Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

QUALITY TRANSIT -- NOW APTA 2009 2009 Bus & Paratransit Conference & International Bus Roadeo/Bus Rapid Transit Conference William D. Byrne, P.E. Vice.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "QUALITY TRANSIT -- NOW APTA 2009 2009 Bus & Paratransit Conference & International Bus Roadeo/Bus Rapid Transit Conference William D. Byrne, P.E. Vice."— Presentation transcript:

1 QUALITY TRANSIT -- NOW APTA Bus & Paratransit Conference & International Bus Roadeo/Bus Rapid Transit Conference William D. Byrne, P.E. Vice President, Transit Practice Leader Kara A. Showalter, E.I.T. Transit Planner David Evans and Associates, Inc., Denver, CO BRT in the Roaring Fork Valley : A Unique Application

2 Overview of Roaring Fork Valley “Down-Valley” Glenwood Springs Carbondale El Jebel

3 Overview of Roaring Fork Valley “Up-Valley” Basalt Mt. Sopris from SH82 Aspen

4 Pitkin County Characteristics Job growth is outrunning population growth, creating growing demand for commuting –Service-related employment (resort and second/luxury home) is primary source of job growth –2005 Pop. = 16,420; projected to increase 46% (2025) –2005 Emp. = 20,880; projected to increase 48% (2025) –Only a portion of population are potential members of the workforce High price of real estate contributing to long commute trips –Average single family home = $3.7M –Average condo = $1.5M –Rental prices very high Sources: Colorado State Dept. of Local Government (2008); Land Title (2008)

5 Characteristics of SH82 Project is in 40-mile corridor along SH82 –4-lanes from Glenwood Springs to Buttermilk Ski Area –2-lanes of general traffic with 2-lanes of Bus/HOV in peak periods from Buttermilk to Maroon Creek Roundabout (~1.7-miles) SH82 is most congested rural highway in CO –Summer ADT of over 28,000 vehicles –Peak commuter traffic flows EB (“up-valley”) in AM –Peak commuter traffic flows WB (“down-valley”) in PM –Operates at LOS C or worse during peak seasons –Segments up-valley of Basalt operate at LOS E or worse during peak hours –CDOT funding does not exist for roadway widening Source: West Glenwood Springs to Aspen Corridor Investment Study, RFTA (2003)

6 Overview of RFTA and SH82 Service Roaring Fork Transportation Authority (RFTA) Provides service to three counties (Garfield, Eagle, Pitkin) and eight incorporated communities in the corridor: –Rifle –Silt –New Castle –Glenwood Springs –Carbondale –Basalt –Snowmass –Aspen

7 Overview of RFTA SH82 Service Local Service –All day service from West Glenwood Springs to Aspen Aspen Direct Express Service –Service to/from Glenwood Springs, Basalt, Carbondale, and El Jebel –16 up-valley trips to Aspen in the AM peak –17 down-valley trips from Aspen in the PM peak Snowmass Direct Express Service –3 trips to Snowmass in the AM peak (from Carbondale) –3 trips from Snowmass in the PM peak (to Carbondale) 2007 Annual Boardings = ~2.0M (up 17% from 2006) Fleet Size = ~80 vehicles Source: The Case for the Project Report, RFTA (2008); Alternatives Analysis Report, RFTA (2008)

8 Overview of RFTA SH82 Service

9 VISION By 2017, our region will significantly reduce dependence on oil through a resource efficient, climate friendly, multimodal transportation system with a regional express line unimpeded by traffic and weather, competitive with the private vehicle in terms of convenience, travel time, and quality. BRT in the Roaring Fork Valley

10 BRT Service Concept Development Service Concept Development –Operational/Financial Challenges: long trip lengths and distribution of urban centers –Must address park-and-ride and “walk-in” travelers needs Guidance for BRT service configuration –Provide travel times no more than 60% longer than auto travel times (for trips of 10-miles or more) –Provide park-and-rides at locations 4 to 6 miles apart –Provide stop spacing of 0.4 to 0.6-miles in urban areas –Provide 10-min peak/15-min off-peak service at BRT stops Source: Alternatives Analysis Report, RFTA (2008)

11 BRT Service Concept Development Concept 1 – Combined Core –Single BRT route provides access to ~16 stops (park-and-ride and walk-in stations) –Feeder/circulator service serve as background network Concept 2 – Modified Combined Core Service –Same as above, with single local trunk instead of feeder/circulator to serve as background network Concept 3 – Dual Core Service –One BRT core route to serve all major park-and-rides along the corridor (~10 stops) –One BRT core route to serve major park-and-rides and additional walk-in stations (~20 stops) Source: Alternatives Analysis Report, RFTA (2008)

12 BRT Service Concept Development Concept 2 – Modified Combined Core Service

13 BRT Service Concept Development Concept 3 – Dual Core Service

14 BRT Station Concept Development Objectives considered: –Reduce deceleration and acceleration time for buses –Minimize bus movements off the highway –Improve pedestrian safety –Locate within walking distance to development –Consider possibility of kiss-and-ride drop off locations –Minimize parking, where possible Four types of stations developed: –On-Line BRT multi-purpose walk-in station (parking may be available as practical and may not be adjacent to station) –Principal BRT walk-in station with TOD (limited parking supply that may not be adjacent to station) –Minor BRT park-and-ride station (up to 100 spaces) –Major BRT park-and-ride station (up to 300 spaces) Source: Alternatives Analysis Report, RFTA (2008)

15 PRINCIPAL WALK-IN BRT STATIONS WITH TOD Should be on-line wherever possible Accommodates transfer between all services (BRT and local) Amidst established urban development or high TOD potential – part of urban ‘identity’ Parking: not necessarily immediately adjacent, and supply may be limited Stations suited to utilize local street hierarchy-zone surrounding land uses for mixed use Pedestrian linkages to both sides of BRT guideway BRT ESTABLISHED COMMUNITIES STATION HIGH DENSITY MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT WITHIN 10 MINUTES WALKING DISTANCE OF THE STATION MEDIUM DENSITY MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT WITHIN 10 MINUTES WALKING DISTANCE OF THE STATION LOCAL STATION GRADE – SEPARATED PEDESTRIAN CROSSING BRT Station Concept

16 MAJOR BRT PARK & RIDE STATIONS (UP TO 300 SPACES) Accommodates transfer between all services (BRT and local) Possibility of a Feeder bus service to the station Station could be on highway or off line Parking structure is immediately adjacent to station Can be integrated with the station for pedestrian comfort Furthest parking spot is within 5 minutes walk to the station BRT LOCAL HIGHWAY MEDIAN STATION KISS AND RIDE / DROP OFF DECELERATION ACCELERATION STAND ALONE/INTEGRATED PARKING STRUCTURE POTENTIAL WEATHER PROTECTED PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION FEEDER BUS SERVICE

17 BRT Station Location Development Determined number of parking spaces required –In some cases, need to plan for parking supply “downstream” of due to land availability and acquisition constraints Source: Alternatives Analysis Report, RFTA (2008) LocationCurrent Supply Potential Supply to Meet Future Demand Buttermilk92 ABC0400 Brush Creek Basalt95350 WillitsN/A40 El Jebel50350 Carbondale CME20100 Roaring Fork Marketplace40250 GW Springs Downtown0100 GW Springs Courthouse00 West Glenwood60450 TOTAL6573,162

18 BRT – Bus Priority Treatments Bus Priority Treatments –Far-side stops: Queue jump lanes –Near-side stops and locations without stops: Queue jump lanes and traffic signal improvements –Select locations: Extended turn pockets so buses can bypass the stopped queue Source: Alternatives Analysis Report, RFTA (2008)

19 BRT Funding Options Potential Sources of Revenue: –Sales and use taxes –Annual motor vehicle registration fee –Visitor benefit tax –Potential new RFTA members –Fees, tolls, rates, and charges –Federal and state grant funding Source: RFTA Bus Rapid Transit Financial Plan, BBC (2008)

20 BRT – Development of Final Plan Preferred Alternative chosen to achieve the following benefits: –Improved transit travel time, reliability, and convenience –Increased transit capacity –Improved transit visibility and image through branding –Improved ease of use for transit by providing real time information and consistent headways on individual bus routes –Improved transit comfort and convenience –Transit-Oriented Development opportunities Preferred Alternative composed of the following elements: –Service Concept: 1 BRT Route –Station Concepts: Three types –Station Locations: 9 BRT locations Source: The Case for the Project Report, RFTA (2008); Alternatives Analysis Report, RFTA (2008)

21 BRT Proposed Service Concepts BRT service from Glenwood Springs to downtown Aspen: –10 min peak/15 off-peak with limited stops –~65 min one-way travel time Additional peak period Express BRT services Local service operating every 30 min making all stops Source: The Case for the Project Report, RFTA (2008); Alternatives Analysis Report, RFTA (2008)

22 BRT Proposed Service Concepts

23

24 BRT – Proposed Plan 300 new/replacement parking spaces at 2 BRT station location Expansion of maintenance facility capacity Intelligent Transportation System elements Bus priority improvements at 6 locations 15 additional buses 48,500 additional hours of BRT and regional transit service Source: The Case for the Project Report, RFTA (2008); Alternatives Analysis Report, RFTA (2008)

25 BRT – Station Concept Roaring Fork Market Place (Glenwood Springs)

26 BRT – Station Concept Basalt Typical Station

27 BRT – Phase 1 Cost Estimate Capital Investments Inflated Cost in Millions Estimated FTA Share Buses$7.37$4.13 ITS$5.51$3.09 Bus Priority Improvements$2.54$1.42 Stations and Parking$28.70$1.86$12.94 Maintenance Facility Expansion $2.69$0.35$1.21 TOTAL Capital Investment $46.81 TOTAL Estimated Construction Cost $31.39 Sub-total Estimated FTA Share $10.85$14.15 TOTAL Estimated FTA Share $25.00

28 FTA Very Small Starts (VSS) Requirements Project must be a bus, rail, or ferry project and contain the following features: Substantial Transit Stations Signal Priority/Pre-emption Low Floor / Level Boarding Vehicles Special Branding of Service Frequent Service – 10 min peak.15 min off peak Service offered at least 14 hours per day Existing corridor ridership exceeding 3,000/day Less than $50 million total cost Less than $3 million per mile (excluding vehicles) Source: Very Small Starts Fact Sheet, FTA (2009)

29 FTA Process Challenges 3,000 “Existing Riders” Operating Costs as Percentage of Total Cost – Required Detailed Financial Plan Atypical corridor and service needs

30 Status of Project Development Successful referendum – additional sales tax to fund local share Approval to enter VSS project development by by FTA Initiating contracting with Program Management consultant NEPA and design work to begin in Summer 2009 Scheduled completion in June 2012

31 QUESTIONS? QUALITY TRANSIT -- NOW Bill Byrne, Vice President and Transit Practice Leader Kara Showalter, Transit Planner


Download ppt "QUALITY TRANSIT -- NOW APTA 2009 2009 Bus & Paratransit Conference & International Bus Roadeo/Bus Rapid Transit Conference William D. Byrne, P.E. Vice."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google