Reinventing TRansit - EDF

1y ago
4.38 MB
44 Pages
Last View : 24d ago
Last Download : 1y ago
Upload by : Brady Himes

Reinventing TransitAmerican Communities finding smarter,cleaner, faster transportation solutions

Reinventing TransitAmerican communities finding smarter,cleaner, faster transportation solutionsAuthorsEdward BurgessAshley Rood

AcknowledgmentsEnvironmental Defense Fund would like to thank the following transit agency/company staff for their time and cooperation in providing information for this report:Hugh Mose (CATA), Eric Marx (PRTC), Lisa Darnall (LYNX), Peter Varga (TheRapid), Andrea White (Bikestation), Julie Gustafson (Portland Streetcar Inc.), BobGibbons (Metro Transit), Jennifer Conover (MnDOT), Ed Bolden (Maplewood,NJ), Sally Stocker (NJTRANSIT), Andy Vobora (LTD), Ron Hughes (KART), andDave Sotero (LA Metro). Robert Padgette from the American Public TransportationAssociation and Leslie Bellas from Intelligent Transportation Society of Americaboth provided peer review, however the opinions expressed in this report are solelythose of the authors. The following staff at Environmental Defense Fund alsocontributed to this report: Tom Elson, Mary Barber, Andy Darrell, Michael Replogle,and Peter Black.Our missionEnvironmental Defense Fund is dedicated to protecting the environmental rightsof all people, including the right to clean air, clean water, healthy food and flourishing ecosystems. Guided by science, we work to create practical solutions thatwin lasting political, economic and social support because they are nonpartisan,cost-effective and fair.Cover photos (clockwise from top left): Manufacturing streetcars in Portland, OR (photocourtesy Oregon Iron Works). DART light rail station in Dallas, TX (photo courtesyDallas Area Rapid Transit). EmX bus rapid transit station in Eugene, OR (photocourtesy Lane Transit District). KART rural vanpool service in King County, CA(photo courtesy KART). 2009 Environmental Defense FundThe complete report is available online at

ContentsWhat’s inside this report?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Transportation at a crossroads. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Case studies1. Rural transit in San Joaquin Valley (King County, CA). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102. Bus Rapid Transit in a suburban area—L.A.’s Metro Orange Line. . . . . . . . . . 12(Los Angeles, CA)3. Streetcars and economic development (Portland, OR). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144. Flexible suburban bus routes (Prince William County, VA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165. Bus-only shoulder lanes (Minneapolis, MN). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196. Bus Rapid Transit in a mid-sized city—Eugene’s EmX (Eugene, OR) . . . . . . . 227. Community shuttle buses to commuter rail (New Jersey). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258. Community-tailored transit options (Grand Rapids, MI). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289. Bus Rapid Transit in a downtown—Orlando’s LYMMO (Orlando, FL). . . . . . . . 3010. Bike transit centers (California; Seattle, WA; Chicago, IL; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33Washington, DC)11. Subways on the streets: New York City’s Select Bus Service. . . . . . . . . . . . . 36(New York, NY)Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 403

What’s inside this report?This report showcases the new generation of innovative public transit already oper at ing in a variety of communities across America. Our goal is to shatter the precon ceived notion that transit is exclusive to more traditional urban centers and that itis slow and unreliable. Through 11 case studies, we demonstrate how cutting edgetransit has been implemented quickly and cost-effectively in a variety of settingsfrom urban to rural.Expanding cost-effective transit options is key to our nation’s economic andenvironmental health. On the environmental side, transportation sources areresponsible for about a third of U.S. global warming pollution—most of which comesfrom cars and trucks. Economically, investments that expand transit provide moreand longer-lasting jobs than investments to expand highways, while boostingeconomic develop ment, enhancing real estate values and helping relieve consumerreliance on foreign oil.1Case studies featured in this report:1 Rural transit in San Joaquin Valley (King County, CA)2 Bus Rapid Transit in a suburban area—L.A.’s Orange Line (Los Angeles, CA)3 Streetcars and economic development (Portland, OR)4 Flexible suburban bus routes (Prince William County, VA)5 Bus-only shoulder lanes (Minneapolis, MN)6 Bus Rapid Transit in a mid-sized city—Eugene’s EmX (Eugene, OR)7 Community shuttles to commuter rail (New Jersey)8 Community-tailored transit options (Grand Rapids, MI)9 Bus Rapid Transit in a downtown—Orlando’s LYMMO (Orlando, FL)10 Bike transit centers (California; Seattle, WA; Chicago, IL; Washington, DC)11 Subways on the streets: New York City’s Select Bus Service (New York, NY )As local and state governments work on plans to invest in our nation’s infra structure, and as Congress writes a new transportation authorization bill, there isan unparalleled opportunity to transform and improve our country’s transportationnetwork. Lawmakers and authorities must seize the moment to support and expandupon the innovative transit investments already occurring that will reduce greenhousegas pollu tion, create permanent new jobs and revitalize our national economy.4

Transportation at a crossroadsWhere is our transportation system heading today?Recent events have put the United States’ transportation system at a fundamentalcrossroads. After decades of growth, car travel began to slow in 2005 and soon gaveway to an unprecedented decline.2 This drop is in part due to fluctuating fuel prices,but also because of the diminishing number of new drivers and increased travelchoices made available from investments in the 1990s. Meanwhile, transit ridershipincreased dramatically in recent years, remaining strong even as gas prices droppedsteeply in late 2008 (Figure 1).3 However, despite surging transit demand, dimin ishing tax revenues are forcing many municipalities to make draconian service cutsand layoffs to close budget gaps in their transit systems.In the face of these trends, the United States is now poised for a large-scaleinvestment in its transportation infrastructure. The Obama administration andCongress enacted an economic stimulus package to create new jobs through newinfra structure investment. President Obama has also proposed a National Infra structure Bank to finance future infrastructure needs. Furthermore, Congresswill be writing a new federal transportation authorization when the current law(SAFETEA-LU) expires in September 2009. But regardless of which mechanismsultimately yield federal transportation funding, questions remain about how thosefunds should be spent to address national priorities. Will a large share go for roadexpansions that com pound the long-term problems of traffic congestion, air pollu tion, sprawl, oil dependence and global warming? Or will we see new emphasis onsustainable transportation options that provide more affordable com mutes, reduceFigure 1Percent change transit ridership 2007–2008Percent �347%Transit ridership has increased in cities all across the country. For the online interactive map that matches cities and transit growthrates, go to: Cartography: Peter Black/EDF.5

Reinventing Transitpollution and generate a permanent stream of operating jobs well into the future?Now is the time for state and local officials to think creatively about new forms oftransportation that match the increasing demand for public transit and addressnational priorities on energy, the environment and the economy.Transit brings environmental and economic benefitsProviding better transit options is one of the keys to our nation’s economic and envi ronmental recovery. From an environmental perspective, transportation sources areresponsible for nearly a third of U.S. global warming pollution—most of which comesfrom cars and trucks (Figure 2). Tailpipe emissions are also linked to health problemsincluding heart disease,4 lung development,5 and even lower IQ levels in children.6Getting these transportation emissions down, however, will require more thanjust technological fixes. In fact, predicted traffic growth in the coming years threatensto cancel out emissions reductions gained from more fuel-efficient cars, therebyincreasing the cost of meeting greenhouse gas targets needed to avert catastrophicclimate change.7 While many factors contribute to traffic growth, studies showthat adding new road capacity leads to more driving over the long-term, contributingto additional growth in transportation emissions.8 Meanwhile, cars generate sig nifi cantly more greenhouse gas pollution on a per passenger-mile basis than transitsystems (Figure 3). Thus, an infrastructure program that focuses on expandinginnovative transit while using existing roads more efficiently could effectively helpreduce transportation pollution while improving traffic congestion.Transit investments make sense economically too. Transit projects have beenshown time and again to provide greater and more cost-effective job creation thanhighway projects.9 Not only will transit investments create short-term con structionjobs, but they will support long-term operating jobs long after construction is over.Figure 2GHG emissions from U.S. transportation sector by mode (2006)Commercial aircraft7%Other4%Ships and boats2%Rail3%Buses1%Cars and light trucks63%Medium/heavytrucks20%Cars and trucks make up the majority of GHG emissions from transportation. Source: U.S. EPAGreenhouse Gas Inventory 2006, published April 2008.6

Reinventing TransitFigure 3Carbon intensity of transportation modes in the U.S.Pounds CO2 emitted/person/mile1. autoBus transitHeavy railLight rail Commuter railVan poolTaking transit is one of the most effective choices an individual consumer can make to reduce CO2emissions. Source: Federal Transit Administration, “Public Transportation’s Role in Responding toClimate Change,” January 2009.Figure 4Annual transportation cost comparison for transit-using andauto-dependent households 15,000 12,000 6,251Transit fareFuelVehicle ownership 9,000Transit fareFuel 6,000Vehicle ow 3,000 0Public -dependent households spend significantly more on transportation—which is typically the secondlargest household expense (after housing). Source: ICF International, “Public Transportation andPetroleum Savings in the U.S.: Reducing Dependence on Oil,” January 2007.Investing in transit also pro motes economic development and enhances real-estatevalues,10,11 while pro viding workers with more affordable access to their jobs(Figure 4) and connecting employers to broader labor pools. Furthermore, byreducing gasoline consumption, transit projects will help to keep money in thelocal economy rather than sending it overseas to oil-rich nations.7

Reinventing TransitCommunities across America are leading the way forwardThe urgency of the current economic and environmental crises require solutionsthat have been proven to work effectively. As such, this report showcases the newgeneration of innovative public transit already at work in communities acrossAmerica, helping to create jobs while ensuring cleaner air and healthier communities.Our goal is not to select the “best” transit projects, but rather to provide snapshotsof new technologies and ideas successfully in place today. Through eleven casestudies, we demonstrate that cutting edge transit can be cost-effective, flexibleand implemented quickly. These case studies cover a broad cross-section of settings,including rural areas, suburbs, and cities of all sizes. They are concrete examples ofhow modern transit can be tailored to any community, providing greater mobilityand access to jobs while making travel cheaper and more energy efficient. New formsof transit are attractive and reliable, often being met by ridership far exceeding initialprojections. In addition, they offer a powerful tool for economic growth, creating jobsand private sector investments that revitalize nearby communities. If federal policysupported innovations like these at scale across America, a true new generation oftransit could be realized.8

Reinventing TransitFigure 5Examples of transit innovations already in operation around the country15281033933246402651383210 4221010411045 23363510 11422432538164 1017273744202911712191821349For an updated, interactive version of thismap please visit Kings County, CA: KART (demandresponse/van pool)2 Los Angeles, CA: Orange Line (bus rapidtransit)34Portland, OR: Portland Streetcar567Minneapolis, MN: shoulder lane busesManassas/Prince William County, VA:OmniLink (flex route bus)Eugene, OR: LTD EmX (bus rapid transitMaplewood, NJ: NJTransit C ommunityShuttle (shuttle Bus to c ommuter rail)8 Grand Rapids, MI: The Rapid (LEEDcertified central station)9 Orlando, FL: LYMMO (bus rapid transit)10 Bikestations: Berkeley, CA. Chicago, IL(McDonald’s Cycle Station). Long Beach, CA.Palo Alto, CA. Santa Barbara, CA. Seattle,WA. Washington, DC (SmartBike).11 New York, NY: Select Bus Service (busrapid transit)12 Albuquerque, NM: Rapid Ride (bus rapidtransit)13 Amherst, MA: UMass Transit (studentemployment)14 Boulder, CO: Go Boulder (bus branding15 Bremerton, WA: Kitsap Transit (workerdriver program)303116 Connecticut: EasyStreet (van poolservice)17 Champaign, IL: Champaign UrbanaMass Transit District (transit technology)18 Charlotte, NC: CATS Lynx (light rail)19 Chattanooga, TN: CARTA Electric ShuttleBus (downtown shuttle)20 Cleveland, OH: Euclid Avenue HealthLine(BRT)21 Dallas, TX: DART Flex Service (flex routebus service22 Denver, CO: RTD Call n Ride (demandresponse)23 Elk Grove, CA: e-tran (flex route bus,commuter rail shuttle24 Glasgow, MT: Valley County Transit(demand response)25 Las Vegas, NV: RTC MAX Bus (bus rapidtransit26 Lebanon, NH: Advance Transit (freetransit bus)27 Kansas City, MO: KCATA MAX Bus (busrapid transit)28 King County, WA: DART, Dial-a-ridetransit (flex route bus)29 Lafayette, IN: Citybus (transit center)30 Miami, FL: 95 Express (bus rapid transit/managed toll lanes)31 Miami, FL: South Miami-Dade Busway(bus rapid transit)932 Milwaukee, WI: Lake Express (high speedferry)33 Missoula, MT: MRTMA/Missoula inMotion (van pool, park-n-ride, guaranteedride)34 Mobile, AL: The Wave (neighborhoodservice program, downtown shuttle)35 Monterey, CA: Monterey-Salinas Transit(bus rapid transit, alternative fuels)36 Mountain View, CA: Google Shuttle(employee commuter shuttle)37 Palm Springs, CA: Sun Line (alternativefuels)38 Phoenix, AZ: Valley Metro (light rail)39 Richland, WA: Ben Franklin Transit(vanpool, dispersed service)40 St. Cloud, MN: MetroBus Dial-a-Ride(demand response bus)41 Salt Lake City, UT: UTA MAX (bus rapidtransit)42 Santa Barbara, CA: MTD DowntownWaterfront Shuttle (downtown streetcar/shuttle)43 Southeastern Illinois: RIDES MassTransit District (demand response bus, rivertaxi)44 State College, PA: CATA (universitypartnership, event shuttles, vanpool)45 Sunnyvale, CA: Yahoo Shuttle (employeecommuter shuttle

Case Study1KAPTARural transit that works: San Joaquin Valley, CAMany farm workers usevanpools to travel towork in California’s SanJoaquin Valley.OverviewPublic transportation may be an institution in California’s megacities but transitfor rural residents has been almost non-existent. Kings County Area Public Trans porta tion Agency (KCAPTA) ischanging that. The agency’s innovativeKing County, CAsystem of van pools and rural busesCounty population (2008): 154,434ensures access to schools, jobs andPopulation density: 100/sq mimedical services in the rural reaches ofTransit system: Kings County AreaCalifornia’s San Joaquin Valley. ItPublic Transportation Agencyprovides a safe, practical way for workersSource: California Department of Financeat a job site to “self-organize” a vanpool,with local government providingequipment, insurance and other logistics. These vanpools now cover 4.8 million milesa year, giving rural workers a safe and sustainable lifeline to work.Description 23 rural bus routes 346 vanpool services including the Agricultural Industries Transportation ServicesPopulation served: elderly (provides access to medical services), low-income collegestudents, agricultural workers, corrections officers, school teachers andstate workers10

Reinventing TransitVanpool success story“In 2007, vanpool vehicles were respon sible for eliminating 373,500 vehicle com mutingtrips, [and] reducing 176 tons of car emissions from the atmosphere ” according todata provided by the KCAPTA.12How they workpeople from a job site form a vanpool group. One person must qualify as theNinedriver.Kings Area Rural Transit (KART) receives grant money to purchase the van and registersthe driver.fees collected on a monthly basis according to mileage—day trips cost lessAffordablethan 5 per person. Operationally self sustaining—fares fully cover costs. KART offers 24 hour on-site repair services.Businesses including casinos and ski resorts throughout the state are turning toKART for advice as well.13 Vanpools based on this model could fill the rural trans portation gap in the United States.Annual impact of KART vanpoolsMiles traveled by vanpools4.8 millionProject indirect savings 59 millionNumber of at-fault accidents2Emission savingsROG: 61 tonsNOx: 62 tonsPM10: 15 tonsCO2: 413 tonsNumber of auto trips reduced404,000Reduction in vehicle miles traveled66 millionSource: “Kings County Area Public Transit’s Journey from Fixed Route Service to Vanpools”(presentation, California Association for Coordinated Transportatio, Bovember 5, 2008).11

Case Study2LA MetroA new image for buses in Los Angeles: Beautiful, fastand reliableL.A.’s Metro OrangeLine features sleek,modern buses madeby North AmericanBus Industries, Anniston, AL.OverviewHighway 101 in Los Angeles is one of the most congested freeways in thecountry. Providing a critical transit link and congestion relief to this routerequired a creative solution. Enter theMetro Orange Line, the first Bus RapidLos Angeles, CATransit Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) line ofCity population (2006): 3,849,378its kind within LA County. The BRT(#2 in U.S.)Population density: 8,000/sq miline connects the residents and employ Transit system: Los Angeles Countyment centers of San Fernando ValleyMetropolitan Transportation Authoritywith the end point of Los Angeles’Source: U.S. Census Bureaumain subway in North Hollywood (seeFigure 6). The Orange Line has provento be a huge success surpassing its rider ship goals for 2020 within six months ofopening and relieving traffic congestion on Highway 101.DescriptionSixty-foot articulated (accordion–like) compressed natural gas-fueled buses have ampleroom for passengers and bicycles. Multiple wide doors and fare prepaymentminimize boarding delays.Dedicated lane built on a former rail right-of-way. Signal priority at intersections ensureshigh travel speeds and minimal delay.12

Reinventing TransitFigure 6Map of the Orange Line’s location in the L.A. Metro bus network'&%&&-E HD:D7:L7D DKOIL?9JEHO 8B;HD I7D I;FKBL;:7H;I;:7WARNERCENTER&,%*BURBANK'9 7D:B;HL;DJ&()KH7 8&%&BPASADENA EB# B;D#F7I7 CDJ;?9E8;L;HBO 7HL;O9;I7H 9 7L;P9;DJH7BIEJEBED 8;79 &&%REDONDOBEACH08-1598 2008 LACMTA?6C '%%-9H;DI 7M *SOUTHGATE 7MJ EHD;)IE 8HE7:M7OBD& 'L;HCEDJ9EB?D%WHITTIER BEH;D9;LAXBZigd GV a ;jijgZHXVaZ B aZhM;IJ;HDL;HDEDC7D9 ;IJ;HBZigd GVe Y ;jijgZBZigda c VcY HiVi dch*,?;H7;:BZigd DgVc\Z A cZ IgVch ilVnhSANTAMONICA&%M ?JJBLBZigd GV a :m hi c\ %* %&%FKI;BZigd GVe Y :m hi c\EL MONTEM EBOCF?9F?HI B7 9?;D; 7EDI7?B7?9UCLAM7JB7DJ?9)%*'&%&&% EBBOMEE:&%*NORWALK.&,&%TORRANCE %*JEHH7D9;#B8HjW ZXi id 8]Vc\ZCARSONSource: LA Metro)%*LONG BEACHStation improvements: ticket vending machines that enable fare pre-payment. Well-designedboarding platforms, with public art installations, real-time informa tion displays, bike storage, shade canopies and convenient parking make the serviceattractive and easy to use.bus arrives predictably every six minutes during peak commute hours and everyService:ten minutes throughout the rest of the day. Frequent service reinforces strongpositive brand identity for the Orange Line.Time savings: A January 2006 survey showed that 85% of riders save time by leavingtheir car at home and using the Orange Line every day.Comprehensive approach: A 14-mile bike path and an eight-mile pedestrian walkwayaccompany the Orange Line with 79% of riders utilizing these optionsto get to their local bus stop.14Expansion and job creationExpansion of the Orange Line is one of the priority transit projects slated for fundingwith the passage of Sales Tax Measure R in the November 2008 elections.As a package, Measure R will create 210,000 new jobs and 32 billion in economicoutput over the next 30 years.development is beginning to sprout up at several stations along theTransit-orientedBRT line.The success of the Orange Line in one of the United States’ most traditionallycar-oriented cities illustrates the ability of BRT to fill the gap between urban andsuburban transportation options.13

Case Study3Portland Streetcar, Inc.Creating a new American industry: the Portland streetcarThe Portland streetcarhas encouraged down town business andhousing development.OverviewOffering a convenient way to get around downtown, the Portland Streetcar hashelped spur extensive development and is a central part of the city’s transportationnetwork. Together with Portland’s light rail and bus system, the streetcar is onereason why automobile use (measuredin vehicle miles traveled per capita)Portland, ORin Portland has actually declinedCity population (2007): 568,380by 6 percent since 1990, in contrastPopulation density: 4,000/sq mito the average for U.S. cities whichTransit system: TriMethas grown by 10 percent. In fact, theSource: Portland State University, PopulationResearch CenterPortland Streetcar is estimated toprevent 70 mil lion miles of vehicle travelannu ally, thereby avoiding more traffic and pollution. Now Portland is poised tobecome the center of a new industry as local manufacturers have become the firstin decades to build U.S.-made modern streetcars.Portland’s Streetcar facts15Portland Streetcar ridership has grown steadily since opening in 2001 and currentlyserves 13,000 riders per weekday (Figure 7).The service began with a 2.4 mile line initially costing 54 million and has expandedthree times since, adding 1.6 miles, bringing the total capital investmentto 103 million.14

Reinventing TransitFigure 7Portland streetcar ridership5,000,000Annual 12002200320042005200620072008Source: Portland Streetcar, Inc.A new east side expansion has been proposed for construction in June 2009 to be openedin the fall of 2011.New manufacturing jobsStreetcar manufacturing is creating a new source of local jobs. Building upon thePortland Streetcar’s success, United Streetcar (a subsidiary of Oregon Iron Works,Inc.) began manufacturing the first U.S.-built modern streetcar in 2008. Previously,all the Portland streetcars were manufactured in the Czech Republic, but now thecars can be manufactured locally in Portland. With the help of congressional repre sentatives from Oregon and Washington, the City of Portland (with help fromOregon Iron Works) secured a 4 million contract for a prototype modern Americanstreetcar.16 This contract allowed the company to hire over 20 new employees forstreet car design and production and they plan on hiring additional employees as neworders for streetcars are secured. Additionally many local and US suppliers are nowsupplying American-made parts for this streetcar, creating additional jobs and a newproduct market for many small businesses. Besides manufacturing and con structionjobs, the Portland Streetcar also supports over two dozen full-time train operators.Economic development17In addition to creating new jobs directly, the Portland Streetcar has helped stimulate 3.5 billion in new development in downtown Portland and revitalized old neigh borhoods that were in decline. Within a three block distance from the streetcar, realestate investment has surged, with density increasing over 40% in just a few years.The subsequent development surrounding the streetcar represents over 5 millionsquare feet of new construction including 10,000 housing units.15

Case Study4PRTCFlexible bus routes make transit work in the suburbs:Prince William County’s OmniLink busBus drivers anddispatchers use areal‑time GPS systemto schedule andcoordinate trips.OverviewThe sprawling suburbs surrounding our nation’s capitol present a challenge to devel oping public transportation that works. But local authorities in Prince WilliamCounty, Virginia devised a clever solu tion: flex ible bus routes that can drivePrince William County, VAoff-route to pick up passengers a shortCounty population: 425,000distance away from the main line. ThisPopulation density: 1,500–3,000/provides transit access to a much largersq miTransit system: Potomac andarea (see Figure 8) and is more costRappahannock Transportationeffective than the traditional method ofCommissionrunning both fixed route and curb-toSource: PRTCcurb paratransit services (ADA).Modern GPS tech nology keeps thebuses running in sync, creating a timely option for residents traveling to work or justaround town.Description of service OmniLink buses travel along a local fixed route.Passengers can board regularly scheduled stops, or reserve a stop up to ¾-mile off‑route.Trips are scheduled from two hours up to two days in advance through a real-time reservationsystem.16

Reinventing TransitFigure 8OmniLink bus service coverage for Dale City, a suburban community innorthern VirginiaDALE CITYToTo andand FromFrom ChinnChinn CenterCenter andandPRTCPRTC TransitTransit ldg.HoadlyVillageThe tch ParkChinnRec. Ctr.This map shows the areas whereOmniLink local bus service isavailable. The solid, colored lineindicates the basic route OmniLinkvehicles travel.641 The shaded,colored areas indicate how farOmniLink vehiclesOakwoodmay travel fromComunity Ctr.the basic route (up to 3/4 mile) topick up or discharge passengers.LindendaleCommuter LotHillendaleCommuter LotFire Station7842DALECITY640Stuart M.BevilleSchoolGlendale Shopping Ctr/CVSCenter Plaza3Dale CityRec. Ctr.POTOMACMILLSPotomac MillsMallDale CityCommuter tCenter1234Source: PRTC.Off-route service is available to the general public for a surcharge ( 1) or free for qualifiedindividuals (60 , disability, Medicare).Bus stops are coordinated through advanced GPS tracking, route guidance and dispatchingsystems.Performance and economic benefits18In October 2008, ridership was up 12% over the previous year, even after gasprices fell precipitously. Many of these riders rely on OmniLink to reach theirjobs. In 2006, 59% of riders used the service to get to work, and 23% said theywould not be able to get to their destination otherwise. OmniLink employs17

Reinventing Transit45 people including drivers, dispatchers, customer service agents, mechanics,administrative staff and managers.Funding sources OmniLink is primarily funded by a 2% motor fuel tax in Prince William County. Other funding sources: federal and state formula and grants fundsPotential expansions:Though adequate funding is a perennial limitation for local bus services like OmniLink,skyrocketing demand has the Potomac and Rappahannock Transportation Com mission (PRTC) eyeing several possible expansions to their existing eastern andwestern routes:Increased weekend service along both western and eastern routes, including a connectionto Washington MetrorailNew routes to Montclair and Innovation at Prince William (a technology-focused businessand employment center). Route extension to Fort Belvoirfrequency on western routes (currently peak service operates only every 30Increasedminutes for eastern route buses and 60 minutes for western route buses).18

Case Study5MN DOT-Team TransitBuilding transit infrastructure without building new lanes:Metro Transit’s bus-only shouldersMinnesota’s bus-onlyshoulder lanes have anexcellent safety recordand have helped boostridership.OverviewTwin Cities drivers know the pain of traffic congestion all too well. Congestionwastes time and fuel, while adding to frustration and worsening pollution. For tunately, the local authorities workedwith the Minnesota Department ofMinneapolis-St. Paul, MNTransportation to devise a simple toolMetro population (2006): 3,175,041for commuters to avoid congestion. ByPopulation density: 500/sq miTransit system: Metro Transitreconstructing highway shoulders forSource: U.S. Census Bureaubus use, Metro Transit riders can safelyzip past stop-and-go traffic, savingpeople time and frustration. Repaving shoulder lanes also provides an opportunityfor infra structure investment that can readily be replicated across the country.Description of servicetraffic speeds a

4 Flexible suburban bus routes (Prince William County, VA) 5 Bus-only shoulder lanes (Minneapolis, MN) 6 Bus Rapid Transit in a mid-sized city—Eugene’s EmX (Eugene, OR) 7 Community shuttles to commuter rail (New Jersey) 8 Community-tailored transit options (Grand Rapids, MI) 9 Bus Rapid Transit in a downtown—

Related Documents:

1.311.331.3 About EDF Energy Nuclear GenerationAbout EDF Energy Nuclear GenerationAbout EDF Energy Nuclear Generation EDF Energy Generation (NG) operates eight nuclear power stations in the UK with a combined capacity of almost 9,000 megawatts - electricity that is vital to the UK economy. Figure 2: EDF Energy's Nuclear Power Stations .

5 File, Record, and Data Field Requirements 39 5.1 File and Record Requirements 39 5.2 Data Field Requirements 39 5.3 EDD Submittal 40 Appendix A: Summary of Data Elements 42 Appendix B: Glossary of Terms 51. EDF EDD Standards LAB EDF . The EDF may be delivered in one of two data transfer standard formats: 1) the "relational format," .

is a bus rapid transit system jointly funded by Community Transit and Everett Transit. Community Transit directly operates . Swift. along a 16.7-mile route on State Route SR-99, traversing the cities of Everett, Lynnwood, Edmonds, Shoreline, and unincorporated Snohomish County. The corridor includes six miles of business access/transit (BAT) lanes

TransIT Services of Frederick County, MD Brian Dean Capital Area Transit, PA Lenea England Bay Aging/Bay Transit, VA Patrick Hench Red Rose Transit, PA Dorothy Sterling Hill County of Lackawanna Transit, PA Dan Hogan Focus on Renewal, PA Dennis Howard Triangle Transit, NC Stephen Huyck River Valley Transit,

transit providers receiving Federal transit assistance to undertake certain transit asset management activities. Transit asset management leverages data to improve investment decision-making, reliability, safety, cost management, and customer service and is a cornerstone of effective performance management. Background Maintaining transit assets .

WASHINGTON, D.C. 2003 TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM TCRP REPORT 90 Research Sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration in Cooperation with the Transit Development Corporation SUBJECT AREAS Public Transit Bus Rapid Transit Volume 1: Case Studies in Bus Rapid Transit HERBERT LEVINSON New Haven, CT SAMUEL ZIMMERMAN DMJM .

Stam 80 EDF herbicide for postemergence weed control in rice is formulated as an 80% active extruded dry flowable formulation. STAM 80 EDF-CA is not a hormone-type herbicide, but kills susceptible weeds by direct contact action. For this reason, thorough

Created and organised by The Interface Mechanical Civil ‘Thou’ (μm) 1/16 (mm) EN 13001-02 Regular, Variable, & Occasional Loads