ALTERNATIVE TO PEAKHOUR PDF
ALTERNATIVE TO PEAKHOUR FULL
ALTERNATIVE TO PEAKHOUR PLUS

ALTERNATIVE TO PEAKHOUR FULL

See the BOS Alternatives Evaluation Report for full detail on the CBA and performance assessment.īased on the cost-benefit analysis, the Blue Line to National Harbor alternative would provide the The two tables below show how the alternatives compare in terms of meeting the four goals, their relative scores in the cost-benefit analysis, and other important metrics such as projected new transit trips, new annual fare revenue, estimated construction costs, and estimated annual costs for operations and maintenance. 40-foot coaches with comfortable seats and wi-fiĬomparing the alternatives using a Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA).Higher-speed service with limited stops.54 routes on highways and major roads between Virginia, Maryland, and downtown District of Columbia.Off-board fare payment and all-door boardingįor more information about bus rapid transit, see here.Bus priority (bus lanes, queue jumps, traffic signals).This alternative is intended to reduce peak-hour crowding on the Blue, Orange, and Silver lines by encouraging some customers to shift to competitive, prioritized bus alternatives, including: The Rail Optimization and Bus Service Alternative offers substantially fewer and lower benefits than the rail options, but would cost much less and could be implemented sooner.

Introduction of dynamic rail scheduling to improve reliability.

Adjusting railcar seating to increase capacity.

Expanding core Metro stations to reduce crowding.

New bus rapid transit (BRT) and commuter bus service (approximately 60 routes).

Updating rail infrastructure for enhanced flexibility to match service to ridership demand, including the ability to store and turn around trains at more locations.

The Rail Optimization and Bus Service Alternative (also known as the Lower Capital Cost Alternative) includes a variety of changes that may meet the identified needs without building a new Metrorail line, some of which are already underway: Help us decide which alternative is best for the region - click HERE to take the online survey. The other five alternatives were developed as options to meet those goals: capacity, reliability, flexibility, and sustainability/equity. It will substantially improve Metro's reliability and on-time performance and make Metro transit even more environmentally friendly, but would not meet all four goals. The No-Build Alternative would not meet the four BOS study goals. It is used as a baseline to compare the benefits and costs of the other BOS alternatives. The No-Build Alternative assumes the transportation network would be as it is planned and funded today, with no additional investments.

Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) projects in Montgomery County and Northern Virginia.

Projects in the region's financially-constrained long-range transportation plan, Visualize 2045, such as:.

Track and structures repair and rehabilitation.

Metro's Capital Improvement Program Projects, such as:.

ALTERNATIVE TO PEAKHOUR PLUS

The No-Build Alternative investigates whether the four study goals can be met by the existing transportation system plus improvements and projects the region has already committed to fund and deliver by 2045, including:

ALTERNATIVE TO PEAKHOUR PDF

This information is also summarized in a set of alternative profiles and in a short video about each alternative.ĬLICK HERE to view profiles of all alternatives in PDF format The remainder of this page includes descriptions and conceptual maps of each alternative, their key benefits and limitations, and results from the CBA/performance assessment. This section below and the BOS Alternatives Evaluation Report. For more detail on the CBA/performance assessment, see The CBA assigned each alternative a score and rank in two categories: relative Benefits and Cost-Effectiveness, based on performance on 14 performance measures directly linked to the four BOS transit goals. Metro undertook a performance assessment and cost-benefit analysis (CBA) that measures how well each alternative would meet the four goals, and how they compare against each other in terms of costs and benefits. Understanding how each alternative would meet the four goals The online survey, please consider these alternatives from the perspective of what's best for the region as a whole and which would best meet the study's four goals. When reviewing this information and providing feedback through

Maps and summary profiles are available for each of the six alternatives.

Alternative to peakhour