Unfortunately, this book can't be printed from the OpenBook.If you need to print pages from this book, we recommend downloading it as a PDF.
Visit /10766 to get more information about this book, to buy it in print, or to download it as a free PDF.
Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Used Bmw X5 For Sale Right Now
Contents OVERVIEW What you need to know first Section 1: Overview page 1.1 Introduction 1-1 1.2 What s Transit Project Success? 1-3 1.3 TCRP Project H-42 Research Summary 1-5 METHOD Using indicator- based methods to predict success Section 2: The Indicator-Based Method 2.1 Goals of the Indicator-Based Method 1-6 2.2 Previous Applications of Indicator-Based Methods 1-6 2.3 Ridership as a Proxy for Project Benefits 1-14 2.4 Research Findings: Indicators of Potential Ridership 1-16 2.5 Ridership Indicators Database 1-20 2.6 Spreadsheet Tool 1-20 SPREADSHEET How to use this tool Section 3: Using the Spreadsheet Tool 3.1 Quick-Start Guide 1-23 3.2 Inputs: Line-by-Line Instructions and Tips on Data Sources 1-25 3.3 Outputs: Results and What They Mean 1-33 3.4 Using the Tool to Compare Scenarios 1-37 FACTORS Have you considered... Section 4: Other Factors 4.1 Other Factors Affecting Ridership 1-38 4.2 Other Goals Beyond Ridership and Capital Cost 1-39 NEXT What to do next Section 5: What Next? 5.1 Examining Expectations in Light of Fixed-Guideway Success Indicators 1-40 5.2 Conducting a More Detailed Study 1-40 5.3 Overview of Funding Options for Fixed-Guideway Transit 1-43 References 1-44 Abbreviations and Acronyms 1-45 Appendix: Summary of the TCRP Project H-42 Database 1-46
Making Effective Fixed-Guideway Transit Investments: Indicators of Success Volume 1, Handbook 1-1 SECTION 1 Overview 1.1 Introduction Fixed-guideway transit projects, such as urban rail and bus rapid transit (BRT) with dedicated lanes, can be among the largest infrastructure investments that cities and metropolitan areas face. The capital costs of these projects can range from tens of millions of dollars to several billion dollars. The operat- ing and maintenance costs over many years can be substantial as well. Thus, decisions on whether to build a fixed-guideway transit system and what type of system to build are not taken lightly by local officials or their funding part- ners. Such decisions may follow many years of planning and analysis at the system, corridor, and project levels. Developing and applying the analysis tools that are typically used to evaluate alternative investments can cost mil- lions of dollars. This handbook is a product of Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Project H-42, which sought to • Identify conditions and characteristics typically associated with suc- cessful fixed-guideway transit system investments, and • Provide guidance on evaluating proposed investments based on these conditions and characteristics. This handbook offers an analytical framework and a set of tools to determine whether a corridor may be suitable for investment in a fixed-guideway transit system. This handbook • Offers examples of indicator-based methods applied in transit plan- ning studies; • Identifies those factors that, when present in a corridor, seem to be the strongest indicators of a project’s potential success; and • Introduces and provides guidance on a spreadsheet tool to apply the indicator method. Is your proposed transit project likely to be successful? Can you know before investing time and money into detailed studies? This handbook and accompanying spreadsheet tool will help you evaluate whether the conditions in your corridor are right for a successful fixed-guideway project.
Transit Cooperative Research Program1-2 NEXTOVERVIEW METHOD SPREADSHEET OTHER FACTORS This handbook is intended to be useful to city, county, and regional decision- makers as well as transportation planning practitioners who are interested in conducting an initial assessment to determine whether a proposed transit project has potential, to evaluate a range of alternative fixed-guideway tran- sit investments, or to compare different alignments for a proposed invest- ment. It will help provide answers, at a conceptual planning level, to such questions as: • Which corridors in our region offer the best opportunity for develop- ing fixed-guideway transit? • What alternative modes and alignments appear to be the most promising in a particular corridor? • How might changes to local land use and other policies affect a corri- dor’s potential for fixed-guideway transit? This handbook and the TCRP Project H-42 Report (see Volume 2) serve to up- date and extend research by Boris Pushkarev, Jeffrey Zupan, and R.S. Cumella in the late 1970s (1). Their 1982 book, Urban Rail in America, has been widely used as a guide for identifying the type of transit investment that might be appropriate in a corridor based on development density and other condi- tions (2). In the 30 years since Urban Rail in America was published, there have been dramatic changes in metropolitan area development patterns, the work force, economic conditions, and gasoline prices, as well as a renaissance in transit. The American Public Transportation Association (APTA) reports that there are now 27 commuter rail transit systems, 15 heavy rail transit (subway) and 35 light rail transit systems in the United States. In addition, bus rapid transit (BRT) has been adopted in several municipalities as a new alternative to traditional transit modes, allowing communities historically priced out of rail technology to develop cost-effective transit networks. As of 2013, APTA counts five fixed-guideway BRT systems in the United States. Since 1980, rid- ership on U.S. commuter rail, heavy rail, and light rail systems has grown from 2.52 million to 4.47 million trips per year, while passenger miles on these modes have grown from 17.5 million to 29.5 million (3). These systems offer considerable data that enable a more complete analysis of the determinants of project success, which can be instructive for the analysis and development of future transit investments. In addition, developments in research methods, more readily available land use and transportation data, and ubiquitous computing and geographical information system (GIS) technology have advanced our ability to analyze the effects of a host of different factors on transit performance. This research benefits from these advances. The methods offered in this handbook will not provide final answers on whether or not a community should invest in transit, or what type of transit to build. However, these tools can help local governments decide whether a proposed project merits investment in more detailed planning analyses. Transit systems built over the past several decades offer considerable data that can be used to evaluate a proposed project’s potential to be successful. The tools in this handbook will help you decide whether to invest in more detailed studies.
Dr. John Pitts, Md
NEXTOVERVIEW METHOD SPREADSHEET OTHER FACTORS 1.2 What Is Transit Project Success? A challenge in predicting the success of a fixed-guideway project is defining what “success†means. Project goals vary by region, by city, and by corridor, and can be broad and multi-faceted. Standards that might be used to clas- sify completed projects as highly successful, moderately successful, or unsuc- cessful simply do not exist. As a part of the research, a focus group and several interviewees—comprising transportation practitioners and academics—were asked to help define success, yielding a range of responses (see sidebar) but no definitive answer to the question, “What is success?†From an economics standpoint, a successful project is one whose benefits exceed its costs. Yet a full accounting of a transit project’s direct and indi- rect costs and benefits is analytically challenging. Many of the benefits and externalities—such as a transit project’s contribution to making a city more livable—are difficult to quantify or value in dollar terms. During the planning process, proposed fixed-guideway transit projects are often evaluated by comparing their costs and transportation benefits with those of lower-cost alternatives. Relative comparisons in terms of cost effec- tiveness can be more manageable because they do not depend on a full ac- counting of all costs and all benefits. For example, if the same level and qual- ity of transit service can be provided less expensively by bus than by rail, then Figure 1: Phoenix LRT Voters in Maricopa County showed their support for building a total transit network by approving regional transportation funding in 2004. As a result, in 2008 METRO began operation of the $1.4 billion, 20-mile light rail line in Phoenix, Tempe, and Mesa. In September 2012, there were 50, 000 boardings per weekday, exceeding the system’s 20-year ridership projection in less than 4 years. When asked how to determine the success of a fixed-guideway transit project, members of a focus group and other interviewees responded: “Corridors and projects are different. I suggest you look at a typology of corridors first, then look at measures of success.†“Circulators and line haul facilities, for example, have very different pur- poses.†“Success metrics ought to depend on the market and what you’re trying to do—not just the mode.†“Elected officials seem to care most about the number of riders.†“My agency would say they didn’t have any failures—our rail projects have all
Contents OVERVIEW What you need to know first Section 1: Overview page 1.1 Introduction 1-1 1.2 What s Transit Project Success? 1-3 1.3 TCRP Project H-42 Research Summary 1-5 METHOD Using indicator- based methods to predict success Section 2: The Indicator-Based Method 2.1 Goals of the Indicator-Based Method 1-6 2.2 Previous Applications of Indicator-Based Methods 1-6 2.3 Ridership as a Proxy for Project Benefits 1-14 2.4 Research Findings: Indicators of Potential Ridership 1-16 2.5 Ridership Indicators Database 1-20 2.6 Spreadsheet Tool 1-20 SPREADSHEET How to use this tool Section 3: Using the Spreadsheet Tool 3.1 Quick-Start Guide 1-23 3.2 Inputs: Line-by-Line Instructions and Tips on Data Sources 1-25 3.3 Outputs: Results and What They Mean 1-33 3.4 Using the Tool to Compare Scenarios 1-37 FACTORS Have you considered... Section 4: Other Factors 4.1 Other Factors Affecting Ridership 1-38 4.2 Other Goals Beyond Ridership and Capital Cost 1-39 NEXT What to do next Section 5: What Next? 5.1 Examining Expectations in Light of Fixed-Guideway Success Indicators 1-40 5.2 Conducting a More Detailed Study 1-40 5.3 Overview of Funding Options for Fixed-Guideway Transit 1-43 References 1-44 Abbreviations and Acronyms 1-45 Appendix: Summary of the TCRP Project H-42 Database 1-46
Making Effective Fixed-Guideway Transit Investments: Indicators of Success Volume 1, Handbook 1-1 SECTION 1 Overview 1.1 Introduction Fixed-guideway transit projects, such as urban rail and bus rapid transit (BRT) with dedicated lanes, can be among the largest infrastructure investments that cities and metropolitan areas face. The capital costs of these projects can range from tens of millions of dollars to several billion dollars. The operat- ing and maintenance costs over many years can be substantial as well. Thus, decisions on whether to build a fixed-guideway transit system and what type of system to build are not taken lightly by local officials or their funding part- ners. Such decisions may follow many years of planning and analysis at the system, corridor, and project levels. Developing and applying the analysis tools that are typically used to evaluate alternative investments can cost mil- lions of dollars. This handbook is a product of Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Project H-42, which sought to • Identify conditions and characteristics typically associated with suc- cessful fixed-guideway transit system investments, and • Provide guidance on evaluating proposed investments based on these conditions and characteristics. This handbook offers an analytical framework and a set of tools to determine whether a corridor may be suitable for investment in a fixed-guideway transit system. This handbook • Offers examples of indicator-based methods applied in transit plan- ning studies; • Identifies those factors that, when present in a corridor, seem to be the strongest indicators of a project’s potential success; and • Introduces and provides guidance on a spreadsheet tool to apply the indicator method. Is your proposed transit project likely to be successful? Can you know before investing time and money into detailed studies? This handbook and accompanying spreadsheet tool will help you evaluate whether the conditions in your corridor are right for a successful fixed-guideway project.
Transit Cooperative Research Program1-2 NEXTOVERVIEW METHOD SPREADSHEET OTHER FACTORS This handbook is intended to be useful to city, county, and regional decision- makers as well as transportation planning practitioners who are interested in conducting an initial assessment to determine whether a proposed transit project has potential, to evaluate a range of alternative fixed-guideway tran- sit investments, or to compare different alignments for a proposed invest- ment. It will help provide answers, at a conceptual planning level, to such questions as: • Which corridors in our region offer the best opportunity for develop- ing fixed-guideway transit? • What alternative modes and alignments appear to be the most promising in a particular corridor? • How might changes to local land use and other policies affect a corri- dor’s potential for fixed-guideway transit? This handbook and the TCRP Project H-42 Report (see Volume 2) serve to up- date and extend research by Boris Pushkarev, Jeffrey Zupan, and R.S. Cumella in the late 1970s (1). Their 1982 book, Urban Rail in America, has been widely used as a guide for identifying the type of transit investment that might be appropriate in a corridor based on development density and other condi- tions (2). In the 30 years since Urban Rail in America was published, there have been dramatic changes in metropolitan area development patterns, the work force, economic conditions, and gasoline prices, as well as a renaissance in transit. The American Public Transportation Association (APTA) reports that there are now 27 commuter rail transit systems, 15 heavy rail transit (subway) and 35 light rail transit systems in the United States. In addition, bus rapid transit (BRT) has been adopted in several municipalities as a new alternative to traditional transit modes, allowing communities historically priced out of rail technology to develop cost-effective transit networks. As of 2013, APTA counts five fixed-guideway BRT systems in the United States. Since 1980, rid- ership on U.S. commuter rail, heavy rail, and light rail systems has grown from 2.52 million to 4.47 million trips per year, while passenger miles on these modes have grown from 17.5 million to 29.5 million (3). These systems offer considerable data that enable a more complete analysis of the determinants of project success, which can be instructive for the analysis and development of future transit investments. In addition, developments in research methods, more readily available land use and transportation data, and ubiquitous computing and geographical information system (GIS) technology have advanced our ability to analyze the effects of a host of different factors on transit performance. This research benefits from these advances. The methods offered in this handbook will not provide final answers on whether or not a community should invest in transit, or what type of transit to build. However, these tools can help local governments decide whether a proposed project merits investment in more detailed planning analyses. Transit systems built over the past several decades offer considerable data that can be used to evaluate a proposed project’s potential to be successful. The tools in this handbook will help you decide whether to invest in more detailed studies.
Dr. John Pitts, Md
NEXTOVERVIEW METHOD SPREADSHEET OTHER FACTORS 1.2 What Is Transit Project Success? A challenge in predicting the success of a fixed-guideway project is defining what “success†means. Project goals vary by region, by city, and by corridor, and can be broad and multi-faceted. Standards that might be used to clas- sify completed projects as highly successful, moderately successful, or unsuc- cessful simply do not exist. As a part of the research, a focus group and several interviewees—comprising transportation practitioners and academics—were asked to help define success, yielding a range of responses (see sidebar) but no definitive answer to the question, “What is success?†From an economics standpoint, a successful project is one whose benefits exceed its costs. Yet a full accounting of a transit project’s direct and indi- rect costs and benefits is analytically challenging. Many of the benefits and externalities—such as a transit project’s contribution to making a city more livable—are difficult to quantify or value in dollar terms. During the planning process, proposed fixed-guideway transit projects are often evaluated by comparing their costs and transportation benefits with those of lower-cost alternatives. Relative comparisons in terms of cost effec- tiveness can be more manageable because they do not depend on a full ac- counting of all costs and all benefits. For example, if the same level and qual- ity of transit service can be provided less expensively by bus than by rail, then Figure 1: Phoenix LRT Voters in Maricopa County showed their support for building a total transit network by approving regional transportation funding in 2004. As a result, in 2008 METRO began operation of the $1.4 billion, 20-mile light rail line in Phoenix, Tempe, and Mesa. In September 2012, there were 50, 000 boardings per weekday, exceeding the system’s 20-year ridership projection in less than 4 years. When asked how to determine the success of a fixed-guideway transit project, members of a focus group and other interviewees responded: “Corridors and projects are different. I suggest you look at a typology of corridors first, then look at measures of success.†“Circulators and line haul facilities, for example, have very different pur- poses.†“Success metrics ought to depend on the market and what you’re trying to do—not just the mode.†“Elected officials seem to care most about the number of riders.†“My agency would say they didn’t have any failures—our rail projects have all
Contents OVERVIEW What you need to know first Section 1: Overview page 1.1 Introduction 1-1 1.2 What s Transit Project Success? 1-3 1.3 TCRP Project H-42 Research Summary 1-5 METHOD Using indicator- based methods to predict success Section 2: The Indicator-Based Method 2.1 Goals of the Indicator-Based Method 1-6 2.2 Previous Applications of Indicator-Based Methods 1-6 2.3 Ridership as a Proxy for Project Benefits 1-14 2.4 Research Findings: Indicators of Potential Ridership 1-16 2.5 Ridership Indicators Database 1-20 2.6 Spreadsheet Tool 1-20 SPREADSHEET How to use this tool Section 3: Using the Spreadsheet Tool 3.1 Quick-Start Guide 1-23 3.2 Inputs: Line-by-Line Instructions and Tips on Data Sources 1-25 3.3 Outputs: Results and What They Mean 1-33 3.4 Using the Tool to Compare Scenarios 1-37 FACTORS Have you considered... Section 4: Other Factors 4.1 Other Factors Affecting Ridership 1-38 4.2 Other Goals Beyond Ridership and Capital Cost 1-39 NEXT What to do next Section 5: What Next? 5.1 Examining Expectations in Light of Fixed-Guideway Success Indicators 1-40 5.2 Conducting a More Detailed Study 1-40 5.3 Overview of Funding Options for Fixed-Guideway Transit 1-43 References 1-44 Abbreviations and Acronyms 1-45 Appendix: Summary of the TCRP Project H-42 Database 1-46
Making Effective Fixed-Guideway Transit Investments: Indicators of Success Volume 1, Handbook 1-1 SECTION 1 Overview 1.1 Introduction Fixed-guideway transit projects, such as urban rail and bus rapid transit (BRT) with dedicated lanes, can be among the largest infrastructure investments that cities and metropolitan areas face. The capital costs of these projects can range from tens of millions of dollars to several billion dollars. The operat- ing and maintenance costs over many years can be substantial as well. Thus, decisions on whether to build a fixed-guideway transit system and what type of system to build are not taken lightly by local officials or their funding part- ners. Such decisions may follow many years of planning and analysis at the system, corridor, and project levels. Developing and applying the analysis tools that are typically used to evaluate alternative investments can cost mil- lions of dollars. This handbook is a product of Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Project H-42, which sought to • Identify conditions and characteristics typically associated with suc- cessful fixed-guideway transit system investments, and • Provide guidance on evaluating proposed investments based on these conditions and characteristics. This handbook offers an analytical framework and a set of tools to determine whether a corridor may be suitable for investment in a fixed-guideway transit system. This handbook • Offers examples of indicator-based methods applied in transit plan- ning studies; • Identifies those factors that, when present in a corridor, seem to be the strongest indicators of a project’s potential success; and • Introduces and provides guidance on a spreadsheet tool to apply the indicator method. Is your proposed transit project likely to be successful? Can you know before investing time and money into detailed studies? This handbook and accompanying spreadsheet tool will help you evaluate whether the conditions in your corridor are right for a successful fixed-guideway project.
Transit Cooperative Research Program1-2 NEXTOVERVIEW METHOD SPREADSHEET OTHER FACTORS This handbook is intended to be useful to city, county, and regional decision- makers as well as transportation planning practitioners who are interested in conducting an initial assessment to determine whether a proposed transit project has potential, to evaluate a range of alternative fixed-guideway tran- sit investments, or to compare different alignments for a proposed invest- ment. It will help provide answers, at a conceptual planning level, to such questions as: • Which corridors in our region offer the best opportunity for develop- ing fixed-guideway transit? • What alternative modes and alignments appear to be the most promising in a particular corridor? • How might changes to local land use and other policies affect a corri- dor’s potential for fixed-guideway transit? This handbook and the TCRP Project H-42 Report (see Volume 2) serve to up- date and extend research by Boris Pushkarev, Jeffrey Zupan, and R.S. Cumella in the late 1970s (1). Their 1982 book, Urban Rail in America, has been widely used as a guide for identifying the type of transit investment that might be appropriate in a corridor based on development density and other condi- tions (2). In the 30 years since Urban Rail in America was published, there have been dramatic changes in metropolitan area development patterns, the work force, economic conditions, and gasoline prices, as well as a renaissance in transit. The American Public Transportation Association (APTA) reports that there are now 27 commuter rail transit systems, 15 heavy rail transit (subway) and 35 light rail transit systems in the United States. In addition, bus rapid transit (BRT) has been adopted in several municipalities as a new alternative to traditional transit modes, allowing communities historically priced out of rail technology to develop cost-effective transit networks. As of 2013, APTA counts five fixed-guideway BRT systems in the United States. Since 1980, rid- ership on U.S. commuter rail, heavy rail, and light rail systems has grown from 2.52 million to 4.47 million trips per year, while passenger miles on these modes have grown from 17.5 million to 29.5 million (3). These systems offer considerable data that enable a more complete analysis of the determinants of project success, which can be instructive for the analysis and development of future transit investments. In addition, developments in research methods, more readily available land use and transportation data, and ubiquitous computing and geographical information system (GIS) technology have advanced our ability to analyze the effects of a host of different factors on transit performance. This research benefits from these advances. The methods offered in this handbook will not provide final answers on whether or not a community should invest in transit, or what type of transit to build. However, these tools can help local governments decide whether a proposed project merits investment in more detailed planning analyses. Transit systems built over the past several decades offer considerable data that can be used to evaluate a proposed project’s potential to be successful. The tools in this handbook will help you decide whether to invest in more detailed studies.
Dr. John Pitts, Md
NEXTOVERVIEW METHOD SPREADSHEET OTHER FACTORS 1.2 What Is Transit Project Success? A challenge in predicting the success of a fixed-guideway project is defining what “success†means. Project goals vary by region, by city, and by corridor, and can be broad and multi-faceted. Standards that might be used to clas- sify completed projects as highly successful, moderately successful, or unsuc- cessful simply do not exist. As a part of the research, a focus group and several interviewees—comprising transportation practitioners and academics—were asked to help define success, yielding a range of responses (see sidebar) but no definitive answer to the question, “What is success?†From an economics standpoint, a successful project is one whose benefits exceed its costs. Yet a full accounting of a transit project’s direct and indi- rect costs and benefits is analytically challenging. Many of the benefits and externalities—such as a transit project’s contribution to making a city more livable—are difficult to quantify or value in dollar terms. During the planning process, proposed fixed-guideway transit projects are often evaluated by comparing their costs and transportation benefits with those of lower-cost alternatives. Relative comparisons in terms of cost effec- tiveness can be more manageable because they do not depend on a full ac- counting of all costs and all benefits. For example, if the same level and qual- ity of transit service can be provided less expensively by bus than by rail, then Figure 1: Phoenix LRT Voters in Maricopa County showed their support for building a total transit network by approving regional transportation funding in 2004. As a result, in 2008 METRO began operation of the $1.4 billion, 20-mile light rail line in Phoenix, Tempe, and Mesa. In September 2012, there were 50, 000 boardings per weekday, exceeding the system’s 20-year ridership projection in less than 4 years. When asked how to determine the success of a fixed-guideway transit project, members of a focus group and other interviewees responded: “Corridors and projects are different. I suggest you look at a typology of corridors first, then look at measures of success.†“Circulators and line haul facilities, for example, have very different pur- poses.†“Success metrics ought to depend on the market and what you’re trying to do—not just the mode.†“Elected officials seem to care most about the number of riders.†“My agency would say they didn’t have any failures—our rail projects have all
0 komentar
Posting Komentar