Appendix C. Operating Assumptions (Service Plan) Tables and Figures. Travel time and Ridership Data - Tables

Similar documents
Transit Access Study

Figure 3-1 Level 1 Screening Process

Madison BRT Transit Corridor Study Proposed BRT Operations Plans

Stakeholders Advisory Working Groups (SAWGs) Traffic and Transit SAWG Meeting #7

The capital cost estimates do not include allowances for: ROW acquisition. Third-party mitigation works. Hazardous materials handling.

NICTI Alternatives Analysis

TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY. USD #497 Warehouse and Bus Site

Table 8-1: Service Frequencies for All Short-List Alternatives by Day of Week and Time of Day Frequency Day of Week Time of Day Time Period

I-405 and SR 522/NE 145th Bus Rapid Transit. Elected Leadership Groups Meeting November 30, 2018

FINAL. Sound Transit Long-Range Plan Update. Issue Paper S.1: Tacoma Link Integration with Central Link. Prepared for: Sound Transit

Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM #18 PROJECTED CARBON DIOXIDE (CO 2 ) EMISSIONS

Alternatives Analysis Findings Report

Troost Corridor Transit Study

Portland Area Mainline Needs Assessment DRAFT. Alternative 4 Public Transportation: New or Improved Interstate Bus Service

Travel Time Savings Memorandum

Traffic Impact Study for Proposed Olive Boulevard Development

RTSP Phase II Update

COMPARATIVE SCREENING RESULTS REPORT

I-20 EAST TRANSIT INITIATIVE Tier 1 and Tier 2 Alternatives Screening Report EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Travel Forecasting Methodology

METRONext. Vision & Moving Forward Plans. Board Workshop. December 11, DRAFT For Preliminary Discussion Only

Why Regional Rail Should Be a Top Transportation Priority for New York City

METRO Orange Line BRT American Boulevard Station Options

EAST-WEST BUS RAPID TRANSIT Service Plan and Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Cost Memo

1 On Time Performance

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT

TEXAS CITY PARK & RIDE RIDERSHIP ANALYSIS

1. INTRODUCTION 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION CUBES SELF-STORAGE MILL CREEK TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON

King County Metro. Columbia Street Transit Priority Improvements Alternative Analysis. Downtown Southend Transit Study. May 2014.

Valley Metro Overview. ITE/IMSA Spring Conference March 6, 2014

Letter EL652 City of Mercer Island. Page 1. No comments n/a

TRAVEL DEMAND FORECASTS

5. OPPORTUNITIES AND NEXT STEPS

Operating & Maintenance Cost Results Report

Preliminary Definition of Alternatives. 3.0 Preliminary Definition of Alternatives

GO Transit s deliverable: the 2020 Service Plan

CTfastrak Expansion. Stakeholder Meeting #4 Manchester Town Hall June 3, 2016

Sepulveda Pass Corridor Systems Planning Study Update

The Preferred Alternative: a Vision for Growth on the Northeast Corridor

TRANSPORTATION STUDY FOR THE 8899 BEVERLY BOULEVARD PROJECT

The Boston South Station HSIPR Expansion Project Cost-Benefit Analysis. High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Technical Appendix

MTA Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) and MTA Metro-North Railroad (MNR) System-wide Service Standards

Sepulveda Pass Corridor Systems Planning Study

SEPULVEDA PASS CORRIDOR

North Shore Alternatives Analysis. May 2012

2 EXISTING ROUTE STRUCTURE AND SERVICE LEVELS

Chicago Transit Authority Service Standards and Policies

Craig Scheffler, P.E., PTOE HNTB North Carolina, P.C. HNTB Project File: Subject

Bi-County Transitway/ Bethesda Station Access Demand Analysis

Date: February 7, 2017 John Doyle, Z-Best Products Robert Del Rio. T.E. Z-Best Traffic Operations and Site Access Analysis

HDR Engineering. HART North / South. Tampa Bay Applications Group Meeting May 14, 2009

Clean Harbors Canada, Inc.

Unified Corridor Investment Study DRAFT Step 2 Scenario Analysis Report

Transit Access to the National Harbor

5.6 ENERGY IMPACT DISCUSSION. No Build Alternative

Proposed Service Plan

Roma McKenzie-Campbell Amtrak, Project Manager. Caroline Ducas VHB, Senior Transit Planner. Boston, Massachusetts

Appendix G Traffic and Parking Report

ARTERIAL BRT OVERVIEW

1.0 INTRODUCTION Organization of this Report Study Area EXISTING CONDITIONS CTA Rail Forest Park Branch...

APPENDIX C1 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS DESIGN YEAR TRAFFIC ANALYSIS

Appendix C Transportation. C-1: Chelsea Market Survey Results C-2: Transportation Demand Factors Memo C-3: Proposed Safety Improvements

NORTHEAST CORRIDOR LINE WESTWARD FRIDAY, AUGUST 29, Trains 3721 and 3165 add a Newark Airport stop (red-shaded and bold) this day only.

UTA Transportation Equity Study and Staff Analysis. Board Workshop January 6, 2018

DEVELOPMENT OF RIDERSHIP FORECASTS FOR THE SAN BERNARDINO INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT STUDY

Appendix B: Traffic Reports

West Broadway Transit Study. Community Advisory Committee September 17, 2015

Presentation of the Baltimore Metro System

What is the Connector?

A Presentation to: Project Advisory Group Meeting #10

MTA New York City Transit Service Guidelines Manual

Proposed location of Camp Parkway Commerce Center. Vicinity map of Camp Parkway Commerce Center Southampton County, VA

Transit City Etobicoke - Finch West LRT

Working Paper ESTIMATION OF TIME AND OTHER BENEFITS FROM NINE PROPOSED TRANSIT CAPITAL PROJECTS IN NEW YORK CITY.

Appendix C. Traffic Impact Study

1.0 Detailed Definition of Alternatives

Metrorail Line Load Application

Transit on the New NY Bridge

Rail~Volution 2005 Hal Ryan Johnson, AICP, Bus Rapid Transit Project Manager Utah Transit Authority September 7, 2005

BERKELEY DOWNTOWN AREA PLAN PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

METRO Light Rail Update

Halifax Commuter Rail Feasibility Study

3.1 Introduction Transportation Elements and Study Area Meeting the Need for the Project

RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE REPORT

Traffic and Toll Revenue Estimates

9. Downtown Transit Plan

Background Information about the Metrobus 29 Lines Study

Snelling Bus Rapid Transit. May 13, 2013 Technical Advisory Committee Meeting #1

February 2011 Caltrain Annual Passenger Counts Key Findings

Appendix B: Travel Demand Forecasts July 2017

WELCOME. Transit Options Amherst - Buffalo Public Workshops

Introduction and Background Study Purpose

David Leard, Edward Potthoff, Andrew de Garmo and Kevin Welch

Central Park Drives Traffic Management Overview

Traffic Impact Study Speedway Gas Station Redevelopment

Chapter 9 Recommended Locally Preferred Alternative and Alternatives for Evaluation in Draft SEIS/SEIR

ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA

Fall 2018 Guide to SERVICE EXPANSION. and FARE CHANGE

MEMO. McCORMICK RANKIN CORPORATION. File FROM: Keyur Shah DATE: February 1, 2010 COPIES: OUR FILE: SUBJECT: TO:

Chapter 9: Transportation (Rail Transit) D. RAIL TRANSIT

Transcription:

Operating Assumptions ( Plan) Tables and Figures Travel time and Ridership Data - Tables

C Plans One of the key measures utilized in level 2 screening under the transportation criteria was the travel demand forecasting to estimate ridership, travel time and transit mode share. This appendix describes the operating assumptions and service plans considered in the demand forecasting for the Build and the build alternatives. The service assumptions include information such as travel times, headways, stop patterns, fares as well as travel destinations, frequency and hours of operation. This appendix also presents the Travel Time and Ridership Data results for all alternatives analyzed in each group in Level 2 screening. C1.1 Build Alternative The operating plan assumptions of the Build alternative are summarized below for bus and commuter rail modes. Bus The future bus routes and service patterns in the Build scenario are assumed to be the same as those in the existing condition. That is, all future bus routes considered in the NYMTC region and their frequency of service would not change from current conditions. Commuter Rail Two options for the -Build alternative were considered relative to Metro-rth s PJL. The standard - Build, which assumes the existing single track configuration north of Sloatsburg and service plan per the current LRTP; and the WHRTAS -Build which assumes an MTA modified service plan that occurs with implementation of double track north of Sloatsburg (except Moodna Viaduct), a midpoint yard, and other associated improvements. In both cases, the future commuter rail service assumes implementation of the ARC project. For purpose of analysis the service plan assumed for the two -Build options was to be the same in terms of total number of trains operating south of Salisbury Mills station in both the peak and off-peak periods. However, for comparison purposes against the build alternatives, the WHRTAS -Build service plan differ from the standard -Build only in terms of the origins and destination of some trains. All southbound trains in the Standard Build originate in Port Jervis, while the WHRTAS Build train originations were split between Port Jervis and Salisbury Mills Cornwall. All Build alternatives were compared to the WHRTAS Build in order to determine project impacts. The future commuter rail service pattern in the Build provides a total of 38 daily trains (19 in each direction). Of the 19 inbound train trips daily, 11 of these trips occur during the AM peak period (6:00 AM to 10:00 AM), 4 trip occurs immediately following the AM peak period during the midday period (10:00 AM to 4:00 PM), and 4 trips occur during the evening off peak period (8:00 PM to midnight). Similarly, a total of 19 outbound train trips occur during the day, 11 of these trips occur during the PM peak period and 4 trips occur during midday off peak period and 4 trips occur during the evening period. Table C-1 shows the comparison of the weekday daily trains in the standard Build and WHRTAS Build alternatives. Alternatives Analysis Phase I Screening Report C-1

Table C-1 Commuter Rail Plan* Comparison of Daily Trains (2035) Standard Build vs. WHRTAS Build Inbound Trains Port Jervis to Hoboken STANDARD NO BUILD Port Jervis to New York-34th St Total. of Trains Port Jervis to Hoboken Salisbury Mills to Hoboken WHRTAS NO BUILD Port Jervis to 34th St. Salisbury Mills to 34th St. AM Peak (6 am 10am) 6 5 11 3 3 4 1 11 Midday Off Peak (10 am - 4 pm) 2 2 4 2 0 2 0 4 PM Peak (4 pm - 8 pm) 1 1 2 1 0 1 0 2 Evening Off Peak (8 pm midnight) 1 1 2 1 0 1 0 2 Outbound Trains Subtotal 10 9 19 7 3 8 1 19 Hoboken to Port Jervis 34th St. to Port Jervis Total. of Trains Hoboken to Port Jervis Hoboken to Salisbury Mills 34th St. to Port Jervis 34th St. to Salisbury Mills AM Peak (6 am 10am) 1 1 2 1 0 1 0 2 Midday Off Peak (10 am - 4 pm) 2 2 4 2 0 2 0 4 PM Peak (4 pm - 8 pm) 6 5 11 3 3 4 1 11 Evening Off Peak (8 pm midnight) 1 1 2 1 0 1 0 2 Subtotal 10 9 19 7 3 8 1 19 Total (Inbound and Outbound) 20 18 38 14 6 16 2 38 * assumes implementation of the ARC project. Total. of Trains Total. of Trains C1.2 Direct Bus Routes - Build Alternatives Serving Mid-Hudson Region (Group 1A) The time between buses arriving at bus stops, also referred to as route headways, serving the airport market is approximately 30 minutes. This level of service was developed based on similar headways serving other airports around the country. Bus service would operate from 4:00 AM to 10:00 PM. Fares for Group 1A alternatives were derived by calculating the total cost of automobile travel (including operating costs, tolls, etc assumed in the BPM) between the origins and the airport, to make it competitive with automobile costs incurred. Parking at the park-and-rides was considered to be approximately half the airport parking cost. C1.3 Direct Bus/BRT Routes Build Alternatives - From South (Group 1B) Similarly to bus service in Group 1A bus service in Group 1B would also operate from 4:00 AM to 10:00 PM. Route headways, serving the airport market were also set to 30 minutes. However for the commuter market the headways ranged from 20 minutes to 120 minutes depending on direction and time of day. Fares in Group 1B, for airport market busses serving Stamford, CT and White Plains, NY were derived similarly as bus fares in Group 1A. However for all bus routes to the south, fares for airport market and commuter market were assumed to be the same (as current fare). C-2 Alternatives Analysis Phase I Screening Report

A Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) alternative, with a dedicated right-of-way between Suffern and SWF, was analyzed. This alternative saved approximately 15 minutes on any trip using the entire length of the BRT system between Suffern and SWF, depending on time of day and direction of travel. Table C-2 in Appendix C summarizes service plan for the direct bus/brt alternatives for the airport and commuter markets. Table C-2 Direct Bus Build Alternatives Plan by Market (2035) Route Name End Points Airport Market (air passengers and employees) Southbound Headway (Minutes) Midday AM PM Night (4-10) (10-4) (4-8) (8-10) rthbound Headway (Minutes) Midday AM PM Night (4-10) (10-4) (4-8) (8-10) Distance (miles) B-XN Kingston, NY- SWF 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 41 B-XE Danbury, CT -SWF 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 47 B-XW Sussex, NJ - SWF 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 48 B-XS Suffern,NY - SWF 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 28 B-XC Stamford,CT- SWF 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 72 B-XWP White Plains,NY- SWF 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 58 B-XM Port Authority Bus Terminal, NY - SWF 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 68 B-XH Hoboken, NJ - SWF 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 66 BX-G GW Bridge Bus Depot,NY - 17K P&R 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 59 B-XP Paterson,NJ - 17K P&R 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 61 B-XHA Hackensack,NJ - SWF 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 53 Route Name B-XM End Points Port Authority Bus Terminal, NY - 17K P&R Commuter Market Southbound Headway (Minutes) Midday AM PM Night (4-10) (10-4) (4-8) (8-10) 20 60 120 B-XH Hoboken, NJ - 17K P&R 30 60 120 BX-G GW Bridge Bus Depot,NY - 17K P&R 30 60 120 B-XP Patterson,NJ - 17K P&R 30 60 120 B-XHA Hackensack,NJ - 17K P&R 30 60 120 rthbound Headway (Minutes) Midday AM PM Night (4-10) (10-4) (4-8) (8-10) 120 60 20 120 60 30 120 60 30 120 60 30 120 60 30 Distance (miles) 68 66 59 61 53 Alternatives Analysis Phase I Screening Report C-3

C1.4 Direct Commuter Rail Build Alternatives (Group 2) The Base Build alternative assumes a significant increase in the number of total daily trains compared to the WHRTAS Build, with new service being added in the off peak periods as well as more trains inbound in the PM peak and outbound in the AM peak to serve the airport market. This assumption considers the implementation of the ARC project. The AM peak period service inbound to 34 th Street and Hoboken in the Build has the same number of trains originating in Port Jervis as the WHRTAS Build and the trains that originate at Salisbury Mills Cornwall in the WHRTAS Build, would originate at SWF Airport Station in the Build. Table C-3 summarizes the total inbound (southbound) and outbound (northbound) weekday trains between Port Jervis, Salisbury Mills Cornwall, and SWF station and Hoboken and New York-34th Street Stations. The Base Build commuter rail operating plan is also depicted graphically in Figure C-1. It illustrates the service split between Port Jervis and SWF to Hoboken and 34 th street. In the AM peak period, 3 trains would originate at SWF to 34 th street offering 80 minute headway. 2 trains would originate at SWF to Hoboken offering headway of 120 minutes. However, the composite headway for trains would be 48 minutes which require a transfer at SMC or Secaucus. Table C-3 Commuter Rail Plan* Comparison of Daily Trains (2035) WHRTAS Build vs. Base Build Alternative Inbound Trains Hoboken - Build Alt. WHRTAS NO BUILD New York- 34th St. - Build Alt. Total. of Trains Hoboken - Build Alt. BASE BUILD New York- 34th St. - Build Alt. Total no. of Trains AM Peak (6 am 10am) 6 5 11 6 5 11 Midday Off Peak (10 am - 4 pm) 2 2 4 5 6 11 PM Peak (4 pm - 8 pm) 1 1 2 5 3 8 Evening Off Peak (8 pm midnight) 1 1 2 5 6 11 Subtotal 10 9 19 21 20 41 New York- Hoboken - New York- 34th St. - Total. Hoboken - Total no. Outbound Trains Build 34th St. - Build of Trains Build Alt. of Trains Alt. Build Alt. Alt. AM Peak (6 am 10am) 1 1 2 6 4 10 Midday Off Peak (10 am - 4 pm) 2 2 4 5 5 10 PM Peak (4 pm - 8 pm) 6 5 11 6 5 11 Evening Off Peak (8 pm midnight) 1 1 2 4 6 10 Subtotal 10 9 19 21 20 41 Total (Inbound and Outbound) 20 18 38 42 40 82 * assumes implementation of ARC project. C-4 Alternatives Analysis Phase I Screening Report

South rth AM Peak ( 6 am -10 pm) 11 to 34 th Street to Hoboken Total number of trains South rth Off Peak (10 am 4 pm) Figure C-1 Base Build Commuter Rail Operating Plan 1 As discussed in Chapter 4.4.2, two additional CRT service plan options with higher frequency service were considered and analyzed as what if scenarios to observe the ridership benefits of a more robust service plan on both the airport and commuter markets. Figure C-2 graphically illustrates Option 1 which assumed 30 minute all-day headways between SWF and the 34 th Street Station (34 th Street) 2. Figure C-3 illustrates Option 2 which assumed 60 minute headways to 34 th Street. Under Option 2, service frequencies would be every 30 minutes at SWF with alternating service to Hoboken and 34 th Street. 1 Assumes implementation of ARC project. 2 34 th Street refers to the new passenger terminal associated with the ARC project, located beneath West 34 th Street adjacent to existing Penn Station New York. Alternatives Analysis Phase I Screening Report C-5

AM Peak ( 6 am -10 pm) South rth 15 to 34 th Street to Hoboken Total number of trains South 15 15 rth Off Peak (10 am 4 pm) Figure C-2 Commuter Rail Plan Option 1 3 (30 Minute Headway to/from 34 th Street) 3 Assumes implementation of ARC project. C-6 Alternatives Analysis Phase I Screening Report

AM Peak ( 6 am -10 pm) 15 to 34 th Street to Hoboken Total number of trains Off Peak (10 am 4 pm) Figure C-3 Commuter Rail Plan Option 2 (60 Minute Headway to 34th Street and Hoboken) 4 4 Assumes implementation of ARC project. Alternatives Analysis Phase I Screening Report C-7

C1.5 Hybrid Salisbury Mills Alternatives (Group 4) As in the case of Alternative 1A the connecting bus service would operate from 4:00 AM to 10:00 PM with the bus service coordinated to serve the commuter rail schedule on the PJL. The commuter rail service would be same as the Base Build service described in section C1.4. Fares for air passengers and commuters were assumed to be the same, and would consist of a single commuter rail based fare that includes the connecting bus service. C1.6 Hybrid Beacon Alternatives (Group 5) As in the case of Alternative 1A the connecting bus service would operate from 4:00 AM to 10:00 PM with the bus service coordinated to serve the commuter rail schedule on the Hudson Line. The service assumes no changes in the CRT segment for this alternative. Fares for air passengers and commuters were assumed to be the same, and would consist of a single commuter rail based fare that includes the connecting bus service. C-8 Alternatives Analysis Phase I Screening Report

TRAVEL TIME AND RIDERSHIP DATA C1.7 Travel Time and Ridership Data Table C-4 Travel Time Components* - Airport Market Paterson, NJ *Assumes implementation of ARC project. Alternatives Analysis Phase I Screening Report C-9

TRAVEL TIME AND RIDERSHIP DATA Table C-5 Travel Time Components* - Commuter Market Paterson, NJ *Assumes implementation of ARC project. C-10 Alternatives Analysis Phase I Screening Report

TRAVEL TIME AND RIDERSHIP DATA Table C-6 Daily Ridership** - Airport Market Paterson, NJ **Assumes implementation of ARC project. Alternatives Analysis Phase I Screening Report C-11

TRAVEL TIME AND RIDERSHIP DATA Table C-7 Daily Ridership** - Commuter Market Paterson, NJ **Assumes implementation of ARC project. C-12 Alternatives Analysis Phase I Screening Report