crcog n th t c id st dcrcog northwest corridor study ...€¦ · 236 3,336 across market st. 2,419...

CRCOG N th t C id St dCRCOG Northwest Corridor StudyDowntown Circulation and Union Station Findings and Recommendations

Steering Committee MeetingMay 12, 2009, 10 AM

Agenda

1. Welcome and Introductions

2 Overview of Study Objectives and Existing Conditions:2. Overview of Study Objectives and Existing Conditions:

Union Station

Downtown Circulation

3. Review Transit Center Alternatives and Recommendations3. Review Transit Center Alternatives and Recommendations

4. Review of Union Station Findings and Recommendations

5. Discussion

6. Next Steps6 e t Steps

2

Study ChallengesHow can we make the How can we make the existing bus services and new bus services work better for:

PassengersConnecticut TransitDowntown trafficD t b i Downtown businesses and residents

Can a bus transit center help?Can we make better use of historic Union Station?

Public Workshop for Union Station and

Downtown Bus Stops and Routes, June 18, 2008

Why are we looking at Union Station?

I U i St ti t t ti h b Improve Union Station as a transportation hub and destination

Improve operations for existing servicesImprove operations for existing servicesAddition of busway and commuter railEncourage joint developmentg j pInvestigate Union Station for transit buses

Union Station Current Condition

Current UsesOffices and retail activityIntercity bus terminalIntercity bus terminalAmtrak station

Public Workshop for Union Station and Downtown Bus Stops and Routes, June 18, 2008

Union Station Challenges and Opportunities

I t hi l i l tiImprove current vehicular circulationAccommodate taxis Short term parkingShort term parkingPedestrian and bicycle access

Improve Station User experiencep pInsure Ability to

Be focal point for some or all of city busesAccommodate new bus rapid transitAccommodate commuter rail service

I h i l diti f t tImprove physical condition of structure


Building Condition

Structure good shape (except Amtrak trestle) Structure – good shape (except Amtrak trestle) Mechanicals – boilers, chillers, water heater, piping need replacingIntercity bus loading area: Intercity bus loading area:

Pavement needs repairDrainage problemsg p

Transportation Center: Update and Renovate; Roof Drainage IssuesEnergy improvements

WindowsLighting

Utilization of space:Inaccessible space on second floorGreat Hall underutilized

Existing and Future Conditions: Downtown Circulation

Current downtown transit services Through routesTerminating routesTerminating routes

Current downtown ridership:Where are riders destined?Where are riders destined?How many transferWhat are the key downtown connections and destinations

Future busway routes, ridership, and transfers

Wh t k h t d ’t?What works, what doesn’t?Could a transit center help?

8

Downtown PM Peak Period Bus Trips

48705

eet

t Marke

t Stre

Asylum Street

275

10

Main

Stre

etM

13 6610


Findings: Transfers

Est. 16,900 daily local bus boardings in the study area14,774 at just a few stops on Main, Market and Central Rowj p

Est.11,238 daily transfers to local buses in and around downtown10,326 on Main, Market and Central Row

70% of Main Street area local bus boardings are transfersThere are also about 1,280 through riders on seven through routes

Only about 9% of commuter bus boardings are transfers

10

Daily Estimated Downtown Local Bus Transfer Movements

Old State House2,044

Market Street1,667

(49)3 275

(1,027)

3 336

3,275across

Main St.

Main Street(Pearl to Gold)

236

3,336across

Market St.2,419across

Central Row(Pearl to Gold)2,929 Travelers

2,188765

844

(1,196)(161)

Central Row

Atheneum440

876440 Transfer Boardings 000Transfers Between Stops 000Transfers Within Stops (000)

11

Findings: Through routes

Many more riders transfer than travel through

Major through routes (A, K, Q, T) seem to make sense

Some through routes (N, U and W) have few through riders

Through routing helps keep operating costs downThrough-routing helps keep operating costs down

No need for overlap between north and south routesNo need to turn buses around on side streets in the downtownNo need to turn buses around on side streets in the downtown

12

Findings: Key Downtown Nodes and Connections

NodesMain Street remains an important destination

M i St t/A l i t id f d t l tMain Street/Asylum is centroid of downtown employmentOther important nodes:

Asylum Hill employersAsylum Hill employersCapitol Ave. Government officesDowntown residentialEntertainment district/Union Station areaConvention Center Area

13

Findings: Key Downtown Nodes and Connections

ConnectionsMaintain through connectionsStrengthen connections to west side of downtownStrengthen connections to east side of downtown (including convention center)Maintain commuter services to the downtownMaintain Star Shuttle service for visitor marketProvide a pathway for busway vehicles - Union Stn. to Main St.

14

Current Service – Peak Hour Local and Commuter Bus Volumes

North-South Through RoutesNorth or South Terminating Routes

34 / 47

MarketAsylum

East Terminating RoutesWest Terminating RoutesPM Commuter Routes

31

34 / 47

31

StatePearlPM Peak Hour Bus Volumes(for each side of the street)

0000

2031

2025

029

032

41 / 82

332

019

Main

(for each side of the street)

41 / 382112

32

12

Busway Service and Transfer Assumptions

29 peak hour buses Local and busway only (19)

3 000 daily riders destined to downtown3,000 daily riders destined to downtownAssume same transfer rate as local bus routes (~70%)Assume riders will transfer to other routes like K, P, Q, and W ridersApprox. 2,000 transfers to and 2,000 transfers from local busway servicesRoutes should make transfer connections like local bus routes

Express commute (10)From Bristol, Cheshire, Meriden and Waterbury

f ( )Assume riders will transfer like commuter bus riders (almost none)Should serve downtown like commuter routes and serve Asylum Hill

16

Downtown Stops and Routes: Conclusions

Hi h t f tHigh transfer rateMost other passengers destined for Main Streetdestined for Main StreetTight curb space for buses on Main Streeton Main StreetCrowded sidewalks with people waiting for buses p p gMany bus stops don’t have sheltersConflicts between vehicle traffic and transferring passengers

Findings: What a Transit Center Can Do

Provide a better environment for transferring passengersSafe – no need to cross streetDry more shelters and/or a waiting roomDry – more shelters and/or a waiting roomConvenient – rest rooms and concessionsInformative - Schedule and bus arrival information

Move waiting passengers away from downtown businessesImproved perception of downtown area

Eliminate bus layover time on downtown streetsNo more vehicles idling on streetsL t t d d t d t bLess on-street space needed to accommodate buses

Provide a better quality of serviceMore layover space available to improve on time performanceMore layover space available to improve on-time performance

18

Possible Transit Center Sites

Park & Main

Possible Transit Center SitesUnder Consideration

Not Available

Not Feasible Park & Main

19

Strategy for Improving Downtown Service

Maintain stop on all routes at or near the central area of Main StProvide a transit centerI t f ti / iti f t f t id th Improve transfer connections/amenities for transfers outside the transit centerMinimize the number of transfers at unimproved facilitiesMinimize the number of transfers at unimproved facilitiesReduce the overall number of transfers with through-routing (Maximize through routing)Expand service to the west side of downtown as well as Union StationC id i f i t f M i St t t d l t Consider expansion of service east of Main Street to developments along Columbus Boulevard

20

Alternative 1 – Peak Hour Local and Commuter Bus Volumes28 7 / 2028

North-South Through RoutesEast-Southwest Routes

7 / 20

57

29

31

West RoutesPM Commuter Routes (including busway express)57 / 70

21

192045

3122

2752

025

57 / 91

210

0000

PM Peak Hour Bus Volumes(for each side of the street)

57

10

27 / 333125

1812

230

325

CRCOG Northwest Corridor Transit Study Task 3Downtown Circulation Steering Committee October 20, 2008

30

Alternative 2 – Peak Hour Local and Commuter Bus Volumes27 7 / 20

North-South RoutesEast-West Routes

27

10

7 / 20

Busway Local RoutesPM Commuter Routes (including busway express)

53

29

10

37 21 53 / 47

19

0 / 19029

2045

3728

054

210

2954

82 / 68350

0000


4

49 / 34

1610

0 / 25

0

230

10


30

Alternative 3 – Peak Hour Local and Commuter Bus Volumes

7 / 2028


7 / 20

20

28

Busway Local RoutesPM Commuter Routes (including busway express)2344 32 / 45

46 44 1546

0000


19

55 / 70

071250

0

048

04637

025

0 / 25

0

1610

55 / 36

30 2


Alternative 4 – Peak Hour Local and Commuter Bus Volumes 27 8/ 2127

North-South RoutesEast-West Routes20

8/ 21

27

19Other Through RoutesBusway Local RoutesPM Commuter routes

100

0/ 61 80 / 02141

2746

0 / 32

19

(including busway express)

0000


0

2045

4132

41 / 75

8086

025

41

00 (for each side of the street)

2115

0 / 6

230


30

Downtown Circulation Alternatives

Alternative 1 – Through-route most services and develop a transit center on the southwest side of downtown East and North routes center on the southwest side of downtown. East and North routes serve stops near main street before continuing to the transit center where they would be through-routed to the West and South routes.

Alternative 2 –Through-route most services and develop a transit t th th t id f d t E t d S th t center on the northwest side of downtown. East and South routes

serve stops near Main street before continuing to the transit center where they would be through-routed to the West and North routes. y g

25

Additional Downtown Circulation Alternatives

Alternative 3 – Spread bus layovers among three smaller transit centers with each route serving two of the centers so that all centers with each route serving two of the centers so that all transfer connections can be made

Alternative 4 – Minimize added travel time and mileage by maintaining a centrally located transfer point and developing an on-t t t it t t f M i St tstreet transit center east of Main Street

26

Advantages of All Alternatives

All Alternatives…Include improved transfer facilitiesMove a sizeable majority of transfers into a Transit CenterMove a sizeable majority of transfers into a Transit CenterHave all routes serving a transit centerHave all routes serving a downtown stop on or near Main Streetg pMinimize the number of transfers across the streetMinimize bus volumes through increased through-routing

27

Evaluation of Alternatives

Effective use of Transit CenterEffective use of Transit CenterUtilization of Transit CentersCapital costCapacity/quality of Center

Efficiency and Effectiveness of ServiceThrough and Transferring RidersThrough and Transferring RidersRiders into DowntownRiders Within DowntownO ti C tOperating Costs

Traffic ImpactsTraffic Issues and Circulation Changes NeededgBus volumes

28

Evaluation of Alternatives

Alt. 1(Main St.)

Alt. 2(Union Station)

Alt. 3(3 Centers)

Alt. 4(East Side)

Utilization of Transit Centers o + ++ ++Through & Transferring Riders - ++ o oRiders into Downtown - o - - +Riders within Downtown - + - +B V lBus Volumes o - - - -Traffic Issues & Circulation Changes + - - - oOperating Costs + o +Operating Costs - + o +Capital Cost o o - +Capacity/Quality of Transit Centers + + o -Capacity/Quality of Transit Centers + + o

29

Preferred Alternative: 2

Alternative 2 –Through-route most services and develop a transit center on the northwest side of downtown. East and South routes serve stops near Main street before continuing to the transit center serve stops near Main street before continuing to the transit center where they would be through-routed to the West and North routes.

30

Preferred Alternative: Possible Transit Center Sites

Possible Transit Center Sites

Under Consideration

31

Alternative 2 – Peak Hour Local and Commuter Bus VolumesJunk27 7 / 20


27

10

7 / 20

Busway Local RoutesPM Commuter Routes (including busway express)

53

29

10

37 21 53 / 47

19

0 / 19029

2045

3728

054

210

2954

82 / 68350

0000


4

49 / 34

1610

0 / 25

0

230

10

30

Alternative 2 – Transit Center Needs

AccessAccessHighest volumes to/from Church Street

Some could approach via Asylum/High for High Street sitesHi h h l f S /M tl St t High approach volumes from Spruce/Myrtle Streets North routes would be diverted from Main Street

via High for High Street sitespossibly via Edwards for Spruce Street sites (except K)

East routes would approach from Ford Streetvia High for High Street sitesvia High/Church or Asylum/Spruce for Spruce Street sites

Capacity135 local buses (including busway) in peak hour135 local buses (including busway) in peak hour11-16 bays for local service (most through-routed)3 bays for busway (non-terminating) – 1 for IB unloading, 2 for OB loadingAssuming no commuter buses or busway express

33

Minimum Transit Center Needs

14 to 19 bus bays3 minimum for bus rapid transit11 minimum for local bus11 minimum for local bus

Climate Controlled waiting spaceRectangular space most efficientRectangular space most efficient

Transit Center – Bridgeport, CT

Transit Center – Bridgeport, CT

• Downtown• 17bus bays 17bus bays • 10,000 sf building• 3,000 sf waiting area• Pedestrian bridge

connecting to Metro North platformplatform

• Owned by the City of Bridgeport

• Managed (under lease) by Greater Bridgeport Transit

Overview of Site Locations—5 basic locations

Option B1— Union Place/Allyn Transit Only (sawtoothed bays)

Option B2— Union Place/Allyn Transit Only—Straight Curb

Option D2— Spruce On Street with Sawtoothed Bays

Option D3— Spruce On Street with Straight Curb

Option D1– Spruce Street Off-Street Transit Center

Option A1— SE High Street with Garage Above Center

Option E1— SW High Street Ground Level with Garage Above Center

Option C1– Cul de Sac Transit Center with Garage

Evaluation of Sites

Union Place On Street:Closes Union and block of Allyn to general trafficSawtooth creates long distance between busesSawtooth creates long distance between busesIn line layout creates operational difficulties and customer confusion

Spruce Street On StreetSpruce Street On StreetSawtooth creates long distance between usesIn line layout creates operational difficulties and customer confusionWill affect traffic on Spruce

Spruce Street Lot:N t h t d t tiNot enough space to accommodate articsNo ability to provide garage aboveWill affect traffic on SpruceWill affect traffic on Spruce

47

Evaluation of Sites

Church and High – SE Corner:Central between downtown and Union stationMultiple entrances and exits onto Church and AllynMultiple entrances and exits onto Church and AllynCould accommodate parking garage aboveLimited ability to expandy p

Church and High – SW Corner:Similar issues as SE corner, plus constrained site

North of Church:Plenty of space for current needs and expansionF t ffi i tFewer traffic impactsCould accommodate parking garage aboveIsolated further from downtownIsolated, further from downtown

48

Selected Transit Center Location

Future Traffic Analysis - Assumptions

Design analysis year = 2017Evaluated worst case scenarioDevelopments on Spruce Street lot and Capital West siteDevelopments on Spruce Street lot and Capital West siteTransit Center in Hartford Insurance lot off Spruce StreetBRT in operationpNew Haven-Hartford-Springfield Commuter in operationNo major change to street system

Traffic Evaluation of North of Church Location

Slight deterioration at several intersections, as compared to No Build:

Asylum and Spruce Street:Asylum and Spruce Street:Eastbound leftSouthbound through right

Church Street/Myrtle and Spruce:Northbound, through leftSouthbound left-through-rightSouthbound, left-through-right

Church and Union PlaceSouthbound, left-through-right

Intersection Operation Issues

Bringing it Together: the Union Station Intermodal Complex

Design FeaturesSafetyC iConvenienceOperational Functionality

Intercity BusbaysIntercity BusbaysTaxi standShortterm parkingShortterm parkingAccess: vehicle, ped, bike

Support as a “Great Place”pp


Design Concept – Union Station

Summary of Traffic Issues

B /t i/ d t i ti t U i St tiBus/taxi/pedestrian operations at Union StationPossible intersection improvementsPedestrian safetyPedestrian safety

Next Steps for Transit Center

Feasibility StudyProgramming of space needsRefine site selection processRefine site selection processNEPAConcept Designp gPreliminary Cost Estimate

DesignConstruction

Next Steps for Union Station

Shortterm RepairsArchitectural Study

Programming of space needsProgramming of space needsNEPAConcept DesignConcept DesignPreliminary Cost Estimate

DesignConstruction

Next Steps for Study

Public Meeting: May 26 2009Public Meeting: May 26, 2009Hartford Public Library, 6 PM

Completion of Reports: June 30, 2009p p ,Integration of Study Recommendations into CRCOG LRP: September 2009Implementation

Alternative 2 – Initial Evaluation

Ad t DisadvantagesAdvantagesHigh number of transfers in Transit CenterFew transfers crossing streets

DisadvantagesHigh bus volumes on Church StreetPoor connection between east and north ro tes ( ia Union Station)Relatively low increase in operating costs

Good connection between busway and both north and west routes

routes (via Union Station)Increased local bus service on Central Row could affect commuter bus operationsModerately difficult transit center sitesGood connection between west and north

routesIncreased access to the east sideI d t U i St ti f

Moderately difficult transit center sitesTransit center sites may lack capacity and may need to be combinedTraffic modifications (contra-flow lanes) Increased access to Union Station from

all corridorsTraffic modifications (contra flow lanes) needed on High Street


crcog n th t c id st dcrcog northwest corridor study ...€¦ · 236 3,336 across market st. 2,419...

Documents