DRAFT TREASURE ISLAND TRAVEL DEMAND MODELING & ANALYSIS DOCUMENTATION MEMORANDUM
|
|
- Zoe Perkins
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 DRAFT TREASURE ISLAND TRAVEL DEMAND MODELING & ANALYSIS DOCUMENTATION MEMORANDUM PREPARED FOR: PREPARED B Y: JULY 21,
2 Table of Contents Table of Contents... 2 Table of Figures... 3 Table of Tables... 4 List of Acronyms Travel Demand Analysis Baseline Assumptions Scenario Description Land Use Base Network Policy Scenario Assumptions Findings Person and Vehicle Trip Forecast Transit Ridership Forecast Household Income Discount Effects
3 Table of Figures Figure 1: Proposed Conceptual Land Use Plan Figure 2: Proposed Treasure Island Ramp Configuration Figure 3: Transportation Vision for Treasure Island
4 Table of Tables Table 1:Champ Toll Policy Scenarios... Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 2: Treasure Island Land Use Assumptions... 9 Table 3: Treasure Island Residential Auto Ownership... Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 4: Bridge Tolls Table 5: Treasure Island Toll Policy (per TITIP) Table 6: Proposed Treasure Island Transit Service Table 7: SF-CHAMP Toll Policy Scenarios Table 8: Transportation Plan Performance Measures Table 9: Person Trips, Daily Total Table 10: Person Trips, AM and PM Peak Period Total Table 11: Vehicle Trips and Toll Revenue Transactions Table 12: Off-Model Procedure for Estimating Transit Boardings, Baseline Scenario Table 13: Daily Transit Boardings Table 14: Peak Period Transit Boardings Table 15: Daily Person Trip Mode Split Table 16: Peak Period Person Trip Mode Split Table 17: Resident Person Trips Mode Split by Household Income... Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 18: Transportation Plan Performance Measures
5 List of Acronyms Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit) Compressed natural gas (CNG) Consumer Price Index (CPI) Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) Dwelling Unit (DU) High-occupancy vehicle (HOV) License Plate Recognition (LPR) Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) National Transit Database (NTD) Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB) San Francisco County Transportation Authority (SFCTA) San Francisco Metropolitan Transportation Agency (MTA/SFMTA) Single-occupant vehicle (SOV) Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Treasure Island (TI / the Island) Treasure Island Community Development LLC (TICD) Treasure Island Development Authority (TIDA) Treasure Island Mobility Management Agency (TIMMA) Treasure Island Transportation Implementation Plan (TITIP) Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA) Yerba Buena Island (YBI) 5
6 1 Travel Demand Analysis The purpose of this memo is to document the principal results and findings from the travel demand forecasts prepared for the Treasure Island Mobility Study. Detailed summaries of the model output were prepared for each model run and are available in Excel workbooks, archived along with the model input memoranda. The travel demand forecasts were prepared with the San Francisco Chained Activity Modeling Process (SF-CHAMP) as modified for this project in late 2013 through Certain outputs were post-processed as described below to account for project policies that cannot be modeled in CHAMP, or to adjust the results for reasonableness. The objective of the travel demand analysis is to develop toll traffic forecasts for Treasure Island in order to examine how travel demand changes under a variety of policy scenarios. 1.1 Baseline Assumptions The following section outlines the baseline assumptions used to develop the Treasure Island Mobility Study 2030 Baseline scenario, followed by the assumptions used for four additional toll policy scenarios Scenario Description A complete description of all the scenarios modeled is provided in the Model Inputs Memoranda prepared for each model run. All the travel demand forecasts were prepared for a 2030 horizon year. The 2030 Baseline Scenario is designed to reflect: a. The 2030 land use and population estimates from the Jobs-Housing Connection Strategy projection. b. The 2012 nine-county San Francisco Bay Area transportation infrastructure. c. Transportation system changes between 2012 and 2030 that occur in the model area as a result of other planned and foreseeable projects that are not part of the Treasure Island Transportation Improvement Plan (TITIP). d. The land use development and transportation plan described in the Treasure Island Transportation Improvement Plan (TITIP), in particular the Full Build-Out scenario. This scenario assumes 8,000 housing units and more than 800,000 square feet of commercial, office and community development on the ground by The TITIP calls for improved accessibility via transit to and within Treasure Island, priced visitor parking, and tolled access to and from Treasure Island, among other improvements. In addition to the 2030 Baseline, four Build Scenario travel demand forecasts were prepared and analyzed in order to understand the mobility impacts and system performance of different toll policies. The toll policies tested as part of this Study are shown in Table 1. The exact discounts applied under Scenarios 4 and 5 to Eastbay traffic and low income resident traffic are described in the corresponding model input memoranda. The low income toll was applied to Treasure Island residents that exhibit household income equal to or less than $34,000 in today s dollars, equivalent to $17,700 in $
7 Toll Scenarios As Modeled in SF- CHAMP Baseline Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Scenario 5 Who is tolled? Residents Residents and Non- Residents Residents and Non-Residents Residents and Non-Residents Residents and Non-Residents Toll exemptions Vanpools 3+ Person Carpools 1 Vanpools 3+ Person Carpools Vanpools 3+ Person Carpools Vanpools Vanpools Hours of operation 6:00 AM to 9:00 AM 3:30 PM to 6:30 PM 2 6:00 AM to 6:30 PM 6:00 AM to 6:30 PM 6:00 AM to 3:00 AM 3 6:00 AM to 3:00 AM Directions to toll On and off Bridge On and off Bridge On and off Bridge On and off Bridge On and off Bridge 1 Federal vehicles, although considered as a potential exemption, are not modeled in SF CHAMP 2 As modeled, using SF-CHAMP s pre-defined time-of-day periods. In practice, start and end times of tolling periods could differ (e.g., 4-7 pm). 3 SF-CHAMP uses a pre-defined evening time period that extends from 6:30 PM 3 Am. In practice, the toll hours of operation would end earlier in the evening (e.g., 7:30 PM or 10:00 PM) 7
8 Toll ($2013) $5 per trip $5 per trip AM and PM peak periods: $8 per trip Midday period: $4 per trip Representation of credit to EB-to-TI drivers for SFOBB toll: No toll charged to Eastbay-to-Treasure Island traffic AM and PM peak periods: $8 ($2018) per trip Midday and evening period: $4 ($2018) per trip Discounted toll charged to Eastbay-to- Treasure Island traffic AM and PM peak periods: $8 per trip Midday and evening period: $4 per trip Discounted toll charged to Eastbay-to- Treasure Island traffic 50% Discounted toll charged to low income residents Table 1: CHAMP Toll Policy Scenarios 8
9 1.1.2 Land Use Regional Land Use This regional land use scenario reflects the Jobs-Housing Connections Strategy (JHCS), which is the Preferred Land Use Scenario for Plan Bay Area. Plan Bay Area is a joint effort led by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), as well as the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and the Bay Conservation and Development Commission. The JHCS land use revision was drafted by ABAG in April 2013 and revised again in September This scenario adopts the JHCS land use forecast for all Bay Area counties except San Francisco. For San Francisco County, the land use forecast is a refined version of the JHCS forecast prepared by the San Francisco Planning Department (SF Planning) Treasure Island Land Use According to the TITIP, at full build-out of the planned development in 2030, there will be 8,000 housing units in Treasure Island. JHCS projects an average household size of approximately 3.5 persons per household for Treasure Island, which is larger than the average household size for all of San Francisco, projected at approximately 2.4 persons per household. The project team determined that Treasure Island is more likely to exhibit dwelling unit occupancy patterns similar to San Francisco, and therefore an average of 2.36 persons per unit will be used to project Treasure Island population. The TITIP indicates that at full build-out there will be more than 800,000 square feet of commercial, office and community development (including adaptive reuse, excluding Jobs Corps and Coast Guard), and 500 hotel rooms. Table 2 lists the current 2030 residential, employment and commercial projections (SFCTA) and the planned development floor area (TITIP). 9
10 Table 2: Treasure Island Land Use Assumptions Scenario (1) Excludes Job Corps and Coast Guard Source: SFCTA Data Source SFCTA TITIP (1) 2010 Base 2030 Baseline Housing Units 656 8, Full Build-out 8,000 (25% affordable) Population 19,105 n/a Persons living in Group Quarters 225 n/a Employment 793 jobs 2,868 jobs Managerial, Information, Commercial and Professional Services Adaptive Reuse Production, Distribution and Repair ,000 sq.ft Retail Retail 207,000 sq.ft Cultural, Institutional and Education Community and Medical and Health Services 1 0 Civic Facilities 273,500 sq.ft Visitor Related Hotel 500 rooms Figure 1 on the following page shows the conceptual land use plan. 10
11 Figure 1: Proposed Conceptual Land Use Plan Source: Final EIR 11
12 The TITIP assumes that residential parking will be sold separately from the residential units, and that on average the residential parking supply will not exceed one stall per residential unit, or 8,000 stalls total. To reflect this policy, SF-CHAMP was adjusted to meet the target auto ownership distribution shown in Table 3. The unconstrained distribution reflects the 2030 CHAMP forecast obtained assuming unlimited residential parking supply. Table 3: Treasure Island Residential Auto Ownership Share of Total Treasure Island Residential Units Auto Ownership Level Unconstrained Target 0 cars 30% 30% 1 car 29% 49% 2 cars 32% 16% 3+ cars 9% 5% Total autos (veh) 9,400 7, Base Network The base network for this project is 2012 existing conditions road and transit networks, as provided by SFCTA. Relevant projects from the San Francisco Transportation Plan (SFTP) 2040 baseline investment plan and the 2013 Regional Transportation Plan - Bay Area Plan are added to represent 2030 conditions of the regional road network outside of Treasure Island. The Treasure Island baseline transportation infrastructure reflects the TITIP assumptions Regional Road Network A full list of near-term and long-term projects that will impact the regional road network can be found in the Input Assumptions for Treasure Island Mobility Study 2030 Baseline memorandum Bridge Tolls Bridge tolls reflect the toll costs in 2010 except on the Golden Gate Bridge, where the toll costs reflect the planned 2018 tolls (Table 4). The travel demand forecasts use CHAMP s pre-identified time-of-day periods, which define the AM and PM peak periods as 6:00 AM -to 9:00 AM and 3:30 PM to 6:30 PM, respectively. Those periods differ slightly from the anticipated toll hours of operation, although both assume three-hour peak periods. 12
13 Table 4: Bridge Tolls Tolls ($2010) Bridge : $8.00; HOV: $5.00 Golden Gate Bridge $5.00; HOV: $2.50 Factored to 1989$ using CPI San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge Peak: $6.00; Off-Peak: $4.00; PK-HOV: $2.50 PK: $6.00; OP: $4.00; PK-HOV: $2.50 Bay Area Toll Authority (Antioch Bridge, Benicia-Martinez Bridge, Carquinez Bridge, Dumbarton Bridge, Richmond-San Rafael Bridge, and San Mateo-Hayward Bridge) $5.00; HOV: $2.50 $5.00; HOV: $ Regional Transit Network A full list of service changes to rail and bus service can be found in the Input Assumptions for Treasure Island Mobility Study 2030 Baseline memorandum Treasure Island Road Network Road network improvements on Treasure Island and adjacent Yerba Buena Island include reconstruction of Bay Bridge ramps, ramp metering implementation, and development of a network of bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Figure 2 shows the proposed ramp configuration (Treasure Island/Yerba Buena Island Redevelopment Project DEIR). The connectivity and level of service provided by these facilities will be included in the 2030 baseline. The eastbound on-ramp is being reconstructed as part of the East Span Seismic Safety Project. This ramp will be metered. The westbound on-ramp on the west side of Yerba Buena Island will be reconstructed. This ramp will be metered. The westbound on-ramp on the east side of Yerba Buena Island will be reserved for transit and emergency vehicles. This ramp will remain stop-controlled. 13
14 Figure 2: Proposed Treasure Island Ramp Configuration Source: Treasure Island/Yerba Buena Island Redevelopment Project Draft Environmental Impact Report The TITIP includes the following projects to encourage biking and walking on the Island: A comprehensive network of Class 1 and Class 2 bikeways will be built to provide access to all parts of the Island and connect to the pedestrian/bike path on the new East Span of Bay Bridge. Bicycle parking throughout the Island and a bicycle "library" for bicycle rentals to residents and visitors will also be provided. A pedestrian network consists of a hierarchical web of primary and secondary pedestrian routes will be built. It will be connected by a Bay Trail ringing around the Island and a series of smaller pedestrian paths filling in the remaining gaps Treasure Island Parking The 2030 Baseline reflects the following residential and visitor parking policies: At most one residential parking space per housing unit. This parking policy will be reflected in SF-CHAMP by restricting the number of vehicles owned by Treasure Island households to no more than 8,000 vehicles. Hourly parking cost of $1.50 for all visitors ($2010), with no daily maximum Treasure Island Tolls The 2030 Baseline scenario, which is based on TITIP assumptions, models the toll policies shown in Table 5. The peak periods used for demand forecasting purposes are pre-defined in CHAMP and differ slightly from the actual proposed toll hours of operation in each scenario. Federal government vehicle toll discounts/exemptions are not modeled. 14
15 Table 5: Treasure Island Toll Policy (per TITIP) Toll (2010$) $5.00 Tolled population Treasure Island residents only Toll exemptions 3+ person carpools Federal government vehicles (not modeled) Direction Both (onto Bridge and off Bridge) AM peak & PM peak Toll hours 6:00 AM 9:00 AM & 4:00 PM 7:00 PM (TITIP) 6:00 AM 9:00 AM & 3:30 PM 6:30 PM (CHAMP) Treasure Island Transit Network The following transit improvements are proposed in the TITIP and are included in the 2030 baseline: A new ferry service will be provided in conjunction with WETA between San Francisco's Ferry Terminal (Ferry Building) and Treasure Island. At full build-out the Island will be served by a fleet of two ferries in operation. SFMTA will operate two bus routes to San Francisco - one between the Transit Hub on Treasure Island and the Transbay Terminal, and one between the Transit Hub and the Civic Center Area. AC Transit will operate a new direct bus service from Treasure Island to Oakland Civic Center, with two stops at Broadway/20th Street and Broadway/14th Street. A free on-island shuttle system will be provided for residents, employees, and visitors on Treasure Island, allowing for easy circulation around the Island and offering frequent connection to the Transit Hub for transit riders using the Transbay buses or ferry service. The shuttle would operate primarily on three routes, two serving primarily Treasure Island and one primarily serving Yerba Buena Island. Table 6 provides more details on the proposed transit service described above. 15
16 Table 6: Proposed Treasure Island Transit Service Transit Service Operating Agency Operating Hours A M Headway (min) 4 M D P M EV EA Boarding Cash Fare Vehicle Capacity (per) Ferry $3.75 ($2013) To/from SF Ferry Terminal WETA 5:00 AM- 9:00 PM $3.50 ($2010) $1.91 ($1989) 400 Local Bus To/from SF Transbay Terminal SFMTA 24 hours MUNI Local 94 Local Bus To/from SF Civic Center SFMTA No owl service MUNI Local 63 Express Bus To/from Oakland Civic Center AC Transit 5:00 AM - 10:00 PM AC Transit Transbay $4.20 ($2013) 54 $2.14 ($1989) Local Bus Island Shuttles Route A Island Shuttles Routes B and C 24 hours 5:00 AM - 10:00 PM Free 28 4 AM refers to AM peak period; MD refers to midday; PM refers to PM peak period; EV refers to evening (EV); EA refers to early AM. 5 Later in the study process, WETA revised the estimated cycle time for a two-vessel operation, from 15 to 20 minutes peak (two-vessel), and from minutes (1 vessel). 16
17 Figure 3 illustrates the frequency of transit service to and from Treasure Island at full build-out. Figure 3: Transportation Vision for Treasure Island Every 10 min. Every 20 min. Every 7.5 min. Every 12 min. Source: TI Mobility Management Program: Draft Policy Recommendations Policy Scenario Assumptions In addition to the 2030 Baseline scenario described in the previous section, four different build scenario travel demand forecasts were sequentially prepared and analyzed in order to understand the mobility impacts and system performance of different toll policies, described in Table 7 below. 17
18 Table 7: SF-CHAMP Toll Policy Scenarios Toll Policy Choices Baseline Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Scenario 5 Who is tolled? Residents Residents and Non-Residents Residents and Non-Residents Residents and Non- Residents Residents and Non- Residents Toll exemptions 6 Federal vehicles Vanpools 3+ Person Carpools Federal vehicles Vanpools 3+ Person Carpools Federal vehicles Vanpools 3+ Person Carpools Federal vehicles Vanpools Federal vehicles Vanpools Hours of operation 7 6:00 AM to 9:00 AM 3:30 PM to 6:30 PM 6:00 AM to 6:30 PM 6:00 AM to 6:30 PM 6:00 AM to 3:00 AM 6:00 AM to 3:00 AM Directions to toll On and off Bridge On and off Bridge On and off Bridge On and off Bridge On and off Bridge AM and PM peak periods: $8 per trip AM and PM peak periods: $8 ($2018) per trip AM and PM peak periods: $8 per trip Midday period: $4 per trip Midday and evening period: $4 ($2018) per trip Midday and evening period: $4 per trip Toll $5 ($2013) per trip $5 per trip No toll charged to Eastbay-to- Treasure Island traffic Discounted toll charged to Eastbay-to-Treasure Island traffic Discounted toll charged to Eastbay-to-Treasure Island traffic 50% Discounted toll charged to low income residents 8 6 The federal vehicle and vanpool exemptions were not modeled, as doing so is beyond the scope of CHAMP. 7 The hours of operation for demand modeling purposes reflect time periods as defined in CHAMP. 8 Low income toll was applied to Treasure Island residents that exhibit household income equal to or less than $34,000 in today s dollars, equivalent to $17,700 in $
19 1.2 Findings Table 8 illustrates how each toll policy scenario (presented in Table 7) performs under the transportation plan performance measures established in the project description. All scenarios perform better than the baseline with fewer vehicles loaded onto the Bay Bridge, fewer vehicle-miles traveled, higher transit ridership and non-auto mode shares. The high demand for transit between Treasure Island and San Francisco results in high transit load factors, particularly for the MUNI 25 1 route to the Transbay Terminal. Scenario 4, which encompasses the most inclusive toll policy, performs the best. Scenario 4 observed the largest reduction in person trips, on/off Island vehicle trips, Island-generated vehicle-miles traveled, and Bay Bridge traffic volume. The inclusiveness of the toll policy also resulted in a large increase in toll transactions (tolls assessed, in addition, during the evening period and on 3+ person carpools). The low income toll discount somewhat worsens transportation performance in that it increases vehicle trips by 3.4% and vehicle miles traveled by 2.8%. In spite of the reduction in transit ridership, Scenario 5 meets the performance goal of at least a 50% non-auto mode split during peak periods. Table 8: Transportation Plan Performance Measures Policy Goal/Objective 1.Support walking and biking as primary modes 2. Discourage auto use via parking policies and pricing of driving 3. Create a disincentive for residents to use their cars for commute trips 4. Provide competitive and attractive transit for commute trips Performance Measure Performance Target Intra-island non-auto person trip mode share (Daily) >50% Island-generated VMT (AM & PM Peak) In 000s Island-generated VMT (Daily) In 000s Non-auto person trip mode share (AM & PM Peak) Transit mode share (AM & PM Peak) Transit mode share (Daily) Holding land use constant, fewer = better At 50% buildout, transit mode share for peak-period trips on/off Island must be 50% or more. Holding land use constant, greater = better Scenarios Base % 82% 80% 79% 79% % 44% 47% 52% 50% 42% 44% 47% 52% 50% 34% 36% 38% 43% 41% 1 Formerly MUNI
20 Policy Goal/Objective 5. Mitigate peak period impact of trips generated by development on the regional road network and ramp queues 6. Provide high quality transit services Performance Measure Vehicle trips to & from Island (Peak) Vehicle trips to & from Island (Daily) Maximum peak period load factor: MUNI 108 (Transbay Terminal) MUNI 109 (SF Civic Center) AC Transit (Oakland Civic Center) Ferry (SF Ferry Terminal) Performance Target Holding land use constant, fewer = better Scenarios Base ,711 9,917 8,909 8,873 9,238 27,295 24,387 23,219 22,510 23, Intra-island Shuttles The following sections describe the travel demand forecast findings (i.e., person and vehicle trip, transit ridership, household income discount) in more detail Person and Vehicle Trip Forecast In 2030 under the baseline scenario CHAMP forecasts 72,800 person trips, including trips by Treasure Island residents and trips by non-residents. More than 80% of all the person trips have one trip-end outside Treasure Island. Non-residents account for approximately 20% of all the person trips, or 25% of the on/off Island trips. All the build scenarios result in fewer person trips relative to the baseline, both during peak and off-peak periods. As expected, as the toll and/or toll coverage increases, the number of person trips decreases. The largest reduction in person trips (-3%) is observed in Scenario 4, which exhibits the most comprehensive toll policy. Non-residents are more sensitive to toll increases than residents, particularly to peak period toll increases: the proportional decrease in person trips is higher for non-residents than for residents, and higher during the peak than for the entire day. Increasing the toll results in substitution of off-island destinations with on-island destinations, as evidenced by the increase in intra- Island trips forecasted for all the build scenarios relative to the baseline. 20
21 Table 9: Person Trips, Daily Total Person Trips Difference Relative to Baseline Base S2 S3 S4 S5 S2 S3 S4 S5 All Person Trips 72,800 72,300 71,200 70,500 70, ,600-2,300-2,100 Intra-Island Trips 13,400 13,400 13,700 14,100 14, On/Off Island Trips 59,400 58,900 57,500 56,400 56, ,900-3,000-2,900 Residents 43,900 43,800 43,400 43,100 43, Visitors 15,200 15,100 13,800 13,200 13, ,400-2,000-2,100 Departing from TI 29,700 29,500 28,800 28,200 28, ,500-1,500 Arriving at TI 29,700 29,400 28,800 28,200 28, ,500-1,500 Table 10: Person Trips, AM and PM Peak Period Total Person Trips Difference Relative to Baseline Base S2 S3 S4 S5 S2 S3 S4 S5 All Person Trips 31,800 31,700 31,100 30,900 31, Intra-Island Trips 4,600 4,500 4,700 5,000 4, On/Off Island Trips 27,200 27,200 26,400 25,900 26, ,300-1,100 Residents 21,000 21,200 20,900 20,600 20, Visitors 6,200 6,100 5,400 5,200 5, ,000-1,000 Departing from TI 15,000 15,100 14,600 14,400 14, Arriving at TI 12,200 12,100 11,800 11,500 11, Corresponding to the reduction in person trips, relative to the baseline all build scenarios exhibit a decrease in on/off Island vehicle trips, a decrease in Island-generated vehicle-miles traveled, and a reduction in Bay Bridge traffic volume (Table 11). The largest reduction is observed under Scenario 4, corresponding to a reduction in on/off Island trips of approximately 4,800 vehicles, or 17% of the baseline vehicle trips. For the same scenario the VMT reduction is 13% of the Baseline VMT, indicating that trips shorter than the average trip length tend to decrease more with increasing tolls than the longer trips. The number of revenue toll transactions reflects the inclusiveness of the toll policy (i.e., who is tolled) as well as the amount of toll assessed. As expected, as the toll policy becomes more inclusive the number of toll transactions increase. This is reflected in the large increase in toll transactions observed in Scenario 2 (tolls assessed on non-residents and during midday period) and in Scenario 4 (tolls assessed, in addition, during the evening period and on 3+ person carpools). Similarly, as the average toll decreases the number of toll transactions increase. The effect of a toll decrease in toll transactions can be observed between Scenarios 4 and 5, since the only difference is a reduced toll assessed on low income travelers in Scenario 5. 21
22 Table 11: Vehicle Trips and Toll Revenue Transactions Person Trips Difference Relative to Baseline Base S2 S3 S4 S5 S2 S3 S4 S5 Vehicle Trips 27,300 24,390 23,210 22,510 23,270-2,910-4,090-4,790-4,030 VMT (in 000s) Bay Bridge Traffic (in 000s) Toll Transactions 5,840 14,290 10,220 22,480 23,440 8,450 4,380 16,640 17,600 Residents 5,840 9,520 7,360 15,750 16,690 Visitors 0 4,770 2,860 6,730 6,750 Peak (AM & PM) 5,840 8,290 5,440 8,860 9,200 Off-Peak 0 6,000 4,780 13,620 14, Transit Ridership Forecast Methodology The transit boardings estimates produced by CHAMP were adjusted off-model for two reasons. First, CHAMP s transit capacity constraining procedure failed to keep Treasure Island boardings below or at capacity because the procedure does not apply to the first stop on a route, and therefore did not apply to the Treasure Island Transit Center stop, where the vast majority of boardings occur. Second, it was observed that the model shows Eastbay to San Francisco trips transferring from AC Transit Transbay routes to the MUNI 25 at the Treasure Island Transit Center (and vice-versa), a behavior that is not likely to occur in reality. The off-model procedure is applied as follows: i. The total number of transit trips between Treasure Island and San Francisco, and Treasure Island and Eastbay, is obtained from the CHAMP trip mode choice output. ii. Boardings on AC Transit are set equal to transit person trips between Eastbay and Treasure Island, by time period and direction iii. Treasure Island to San Francisco transit trips are distributed among the two MUNI routes and the ferry service in the same proportion as the CHAMP estimated boardings. In cases where this allocation resulted in more boardings than route capacity, the excess transit trips were assumed to use the ferry service. The only route with insufficient capacity to meet demand was the MUNI 108 in the AM period, westbound direction. Initial (CHAMP) and adjusted boardings for the Baseline Scenario are shown in Table 12, along with the transit trip and route capacity estimates which are used to revise the initial CHAMP boardings forecast. The same procedure was applied to all the scenarios. 22
23 Table 12: Off-Model Procedure for Estimating Transit Boardings, Baseline Scenario Daily AM Peak PM Peak Off-Peak CHAMP Transit Trips To San Francisco 8,078 3,960 1,126 2,992 From San Francisco 7, ,426 4,042 To Eastbay 1, From Eastbay 1, Route Capacity 2 (persons per direction) MUNI ,032 2,256 3,384 6,392 MUNI 109 3, ,890 AC Transit 3, ,620 Ferry 10,746 2,388 2,388 5,970 CHAMP Transit Boardings Westbound MUNI 108 9,189 3,545 2,426 3,218 MUNI AC Transit 2, , Ferry Eastbound MUNI 108 8, ,361 4,083 MUNI AC Transit 1, Ferry Adjusted Transit Boardings Westbound MUNI 108 6,165 2,256 1,070 2,839 MUNI AC Transit 1, Ferry 1,451 1, Eastbound MUNI 108 7, ,110 3,784 MUNI AC Transit 1, Ferry Results Relative to the baseline scenario, all the toll policy scenarios result in increased transit ridership during peak and off-peak periods and across all transit services bus service to/from San Francisco, bus service to/from the Eastbay, Ferry service and internal Treasure Island shuttles. The results shown in Table 13 and Table 14 do not reflect the corrective post-processing steps described above. The transit boardings 2 Route capacity per direction is calculated as vehicle capacity * (period duration in minutes) / headway. Vehicle capacities and headways are shown in Table 6. 23
24 estimates were constrained to available capacity off-model. Based on these forecasts the expectation is that at full build-out under any of these scenarios, including the baseline, the demand for transit to and from San Francisco in the peak commute directions will be near or at capacity. Table 13: Daily Transit Boardings Daily Transit Boardings Difference Relative to Baseline Base S2 S3 S4 S5 S2 S3 S4 S5 MUNI ,467 14,430 14,468 15,845 15, ,001 2,378 1,878 MUNI AC Transit 3,141 3,512 3,504 3,754 3, Ferry 1,748 1,848 2,115 2,571 2, Island Shuttles Table 14: Peak Period Transit Boardings Peak Period Transit Boardings (AM & PM) Difference Relative to Baseline Base S2 S3 S4 S5 S2 S3 S4 S5 MUNI 108 6,844 7,157 7,227 7,558 7, MUNI AC Transit 1,952 2,127 2,193 2,349 2, Ferry 1,571 1,661 1,849 2,257 2, Island Shuttles The mode split across the entire day and for the two peak periods combined is shown in Table 15 and Table 16, respectively. As expected, the vast majority of intra-island trips, approximately 80% across all scenarios, are non-auto trips. The share of non-auto trips increases as the toll policy becomes more inclusive, and achieves the expected 50% minimum peak period target in Scenarios 4 and 5. The increase in transit trips results primarily due to shifts from carpooling to transit during the peak periods, and from drive alone and carpooling during the off-peak periods, relative to the baseline. In Scenarios 4 and 5, when the toll is applied to carpools, some low-income transit riders shift to driving, either alone or in carpools. 24
25 Table 15: Daily Person Trip Mode Split Mode Share Difference Relative to Baseline Base S2 S3 S4 S5 S2 S3 S4 S5 Intra-Island Trips Non-Auto 82% 82% 80% 79% 79% 0% -2% -3% -3% Island On/Off Trips Auto 66% 64% 62% 57% 59% -2% -4% -9% -7% DA 32% 27% 27% 27% 29% -5% -5% -5% -3% SR2 19% 17% 15% 17% 18% -2% -4% -2% -1% SR3+ 15% 20% 20% 13% 12% 5% 5% -2% -3% Non-Auto 34% 36% 38% 43% 41% 2% 4% 9% 7% Transit 34% 36% 38% 43% 41% 2% 4% 9% 7% Non-Motorized <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% 0% 0% 0% 0% Table 16: Peak Period Person Trip Mode Split Mode Share Difference Relative to Baseline Base S2 S3 S4 S5 S2 S3 S4 S5 Intra-Island Trips Non-Auto 81% 82% 79% 78% 77% 1% -2% -3% -4% Island On/Off Trips Auto 58% 56% 53% 48% 50% -2% -5% -10% -8% DA 27% 24% 23% 24% 26% -3% -4% -3% -1% SR2 14% 13% 9% 12% 13% -1% -5% -2% -1% SR3+ 16% 19% 20% 11% 11% 3% 4% -5% -5% Non-Auto 42% 44% 47% 52% 50% 2% 5% 10% 8% Transit 42% 44% 47% 52% 50% 2% 5% 10% 8% Non-Motorized <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 25
26 1.2.3 Household Income Discount Effects Scenario 5 examined the effect of a toll discount to low income residents on transportation system performance and toll revenues. As expected, Scenario 5 exhibits few differences in mode split among high income travelers relative to Scenario 4, since the same toll policy applied to high income households in both scenarios (Table 17). Among trips by low income travelers, there is a significant (7%) mode shift away from transit and 3+ person carpools, and towards drive alone and 2 person carpools, directly due to the low income toll discount. No change in mode split was observed among visitors, as expected since these travelers were exposed to the same toll policy in Scenario 5 as in Scenario 4. Table 17: Resident Person Trips Mode Split by Household Income Mode All Resident Trips Scenario 5 Scenario 4 Difference High Income Trips Low Income Trips All Resident Trips High Income Trips Low Income Trips All Resident Trips High Income Trips Drive Alone 22% 23% 14% 21% 22% 7% 1% 1% 7% Shared Ride 2 14% 14% 15% 14% 14% 12% 0% 0% 3% Shared Ride 3+ 10% 10% 7% 10% 10% 9% 0% 0% -2% Transit 34% 34% 40% 36% 35% 47% -2% -1% -7% Walk/Bike 20% 19% 24% 19% 19% 25% 1% 0% -1% Low Income Trips PERFORMANCE MEASURES Table 18 shows a comparison of transportation plan performance measures across all scenarios. All scenarios exhibit better performance measures than the baseline fewer vehicles loaded onto the Bay Bridge, fewer vehicle-miles traveled, higher transit ridership and non-auto mode shares. The high demand for transit between Treasure Island and San Francisco results in high transit load factors, particularly for the MUNI 108 route. The best performing scenario is Scenario 4, which corresponds to the most inclusive toll policy. The low income toll discount somewhat worsens transportation performance in that it increases vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled, albeit modestly (3.4% and 2.8%, respectively). In spite of the reduction in transit ridership, Scenario 5 meets the performance goal of at least 50% non-auto mode split during peak periods. 26
27 Table 18: Transportation Plan Performance Measures Policy Goal/Objective Performance Measure Performance Target 1.Support walking and biking as primary modes 2. Discourage auto use via parking policies and pricing of driving 3. Create a disincentive for residents to use their cars for commute trips 4. Provide competitive and attractive transit for commute trips 5. Mitigate peak period impact of trips generated by development on the regional road network and ramp queues Intra-island non-auto person trip mode share (Daily) >50% Island-generated VMT (AM & PM Peak) In 000s Island-generated VMT (Daily) In 000s Non-auto person trip mode share (AM & PM Peak) Holding land use constant, fewer = better At 50% buildout, non-auto mode share for peak-period trips to/from the Island should be 50% or more. Scenarios Base % 82% 80% 79% 79% % 44% 47% 52% 50% Transit mode share (AM & PM Peak) Holding land use constant, 42% 44% 47% 52% 50% Transit mode share (Daily) greater = better 34% 36% 38% 43% 41% Vehicle trips to & from Island (Peak) Holding land use constant, 10,711 9,917 8,909 8,873 9,238 Vehicle trips to & from Island (Daily) fewer = better 27,295 24,387 23,219 22,510 23,273 Maximum peak period load factor: 6. Provide high quality transit services MUNI 108 (Transbay Terminal) MUNI 109 (SF Civic Center) AC Transit (Oakland Civic Center) Ferry (SF Ferry Terminal) Intra-island Shuttles
Treasure Island Mobility Management Program
Treasure Island Mobility Management Program Preliminary Toll Policy Recommendations For Buildout Year (2030) Draft SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY May 20, 2015 About the Treasure Island Mobility
More informationTreasure Island Mobility Management Program
Treasure Island Mobility Management Program Preliminary Toll Policy Recommendations For Buildout Year (2030) Draft TIDA CAB June 2, 2015 About the Treasure Island Mobility Management Program 2003 2008
More informationTreasure Island: Background
TREASURE ISLAND MOBILITY MANAGEMENT AGENCY LAST UPDATED July 2015 Managing Mobility ON TREASURE ISLAND Treasure Island: Background With the closure of the naval station on Treasure Island, the City of
More informationTreasure Island Toll Policy, Affordability and Transit Pass Programs. TIMMA Board Meeting December 11, 2018
Treasure Island Toll Policy, Affordability and Transit Pass Programs TIMMA Board Meeting December 11, 2018 Avoiding Island Gridlock 2 Island Mobility Goals Incentivize transit, walking, and biking Discourage
More informationSan Francisco Transportation Plan
San Francisco Transportation Plan Overview and Findings to Date November 13, 2012 www.sfcta.org/movesmartsf twitter.com/sanfranciscota www.facebook.com/movesmartsf Purpose of the SFTP San Francisco s long-range
More informationAttachment A. BATA Resolution No. 128 BAY AREA TOLL AUTHORITY TOLL SCHEDULE FOR TOLL BRIDGES (EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2019)
Page 1 of 6 BAY AREA TOLL AUTHORITY TOLL SCHEDULE FOR TOLL BRIDGES (EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2019) BRIDGES AND TOLLS 2 AXLE VEHICLES Antioch Bridge, Benicia-Martinez Bridge, Carquinez Bridge, Dumbarton Bridge,
More informationSan Francisco Transportation Plan Update
San Francisco Transportation Plan Update SPUR August 1, 2011 www.sfcta.org/movesmartsf twitter.com/sanfranciscota www.facebook.com/movesmartsf How does the RTP relate to the SFTP? Regional Transportation
More informationTransportation Sustainability Program
Transportation Sustainability Program Photo: Sergio Ruiz San Francisco is a popular place to work, live and visit, straining the existing transportation network Roads and transit vehicles nearing capacity
More informationTransportation Sustainability Program
Transportation Sustainability Program Photo: Sergio Ruiz San Francisco 2016 Roads and public transit nearing capacity Increase in cycling and walking despite less than ideal conditions 2 San Francisco
More informationUTA Transportation Equity Study and Staff Analysis. Board Workshop January 6, 2018
UTA Transportation Equity Study and Staff Analysis Board Workshop January 6, 2018 1 Executive Summary UTA ranks DART 6 th out of top 20 Transit Agencies in the country for ridership. UTA Study confirms
More informationBROWARD BOULEVARD CORRIDOR TRANSIT STUDY
BROWARD BOULEVARD CORRIDOR TRANSIT STUDY FM # 42802411201 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY July 2012 GOBROWARD Broward Boulevard Corridor Transit Study FM # 42802411201 Executive Summary Prepared For: Ms. Khalilah Ffrench,
More informationParking Management Element
Parking Management Element The State Transportation Planning Rule, adopted in 1991, requires that the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) area implement, through its member jurisdictions, a parking
More informationTransportation Sustainability Program
Transportation Sustainability Program Photo: Sergio Ruiz A Comprehensive Approach to Growing Sustainably Public Investment and Strategies for Existing and Future Population Underway Transit capital and
More informationTravel Time Savings Memorandum
04-05-2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Background 3 Methodology 3 Inputs and Calculation 3 Assumptions 4 Light Rail Transit (LRT) Travel Times 5 Auto Travel Times 5 Bus Travel Times 6 Findings 7 Generalized Cost
More informationUCLA Lake Arrowhead Conference. October 18, 2010
BART Click to Capacity edit Master Overview title style for UCLA Lake Arrowhead Conference October 18, 2010 0 BART Basics 360,000 daily riders 104 miles 43 stations 1.3 billion annual passenger miles 1
More informationUCLA Lake Arrowhead Conference. October 18, 2010
BART Click to Capacity edit Master Overview title style for UCLA Lake Arrowhead Conference October 18, 2010 0 BART Basics 360,000 daily riders 104 miles 43 stations 1.3 billion annual passenger miles 1
More informationTRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY. USD #497 Warehouse and Bus Site
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY for USD #497 Warehouse and Bus Site Prepared by: Jason Hoskinson, PE, PTOE BG Project No. 16-12L July 8, 216 145 Wakarusa Drive Lawrence, Kansas 6649 T: 785.749.4474 F: 785.749.734
More informationMemorandum. Date: May 11, 2017 To: From: Subject:
Agenda Item 4 Memorandum Date: May 11, 2017 To: From: Subject: Treasure Island Mobility Management Agency Committee Eric Cordoba Deputy Director for Capital Projects 05/16/17 Committee Meeting: Approval
More informationBERKELEY DOWNTOWN AREA PLAN PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
BERKELEY DOWNTOWN AREA PLAN PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Prepared for: City of Berkeley Prepared by: REVISED JANUARY 9, 2009 Berkeley Downtown Area Plan Program EIR Traffic
More informationCLRP. Performance Analysis of The Draft 2014 CLRP. Long-Range Transportation Plan For the National Capital Region
NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BOARD Item 12 CLRP Financially Constrained Long-Range Transportation Plan For the National Capital Region 2014 Performance Analysis of The Draft 2014 CLRP
More informationAppendix C. Parking Strategies
Appendix C. Parking Strategies Bremerton Parking Study Introduction & Project Scope Community concerns regarding parking impacts in Downtown Bremerton and the surrounding residential areas have existed
More informationAddress Land Use Approximate GSF
M E M O R A N D U M To: Kara Brewton, From: Nelson\Nygaard Date: March 26, 2014 Subject: Brookline Place Shared Parking Analysis- Final Memo This memorandum presents a comparative analysis of expected
More informationTransportation Demand Management Element
Transportation Demand Management Element Over the years, our reliance on the private automobile as our primary mode of transportation has grown substantially. Our dependence on the automobile is evidenced
More informationACT Canada Sustainable Mobility Summit Planning Innovations in Practice Session 6B Tuesday November 23, 2010
ACT Canada Sustainable Mobility Summit Planning Innovations in Practice Session 6B Tuesday November 23, 2010 Presentation Outline Context t of Mississauga i City Centre Implementing Paid Parking and TDM
More informationDOWNTOWN CONCORD SPECIFIC PLAN
Timeline Next Milestones Alternatives Analysis Draft Report to MTC - July 30 Draft Specific Plan Outline July 31 First Draft Specific Plan Report September 15 Schedule and Agendas July 22 nd DSC #5 Evaluation
More informationM E M O R A N D U M INTRODUCTION. POTENTIAL TDM STRATEGIES Marketing & Management. Residents & Employees. Exhibit 6
Exhibit 6 M E M O R A N D U M To: From: Joe Ernst and Bryan Graves Nelson\Nygaard Date: February 6, 2015 Subject: Preliminary TDM Strategies INTRODUCTION The memorandum provides an overview of potential
More informationSan Francisco Mobility, Access & Pricing Study
San Francisco Mobility, Access & Pricing Study SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Summer Workshops 2010 Downtown Growth Projections + 24,000 hsg units + 107,000 jobs +184,000 auto trips +88,000
More informationFunding Scenario Descriptions & Performance
Funding Scenario Descriptions & Performance These scenarios were developed based on direction set by the Task Force at previous meetings. They represent approaches for funding to further Task Force discussion
More informationTransit in Bay Area Blueprint
Rail~Volution 2010 Click to edit Master title style Transit in Bay Area Blueprint October 21, 2010 0 Bottom Line State-of-Good Repair essential for reliable transit service large funding shortfalls BART
More informationBi-County Transitway/ Bethesda Station Access Demand Analysis
Bi-County Transitway/ Bethesda Station Access Demand Analysis Prepared for: Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Office of Planning and Project Development May 2005 Prepared by: in conjunction
More informationTORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION REPORT NO.
Form Revised: February 2005 TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION REPORT NO. MEETING DATE: October 24, 2012 SUBJECT: DOWNTOWN RAPID TRANSIT EXPANSION STUDY (DRTES) PHASE 1 STRATEGIC PLAN ACTION ITEM RECOMMENDATIONS
More informationUCLA Lake Arrowhead Conference. October 18, 2010
BART Click to Capacity edit Master Overview title style for UCLA Lake Arrowhead Conference October 18, 2010 0 BART Basics 360,000 daily riders 104 miles 43 stations 1.3 billion annual passenger miles 1
More informationIdeas + Action for a Better City learn more at SPUR.org. tweet about this #DisruptiveTransportation
Ideas + Action for a Better City learn more at SPUR.org tweet about this event: @SPUR_Urbanist #DisruptiveTransportation TNCs & AVs The Future Is Uncertain The Future Is Uncertain U.S. Dept of Transportation
More informationTransitioning to Integrated Sustainable Multi-mobility. A Model Climate Action Strategy
Transitioning to Integrated Sustainable Multi-mobility A Model Climate Action Strategy 8 03 2009 Timothy Papandreou Assistant Deputy Director Planning & Development SFMTA-Municipal Transportation Agency
More informationIncentives for Green Fleets
Incentives for Green Fleets 2012 Green Vehicle Funding Workshop East Bay Clean Cities Coalition Karen Schkolnick Air Quality Programs Manager Bay Area Air Quality Management District Overview Introduction
More informationIV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS K.2. PARKING
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS K.2. PARKING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The following analysis summarizes the findings and conclusions of the Traffic Analysis (Traffic Study), prepared by The Mobility Group,
More information3.1 Introduction Transportation Elements and Study Area Meeting the Need for the Project
Chapter 3 Transportation Environment and Consequences 3. Introduction This chapter summarizes the characteristics of the transportation system in the East Link Project vicinity and discusses potential
More informationSan Rafael Transit Center. Update. Golden Gate Bridge, Highway & Transportation District Transportation Committee of the Board of Directors
Transportation Committee November 17, 2016 Agenda Item No. 5, Update on the San Rafael Transit Center Relocation San Rafael Transit Center Relocation Study Update 11/17/16 Golden Gate Bridge, Highway &
More informationPolicy Note. Vanpools in the Puget Sound Region The case for expanding vanpool programs to move the most people for the least cost.
Policy Note Vanpools in the Puget Sound Region The case for expanding vanpool programs to move the most people for the least cost Recommendations 1. Saturate vanpool market before expanding other intercity
More informationCTfastrak Expansion. Stakeholder Meeting #4 Manchester Town Hall June 3, 2016
CTfastrak Expansion Stakeholder Meeting #4 Manchester Town Hall June 3, 2016 Today s Agenda Phase I Update 2016 Service Plan Implementation Schedule & Cost Update Phase II Services Timeline Market Analysis
More informationUS 29 Bus Rapid Transit Planning Board Briefing. February 16, 2017
US 29 Bus Rapid Transit Planning Board Briefing February 16, 2017 Project Goals Improve the quality of transit service Improve mobility opportunities and choices Enhance quality of life Support master
More informationOrganization. SDOT Date and Commute Seattle. Dave Sowers, Deputy Program Administrator
Organization SDOT Date and Commute Seattle Dave Sowers, Deputy Program Administrator October 22, 2018 TODAY S FOCUS The big picture #Realign99 closure/opening the tunnel Removal, decommissioning, surface
More informationExecutive Summary. Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report ES-1
Executive Summary Introduction The Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 Project is a vital public transit infrastructure investment that would provide a transit connection to the existing Metro Gold Line
More informationDRAFT Evaluation Scores. Transit
DRAFT Evaluation s The criteria for evaluating applications for new funding commitments are used to measure how well they advance the six goals identified for the MTP. Through transportation: Reduce per
More informationDenver Car Share Program 2017 Program Summary
Denver Car Share Program 2017 Program Summary Prepared for: Prepared by: Project Manager: Malinda Reese, PE Apex Design Reference No. P170271, Task Order #3 January 2018 Table of Contents 1. Introduction...
More informationSustainability SFMTA Path to Platinum
Sustainability SFMTA Path to Platinum Ed Reiskin San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, Director of Transportation San Francisco, CA Timothy Papandreou Deputy Director Strategic Planning & Policy
More informationGoods Movement Plans. Summary of Needs Assessments. January 21, 2015 GOODS MOVEMENT COLLABORATIVE AND GOODS MOVEMENT PLAN 6
Goods Movement Plans Summary of Needs Assessments January 21, 2015 GOODS MOVEMENT COLLABORATIVE AND GOODS MOVEMENT PLAN 6 Goods Movement Vision and Goals GOODS MOVEMENT COLLABORATIVE AND GOODS MOVEMENT
More informationappendix 4: Parking Management Study, Phase II
appendix 4: Parking Management Study, Phase II A4-1 A4-2 Eastlake Parking Management Study Final Phase 2 Report Future Parking Demand & Supply January 6, 2017 Submitted by Denver Corp Center III 7900 E.
More informationEnergy Technical Memorandum
Southeast Extension Project Lincoln Station to RidgeGate Parkway Prepared for: Federal Transit Administration Prepared by: Denver Regional Transportation District May 2014 Table of Contents Page No. Chapter
More informationLetter EL652 City of Mercer Island. Page 1. No comments n/a
Letter EL652 City of Mercer Island Page 1 No comments n/a Page 2 Response to comment EL652 1 Section 4.5.3 of the Final EIS presents the range of potential impacts of the project. This project also lists
More informationDevelop ground transportation improvements to make the Airport a multi-modal regional
Project Overview TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS WHAT ARE THE PROJECT GOALS? Transportation transportation hub. Develop ground transportation improvements to make the Airport a multi-modal regional Land Use
More informationAlternatives Analysis Findings Report
6.0 This chapter presents estimates of the potential capital, operations and maintenance costs associated with the alternatives carried forward for detailed evaluation. The methodology used to develop
More informationVanpooling and Transit Agencies. Module 3: Benefits to Incorporating Vanpools. into a Transit Agency s Services
Vanpooling and Transit Agencies Module 3: Benefits to Incorporating Vanpools into a Transit Agency s Services A common theme we heard among the reasons why the transit agencies described in Module 2 began
More informationKing County Metro. Columbia Street Transit Priority Improvements Alternative Analysis. Downtown Southend Transit Study. May 2014.
King County Metro Columbia Street Transit Priority Improvements Alternative Analysis Downtown Southend Transit Study May 2014 Parametrix Table of Contents Introduction... 1 Methodology... 1 Study Area...
More informationTRANSPORTATION REVIEW
TRANSPORTATION REVIEW - PROPOSED MIX OF LAND USES IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY S UNDER THE GRANVILLE BRIDGE POLICIES THAT AIM TO MEET NEIGHBOURING RESIDENTS SHOPPING NEEDS AND REDUCE RELIANCE ON AUTOMOBILE
More informationGreen Line Long-Term Investments
Enhancements Short-term improvements to keep Austin moving. Investments Long-term projects to support our future. Mobility Hubs MetroRapid MetroRail MetroExpress Connectors Circulators Project Connect
More informationLong Bridge Park. Parking Analysis and Transportation Management Plan. Long Range Planning Committee of the Planning Commission Meeting
Long Bridge Park Parking Analysis and Transportation Management Plan Long Range Planning Committee of the Planning Commission Meeting Thursday, February 7, 2013 Purpose Achieve consensus on parking and
More informationTRAVEL DEMAND FORECASTS
Jiangxi Ji an Sustainable Urban Transport Project (RRP PRC 45022) TRAVEL DEMAND FORECASTS A. Introduction 1. The purpose of the travel demand forecasts is to assess the impact of the project components
More informationExecutive Summary. Treasure Valley High Capacity Transit Study Priority Corridor Phase 1 Alternatives Analysis October 13, 2009.
Treasure Valley High Capacity Transit Study Priority Corridor Phase 1 Alternatives Analysis October 13, 2009 Background As the Treasure Valley continues to grow, high-quality transportation connections
More informationMay 23, 2011 APTA Bus & Paratransit Conference. Metro ExpressLanes
May 23, 2011 APTA Bus & Paratransit Conference Metro ExpressLanes Program Overview > Conversion of HOV lanes to HOT lanes on I-10 and I-110 > Multi-modal Integrated Corridor Emphasis > 1 of 6 Nationwide
More informationVAN NESS AVENUE BUS RAPID TRANSIT
VAN NESS AVENUE BUS RAPID TRANSIT Commission of the Environment Policy Committee May 22, 2014 Peter Gabancho Project Manager III Capital Programs & Construction SFMTA 1 Conceptual Visual Simulation Center-Running
More informationSound Transit East Link: Bus/LRT System Integration Study
Sound Transit East Link: Bus/LRT System Integration Study Prepared For: Sound Transit King County Metro Mercer Island WSDOT Prepared By: CH2M HILL July, 2014 1 SOUND TRANSIT EAST LINK: BUS/LRT SYSTEMES
More informationStrategic Plan Performance Metrics & Targets
San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency Strategic Plan Performance Metrics & Targets Fiscal Year 2019 Fiscal Year 2020 April 3, 2018 SAFETY Goal 1: Create a safer transportation experience for everyone.
More informationService Quality: Higher Ridership: Very Affordable: Image:
Over the past decade, much attention has been placed on the development of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) systems. These systems provide rail-like service, but with buses, and are typically less expensive to
More informationRapid Transit and Land-Use Integration a Reality
City of Charlotte Rapid Transit and Land-Use Integration a Reality Transportation Oversight Committee Carolyn Flowers CEO Charlotte Area Transit System April 29, 2010 Charlotte Region Statistics Mecklenburg
More informationTECHNICAL COORDINATING COMMITTEE (TCC) UPDATE PRESENTATION APRIL 26, 2017
TECHNICAL COORDINATING COMMITTEE (TCC) UPDATE PRESENTATION APRIL 26, 2017 THE TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN (TDP) WILL IDENTIFY: TRANSIT NEEDS AND DESIRES OF THE COMMUNITY COMMUNITY AND AGENCY STAKEHOLDER S
More informationTransit Access Study
West of Hudson Regional Transit Access Study Open House presentation July 20, 2010 1 Agenda Progress To date Summary of Level 2 Alternatives and Screening Service Plans Bus and Rail Operating and Capital
More informationEXECUTIVE SUMMARY. The following is an outline of the traffic analysis performed by Hales Engineering for the traffic conditions of this project.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This study addresses the traffic impacts associated with the proposed Shopko redevelopment located in Sugarhouse, Utah. The Shopko redevelopment project is located between 1300 East and
More informationA Transit Plan for the Future. Draft Network Plan
A Transit Plan for the Future Draft Network Plan Project Overview and Status Completed Market Analysis and Service Evaluation. Developed Plan Framework and Guiding Principles. Developed a draft Five Year
More informationTravel Forecasting Methodology
Travel Forecasting Methodology Introduction This technical memorandum documents the travel demand forecasting methodology used for the SH7 BRT Study. This memorandum includes discussion of the following:
More informationSustainable Urban Transport Index (SUTI)
Sustainable Urban Transport Index (SUTI) City Comparisons & Way Forward PROF. H.M SHIVANAND SWAMY, CEPT UNIVERSITY DHAKA SEPTEMBER 12, 2018 Purpose Discussion of Results from 5 Cities Reflections on the
More information3.3 TRANSPORTATION, TRAFFIC, CIRCULATION, AND PARKING
3.3 Transportation, Traffic, Circulation, and Parking January 2013 3.3 TRANSPORTATION, TRAFFIC, CIRCULATION, AND PARKING This section describes the transportation network in the vicinity of the VA Transfer
More informationRedefining Mobility Ready or not: Autonomous and connected vehicle planning and policy, now and in the future
Redefining Mobility Ready or not: Autonomous and connected vehicle planning and policy, now and in the future Randy Iwasaki November 30, 2017 WHO WE ARE The Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA)
More informationWest Broadway Transit Study. Community Advisory Committee September 17, 2015
West Broadway Transit Study Community Advisory Committee September 17, 2015 Introductions Community Engagement Summer Outreach Fall Outreach Technical Analysis Process Update Alternatives Review Economic
More informationTransportation 2040: Plan Performance. Transportation Policy Board September 14, 2017
Transportation 2040: Plan Performance Transportation Policy Board September 14, 2017 Today Background Plan Performance Today s Meeting Background Board and Committee Direction 2016-2017 Transportation
More informationCEDAR AVENUE TRANSITWAY Implementation Plan Update
CEDAR AVENUE TRANSITWAY Implementation Plan Update EECUTIVE SUMMARY DECEMBER 2015 Executive Summary In 2013, the Twin Cities metropolitan area s first bus rapid transit (BRT) line, the METRO Red Line,
More informationUnified Corridor Investment Study DRAFT Step 2 Scenario Analysis Report
Unified Corridor Investment Study DRAFT Step 2 Scenario Analysis Report REVISIONS 1. Table 39: New Public Investments for Operation and Maintenance Costs 2. Appendix A-10: Passenger Rail Service - Operations
More informationProposed FY Capital Improvement Program (CIP) March 5, 2018 Capital Planning Committee 1
Proposed FY 2019-2023 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) March 5, 2018 Capital Planning Committee 1 The Capital Improvement Program is: A fiscally constrained, 5-year program of capital projects An implementation
More informationU N I V E R S I T Y O F B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A. Fall 2008 Transportation Status Report
U N I V E R S I T Y O F B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A Fall 2008 Transportation Status Report 6 February 2009 U N I V E R S I T Y O F B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A Fall 2008 Transportation Status Report
More informationSan Rafael Civic Center Station Area Plan May 2012 DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW
CHAPTER 4. PARKING Parking has been identified as a key concern among neighbors and employers in the area, both in terms of increased demand from potential new development and from SMART passengers that
More informationTBARTA USF to Wesley Chapel Express Bus Service Operating Plan. Draft 3/25/2014
TBARTA USF to Wesley Chapel Express Bus Service Operating Plan Draft 3/25/2014 March 2014 Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction... 1 2.0 Study Area... 1 3.0 Existing Available Service... 3 4.0 Proposed Service...
More informationMadison BRT Transit Corridor Study Proposed BRT Operations Plans
Madison BRT Transit Corridor Study Proposed BRT Operations Plans This paper presents a description of the proposed BRT operations plan for use in the Madison BRT Transit Corridor Study. The objective is
More informationBalancing the Transportation Needs of a Growing City
Balancing the Transportation Needs of a Growing City FY 2019 and FY 2020 Capital Budget SFMTA Board Meeting Ed Reiskin, Director of Transportation April 3, 2018 1 FY 2019-23 Capital Improvement Program
More informationConnectGreaterWashington: Can the Region Grow Differently?
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority ConnectGreaterWashington: Can the Region Grow Differently? Transportation Planning Board (TPB) Travel Forecasting Subcommittee July 17, 2015 1 Alternatives
More information2 EXISTING ROUTE STRUCTURE AND SERVICE LEVELS
2 EXISTING ROUTE STRUCTURE AND SERVICE LEVELS In the Study Area, as in most of the Metro Transit network, there are two distinct route structures. The base service structure operates all day and the peak
More information1.1 Purpose of This Environmental Impact Report EIR Process Use of This Report Report Organization...
Table of Contents SUMMARY PAGE S.1 Project Location and Project Characteristics... S-1 S.2 Project Objectives... S-9 S.3 Project Approvals... S-11 S.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures... S-12 S.5 Alternatives...
More informationTR15: Public Outreach
TR15: Public Outreach Brief Summary: The Public Outreach control measure includes activities to encourage Bay Area residents to make choices that benefit air quality. This measure includes various public
More informationI 680 Transit Investment/Congestion Relief Options Study
I 680 Transit Investment/Congestion Relief Options Study Prepared for Contra Costa Transportation Authority By 1970 Broadway, Suite 740 Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 763 2061 In association with Parsons Transportation
More informationFINAL REPORT FORM 1 (Formerly titled Project Monitoring Form 1 - Ridesharing ) Total Project Cost: $
FINAL REPORT FORM 1 (Formerly titled Project Monitoring Form 1 - Ridesharing ) For Ridesharing; Shuttle/Vanpool; Carpool/Transit Information; Rail-Bus Integration; and Smart Growth Projects TFCA Project
More informationAddendum No. 2 to Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement/ Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Addendum No. 2 to Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement/ Supplemental Environmental Impact Report REMARKS Addendum Date: Case No.: 1996.281E_13 Project Title: - Phase 2 of the Third Street Light
More information2 VALUE PROPOSITION VALUE PROPOSITION DEVELOPMENT
2 VALUE PROPOSITION The purpose of the Value Proposition is to define a number of metrics or interesting facts that clearly demonstrate the value of the existing Xpress system to external audiences including
More informationTraffic and Toll Revenue Estimates
The results of WSA s assessment of traffic and toll revenue characteristics of the proposed LBJ (MLs) are presented in this chapter. As discussed in Chapter 1, Alternatives 2 and 6 were selected as the
More informationTRANSPORTATION STUDY FOR THE 8899 BEVERLY BOULEVARD PROJECT
DRAFT TRANSPORTATION STUDY FOR THE 8899 BEVERLY BOULEVARD PROJECT WEST HOLLYWOOD, CALIFORNIA NOVEMBER 2013 PREPARED FOR BEVERLY BOULEVARD ASSOCIATION PREPARED BY DRAFT TRANSPORTATION STUDY FOR THE 8899
More informationFindings from the Limassol SUMP study
5 th European Conference on Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans 14-15 May 2018 Nicosia, Cyprus Findings from the Limassol SUMP study Apostolos Bizakis Deputy PM General Information The largest city in the
More informationNeeds and Community Characteristics
Needs and Community Characteristics Anticipate Population and Job Growth in the City Strongest density of population and jobs in Ann Arbor are within the Study Area Population expected to grow 8.4% by
More informationQualcomm Stadium Redevelopment
Qualcomm Stadium Redevelopment Executive Summary In May 2017, SANDAG s Service Bureau was asked by two separate entities 1 to forecast how proposed mixed-use development of the approximately 166-acre SDCCU
More informationLEED v4 Building Design and Construction Quiz #3 LT
LEED v4 Building Design and Construction Quiz #3 LT 1. How are walking and bicycling distance measured? A. Straight-line radius from a main building entrance B. Straight-line radius from any building entrance
More informationSan Francisco State University Transportation Survey Results Final Report
San Francisco State University 2018 Transportation Survey Results Final Report July 2018 2018 Transportation Survey Results Final San Francisco State University Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
More informationUtah Transit Authority Rideshare. CTAA Conference June 12, 2014
Utah Transit Authority Rideshare CTAA Conference June 12, 2014 UTA Statistics and Info A Public Transit Agency Six counties, about 1600 square miles Within this area is 80% of the state s population, an
More informationFREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS 2018 What is the More MARTA Atlanta program? The More MARTA Atlanta program is a collaborative partnership between MARTA and the City of Atlanta to develop and implement a program
More information