Electric Streetcar Alignment Options for Martin Luther King Jr. Way

Transcription

1 Electric Streetcar Alignment Options for Martin Luther King Jr. Way Prepared for 2201 Portland Ave. Tacoma, Washington Prepared by Parametrix 2102 N Pearl Street, Suite 106 Tacoma, WA T F December

2 CITATION Parametrix Electric Streetcar Alignment Options for Martin Luther King Jr. Way. Prepared by Parametrix, Tacoma, Washington. December 2009.

3 CERTIFICATION The technical material and data contained in this document were prepared under the supervision and direction of the undersigned, whose seal, as a professional engineer licensed to practice as such, is affixed below. Prepared by Stephen W. Dorau, P.E. Checked by James K. Bunch, P.E. Approved by James K. Bunch, P.E. December

4

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION UNDERSTANDING SCOPE OF WORK TASK 1 & 2 ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS CONCEPTUAL ALIGNMENT OPTIONS AND STREET SECTIONS HEADWAY ANALYSIS CONCEPTUAL ALIGNMENT OPTIONS MLK / J Street Loop Option Headway Analysis MLK / J Street Loop Option Figures MLK Double-Track Pinched-Loop Option Headway Analysis MLK Double-Track Pinched Loop Option Figures MLK Bypass Option Headway Analysis MLK Bypass Option Figures Alignment Comparison TASK 3 MAINTENANCE FACILITY TASK 4 OPINION OF PROBABLE COST REFERENCED SYSTEM COSTS MLK SYSTEM PROBABLE COSTS DEVELOPMENT WITH LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT December i

6

7 1. INTRODUCTION The following section describes the intent of the work product that was completed in preparation of this report and the scope of work for which Parametrix was responsible. 1.1 UNDERSTANDING The City of Tacoma (City) is preparing a conceptual design of street and utility improvements for Martin Luther King Jr. Way (MLK) between Division Street and S. 25 th Street to support the creation of a Local Improvement District (LID). The City is considering the option of adding streetcar service to MLK in the future, potentially between Division Street and S. 19 th Street. The development of an electric streetcar system has the possibility of many conflicts with existing utility systems. In addition, the streetcar system may conflict with existing and proposed traffic and pedestrian flow. The City enlisted the services of Parametrix to provide assistance in the conceptual design of the streetcar line serving this MLK neighborhood. The conceptual design will be used by the City during the design process for the street and utility improvements and utility relocations incorporating the future location of the streetcar line. 1.2 SCOPE OF WORK This section describes the scope of work that Parametrix was responsible for on this project. The scope of work includes the following tasks. The results of Tasks 1 through 5 are included in this report. Task 6 will be completed following the submittal of this report. Task 1 Develop Potential Track Alignment Alternatives for MLK Parametrix conceived viable route alternatives for the streetcar alignment for the defined MLK corridor. Three alternatives were developed. The resulting alternatives, technical constraints, and probable advantages/disadvantages can be seen in Section 2. Task 2 Develop Potential Street Cross Section Diagrams Parametrix prepared street cross section diagrams to show the arrangement of streetcar tracks, vehicle traffic lanes, bike lanes, utility corridors, pedestrian sidewalks, and passenger stations. The sections for each alignment option defined in Task 1 can be seen in Section 2. Task 3 Vehicle Maintenance Facility Parametrix has proposed a maintenance facility location and developed a sketch plan for the facility. The results of this study can be seen in Section 3. Task 4 Preliminary Cost Opinion Parametrix prepared an Opinion of Probable Cost for the defined proposed streetcar system alternatives. See Section 4 for these results. Task 5 Memorandum Report Parametrix prepared this memorandum report, to discuss the results of Tasks 1 through 4. Task 6 - Presentations Parametrix will provide support to the City at two meetings, one with the Public Works Director and the City Manager, and one for a City Council study session. These meetings will follow the submission of this memorandum. December

8

9 2. TASK 1 & 2 ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS Tasks 1 and 2 included the conceptual layout of the streetcar for several alignment options. As part of the conceptual layout, alignments were drawn onto the City s MLK Way street modification plans, sections were prepared for typical alignment areas and a headway analysis was performed to estimate the performance criteria associated with each option. 2.1 CONCEPTUAL ALIGNMENT OPTIONS AND STREET SECTIONS Parametrix has reviewed the preliminary plan for the proposed LID and understands that the plan is in development. The preliminary street arrangements provided by the Department of Public Works were used as a base-line guide for this work. These tasks considered three alignment options with various service options including: Loop System Streetcar travels in a clockwise loop on MLK Way, S. 6 th Street, J Street, and S. 20 th Street. The streetcar vehicles would generally be in the automobile traffic lanes. Clockwise circulation has been selected in order to prevent the streetcars from crossing car traffic at corner intersections, as would happen if the circulation was counterclockwise. The minimum inside radius recommended by the United Streetcar Company is 18 meters, resulting in a minimum centerline radius of 61.5 feet. This radius will allow the streetcar to turn the corners from the traffic lanes with a slight reduction in the curb corner sidewalk area. If the streetcar travels counterclockwise around the outside of the loop, larger curve radii are available. In this configuration, the streetcar crosses car traffic at every corner of the loop. To provide a safe interaction with the cars, it is typical to use signalized intersections and preemptive signal control from the streetcar. For this review, S 6 th Street was selected at the first crossing street south of the Tacoma General Hospital area. It may be possible to use S 5 th Street as well but for this review, it was determined to not interfere with the hospital area. This intersection is about 1300 from the intersection at Division if a connection is to be made in the future. The arrangement of that connection and future operation will have to be considered for the final alignment. J Street is generally considered to be the best choice for the return run of the loop by City staff at this time. At the south end of the alignment, S 20 th has been used as the crossing street for this study. With the major traffic activity on S. 19 th Street, it was determined best to avoid that conflict. If all conflict with S. 19 th is to be avoided, the streetcar could cross on S. 18 th Street. This option will place the turning motion of the streetcar directly in front of St. Joseph Hospital. The final alignment and station locations will need to be determined through more detailed public review process. Double-Track Pinched-Loop System The streetcars would travel on dual parallel tracks along MLK Way. The streetcars would generally be in the vehicle travel lanes with street traffic. The streetcars would travel in a counterclockwise loop on the double-tracks along MLK Way between S. 4th Street and S. 19th Street. At each end, the streetcar would reverse directions and cross over to the other side of the street. This system could be extended to Division St. and ultimately be connected with the proposed streetcar extension on Division St with a relatively short extension. December

10 Single Track with Bypass System Streetcar travels on a single lane track system on MLK Way between S. 4th Street and S. 19th Street. Because of bi-directional travel, the streetcar track must be isolated from the vehicle lanes. In order to allow streetcars to travel in both directions, the track is split into a double track by-pass near the center. The two tracks diverge to allow for vehicles traveling in opposite directions to pass between S. 11 th Street and Earnest S. Brazill. This system could be extended to Division St. and ultimately be connected with the proposed streetcar extension on Division St, also with a relatively short extension. Detailed drawings of the above alignment options can be seen in Figures A-1, B-1 and C-1 respectively in the Appendixes. The City of Tacoma has developed Complete Streets Design Guidelines for future planning and development of the urban area. The objective of the Complete Streets program is to provide a livable space in mixed-use centers for pedestrians, bicycles, transit, and not just automobiles. Each of the proposed streetcar arrangements have different interactions with vehicle traffic, pedestrians, and passengers that must be carefully considered. Some assumptions have been made for this report. Some tradeoffs will need to be made between the desired components of wide sidewalks, bike lanes, transit lanes, passenger stations, commercial access, and personal automobile convenience. These issues will need to be considered prior to final design. The selection of a Preferred Alternative would typically include stakeholder and general public involvement sessions. The advantages and disadvantages of the above three alignment options are discussed in Section 2.3.4, but, the selection of a Preferred Alternative must wait until future phases of the project. The following key factors were considered in development of the options: Station Locations The utility and performance of the system is closely related to the location of passenger stations. Each of the options above assumed passenger station platforms every two blocks, but station location is typically the subject of alternatives review and selection. Stakeholder and public involvement will likely be a key factor in the selection of the actual station locations. For this study, we will assume that stations are positioned at intervals of about 2 blocks. Station Platforms Generally, the station platforms were assumed to consist of a concrete platform offering a reduced step height for passengers entering the streetcar. The step-down distance would be probably be a few inches. This height will be determined by the wheel chair access system for the streetcar. The Skoda/Oregon Iron Works vehicle that is similar to the existing Tacoma Link cars uses a mechanical bridge plate that can accommodate some differential level. Level changes and ramps must be considered in planning for station locations and arrangements. This issue is one that needs careful consideration prior to entering final design. The stations in this study are generally shown on the driver s-right side and just prior to the stop bar at an intersection. The platforms would be simple in nature and be minimalistic in their offerings. It was assumed that the platforms would potentially be covered and would contain basic amenities such as benches and information boards, but would primarily service standing passengers waiting for the streetcar and disembarking passengers. Ramps of minimal length would allow for transition between the platform 2-2 December

11 surface and the adjacent sidewalk surface. All transitions were considered in conjunction with the recommendations and requirements of ADA. Bike Lanes It is understood that bicycle lanes will be an integral part of the LID design concept in each direction of MLK Way and on adjacent streets. The presence of bike lanes challenges the layout of tracked vehicle systems due to the potential safety concerns over bicycles crossing the gap next to the tracks at any angle other than perpendicular. The gap is the flangeway for the streetcar wheel and approximately 2 in width and depth. The narrow wheels of bicycles can be trapped in this gap and potentially cause falls. In each of the above options the bike lanes were placed to the outside of all traffic lanes and the streetcar alignment. At station locations the bike lanes were redirected behind the station platforms as to avoid track crossings at station deviations. The bike lanes parallel the sidewalks and cause a potential conflict as patrons attempting to move from the sidewalk to the platform or visa versa must cross the bike lane. Proper signage and pavement design is critical for safety for both the pedestrians and bicycle riders. Utility Corridor As part of a streetcar installation, the track would be installed in close proximity existing or proposed utilities and often crossing utilities. These potential conflicts make planning for a streetcar alignment challenging. The utility infrastructure along the MLK corridor is planned to be renovated in the LID process. Existing sanitary sewer is planned to occupy the alleyway as existing. The electric and telecom utilities are currently on overhead poles generally along the alleyways. Redevelopment of the electric utility is planned to use east-west crossing streets to bring the primary lines to near the alleyways. Underground vaults will provide distribution to smaller underground distribution conduits along the alleys. This will not cause any linear conflict with the proposed streetcar installation or operations. Provisions will need to be made for the streetcar crossing of the utility corridors at cross streets. Typical track slab designs can span over utility ducts without any significant issues. Vertical separation will need to be provided. Typical electrical underground installations are several feet deep. The track slab will probably not exceed 18 of structure and 24 of excavation, so the interaction with a modern electric utility installation should not be significant. Cost is often a controlling issue in development plans. It will almost certainly be less expensive to maintain the utility feeder lines on overhead poles at strategic cross streets. The streetcar overhead contact wire will be about 18 feet above the rail. High voltage utility distribution can cross above the contact wire as necessary. The general rule of overhead wires is the lowest voltage at the lowest position on the pole, and progressing up to the highest voltage at the top. For this reason, telephone and Cable TV are the lowest wires, then local power feeders, then distribution lines, and major power lines on the top. Where the streetcar contact wire passes, the telecommunications utilities will need to be routed underground. The utility lines need to be high enough to not contact any part of the streetcar contact system, which is about 25 feet. As shown in this study, the streetcar could operate in a loop system on MLK Way, S. 6th Street, J Street, and S. 20th Street. The electric utility currently has a major corridor along S. 6th Street on overhead poles on the south side of the street. The redevelopment effort may December

12 call for placing this major feeder underground. In order to minimize future interaction with the power feeder, the City should consider locating the power feeder on the northern side of S. 6th Street in this area if the underground approach is selected. The power may remain overhead if it is high enough on the pole. The telecommunication utilities are currently sharing the overhead poles with the electric power in the alley ways. Typically, the telecom providers would join the electric power in a joint trench during a major construction project. Because the sewer is in the alley, there may or may not be adequate room for power and telecom along with the sewer easement. It is recommended that a corridor for telecom be established in the street along MLK Way, and along J Street if a loop option is desired. The Tacoma general utility plan calls for the telecom and power to be located in the planting strip along the sidewalk. The conduit plan will be required on both sides of the street for street lighting and for telecom to reach all of the users. The biggest challenge for coordinated corridors will be where there is a double-track system and a station stop, or the bypass area of the single-track system. At these locations the placement of telecom vaults or hand holes may be constrained. At these areas, the sidewalk width is shown at 8 to 10. This probably will not allow for a planting strip and open walking area. Natural gas is also designated in the planting strip by the City utility plan. If the telecom and gas utilities can share the sidewalk / planting strip on both sides, there should be little conflict with the streetcar installation. Photograph 1 OCS System at Corner The streetcar will require overhead installation of the power wire, referred to as overhead contact system (OCS). The OCS can generally be supported by street light poles. The supports are required at intervals of less than 100. Because the forces at corners are larger, 2-4 December

13 the poles are generally bigger and the support wires are more visible. (See Photograph 1.) In some situations, the OCS has been supported by nearby buildings. (See Photograph 2.) This is very common in Europe, but less common in the U.S.A. Due to the necessity of the OCS, which operates at 600 volts DC, all telecom crossing the tracks must be placed underground. Where the streetcar track is generally along one side of the street, as in the loop system or the single track by-pass arrangement, the opposite side of the street is generally available for utilities. The water utility will need to be under a traffic lane on the opposite side of the street. In order to allow for the clockwise loop system on MLK Way and J Street, it is recommended that the water line be located on the westerly side of MLK Way and the easterly side of J Street. If a single track bypass system is selected, the route would naturally be on the easterly side of MLK Way in a generally clear area. It is more challenging to locate the water utility in the case of the double-track system. The water utility will need to be located far enough to one side to avoid the traffic lanes where the streetcar is expected to operate. The water line will probably be partially under the sidewalk / planting strip in many areas. Photograph 2 OCS Supported by Building An additional conflict may exist with the storm drain. The City utility plan shows the storm drain at a single location near one curb line. It is anticipated that the storm drain will need to run in straight lines, generally from intersection to intersection. Curb inlets at the intersections will need to drain to manholes near the intersections. The drain routes will need to cross under the streetcar track slab. Depending on the track arrangement, track drains from the track will need to connect into the storm drain system as well. Future connections to the drain system may need additional manholes. In the single track bypass and loop systems, it is anticipated that the water line and storm drain can be located in the vehicle and bike lane that December

14 does not have tracks. With the double-track system, there is a limited amount for space for storm drain and water supply. Track Bed As part of Task 2, Parametrix also developed street cross sections based on the street arrangements and dimensions shown in the preliminary LID drawings by the City. The primary purpose of the street sections was to identify and plan for a utility corridor(s) that would minimize interference with the proposed streetcar system, and allow for function installation and maintenance. The location and placement of utilities was based on the information gathered from the City for types and locations of utility services. Since the system technology and design details have not been determined, the track bed shown on the street sections is a representative section and not designed for the specific project or location. Site specific geotechnical data and system details will be required in future phases to design a track bed. There are several potential options for the track bed which should be considered in future phases. There are different types of rail that can be used. The rail is used as the negative return for the electric power. When the DC current flows in the ground it can cause corrosion of steel pipes and other metal systems in the ground. To prevent corrosion, the track needs to be insulated from the earth. The insulation system can be provided by different methods. With the streetcar running in the traffic lanes, the street surface must be flush with the top of the tracks. The support structure for the tracks can be done in different ways. There are different choices for the rail system that the streetcar runs on. The most common is the traditional T rail that supports most of the railroads in the U.S.A. and the world. (See Photograph 3.) In this case, the flangeway for the wheels on the car must be formed in the road surface or a flanged boot must be used. (See Photograph 4.) 2-6 December

15 Photograph 3-115RE Rail Flangeway Photograph 4 - Trak Slab with Concrete Flangeway Many streetcar systems use girder rail where the rail is embedded in the street. The slot for the wheel flange of the rail car is formed in the rail head and no additional flange way needs to be formed when placing the street surface. (See Photograph 5.) The size of the two rail December

16 systems is about the same. There is a rubber insulating boot available for both rail sections. Girder rail is very convenient for street-running systems with a continuous steel flangeway and guidance for the wheels in curves. It is preferred for this application by many designers. It is not rolled by any rail suppliers in the U.S.A. and must come from off-shore suppliers. For any project that must comply with the provisions of the Buy America Act, it is not available. Photograph 5 - Girder Rail In order to provide insulation from the ground, a rubber boot is typically used to separate the steel rail from the structure. (See Photograph 6.) The boot is an extruded rubber wrapper that matches the track section shape. It is wrapped around the rail and then the concrete is placed to hold the entire assembly. The boot can also provide the flangeway form if desired as shown in Photograph 7. The rubber is flexible and can be damaged during the installation by the heavy rail and equipment used to handle it. It must be tested with a high voltage tester before placing the concrete and it must be tested again after placement for ground leaks. 2-8 December

17 Rubber Boot Photograph 6 - Track Slab Construction w/ Rubber Boot An alternative method of insulation is nonconductive fill material. There are different types. Photograph 8 shows an epoxy stabilized granular rubber material referred to as FX. Another manufacturer makes an epoxy cement grout. These are generally considered to be more expensive because the material is more expensive than redi-mix concrete and the installation requires multiple processes. The pavement must be formed with a block-out prior to placing the rail and then the insulating material is placed to fill the block-out. This type of process is often used for smaller areas around special trackwork or for repairs. December

18 Photograph 7 Boot-Formed Flangeway Photograph 8 - FX Rail Insulation 2-10 December

19 The track section can be installed using typical rail on cross-ties and then the pavement placed as brick or asphalt concrete up to the edge of the rail as seen in Photograph 9 and Photograph 10. When streetcar systems and paved streets were first placed together, this method was common. Because asphalt concrete tends to deform in warm weather and with moisture, this method often leads to very rough transitions between the street and rails. It is likely less expensive to install cross-ties and pave over to the edge of the rail, particularly if girder rail is used. Where the traffic is lightweight and slow-moving, this may be an acceptable method. However, the pavement will probably need repair at some point in the future and removal and replacement of the old pavement will probably damage the insulating boot and cause current leakage. Note that in the referenced photographs, no rubber boot is in place. An engineering review of the costs may be advisable to review this option. Photograph 9 Brick Paved Trackbed December

20 Photograph 10 Asphalt Paved Trackbed The most common installation method today is a structural concrete track slab placed continuously along the track. The rail path is excavated to a depth of about 18 inches. The streetcar is about 8 wide, consequently the slab is typically about the same width as the car to clearly mark the lane. The rail and boot are supported by cross-ties at about 10 spacing. Reinforcing steel is placed around the rail and the slab is filled with concrete. After the rail section is installed, the roadway is finished to the edge of the concrete slab. The slab can be finished in any style to match to location. Where the street is consistent and regular slope, the concrete can be placed to the edge of the existing pavement. Typically the asphalt needs to be resurfaced for a clean finished look. The depth of the track slab excavation is typically required to be in order to provide some prepared subbase for the track slab. The subbase will be determined from geotechnical investigation and design engineering. The track structure is about 7 tall. The cross-tie structure is about another 7 tall and is completely sacrificial. It does not contribute to the track strength. The depth of the concrete slab is about depending on the design. It is a very permanent structure but because of the strength, it can bridge over almost any of the utility structures that must pass under. It will be possible to bore future utilities as necessary December

21 Photograph 11 - Construction of Concrete Track Slab w/ Rubber Flangeway December

22 Photograph 12 - Construction of Concrete Track Slab w/ Cast in Place Flangeway Photograph 13 Concrete Track Slab 2-14 December

23 Photograph 14 Track Slab w/ Rubber Flangeway and Stamped Concrete Surface Photograph 15 Installed Girder Rail December

24 2.2 HEADWAY ANALYSIS Parametrix conducted a headway analysis of the alignment options to determine an estimate of the time required for a streetcar to travel the length of each alignment. From this data an estimate of headway was computed for each scenario based on an assumed number of vehicles. The headway analysis considered vehicle acceleration and deceleration, stopping and waiting times, and the average number of disruptions per cycle due to traffic signals and stop signs. A summary of the analysis results can be seen in Sections , and An approximate operation schedule would be based on a vehicle starting the alignment from a specific hold point at the top of the hour and subsequent vehicles would leave the hold point at even intervals so that a consistent headway is achieved. For this analysis it was assumed that the streetcars would have preemptive access to the signalized intersections such that the vehicles could pull away from the station platforms located prior to signalized intersections such that uninhibited access to traffic merging could be achieved. It was not assumed that the signalized intersections would be timed to allow for unimpeded travel along MLK Way or J Street. This could be implemented, but at possible impact to other signalized intersection systems. One future consideration of the possible timed signals is the potential increase in cross traffic should the MLK Way corridor be developed. The headway analysis utilized the following parameters for computation: Analysis Parameter Calculation Value Maximum Speed (tangent) 25 mph Maximum Speed (curve) 8 mph Acceleration Rate 1.0 mph/s (0.05 g) Deceleration Rate 1.0 mph/s (0.05 g) Station Dwell Time 15 sec Avg. Signal Stop Time 35 sec Avg. Stop Time at Intersection 15 sec Time to Merge w/ Traffic 10 sec 2.3 CONCEPTUAL ALIGNMENT OPTIONS Parametrix chose three alignment options to study further. The three options include a loop system traveling in a clockwise loop on MLK Way, S. 6 th Street, J Street, and S. 20 th Street (MLK/ J Street Loop); a double-track pinched-loop system traveling in a counterclockwise loop on MLK Way between S. 4 th Street and S. 19 th Street (MLK Double-Track Pinched- Loop); and a bypass system traveling in a single isolated track on MLK Way between S. 4 th Street and S. 19 th Street (MLK Bypass). The following sections describe the three alignment options studied: 2-16 December

25 2.3.1 MLK / J Street Loop Option The loop option consists of the Streetcars traveling along a single track in street traffic in a clockwise loop on MLK Way, S. 6th Street, J Street, and S. 20th Street. A conceptual layout of this alignment option can be seen in Appendix A. This loop option generally consists of the following layout: Typical Mid-Block Section Typical Signalized Intersection (at platform) Typical Non-Signalized Intersection (at platform) Design Minimums Vehicle Lanes 2x12 2x11 2x12 10 Turn Lane N/A 10 N/A 10 Bike Lanes 2x5 2x5 2x5 5 Parking Lanes 2x7 N/A N/A 7 Streetcar Lane (in traffic) Streetcar Platform N/A Sidewalks 16 (west) 16 (east) 11 (west) 8 (east) 19 (west) 8 (east) Total Right-of-Way See Figures A-3 and A-4 in Appendix A for diagrams of the alignments and the corresponding sections. This option had a number of parameters that were influential in the preparation of the conceptual alignment. These issues were as follows: Travel Direction In this option, clockwise travel was selected over counterclockwise travel as to avoid the necessity of crossing traffic at the corners. By traveling on the inside of the loop, the streetcar will have less stop-time throughout the loop and a shorter travel distance. The disadvantage of this option is the ability of the United (Skoda) streetcar to navigate tight turn radii which is exacerbated by traveling on the inside of the loop. The vehicle has a minimum functional centerline travel radius of 61.5 feet. The clockwise loop option will require the design of the four corners of the loop to accommodate the streetcar. A diagram of the streetcar turn radius can be seen in Figure A-2 in Appendix A. Travel with Traffic The streetcar will travel with traffic at all times with the exception of station pull-outs and accessing the maintenance facility which would utilize maintenance personnel as flaggers as required. Since the streetcar will travel in the same direction as the street traffic on its side of the street, the placement of parking lanes and in-traffic streetcar operation are made possible, decreasing the total right-of-way required for the streetcar system. Additional pedestrian space will be available if the streetcar stops in the traffic lane. This will slow traffic operations further. December

26 Platform Position The conceptual alignment of the loop option places all station platforms on the driver s-right side. This arrangement provides for consistent operations and driver observations. Platform arrangement will need to be compliant with ADA requirements. The platforms will need to provide the attractive pedestrian spaces and transit access targeted by Complete Streets. Station Locations The proposed alignment is based on the assumption that the station platforms are located approximately every other block along MLK Way and J Street. This is to assign a pattern for operations timing. No specific station stops are being recommended Headway Analysis The headway analysis completed for the loop option resulted in the following data: Analysis Parameter Result Maximum Speed Achieved 25 mph (constrained) Average Speed w/o Stops 9 mph Average Speed w Stops 5 mph *Total Number of Stops 36 Travel Distance 2.2 mi (11,600 ft) Travel Time: Time in Motion Time Stopped Total Time 14 min 11 min 25 min Trips per Hour per Vehicle Assumed Number of Vehicles (typical operating schedule) Headway min *Includes stops at signalized intersections, non-signalized intersections and at station platforms MLK / J Street Loop Option Figures See the MLK / J Street Loop Option figures in Appendix A: - Figure A-1 Overall Alignment - Figure A-2 Corner Alignment - Figure A-3 Signalized Intersection Plan - Figure A-4 Non- Signalized Intersection Plan 2-18 December

27 2.3.2 MLK Double-Track Pinched-Loop Option The double-track pinched-loop option consists of the Streetcar traveling in a counterclockwise loop on MLK Way between S. 4 th Street and S. 19 th Street. This system could be extended to Division St. and ultimately be connected with the proposed streetcar extension on Division St. relatively easily. A conceptual layout of this alignment option can be seen in Appendix B. This double-track pinched-loop option generally consists of the following layout: Typical Mid-Block Section Typical Signalized Intersection (at platform) Typical Non-Signalized Intersection (at platform) Design Minimums Vehicle Lanes 2x12 2x12 2x12 10 Turn Lane N/A N/A N/A 10 Bike Lanes 2x5 2x5 2x5 5 Parking Lanes 2x7 N/A N/A 7 Streetcar Lane (in traffic) Streetcar Platform N/A Sidewalks 13 (west) 19 (east) 19 (west) 8 (east) 19 (west) 8 (east) Total Right-of-Way See Figures B-2, B-3 and B-4 in Appendix B for diagrams of the alignments and the corresponding sections. This option had a number of parameters that were influential in the preparation of the conceptual alignment. These issues were as follows: Travel with Traffic The streetcar will travel with traffic at all times with the exception of station pull-outs and accessing the maintenance facility which would utilize maintenance personnel as flaggers as required. Since the streetcar will travel in the same direction as the street traffic on its side of the street, the placement of parking lanes and in-traffic streetcar operation are made possible, decreasing the total right-of-way required for the streetcar system. Platform Position Due to the nature of a double-track pinched-loop system, the station platforms will always be placed on the driver s-right side. Given that the streetcar reverses direction at the ends of the alignment, the platforms will actually be on one side of the vehicle for one direction of travel and on the opposite side of the vehicle for the other direction of travel. Platform arrangement will need to be compliant with ADA requirements. The double track option will make wide sidewalk spaces desired by Complete Streets difficult, unless the streetcar stops directly in traffic lanes. December

28 Station Locations The proposed alignment is based on the assumption that the station platforms are located approximately every other block along MLK Way. To maximize the width of the traffic lanes and sidewalks, it was assumed that the stations would alternate intersections such that the width of the elements could be maximized Headway Analysis The headway analysis completed for the double-track pinched-loop option resulted in the following data: Analysis Parameter Result Maximum Speed Achieved 25 mph (constrained) Average Speed w/o Stops 9 mph Average Speed w/ Stops 5 mph *Total Number of Stops 31 Travel Distance 1.8 mi (9,400 ft) Travel Time: Time in Motion Time Stopped Total Time 11 min 10 min 21 min Trips per Hour per Vehicle Assumed Number of Vehicles (typical operating schedule) Headway min *Includes stops at signalized intersections, non-signalized intersections and at station platforms MLK Double-Track Pinched Loop Option Figures See the MLK Double-Track Pinched-Loop Option figures in Appendix B: - Figure B-1 Overall Alignment - Figure B-2 Alignment End Location Plan - Figure B-3 Signalized Intersection Plan - Figure B-4 Non- Signalized Intersection Plan 2-20 December

29 2.3.3 MLK Bypass Option The bypass option consists of the Streetcar traveling in a single isolated lane on MLK Way between S. 4 th Street and S. 19 th Street. The guideway diverges to allow for a bypass of vehicles traveling in opposite directions between S. 11 th Street and Earnest S. Brazill Street. The bypass track needs to be near the middle, but could be adjusted a short distance either direction if desired. The first car to reach the bypass track must wait for the other to proceed. Additionally, this system could be extended to Division St. and ultimately be connected with the proposed streetcar extension on Division St. This option assumes a single track along the east side of MLK, separated from the traffic lanes by some type of barrier. A conceptual layout of this alignment option is show in Appendix C. This bypass option generally consists of the following layout: Typical Mid-Block Section Typical Signalized Intersection (at platform) Typical Non-Signalized Intersection (at platform) Design Minimums Vehicle Lanes 2x12 2x11 2x12 2x10 Turn Lane N/A 10 N/A N/A Bike Lanes 2x5 2x5 2x5 2x5 Parking Lanes 7 (west) N/A 7 (west) N/A Streetcar Lane (west) 9 (east) Streetcar Platform N/A Sidewalks 11 (west) 17 (east) 11 (west) 8 (east) 10 (west) 10 (east) 10.5 (west) 10.5 (east) Total Right-of-Way See Figures C-2, C-3 and C-4 in Appendix C for diagrams of the alignments and the corresponding sections. This option had a number of parameters that were influential in the preparation of the conceptual alignment. These issues were as follows: Isolated Travel The streetcar will travel in an isolated lane for the length of the alignment. The primary reason for this isolation is the need to separate traffic traveling in opposing directions. The separation will likely be by use of a concrete barrier. The barrier design could be a raised curb and reflector posts or more solid structure depending on design choice. This option limits street parking to the west side of the street, and probably limits driveway access along the east side. It is assumed that bike lanes will be available along both sides of the street. December

30 Platform Position Due to the nature of a bypass system, the station platforms will always be placed on the east side of MLK Way except for the possibility of a center platform at the bypass location. This option will require about half the number of platforms of the other options, since the same platforms will be used in both directions. The platforms will be on the driver s right in one direction of travel and the left in the other. Platform arrangement will need to be compliant with ADA requirements. The platforms will need to provide the attractive pedestrian spaces and transit access targeted by Complete Streets. Station Locations The proposed alignment is based on the assumption that the station platforms are located approximately every other block along MLK Way. The single track system is less obtrusive to traffic, therefore the number of station platforms is more flexible Headway Analysis The headway analysis completed for the bypass option resulted in the following data: Analysis Parameter Result Maximum Speed Achieved 25 mph (constrained) Average Speed w/o Stops 9 mph Average Speed w/ Stops 5 mph *Total Number of Stops 31 Travel Distance 2.2 mi (11,600 ft) Travel Time: Time in Motion Time Stopped Total Time 11 min 9 min 20 min Trips per Hour per Vehicle Assumed Number of Vehicles (typical operating schedule) Headway min *Includes stops at signalized intersections, non-signalized intersections and at station platforms MLK Bypass Option Figures See the MLK Bypass Option figures in Appendix C: - Figure C-1 Overall Alignment - Figure C-2 Bypass Location Plan - Figure C-3 Signalized Intersection Plan - Figure C-4 Non- Signalized Intersection Plan 2-22 December

31 2.3.4 Alignment Comparison The following table describes the advantages and disadvantages of each system type: Loop System Double-Track Pinched-Loop Advantages Disadvantages Considerations Increased development Greatest cost option. Is J Street to be opportunity. Requires corner modification. included in the On-street parking is possible on The number of intersections development of both sides of MLK Way and J and the length of street MLK Way? Costs Street. impacted is double that of the and potential Potential for system scalability. other options. benefits are Impact area of the streetcar Utility conflicts have the significant. influence is expanded and potential to be greater since additional block width. an additional street is Single trackway allows room for affected. underground utility development. Return trips are less Trolley wire can generally be convenient to the passenger supported from one side of the street, reducing the impact of developing poles on both sides. On-street parking is possible on both sides of MLK Way. Potential for system scalability. Passengers can easily ride and return along the route. Greater cost option. Options for utility corridor greatly reduced. Much more street area on MLK is conflicted by the streetcar track. Pedestrian areas are reduced by track and platforms both sides. Pinched-loops at ends of alignment have potential to cause traffic conflicts. Proper signalization at ends of alignment is critical. Bypass System Lowest cost option. Streetcar separated from traffic. Passengers can easily ride and return along the route. Single trackway allows room for underground utility development Trolley wire can generally be supported from one side of the street, reducing the impact of developing poles on both sides. Vehicles can use the same platforms traveling both directions. On-street parking not possible on east side of MLK Way. System scalability is limited due to requirement for additional bypasses when additional vehicles are added. Driveway access would be restricted on the trackway side of the street. Possible to extend single track system into a loop system in the future. December

32

33 3. TASK 3 MAINTENANCE FACILITY Parametrix has selected two lots for potential maintenance facility locations. An existing parking lot on the northwest corner of J Street and S. 20 th St. is a potential location for the loop system. A parking lot along on the southwest corner of MLK Way and S. 10 th St. is a potential location for the double-track pinched-loop system and the bypass system. There are likely alternate facility locations that may be more appropriate considering right-of-way and other considerations. Parametrix selected these sites for their spatial relationship to the various alignments and their apparent current usage. Depending on the timing of the streetcar development, it may be possible to utilize the existing Link maintenance facility by extending any of the three alignment options to the north and connecting to the proposed streetcar system along Division Street. The existing Link facility is probably too small to support the existing system and expansion to MLK. The cost of a new or expanded facility will be required for the system. For each of the alignment options considered and the associated headway analyses, Parametrix has assumed that each alignment would utilize two streetcar vehicles for operating service. A system with two operating vehicles would likely require a third streetcar vehicle such that major maintenance could be accomplished without decreasing service. For this reason, it has been assumed that the maintenance facility required to service each of the three alignment options would have space for three vehicles. The schematic layout of a maintenance facility for each of the three alignment options can be seen in Figures A-1, B-1 and C-1 respectively in the Appendixes. Functions required for the maintenance facility are storage of the vehicles, maintenance of the machinery, spare parts, and staff facilities. A dedicated power substation for the yard area will be required. Often, a main line traction power substation is also located in the maintenance yard. It is anticipated that as a minimum, the whole maintenance facility will be on the order of 200 feet long to park 2 trains, and on the order of 100 feet wide for all of the necessary functions. Many choices are available for related functions that can be located with the maintenance facility. Some streetcar projects have carwash systems. Some have parks or museum facilities located near the yard. December

34

35 4. TASK 4 OPINION OF PROBABLE COST The project team reviewed the available constructed cost of similar systems to define probable construction costs. The opinions of probable costs assume that the LID has responsibility for the street improvements and utility relocations. The streetcar project would install track, overhead electric, and make the modifications necessary for station platforms. The overall cost of the system depends heavily on the cost of the vehicles. The type of vehicle, features, and number are important variables in the system cost. Basic assumptions have been made regarding these factors. 4.1 REFERENCED SYSTEM COSTS In order to define probable costs for a streetcar project on MLK, data from similar systems have been compared. Some of the comparable built and proposed projects are shown in Table 1 with the dates the project was bid. PROJECT LENGTH - Mi. STATIONS BUDGET - $M $M / Track Mile Tucson, AZ (proposed) Portland Loop 2009 So. Lake Union 2005 Little Rock, AR (Double track) 19 $159 $ $147 $ $54 $ $21 $8 Table 1 - Comparable System Costs A more detailed look can be seen from the three systems that have actually been bid. The Portland Loop is just starting construction. The South Lake Union and Little Rock are based on the actual final costs. To the extent possible based on the available details, the costs for all three have been allocated according to the FTA Standard Cost Categories schedule, as shown in Table 2. To account for differences in available details, some assumptions have been made. As can be seen from the cost per linear track foot, the cost of the three systems varies widely. The Little Rock project is older and geographically separated from the area. Those costs may not reflect the construction cost in the Tacoma area. The Portland Loop system includes track on an existing bridge and an elevated structure. The details of utility street work are not known. For this cost analysis, the general costs from the South Lake Union system are believed to more closely represent the MLK project. December

36 Cost Category Portland Loop So. Lake Union Little Rock Guideway & Track $55,642,000 $6,962,000 $9,512,000 Stations $1,805,000 $249,000 (in track) Site Work, Conditions $17,994,000 $13,083,000 (in track) Systems $22,876,000 $6,972,000 $3,070,000 Construction Total $98,317,000 $27,266,000 $12,582,000 System Length Track Ft 36,025 14,784 13,728 Cost - $ / Track Ft $2,729 $1,844 $917 Utility Relocation $10,214,000 $4,750,000 $0 Table 2 - Construction Cost Categories The purchase of vehicles can have a major impact on the cost of the system. The costs for vehicles for the three referenced systems are shown in Table 3 The Gomaco car is a new car body built on renovated rail bogies using an antique body style. It is available with electronic controls, but has the old high floor style and must use chair lifts for ADA compliance. Oregon Iron Works has entered into an arrangement with the Skoda group of the Czech Republic to produce the Skoda streetcar under the name of United Streetcar. The car is now made in the USA and is compliant with the Buy American Act. It has a modern style car body, electronic controls and articulated body design. This is the car used for the Tacoma Link streetcar and it is anticipated that the same car would be used for the MLK system. Budget prices for this vehicle have been provided by United Streetcar. Vehicles Portland Loop So. Lake Union Little Rock Manufacturer Skoda/OIW Skoda Gomaco Number of Units Cost / Vehicle $3 M $2.8 M $850 K Table 3 - Project Vehicle Costs 4.2 MLK SYSTEM PROBABLE COSTS In order to develop a probable cost for a streetcar system in Tacoma, the costs from the South Lake Union project have been escalated for inflation and used for unit cost basis. Professional services for the referenced projects varied between 16% and 28% of complete system costs. This estimate has applied a 30% increase to the system costs for services and an additional 30% for contingencies based on the level of details at this time. The cost assumptions and unit requirements for the three options are shown in Table December

37 ITEM DESCRIPTION MLK SYSTEM OPTIONS LOOP OPTION DOUBLE TRACK SINGLE TRACK UNIT UNIT COST QUANT TOTAL QUANT TOTAL QUANT TOTAL GUIDEWAY AND TRACK LFT $710 12,000 $8,520,000 10,000 $7,100,000 5,700 $4,047,000 STATION STOPS EA $30, $480, $390,000 7 $210,000 SITE WORK, GENERAL CONDITIONS, NO UTILITY LFT $450 12,000 $5,400,000 10,000 $4,500,000 5,700 $2,565,000 SYSTEMS, OCS, SIGNALS LFT $475 12,000 $5,700,000 10,000 $4,750,000 5,700 $2,707,500 SUBSTATIONS EA $1,500,000 2 $3,000,000 2 $3,000,000 1 $1,500,000 SUBTOTAL, Construction Items $23,100,000 $19,740,000 $11,029,500 VEHICLE LS $3,500,000 3 $10,500,000 3 $10,500,000 3 $10,500,000 MAINTENANCE FACILITY LS $2,500,000 1 $2,500,000 1 $2,500,000 1 $2,500,000 SUBTOTAL, Complete System $36,100,000 $32,740,000 $24,029,500 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES: Prelim Design, Environ., Constr. Mgt., Owner Costs 30.00% $10,800,000 $9,800,000 $7,200,000 CONTINGENCIES 30.00% $10,800,000 $9,800,000 $7,200,000 TOTAL SYSTEM COST $57,700,000 $52,340,000 $38,429,500 Notes: It is assumed that all roadway and sidewalk reconstruction, utility relocation, R.O.W., landscaping, and street lighting is costed as part of the MLK Way reconstruction. Station platforms are assumed to be similar to the South Lake Union system The estimates of probable cost are in 2009 dollars and do not consider inflation. LFT = linear feet of track Table 4 - Probable Cost of MLK systems ($) 4.3 DEVELOPMENT WITH LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT The City is planning a Local Improvement District redevelopment project which is expected to renovate much of the utility and street system along MLK Way between S 25 th and Division. The timing and financing of the LID is not anticipated to be able to support complete development of the streetcar system at the same time. If the project were to be completed in two phases, first completing the LID and second building the street car, the magnitude of the disturbances to the businesses and surrounding area would be of equal magnitude in both phases. Therefore, construction of the most invasive part of the project in one phase would minimize the impact to the residents. To assist with planning for the project, a probable cost has been developed for construction of the trackway only. If the December