Hillsborough County MPO Transit Study. Transit Concept for 2050 October 17, 2007

Similar documents
MPO Transit Study. Transit Concept for 2050 November 5, Transit Technologies

ConnectGreaterWashington: Can the Region Grow Differently?

TOD for HSR Success along the Northeast Corridor

THE WILSHIRE CORRIDOR: RAIL AND ITS ALTERNATIVES. Prepared By: Jacki Murdock Transportation and Environmental Planner

Public Meeting. June 15, :30 7:30 p.m.

Executive Summary. Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report ES-1

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

PHILADELPHIA SUBURBAN RAIL SUMMARY (COMMUTER RAIL, REGIONAL RAIL)

Leadership NC. November 8, 2018

Kendall Drive Premium Transit PD&E Study Project Kick-Off Meeting SR 94/Kendall Drive/SW 88 Street Project Development and Environment (PD&E) Study

Green Line Long-Term Investments

NEW YORK SUBURBAN RAIL SUMMARY (COMMUTER RAIL, REGIONAL RAIL)

The Engineering Department recommends Council receive this report for information.

METRO Orange Line BRT American Boulevard Station Options

Maryland Gets to Work

A Transit Plan for the Future. Draft Network Plan

Kenosha-Racine-Milwaukee (KRM)

PAWG Meeting #3a Tier 1 Evaluation

Point A Point B Point C Point D. Fulton County Board of Commissioners and Mayors Meeting December 14, 2017

CLRP. Performance Analysis of The Draft 2014 CLRP. Long-Range Transportation Plan For the National Capital Region

WAKE TRANSIT PLAN Summer 2018

Fresno County. Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) Public Workshop

PROJECT BACKGROUND 3

Kendall Drive Premium Transit PD&E Study

TECHNICAL COORDINATING COMMITTEE (TCC) UPDATE PRESENTATION APRIL 26, 2017

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

Bi-County Transitway/ Bethesda Station Access Demand Analysis

The Screening and Selection of Regionally Significant Projects

Transit in Bay Area Blueprint

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

QUALITY OF LIFE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY REPORT I O N S TAT I O N

I-35W Past, Present, and Future: METRO Orange Line

August 2, 2010 Public Meeting

GO Transit s deliverable: the 2020 Service Plan

Executive Summary. Treasure Valley High Capacity Transit Study Priority Corridor Phase 1 Alternatives Analysis October 13, 2009.

TEXAS CITY PARK & RIDE RIDERSHIP ANALYSIS

Jeff s House. Downtown Charlottesville. PEC Office

Public Meeting. City of Chicago Department of Transportation & Department of Housing and Economic Development

Transportation 2040: Plan Performance. Transportation Policy Board September 14, 2017

Help shape your community investment in Wake Transit. Fiscal Year 2019 Draft Work Plan Summary

Making Mobility Better, Together

TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION REPORT NO.

Metro Reimagined. Project Overview October 2017

RTSP Phase II Update

US 29 Bus Rapid Transit Planning Board Briefing. February 16, 2017

10/4/2016. October 6, Item #1 CITIZENS PARTICIPATION

Chicago Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor

Click to edit Master title style

Travel Time Savings Memorandum

Feasibility Study. Community Meeting March, North-South Commuter Rail Feasibility Study

What is the Connector?

DRIVING INNOVATION AND OPPORTUNITY Tampa Bay is ready to connect to Autonomous Vehicle Technology

Parking Management Element

Technology Evaluation Scorecard Suitability

BROWARD BOULEVARD CORRIDOR TRANSIT STUDY

Needs and Community Characteristics

2 EXISTING ROUTE STRUCTURE AND SERVICE LEVELS

Why Light Rail Was Selected for the Durham- Orange Corridor. Orange County Board of County Commissioners February 16, 2017

Shared Mobility and Transit It is The Road to Economic

Breakout Session. The Mobility Challenges of Our Growing & Sprawling Upstate

MetroExpress Improvements

Metropolitan Council Budget Overview SFY

Northeast Corridor Alternatives Analysis. Public Involvement Round 2 Input on Alternatives for Further Study

Rail alignment and benefits (rab) study

2 VALUE PROPOSITION VALUE PROPOSITION DEVELOPMENT

V03. APTA Multimodal Operations Planning Workshop August Green Line LRT

Mass Transit in Charlotte and San Antonio. Keith T. Parker, AICP

Draft Results and Open House

Waco Rapid Transit Corridor (RTC) Feasibility Study

Rapid Transit and Land-Use Integration a Reality

Metro Transit Update. Christina Morrison, Senior Planner Metro Transit BRT/Small Starts Project Office. John Dillery, Senior Transit Planner

Strategic Plan

PUBLIC TRANSPORT MODAL CHARACTERISTICS AND ROLES

San Francisco Transportation Plan Update

STRATEGIC PRIORITIES AND POLICY COMMITTEE MAY 5, 2016

APPLICATION OF A PARCEL-BASED SUSTAINABILITY TOOL TO ANALYZE GHG EMISSIONS

Navigating in Different Rivers

Rail alignment and benefits (rab) study

Scarborough Transit Planning

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

An Overview of Rapid Transit Typical Characteristics. Date April 30, 2009

UCLA Lake Arrowhead Conference. October 18, 2010

6/6/2018. June 7, Item #1 CITIZENS PARTICIPATION

Presentation A Blue Slides 1-5.

I-26 Fixed Guideway Alternatives Analysis

Equitable transit-oriented development: Tools + Tactics

Autonomous Vehicles and Land Use

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation. Chapter 1. Purpose and Need

Performance Measure Summary - Grand Rapids MI. Performance Measures and Definition of Terms

Leveraging Land Use Changes through Transportation Funding

Speaker Information Tweet about this presentation #TransitGIS

ITEM 9 Information October 19, Briefing on the Performance Analysis of the Draft 2016 CLRP Amendment

Performance Measure Summary - Louisville-Jefferson County KY-IN. Performance Measures and Definition of Terms

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Region Rapid Transit and Land-Use Integration

Community Meetings June 2018

Welcome and Agenda. Thank you for joining us! 6:00 pm Open House. 6:30 pm Welcome & Presentation. 7:00 pm Q&A. 7:15 pm Open House Resumes

Ideas + Action for a Better City learn more at SPUR.org. tweet about this #DisruptiveTransportation

DRAFT Evaluation Scores. Transit

Comprehensive Regional Goods Movement Plan and Implementation Strategy Goods Movement in the 2012 RTP/SCS

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

Transcription:

Hillsborough County MPO Transit Study Transit Concept for 2050 October 17, 2007

Transit Technologies

Technologies Considered Bus Light Rail Commuter Rail

Bus Standard or articulated high-capacity vehicles Special lanes or signal priority Bus Rapid Transit Advantage of flexible service Congestion problem

Commuter Rail Locomotive pulling passenger cars Shares freight tracks Flexible capacity Peak hour service Long haul or suburb to city Needs to run flat and straight

Light Rail Powered from above by electric wires Has its own tracks Frequent service All day service Suburb to city and urban area travel Quick acceleration Can climb and turn

Study Summary

MPO Transit Study Process Identify Needs And Opportunities June Analyze Transit Concepts August Recommend Transit Concept For 2050 October

Transit Needs & Opportunities

Concept A: Diagram

Concept B: Diagram

Concept C: Diagram

Getting to the 2050 Concept Serving existing and emerging activity centers Serving growing and redeveloping areas Measuring the potential for station area development Respecting community character and land use policies Grounding ourselves in reality Appropriate transit technology Rights of way Costs

Transit Concept for 2050

Transit Concept for 2050 Basis of Concept Improve Mobility Support Economic Vitality Growth Management Transit Service Characteristics Destinations Transit for All Service (Distance, Frequency, Time, Capacity) Optimized by Benefits Maximize ability to serve largest concentrations of (existing & future) residential and employment areas with optimal balance of service

Concept Selection Process Evaluated current capacity of transit corridors to accommodate development Applied transit station area prototypes (type, size, character) Determined projected growth (jobs & housing) for the concept vs. trend for 2050 Identified appropriate technology to best serve destinations and range of riders (ie. balance time vs. distance) Evaluated overall order of magnitude cost to select technology and service type

Light Rail New Tampa- Westshore USF Brandon-Westchase South Tampa- Downtown Commuter Rail Westshore Downtown Tampa Brandon Lutz SouthShore Plant City Bus Complementary Bus Network

Light Rail New Tampa- Westshore Brandon-Westchase South Tampa- Downtown Commuter Rail Lutz SouthShore Plant City Bus Complementary Bus Network

Connects major activity centers Continuous all-day service Closely spaced station 30 miles 26 Stations Serves urban living, transit dependent, choice riders & special event Capacity to supports future growth Westshore USF Downtown Tampa Red Line (Light Rail): New Tampa/USF Westshore

Connects housing & employment Brandon as regional center Infill east of CBD Closely spaced station 27 miles 27 Stations Serves urban living, transit dependent, choice riders & special event Westchase Downtown Tampa Blue Line (Light Rail): Westchase Brandon Brandon

Serves densely populated area and activity centers Closely spaced station 8 miles 9 Stations Serves urban living, transit dependent, choice riders & special event MacDill Downtown Tampa Green Line (Light Rail): South Tampa Downtown Tampa Brandon

Lutz Commuter rail service to north Hillsborough and Pasco counties Peak period travel & transfer stations to light rail Express service 17 miles 6 Stations Provides alternative to commuters, transit dependent & underserved areas Added capacity alternatives to major road investments USF Downtown Tampa Magenta Line (Commuter Rail): Lutz Downtown Tampa

Commuter rail service to Plant City, Brandon and Polk County Peak period travel & transfer stations to Brandon light rail Express service 26 miles 5 Stations Provides alternative to commuters, transit dependent & underserved areas Added capacity alternatives to major road investments Downtown Tampa Brandon Purple Line (Commuter Rail): Plant City/Brandon Downtown Tampa Plant City

Commuter rail service to SouthShore and Sarasota/Manatee counties Peak period travel & transfer stations to light rail Express service 26 miles 7 Stations Provides alternative to commuters, transit dependent & underserved areas Added capacity alternatives to major road investments Downtown Tampa SouthShore Orange Line (Commuter Rail): SouthShore Downtown Tampa

Commuter rail service to Plant City along I-4 and East Central Florida Peak period travel to Tampa Express service 26 miles 5 Stations Provides alternative to commuters, transit dependent & underserved areas Added capacity alternatives to major highway investments Downtown Red Line (Commuter/Regional Rail): Plant City/I-4 Downtown Tampa Plant City

Transit Concept Characteristics Light Rail (Average 1 mile station spacing) New Tampa-Westshore (Red Line) 30 miles 26 stations Brandon-Westchase (Blue Line) 27 miles 27 stations South Tampa-Downtown (Green Line) 8 miles 9 stations Commuter Rail (Avg. 3-5 mile station spacing) Lutz (Magenta Line) 17 miles 6 stations SouthShore (Orange Line) 26 miles 7 stations Plant City/Brandon (Purple Line) 26 miles 5 stations Plant City/I-4 (Red Line) 26 miles 5 stations

Station Types Regional 50-100 DU/Ac 30-500 Jobs/Ac Community 20-75 DU/Ac 5-100 Jobs/Ac Neighborhood 10-50 DU/Ac 2-15 Jobs/Ac

HH Density Transit Concept < 2 2-4 4 8 8 16 > 16 DU/Acre (2050) Projected Transit Growth Increment

HH Density Current < 2 2-4 4 8 8 16 > 16 DU/Acre (2000)

HH Density Transit Concept < 2 2-4 4 8 8 16 > 16 DU/Acre (2050) Projected Total With Transit

HH Density Trend < 2 2-4 4 8 8 16 > 16 DU/Acre (2050) Projected Total Without Transit

Jobs Density Transit Concept < 1 1-5 5 25 25 50 > 50 Jobs/Acre (2050) Projected Transit Growth Increment

Jobs Density Current < 1 1-5 5 25 25 50 > 50 Jobs/Acre (2000)

Jobs Density Transit Concept < 1 1-5 5 25 25 50 > 50 Jobs/Acre (2050) Projected Total With Transit

Jobs Density Trend < 1 1-5 5 25 25 50 > 50 Jobs/Acre (2050) Projected Total Without Transit

HH Density By Station < 2 2-4 4 8 8 16 > 16 DU/Acre (2050) Generalized Station Intensity

Jobs Density By Station < 1 1-5 5 25 25 50 > 50 Jobs/Acre (2050) Generalized Station Intensity

700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 Households & Jobs Within ¼ mile of Stations HH 1/4 Mile Jobs 1/4 Mile Total (*removes duplication at transfer stations) 85,000 HH and 300,000 Jobs Transit Supported Growth (Projected Avg.) 10-15 DU/Ac and 30-50 Jobs/Ac South Tampa - Downtown Lutz - Downtown SouthShore - Downtown Plant City/Brandon - Downtown Plant City/I4 - Downtown New Tampa - Westshore Brandon - Westchase

700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 Households & Jobs Within Station Areas (up to 1 mile) HH Total Jobs Total South Tampa - Downtown Lutz - Downtown SouthShore - Downtown Plant City/Brandon - Downtown Plant City/I4 - Downtown Total (*removes duplication at transfer stations) 350,000 HH and 930,000 Jobs Transit Supported Growth (Projected Avg.) 6-12 DU/Ac and 15-30 Jobs/Ac New Tampa - Westshore Brandon - Westchase

Total Households & Jobs Within Station Areas (1/4 & 1 mile) Light Rail ¼ Mile ( 000s) up to 1 Mile ( 000s) New Tampa-Westshore 35k HH & 170k Jobs 165k HH & 625k Jobs Brandon-Westchase 40k HH & 200k Jobs 170k HH & 685k Jobs South Tampa-Downtown 15k HH & 70k Jobs 40k HH & 110k Jobs Commuter Rail Lutz-Downtown 10k HH & 50k Jobs 35k HH & 85k Jobs South Shore-Downtown 10k HH & 50k Jobs 50k HH & 75k Jobs Plant City-Downtown 10k HH & 50k Jobs 40k HH & 90k Jobs Plant City/I-4-Downtown 5k HH & 10k Jobs 10k HH & 25k Jobs Total 85k HH & 300k Jobs 350k HH & 930k Jobs (*removes duplication at transfer stations) Transit Supported Growth 10-15 DU/Ac 6-12 DU/Ac (*Projected Gross Avg Density) 30-50 Jobs/Ac 15-30 Jobs/Ac

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Transit Served Households & Jobs (% of Projected 2050 Growth ) HH/2050 HH EMP/2050 EMP South Tampa - Downtown Lutz - Downtown SouthShore - Downtown Plant City/Brandon - Downtown Plant City/I4 - Downtown System Total 2050 New Tampa - Westshore Brandon - Westchase

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Transit Served Households & Jobs (% of 2000 to 2050 Growth Increment) HH/2000-2050 HH EMP/2000-2050 EMP South Tampa - Downtown Lutz - Downtown SouthShore - Downtown Plant City/Brandon - Downtown Plant City/I4 - Downtown System Total Δ 2000-2050 Brandon - Westchase New Tampa - Westshore

Transit Served Population & Jobs (% of 2050 Total & Growth Increment) Light Rail 2050 Δ 2000-2050 New Tampa-Westshore 16% HH & 33% Jobs 31% HH & 62% Jobs Brandon-Westchase 17% HH & 36% Jobs 32% HH & 69% Jobs South Tampa-Downtown 3 % HH & 6 % Jobs 7 % HH & 11% Jobs Commuter Rail Lutz-Downtown 3 % HH & 5 % Jobs 6% HH & 9% Jobs South Shore-Downtown 5 % HH & 4 % Jobs 9% HH & 8% Jobs Plant City-Downtown 4 % HH & 5 % Jobs 8% HH & 9% Jobs Plant City/I-4-Downtown 1 % HH & 1 % Jobs 2% HH & 2% Jobs Total 34 % HH & 49% Jobs 65% HH & 93% Jobs * based on 1 mile radius

Transit Ridership Light Rail New Tampa-Westshore (Red Line) 10-25,000 Trips Per Day Brandon-Westchase (Blue Line) 20-30,000 Trips Per Day South Tampa-Downtown (Green Line) 5-10,000 Trips Per Day Commuter Rail Lutz-Downtown (Magenta Line) 1-8,000 Trips Per Day SouthShore-Downtown (Ornage Line) 2-8,000 Trips Per Day Plant City/Brandon-Downtown (Purple Line) 1-8,000 Trips Per Day Plant City/I-4-Downtown (Red Line) 1-2,500 Trips Per Day Total 40-90,000 Trips Per Day

Transit Ridership Per Mile Light Rail New Tampa-Westshore (Red Line) 1000 Trips/Mile Brandon-Westchase (Blue Line) 1100 Trips/Mile South Tampa-Downtown (Green Line) 1250 Trips/Mile Commuter Rail Lutz-Downtown (Magenta Line) 475 Trips/Mile South Shore-Downtown (Orange Line) 300 Trips/Mile Plant City/Brandon-Downtown (Purple Line) 300 Trips/Mile Plant City/I-4-Downtown (Red Line) 100 Trips/Mile

Light Rail New Tampa- Westshore Brandon-Westchase South Tampa- Downtown Commuter Rail Lutz SouthShore Plant City Bus Complementary Bus Network