David Jickling, Public Transportation Director Regional Transportation Commission, Washoe County

Similar documents
Swift Bus Rapid Transit. June DeVoll, Community Transit & Tom Hingson, Everett Transit

Transportation in Washoe County. Lee Gibson, Executive Director February 15, 2011

Aurora Corridor to E Line

Scottsdale Road/Rural Road Alternatives Analysis (AA) Study. Arizona ITE/IMSA Spring Conference March 7, 2012

Speaker: Brian Dranzik, Fiscal & Policy Administrator Milwaukee County

Bus Rapid Transit Plans

PURPOSE AND NEED SUMMARY 54% Corridor Need 1. Corridor Need 2. Corridor Need 3. Corridor Need 4. Corridor Need 5

WHAT IS BRT? Jack M. Gonsalves, PE, Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc. February 22, 2012

In station areas, new pedestrian links can increase network connectivity and provide direct access to stations.

Arterial Transitway Corridors Study

Arterial Transitway Corridors Study. Ave

Executive Summary BEYOND THE B-LINE: RAPID TRANSIT LINE PHASE II - COMMERCIAL DRIVE WEST. Final Draft December 13, Appendix B BROADWAY/LOUGHEED

Arterial Transitway Corridors Study. Sept. 26, 2011

Scope of the Transit Priority Project

Joseph Iacobucci. James Czarnecky, AICP

WELCOME BUS RAPID TRANSIT PUBLIC MEETING. MEETING TIME: 5 p.m. - 8 p.m.

ROUTES 55 / 42 / 676 BUS RAPID TRANSIT LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Integrated Corridor Approach to Urban Transport. O.P. Agarwal World Bank Presentation at CODATU XV Addis Ababa, 25 th October 2012

VOLUME 5 Technology and Option Evaluation

Final Study Recommendations AMES TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY. For Public Review and Comment. October Ames Transit Feasibility Study

State Road 54/56 Tampa Bay s Northern Loop. The Managed Lane Solution Linking I-75 to the Suncoast Parkway

Wilshire Boulevard Bus Rapid Transit Project

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

Designing Streets for Transit. Presentation to NACTO Designing Cities Kevin O Malley Managing Deputy Commissioner 10/24/2014

Technical Working Group November 15, 2017

Presentation of Staff Draft March 18, 2013 COUNTYWIDE TRANSIT CORRIDORS FUNCTIONAL MASTER PLAN

METRO RTA TRANSIT MASTER PLAN. May 25-26, 2011

Community Task Force July 25, 2017

Operational Comparison of Transit Signal Priority Strategies

Roadways. Roadways III.

Wellington Public Transport Spine Study

Afeasibility study to evaluate bus rapid transit service in the East-West Corridor connecting major employment and activity centers between downtown

95 th Street Corridor Transportation Plan. Steering Committee Meeting #2

Spring Lake Park Mounds View North Oaks. Arden Hills. Shoreview. Roseville. Little Canada. Falcon Heights SNELLING. Lilydale. West Saint Paul 35E

Metropolitan Council Transportation Committee

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

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

Purpose and Need. Chapter Introduction. 2.2 Project Purpose and Need Project Purpose Project Need

BUS RAPID TRANSIT. A Canadian Perspective. McCormick Rankin International. John Bonsall P.Eng

Executive Summary Route 30 Corridor Master Plan

Arlington County 10-Year Transit Development Plan & Premium Transit Network Briefing. May 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS FIGURES TABLES. Executive Summary Report: BLUE LINE

Community Task Force November 15, 2017

Bus Rapid Transit ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS. Open House

ITS-NY ANNUAL MEETING Bus Rapid Transit in New York City: Bus Lane Operations on One-Way Arterial Streets

Traditional Public Transport Priority. Priority/Traffic Management? What is Integrated Public Transport Priority/Traffic management? Why? How?

Provide Employee Parking

Decision on North Waterloo Routing

Seattle Transit Master Plan

2.2 TRANSIT VISION 2040 FROM VISION TO ACTION. Emphasize transit priority solutions STRATEGIC DIRECTION

Chapter 3 BUS IMPROVEMENT CONCEPTS

9. TRANSIT ACCOMMODATIONS

Multimodal Approach to Planning & Implementation of Transit Signal Priority within Montgomery County Maryland

Regional Transportation Needs Within Southeastern Wisconsin

Project Narrative. Albuquerque, NM. July 31, 2015

C Line Rapid Bus Preliminary Station Design

CENTRAL AND EAST CORRIDORS

Arterial Transitway Corridors Study

WELCOME! Please complete a comment sheet as we value your feedback. 4 pm to 8 pm. September 15, Hosted by: AECOM on behalf of City of Calgary

5. RUNNINGWAY GUIDELINES

Evan Johnson, Tindale Oliver & Associates. Alan Danaher, P.E., PTOE, AICP, PTP

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Durham Region Long Term Transit Strategy

A Selection Approach for BRT Parking Lots Nicolls Road Corridor Parking Study

Interim Transit Ridership Forecast Results Technical Memorandum

Bus Rapid Transit and all that JAZZ September 30, 2013

Appendix A-K Public Information Centre 2 Materials

RTC TRANSIT OPERATING STATISTICS RTC RIDE RTC RAPID RTC INTERCITY SIERRA SPIRIT

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

2. Corridor Analysis. Transit Oriented Development. KAT Transit Development Plan. Corridor Analysis CORRADINO. Figure 2-1 Typical Components of TOD

Complete Streets in Constrained Corridors: Chicago s Central Loop BRT

Tunnel Reconstruction South 5 th Street Association October 16, 2018

GRTC Bus Rapid Transit: Semi-Final Design Phase Public Meetings: October 26 & 27, 2015

4. Guided Bus Explained

An Evaluation of Comprehensive Transit Improvements TriMet s Streamline Program

Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority

Highway Transitway Corridor Study

Corridor Vision Workshop Summary James Madison Elementary February 22,2018

Planning for Bus Rapid Transit in the Milwaukee Region

Station Plan: Penn & 43rd Avenue

Item Description: Presentation and Discussion: Berkeley Rapid Transit Locally Preferred Alternative

Geary Corridor Bus Rapid Transit SFMTA Citizens Advisory Committee

4 Ridership Growth Study

TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION REPORT NO.

Better Market Street. Engineering, Maintenance & Safety Committee (EMSC) February 28, 2018

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

Bicycle and Pedestrian Connectivity Study Phase 2

Gina M. M. Thomas. HDR, Transit Engineer Seattle, WA

4 MOBILITY PLAN. Mobility Plan Objectives. Mobility Context. 1. Integrate with Local and Regional Transit Improvements

Roanoke Valley TRANSIT VISION PLAN

Intermodal Connections with Light Rail in Phoenix, AZ Wulf Grote, P.E. Director, Planning & Development

1. Operate along freeways, either in regular traffic lanes, in high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, or along the shoulders.

6 Screen 3 Analysis and Results

Gratiot Avenue Transit Study Tech Memo #4: Ridership

Alternatives Analysis Final Report

From Disarray to Complete Street:

WHITE PAPER: TRANSIT SERVICE FOR SOUTH SHAGANAPPI

The Who and What: Bus Rapid Transit Riders and Systems in the U.S.

How familiar are you with BRT?

Transcription:

David Jickling, Public Transportation Director Regional Transportation Commission, Washoe County

Virginia Street Resort corridor connecting University of Nevada, Reno Downtown Truckee River Strip Casinos Convention Center Meadowood Mall Major transportation corridor 30,000 ADT Strong transit patronage 5,000/day (14% Mode Split)

Virginia Street Transit Overcrowding and Traffic Congestion Insert picture Long queue to board the bus Crowded Bus Waiting for the bus Route 1 Bus in Mixed-Flow Traffic Heavy Peak Traffic on Virginia Street

Virginia Street Initiatives Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Agency adopted regional TOD initiative. RTC proposed Bus Rapid Transit in 2001 as part of the 2030 RTP. City of Reno designated first TOD corridor and adopted street design standards. Virginia Street TOD Planning Area

Route 1 20% 2 10% 3 3% 4 2% 5 5% 6 4% 7 4% 9 8% 10 1% 11 7% 11X 2% 13 3% 14 5% 15 5% 16 2% 17 2% 18 3% 18X 0% 19 0% 21 2% 22 0% 25 1% 26 371% 1% 54 1% 55 0% 56 1% 57 1% IC 0% SS 4% RTC RIDE Route Ridership March 2007

Route 1 13% 2 9% 3 3% 4 2% 5 4% 6 4% 7 5% 9 9% 10 2% 11 5% 11X 2% 13 4% 14 6% 15 4% 16 2% 17 3% 18 3% 18X 0% 19 1% 21 2% 22 1% 25 1% 26 1% 37 1% 54 1% 55 1% 56 2% 57 1% IC 2% SS 5% RTC RIDE Service Hours March 2007

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 11X 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 19 21 22 25 26 37 54 55 56 57 395 777 Passengers per Revenue Vehicle Hour RTC INTERCITY RTC SIERRA RTC RIDE ROUTE PRODUCTIVITY: MARCH 2007 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Virginia Street Bus Rapid Transit Feasibility Study March 2003

Early Alternatives Considered

Why Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)? Low-cost, high-capacity alternative to LRT Meets the needs of the majority of riders 40% of ridership travels between downtown and Meadowood 60% of riders want only a few stops Better service/better travel time Fewer stops = faster travel time for the majority of riders More consistent travel time leads to better spacing, improving dependability Attract more riders As service becomes more convenient, more people will consider transit Easy to implement incrementally BRT can progress/adapt from mixed flow to dedicated travel lane operation

Efficient service results from fewer stops, prepaid fares, quick boarding and alighting, and priority roadway treatments Bus Rapid Transit A new way to meet transportation demands Priority at signals Exclusive travel lanes

On-board display Modern easily accessible vehicles Clean, comfortable interiors Bus Rapid Transit Looks and operates like light rail Real-time arrival Information Comfortable waiting areas Easy access. Quick boarding and alighting at multiple doors Prepaid fares

Transit Stations and Stops Conceptual Park Lane Station Potential for retail, day care, public space Development opportunity for underused properties Attractive Secure Comfortable Potential Park Lane development site

Proposed Long Range Transit Corridor Plan UNR: Potential Future Center- Running BRT with UNR s development plan converting existing 2- lane, 2-way roadway to 1- lane each way Eindhoven, Germany Elevated Source: www.gobrt.org Curb Running Source: RTC Southern Nevada Boulder Highway BRT Project Downtown to Meadowood: Create Dedicated BRT lanes: curb running or elevated center-running BRT lanes Meadowood to Redfield: Roadway Layout for Center-running BRT

Virginia Street Transit Corridor Alternatives Analysis RTC Board Meeting December 21, 2007

Project Cost and Funding Project viewed favorably by FTA for Very Small Starts funding Local match tied to success of RTC-2 ballot measure on November 4, 2008 Ballot measure failed FTA application withdrawn Beginning of the Great Recession

Millions $25 $20 Sales Tax Revenue Growth FY 1986 FY 2010 (2010-2015 Projected) 50% 40% 30% $15 20% $10 10% 0% $5-10% $0-20% TAX REVENUE (Y1) PERCENT CHANGE (Y2) NOTE: Sales tax increased from 1/4% to 5/16% effective FY 2004

RTC faced with 30% service cuts Propose replacing Route 1 with new mode, RTC RAPID Use CMAQ funds to operate for three years This would free nearly $5.0M annually in local funds to offset remaining service cuts Operate a higher level of service 10-minute headways between 5:30 AM and 8:00 PM. New 30-minute local service, RAPID CONNECT, Augment RTC RAPID Provide 24-hour service

Year 1: Implementation Schedule Apr. 17, 2009: Board Approves CMAQ Demonstration Project Oct. 11, 2009: Service Begins Operating cost: $4,787,000 RTC RAPID $3,307,000 (34,244 service hours) RAPID LOCAL $1,480,000 (15,330 service hours) Capital Costs: $305,000 Vehicle Branding $55,000 Rapid Station Shelter and CONNECT Bus Stops $250,000 Total Costs: $5,092,000

Year 1: Vehicles RTC RAPID: Branded to look different from RTC RIDE. Includes blue and white from the RIDE brand, but introduces the color green to promote clean, environmental message. RAPID CONNECT: Color choice connected to RTC RAPID to promote a new system in the corridor. Blue bumper distinguishes CONNECT from RAPID as it approaches the station.

Year 1: Shelters Shelters and signs branded to match the green RAPID color scheme. Exterior bike racks on rebranded buses. New buses will have interior racks.

System Ridership (without S. Virginia St. Service) South Virginia St. Ridership RTC RAPID Ridership Compared to Route 1 & all other RIDE service 700,000 180,000 650,000 170,000 160,000 600,000 150,000 550,000 140,000 500,000 130,000 450,000 400,000 120,000 110,000 100,000 350,000 90,000 All RIDE service except S. Virginia Route 1 / RAPID / CONNECT

Year 2 & 3: Implementation Annual Operating cost: $4,787,000 Capital Costs: $11,640,000 8 New Flyer Buses $7,400,000 14 Stations $4,200,000 RIDE rebranding $40,000 Open 4 th Street Station Downtown Reno transit center Complete construction of 14 RAPID Stations Implement Transit Signal Priority & Queue Jump/Queue Bypass

Year 2: Vehicles New Flyer DE60LFA 60-foot hybrid articulated bus Piggy-back procurement through Albuquerque, NM, Sun Tran Community Transit Swift Lane Transit EmX

Year 2: Stations Build in existing public right of way; accepting easements Full Stations Raised platforms Pre-board fare purchase machines Next bus display Security cameras Sidewalk by-pass desirable

Year 2: Fall 2010 Transit Signal Priority & Queue Jump Transit Signal Priority at key intersections Queue-jump and queue-bypass at key intersections

Opening October 2010: RTC 4 th Street Station

Streetcar Project in partnership with City of Reno Planning/Engineering contract to be awarded What s next? Evaluate feasibility for fixed-guideway Prepare for federal funding Build local support

Phase I Street Car Concept Result of BRT and land use policies Promote walkability Transit supportive land uses Encourage redevelopment Promote economic vitality Phase II

Questions or Comments? 775.335.1902 djickling@rtcwashoe.com Thank You!