Connecting Key Activity Centers with High Quality Bus Service

Similar documents
EXPANDING THE NETWORK ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA

SW Ecodistrict A VISION PLAN FOR A MORE SUSTAINABLE FUTURE June 25, 2013

12/9/2013. HOLLYWOOD/PINES CORRIDOR PROJECT AMPO 2013 Annual Conference October 24, Our Perspective. Broward.

CITY S GOALS DRIVE MODE CHOICE IN WINSTON-SALEM, NC

Tysons Circulator Study: Process and Preliminary Results Summary. March 2012

Public Forum. Kelley s Corner: The Corner that Connects Us. The Cecil Group. March 7, Acton 2020 Town of Acton.

The Community and Transportation Linkage Planning Program

Vision & Land Use. Discussion. Historic Preservation Plan. Foggy Bottom Campus Plan:

New York Avenue Streetscape and Trail Project Public Meeting #1 Summary

Port Credit Local Advisory Panel October 20 th Meeting

CHAPTER 7: Transportation, Mobility and Circulation

Chapter 1.0 Introduction

Northwest commuter rail station US 36 BRT. Westminster Station

Draft Evaluation of Alignment Alternatives Methodology and Results Report. 3 nd Draft. May 2011(rev June 17, 2011)

Study Area. Capitol Way. Greening America s Capitals 11/13/2014. A Greening America s Capitals Project

Downtown Elkton Station Area Plan, Elkton, MD. Difficult enough to get support for new starts challenge to fund Houston transit

PRINCE GEORGE S PLAZA TRANSIT DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND TRANSIT DISTRICT OVERLAY ZONE UPDATE

Subregion 4 Central Avenue-Metro Blue Line Corridor Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Implementation Project. Community Meeting April 27, 2011

TOD 203 CORRIDOR PLANNING and TOD

40 Years of Smart Growth Arlington County s Experience with Transit Oriented Development in the Rosslyn-Ballston Metro Corridor

City of Tacoma Planning and Development Services

Human Dominant & Mixed Use

Executive Summary. NY 7 / NY 2 Corridor

40 Years of Smart Growth Arlington County s Experience with Transit Oriented Development in the Rosslyn-Ballston Metro Corridor

, C-MS I June 3, 2016 $1500 pd chk #216918

Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency. Regional TOD Scorecard and Implementation Plan. July 28, 2016

DOWNTOWN GEORGETOWN PLANNING STUDY

ANC 2A Presentation. November 9, 2006


Community Open House March 26 th, 2018

SECTION ONE: INTRODUCTION. introduction

DRAFT. Urban Development Areas Fairfax County. UDA Needs Profile: Tysons Corner 13% Location Characteristics. Socio-Economic Characteristics

Broken Arrow Comprehensive Plan Update Public Workshop Meeting #3 January 23,

New Westminster Downtown Parking Strategy Public Open House #1 September 13, 2012

Hillsborough County MPO Transit Study. Citizens Team Workshop Wednesday, February 28 th, 2006 Hillsborough Community College - Brandon

Robbinsdale LRT Station. CDI Development Guidelines. August Overview

NACCED/NACo CONFERENCE JULY 10, 2015

Planning Charlotte s Future. Transportation & Planning Committee March 14, 2016

Walkable Urban Places are Different & Complex to Manage

of ZONING OVERHAUL

Streets for People, Place-Making and Prosperity. #TOcompletestreets

I-84 Hartford Project Open Planning Studio #12. April 25, 2017

Bethesda Downtown Plan

TOD 101 CREATING LIVABLE COMMUNITIES WITH TRANSIT

Shift Rapid Transit Public Participation Meeting May 3, 2017

Toronto Complete Streets Guidelines Stakeholder Advisory Group #

Create Policy Options Draft Plan Plan Approval. Public Consultation Events. Phase 2

Promoting Economic Development Through Upfront SEPA Review: Lessons from South Downtown Tacoma

Public Open House. YWCA, 87 Elm Street December 2nd, 2017, 10 a.m. 2 p.m.

Proposed Comprehensive Plan Strategies DRAFT for discussion June 28, 2017

Realities and Assets in an In-Town Shopping Center

Whitehurst Freeway Deconstruction Feasibility Study

BROOKLYN PARK / 85TH AVE LRT STATION CDI DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES DRAFT

INDEPENDENCE BOULEVARD AREA PLAN. June 24, 2008

Welcome! Please sign-in and participate in the activities in the registration area before finding your seat. Thank you!

Transit Implementation Strategy Westside Study Group Meeting

Blueprint Denver Task Force Meeting #

Washington Union Station s 2nd Century DEVELOPMENT PLAN

ROBBINSDALE LRT STATION CDI DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES

University of the District of Columbia Van Ness Campus Master Plan Community Open House 3. December 8, 2010

9/19/2018 TODAY S WEBINAR AGENDA CONTINUING EDUCATION UPCOMING TRAINING FROM APBP

38 Queen s University Campus Master Plan Part 1

JANUARY 19, 2011 CENTRAL AVENUE-METRO BLUE LINE TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT COMMUNITY FORUM

Station Area Plan Introduction & Draft Alternatives Review

FROM DUPONT CIRCLE NORTH TO CALIFORNIA STREET, NW. Welcome!

Atlanta BeltLine Corridor Environmental Study. Scoping Meeting August 2008

Committee Meeting: Downtown Today & Concept Refinement September 11, 2017

CONTEXT: the Highway, the River + the Railroads run through us.

Developer s Program. The Station at East 54

Equitable Growth Through TOD Planning

Public Open House. Overview of the Downtown Plan Official Plan Amendment April 23, 2018

Ryoko Iizuka Finance, Economics and Urban Department

master plan of highways bus rapid transit amendment

Town Center (part of the Comprehensive Plan)

Downtown Dubuque...it s a great time.

TOD IMPLEMENTATION BEST PRACTICE TOOLBOX Leveraging Transit for City Shaping

ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA

Urban Planning and Land Use

Mobility Hub Guidelines: Tools for Achieving Successful Station Areas

Dyersville Downtown Plan. Open House October 24, 2017

NORTH CLAYMONT AREA MASTER PLAN COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #1 FEBRUARY 3, 2016

ITEM #8. Regional Smart Growth Program. Regional Smart Growth Program. Presentation Overview. Coast Highway Vision and Stategic Plan.

WELCOME and introduction

South Central Connecticut Region Plan of Conservation & Development 2018 Update. Municipal Planners

CITY OF UNION CITY MINUTES GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE

PLAN ELEMENTS WORKSHOP. April 5, 2016

Implementation Guide Comprehensive Plan City of Allen

Request for Proposals: Architectural/Design Guidelines

SCARBOROUGH SUBWAY EXTENSION. Scarborough Subway Extension. Final Terms of Reference

Rio/29 Future Land Use Alternatives. Rio/29 Small Area Plan Phase 1 December 12, 2016

D-O LRT Zoning Discussion. Chapel Hill Boards & Commissions October 16, 2017

UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY 2012 Campus Plan Update. Ross Tarrant Architects

CHAPTER 3 VISION, GOALS, & PLANNING PRINCIPLES. City of Greensburg Comprehensive Plan. Introduction. Vision Statement. Growth Management Goals.

Planning for TOD Implementation at a Corridor Scale

SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN. Planning Commission Study Session August 18, 2016

Comprehensive Plan & Station Area Zoning

Por favor, levanten la mano si necesita traduccion en espanol Please raise your hand if you need Spanish translation

Draft Bergamot Area Plan

Welcome. Walk Around. Talk to Us. Write Down Your Comments

Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG)

Transcription:

Connecting Key Activity Centers with High Quality Bus Service Lessons Learned from the DC Circulator Transit Development Plan April 15, 2011 1

DC Circulator Transit Development Plan Ten-year plan for development of the existing DC Circulator bus system Six-month effort, draft to be presented to DC City Council Study performed under contract to DC Surface Transit, Inc. (DCST) with direction from DDOT, with significant input from key players Evolution of the Existing DC Circulator System 2

Key Elements of Circulator-Type Bus Service All day high-frequency (ten minute headways or less) Limited stops Addresses multiple trip purposes employment, school, shopping, entertainment Connects Activity Centers not the internal last mile shuttle Complements existing transit options Simple, understandable routes and fares 3

Planning Process Stakeholder Interviews Define Goals and Objectives Review Existing Land Use, Transit, and Other Plans Define Activity Center Develop Characteristics of Activity Centers Develop Potential Connections Review Existing Transit Infrastructure Develop List of Proposed Corridors Evaluate Proposed Corridors 4

Initiating the Process Stakeholder Interviews: One-on-one interviews with key senior staff at stakeholder agencies and organizations Provided input on original objectives for Circulator, understanding of its role Provided input on needs and vision for future development of the Circulator Define Goals and Objectives: Developed with core technical team Vetted with broader group including outside agencies Review Existing Land Use, Transit, and Other Plans 5

Goals and Select Objectives GOAL 1: Provide a high quality transit network 1.1 Provide efficient, reliable, limited-stop, and high frequency service. 1.3 Design and maintain the system so that it is easy to use and understand. GOAL 2: Maximize financial and operational return on investment. 2.2 Maximize the level of service that can be provided with the financial resources available GOAL 3: Promote economic activity in existing and developing activity centers and support a transit-oriented lifestyle. 3.1 Connect multi-use activity centers that demonstrate significant demand for transit throughout the day. 3.2 Complement existing transit options and link to other non-auto transportation modes. GOAL 4: Improve mobility within and access to and from the monumental core. 4.1 Provide transit options between the monumental core and existing activity centers throughout the District. 4.2 Provide transit choices between key visitor destinations. 6

Define Activity Center Center City Action Agenda Priority Places Comprehensive Plan designations Regional Centers Existing and Enhanced/New Multi-Neighborhood Centers Land Use Change Areas with timely and sizable change Built out by 2020, 1 million sq. ft., & a mix of uses Main Street Mixed-Use Corridors Connected to another intense land use and/or a large, mixeduse, and all-hours center 7

Develop Characteristics of Activity Centers Primary Land Use Population and Employment 2010 2015 2020 Activity Center Size by 2020 Numbers Central Washington: 414,000 Large: 40,000 and above Medium: 20,000 to 39,999 Small: 5,000 to 19,999 Retail/entertainment/dining uses Institutional uses Planned development Type Square footage Estimated Timing of Development at Activity Center Near-term: Existing or by 2013 Mid-term: 2014 to 2016 Long-term: 2017 to 2020 8

Develop Potential Connections Input from Technical Advisory Committee Concepts from previous studies and stakeholder interviews On-line survey input Conceptual corridors presented in public workshops Input from Community Advisory Panel Corridor Development Exercise with Community Advisory Panel 9

Review Existing Transit Infrastructure Central Washington National Mall NoMa/FL-NY Ave Gateway Shaw/ Howard U Town Ctr/ 14 th & U P1,2,6: 10 peak,<15 off peak, late,wknd; 52,53,54: <10 peak and off-peak, ; 32,36: <10 peak, < 20 off-peak, late, wknd National Mall - E-W X2: <10 peak and off-peak, 80: <10 peak, 15 off-peak, D4: <20 peak, 30 off-peak, P1,2,6: 10 peak; <15 off peak; late; wknd D6: 10 peak, <25 off-peak, P1,2,6: 10 peak; <15 off peak; late; wknd NoMa/FL-NY Ave Gateway - - WAM, N-S 52,53,54: <10 peak and offpeak; S1,2,4: <10 peak and offpeak 64: 12 peak, 20 off-peak, 52,53,54: <10 peak and offpeak; 70,71, 79:<10 peak, <15 off-peak, late; wknd 90,92,93: <10 peak; <10 off-peak; late; wknd Adams Morgan Columbia Heights Mt. Vernon Square WAM 42: <10 peak, 10 off-peak, L2: <15 peak, 30 off-peak, X 90,92,93: <10 peak,<10 offpeak, late,wknd WAM 52,53,54: <10 peak and offpeak; S1,2,4: <10 peak and offpeak 52,53,54: <10 peak and offpeak; X N-S, E-W P1,2,6: 10 peak, <15 off peak, late wknd; X2: <10 peak and off-peak, late, wknd; 80: <10 peak, 15 offpeak, ; D4: <20 peak, 30 off-peak, late, wknd P1,2,6: 10 peak; <15 off peak; late; wknd 70,71, 79:<10 peak, <15 off-peak, late; wknd E-W X2: <10 peak and off-peak, 80: <10 peak, 15 off-peak, D4: <20 peak, 30 off-peak, P1,2,6: 10 peak; <15 off peak; late; wknd KEY Circulator Connections: Only shown for connections with no transfer required. Metro Connections: Only shown for connections with no transfer required. Buses: only all-day bus routes with no transfer included. : Walkable for some parts of the Activity Centers (up to approximately ½ mile) -: Connection shown on other axis. X: No direct Circulator connection, direct Metrorail connection, all-day bus service available. 10

Develop List of Proposed Corridors Remove redundant corridors (eliminate corridors with existing high-frequency service) Consolidate similar corridor concepts Evaluate in terms of connectivity (between Circulator corridors and other transit) Evaluate against Goals and Objectives 11

2.1: Connect multiuse activity centers 2.2: Complement existing transit options 2.3: Provide connections to ease Metrorail core capacity constraints 2.6: Provide service that addresses multiple trip purposes 3.1: Provide transit options between the monumental core and existing activity 3.2: Provide transit choices between key visitor destinations. Evaluate Proposed Corridors Adams Morgan U Street/Howard U/Shaw NoMa (and Union Station) H St/Starburst Dupont National Mall (WWII Memorial) SW Waterfront Eastern Market (Pennsylvania Ave SE) Capitol Riverfront Anacostia Skyland possible extension to Minnesota Ave Metro NPS Route, North Mall: Union Station Smithsonian (via Madison Dr) Lincoln Memorial Foggy Bottom-Georgetown NPS Route, South Mall: Union Station Capitol Smithsonian (via Jefferson Dr) Arlington Cemetery St. Elizabeths/Congress Heights Poplar Point Anacostia PA Ave SE/Barracks Row- H St. NE Tenleytown-Van Ness-Adams Morgan-Columbia Heights- GA Ave/Petworth-Brookland/Hospital Ctr Navy Yard to SW Waterfront (as an extension to another corridor)** Extend Rosslyn-Georgetown-Dupont route to U Street Extend Union Station Navy Yard Route to NoMa Key: Supports Mostly Supports Only Partially Supports Does Not Support 12

Final Recommended Corridors 13

Prioritization/ Phasing of Corridors Based on DDOT priorities (NPS Mall routes) and scoring from corridor analysis, where corridors were reviewed against Circulator objectives. 14

Lessons Learned (about the Process) Obtain buy-in from all stakeholders on objectives early in the process Get elected officials involved early and often Not all corridors need this type of bus service Everyone wants a Circulator - Good planning process explains recommendations and helps justify decisions Two-way communication important with extensive public outreach process 15

Applicability in a Suburban Environment Differences in terms of distances between Activity Centers Fewer locations have all-day intensity of activities Pedestrian access greater distances, limited connections Smaller size activity centers As suburban land use planning increasingly supports development of larger and more intensive activity centers, this shift would be supported by development of Circulator-type bus service. 16