GoRaleigh Bus System, now and the future

keita · December 31, 2019, 2:09am

I wonder if we need to have more of a presence as a community in the Regional Transportation Alliance? …since I found this interesting proposal that came seemingly from nowhere:

http://letsgetmoving.org/priorities/a-study-to-accelerate-the-creation-of-a-regional-freeway-and-street-based-transit-fast-network/

It’s a Request for Proposals (in this case, a request for bids from consultants to be a run this study) to envision road upgrades plus a “rapid, frequent, reliable, and easy-to-use bus service” throughout the Triangle.

It’s not a replacement for the existing BRT projects or commuter rail. Instead, it sounds like the RTA wants to see if it’s possible to have the best of both worlds:

mostly using the sprawling, endless roads we already have like “infrequent buses”, but;
having the frequent and reliable service of BRT/light rail/trains

This study actually sounds pretty well-defined, instead of trying to do 200 things at once! The goals are:

It’s a pretty dense and detailed document, so I went ahead and pulled text that y’all will probably find interesting. You’re welcome lol:

More about Objective 1

Study Objectives and Required Deliverables - bracketed context mine:

Requirements and Deliverables

[…]

[Choose] at least four horizon years [to describe how the FAST network could grow over time]:

2025 or 2027 (i.e., coincident with the opening of multiple BRT lines).

2030

2035 and 2045 (i.e., coincident with MTP horizon years)

If additional horizon years are chosen, those are at the discretion of the study team

[Define] minimum operational standards for high-frequency, reliable service across the FAST network

[Connect] all five approved BRT routes together and directly serve Raleigh-Durham International Airport, Research Triangle Park (at Hub RTP), and Downtown Durham. Note that the five planned BRT routes will directly serve Downtown Raleigh, Cary, and Chapel Hill.

[…]

Guidance, Encouragements, and Other Considerations

Other than what is listed in the requirements listed above, there are no particular freeways or other roadways, nor is there a required transit route or destination, that must be included in the networks – we are looking for creative solutions from the study team

[…]

More about Objective 2

Study Objectives and Required Deliverables - bracketed context mine / minor format changes for easier reading:

Requirements and Deliverables

example suite of investments and strategies that will:

help make our freeways and other roadways “transit ready,”

transform [Triangle roads/highways] into multimodal freeways and arterials, and thereby;

support the creation and expansion of a regional FAST network, and […]

institutionalize a transit focus throughout transportation corridor planning, design, and construction.

menu of […] feasible strategies, as well as specific example investments along key […] corridors.

Examples could include specific locations of all-day or part-time dedicated or priority “RED” transit lanes.

[weigh pros and cons for] temporary or permanent direct linkages – potentially restricted to transit only – between the illustrative FAST corridors and area freeways.[…]

[Reminder 1:] DCHC MPO is currently planning for the potential of the Clayton to Morrisville BRT to expand to Durham County along NC 147

[Reminder 2:] Chapel Hill Transit is looking at potential expansion of service to Pittsboro in Chatham County.

Detailed transit route analysis [I think this means ridership studies etc.?] is not required.

[…]

consider and describe potential funding mechanisms for at least some of their recommendations – some may not require new funding at all, while others may have greater or lesser degrees of viability from federal/state/other funding sources

[…]

weigh the degree to which recommendations maintain their “transit advantage” or travel time savings as time moves forward and congestion levels increase.

While the study has a bias for scalability, this bias should not preclude appropriate consideration of higher-cost projects that can retain travel time and reliability advantages over time.

incorporate a few example concepts (not design) for freeway- and major arterial-adjacent stations that speak to transit advantages and maintaining rapid, frequent, and reliable service

provide […] specific examples[,] guidance[,] and strategies for retrofitting transit advantages in constrained environments, along with tradeoffs for same […] recognizing that one bus in traffic represents 35 or more commuters, not just one:

rightof-way constraints

context sensitivity implications

recommendations [to mitigate those risks] to the degree practical.

Guidance, Encouragements, and Other Considerations

This study is more than a brainstorming session but less than final design.

Given the focus on scalability, speed of implementation, and cost effectiveness (“bang for the buck”), recommendations that are of a pilot or “tactical urbanism” nature are encouraged – that is, pilot projects that can demonstrate transit advantage quickly and cost-effectively.

[…]

This study shall not make recommendations on transit shelters, station design, or similar, unless needed to successfully complete the study purpose.

Here’s what is (NOT) being asked of this study:

So what's required, exactly???

Study Requirements and Elements of viable FAST network - bracketed context mine:

Note that regional FAST networks do not require a minimum percentage (or any) dedicated lanes.

[Specific features] pertaining to study objective 1

Minimum frequency and span

Minimum stop/station spacing

Simplified route naming and branding […] required and distinct from local, non-frequent service

[Specific features] pertaining to study objective 2

Transit advantages at station: At a minimum, near-level boarding design and approval by NCDOT/municipalities

Transit advantages along corridor: At a minimum, transit signal priority (TSP), BOSS including at on-ramp signals

Optional elements […] pertaining to study objective 2

Transit advantages along corridor: Examples include queue jumps, dedicated lanes, express
shoulders, etc.

[Other] expected elements […], but not the focus of this study

Real-time information: all buses trackable […] using TransLoc, Transit, or similar apps

Station enhancements: shelters at all stations, route and schedule information at all stations

Transit advantages at station: near-level boarding pad, off-board fare collection

Vehicle branding: required and distinct from local, non-frequent service

Vehicle propulsion: electric, compressed natural gas, or hydrogen fuel cell by 2027

[…]

This is a guidance and strategy document, rather than a plan, so public outreach will be limited.

However, the study team should assume a 30 day public response period for draft findings, followed by sufficient time and resources to modify the deliverables based on those comments.

[…]

RFP response deadline: January 23, 2020, by 4 p.m.

Maybe it’s just me, but out of all the other transit projects we like to complain about on here, I found this RFP to be the best-written and easiest-to-read/analyze.

My gut says we won’t find out about the results of this competition until next March or so, but it’ll be cool to keep an eye on this initiative!