to view Short Range Transit Plan FY 2007/2008 - Tri Delta Transit

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Multiple Transfers & Overall Transit Patronage PotentialWhile construction costs for the proposed eBART line between thePittsburg/Bay Point BART station are estimated to be about half ($400million) that of an extension using conventional BART technology($800-$900 million), a conventional BART extension would haveadvantage of a direct, one-seat ride between proposed stations atRailroad Avenue in Pittsburg, a future Somersville Road station, and atHillcrest Avenue. For those using Tri Delta Transit buses to accessregional rail service originating in communities east of Pittsburg, theeBART proposal would require a minimum of two transfers in eachtravel direction.While many heavily patronized transit systems such as the SanFrancisco Municipal Railway or Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) inCanada have very large volumes of passengers who transfer twice oreven more often, it is counterproductive to force passengers totransfer if unnecessary. Given this potential drawback of eBART toexisting and future Tri Delta Transit riders originating east of Pittsburg,it is reasonable to expect that, initially, most eBART users will eitherpark & ride or would be dropped off rather than take the bus.In the short-term, a few riders would also be “walk-ins” coming fromwithin a 0.5 mile radius of the eBART stations; in the longer run, thenumber of walk-in eBART passengers would grow dramatically astransit-oriented development occurred around the stations. However,only a moderate share of eBART ridership is likely to transfer frombuses due to the requirement to transfer again at Pittsburg/Bay PointBART. A majority of those transferring at eBART stations are likely tobe between local routes.BRT Implementation StrategyThere are a number of BRT/express bus strategies that warrant muchmore detailed study beyond the scope of an SRTP. However, thisdocument suggests a number of these strategies that may haveparticular utility for Tri Delta Transit. These recommendations arebriefly discussed in the remainder of this chapter.First, soon after the late 2007 opening of the Highway 4 extension toEast Antioch and Brentwood, Route 300 should be restructured into aline with two branches: one serving Brentwood more directly withdramatically reduced running times, and the second branch continuingto serve Oakley. It should be possible to run more peak period servicewith the same number of vehicles currently assigned to Tri DeltaTransit Route 300, e.g., every 30 minutes on both the Brentwood andOakley branch, with a combined headway of every 15 minutes betweenHillcrest Avenue and the Pittsburg/Bay Point BART station. To minimizetravel times, a preferred option would be to “leapfrog” e.g., skip, theHillcrest Park & Ride Lot during peak hours.Second, transit centers and park and ride lots should be constructedrelatively soon at potential eBART station sites, even at future stationlocations that may not receive eBART service for decades. In addition80
to the proposed Railroad Avenue and Hillcrest Avenue eBART stations,transit centers should be constructed at Somersville Road, at theHighway 4 extension and Lone Tree Way in southeast Antioch, andexpand the existing Brentwood Park & Ride into a full transit centerwith a sufficient park & ride spaces to meet likely demand. It isimportant to purchase land, determine each facility’s location andminimize capital costs at an early date. Each proposed transit centershould also include easy bus access to/from local arterial roadways,but also easy access on/off Highway 4, for the reasons enumeratedabove. Tri Delta Transit should work with BART and the Contra CostaTransportation Authority (CCTA) to ensure that these four proposedtransit centers are constructed in a timely manner. Such transfercenters along with reduced travel times may also make express busesto Discovery Bay and Byron feasible.Third, Tri Delta Transit should work with the Contra CostaTransportation Authority (CCTA) additional funding should be obtainedto extend the Highway 4 bypass HOV lanes another six miles to BalfourRoad in Brentwood. This $60- $80 million project would not onlyenhance BRT service in the long run, but carpoolers and vanpoolerswould also benefit. This facility would allow BRT vehicles to travel non-BART station in 25-30 minutes, less than half current travel times.stop between the Brentwood transit center and the Pittsburg/Bay PointComparable time-savings are also possible from the area around LoneTree Way.Fourth, the possibilities for bus rapid transit on arterial roadways tospeed up local the most heavily used Tri Delta Transit routes shouldnot be neglected, e.g., following the Eugene/Springfield and Las Vegasmodels in addition to the freeway-oriented BRT discussed above. WhileEast County traffic is likely to be less congested once Highway 4expansion of Highway 4 from Pittsburg through Antioch is completed,arterial-based BRT routes are still likely to require separated bus right-backups at traffic signals, separate lanes similar to Eugene-Springfieldand Las Vegas in congested areas and/or to bypass the mostof-way over 10% to 20% of potential BRT routes, in addition tostandard signal priorities and BRT stop upgrades. This most likelywould be in the form of “queue jumpers” at locations with significantcongested segments of major streets, dedicated bus entries to transitcenters and key traffic generators, freeway access, etc.A cursory examination reveals a number of corridors that may besuitable for arterial street BRT:• Pittsburg/Bay Point BART to Antioch via Leland, SomersvilleRoad, downtown Antioch, A Street, East 18 th Street, to HillcrestAvenue eBART station/transit center.• Pittsburg/Bay Point BART to Antioch via Willow Pass Road,downtown Pittsburg, East 14 th Street, a new BRT connector toCentury Boulevard, then to future Somersville Road eBARTstation and transit center.81
Page 1:
Short Range Transit PlanFY 2007/08
Page 9 and 10:
List of TablesTable 1.1 ECCTA Servi
Page 11 and 12:
Executive SummaryChapter One of thi
Page 13 and 14:
Introduction & OverviewCHAPTER1Purp
Page 15 and 16:
Table 1.1 ECCTA Service Area Popula
Page 17 and 18:
For purposes of discussions relativ
Page 19 and 20:
Commute & Other Travel PatternsAs p
Page 21 and 22:
This data is presented in Table 1.4
Page 23 and 24:
• Marketing and Operations Commit
Page 25 and 26:
Figure 1.2a. Tri Delta Transit Rout
Page 27 and 28:
Route 200 -Martinez/Pittsburg links
Page 29 and 30:
ECCTA Dial-a-RideDial-a-Ride is the
Page 31 and 32:
Fare StructureThe ECCTA Board of Di
Page 33 and 34:
ModelYearNumberFixed RouteTable 1.7
Page 35 and 36:
Goals, Objectives & StandardsBackgr
Page 37 and 38:
Table 2.2 Summary of ECCTA Objectiv
Page 39 and 40:
CHAPTER3System & Service Evaluation
Page 41 and 42: DestinationsTotalBoardingsTotalRVHE
Page 43 and 44: In FY 2002-03, increases in unit op
Page 45: Individual Fixed Route PerformanceP
Page 49 and 50: The best performing local routes du
Page 51 and 52: Figure 3.7 DAR Total Boardings, FY
Page 53 and 54: Dial-A-Ride/Paratransit Trends by T
Page 55 and 56: City of Antioch. The farebox cost r
Page 57 and 58: DAR Evaluation SummaryTri Delta Tra
Page 59 and 60: The Brentwood park-ride lot is phys
Page 61 and 62: Each completed survey provides info
Page 63 and 64: Those aged 12 to 30 constitute 60%
Page 65 and 66: Most transit users (77%) ride the b
Page 67 and 68: Figure 3.21 shows in another way th
Page 69 and 70: MTC Sponsored Survey, February 2007
Page 71 and 72: the adopted productivity standard,
Page 73 and 74: Federal Title VI ProgramECCTA has e
Page 75 and 76: CHAPTER4Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Opt
Page 77 and 78: While left-hand doors reduce EmX ve
Page 79 and 80: According to the FTA report “Las
Page 81 and 82: Figure 4.9 Typical MAX StationEach
Page 83 and 84: Figure 4.12 Orange Line BRT Vehicle
Page 85 and 86: The Bus way has suffered from many
Page 87 and 88: Figure 4.17 Pittsburgh South Bus wa
Page 89 and 90: Mixed traffic BRT routes with trans
Page 91: Figure 4.19 Tri Delta Transit Fixed
Page 95 and 96: Figure 4.21 Elevated BRT Station Co
Page 97 and 98: CHAPTER5Operations Plan and BudgetT
Page 99 and 100: Transit ChallengesTri Delta Transit
Page 101 and 102: Another potential opportunity for i
Page 103 and 104: The orig inal eBART proposal would
Page 105 and 106: Based on the principles listed abov
Page 107 and 108: Future Tri Delta Transit route revi
Page 112 and 113: 100
Page 114 and 115: Table 6.1 ECCTA Planned CapitalPrio
Page 116 and 117: Capital Project DetailsFR Fleet Enh
Page 118 and 119: AppendixRESOLUTION #080123cBay Area
Page 120 and 121: Goals1. Everyone in the Bay Region
show all

to view Short Range Transit Plan FY 2007/2008 - Tri Delta Transit

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?