Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Presentation on Bus Rapid Transit in the Greater Cincinnati area.
Citation preview
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) in the Greater
Cincinnati Region
February 22, 2013
BRT Plans for Southwest Ohio
Terry Garcia Crews, Metro Chief Executive
Officer and General Manager
• Identified five corridors in Southwest Ohio and Northern Kentucky for potential BRT service
• Identified the Montgomery Road corridor as having the greatest potential to support BRT service
• Conducted a peer analysis and identified most desirable characteristics for Cincinnati region
Initial Planning Study (PB)
Transit Plan 2023• Latent demand survey – 1,200 Hamilton
County households• BRT has highest latent demand of all transit
services tested• BRT to Downtown – 4.6 million trips annually• BRT to Uptown – 1.0 million trips annually• Identified Six Corridors in Metro Service Area
Suitable for BRT
BRT Network
• High-frequency spine• Glenway, Hamilton,
Vine, Reading, Montgomery & Madison
• Uptown transfer connections
BRT VisionSpecially designed vehicles High-profile stations
BRT Vision
Off-vehicle fare collection Bicycle access
BRT VisionDedicated bus lanes Platform boarding
BRT Vision
Traffic Signal Priority
Metro Plus
Montgomery Road Corridor
• 150 Bus Stops in each direction
• Many high ridership bus stops on existing local route 4 – Primary criteria for Metro Plus stop
• Much transfer activity near uptown area – need to include Uptown in Metro Plus
Metro Plus Bus Stop Spacing• Longer stop spacing (approx. 1 mile)
o Provides fastest serviceo Covers 60 -70% of existing riderso Requires higher level of local service
• Shorter stop spacing (approx. 0.5 miles)o Better service to 90%+ of existing riderso Requires less local service
Corridor Land UseUniversity of Cincinnati – Blue Ash •5,200 students•Current Metro layover for Rt. 4
Corridor Land UseKenwood Towne Centre•Region’s largest mall•Surrounded by multiple shopping centers•Along major I-71 Interchange
Corridor Land UseNeighborhood business districts
Corridor Land UseXavier University
Corridor Land Use
Uptown Cincinnati
Six major hospitals
Corridor Land UseUptown Cincinnati
University of Cincinnati
Corridor Land Use
Downtown Cincinnati
Government Square
Other Characteristics
• Operate every 15 minutes during weekdays peak times
• Operate every 30 minutes evenings to 10 p.m.
• 17 stops in each direction
Metro Plus Branding
Metro Plus Branding
Why Metro Plus
• Provides higher-speed alternative to major destinations – 150 stops on route 4 to 17 on Metro Plus
• Makes regional travel more feasible by transit• Improves service to Uptown• Responds to public input
Public Transit in the Dixie Highway
Corridor
Andrew Aiello, TANK General Manager
Previous Planning Efforts Regional BRT Identified Corridors Planning Efforts Dixie Highway Findings
COA ResultsDixie Hwy
2,500 Riders / Weekday Strong Generators at
Both Ends Boarding & Alighting
Activity Along Entire Route
Opportunities& Challenges
OpportunitiesStrong Generators at Both EndsDiversity of Land Uses Served “Low-Hanging Fruit”
ChallengesConfusing Southern AlignmentUndermines Otherwise Direct ServiceImportant and Well-Used Institutional and Commercial Destinations along Southern AlignmentCorridor does not meet FTA guidelines for true “BRT”
Draft Recommendations - “Enhanced Bus”• Capital Improvements• Vehicle / Station Branding• Revised Alignment• Bus Stop ConsolidationResults:
• Better service• More riders• Increased efficiency
Stop Consolidation /RealignmentGoals Consolidate boarding activity Minimize passenger loss Maximize ridership gains Improve travel times
Anticipated Results 1/3-1/4 mi. spacing vs. 300 ft. 85% existing riders retained 8% net increase* 25% improvement
• Passenger Travel Times• Operating Efficiency
AlternativeScenario Consolidate stops
• 145 one-way to 38 one-way Maintain a streamlined loop Invest in frequency (30 min. or <)
Anticipated Results 1/3-1/4 mi. spacing vs. 300 ft. More existing riders retained 3-5% net ridership increase 10% improvement
• Passenger Travel Times
Next Steps Draft an implementation plan Solicit feedback on implementation plan Back to TANK Board for review
