NY 5 BRT Conceptual Design Study: Study Advisory Committee Meeting 1 with Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP Logitrans Herb Levinson September 22, 2003
Overview Introduction to the consultant team Goals and challenges Our project approach Role of the Study Advisory Committee (SAC) Project schedule
Team Overview TranSystems (formerly Multisystems) Full-service transportation consulting firm Expertise in bus planning, operations, and ITS Creighton Manning Engineering Traffic engineering firm Extensive familiarity with area traffic issues Logitrans and Herb Levinson International experts in BRT design and operations
Goal of the Study To advance development of highperformance transit in NY 5 corridor Operational analysis Conceptual design of roadway improvements Conceptual design of stations Public consensus Support for revitalization
Key Challenges Must serve multiple jurisdictions and complex travel patterns due to multi-nodal development Some key destinations are off-route Exclusive lanes needed most where least feasible (e.g., Fuller Rd to Rt. 155, downtowns) Station design must suit diverse environments, yet create unified identity
NY 5 Environments
Our Approach to the Project Ridership census Route planning / operations analysis Ridership forecast Station planning and conceptual design Roadway and priority measures planning Community liaison Phasing plan
Ridership Census 100% count of five corridor routes Routes 1, 2, 55, 55X, and 56X Weekday, Saturday, and Sunday Boardings and alightings by stop Running time, dwell time by stop Employ TranSystems SPRINT ridecheck database software
Route Planning / BRT Operations Review prior work Evaluate alternative alignments Operations plan (preliminary, revised) Preliminary BRT schedule Fleet requirements ITS and customer information Feeder service and integration Operating costs
Ridership Forecast Develop methodology Expand upon method used in WMATA study Capitalize on Latin American experience Assemble inputs Traffic simulation results Data from ridership census Estimate ridership impacts
Station Planning and Design Refine station locations from Task 2 Examine major design issues Stop spacing Integration with roadway Architecture and amenities Ownership and maintenance Identify key stations and treatments
Stop Spacing Trade-off Time Reduced invehicle time SCHEMATIC Increased walk time Optimum spacing should minimize total (weighted) time for passengers and maximize costeffectiveness. Optimum Spacing Cleveland Curitiba Boston Hartford Los Angeles* Brisbane 1230 ft 1410 ft 2160 ft 4220 ft 4580 ft 5540 ft Stop Spacing *Wilshire-Whittier Corridor
Stop Location: Curb C vs. Median Curb Boston Silver Line More accessible Safer Slower operating speed Enforcement challenge Median Bogotá Transmilenio Allows larger stations Higher speed and reliability Difficult to integrate with public space (sidewalk, plazas) Requires left-side door
Station Amenities Customer Information - Customer agent - Signs and maps - Real-time information Security - Closed circuit TV - Emergency phone - Lighting Comfort - Benches / shelter - Bathrooms - Vending machines Los Angeles MetroRapid Ticket vending machines
Roadway and Priority Measures Identify necessary roadway modifications Evaluate range of priority measures Prepare traffic study Identify property issues Estimate costs
Possible Roadway Treatments At stations Bulb-outs Color pavement on exclusive lane At intersections Signal priority Queue jumpers Segments Preferential lanes Exclusive lanes Color pavement Guided systems Bulb-out station Guided vehicles in exclusive right-ofway
Community Liaison Monthly reports to CDTC/CDTA Five major presentations to Committee Two public meetings Other channels Stakeholder meetings Local media Web site Newsletter
Phasing Plan Organize elements into logical phases Identify responsibilities Prepare phasing plan Prepare Executive Summary report
Role of the SAC Include broadest perspective possible Review and comment on major findings Five meetings planned Kick-off (today) End of preliminary route planning (January) Middle of station planning (March) End of station/priority measures (June) End of project (August)
Project Schedule Task Ridership Census Route Planning Ridership Forecast Station Planning Key Station Design Priority Measures Community Liaison Phasing Plan Sept - Oct Nov - Dec Jan - Feb March - April May - June July - Aug SAC Meeting
Discussion Issues Concerns Initial directions