rapid bus & light rail systems experience from santa...

Retrofitting Streets for Transit: Rapid Bus & Light Rail Systems

Experience from Santa Monica

Jeff Tumlin, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates

April 16, 2012 | APA Seminar

The Santa Monica Downtown Transit Mall

Source: Flickr user: Derek Thomas LA

The Downtown Transit Mall

Source: GoogleMaps

Source: Flickr user: LA Wad

Re-branding the Big Blue Bus

Source: LAist.com

Source:

City of Santa Monica

Re-branding the Big Blue Bus Experience

Source: Lorcan O'Herlihy Architects and Bruce

Source: Lorcan O’Herlihy Architects / Bruce Mau Design

Street furniture studies


9am 12pm 3pm

The Expo Light Rail Extension

Source: ExpoLightRail

1. No Build 2. Transportation System

Management 3. LRT 1 Expo ROW: Olympic

4. LRT 2 Expo ROW: Colorado

5. LRT 3 Venice: Olympic

6. LRT 4 Venice: Colorado

Expo Light Rail Alternatives

Source: Santa Monica Planning Commission, 2009

Raised track above grade

Track on Grade Raised track up to

35’above grade

Downtown Station 35’ +/-above grade

Olympic Alignment

On-grade Station at Bergamot

Lin

coln

4th

11

th

Split –Station at 17th

Bike path

17

th

Clo

verf

ield

26

th


Olympic Blvd Alignment Alternative: At-grade & above grade

Olympic Boulevard Alternative

Impacts

• Dual tracks in the median

• Left-turn lanes preserved

• Loss of all 44 Coral trees

• Loss of all on-street parking spaces (approximately

123 spaces)


Olympic Boulevard Rendering


Olympic Boulevard Downtown Station Rendering



Colorado Ave Alignment Alternative– At-Grade

Track on Grade

Downtown Station at grade

Bergamot Station

Colorado Alignment

Midtown 17th Street Station

Aerial over Cloverfield


7’

Parking

Impacts

• Preserves on-street parking on north side - loss of approximately 75 spaces on south side

• Removal of one travel lane in each direction from 17th Street to 4th Street

80’ ROW

Colorado Avenue Alternative


Colorado Ave, Narrower Alternative


•San Francisco’s Judah Street is the same width as Colorado Ave •Transit line down the middle •Parking on both sides

Measure twice, cut once…drawing on examples from San Francisco


Visioning Colorado Ave



Comparison of LRT Alternatives

Colorado Ave Alternative Wins

LRT Alignment Capital

Costs

Project

Costs

Cost

Effectiveness

LRT 1

(Olympic Blvd.) $969,909,000 $1,353,375,000

$20.21 per annual hour

of user benefit

LRT 2

(Colorado Ave.)

$932, 423,000 $1,301,121,000 $20.01 per annual hour

of user benefit

…Savings ~ $52 million in project costs

~ 37.5 million in capital costs

+ keep on street parking

+ keep the Coral trees

+ easier transit accessibility Source: Santa Monica Planning Commission, 2009

Expo LRT Plans Today

Source: Expo Light Rail

Getting the station details right

Facilities Park and Ride

Transit

Connections •Santa Monica Big

Blue Bus line 1, 2, 3,

3-Rapid, 4, 5,7, 7-

Rapid, 8, 9, 10, 11

•Metro Los Angeles

bus line 20, 33,

534,704,720, 733,

920

Source: Expo Light Rail, 2011

Retrofitting cities of tomorrow


NELSON\NYGAARD CONSULTING ASSOCIATES © 2012

Jeff Tumlin 116 New Montgomery Street, Suite 500

San Francisco, CA 94105 415. 284.1544

[email protected]

Ted Orosz AICP CTP

MTA New York

City Transit

April 16, 2012

Retrofitting Corridors for

Premium Transit

They wanted a picture

About 21 miles total length

Right-of-way varies 100’ - 120’

Street widths vary 55’ – 70’

Chicago Western Av Corridor

9 miles from South Ferry to 125th

Street

Currently served by M15 bus

route

Over 54,000 weekday riders

Bus speeds have been declining

Ridership has been decreasing

Within ¼ mile:

537,000 residents

78% of households do not own a

car

57% of residents commute by

transit

M15 SBS: First/Second Avenues

• Over 10 miles of

dedicated bus lanes

– Red coloration, overhead

signs

– Camera Enforcement

• Off-board fare collection

• New low-floor 3-door

buses

• Longer Station Spacing

M15 SBS: Features

M15 SBS: Features

Doubled the mileage of protected bike lanes in New York City.

Installed 50+ pedestrian refuge islands during 2010; more in 2011

M15 SBS: Features

M15 SBS: Features

• Buses average

speed of 4.5 MPH

• 33,000 weekday

riders

• Severe Pedestrian

Crowding

• 6,000+ peds/hour

• Major Growth

Expected: Hudson

Yards

2 miles across Manhattan

Currently served by M34/M34A bus routes and

numerous commuter buses

M34 SBS: 34th Street

34th Street SBS: Features

• Bus Lanes

− Curbside bus lanes

installed in 2008

− 2/3 of corridor will be

upgraded to offset bus

lanes 2012-13


• New low-floor buses

• Bus bulbs at 14 stations

• Limited TSP

34th Street Final Design

• New bus lanes

−5.5 miles of offset bus

lanes – maintenance of

parking along entire

route

−Red coloration,

overhead signs

−Camera Enforcement


• New low-floor buses

• Transit Signal Priority

• Bus bulbs at 14 stations

B44 Nostrand Av SBS: Features

• Scheduled for 2013 –

coordinated with larger

capital project

• City is Federal Grant

Recipient ~$28M

• Travel Time: 20%

reduction in running

time anticipated

• Ridership: 10%

increase in ridership

anticipated

B44 SBS: Features

B44 SBS: Rogers Av Current

B44 SBS: Rogers Av Proposed

Two Lane Busway

Two Lane Curbside Busway

Two Lane Busway

Center Median Bus Station

Curbside Bus Lane Alignment

Curb Bus Lanes on Arterial Street

Single Side Transitway Alignment

Two Lane Transitway on Arterial

Two Lane Transitway

Two Way Transitway with Loading

Median Bus Lane Alignment

Center Median Transitway: Cleveland

Center Median Transitway

Parking Accomodation

One Lane Busway: Eugene, OR

Center Island Station: Eugene, OR

Station: Eugene, OR

Alignments for LRT/Streetcar

LRT in Shared Lane

Street-Running LRT

LRT in Shared Lane

Street-Running PCC Car

Street-Running LRT

LRT in Shared Lane

Street-Running LRT

Modern Streetcar

LRT on Transitway

Traffic Signal Priority

TSP with Bus Lanes is an

example of 2 + 2 = 5

Traffic Signal Priority: Cleveland

Advanced Left from Right Lane

• Green time for Hylan Boulevard is limited at busy intersections

• Goal: Move as many vehicles as possible on green signal

• Issue: Weaving of cars and buses clogs the intersection

S79 SBS: Advanced Signal

• Solution: Separate bus and car weaving before light turns green

• Reduced weaving allows more efficient (and safer) flow through

intersection

• Allows buses to avoid congestion without having a bus lane at a

major intersection.

S79 SBS: Advanced Signal

54

Many Thanks!

Ted Orosz

Director Long Range Bus Service Planning

MTA New York City Transit

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

rapid bus & light rail systems experience from santa...

Documents