner for routes that continue along San Pablo, AC Transit is also requesting to relocate the 18 and G stop to the southwest corner of Solano and Kains Ave, in order to maintain a bus stop near San Pablo and Solano. At the same 2

time, the proposed location offers opportunities to create place making and enhance urban character along Solano Avenue. AC Transit looks forward to coordinating with the City on our request. Please let us know of the next steps in the permit process and any requirements needed to proceed. Sincerely, Michael Eshleman Service Planning Manager 3

A-r"f>\C.~ Mf'~ T l. c;, A-"-' ~AP~t..0 (<.,~ L..OCA-TO ij -rj..l> (j1 r 0 1 Co\-JiJ~..t.:r &l2.e "IO fa.~i) ~c"" SOt...At-JO --~ \ ~ - - --~--'":i-.:: j\~ ----- I t -------- ----------- ---- C.oN\Jf4.. '1'" R~'.) -ro '-Q.E-Etl t.o~e. (DN\Jt-4.,o t 6-F-Ef:.t.l Clo -t"\,-), 1, Nt- 0 ~ I \ 0 0,.. I (( ":: 50 I

~\\AC,..\0~~ '3-, csol--atjo ~...J~ /I< L,:\0-~ J>,(\ \,J 'S,. \ (- t,--- '\ 00 t 1" ::: 50 f

TURNING MOVEMENTS WESTBOUND AT ATTACHMENT 4 TRAFFIC VOLUMES PEAK HOUR Wed 03/07/2018 weather: Overcast, then Clear Time: 8:00 10:00 Summary Morning Solano Time WB Right WB THROUWB Left EB right SB THROUGEB left 7:00 8:00 153 8:00 9:00 75 MIDDAY 235 9:01 10:00 78 272 Total 153.00 Summary Midday Solano Time WB Right WB THROUWB Left EB right SB THROUGEB left 12:00 1:00 pm 119 1:00 2:00 pm 116 Total 235.00 Summary Afternoon Solano Time WB Right WB THROUWB Left EB right SB THROUGEB left 4 5:00 pm 118 5 6:00 pm 154 Do not collect Observations Collect Observations Total 272.00 Parking Occupancy westcound Solano by right turn approach Time % OccupaieTime %OccupancTime % Occupancy 7:00 8:00 12 1:00 pm 94% 4 5:00 pm 54% 8:00 9:00 89% 1 2:00 pm 94% 5 6:00 pm 87% 9:01 10:00 Average during 91.75% 2:00 3:00 pm observation 90% 94% 71%

Summary: Average Parking Occupancy - Weekdays During Month of February, 2014 9/32 27.0 % 10/32 32.3 % 9/32 27.0% 10/23 42.0 % 7/23 31.9 % 5/23 20.3 % 8/21 38.1 % 9/21 41.2 % 7/21 34.9 % 23/39 59.8 % 27/39 70.9 % 26/39 68.0 % 16/22 74.2 % 18/22 83.3 % 14/22 63.6 % 20/24 83.3 % 17/24 73.6 % 15/24 63.9 % 13/29 46.5 % 17/29 57.5 % 16/29 55.52 % 25/36 70.4 % 25/36 70.4 % 23/36 62.9 % 23/43 55.0 % 28/43 64.3 % 25/43 58.9 % 10/29 34.5 % 8/29 29.9% 10/29 32.2 % Summary: Average Parking Occupancy - Weekends During Months of January and March, 2014 10/32 30.2 % 12/32 38.0 % 11/32 32.8 % 7/23 30.4 % 9/23 37.7 % 3/23 14.5 % 8/21 36.5 % 8/21 36.5 % 8/21 36.5 % 24/39 60.7 % 28/39 73.0 % 28/39 73.0 % 10/22 46.9 % 17/22 77.3 % 13/22 59.0 % 18/24 75.0 % 18/24 75.0 % 17/24 69.4 % 17/29 57.5 % 18/29 62.0 % 24/29 82.8 % 26/36 73.6 % 28/36 77.7 % 22/36 60.2 % 22/43 51.2 % 26/43 60.4 % 29/43 67.4 % 10/29 34.5 % 8/29 29.9% 9/29 31.0 %

Average Parking Occupancy - Weekdays During Month of February, 2014 5/23 20.3 % 7/21 34.9 % 14/22 63.6 % 15/24 63.9 % 23/36 62.9 % 10/29 32.2 % 9/32 27.0 % 23/39 59.8 % 13/29 46.5 % 23/43 55.0 % 7/23 31.9 % 9/21 41.2 % 18/22 83.3 % 17/24 73.6 % 25/36 70.4 % 8/29 29.9% 10/32 32.3 % 27/39 70.9 % 17/29 57.5 % 28/43 64.3 % 10/23 42.0 % 8/21 38.1 % 16/22 74.2 % 20/24 83.3 % 25/36 70.4 % 10/29 34.5 % 9/32 27.0% 26/39 68.0 % 16/29 55.2 % 25/43 58.9%

Average Parking Occupancy - Weekends During Months of January and March, 2014 3/23 14.5 % 8/21 36.5 % 13/22 59.0 % 17/24 69.4 % 22/36 60.2 % 9/29 31.0 % 10/32 30.2 % 24/39 60.7 % 17/29 57.5 % 23/43 55.0 % 9/23 37.7 % 8/21 36.5 % 17/22 77.2 % 18/24 75.0 % 28/36 77.8 % 8/29 29.9% 12/32 38.0 % 28/39 73.0 % 18/29 62.0 % 26/43 73.6 % 7/23 30.4 % 8/21 38.1 % 10/22 46.9 % 18/24 75.0 % 25/36 70.4 % 10/29 34.5 % 10/32 32.8 % 28/39 73.0 % 24/29 82.8 % 29/43 67.4 %

STOP DESI G N FACTOR! - //,W//#///nW/.W///,W///#//////////////#///////////////////////////hW////////////////////#/////#///////#/////////////////// FAR-SIDE, PULL-OUT STOP Far-side pull-out stops use Intersection space efficiently, with little Impact on general traffic If they are wide enough for a bus to pull completely out of traffic. Among pull-out configurations, far-side stops are preferred. Buses may be significantly delayed In re-entering the travel lane on highvolume streets. On routes where buses have difficulty merging back Into traffic, buses often pull out of the travel lane only partially to avoid being blocked. A far-side pull-out configuration shortens the transition distance needed along the stop platform. Buses can shift to the right while crossing the intersection. Pull-out stops can be used for local stops adjacent to offset or curbside transit lanes to allow rapid services to pass local services. A periodic pull-out stop on streets with primarily In-lane stops allows vehicles to pass while a bus Is stopped. Far-side pull- out stops work well with queue Jumps designed as bus-only approach lanes or shared right-turn lanes that advance transit vehicles Into thestop.5 Pull-out stops create additional space to receive left-turning transit vehicles and trucks. #//#//////////////#////////////#////#////##/////////////////1'//////////#///////////#//////////////////////.W///////////#/,W NEAR-SIDE, PULL-OUT STOP Near-side pull-out stops favor motor vehicle traffic flow, and confer limited benefits to transit operations. At high traffic volume locations, the near-side stop functions as a right-turn lane when buses are not present. When used as queue Jump lanes with active transit signal priority, near-side stops can enhance operations at hightraffic-volume Intersections. Buses may have significant difficulty re-entering the traffic stream. Signal measures, such as upstream early red phases, can address this Issue. A near-side pull-out stop should be set back from the crosswalk at least 15 feet. Stops located Just before the crosswalk can block the visibility of pedestrians. Except for transfer points, nearside pull-out stops are not generally preferred on multi-lane streets, but may be applied If a major near-side destination exists, or If problematic conditions such as driveways or missing sidewalks exist at the far-side locatlon. 6 In cities with yleld-to-bus/yleld-tostreetcar rules and high compliance, broader Implementation of near-side pull-out stops Is possible. Near-side stops can be used to facilitate transfer between two Intersecting routes. Place near-side stops close enough to the Intersection that right-turning vehicles cannot merge In front of the bus. Near-side stops present challenges at Intersections with transit route turns. If buses are required to turn right from the curbside, provide a signal phase for the transit movement, or design the cross street to accommodate a vehicle sweeping across the second lane or the oncoming lane. //////.W///#//.W/////////////////////////////////#//1'/#//////////////////////////#////////////////////////////////////////////#/ MID-BLOCK, PULL-OUT STOP Mid-block pull-out stops are located more than 200 feet from Intersections, and provide destination access on long blocks with mid-block crossings. Use mid-block stops where traffic conditions at Intersections would create safety issues for stopping buses or riders.. Mid-block pull- out stops may be applicable at heavy lntermodal transfer points, or transit vehicle layover points. Ensure that adequate curbside space exists to maneuver buses In and out of stops. Signalized or traffic-calmed pedestrian crossings should be provided at mldhlnrlc c:tnnc:?.j Where safe pedestrian crossings cannot be provided, mid-block stops are a last resort.

STATIONS AND STOPS Stop Placement & Intersection Configuration //////////#//////////#//#///////////#/#/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// FAR-SIDE, IN-LANE STOP I In-lane stops at the far side of an Intersection confer the highest priority to transit operations at most signalized Intersections. Far-side in-lane stops are generally the preferred stop configuration where transit lanes or transitways are present.1 By allowing buses to move in a straight line, In-lane stops eliminate both pullout time and traffic re-entry time, a source of delay and unreliable service. In-lane stops are especially valuable on streets operating at or near vehicle capacity, or on streets with long signal cycles, In which transit vehicles may experience long re-entry delays while waiting for traffic to clear.2 In-lane stops reduce wear on transit vehicles and street infrastructure by avoiding lane shifts during braking. At signalized Intersections, far-side stops allow transit vehicles to clear an Intersection before stopping. Far-side stops support the use of a broad array of active transit signal priority treatments with relatively simple Infrastructure. since transit vehicle approaches can be anticipated based on typical approach speeds. At intersections where transit vehicles turn, use far-side stops to simplify transit turns and allow pedestrians to better anticipate turning movements. p. p P p p P I p I P P P P P ) On single-lane streets where In-lane stops are most needed, far-side In-lane stops In mixed traffic may result in traffic behind the bus spilling back Into the crosswalk and Intersection. At these locations. provide a longer tar-side stop that accommodates queued vehicles behind the stopped transit vehicle, or activate an early red phase after the transit vehicle clears the intersection. Continue bike facilities behind the stop (see page 74). //////////////////////////////////#///#//////////////////////////////////////////////#//#//#/////////##/#///////////#/#////# NEAR-SIDE, IN-LANE STOP Near-side stops at the approach to an Intersection can facilitate In-lane stops In mixed-traffic lanes, where turning movements and queued vehicles behind transit vehicles do not block the intersection. Where very high right turn volumes are present, an in-lane stop can be located on an island between the transit lane and right turn lane.3 At stop-controlled locations with only one travel lane In each direction, near-side In-lane stops eliminate "double-stopping." Prohibit vehicles from entering opposing lanes to pass stopped transit vehicles. Place near-side stops close enough to the Intersection that right-turning vehicles cannot merge in front of stopped transit vehicles. Where a high volume of vehicles turn onto the transit street, locating a stop near-side keeps the far side of the intersection clear to receive turns. Near-side stops may be employed with center-running transit lanes: centerboarding Islands at near-side enable simpler pedestrian access at crosswalks.,~); ;;-1 Ci8:Ji~.: -----t~~ I ~. - p- p~ p Continue bike facilities behind the stop (see page 74). When applied with transit signal progressions, near-side and far-side stops can be alternated to reduce intersection delay. / /////#////////////////////////////#/////##/////////////////////////////////#///////////////#/////////#//#//////////////#///// MID-BLOCK, IN-LANE STOP In-lane mid-block configurations use significantly less curb length than midblock pull-out stops. Mid-block stops are applicable where large destinations Justify high-volume access. Signalized or traffic-calmed pedestrian crossings should be provided at midblock stops. Continue bicycle facilities behind the stop (see page 74).!...J '.l t p. p. p. p