Operating and Maintenance Cost Methodology Report. Durham Orange Light Rail Transit Project

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Operating and Maintenance Cost Methodology Report. Durham Orange Light Rail Transit Project"

Transcription

1 Operating and Maintenance Cost Methodology Report Durham Orange Light Rail Transit Project September 2012

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Project Background Project Alternatives NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE BASELINE ALTERNATIVE LRT BUILD ALTERNATIVE SUPPORTING BACKGROUND BUS SERVICE FOR BASELINE AND BUILD ALTERNATIVES O&M Costing Overview GENERAL MODEL STRUCTURE O&M COST MODELS Triangle Transit Bus O&M Cost Model KEY SUPPLY VARIABLES LINE ITEM EXPENSES Durham Area Transit Authority Bus O&M Cost Model KEY SUPPLY VARIABLES LINE ITEM EXPENSES Chapel Hill Transit Bus O&M Cost Model KEY SUPPLY VARIABLES LINE ITEM EXPENSES Light Rail Transit O&M Cost Model PEER SELECTION KEY SUPPLY VARIABLES PEER LRT SYSTEM DATA LINE ITEM DETAIL Baseline Premium Bus O&M Cost Model KEY SUPPLY VARIABLES LINE ITEM DETAIL Next Steps Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit Project September 2012 i

3 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1 Durham Orange Adopted LPA Figure 7.1 Total Cost per Train Hour Figure 7.2 Total Cost per Care Mile Figure 7.3 Work Hours per Train Hour LIST OF TABLES Table 4.1 Triangle Transit Bus Cost Model: Supply Variable Inputs Table 4.2 Triangle Transit Bus Cost Model Table 4.3 Triangle Transit Bus Line Item Detail Table 5.1 Durham Area Transit Authority: Supply Variable Inputs Table 5.2 Durham Area Transit Authority Bus Cost Model Table 5.3 Durham Area Transit Authority Bus Line Item Detail Table 6.1 Chapel Hill Transit Bus Cost Model: Supply Variable Inputs Table 6.2 Chapel Hill Transit Bus Cost Model Table 6.3 Chapel Hill Transit Bus Line Item Detail Table 7.1 Light Rail Peer System Selection Table 7.2 Peer LRT Systems: Key Supply Variables Table 7.3 Peer LRT Systems: Annual Employee Work Hours Table 7.4 Light Rail Cost Model Table 7.5 Light Rail Cost Model Table 7.6 Light Rail Line Item Detail Table 8.1 Baseline Premium Bus Line Item Detail Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit Project September 2012 ii

4 1. Project Background In 2007, a Special Transit Advisory Committee was appointed to develop a vision for regional public transit. Committee members included civic leaders and transportation professionals from Wake, Durham, and Orange counties. In 2008, the committee released a regional, multi modal transit plan with recommended transit investments and priorities. This plan was adopted by the region s two Metropolitan Planning Organizations and was subsequently incorporated into the 2035 Long Range Transportation Plans in May Following an alternatives analysis process to identify priority corridors for light rail transit (LRT) and commuter rail and completion of local bus studies, draft county plans were released in 2011 for public and government review. Durham County approved its county plan in 2011 and voters approved a half cent sales tax referendum in November of that year. In February 2012, Durham Chapel Hill Carrboro (DCHC) Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) approved the Locally Preferred Alternative for the Durham Orange (D O) Corridor, allowing plans to proceed for completion of the Durham and Orange county sections of the project first. The proposed LRT alignment is 17.3 miles in length, with end of line stations at Alston Avenue in Durham (east of downtown Durham) and at the University of North Carolina (UNC) Hospitals in Chapel Hill. There are a total of 17 stations that include stops in downtown Durham, Duke Medical Center, and the South Square shopping area. Figure 1 1 presents the proposed light rail alignment. Existing bus service in the study corridor is the responsibility of the following four providers: Triangle Transit provides regional and express bus service in the Raleigh Durham Chapel Hill area. The Durham Area Transit Authority (DATA) provides local route service within the City of Durham. Chapel Hill Transit (CHT) provides bus service within the Town of Chapel Hill and the University of North Carolina campus. Duke Parking and Transportation Services (Duke Transit) operates bus service within the Duke University campus and surrounding area. The study alternatives account for Triangle Transit, DATA, and CHT bus services because all three systems would be affected by the project. Duke University campus bus service would likely remain unchanged for all project alternatives. Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit Project September

5 Figure 1.1 Durham Orange Adopted LPA Operating and Maintenance Cost Methodology Report Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit Project September

6 2. Project Alternatives As documented in the D O project s Transit Operations Plans (draft, dated May 2012), there are three comparison networks where annual operating and maintenance (O&M) costs are required. The No Build, Baseline, and Build alternatives are described briefly below No-Build Alternative This project s No Build Alternative began with the 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) that was adopted by the DCHC and Capital Area MPOs in April Several modifications were required to the LRTP transit network to be more financially feasible given current economic realities. Those modifications are as follows: The D O LRT line was removed from the 2035 LRTP network. Two existing Triangle Transit corridor routes (Routes 400 and 405), not included in the 2035 LRTP, were added to the No Build network. DATA s existing Bull City Connector, not included in the 2035 LRTP, was added to the No Build Alternative. The 2035 LRTP included several new feeder bus routes to provide supplemental service to the D O LRT line. Since the No Build Alternative does not include the LRT line, these feeder routes were removed. Several new routes in the 2035 LRTP (i.e., routes that do not operate today) were taken out of the No Build network. Service frequency improvements included in the 2035 LRTP were modified so that the adjusted transit network reflects a growth in service that matches current anticipated revenues from the planned sales tax referendum and increased vehicle registration fees. The region s MPOs are in the process of updating their LRTP with adoption probable in Transit network assumptions will change with the new LRTP and are likely to assume a less robust transit network. With the modified transit network, transit service improvements included in this project s No Build Alternative transit network for the D O Corridor are as follows: Triangle Transit: Route changes include new weekday routes, routes with improved frequency of service, extended Saturday hours, and the introduction of new Sunday service. DATA: Route changes include two new routes and several routes with improved frequency of service. Chapel Hill Transit: Route changes include several routes with improved frequency of service, several routes with extended Saturday hours, and expanded Sunday service Baseline Alternative The Baseline Alternative is intended to be the best that can be done to improve transit service in a corridor without a major capital investment in new infrastructure. For this project, the Baseline Alternative reflects significant expansion of limited bus service in the corridor with stops at the same Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit Project September

7 locations as proposed LRT stations, and with the addition of several new feeder routes to enhance connectivity to/from the corridor s new premium transit service. The major service improvement introduced in the Baseline Alternative is new limited stop bus service that operates from Alston Avenue in Durham to the UNC Hospitals in Chapel Hill. This service would use existing roads, generally following the same alignment as proposed for light rail in the Locally Preferred Alternative. There would be a total of 17 bus stations (34 stops) at locations close to those proposed for light rail. Amenities at each stop are anticipated to be consistent with those proposed in the LRT Build Alternative. Baseline bus stops with park and ride lots are at the same locations where these facilities are proposed for light rail. Baseline bus stops also will include bus bays for connecting feeder bus routes, and will include kiss and ride drop off spaces. Off vehicle revenue collection also is assumed to be handled with ticket vending machines at each Baseline stop location. Hybrid buses will be used for this premium bus service. Measures such as queue jumper lanes and transit signal prioritization are included to maximize bus speeds as much as possible in general traffic. Operating hours for the new premium bus service are the same as proposed for LRT service, generally from 5:30 a.m. until midnight on weekdays and Saturdays, and 7:00 a.m. to midnight on Sundays. Bus service frequencies are the same as proposed for the LRT Build Alternative with the exception of the peak periods. Bus travel times in the Baseline Alternative are estimated to be significantly slower than LRT travel times, particularly in the peak periods. To compensate for these slower times, a limited stop bus service pattern is proposed for peak periods, in addition to an all stop bus service pattern LRT Build Alternative The Build Alternative consists of LRT service from UNC Hospitals in Chapel Hill to Alston Avenue in Durham. Summarizing the alignment by sub area, it begins near the Dogwood Parking Deck on the southern side of the UNC campus and proceeds to Friday Center, Leigh Village, South Square, Duke Medical Center, Durham Station, and terminates just east of Alston Avenue along the south side of the freight rail tracks. The proposed LRT alignment would include 17 stations at locations similar to those assumed for the Baseline Alternative and eight of the sites would include park and ride facilities. Operating hours for the new light rail service are proposed to be from 5:30 a.m. to midnight on weekdays and Saturdays, and 7:00 a.m. to midnight on Sundays. Proposed service frequencies on weekdays would be 10 minutes during peak periods, 20 minutes during the midday, and 30 minutes in the evening. Saturday service would operate every 20 minutes until 7:00 p.m., when the frequency would be reduced to every half hour. Sunday service would operate at 30 minute intervals before 9:00 a.m. and after 7:00 p.m., with 20 minute service during the day Supporting Background Bus Service for Baseline and Build Alternatives With the introduction of new premium bus or light rail service in the D O Corridor, several changes can be made to existing Triangle Transit, DATA, and Chapel Hill Transit routes in the corridor. These changes can be categorized as follows: Elimination of competing bus service: Two Triangle Transit routes (Routes 400, 405), three Chapel Hill Transit routes (Routes FCX, HU, and S) and one DATA route (Bull City Connector) are eliminated from the transit network. Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit Project September

8 Modifications to the background bus network: Several DATA, CHT, and Triangle Transit route alignments are modified to include connections to nearby stations. One CHT route (Route D) includes improved peak period frequencies. Introduction of new feeder bus routes. A total of 11 new feeder routes are proposed along the alignment to improve connectivity to the Baseline Alternative s premium bus service or the Build Alternative s light rail service. This project s Transit Operations Plans describes proposed changes to the local bus networks in detail. Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit Project September

9 3. O&M Costing Overview O&M cost estimates are important in the planning process for New Starts projects because design year O&M cost projections are one of the inputs required to determine New Starts measures of cost effectiveness. An O&M cost model estimates the annual cost to operate, maintain, and administer a transit system for a given set of service indicators. O&M costs are expressed as the annual total of employee earnings and fringe benefits, contract services, materials and supplies, utilities, and other dayto day expenses incurred in the operation and maintenance of a transit system. In general, steps of the O&M cost estimating process are as follows: Develop methodology for estimating O&M costs. Develop appropriate cost model(s) to evaluate alternatives. Calibrate the model for current year operations. Generate operating plans and statistics for each study alternative. Estimate annual transit operating and maintenance costs for each study alternative. This report documents the first three steps as they have been applied to the D O County Corridor. The operating plans and cost estimates referred to in the last two steps will be documented separately, after completion and review of ridership forecasts, to determine appropriate adjustments to each alternative s service plan definition. Capital cost estimates, for construction and equipment purchases, are not part of the O&M cost estimating process. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) believes a fully allocated cost model is the best approach to O&M costing because it is: a) able to reflect cost differences by mode and service type; b) structured based on actual operating experience; and c) sensitive to future changes in cost factors. The FTA has issued guidelines that specify the following methodology for calculating O&M costs: Compute costs by estimating labor and materials needed to provide a current level of service and then apply unit costs to the estimated future labor and material cost items. Calculate costs based on operating characteristics by mode (e.g., LRT train hours) rather than for all modes combined (e.g., system wide passengers). Model each reported labor and non labor expense separately to ensure that equations are mutually exclusive and cover all operating costs. Model expense items as variable, meaning that cost estimates will change with projected changes in service. A cost allocation model assumes that each expense incurred by a transit system is driven by a key supply variable such as revenue hours, revenue miles, or the number of vehicles operated during peak periods. Combining recent actual O&M costs with the quantity of relevant supply variables establishes unit costs and productivity ratios that can then be applied to a different set of service indicators (such as projected future expansions or cut backs). The result is an estimated annual O&M cost estimate that is specific for the test scenario. Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit Project September

10 3.1. General Model Structure The structure of the D O County Corridor project s O&M cost models is consistent with the spreadsheet table exhibits presented in Chapter 4, Operating and Maintenance Costs, of the FTA s Procedures and Technical Methods for Transit Project Planning (Draft Version 3). The model s data and calculations progress from the base year expense items and amounts on the left side of the spreadsheet, through the assignment of driving variables, to productivity and inflation, and end with the estimated incremental cost of a study alternative on the right side of the spreadsheet. Line Items and Base Year Costs The first few columns of a cost model spreadsheet lists O&M line item expenses, a recent annual cost for each item, and a column for noting whether a line item s existing unit cost is adjusted in the model or a new unit cost has been added. Calibration Unit Costs As pointed out in the FTA guidelines, O&M costs are related to (or driven by) different supply variables. Supply variables can be considered causal because as they increase, so do the related expense items. The second section of a spreadsheet model is for the supply variable unit cost rates; one column is designated for each variable used as a driver for estimating the cost of a project alternative. Usually, unit rates are calculated by dividing the actual annual expense for the line item by the value of the relevant supply variable. Productivity Ratios Line item productivity ratios are calculated in the third section of a cost model with columns that display the resource variable used for the calculation (may be the line item s supply variable, or it may be something else related to the supply variable, such as work hours for salary and wage expenses), the value of the resource variable, and the factor that results from dividing the resource value by the supply value. Estimated Cost of a Test Scenario For each line item expense, the last columns in the spreadsheet contain the base year resource unit cost (supply variable unit cost divided by resource/supply factor), an inflation factor, and the model estimates of resource unit cost and annual cost. The D O Corridor project models estimate O&M costs for the study alternatives in 2011 dollars O&M Cost Models Five models were developed for this project in order to estimate O&M costs for each of three existing bus service providers (Triangle Transit, DATA, and CHT), light rail as a new mode of transit for Triangle Transit, and new premium bus service that is reflected in this project s Baseline Alternative. Background Bus Cost Models The D O County Corridor project alternatives require bus O&M costs to be estimated for Triangle Transit, Durham Area Transit Authority, and Chapel Hill Transit. All three agencies operate bus service in the study corridor, and project alternatives reflect various modifications to bus service for each of these Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit Project September

11 three service providers. The cost model for each service provider has been developed with each agency s actual expenses, system characteristics, and service statistics as reported to the National Transit Database (NTD) for the 2011 report year. In some instances, the service providers have been able to provide additional cost data beyond what is reported in NTD. Demand response has not been modeled because these operations are not expected to change from one study alternative to another. Light Rail Cost Model Since light rail is not currently operated in the region, O&M cost estimates for the Build Alternative have been based on the actual cost experience of several LRT systems elsewhere in the United States. The light rail section of this report describes selection of the project s peer light rail systems and how the rail cost model has been structured for use in the D O County Corridor project. Baseline Bus Cost Model The Baseline Alternative assumes new premium bus service is operated by Triangle Transit. New passenger facilities (premium bus stops) are part of this alternative s project definition. This model combines Triangle Transit bus unit costs with adjusted light rail facilities unit costs to identify the unique incremental O&M expenses of this alternative that would be in addition to Triangle Transit s background bus service. Each model is described in the following sections of this document. Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit Project September

12 4. Triangle Transit Bus O&M Cost Model Triangle Transit s bus O&M cost model is based on the agency s 2011 NTD report for directly operated motor bus service. Triangle Transit s FY 2011 overall cost per revenue bus hour averaged $ However, per FTA New Starts guidance, costs have been identified by function and cost item, with service variables assigned to each line item cost. Expenses, service statistics, and supplemental information on contracted services were provided by Triangle Transit staff Key Supply Variables After collection of financial and service data, preparation of the spreadsheet cost model began with the selection of key driving supply variables for the existing bus system. Variables selected were as follows: Annual Revenue Bus Hours: The hours that vehicles travel while in revenue service over the entire fiscal year. Revenue bus hours include layover and schedule recovery but exclude time for deadhead, operator training, and maintenance testing. For modeling purposes, revenue bushours have been divided between Triangle Transit s directly operated service and service contracted out. Triangle Transit has contracts with Capital Area Transit (CAT) (Raleigh s public transit service provider) and CHT to operate select Triangle Transit bus routes. Annual Revenue Bus Miles: The miles that vehicles travel while in revenue service over the entire fiscal year. Revenue bus miles include layover and schedule recovery but exclude miles for deadhead, operator training, and maintenance testing. For modeling purposes, revenue busmiles have been divided between Triangle Transit s directly operated service and service contracted out to CAT and CHT. Garages: The number of garages from which buses are dispatched into service. These garages also serve as general purpose maintenance facilities for inspecting, servicing, and maintenance work on buses. For a bus system with one garage, it also functions as a heavy maintenance facility. Regional Transit Centers: The number of bus passenger facilities that provide more amenities than a conventional, on street bus stop. Triangle Transit is responsible for the operation and maintenance of the Regional Transit Center (RTC), located in Research Triangle Park. Peak Buses: The maximum number of passenger service vehicles actually operated simultaneously on an average weekday. In some cases, peak buses may be used as a supply variable when the model needs to baseline item expenses on overall bus system size. Table 4 1 shows the key supply variables and values used to represent the model s calibration (FY 2011 base year) inputs. Once again, bus hours, bus miles, and peak buses were obtained directly from Triangle Transit s 2011 NTD report. Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit Project September

13 Table 4.1 Triangle Transit Bus Cost Model: Supply Variable Inputs SupplyVariableInputs 2011 Calibration AnnualRevenueTriangleTransitBus Hours 97,536 AnnualRevenueContractorBus Hours 11,780 AnnualRevenueTriangleTransitBus Miles 2,286,415 AnnualRevenueContractorBus Miles 159,000 Garages 1 RegionalTransitCenters 1 PeakBuses Line Item Expenses After selecting the key supply variables, the next step in model development was to record Triangle Transit s bus expenses as a series of line items. The NTD report format categorizes operating expenses within the four functional areas of Vehicle Operations, Vehicle Maintenance, Non Vehicle Maintenance, and General Administration. For each functional area, line item expenses are further classified as salaries/wages, fringe benefits, services, materials/supplies, utilities, casualty and liability, taxes/fees, and miscellaneous. Triangle Transit Finance staff was able to provide some additional break out of costs beyond what is typically reported in NTD. Some line item expenses in the NTD actually are typically influenced by more than one of the model s supply variables. Accordingly, it is appropriate to split these line item costs to two or more supply variables. Split line items include the following: Vehicle Operations: Non Operator Salaries & Wages have been split with 70% of non operator work hours driven by revenue bus hours and 30% driven by the number of garages. Fringe Benefits are allocated proportionally to the same driving variables. Vehicle Operations: Professional & Technical Services are driven by both contractor revenue bus hours and peak buses. The portion assigned to contractor revenue bus hours is based on actual expense detail provided by Triangle Transit staff. Vehicle Maintenance: Professional & Technical Services are driven by both Triangle Transit directly operated and contractor revenue bus miles. The portion assigned to contractor revenue bus miles is based on actual expense detail provided by Triangle Transit staff. The model incorporates NTD reported employee work hours as a resource variable for estimating salaries and wages by functional area for the project alternatives. Triangle Transit staff was able to provide a break out of operator and non operator salaries and wages under Vehicle Operations. Fringe benefit cost estimates in the model also pivot off labor work hours. The bus O&M cost model also uses gallons of fuel as the resource variable for estimating those fuel costs for the future. After the line items were established, each one was assigned a key supply variable as its most relevant cost driver, and then unit costs and productivity ratios were calculated. Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit Project September

14 Table 4 2 summarizes the dollar impact that each of the bus model s key supply variables has on the calibration (FY 2011 base year) system. The unit costs in this table reflect the dollar amount the model will adjust for each added or deleted unit of a supply variable the incremental change from the calibration bus system. For example, for each Triangle Transit operated revenue bus mile added, the model will increase its total estimate by $1.42, for each revenue bus hour deleted; the model will subtract $46.35 from its estimate, and so forth. Table 4.2 Triangle Transit Bus Cost Model Supply Variable Impacts for the 2011 Calibration Bus System (in 2011 dollars) Key Supply Variable Share of Total O&M Cost Dollar Amount Percentage Unit Cost Annual Revenue Triangle Transit Bus-Hours $4,521,113 Annual Revenue Contractor Bus-Hours $650,000 Annual Revenue Triangle Transit Bus-Miles $3,242,766 Annual Revenue Contractor Bus-Miles $224,306 Garages $313,018 Regional Transit Centers $133,512 Peak Buses $2,403,009 Total $11,487, % $ % $ % $ % $ % $313, % $133, % $42, % Table 4 3 presents the Triangle Transit bus O&M cost model worksheet for the 2011 calibration (base year), created with the supply variables shown in Table 4 1. Model results are in 2011 dollars. Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit Project September

15 Table 4.3 Triangle Transit Bus Line Item Detail Operating and Maintenance Cost Methodology Report Durham-Orange County Corridor Triangle Regional Transit Program O&M Cost Models TRIANGLE TRANSIT BUS LINE ITEM DETAIL Inflation Factor: Existing New Bus Supply Variable Unit Cost Rate ($2011) Productivity Ratio Base Year Results in: 2012$ Bus Unit Cost Unit Cost TTA Revenue Contracted TTA Revenue Contracted Regional Resource Resource Resource/ Resource Inflation Resource Estimated Expense Line Item Expenses Adjusted Added Bus-Hours Bus-Hours Bus-Miles Bus-Miles Garages Transit Ctrs Peak Buses Variable Value Supply Unit Cost Factor Unit Cost Annual Cost VEHICLE OPERATIONS OPERATORS' SALARIES & WAGES $2,740,134 $28.09 Work Hours 145, $ $18.83 $2,740,134 OTHER SALARIES & WAGES - Rev-Hours Driven (70%) $302,922 $3.11 Work Hours 8, $ $34.20 $302,922 OTHER SALARIES & WAGES - Garage Driven (30%) $75,731 $75,731 Work Hours 3,796 3,796 $ $19.95 $75,731 FRINGE BENEFITS - Rev-Hours Driven $1,478,057 $15.15 Work Hours 154, $ $9.57 $1,478,057 FRINGE BENEFITS - Garage Driven $36,783 $36,783 Work Hours 3,796 3,796 $ $10 $36,783 PROFESSIONAL & TECH SVCS - Peak Buses Driven $46,509 $816 Peak Buses $ $816 $46,509 PROFESSIONAL & TECH SVCS - Contractor Hours Driven $650,000 $55.18 Contracted Hours 11, $ $55.18 $650,000 FUEL & LUBRICANTS $1,518,907 $0.66 Gallons 526, $ $2.88 $1,518,907 TIRES & TUBES $88,119 $0.04 Revenue Miles 2,286, $ $0.04 $88,119 OTHER MATERIALS & SUPPLIES $12,918 $12,918 Garages $12, $12,918 $12,918 MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES $40,419 $40,419 Garages $40, $40,419 $40,419 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE SALARIES & WAGES - Mechanics $676,902 $0.30 Work Hours 29, $ $22.71 $676,902 FRINGE BENEFITS $378,724 $0.17 Work Hours 29, $ $12.71 $378,724 PROFESSIONAL & TECH SVCS - TT Rev-Miles Driven $140,793 $0.06 Revenue Miles 2,286, $ $0.06 $140,793 PROFESSIONAL & TECH SVCS - Contractor Miles Driven $224,306 $1.41 Contracted Miles 159, $ $1.41 $224,306 FUEL & LUBRICANTS $5,468 $95.93 Peak Buses $ $96 $5,468 TIRES & TUBES $1,618 $28.39 Peak Buses $ $28.39 $1,618 OTHER MATERIALS & SUPPLIES $400,713 $0.18 Revenue Miles 2,286, $ $0.18 $400,713 CASUALTY & LIABILITY $38,608 $0.02 Revenue Miles 2,286, $ $0.02 $38,608 MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES $16,925 $16,925 Garages $16, $16,925 $16,925 NON-VEHICLE MAINTENANCE PROFESSIONAL & TECH SERVICES $133,512 $133,512 Transit Centers $133, $133,512 $133,512 GENERAL ADMINISTRATION SALARIES & WAGES $1,059,129 FRINGE BENEFITS $269,655 PROFESSIONAL & TECHNICAL SERVICES $202,437 MATERIALS & SUPPLIES $41,663 UTILITIES $88,579 CASUALTY & LIABILITY $723,567 MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES $94,626 TOTALS $11,487, Resource Variable Values Notes: 1. NTD Fringe Benefit Rate for Vehicle Ops = 48.6% 2. NTD Fringe Benefit Rate for Vehicle Maint = 55.9% 3. NTD Fringe Benefit Rate for General Admin = 25.5% Calibration $18,581 Work Hours 32, $ $32.61 $1,059,129 $4,731 Work Hours 32, $ $8.30 $269,655 $3,552 Peak Buses $3, $3,552 $202,437 $41,663 Garages $41, $41,663 $41,663 $88,579 Garages $88, $88,579 $88,579 $12,694 Peak Buses $12, $12,694 $723,567 $1,660 Peak Buses $1, $1,660 $94,626 $46.35 $55.18 $1.42 $1.41 $313,018 $133,512 $42,158 $11,487,724 97,536 11,780 2,286, , TT Rev Hours 97,536 Contract Hours 11,780 TT Rev Miles 2,286,415 Contract Miles 159,000 Garages 1 Transit Centers 1 Peak Buses 57 Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit Project September

16 5. Durham Area Transit Authority Bus O&M Cost Model The DATA bus O&M cost model is based on the agency s 2011 NTD report for directly operated motor bus service. DATA s FY 2011 overall cost per revenue bus hour averaged $ However, per FTA New Starts guidance, costs have been identified by function and cost item, with service variables assigned to each line item cost. Expenses and service statistics were provided by DATA staff as well as supplemental expense detail for their purchased transportation services. DATA is unique from the other area operators in that its service is contracted to Triangle Transit. Thus, nearly all of DATA s expenses in NTD are reported as Purchased Transportation. DATA and Triangle Transit staff provided a detailed breakout of these Purchased Transportation expenses for use in this project Key Supply Variables After collection of financial and service data, preparation of the spreadsheet cost model began with the selection of key driving supply variables for the existing bus system. Variables selected were as follows: Annual Revenue Bus Hours: The hours that vehicles travel while in revenue service over the entire fiscal year. Revenue bus hours include layover and schedule recovery but exclude time for deadhead, operator training, and maintenance testing. Annual Revenue Bus Miles: The miles that vehicles travel while in revenue service over the entire fiscal year. Revenue bus miles include layover and schedule recovery but exclude miles for deadhead, operator training, and maintenance testing. Garages: The number of garages from which buses are dispatched into service. These garages also serve as general purpose maintenance facilities for inspecting, servicing, and maintenance work on buses. For a bus system with one garage, it also functions as a heavy maintenance facility. Transit Centers: The number of bus passenger facilities that provide more amenities than a conventional, on street bus stop. DATA s primary transit hub is Durham Station, located in downtown Durham. Peak Buses: The maximum number of passenger service vehicles actually operated simultaneously on an average weekday. In some cases, peak buses may be used as a supply variable when the model needs to baseline item expenses on overall bus system size. Table 5 1 shows the key supply variables and values used to represent the model s calibration (FY 2011 base year) inputs. Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit Project September

17 Table 5.1 Durham Area Transit Authority: Supply Variable Inputs Supply Variable Inputs 2011 Calibration Annual Revenue Bus Hours 182,741 Annual Revenue Bus Miles 2,623,682 Garages 1 Regional Transit Centers 1 Peak Buses Line Item Expenses After selecting the key supply variables, the next step in model development was to record DATA s bus expenses as a series of line items. The agency s NTD report format categorizes operating expenses within the four functional areas of Vehicle Operations, Vehicle Maintenance, Non Vehicle Maintenance, and General Administration. As noted earlier, for each functional area, agency line item expenses are primarily reported as Purchased Transportation; however, DATA and Triangle Transit staff provided a breakdown of contractor expenditures for use in the D O County Corridor project. As was the case noted with Triangle Transit, some line item expenses in the NTD actually are typically influenced by more than one of the model s supply variables. Accordingly, it is appropriate to split these line item costs to two or more supply variables. Split line items in the DATA O&M cost model are: Non Vehicle Maintenance: Salaries & Wages are 75% driven by garages and 25% driven by regional transit centers. Fringe Benefits are allocated proportionally to the same driving variables. General Administration: Professional & Technical Services are driven by both peak buses and the number of garages. The split between supply variables is based on detailed expense data provided by DATA and Triangle Transit staff. The model incorporates employee work hours as a resource variable for estimating salaries and wages by functional area for the project alternatives. Fringe benefit cost estimates in the model also pivot off labor work hours. After the line items were established, each one was assigned a key supply variable as its most relevant cost driver, and then unit costs and productivity ratios were calculated. Table 5 2 summarizes the dollar impact that each of the bus model s key supply variables has on the calibration (FY 2011 base year) system. The unit costs in this table reflect the dollar amount the model will adjust for each added or deleted unit of a supply variable the incremental change from the calibration bus system. In other words, for each DATA revenue bus mile added, the model will increase its total estimate by $1.65; for each revenue bus hour deleted, the model will subtract $38.14 from its estimate, and so forth. Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit Project September

18 Table 5.2 Durham Area Transit Authority Bus Cost Model Supply Variable Impacts for the 2011 Calibration Bus System (in 2011 dollars) Share of Total O&M Cost Key Supply Variable Dollar Amount Percentage Unit Cost Annual Revenue Bus Hours $6,970, % $38.14 Annual Revenue Bus Miles $4,316, % $1.65 Garages $966, % $966, Regional Transit Centers $94, % $94, Peak Buses $3,414, % $85,368 Total $15,762, % Table 5 3 presents the Durham Area Transit Authority bus O&M cost model worksheet for the 2011 calibration (base year), created with the supply variables shown in Table 5 1. Model results are in 2011 dollars. Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit Project September

19 Durham-Orange County Corridor Triangle Regional Transit Program O&M Cost Models DURHAM AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY BUS LINE ITEM DETAIL Table 5.3 Durham Area Transit Authority Bus Line Item Detail Operating and Maintenance Cost Methodology Report Inflation Factor: Bus Supply Variable Unit Cost Rate ($2011) Productivity Ratio Base Year Results in: 2011$ Bus Revenue Revenue Resource Resource Resource/ Resource Inflation Resource Estimated Expense Line Item Expenses Bus-Hours Bus-Miles Garages Transit Ctrs Peak Buses Variable Value Supply Unit Cost Factor Unit Cost Annual Cost VEHICLE OPERATIONS - PURCHASED TRANSP. OPERATORS' SALARIES & WAGES $4,337,198 $23.73 Work Hours 220, $ $19.67 $4,337,198 FRINGE BENEFITS $2,633,349 $14.41 Work Hours 220, $ $11.94 $2,633,349 PROFESSIONAL & TECHNICAL SERVICES $348,056 $8,701 Peak Buses $8, $8,701 $348,056 FUEL & LUBRICANTS $1,721,418 $0.66 Revenue Miles 2,623, $ $0.656 $1,721,418 TIRES & TUBES $191,752 $0.07 Revenue Miles 2,623, $ $0.073 $191,752 MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES $26,778 $26,778 Garages $26, $26,778 $26,778 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE - PURCHASED TRANSP. SALARIES & WAGES $970,717 $0.37 Work Hours 39, $ $24.56 $970,717 FRINGE BENEFITS $471,397 $0.18 Work Hours 39, $ $11.93 $471,397 PROFESSIONAL & TECHNICAL SERVICES $200,672 $0.08 Revenue Miles 2,623, $ $0.076 $200,672 FUEL & LUBRICANTS $73,411 $1,835 Peak Buses $1, $1,835 $73,411 TIRES & TUBES $3,180 $79.50 Peak Buses $ $79.50 $3,180 OTHER MATERIALS & SUPPLIES $749,696 $0.29 Revenue Miles 2,623, $ $0.286 $749,696 CASUALTY & LIABILITY $10,722 $0.004 Revenue Miles 2,623, $ $0.004 $10,722 NON-VEHICLE MAINTENANCE - PURCHASED TRANSP. SALARIES & WAGES - Garage Driven (75%) $200,365 $200,365 Work Hours 18,720 18,720 $ $10.70 $200,365 SALARIES & WAGES - Passenger Facility Driven (25%) $66,788 $66,788 Work Hours 6,240 6,240 $ $10.70 $66,788 FRINGE BENEFITS - Garage Driven $83,417 $83,417 Work Hours 18,720 18,720 $ $4.46 $83,417 FRINGE BENEFITS - Passenger Facility Driven $27,806 $27,806 Work Hours 6,240 6,240 $ $4.46 $27,806 PROFESSIONAL & TECH SERVICES $81,954 $81,954 Garages $81, $81,954 $81,954 MATERIALS & SUPPLIES $34,602 $34,602 Garages $34, $34,602 $34,602 MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES $302,356 $302,356 Garages $302, $302,356 $302,356 GENERAL ADMINISTRATION - PURCHASED TRANSP. SALARIES & WAGES $615,058 $15,376 Work Hours 13, $ $44.97 $615,058 FRINGE BENEFITS $203,163 $5,079 Work Hours 13, $ $14.86 $203,163 PROF & TECHNICAL SERVICES - Garage Driven $63,148 $63,148 Garages $63, $63,148 $63,148 PROF & TECHNICAL SERVICES - Pk Bus Driven $583,825 $14,596 Peak Buses $14, $14,596 $583,825 MATERIALS & SUPPLIES $47,772 $47,772 Garages $47, $47,772 $47,772 UTILITIES $111,006 $111,006 Garages $111, $111,006 $111,006 CASUALTY & LIABILITY $849,093 $21,227 Peak Buses $21, $21,227 $849,093 TAXES & FEES $53,110 $1,328 Peak Buses $1, $1,328 $53,110 MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES $273,135 $6,828 Peak Buses $6, $6,828 $273,135 GENERAL ADMINISTRATION - DIRECTLY OPERATED SALARIES & WAGES $320,398 $8,010 Work Hours 7, $ $44.97 $320,398 FRINGE BENEFITS $92,275 $2,307 Work Hours 7, $ $12.95 $92,275 UTILITIES $15,230 $15,230 Garages $15, $15,230 $15,230 TOTALS $15,762,847 $38.14 $1.65 $966,628 $94,594 $85,368 $15,762, Resource Variable Values 182,741 2,623, Revenue Hours 182,741 Notes: Revenue Miles 2,623, NTD Fringe Benefit Rate for Vehicle Ops = 60.7% Garages 1 2. NTD Fringe Benefit Rate for Vehicle Maint = 48.6% Transit Centers 1 3. NTD Fringe Benefit Rate for Non-Veh Maint = 41.6% Peak Buses NTD Fringe Benefit Rate for General Admin = 33.0% Calibration Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit Project September

20 6. Chapel Hill Transit Bus O&M Cost Model Chapel Hill Transit s (CHT s) bus O&M cost model is based on the agency s 2011 NTD report for directlyoperated motor bus service. CHT s FY 2011 overall cost per revenue bus hour averaged $ However, per FTA New Starts guidance, costs have been identified by function and cost item, with service variables assigned to each line item cost. Expenses and service statistics were provided by CHT Key Supply Variables After collection of financial and service data, preparation of the spreadsheet cost model began with the selection of key driving supply variables for the existing bus system. Variables selected were as follows: Annual Revenue Bus Hours: The hours that vehicles travel while in revenue service over the entire fiscal year. Revenue bus hours include layover and schedule recovery but exclude time for deadhead, operator training, and maintenance testing. Annual Revenue Bus Miles: The miles that vehicles travel while in revenue service over the entire fiscal year. Revenue bus miles include layover and schedule recovery but exclude miles for deadhead, operator training, and maintenance testing. Garages: The number of garages from which buses are dispatched into service. These garages also serve as general purpose maintenance facilities for inspecting, servicing, and maintenance work on buses. For a bus system with one garage, it also functions as a heavy maintenance facility. Peak Buses: The maximum number of passenger service vehicles actually operated simultaneously on an average weekday. In some cases, peak buses may be used as a supply variable when the model needs to baseline item expenses on overall bus system size. Table 6 1 shows the key supply variables and values used to represent the model s calibration (FY 2011 base year) inputs. Table 6.1 Chapel Hill Transit Bus Cost Model: Supply Variable Inputs 2011 Supply Variable Inputs Calibration Annual Revenue Bus Hours 165,228 Annual Revenue Bus Miles 1,922,797 Garages 1 Peak Buses 76 Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit Project September

21 6.2. Line Item Expenses After selecting the key supply variables, the next step in model development was to record CHT s bus expenses as a series of line items. The agency s NTD report format categorizes operating expenses within the four functional areas of Vehicle Operations, Vehicle Maintenance, Non Vehicle Maintenance, and General Administration. For each functional area, line item expenses are further classified as salaries/wages, fringe benefits, services, materials/supplies, utilities, casualty and liability, taxes/fees, and miscellaneous. As was noted for the other operators, some line item costs have been assigned to multiple supply variables. For the CHT model, there was only one split line item, shown below: Vehicle Operations: Non Operator Salaries & Wages are 70% driven by revenue bus hours and 30% driven by the number of garages. Fringe Benefits are allocated proportionally to the same driving variables. The model incorporates employee work hours provided by CHT staff as a resource variable for estimating salaries and wages by functional area for the project alternatives. Fringe benefit cost estimates in the model also pivot off labor work hours. After the line items were established, each one was assigned a key supply variable as its most relevant cost driver, and then unit costs and productivity ratios were calculated. Table 6 2 summarizes the dollar impact that each of the bus model s key supply variables has on the calibration (FY 2011 base year) system. The unit costs in this table reflect the dollar amount the model will adjust for each added or deleted unit of a supply variable the incremental change from the calibration bus system. In other words, for each CHT revenue bus mile added, the model will increase its total estimate by $2.35; for each revenue bus hour deleted, the model will subtract $46.81 from its estimate, and so forth. Table 6.2 Chapel Hill Transit Bus Cost Model Supply Variable Impacts for the 2011 Calibration Bus System (in 2011 dollars) Share of Total O&M Cost Key Supply Variable Dollar Amount Percentage Unit Cost Annual Revenue Bus-Hours $7,734, % $46.81 Annual Revenue Bus-Miles $4,524, % $2.35 Garages $1,003, % $1,003,785 Peak Buses $1,420, % $18,684 Total $14,683, % Table 6 3 presents the CHT bus O&M cost model worksheet for the 2011 calibration (base year), created with the supply variables shown in Table 6 1. Model results are in 2011 dollars. Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit Project September

22 Durham-Orange County Corridor Triangle Regional Transit Program O&M Cost Models CHAPEL HILL TRANSIT BUS LINE ITEM DETAIL Table 6.3 Chapel Hill Transit Bus Line Item Detail Operating and Maintenance Cost Methodology Report Calibration Inflation Factor: Bus Supply Variable Unit Cost Rate ($2011) Productivity Ratio Base Year Results in: 2011$ Bus Revenue Revenue Resource Resource Resource/ Resource Inflation Resource Estimated Expense Line Item Expenses Bus-Hours Bus-Miles Garages Peak Buses Variable Value Supply Unit Cost Factor Unit Cost Annual Cost VEHICLE OPERATIONS OPERATORS' SALARIES & WAGES $4,862,596 $29.43 Work Hours 236, $ $20.59 $4,862,596 OTHER SALARIES & WAGES - Rev-Hours Driven (70%) $264,186 $1.60 Work Hours 8, $ $30.37 $264,186 OTHER SALARIES & WAGES - Oper Garage Driven (30% $113,223 $113,223 Work Hours 3,728 3,728 $ $30.37 $113,223 FRINGE BENEFITS - Rev-Hours Driven $2,607,900 $15.78 Work Hours 244, $ $10.65 $2,607,900 FRINGE BENEFITS - Oper Garage Driven $57,594 $57,594 Work Hours 3,728 3,728 $ $15.45 $57,594 FUEL & LUBRICANTS $1,576,186 $0.82 Gallons 640, $ $2.46 $1,576,186 TIRES & TUBES $155,179 $0.08 Revenue Miles 1,922, $ $0.08 $155,179 OTHER MATERIALS & SUPPLIES $83,707 $83,707 Garages $83, $83,707 $83,707 MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES $38,119 $38,119 Garages $38, $38,119 $38,119 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE SALARIES & WAGES $998,196 $0.52 Work Hours 50, $ $19.78 $998,196 FRINGE BENEFITS $451,214 $0.23 Work Hours 50, $ $8.94 $451,214 FUEL & LUBRICANTS $47,836 $ Peak Buses $ $629 $47,836 TIRES & TUBES $2,821 $37.12 Peak Buses $ $37.12 $2,821 OTHER MATERIALS & SUPPLIES $1,067,431 $0.56 Revenue Miles 1,922, $ $0.56 $1,067,431 MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES $19,170 $19,170 Garages $19, $19,170 $19,170 NON-VEHICLE MAINTENANCE SALARIES & WAGES $52,040 $52,040 Work Hours 2,673 2,673 $ $19.47 $52,040 FRINGE BENEFITS $17,287 $17,287 Work Hours 2,673 2,673 $ $6.47 $17,287 PROF & TECH SERVICES $391,380 $391,380 Garages $391, $391,380 $391,380 MATERIALS & SUPPLIES $12,196 $12,196 Garages $12, $12,196 $12,196 MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES $13,909 $13,909 Garages $13, $13,909 $13,909 GENERAL ADMINISTRATION SALARIES & WAGES $299,050 $3,935 Work Hours 18, $ $16.08 $299,050 FRINGE BENEFITS $128,583 $1,692 Work Hours 18, $ $6.92 $128,583 PROFESSIONAL & TECHNICAL SERVICES $876,099 $11,528 Peak Buses $11, $11,528 $876,099 MATERIALS & SUPPLIES $12,425 $12,425 Garages $12, $12,425 $12,425 UTILITIES $192,735 $192,735 Garages $192, $192,735 $192,735 CASUALTY & LIABILITY $276,787 $0.14 Revenue Miles 1,922, $ $0.14 $276,787 MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES $65,622 $863 Peak Buses $ $863 $65,622 TOTALS $14,683,471 $46.81 $2.35 $1,003,785 $18,684 $14,683, Resource Variable Values 165,228 1,922, Revenue Hours 165,228 Notes: Revenue Miles 1,922, NTD Fringe Benefit Rate for Vehicle Ops = 50.9% Garages 1 2. NTD Fringe Benefit Rate for Vehicle Maint = 45.2% Transit Centers 0 3. NTD Fringe Benefit Rate for Non-Vehicle Maint = 33.2% Peak Buses NTD Fringe Benefit Rate for General Admin = 43.0% Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit Project September

23 7. Light Rail Transit O&M Cost Model The light rail O&M cost model for the D O County project s Build Alternative is based on operating characteristics and costs from the NTD for a group of existing systems. The most current, readilyavailable information was obtained from the NTD for the 2010 Report Year. The first step in developing a light rail cost model was to identify a set of peer systems that would be averaged to form the basis for the D O County project. Following selection of the peers, modeling proceeded with selecting the key supply variables to use as the model s cost drivers, extracting peer system values from the NTD website, combining light rail line item expenses with supply variables to obtain unit costs, and identifying special cost adjustments appropriate for the LRT Build Alternative. These modeling activities are described in the sections that follow Peer Selection Selection criteria were established to identify transit systems service characteristics similar to what is proposed for the D O County Build Alternative. The peers were identified from the universe of the 36 U.S. light rail systems included in the 2010 NTD. The primary selection criteria included operating environment, system age, system size, and geographic location. Operating Environment It was deemed very important that the peer candidates operate conventional light rail systems with, for example, traction power for propulsion and typical light rail station spacing as opposed to the closer stops that generally occur on a streetcar line. In addition, to more closely resemble the operating environment assumed for the D O Build Alternative, peer light rail systems should be directly operated by public transportation agencies rather than purchased transportation services, operated by a contractor. Therefore, peer selection for this project would eliminate streetcar operations and purchased transportation systems. System Age Peers for the D O County Corridor project should be considered modern light rail systems to increase the likelihood that they represent consumption, productivity, and unit costs related to vehicle and track technologies that a new system would be purchasing. Therefore, older light rail systems would be deemed not modern and eliminated as candidates for O&M cost modeling purposes. System Size Using the number of peak vehicles as an indicator of overall system size, it was decided that the initial screening would focus on light rail systems within the fairly narrow range of 10 to 45 peak cars. If five to seven peers could pass this screen, these would best represent the D O Build Alternative in terms of system size. Geographic Location California and West Coast systems were excluded as potential light rail peers for the D O Build Alternative because experience on other projects suggests that costs for West Coast systems often do Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit Project September

24 not align with costs for other U.S. systems (e.g., higher wages and fringe benefit rates because of a higher cost of living, different utility rates, different insurance premium, and claims experience). Table 7 1 displays the city locations of existing light rail systems and their performance on the criteria for peer system selection, based on information in the 2010 National Transit Database. Cells marked with an x reflect systems eliminated as potential peers for this project. The five highlighted light rail systems were accepted as an appropriate peer group for O&M costing purposes as required for the D O County project. Table 7.1 Light Rail Peer System Selection City Peak Streetcar Purchased Not System Geographic Cars Transp. Modern Size Location Baltimore 38 Boston 156 X X Buffalo 23 X Charlotte 14 Cleveland 17 X Dallas 76 X Denver 104 X Detroit 0 X Galveston 0 X Hampton 0 X Houston 17 Kenosha 3 X Little Rock 3 X X Los Angeles 118 X X Memphis 12 X Minneapolis 27 New Orleans 21 X X X Newark 16 X Newark 57 X X Oceanside 6 X X X Philadelphia 124 X Phoenix 32 X Pittsburgh 51 X Portland 110 X X Sacramento 56 X X Salt Lake City 43 San Diego 93 X X San Francisco 139 X X X San Jose 47 X X Seattle (King County) 2 X X Seattle (King County) 0 X X X Seattle (Sound Transit) 2 X X Seattle (Sound Transit) 26 X X St. Louis 50 X Tampa 4 X X Tucson 0 X Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit Project September

25 The following three bar graphs illustrate the range in overall cost and labor productivities for the peer systems that have been selected for use in the D O County Corridor project. Data used for the bar graphs is from the 2010 NTD. Figure 7.1 Total Cost per Train Hour Total Cost per Train Hour $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $0.00 Baltimore Charlotte Houston Minneapolis Salt Lake City Figure 7.2 Total Cost per Care Mile Total Cost per Car-Mile $30.00 $25.00 $24.00 $20.00 $19.78 $15.00 $12.72 $12.98 $10.00 $9.17 $5.00 $0.00 Baltimore Charlotte Houston Minneapolis Salt Lake City Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit Project September

26 Figure 7.3 Work Hours per Train Hour Work Hours per Train-Hour Baltimore Charlotte Houston Minneapolis Salt Lake City 7.2. Key Supply Variables The following key driving supply variables are used as cost drivers in the light rail O&M cost model: Annual Revenue Train Hours: The hours that trains, of any number of passenger cars, travel while in revenue service over the entire fiscal year. Revenue train hours include layover and schedule recovery but exclude time for deadhead, operator training, and maintenance testing. Annual Revenue Car Miles: Consistent with the NTD, this variable is defined as the miles that passenger vehicles travel while in revenue service over an entire fiscal year. Revenue car miles include layover and schedule recovery but exclude miles for deadhead, operator training, and maintenance testing. Yards: The sites usually comprised of maintenance facilities, shops, and non revenue track, where light rail vehicles are inspected, maintained, repaired, and stored. It is not unusual for both heavy and light maintenance activities to occur in the same facility. Directional Route Miles: The mileage in each direction over which trains travel in revenue service. Directional route miles exclude staging or storage tracks at the beginning or end of a rail line. From a maintenance perspective, the guideway includes all buildings and structures dedicated to the operation of transit including track, tunnels, bridges, and the electrification system. Passenger Stations: Stations are passenger boarding/alighting facilities with a platform which may include stairs, escalators, canopies, wind shelters, lighting, ticket vending machines, and signage. Peak Cars: The maximum number of passenger service vehicles actually operated simultaneously on an average weekday. The model may use peak cars as a variable when it needs to estimate a line item cost based on overall system size. Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit Project September

Operating & Maintenance Cost Results Report

Operating & 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 information

EAST-WEST BUS RAPID TRANSIT Service Plan and Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Cost Memo

EAST-WEST BUS RAPID TRANSIT Service Plan and Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Cost Memo EAST-WEST BUS RAPID TRANSIT Service Plan and Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Cost Memo This memo documents the proposed service plan, operating statistics, and O&M cost for the East-West BRT and background

More information

Leadership NC. November 8, 2018

Leadership NC. November 8, 2018 v Leadership NC November 8, 2018 Planning for our region s growth The Triangle is one of the fastestgrowing regions in the nation. More than 2 million people are already part of the equation, and the

More information

4.0 TIER 2 ALTERNATIVES

4.0 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 information

TBARTA USF to Wesley Chapel Express Bus Service Operating Plan. Draft 3/25/2014

TBARTA USF to Wesley Chapel Express Bus Service Operating Plan. Draft 3/25/2014 TBARTA USF to Wesley Chapel Express Bus Service Operating Plan Draft 3/25/2014 March 2014 Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction... 1 2.0 Study Area... 1 3.0 Existing Available Service... 3 4.0 Proposed Service...

More information

CENTRAL BROWARD EAST-WEST TRANSIT STUDY OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COSTING METHODOLOGY TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

CENTRAL BROWARD EAST-WEST TRANSIT STUDY OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COSTING METHODOLOGY TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COSTING METHODOLOGY TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM June 2013 Table of Contents This page intentionally left blank Table of Contents Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction... 1 1.1 Background

More information

Madison BRT Transit Corridor Study Proposed BRT Operations Plans

Madison 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 information

CEDAR AVENUE TRANSITWAY Implementation Plan Update

CEDAR 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 information

Feasibility Study. Community Meeting March, North-South Commuter Rail Feasibility Study

Feasibility Study. Community Meeting March, North-South Commuter Rail Feasibility Study Feasibility Study Community Meeting March, 2017 1 Agenda 1. Welcome / Introductions 2. Background / Meeting Purpose 3. Progress to Date Options Evaluated Capital/Operating Costs Ridership 4. Financial

More information

I-20 EAST TRANSIT INITIATIVE Tier 1 and Tier 2 Alternatives Screening Report EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

I-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 information

4 COSTS AND OPERATIONS

4 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 information

Alternatives Analysis Findings Report

Alternatives 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 information

Help shape your community investment in Wake Transit. Fiscal Year 2019 Draft Work Plan Summary

Help shape your community investment in Wake Transit. Fiscal Year 2019 Draft Work Plan Summary Help shape your community investment in Wake Transit Fiscal Year 2019 Draft Work Plan Summary Wake County, growth and transit The Triangle is one of the fastest-growing regions in the nation. Wake County

More information

Waco Rapid Transit Corridor (RTC) Feasibility Study

Waco 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 information

The Case for. Business. investment. in Public Transportation

The Case for. Business. investment. in Public Transportation The Case for Business investment in Public Transportation Introduction Public transportation is an enterprise with expenditure of $55 billion in the United States. There has been a steady growth trend

More information

6/6/2018. June 7, Item #1 CITIZENS PARTICIPATION

6/6/2018. 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 information

FINAL. Sound Transit Long-Range Plan Update. Issue Paper S.1: Tacoma Link Integration with Central Link. Prepared for: Sound Transit

FINAL. 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 information

Table 8-1: Service Frequencies for All Short-List Alternatives by Day of Week and Time of Day Frequency Day of Week Time of Day Time Period

Table 8-1: Service Frequencies for All Short-List Alternatives by Day of Week and Time of Day Frequency Day of Week Time of Day Time Period 8. Operating Plans The following Section presents the operating plans for the Short-List Alternatives. The modern streetcar operating plans are presented for Alternatives 2 and 3, followed by bus rapid

More information

Travel Forecasting Methodology

Travel 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 information

Chapter 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 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 information

METRONext. Vision & Moving Forward Plans. Board Workshop. December 11, DRAFT For Preliminary Discussion Only

METRONext. Vision & Moving Forward Plans. Board Workshop. December 11, DRAFT For Preliminary Discussion Only METRONext Vision & Moving Forward Plans Board Workshop December 11, 2018 Disclaimer This presentation is being provided solely for discussion purposes by the Board of Directors of the Metropolitan Transit

More information

I-26 Fixed Guideway Alternatives Analysis

I-26 Fixed Guideway Alternatives Analysis I-26 Fixed Guideway Alternatives Analysis Public Meetings: North Charleston, January 25, 2016 Charleston: January 26, 2016 Summerville: January 28, 2016 Agenda I. Project Update II. III. IV. Screen Two

More information

The Boston South Station HSIPR Expansion Project Cost-Benefit Analysis. High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Technical Appendix

The Boston South Station HSIPR Expansion Project Cost-Benefit Analysis. High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Technical Appendix The Boston South Station HSIPR Expansion Project Cost-Benefit Analysis High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Technical Appendix Prepared by HDR August 5, 2010 The Boston South Station HSIPR Expansion Project

More information

Energy Technical Memorandum

Energy 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 information

A Presentation to: Project Advisory Group Meeting #10

A Presentation to: Project Advisory Group Meeting #10 A Presentation to: Project Advisory Group Meeting #10 October 21, 2015 Agenda Introductions Action Items From Last PAG Meeting (August 26, 2015) Recent Agency Involvement Update on Refined Alternative

More information

TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY Town of Bradford West Gwillimbury

TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY Town of Bradford West Gwillimbury TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY Town of Bradford West Gwillimbury Open House Presentation January 19, 2012 Study Objectives Quantify the need for transit service in BWG Determine transit service priorities based

More information

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Region Rapid Transit and Land-Use Integration

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Region Rapid Transit and Land-Use Integration Charlotte-Mecklenburg Region Rapid Transit and Land-Use Integration Legislative Committee on Urban Growth and Infrastructure Carolyn Flowers CEO Charlotte Area Transit System March 23, 2010 Charlotte Region

More information

Letter EL652 City of Mercer Island. Page 1. No comments n/a

Letter 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 information

DART Priorities Overview

DART Priorities Overview City of Dallas Transportation and Trinity River Project Committee DART Priorities Overview Gary C. Thomas President/Executive Director August 10, 2015 City of Dallas Transportation & Trinity River Committee

More information

5. OPPORTUNITIES AND NEXT STEPS

5. 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 information

Central City Line Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) Amendment Public Hearing. July 24, 2014

Central City Line Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) Amendment Public Hearing. July 24, 2014 Central City Line Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) Amendment Public Hearing July 24, 2014 Project Description The Central City Line is a High Performance Transit project that will extend from Browne

More information

ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA

ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA Rochester Public Works TRANSIT AND PARKING DIVISION Transit and Parking Manager Tony Knauer tknauer@rochestermn.gov SERVICE ATTITUDE CONSISTENCY - TEAMWORK ROCHESTER TRANSIT & PARKING

More information

Executive Summary. Treasure Valley High Capacity Transit Study Priority Corridor Phase 1 Alternatives Analysis October 13, 2009.

Executive 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 information

Policy Note. Vanpools in the Puget Sound Region The case for expanding vanpool programs to move the most people for the least cost.

Policy Note. Vanpools in the Puget Sound Region The case for expanding vanpool programs to move the most people for the least cost. Policy Note Vanpools in the Puget Sound Region The case for expanding vanpool programs to move the most people for the least cost Recommendations 1. Saturate vanpool market before expanding other intercity

More information

Preliminary Definition of Alternatives. 3.0 Preliminary Definition of Alternatives

Preliminary 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 information

Proposed FY Capital Improvement Program (CIP) March 5, 2018 Capital Planning Committee 1

Proposed FY Capital Improvement Program (CIP) March 5, 2018 Capital Planning Committee 1 Proposed FY 2019-2023 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) March 5, 2018 Capital Planning Committee 1 The Capital Improvement Program is: A fiscally constrained, 5-year program of capital projects An implementation

More information

Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM #18 PROJECTED CARBON DIOXIDE (CO 2 ) EMISSIONS

Michigan/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 information

Draft Results and Open House

Draft Results and Open House Waco Rapid Transit Corridor (RTC) Feasibility Study Draft Results and Open House Chris Evilia, Director of Waco Metropolitan Planning Organization Allen Hunter, General Manager Waco Transit System Jimi

More information

WAKE TRANSIT PLAN Summer 2018

WAKE TRANSIT PLAN Summer 2018 WAKE TRANSIT PLAN Summer 2018 Planning for growth WAKE COUNTY s population already exceeds ONE MILLION and grows by more than 60 people a day. That s 23,000 people a year or basically another Morrisville.

More information

Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority

Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority Summary of Proposed Award Vanpool Program Presented to: Operations Committee August 2, 2016 What is a Vanpool? A vanpool is a group of people (larger than 5)

More information

Transit Access to the National Harbor

Transit 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 information

Mass Transit in Charlotte and San Antonio. Keith T. Parker, AICP

Mass Transit in Charlotte and San Antonio. Keith T. Parker, AICP Mass Transit in Charlotte and San Antonio Keith T. Parker, AICP President/CEO Presentation Overview Charlotte Agency and Customer Profile San Antonio Agency and Customer Profile Attracting New Customers

More information

Georgia Department of Transportation 2006 Fact Sheet Lovejoy to Atlanta Rail Line visit the website at

Georgia Department of Transportation 2006 Fact Sheet Lovejoy to Atlanta Rail Line visit the website at Overview Georgia Department of Transportation 2006 Fact Sheet Lovejoy to Atlanta Rail Line visit the website at www.garail.com Commuter rail service between Lovejoy and Atlanta is ready for implementation:

More information

Station Evaluation. Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit Project Spring 2012

Station Evaluation. Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit Project Spring 2012 Station Evaluation Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit Project Spring 2012 Key Ingredients for Station Development Platform Designs UNC Hospitals Station The UNC Hospitals Station Option D would be the westerly

More information

Durham-Orange (D-O) Light Rail Transit (LRT) Project

Durham-Orange (D-O) Light Rail Transit (LRT) Project American Society of Civil Engineers North Carolina Section Eastern Branch Luncheon August 18, 2016 Durham-Orange (D-O) Light Rail Transit (LRT) Project 1 Presentation Agenda Project Overview Project Status

More information

Executive Summary. Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report ES-1

Executive 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 information

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

FREQUENTLY 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 information

TPA Steering Committee for Tri-Rail Extension to Northern Palm Beach County. February 26, 2018

TPA Steering Committee for Tri-Rail Extension to Northern Palm Beach County. February 26, 2018 TPA Steering Committee for Tri-Rail Extension to Northern Palm Beach County February 26, 2018 Agenda Review Committee Purpose Review Project Map Discuss Service Alternatives Capital Costs (Stations, Track,

More information

Customer Services, Operations, and Safety Committee Board Information Item III-E May 13, 2010 Bus Fleet Plan

Customer Services, Operations, and Safety Committee Board Information Item III-E May 13, 2010 Bus Fleet Plan Customer Services, Operations, and Safety Committee Board Information Item III-E May 13, 2010 Bus Fleet Plan Page 72 of 96 Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Board Action/Information Summary

More information

COMMUNITY REPORT FISCAL YEAR We are making progress, are you on board? GOLD COAST TRANSIT DISTRICT

COMMUNITY REPORT FISCAL YEAR We are making progress, are you on board? GOLD COAST TRANSIT DISTRICT FISCAL YEAR 178 GOLD COAST TRANSIT DISTRICT COMMUNITY REPORT We are making progress, are you on board? OJAI OXNARD PORT HUENEME VENTURA COUNTY OF VENTURA GENERAL MANAGER S MESSAGE STEVEN P. BROWN DEAR

More information

Background Information for MPRB Community Advisory Committee for 2010 Southwest Light Rail Transit Project DEIS Comment Letter Section 2

Background Information for MPRB Community Advisory Committee for 2010 Southwest Light Rail Transit Project DEIS Comment Letter Section 2 Background Information for MPRB Community Advisory Committee for 2010 Southwest Light Rail Transit Project DEIS Comment Letter Section 2 1 2. SW LRT Corridor Overview Source: http://www.southwesttransitway.org/home.html

More information

MEMORANDUM. Proposed Town of Chapel Hill Green Fleets Policy

MEMORANDUM. Proposed Town of Chapel Hill Green Fleets Policy AGENDA #4k MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Mayor and Town Council W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager Proposed Town of Chapel Hill Green Fleets Policy DATE: June 15, 2005 The attached resolution would adopt the

More information

EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD, OREGON EAST WEST PILOT BRT LANE TRANSIT DISTRICT

EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD, OREGON EAST WEST PILOT BRT LANE TRANSIT DISTRICT EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD, OREGON EAST WEST PILOT BRT LANE TRANSIT DISTRICT (BRIEF) Table of Contents EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD, OREGON (USA)... 1 COUNTY CONTEXT AND SYSTEM DESCRIPTION... 1 SYSTEM OVERVIEW... 1 PLANNING

More information

Draft Results and Recommendations

Draft Results and Recommendations Waco Rapid Transit Corridor (RTC) Feasibility Study Draft Results and Recommendations Chris Evilia, Director of Waco Metropolitan Planning Organization Allen Hunter, General Manager Waco Transit System

More information

REPORT CARD FOR CALIFORNIA S INFRASTRUCTURE WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW ABOUT CALIFORNIA S TRANSIT FACILITIES

REPORT CARD FOR CALIFORNIA S INFRASTRUCTURE WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW ABOUT CALIFORNIA S TRANSIT FACILITIES TRANSIT GRADE: C- WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW ABOUT TRANSIT FACILITIES California needs robust, flexible and reliable transit systems to reduce peak congestion on our highways, provide options for citizens who

More information

Rapid Transit and Land-Use Integration a Reality

Rapid Transit and Land-Use Integration a Reality City of Charlotte Rapid Transit and Land-Use Integration a Reality Transportation Oversight Committee Carolyn Flowers CEO Charlotte Area Transit System April 29, 2010 Charlotte Region Statistics Mecklenburg

More information

6/11/2018. June 7, Item #1 CITIZENS PARTICIPATION

6/11/2018. 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 information

APPENDIX I: [FIXED-GUIDEWAY TRANSIT FEASIBILITY]

APPENDIX 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 information

Northeast 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 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 information

Recommended Vision for the Downtown Rapid Transit Network

Recommended Vision for the Downtown Rapid Transit Network Recommended Vision for the Downtown Rapid Transit Network April 2008 Presentation Overview Context Transit options Assessment of options Recommended network Building the network 2 1 Rapid Our Vision Reliable

More information

PARTIAL PROGRAM OF PROJECTS FFY

PARTIAL PROGRAM OF PROJECTS FFY PARTIAL PROGRAM OF PROJECTS FFY 2016-17 The proposed Partial Program of Projects for FFY 2016-17 is attached. The proposed Partial Program of Projects was introduced at the SCTA Board at its meeting on

More information

Point A Point B Point C Point D. Fulton County Board of Commissioners and Mayors Meeting December 14, 2017

Point A Point B Point C Point D. Fulton County Board of Commissioners and Mayors Meeting December 14, 2017 Fulton County Board of Commissioners and Mayors Meeting December 14, 2017 Master Plan Overview Phase 1 Community Vision and Existing Transit Conditions Phase 2 Scenario Development Phase 3 Transit Master

More information

Troost Corridor Transit Study

Troost Corridor Transit Study Troost Corridor Transit Study May 23, 2007 Kansas City Area Transportation Authority Agenda Welcome Troost Corridor Planning Study Public participation What is MAX? Survey of Troost Riders Proposed Transit

More information

Travel Time Savings Memorandum

Travel Time Savings Memorandum 04-05-2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Background 3 Methodology 3 Inputs and Calculation 3 Assumptions 4 Light Rail Transit (LRT) Travel Times 5 Auto Travel Times 5 Bus Travel Times 6 Findings 7 Generalized Cost

More information

The Value of Travel-Time: Estimates of the Hourly Value of Time for Vehicles in Oregon 2007

The Value of Travel-Time: Estimates of the Hourly Value of Time for Vehicles in Oregon 2007 The Value of Travel-Time: Estimates of the Hourly Value of Time for Vehicles in Oregon 2007 Oregon Department of Transportation Long Range Planning Unit June 2008 For questions contact: Denise Whitney

More information

Regional Transportation Commission, Washoe County Lee Gibson, Executive Director Roger Hanson, Senior Planner

Regional Transportation Commission, Washoe County Lee Gibson, Executive Director Roger Hanson, Senior Planner Regional Transportation Commission, Washoe County Lee Gibson, Executive Director Roger Hanson, Senior Planner Presentation Outline Transit System Facts Economic Challenges in the Truckee Meadows RTC Transit

More information

Review of the Wake County Transit Plan

Review of the Wake County Transit Plan Review of the Wake County Transit Plan David T. Hartgen Thomas A. Rubin February 2012 EXECUTIVE S U M MARY Review of the Wake County Transit Plan By David T. Hartgen, Ph.D., P.E. The Hartgen Group Charlotte,

More information

Kenosha-Racine-Milwaukee (KRM)

Kenosha-Racine-Milwaukee (KRM) Kenosha-Racine-Milwaukee (KRM) Commuter Rail #147925 November 6, 2009 1 Guidance of KRM Commuter Rail Studies Intergovernmental Partnership Technical Steering Committee Temporary and Limited Authority

More information

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Executive Summary: Metrobus Network Evaluation and Future Fleet Needs Presented to: Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Submitted by: In Association with P 2 D Joint Venture Introduction Metrobus

More information

bg 2017 lacmta. Metro

bg 2017 lacmta. Metro Operating and Maintenance Costs Report for the East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor October 31, 2014 Prepared by the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration and the Los Angeles

More information

STH 60 Northern Reliever Route Feasibility Study Report

STH 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 information

Craig Scheffler, P.E., PTOE HNTB North Carolina, P.C. HNTB Project File: Subject

Craig Scheffler, P.E., PTOE HNTB North Carolina, P.C. HNTB Project File: Subject TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM To Kumar Neppalli Traffic Engineering Manager Town of Chapel Hill From Craig Scheffler, P.E., PTOE HNTB North Carolina, P.C. Cc HNTB Project File: 38435 Subject Obey Creek TIS 2022

More information

Bella Vista Bypass Benefit Cost Analysis

Bella Vista Bypass Benefit Cost Analysis Bella Vista Benefit Cost Analysis The Benefit Cost Analysis (BCA) was performed in accordance with the ARRA guidance provided in the Federal Register. These benefits and costs were quantified in accordance

More information

Sound Transit East Link: Bus/LRT System Integration Study

Sound 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 information

MEDIA RELEASE. June 16, 2008 For Immediate Release

MEDIA RELEASE. June 16, 2008 For Immediate Release MEDIA RELEASE June 16, 2008 For Immediate Release Recommendations to Keep Trolleys Released Alternative Proposal for Trolleys Ensures City s Sustainability The Edmonton Trolley Coalition, a non-profit

More information

Charlotte Area Transit System: Moving Forward John Lewis CATS Chief Executive Officer

Charlotte Area Transit System: Moving Forward John Lewis CATS Chief Executive Officer Charlotte Area Transit System: Moving Forward John Lewis CATS Chief Executive Officer House Select Committee March 2018 1 Charlotte Long-Term Growth Management Strategy Centers, Corridors and Wedges Five

More information

City of Pacific Grove

City of Pacific Grove Regional Study Utilizing Caltrans Intersection Evaluation Section 7: City of Pacific Grove s: FIRST STREET AT CENTRAL AVENUE Transportation Agency for Monterey County Prepared by Transportation Agency

More information

The capital cost estimates do not include allowances for: ROW acquisition. Third-party mitigation works. Hazardous materials handling.

The capital cost estimates do not include allowances for: ROW acquisition. Third-party mitigation works. Hazardous materials handling. Mode Selection Report 7 Cost Evaluation The cost evaluation criteria used in the evaluation of the transit modes are: Capital cost. operating costs. Fare revenue. Net cost per passenger/passenger-mile.

More information

12/5/2018 DRAFT. December 6, Item #1 CITIZENS PARTICIPATION

12/5/2018 DRAFT. December 6, Item #1 CITIZENS PARTICIPATION December 6, 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 information

GODURHAM PROGRESS REPORT

GODURHAM PROGRESS REPORT GODURHAM PROGRESS REPORT OVERVIEW OPERATIONS & PERFORMANCE With the service enhancements, total revenue hours increased In 2016, GoDurham connected 5.9 million passengers to jobs, education and health

More information

West Broadway Transit Study. Community Advisory Committee September 17, 2015

West 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 information

Click to edit Master title style

Click 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 information

Green Line Long-Term Investments

Green Line Long-Term Investments Enhancements Short-term improvements to keep Austin moving. Investments Long-term projects to support our future. Mobility Hubs MetroRapid MetroRail MetroExpress Connectors Circulators Project Connect

More information

NC State Transportation Program Updates. HR Connections

NC State Transportation Program Updates. HR Connections NC State Transportation Program Updates Presented to HR Connections April 20, 2017 Employee Parking Employee renewal cycle moved to July 1 UHF Parking Permits for gated areas Online access for employee

More information

Regional Transit Extension Studies. Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization Passenger Rail Task Force Meeting December 17, 2013

Regional Transit Extension Studies. Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization Passenger Rail Task Force Meeting December 17, 2013 Regional Transit Extension Studies Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization Passenger Rail Task Force Meeting December 17, 2013 Topics Virginia Beach Transit Extension Study (VBTES) Naval Station

More information

Office of Transportation Bureau of Traffic Management Downtown Parking Meter District Rate Report

Office of Transportation Bureau of Traffic Management Downtown Parking Meter District Rate Report Office of Transportation Bureau of Traffic Management 1997 Downtown Parking Meter District Rate Report Introduction The City operates approximately 5,600 parking meters in the core area of downtown. 1

More information

August 2, 2010 Public Meeting

August 2, 2010 Public Meeting Public Meeting LYMMO Expansion Alternatives Analysis Study Purpose of study is to provide a fresh look at potential LYMMO expansion, following Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Alternatives Analysis

More information

Restoration of Historic Streetcar Services in Downtown Los Angeles

Restoration 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 information

Roma McKenzie-Campbell Amtrak, Project Manager. Caroline Ducas VHB, Senior Transit Planner. Boston, Massachusetts

Roma McKenzie-Campbell Amtrak, Project Manager. Caroline Ducas VHB, Senior Transit Planner. Boston, Massachusetts DMU Implementation on Existing Commuter Rail Corridors: Opportunities, Challenges and Lessons Learned Roma McKenzie-Campbell Amtrak, Project Manager Caroline Ducas VHB, Senior Transit Planner Boston, Massachusetts

More information

TRAVEL DEMAND FORECASTS

TRAVEL DEMAND FORECASTS Jiangxi Ji an Sustainable Urban Transport Project (RRP PRC 45022) TRAVEL DEMAND FORECASTS A. Introduction 1. The purpose of the travel demand forecasts is to assess the impact of the project components

More information

Executive Summary October 2013

Executive Summary October 2013 Executive Summary October 2013 Table of Contents Introduction... 1 Rider Transit and Regional Connectivity... 1 Plan Overview... 2 Network Overview... 2 Outreach... 3 Rider Performance... 4 Findings...

More information

METRO Light Rail Update

METRO 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 information

FY 2018 Recommended Wake Transit Work Plan

FY 2018 Recommended Wake Transit Work Plan FY 2018 Recommended Wake Transit Work Plan FY 2018 Capital Budget & Multi-Year Capital Improvement Program 49 GOTRIANGLE FISCAL YEAR 2018 TRIANGLE TAX DISTRICT -- WAKE CAPITAL FUND ORDINANCE 2018 000X

More information

10/4/2016. October 6, Item #1 CITIZENS PARTICIPATION

10/4/2016. October 6, Item #1 CITIZENS PARTICIPATION October 6, 2016 Item #1 CITIZENS PARTICIPATION 1 Item #2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Item #3 WELCOME 2 Item #4 TRAC ROADWAY RECOMMENDATIONS UPDATE Item #4 Completed Jurisdiction Presentations Boulder City August

More information

Bi-County Transitway/ Bethesda Station Access Demand Analysis

Bi-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 information

I-26 Fixed Guideway Alternatives Analysis

I-26 Fixed Guideway Alternatives Analysis I-26 Fixed Guideway Alternatives Analysis Steering & Technical Advisory Committees Joint Meeting January 15, 2016 @ 10:00 AM SC/TAC Meeting Winter 2016 Agenda I. Welcome & Introductions II. III. Project

More information

Public 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 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 information

Unified Corridor Investment Study DRAFT Step 2 Scenario Analysis Report

Unified 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 information

Task Force Meeting January 15, 2009

Task Force Meeting January 15, 2009 Task Force Meeting January 15, 2009 Study Update August 14 th Task Force Meeting Update on Traffic Projections and Financial Feasibility Study presented by Kane County and WSA staff The presentation summarized

More information

Proposal for September 2006 Start of Commuter Rail from Lovejoy on the Macon Line to Atlanta

Proposal for September 2006 Start of Commuter Rail from Lovejoy on the Macon Line to Atlanta Proposal for September 2006 Start of Commuter Rail from Lovejoy on the Macon Line to Atlanta Overview Commuter rail service between Lovejoy and Atlanta is ready for implementation: $87.08 Million is in

More information