RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE REPORT
|
|
- Gervais Campbell
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 DRAFT METROCENTER CORRIDOR STUDY RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE REPORT JULY 12, 2005
2
3 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION TIER 1 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION TIER 2 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION Alternatives Definition Alternatives Evaluation RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE Alternative Definition Rationale for Alternative Recommendation Outstanding Issues TABLES 1 Tier 1 Alternatives Eliminated 2 LRT and BRT Operating Plans 3 Tier 2 No-Build, Baseline, and LRT Alternatives Evaluation Summary 4 Tier 2 BRT Alternative Evaluation Summary 5 Tier 2 Alternatives Rating Comparisons 6 Tier 2 Alternatives Not Recommended FIGURES 1 Metrocenter Corridor Study Area 2 Tier 2 Alternatives LRT Alternative 1 3 Tier 2 Alternatives LRT Alternative 4-A/4-C 4 Tier 2 Alternatives LRT Alternative 4-A/4-D 5 Tier 2 Alternatives LRT Alternative 4-B/4-C 6 Tier 2 Alternatives LRT Alternative 4-B/4-D 7 Tier 2 Alternatives BRT Alternative 4-A/4-C 8 Tier 2 Alternatives BRT Alternative 4-A/4-D 9 Tier 2 Alternatives BRT Alternative 4-B/4-C 10 Tier 2 Alternatives BRT Alternative 4-B/4-D 11 LRT/BRT Connections to LRT Starter Line 12 Recommended Alternative LRT Alternative 4-A/4-C APPENDIX A Tier 1 Alternatives Recommended Alternative Report Page i
4 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents the build alternative recommended for further study in the upcoming Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for high capacity transit improvements in the Metrocenter Corridor. Figure 1 displays the Metrocenter Corridor study area which is bounded by Missouri Avenue to the south; 15 th Avenue to the east; Cholla Street to the north; and 31 st Avenue to the west. Figure 11, presented later in this report, also shows the Metrocenter Corridor study area in relation to the Central Phoenix/East Valley Light Rail Transit Starter Line that has recently begun construction and will serve portions of the Cities of Phoenix, Tempe, and Mesa. The report begins by summarizing the two-tiered approach to the alternatives development and evaluation process and concludes with a presentation of the recommended alternative and the reasons why that alternative has been recommended for more detailed analysis in the EIS. 2.0 TIER 1 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION The first phase (Tier 1) of the alternatives analysis included a conceptual level evaluation that analyzed the advantages and disadvantages of a long list of potential alternatives to address the transportation needs of the corridor (see Appendix A of this report for the Tier 1 alternatives and the separate Tier 1 Evaluation of Alternatives Report for more information). The Tier 1 evaluation eliminated options that had fatal flaws, clearly did not meet project goals, had other undesirable qualities, or lacked community support. The Tier 1 alternatives that were eliminated included two light rail transit (LRT) and two bus rapid transit (BRT) alternatives. LRT and BRT Alternative 2 (Figures A-1 and A-3 in Appendix A) both began at the northern terminus of the Central Phoenix/East Valley (CP/EV) LRT starter line at Spectrum Mall along 19 th Avenue just south of Bethany Home Road and turned west on Bethany Home Road to I-17 where they traversed north on this freeway through the study area to about Cholla Street. LRT and BRT Alternative 3 (Figures A-2 and A-4 in Appendix A) also began at Spectrum Mall but traversed 19 th Avenue north to Glendale Avenue (BRT mode only) or to Orangewood Avenue (LRT mode only) and then each turned west to cross I-17 (BRT crossed on the existing Glendale Avenue overpass and LRT crossed on a new overpass at Orangewood Avenue) and continued to 31 st Avenue. LRT and BRT Alternative 3 each turned north and traversed 31 st Avenue to about Dunlap Avenue where each continued on an elevated structure over the Arizona Canal into the Metrocenter Mall where it then resumed an at-grade alignment and traveled along Metro Parkway West to 28 th Drive north to about Cholla Street. The rationale for eliminating LRT and BRT Alternatives 2 and 3 are summarized in Table 1. The alternatives that remained after the Tier 1 analysis were then subjected to a more detailed evaluation (Tier 2). The purpose of the Tier 2 evaluation was to eliminate all but a recommended alternative with possible design options. The recommended alternative would then become the build alternative proposed for further detailed evaluation in the EIS. Recommended Alternative Report Page 1
5 FIGURE 1 METROCENTER CORRIDOR STUDY AREA Recommended Alternative Report Page 2
6 Alternative LRT Alternative 2 BRT Alternative 2 LRT Alternative 3 BRT Alternative 3 TABLE 1 TIER 1 ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED Major Reasons for Elimination Least potential of LRT alternatives for attracting new riders Major I-17 traffic disruption during construction ADOT s expansion plans for I-17 and limited freeway right-of-way Extensive utility relocation Limited transit-oriented development opportunity Poor access to LRT stations Low potential for attracting new riders Possible double-deck of I-17 by ADOT may make HOV direct access ramps infeasible resulting in reduced transit service levels Limited transit-oriented development opportunity Poor access to LRT stations Does not serve Corporate Center or other activity areas east of I-17 Slow travel time due to circuitous routing through Corridor Far from activity centers Major impacts on residential driveways and on-street parking Major impacts on existing right-of-way Lack of community acceptance Extensive utility relocation and impacts on water treatment plant Limited transit-oriented development opportunity Low potential for attracting new riders Does not serve Corporate Center or other activity areas east of I-17 Slow travel time due to circuitous routing through Corridor Far from activity centers Major impacts on residential driveways and on-street parking Major impacts on existing right-of-way Lack of community acceptance Extensive utility relocation and impacts on water treatment plant Limited transit-oriented development opportunity 3.0 TIER 2 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION 3.1 Alternatives Definition The Tier 2 evaluation continued to consider both the light rail transit (LRT) and bus rapid transit (BRT) build alternatives that were not eliminated in the Tier 1 analysis. LRT consisted of a dedicated fixed guideway with two tracks (one track in each direction) that ran mostly in the middle of the existing street system. LRT is electrically powered by overhead power lines. BRT also had a dedicated fixed guideway (except as described below) with two lanes (one lane in each direction) that ran mostly in the middle of the existing street system. Both LRT and BRT included a traffic signal priority system (predictive priority) to allow for faster travel times. Recommended Alternative Report Page 3
7 The build alternatives considered in the Tier 2 analysis included: LRT Alternative 1 (Figure 2) LRT Alternative 4 and its several design options: - LRT Option 4-A/4-C (Figure 3) - LRT Option 4-A/4-D (Figure 4) - LRT Option 4-B/4-C (Figure 5) - LRT Option 4-B/4-D (Figure 6) BRT Alternative 4 and its several design options: - BRT Option 4-A/4-C (Figure 7) - BRT Option 4-A/4-D (Figure 8) - BRT Option 4-B/4-C (Figure 9) - BRT Option 4-B/4-D (Figure 10) All build alternatives began at the northern terminus of the Central Phoenix/East Valley (CP/EV) LRT starter line at Spectrum Mall and continued north on 19 th Avenue. LRT Alternative 1 terminated at 19 th Avenue/Peoria Avenue (Figure 2). All of the LRT and BRT Alternative 4 options turned west off 19 th Avenue either at Northern or Dunlap Avenues (as shown in Figures 3 through 10) and terminated either at the Corporate Center on the east side of I-17 or at the Metrocenter Mall on the west side of I-17. The BRT Alternative 4 alignments within the Metrocenter Corridor were the same as their LRT Alternative 4 counterpart alignments with the exception of those alignments that contained Option 4-D which terminated at Metrocenter Mall. The only difference between LRT and BRT Options 4-D was west of the station at 23 rd /Dunlap. The LRT alignment continued west in an exclusive guideway to 25 th Avenue where it turned north and then turned west near Mountain View Road where it crossed I-17 to terminate at an elevated station in the northeast quadrant of the Metrocenter Mall. The BRT alignment left its exclusive guideway west of the 23 rd /Dunlap Station and the buses traveled west in existing traffic lanes along Dunlap Avenue to cross I-17 and then turned north at 29 th Avenue to Metro Parkway West where they turned in a northwesterly direction for a short distance to the BRT northern terminus at the existing transit center in the southwest quadrant of the Metrocenter Mall. All of the build alternatives included four or five stations in the general locations shown in Figures 2 through 10. All of the stations were assumed to have park-and-ride facilities, with the exception of the Northern/23 rd Avenue Station associated with the LRT and BRT Alternatives 4 containing Option 4-B. Exact locations of the park-and-ride facilities were not yet determined. The LRT and BRT operating plans are shown in Table 2. Note that all LRT alternatives provided a seamless connection (no transfer required) to the 20- mile CP/EV LRT starter line. All BRT alternatives had a choice of either transferring to the CP/EV LRT starter line at Spectrum Mall or to continue south from Spectrum Mall to the State Capitol (17 th Avenue and Washington/Jefferson Streets) and two stops in downtown Phoenix (1) South Phoenix CBD at Washington/Jefferson Streets and Central Avenue; and 2) Central Station). The bus operated from Spectrum Mall to the State Capitol via the I-17 freeway HOV lanes with no stops in between. The BRT alternatives do not include exclusive bus lanes south of the Metrocenter Corridor study area. Figure 11 illustrates the LRT and BRT connections south of the Metrocenter Corridor. Recommended Alternative Report Page 4
8 Figure 2 LRT Alternative 1 Recommended Alternative Report Page 5
9 Figure 3 LRT Alternative 4-A/4-C Recommended Alternative Report Page 6
10 Figure 4 LRT Alternative 4-A/4-D Recommended Alternative Report Page 7
11 Figure 5 LRT Alternative 4-B/4-C Recommended Alternative Report Page 8
12 Figure 6 LRT Alternative 4-B/4-D Recommended Alternative Report Page 9
13 Figure 7 BRT Alternative 4-A/4-C Recommended Alternative Report Page 10
14 Figure 8 BRT Alternative 4-A/4-D Recommended Alternative Report Page 11
15 Figure 9 BRT Alternative 4-B/4-C Recommended Alternative Report Page 12
16 Figure 10 BRT Alternative 4-B/4-D Recommended Alternative Report Page 13
17 Figure 11 LRT/BRT Connections to LRT Starter Line Recommended Alternative Report Page 14
18 TABLE 2 LRT AND BRT OPERATING PLANS LRT Headways Peak: 6 minutes Same as LRT Number vehicles Line-haul capacity Hours of operations Fare structure Off-Peak: 12 minutes 12 Metrocenter Corridor 46 LRT starter line in Total fleet 4,500 passengers per peak hour per direction (Based on 3 vehicles per train and 150 passengers/vehicle) Daily = hours Compatible with current regional fare policy. As of 5/04, fares are: One ride $ ride coupon book $12.00 All day pass $3.60 Monthly pass $34.00 BRT 20 buses 1 46 CP/EV LRT starter line vehicles in passengers per peak hour per direction (Based on 66 passengers/vehicle [55 seated capacity 2 and 1.2 load factor]) Same as LRT Same as LRT Transfers Free 1 Based on providing six-minute peak headways and the same capacity as LRT in the Metrocenter Corridor. 2 Seated capacity based on Valley Metro s newest articulated buses. The Tier 2 alternatives also included a No-Build Alternative and a Baseline Alternative. The No- Build Alternative has a highway and roadway component as well as a transit component. The roadway element consists of certain improvements to I-17 (Black Canyon Freeway) as well as widening of Camelback Road between Central and 17 th Avenues. These same highway improvements are also included in all of the build alternatives as well as the Baseline Alternative. Transit improvements associated with the No-Build Alternative (as well as all the other alternatives considered) include completion of the Central Phoenix/East Valley LRT starter line that will operate from Mesa through Tempe and into Phoenix to Spectrum Mall at 19 th Avenue/Montebello Road. Other No-Build improvements include: 1) increased local and RAPID bus routes and introduction of a limited stop bus route; 2) increased bus hours of service and frequencies; and 3) two transit centers and four park-and-ride facilities (also included in the other Tier 2 alternatives). FTA Final Rule 49 CFR Part 611 requires grantees to request FTA approval of the Baseline Alternative to be used in the Section 5309 New Starts Report as a comparison to the New Start Build Alternative. The Baseline Alternative is intended to isolate the costs and benefits of the proposed major transit investment, and must include in the project corridor all reasonable costeffective transit improvements short of investment in the new start project. The Baseline Alternative presented in this report is still in the process of being refined as Valley Metro Rail, Inc. and the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) continue to test the new MAG travel demand model and the performance of the Baseline Alternative. The Baseline Alternative includes all the elements of the fiscally-constrained No-Build Alternative, plus unfunded transit operating and capital improvements normally considered as transportation system management (TSM) improvements. The Baseline Alternative provides a substantial increase in headways throughout the Metrocenter Corridor. It also provides two more local bus routes than the No- Build Alternative (5 total routes) serving the LRT starter line s transit center at 19 th Avenue/Montebello Road. In addition, the Baseline Alternative includes new HOV direct access Recommended Alternative Report Page 15
19 connections to I-17 within the Metrocenter Corridor study area. These connections would function similar to the HOV direct access ramps in downtown Phoenix that allow express buses to access the center HOV lane without having to weave through general purpose traffic. Two types of transit priority treatments (queue jumps and traffic signal priority [TSP]) would also be included at the one-mile arterial intersections on 19 th Avenue between Dunlap Avenue and Camelback Road to improve the speed and reliability of bus service through the corridor. Queue jumps allow buses to bypass known congestion points by giving the bus exclusive rightof-way. It can be combined with TSP to give green light time to the bus prior to general purpose traffic. 3.2 Alternatives Evaluation The criteria developed to analyze all of the build alternatives in Tier 2 began to quantify ridership potential, capital and operating and maintenance costs, land use and economic development impacts, traffic issues, environmental factors, conceptual engineering, and public preferences. The complete Tier 2 Evaluation of Alternatives Report details all of the criteria used to analyze each alternative. Tables 3 and 4 present the findings for each of the LRT and BRT alternatives for many of the criteria of interest. The No-Build and Baseline Alternatives were also evaluated (Table 3) for those criteria that measure performance (e.g., rider benefits and capital costs). Thresholds for rating the alternatives either (+) High, (O) Moderate, or (-) Low, were determined separately for each criterion considered based on professional judgment and, in some cases, after a comparison of how each alternative performed relative to a specific criterion. High (+) ratings indicated best performance, while low (-) ratings indicated low performance. The thresholds used are not detailed here, but may be found in the complete Tier 2 Evaluation of Alternatives report. Table 5 compares the ratings for each alternative for each of the criteria presented in this summary report. The No-Build Alternative was not rated. The Baseline Alternative was rated for the performance criteria considered. Recommended Alternative Report Page 16
20 Criteria Ridership potential (No. of daily riders/riders per mile) -CP/EV LRT Corridor+Metrocenter Corridor -Metrocenter Corridor New riders (daily) New riders per mile Transit travel time savings (min.) over No- Build from alternative s northern terminus to: -Downtown Phoenix -Sky Harbor Int l Airport -Arizona State University User benefits (compared to No-Build) Weekday (savings in hours) Annual (savings in hours) Number of small commercial business driveways losing full turning access Number of large commercial business driveways losing full turning access Number of single family residential driveways losing full turning access Number of multi-family residential driveways losing full turning access Number of traffic and parking lanes removed Number of activity centers within ½ mile of stations Total populations and workers within ½ mile of stations -Total population -Total workers No. of property acquisitions -Partial -Full -Total TABLE 3 TIER 2 NO-BUILD, BASELINE, AND LRT ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION SUMMARY No-Build Baseline LRT Alt. 1 LRT Alt. 4 Option 4-A/4-C 49,708/2,487 0 n/a numbers reported for baseline and build alternatives include those additional new riders over the No-Build Alternative. n/a No-Build provides basis for comparison of other alternatives. 50,647/2, ,082 / 2,445 n/a 1 9,374 / 2,248 1,785 6, 056 n/a 2 1,452 n/a Travel times are same as No-Build Alternative. n/a Weekday 33 Annual 10, Overall 23% faster than No-Build Weekday 66 Annual 19,780 57,751 / 2,385 8,043 / 1,906 5,837 1, Overall 23% faster than No-Build Weekday 60 Annual 17,985 LRT Alt. 4 Option 4-A/4-D 57,111 / 2,326 7,403 / 1,623 4, Overall 22% faster than No-Build Weekday 74 Annual 22,292 LRT Alt. 4 Option 4-B/4-C 57,411 / 2,370 7,703 / 1,821 3, Overall 23% faster than No-Build Weekday 48 Annual 14,545 LRT Alt. 4 Option 4-B/4-D 56,830 / 2,291 6,672 / 1,444 2, Overall 21% faster than No-Build Weekday 33 Annual 9, ,257 13, ,527 16, ,215 16, ,355 20, ,043 20, Recommended Alternative Report Page 17
21 Criteria Potential conflicts with major utilities -No. 230 kv lines -No. 69 kv lines -No. 36 or larger water lines Capital costs (2010) -Total cost (millions) -Number miles -Cost per mile (millions) TABLE 3 TIER 2 NO-BUILD, BASELINE, AND LRT ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION SUMMARY No-Build Baseline LRT Alt. 1 LRT Alt. 4 Option 4-A/4-C 5,000 feet of 36 3,700 feet of 48 storm drain water line 3,600 feet of 42 5,500 feet of 36 storm drain storm drain 6,400 feet of 48 6,500 feet of 48 storm drain storm drain One 54 water One 54 water line crossing line crossing No 230 kv Two 69 kv conflicts conflicts Three 69 kv One 230kV conflicts conflict SRP groundwater well Highway: $ Transit: $36.7 Total: $142.0 $68.1 n/a n/a 2 $ $71.2 LRT Alt. 4 Option 4-A/4-D 3,700 feet of 48 water line 5,500 linear feet of 36 storm drain 6,500 linear feet of 48 storm drain One 54 water line crossing Two 69 kv conflicts Two 230kV conflicts LRT Alt. 4 Option 4-B/4-C 6,500 feet of 48 storm drain 2,500 feet of 54 storm drain 2,700 feet of 60 storm drain One 54 water line crossing Two 69 kv conflicts One 230kV conflict LRT Alt. 4 Option 4-B/4-D 6,500 feet of 48 storm drain 2,600 feet of 54 storm drain 2,700 feet of 60 storm drain One 54 water line crossing Two 69 kv conflicts Two 230kV conflicts 1 Includes more riders on the CP/EV LRT starter line because of the bus improvements included in the Baseline Alternative. 2 New riders and capital costs per mile of fixed guideway does not apply to Baseline since this alternative has no LRT or BRT fixed guideway facilities. 3 Total highway project costs for the No-Build Alternative is $1.053 billion. The portion allotted for transit-related highway projects is $105.3 million. The $105.3 million highway component is also a part of the Baseline, LRT, and Build Alternatives but is not reflected in the total capital costs shown in the tables for those alternatives. See separate Tier 2 Alternatives Definition Report for additional information. $ $68.7 $ $70.7 $ $65.0 $ $67.2 Recommended Alternative Report Page 18
22 Criteria Ridership potential (No. of daily riders/riders per mile) -CP/EV LRT Corridor+Metrocenter Corridor -Metrocenter Corridor New riders (daily) New riders per mile Transit travel time savings (min.) over No- Build from alternative s northern terminus to 1 : -Downtown Phoenix -Sky Harbor Int l Airport -Arizona State University TABLE 4 TIER 2 BRT ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION SUMMARY BRT Alternative 4 Option 4-A/4-C 54,715/1,696 per mile 5,007/408 per mile 4, BRT Alternative 4 Option 4-A/4-D 54,385/1,668 per mile 4,677/371 per mile 4, BRT Alternative 4 Option 4-B/4-C 54,925/1,702 per mile 5,217/425 per mile 2, BRT Alternative 4 Option 4-B/4-D 53,580/1,641 per mile 3,872/306 per mile 1, User benefits (compared to No-Build) Weekday (savings in hours) Annual (savings in hours) Number of small commercial business driveways losing full turning access Number of large commercial business driveways losing full turning access Number of single family residential driveways losing full turning access Number of multi-family residential driveways losing full turning access Number of traffic and parking lanes removed Number of activity centers within ½ mile of stations Total populations and workers within ½ mile of stations -Total population -Total workers No. of property acquisitions -Partial -Full -Total Potential conflicts with major utilities -No. 230 kv lines -No. 69 kv lines -No. 36 or larger water lines Capital costs (2010) -Total cost -Number miles Overall 36% faster than No-Build ,380 Overall 40% faster than No-Build 1 Overall 38% faster than No-Build 1 Overall 41% faster than No-Build 1 Recommended Alternative Report Page , , ,527 16,748 3,700 feet of 48 water line 5,500 feet of 36 storm drain 6,500 feet of 48 storm drain One 54 water line crossing $241,615, $51.5 million 25,346 14,534 3,700 feet of 48 water line 5,500 feet of 36 storm drain 6,500 feet of 48 storm drain One 54 water line crossing $211,787, $55.0 million 34,355 20,665 6,500 feet of 48 storm drain 2,500 feet of 54 storm drain 2,700 feet of 60 storm drain One 54 water line crossing $224,159, $47.8 million -5-1,505 36,174 18,451 6,500 feet of 48 storm drain 2,600 feet of 54 storm drain 2,700 feet of 60 storm drain One 54 water line crossing $196,706, $51.1 million -Cost per mile 1 Travel time savings for all of the BRT alternatives are likely to be optimistic since the input assumed: 1) BRT operates in exclusive lane, which is not actually the case for the majority of the alignment with the exception of most or all of the segments within the Metrocenter Corridor; 2) average BRT operating speed was assumed to be 26 miles per hour; and 3) the BRT transfer time at the CP/EV LRT starter line was not included in the calculation of point-to-point travel times. The latter two factors are also likely to be optimistic and may not reflect actual BRT operating conditions. 2 Includes miles of fixed guideway only. The BRT 4-D options use existing travel lanes west of 23 rd /Dunlap Avenues to operate to the Metrocenter Mall. See Section 3.1 for additional information.
23 Criteria Baseline TABLE 5 TIER 2 ALTERNATIVES RATING COMPARISONS LRT Alternatives BRT Alternatives 1 4-A/4-C 4-A/4-D 4-B/4-C 4-B/4-D 4-A/4-C 4-A/4-D 4-B/4-C 4-B/4-D Ridership potential CP/EV LRT Corridor + Metrocenter Corridor O O O O Ridership potential Metrocenter Corridor Only + O O O O New riders + + O O O Transit travel time savings O O O O O O O O O User benefits O -- O Small commercial business driveways losing O O -- O O O -- O O full turning access Large commercial business driveways losing full turning access O + O Single family residential driveways losing full turning access Multi-family residential driveways losing full turning access O Traffic and parking lanes removed Activity centers within ½ mile of stations O Populations and workers within ½ mile of O O O + + O O + O stations Property acquisitions Potential conflicts with major utilities O O Capital costs + -- O -- O O O O + O + = best performance O = moderate performance -- = lowest performance Recommended Alternative Report Page 20
24 4.0 RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE 4.1 Alternative Definition After further evaluation and discussion with the public, agencies, and local elected officials, LRT Alternative 4-A/4-C was selected as the recommended build alternative for more detailed analysis during the EIS (Figure 12). This alternative begins at the northern terminus of the LRT starter line at 19 th /Montebello Avenues near Spectrum Mall and continues north on 19 th Avenue to Dunlap Avenue where it turns west to 25 th Avenue. At 25 th Avenue, the alternative turns north and continues to about Mountain View Road adjacent to the Rose Mofford Sports Complex. The track is center-running down the middle of 19 th and Dunlap Avenues and is side-running on the east side of 25 th Avenue. The existing traffic lane capacities would be maintained on all streets that the alignment traverses. The total length of this alternative is 4.7 miles. Four stations with park-and-ride facilities are located as follows: 19 th /Glendale Avenues 19 th /Northern Avenues 23 rd /Dunlap Avenues 25 th Avenue/Mountain View Road Operating plans for the recommended alternative would be the same as those previously discussed for LRT in Table 2. A future connection to Glendale could be built at Bethany Home Road, Glendale Avenue, Orangewood Avenue (between Glendale and Northern Avenues), or Northern Avenue. A future connection to the Deer Valley Core could occur under two options: 1) Continue north from the end-of-line station on 25 th Avenue to about Cholla Street and then turn northwest on aerial structure on the east side of I-17 and then enter the I-17 Corridor. The alignment could continue north to Deer Valley within the I-17 right-of-way; or 2) Construct an LRT branch line at 19 th and Dunlap Avenues that would continue north on 19 th Avenue. Construction of the recommended alternative would include installation of trackwork, an overhead contact system (OCS) for the distribution of electricity to LRT vehicles, traction power substations, and signaling and communication systems. The LRT trackway would consist of tracks formed of continuously welded rails. The rails would be embedded track supported on a concrete slab. The OCS would consist of steel or concrete poles installed along the operating right-of-way to support the electrical power line. Poles would be about 25 feet tall and typically installed at intervals from 90 to 170 feet. The OCS would be designed to be compatible with visual and aesthetic characteristics of the corridor. The poles would generally be located in the center of the two tracks, wherever possible. In some locations, catenary poles may be located on the side of the LRT trackway with the overhead electrical line suspended over the LRT tracks. Recommended Alternative Report Page 21
25 Figure 12 Recommended Alternative LRT 4-A/4-C Recommended Alternative Report Page 22
26 Electricity for LRT operations would be supplied to the OCS from traction power substations located along the proposed LRT alignment. These electrical substations would be enclosed structures approximately 20-by-40 feet (30-by-60 feet including the grounding mat around the substation) located proximally to the LRT alignment. Electrical substations would be required for roughly each 4,500 feet of track. Specific locations will be determined later as the design becomes more refined. LRT vehicles for the Metrocenter Corridor would be maintained and serviced at the LRT starter line Maintenance and Storage Facility (MSF), to be located south of Washington Street between SR 143 and Loop 202. The MSF will have sufficient capacity to service LRT vehicles allocated to the Metrocenter Corridor extension, and no additional facility will be required. 4.2 Rationale for Build Alternative Recommendation The major reasons that LRT Alternative 4-A/4-C was recommended as the preferred alternative include: Provides access to Corporate Center, Rose Mofford Park, and educational institutions along Dunlap Avenue; Results in good ridership potential; End-of-line station generates both origin and destination trips; Higher travel speeds due to fewer turns than the LRT 4-B option that traverses Northern and 23 rd Avenues; Provides opportunities for future extensions along the I-17 Corridor; Offers more development opportunities in the Corporate Center area; Future access to the mall via pedestrian bridge may be possible depending on ADOT s plans for I-17; and Shuttle bus could provide access to the mall and surrounding properties. Table 6 summarizes the reasons why the other build alternatives were eliminated from further consideration. Note that the No-Build Alternative will continue to be considered as specified by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations. The Baseline Alternative will also continue to be considered per FTA Section 5309 New Starts policy. 4.3 Outstanding Issues Additional studies will be completed during preparation of the Draft EIS with regard to the following issues: Should another station be added at 19 th Avenue/Dunlap Avenue? Should an alternate location for the end-of-line station be recommended that would be located somewhere in the following area (east of I-17; south of Peoria Avenue; west of 25 th Avenue; and north of the Arizona Canal)? At what specific locations should stations and park-and-ride facilities be placed and how much parking should be provided? Recommended Alternative Report Page 23
27 TABLE 6 TIER 2 ALTERNATIVES NOT RECOMMENDED Alternative Major Reasons for Elimination All BRT Alternatives Low rider attraction compared to LRT; Requires a transfer to use the LRT starter line; Buses cannot carry as many passengers as LRT vehicles; Higher operating and maintenance costs per passenger than LRT; Not consistent with adopted local plans; and Complex design issues associated with connection to LRT starter line at Spectrum Mall. LRT Alternative 1 Future extensions north along 19 th Avenue would be slower than other alternatives going to I-17 Corridor; Highest property acquisition requirements; Misses important high activity centers; End-of-line station generates origin trips only and not destination trips; Has lowest LRT total construction costs, but highest costs per mile; and Low economic redevelopment potential. LRT Alternative 4-A/4-D Higher construction costs; LRT bridge costs across I-17 estimated at over $30 million; LRT bridge construction requires intermittent closures of I- 17; To accommodate LRT bridge will require raising about 1,150 feet of Arizona Public Service Company (APS) 230 kv electric line; ADOT s plans for I-17 expansion may preclude bridge crossing; and Route misses Mofford Park and most of Corporate Center. LRT Alternative 4-B/4-C The narrow and winding 23 rd Avenue would not contribute to an efficient LRT operation; The Northern and 23 rd Avenues alignment has more 90- degree turns resulting in a slower LRT travel speed; and Public opposition due to alignment traversing through neighborhoods along 23 rd Avenue. LRT Alternative 4-B/4-D The narrow and winding 23 rd Avenue would not contribute to an efficient LRT operation; The Northern and 23 rd Avenues alignment has more 90- degree turns resulting in a slower LRT travel speed; Public opposition due to alignment traversing through neighborhoods along 23 rd Avenue; Ridership is less than the recommended alternative; LRT bridge costs across I-17 estimated at over $30 million; LRT bridge construction requires intermittent closures of I- 17; To accommodate LRT bridge will require raising about 1,150 feet of APS 230 kv electric line; ADOT s plans for I-17 expansion may preclude bridge crossing; and Route misses Mofford Park and most of Corporate Center. Recommended Alternative Report Page 24
28 APPENDIX A TIER 1 ALTERNATIVES
29 Figure A-1 LRT Alternatives 1 and 2
30 Figure A-2 LRT Alternatives 3 and 4
31 Figure A-3 BRT Alternatives 1 and 2
32 Figure A-4 BRT Alternatives 3 and 4
DRAFT METROCENTER CORRIDOR STUDY
DRAFT METROCENTER CORRIDOR STUDY TIER 2 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES JUNE 20, 2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION... 1 1.1 Overview... 1 1.2 Project Description... 1 2.0 EVALUATION PROCESS...
More informationPreliminary Definition of Alternatives. 3.0 Preliminary Definition of Alternatives
3.0 What preliminary alternatives are being evaluated? The alternatives for the East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor project that were considered for screening include the No Build Alternative, Transportation
More informationSCOPING SUMMARY REPORT
DRAFT METROCENTER CORRIDOR STUDY SCOPING SUMMARY REPORT February 12, 2004 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION...1 1.1 Overview...1 1.2 Purpose...1 1.3 Process...2 2.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND...2
More informationPacific Electric Right-of-Way / West Santa Ana Branch Corridor Alternatives Analysis
Pacific Electric Right-of-Way / West Santa Ana Branch Corridor Alternatives Analysis Transit Coalition September 26, 2012 2 Study Area Pacific Electric Rightof-Way/West Santa Ana Branch (PEROW/ WSAB) extends
More informationI-10 West AA/EIS Pre-Screening and Tier 1 Analysis Results. Public Meeting. Wulf Grote, Director Project Development Rick Pilgrim, Project Manager
I-10 West AA/EIS Pre-Screening and Tier 1 Analysis Results Public Meeting Wulf Grote, Director Project Development Rick Pilgrim, Project Manager March 4 & 5, 2008 Today s Agenda Overview of Alternatives
More information7 COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
7 COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES 7.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter presents the comparative analysis of the four Level 2 build alternatives along with a discussion of the relative performance of the
More informationValley Metro Overview. ITE/IMSA Spring Conference March 6, 2014
Valley Metro Overview ITE/IMSA Spring Conference March 6, 2014 Valley Metro Who Are We? Operate Regional Transit Services Valley Metro and Phoenix are region s primary service providers Light Rail and
More informationMETRO Light Rail Update
American Society of Highway Engineers METRO Light Rail Update Brian Buchanan Director, Design and Construction October 13, 2009 1 High Capacity Transit System 2 20-Mile Light Rail Line 3 Operations Operations
More informationALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS/ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SCOPING BROCHURE
I-10 WEST ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS/ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SCOPING BROCHURE INTRODUCTION Cricket Pavilion Study Description, Project Background The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and METRO are
More informationAPPENDIX I: [FIXED-GUIDEWAY TRANSIT FEASIBILITY]
APPENDIX I: [FIXED-GUIDEWAY TRANSIT FEASIBILITY] Jackson/Teton Integrated Transportation Plan 2015 Appendix I. Fixed-Guideway Transit Feasibility Jackson/Teton County Integrated Transportation Plan v2
More informationPublic Meeting. June 15, :30 7:30 p.m.
Public Meeting June 15, 2017 5:30 7:30 p.m. Welcome 2015 Naval Station Norfolk Transit Extension Study 2015 Naval Station Norfolk Transit Extension Study 2017 Norfolk Westside Transit Study HRT and the
More information4.0 TIER 2 ALTERNATIVES
4.0 TIER 2 ALTERNATIVES The Tier 2 Alternatives represent the highest performing Tier 1 Alternatives. The purpose of the Tier 2 Screening was to identify the LPA utilizing a more robust list of evaluation
More informationChallenges in a Post-Katrina Environment East-West Corridor Project Overview February, 2007
EAST-WEST CORRIDOR Challenges in a Post-Katrina Environment East-West Corridor Project Overview February, 2007 Presentation Agenda Project Overview / Purpose and Need Highway Component Transit Component
More informationLocation Concept Plan Amendment Recommendation Approved 2011 Concept Plan
Valley Line West LRT Concept Plan Recommended Amendments Lewis Farms LRT Terminus Site Location Concept Plan Amendment Recommendation Approved 2011 Concept Plan Lewis Farms LRT terminus site, 87 Avenue/West
More informationCEDAR AVENUE TRANSITWAY Implementation Plan Update
CEDAR AVENUE TRANSITWAY Implementation Plan Update EECUTIVE SUMMARY DECEMBER 2015 Executive Summary In 2013, the Twin Cities metropolitan area s first bus rapid transit (BRT) line, the METRO Red Line,
More informationPublic Meeting. City of Chicago Department of Transportation & Department of Housing and Economic Development
Public Meeting City of Chicago Department of Transportation & Department of Housing and Economic Development Funded by Regional Transportation Authority September 12, 2011 In partnership with Presentation
More informationBi-County Transitway/ Bethesda Station Access Demand Analysis
Bi-County Transitway/ Bethesda Station Access Demand Analysis Prepared for: Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Office of Planning and Project Development May 2005 Prepared by: in conjunction
More informationTable Existing Traffic Conditions for Arterial Segments along Construction Access Route. Daily
5.8 TRAFFIC, ACCESS, AND CIRCULATION This section describes existing traffic conditions in the project area; summarizes applicable regulations; and analyzes the potential traffic, access, and circulation
More informationMichigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM #18 PROJECTED CARBON DIOXIDE (CO 2 ) EMISSIONS
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM #18 PROJECTED CARBON DIOXIDE (CO 2 ) EMISSIONS Michigan / Grand River Avenue TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM #18 From: URS Consultant Team To: CATA Project Staff and Technical Committee Topic:
More informationSound Transit East Link: Bus/LRT System Integration Study
Sound Transit East Link: Bus/LRT System Integration Study Prepared For: Sound Transit King County Metro Mercer Island WSDOT Prepared By: CH2M HILL July, 2014 1 SOUND TRANSIT EAST LINK: BUS/LRT SYSTEMES
More informationNeeds and Community Characteristics
Needs and Community Characteristics Anticipate Population and Job Growth in the City Strongest density of population and jobs in Ann Arbor are within the Study Area Population expected to grow 8.4% by
More informationTransit Access Study
West of Hudson Regional Transit Access Study Open House presentation July 20, 2010 1 Agenda Progress To date Summary of Level 2 Alternatives and Screening Service Plans Bus and Rail Operating and Capital
More informationEnergy Technical Memorandum
Southeast Extension Project Lincoln Station to RidgeGate Parkway Prepared for: Federal Transit Administration Prepared by: Denver Regional Transportation District May 2014 Table of Contents Page No. Chapter
More informationI-20 EAST TRANSIT INITIATIVE Tier 1 and Tier 2 Alternatives Screening Report EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this report is to document the results of the Tier 1 and Tier 2 Screening of alternatives for the I-20 East Transit Initiative. The two-tier screening process presented
More informationTier 2 Screening and Selection522. of the Short List Alternatives KISSIMMEE CORRIDOR. Downtown CRA. US 192 Alternatives Analysis
LAKE COUNTY ORANGE COUNTY Ticket and Transportation Center Walt Disney / Reedy Creek Improvement District CR 535 John Young Parkway 441 17 92 Florida s Turnpike VE 92 mee Hall JOHN YOUNG PKY 192 OAK ST
More informationWaco Rapid Transit Corridor (RTC) Feasibility Study
Waco Rapid Transit Corridor (RTC) Feasibility Study Chris Evilia, Director of Waco Metropolitan Planning Organization Allen Hunter, General Manager Waco Transit System Jimi Mitchell, Project Manager AECOM
More informationAlternatives Analysis Findings Report
6.0 This chapter presents estimates of the potential capital, operations and maintenance costs associated with the alternatives carried forward for detailed evaluation. The methodology used to develop
More informationSERVICE DESIGN GUIDELINES
VTA TRANSIT SUSTAINABILITY POLICY: APPENDIX A SERVICE DESIGN GUIDELINES Adopted February 2007 COMMUNITYBUS LOCALBUS EXPRESSBUS BUSRAPIDTRANSIT LIGHTRAILTRANSIT STATIONAREAS S A N T A C L A R A Valley Transportation
More informationBROWARD BOULEVARD CORRIDOR TRANSIT STUDY
BROWARD BOULEVARD CORRIDOR TRANSIT STUDY FM # 42802411201 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY July 2012 GOBROWARD Broward Boulevard Corridor Transit Study FM # 42802411201 Executive Summary Prepared For: Ms. Khalilah Ffrench,
More informationCONTENTS FIGURES. US 90A/Southwest Rail Corridor
CONTENTS 1.0 Corridor Overview... 2 2.0 Alternatives... 3 2.1. Evaluation Criteria... 4 2.2. Alternatives Description and Evaluation... 8 2.3. Alignment Options Received During Scoping...15 3.0 Findings...27
More informationExecutive Summary. Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report ES-1
Executive Summary Introduction The Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 Project is a vital public transit infrastructure investment that would provide a transit connection to the existing Metro Gold Line
More informationChapter 9 Recommended Locally Preferred Alternative and Alternatives for Evaluation in Draft SEIS/SEIR
Chapter 9 Recommended Locally Preferred Alternative and Alternatives for Evaluation in Draft SEIS/SEIR 9.0 RECOMMENDED LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE AND ALTERNATIVES FOR EVALUATION IN DRAFT SEIS/SEIR
More information6/6/2018. June 7, Item #1 CITIZENS PARTICIPATION
June 7, 2018 Item #1 CITIZENS PARTICIPATION 1 Item #2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Item #3 TRAC GOALS, FRAMEWORK & AGENDA REVIEW 2 COMMITTEE GOALS Learn about Southern Nevada s mobility challenges, new developments
More informationNortheast Corridor Alternatives Analysis. Public Involvement Round 2 Input on Alternatives for Further Study
Northeast Corridor Alternatives Analysis Public Involvement Round 2 Input on Alternatives for Further Study Feb. 7-9, 2012 Agenda Review project background Progress summary Recommended alternatives for
More informationMETRO Orange Line BRT American Boulevard Station Options
METRO Orange Line BRT American Boulevard Station Options Bloomington City Council Work Session November 18, 2013 Christina Morrison BRT/Small Starts Project Office Coordinating Planning and Design AMERICAN
More informationExecutive Summary. Treasure Valley High Capacity Transit Study Priority Corridor Phase 1 Alternatives Analysis October 13, 2009.
Treasure Valley High Capacity Transit Study Priority Corridor Phase 1 Alternatives Analysis October 13, 2009 Background As the Treasure Valley continues to grow, high-quality transportation connections
More informationI-405 and SR 522/NE 145th Bus Rapid Transit. Elected Leadership Groups Meeting November 30, 2018
I-405 and SR 522/NE 145th Bus Rapid Transit Elected Leadership Groups Meeting November 30, 2018 Agenda Welcome and Introductions Public Comment BRT Connection in Bothell Common Elements: Bus base, Station
More informationFACT SHEET. US 192 Alternatives Analysis Modal Technologies. Alternative Description/Overview
FACT SHEET US 192 Alternatives Analysis Modal Technologies Bus Alternative Description/Overview Bus systems typically operate in mixed traffic and have minimal station infrastructure. Bus service typically
More informationFINAL. Sound Transit Long-Range Plan Update. Issue Paper S.1: Tacoma Link Integration with Central Link. Prepared for: Sound Transit
Sound Transit Long-Range Plan Update Issue Paper S.1: Tacoma Link Integration with Central Link Prepared for: Sound Transit Prepared by: Quade & Douglas, Inc. FINAL March 2005 Foreword This issue paper
More informationSTH 60 Northern Reliever Route Feasibility Study Report
#233087 v3 STH 60 Northern Reliever Route Feasibility Study Report Washington County Public Works Committee Meeting September 28, 2016 1 STH 60 Northern Reliever Route Feasibility Study Hartford Area Development
More informationCrenshaw-Prairie Transit Corridor Study Public Meetings
Crenshaw-Prairie Transit Corridor Study Public Meetings Darby Park: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 6:30 8:00 PM US Bank Community Room: Thursday, February 21, 2008 6:30 8:00 PM Nate Holden Performing Arts
More informationMidtown Corridor Alternatives Analysis Capital Cost Estimation Methodology and Assumptions
Midtown Corridor Alternatives Analysis Capital Cost Estimation Methodology and Assumptions 1/3/2014 Prepared by the SRF Consulting Group Team for Table of Contents Introduction... 1 Alternatives Overview...
More informationCITY OF LONDON STRATEGIC MULTI-YEAR BUDGET ADDITIONAL INVESTMENTS BUSINESS CASE # 6
2016 2019 CITY OF LONDON STRATEGIC MULTI-YEAR BUDGET ADDITIONAL INVESTMENTS BUSINESS CASE # 6 STRATEGIC AREA OF FOCUS: SUB-PRIORITY: STRATEGY: INITIATIVE: INITIATIVE LEAD(S): BUILDING A SUSTAINABLE CITY
More informationDevelop ground transportation improvements to make the Airport a multi-modal regional
Project Overview TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS WHAT ARE THE PROJECT GOALS? Transportation transportation hub. Develop ground transportation improvements to make the Airport a multi-modal regional Land Use
More informationStakeholders Advisory Working Groups (SAWGs) Traffic and Transit SAWG Meeting #7
Presentation Tappan Zee Bridge/I-287 Corridor Environmental Review December 4, 2008 Slide 1 Title Slide Slide 2 This presentation discusses the contents of the Transit Mode Selection Report. Slide 3 The
More informationValley Metro: Past, Present and Future. September 11, 2014
Valley Metro: Past, Present and Future September 11, 2014 Valley Metro Who are We? Two Boards of Directors Regional Public Transportation Authority Fund and operate regional transit services Valley Metro
More information3. PRELIMINARY DEFINITION OF ALTERNATIVES
3. PRELIMINARY DEFINITION OF ALTERNATIVES The purpose of the Preliminary Definition of Alternatives is to introduce the alternatives, including modes and off- and on-airport routes that will be carried
More informationKendall Drive Premium Transit PD&E Study Project Kick-Off Meeting SR 94/Kendall Drive/SW 88 Street Project Development and Environment (PD&E) Study
Florida Department of Transportation District Six Kendall Drive Premium Transit PD&E Study Project Kick-Off Meeting SR 94/Kendall Drive/SW 88 Street Project Development and Environment (PD&E) Study What
More informationRestoration of Historic Streetcar Services in Downtown Los Angeles
Restoration of Historic Streetcar Services in Downtown Los Angeles Alternatives Analysis Community Update Meeting August 2, 2011 Introduction Key players Local lead agency: Metro Federal lead agency: Federal
More informationUnified Corridor Investment Study DRAFT Step 2 Scenario Analysis Report
Unified Corridor Investment Study DRAFT Step 2 Scenario Analysis Report REVISIONS 1. Table 39: New Public Investments for Operation and Maintenance Costs 2. Appendix A-10: Passenger Rail Service - Operations
More informationLevel 2 Alternatives Screening Report
FEDERAL WAY TRANSIT EXTENSION Level 2 Alternatives Screening Report CENTRAL PUGET SOUND REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY Table of Contents 1.0 Executive Summary 1.1 Purpose of This Report. 1 1 1.2 Purpose and
More informationEast San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor. TAC Briefing December 4, 2013
East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor TAC Briefing December 4, 2013 Overview Measure R Project Long Range Transportation Plan Reserves $170.1 Million 2018 Revenue Operations Date Coordination with
More informationTransit Access to the National Harbor
Transit Access to the National Harbor December 2014 Table of Contents Executive Summary... 3 Introduction and Project Purpose... 6 Methodology.. 9 Definition of Alternatives..... 9 Similar Project Implementation
More information5. OPPORTUNITIES AND NEXT STEPS
5. OPPORTUNITIES AND NEXT STEPS When the METRO Green Line LRT begins operating in mid-2014, a strong emphasis will be placed on providing frequent connecting bus service with Green Line trains. Bus hours
More informationARTERIAL BRT OVERVIEW
ARTERIAL BRT OVERVIEW Key Question: Could arterial Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) routes improve near-term mobility in the northwest area until rail can be built? Key Findings: 6 arterial BRT routes have been
More informationThe range of alternatives has been reviewed with the RTAC Subgroup and the preliminary analysis is proceeding on the following HCT alternatives:
Attachment 2 Boise Treasure Valley Phase 1 Alternatives Analysis August 14, 2009 Introduction The Treasure Valley High Capacity Transit Priority Corridor Phase 1 Alternatives Analysis is being prepared
More informationMeasure R Funded Transit Projects
Measure R Funded ransit Projects Crenshaw/LAX ransit Corridor New Potential LAWA erminal & Ground Access Facilities ypes of Connections Direct Light Rail ransit (LR) Branch Metro goes to the airport Metro
More informationMadison BRT Transit Corridor Study Proposed BRT Operations Plans
Madison BRT Transit Corridor Study Proposed BRT Operations Plans This paper presents a description of the proposed BRT operations plan for use in the Madison BRT Transit Corridor Study. The objective is
More informationCENTRAL MESA HIGH C CENTRAL MESA HIGH CAPACIT CIT Y TRANSIT C TRANSIT CORRIDOR ORRIDOR
CENTRAL MESA HIGH CAPACITY TRANSIT CORRIDOR study SCOPING BROCHURE INTRODUCTION Study Description, Project Background METRO and the City of Mesa are conducting a 24-month study to analyze potential high
More informationService Quality: Higher Ridership: Very Affordable: Image:
Over the past decade, much attention has been placed on the development of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) systems. These systems provide rail-like service, but with buses, and are typically less expensive to
More informationengineering phase and during the procurement of design build contracts.
CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES Below-grade trench alignment along Aviation Boulevard, adjacent to LAX south runways. miles. MOS-Century would extend from the Metro Exposition Line to the Aviation/ Century
More information2.0 Development Driveways. Movin Out June 2017
Movin Out June 2017 1.0 Introduction The proposed Movin Out development is a mixed use development in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of West Broadway and Fayette Avenue in the City of Madison.
More informationWest Broadway Transit Study. Community Advisory Committee September 17, 2015
West Broadway Transit Study Community Advisory Committee September 17, 2015 Introductions Community Engagement Summer Outreach Fall Outreach Technical Analysis Process Update Alternatives Review Economic
More informationPublic Meeting. March 21, 2013 Mimosa Elementary School
Public Meeting March 21, 2013 Mimosa Elementary School Today s Meeting Purpose 2 Where We Are The Process What We ve Heard and Findings Transit Technologies Station Types Break-out Session Where We Are
More informationTier 3 Screening and Selection. of the Recommended Alternative KISSIMMEE CORRIDOR. June Downtown CRA. US 192 Alternatives Analysis
LAKE COUNTY ORANGE COUNTY Ticket and Transportation Center Walt Disney / Reedy Creek Improvement District CR 535 John Young Parkway 441 17 92 Florida s Turnpike VE 92 mee Hall JOHN YOUNG PKY 192 OAK ST
More informationRestoration of Historic Streetcar Services in Downtown Los Angeles
Restoration of Historic Streetcar Services in Downtown Los Angeles Early Scoping Meeting for Alternatives Analysis (AA) May 17, 2011 Introduction Key players Local lead agency: Metro Federal lead agency:
More informationI-494/I-35 Interchange Vision Layout Development - BRT Station Concepts S.P B SEH No
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Transit Advisory Group Jeff Rhoda DATE: RE: I-494/I-35 Interchange Vision Layout Development - BRT Station Concepts S.P. 2785-330B SEH No. 123252 04.00 I-494/I-35W Interchange
More informationMaryland Gets to Work
I-695/Leeds Avenue Interchange Reconstruction Baltimore County Reconstruction of the I-695/Leeds Avenue interchange including replacing the I-695 Inner Loop bridges over Benson Avenue, Amtrak s Northeast
More informationAttachment 5. High Speed Transit Planning Study REPORT SUMMARY. Prepared by: City of Edmonton Transportation Planning Branch. Stantec Consulting Ltd.
Attachment 5 High Speed Transit Planning Study Prepared by: City of Edmonton Transportation Planning Branch Stantec Consulting Ltd. Transportation Management & Design, Inc. with Lea Consulting Ltd. [135-35130]
More informationOperating & Maintenance Cost Results Report
Operating & Maintenance Cost Results Report Prepared for: Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority Prepared by: Connetics Transportation Group Under Contract To: Kimley-Horn and Associates FINAL June
More informationNorth Shore Alternatives Analysis. May 2012
North Shore Alternatives Analysis May 2012 Agenda Study Process and Progress to Date Short List Alternatives Screening Traffic Analysis Conceptual Engineering Ridership Forecasts Refinement of Service
More informationLetter EL652 City of Mercer Island. Page 1. No comments n/a
Letter EL652 City of Mercer Island Page 1 No comments n/a Page 2 Response to comment EL652 1 Section 4.5.3 of the Final EIS presents the range of potential impacts of the project. This project also lists
More informationMidtown Corridor Alternatives Analysis Key Issues Memo
Midtown Corridor Alternatives Analysis Key Issues Memo 1/4/2013 Prepared by the SRF Consulting Group Team for Table of Contents Introduction... 1 1. Markets... 1 External Markets... 1 Intra-Corridor Travel...
More informationTravel Forecasting Methodology
Travel Forecasting Methodology Introduction This technical memorandum documents the travel demand forecasting methodology used for the SH7 BRT Study. This memorandum includes discussion of the following:
More informationUS 29 Bus Rapid Transit Planning Board Briefing. February 16, 2017
US 29 Bus Rapid Transit Planning Board Briefing February 16, 2017 Project Goals Improve the quality of transit service Improve mobility opportunities and choices Enhance quality of life Support master
More informationAugust 26, Main-McVay Transit Study Stakeholder Advisory Committee. John Evans, LTD David Reesor, City of Springfield
August 26, 2014 TO: FROM: RE: Main-McVay Transit Study Stakeholder Advisory Committee John Evans, LTD David Reesor, City of Springfield Range of Possible Transit Solutions At the July 29, 2014 Stakeholder
More informationWhat IS BRT, Really? Not BRT and RNY
What IS BRT, Really? 2007 Winter TexITE Meeting Presented by Jeff Arndt, TTI Not BRT and RNY 1 What is Bus Rapid Transit? A flexible, rubber-tired from of rapid transit that combines stations, vehicles,
More informationDixie Transportation Planning Office
A project must be given a yes rating on items 1 & 2 in order to be prioritized. Sponsor: St. George City Project: Pioneer Parkway Type: Road Widening and Reconstruction Rev. 9/17/2010 Dixie Transportation
More informationV03. APTA Multimodal Operations Planning Workshop August Green Line LRT
V03 APTA Multimodal Operations Planning Workshop August 2016 Green Line LRT 2 Presentation Outline Past Present Future 3 16/03/2016 RouteAhead Update 4 4 16/03/2016 RouteAhead Update 5 5 16/03/2016 6 6
More informationWELCOME. Transit Options Amherst - Buffalo Public Workshops
WELCOME Transit Options Amherst - Buffalo Public Workshops Sponsored by Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority Greater Buffalo Niagara Regional Transportation Council Where do you live? Where do you
More informationClick to edit Master title style
Nelson/Nygaard Consulting Associates SERVICE IMPROVEMENT STRATEGIES September 22, 2015 1 PROJECT OVERVIEW & WORK TO DATE 1. Extensive stakeholder involvement Throughout 2. System and market assessment
More informationNote: The October 2007 version of this report has been updated in this December 2008 report to present costs in year 2007 dollars.
Sound Transit Phase 2 South Corridor LRT Design Report: SR 99 and I-5 Alignment Scenarios (S 200 th Street to Tacoma Dome Station) Tacoma Link Extension to West Tacoma Prepared for: Sound Transit Prepared
More informationPAWG Meeting #3a Tier 1 Evaluation
PAWG Meeting #3a Tier 1 Evaluation August 2, 2017 LYNX Central Station Open Area 1 Modes Screening 2 Trunk vs Feeder Trunk Modes High peak capacity Direct routes Feeder Modes Routing may be flexible Serve
More informationDowntown Transit Connector. Making Transit Work for Rhode Island
Downtown Transit Connector Making Transit Work for Rhode Island 3.17.17 Project Evolution Transit 2020 (Stakeholders identify need for better transit) Providence Core Connector Study (Streetcar project
More informationSUMMARY OF COMMENTS AT PUBLIC OPEN HOUSES SCOPING OF ALTERNATIVES GATEWAY CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AT PUBLIC OPEN HOUSES SCOPING OF ALTERNATIVES GATEWAY CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS A second series of four public open houses was held for the Gateway Corridor Alternatives Analysis
More informationChapter 7: Travel Demand Analysis. Chapter 8. Plan Scenarios. LaSalle Community Center. Image Credit: Town of LaSalle
Chapter 7: Travel Demand Analysis Chapter 8 Plan Scenarios LaSalle Community Center. Image Credit: Town of LaSalle 164 Chapter 8: Plan Scenarios Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21 st Century Act (MAP
More informationTHE WAY WE MOVE LRT FOR EVERYONE
THE WAY WE MOVE LRT FOR EVERYONE 2 LRT for Everyone LRT FOR EVERYONE Light rail is about more than transit; it s about transforming Edmonton. As the city grows, so do its transportation needs. LRT is an
More informationIndependence Institute Denver West Parkway, Suite 185 Golden, Colorado i2i.org/cad.aspx BRT = BTR
Independence Institute 14142 Denver West Parkway, Suite 185 Golden, Colorado 80401 303-279-6536 i2i.org/cad.aspx BRT = BTR Bus-Rapid Transit Is Better Than Rail: The Smart Alternative to Light Rail Joseph
More informationTempe Streetcar. March 2, 2016
Tempe Streetcar March 2, 2016 Tempe Profile 40 sq. miles, highest density in state University Town, center of region Imposed growth boundaries (density increase) Mixed use growth/intensifying land use
More information6/11/2018. June 7, Item #1 CITIZENS PARTICIPATION
June 7, 2018 Item #1 CITIZENS PARTICIPATION 1 Item #2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Item #3 TRAC GOALS, FRAMEWORK & AGENDA REVIEW 2 COMMITTEE GOALS Learn about Southern Nevada s mobility challenges, new developments
More informationRTSP Phase II Update
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority RTSP Phase II Update Presentation to the Technical Advisory Group July 18, 2013 Meeting 1 Presentation Outline RTSP Integration with Momentum RTSP Process
More informationGreen Line LRT: Beltline Segment Update April 19, 2017
Green Line LRT: Beltline Segment Update April 19, 2017 Quick Facts On April 11, 2017, City Council approved Administration s recommendation for the Green Line to be underground in the Beltline from 2 Street
More informationTier 1 and Tier 2 Alternatives Screening Report
I - 2 0 E A S T T R A N S I T I N I T I A T I V E Tier 1 and Tier 2 Alternatives Screening Report Prepared for: Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority Prepared by: AECOM/JJG Joint Venture Atlanta,
More informationAttachment 5 Eglinton West LRT Planning and Technical Update
Eglinton West LRT Planning and Technical Update 1. Introduction In July 2016, City Council approved an Eglinton West LRT with between 8 and 12 stops between Mount Dennis and Renforth Gateway, and up to
More informationNICTI Alternatives Analysis
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Development of Detailed Alternatives Report Prepared for: Northern Illinois Commuter Transportation Initiative City of Rockford, Illinois Prepared by: 222 South Riverside Plaza, Suite
More informationFREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS 2018 What is the More MARTA Atlanta program? The More MARTA Atlanta program is a collaborative partnership between MARTA and the City of Atlanta to develop and implement a program
More information4 COSTS AND OPERATIONS
4 COSTS AND OPERATIONS 4.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter summarizes the estimated capital and operations and maintenance (O&M) costs for the Modal and High-Speed Train (HST) Alternatives evaluated in this
More informationAppendix G: Rapid Transit Technology Backgrounder July 2017
Appendix G: Rapid Transit Technology Backgrounder This appendix provides additional details regarding Bus Rapid Transit and Light Rail Transit technologies, with examples from other systems, including:
More informationMetro Green Line to LAX Alternatives Analysis. March 2012
Metro Green Line to LAX Alternatives Analysis 1 2 The Crenshaw/LAX Project Foundation for Metro Green Line to LAX 8.5 mile extension Metro Exposition Line (Crenshaw Exposition) to Metro Green Line (Aviation/LAX
More informationUS 81 Bypass of Chickasha Environmental Assessment Public Meeting
US 81 Bypass of Chickasha Environmental Assessment Public Meeting March 14, 2013 Introductions ODOT FHWA SAIC Meeting Purpose Present need for bypass Provide responses to 10/04/11 public meeting comments
More information