Waco Rapid Transit Corridor Feasibility Study

Transcription

1 Wac Rapid Transit Crridr Feasibility Study Technlgy Assessment Executive Summary August 2017

2 Table f Cntents 1. Transit Technlgy Assessment Alternatives Identificatin and Screening Prcess Transit Technlgy Assessment Existing Characteristics Transit Technlgy Alternatives Transit Technlgy Recmmendatin Transit Access and Egress, and Waiting Envirnment Transitways and Guideways Statins Vehicles Fare Cllectin and Equipment Intelligent Transprtatin Systems Ancillary, Maintenance and Strage Facilities Safety Cnsideratins... 7 Figures Figure 1: Vehicles Assciated with Higher Capacity Transit Mdes... 3 Figure 2: Cmparisn f Higher Capacity Transit Mdes... 4

3 1. Transit Technlgy Assessment Crridrs with high-grade transit reserve exclusive space fr dedicated facilities and have a greater prpensity t increase capacity fr years t cme. Lng term visining f the transprtatin mdes that deserve priritizatin in a crridr is critical fr thse mdes t fit within right-f-way cnstraints. This sectin reviews transit technlgies (including service types, mdes, interactin with ther mdes, equipment, and travelway characteristics) that may be suitable fr a Wac transit investment crridr. These technlgies are presented in a way that allws their inherent characteristics t be explred based n their ability t fit the needs f Wac residents. Preferred technlgies alng the crridr will be selected as part f the design criteria and public engagement prtin f the Wac Rapid Transit Crridr (RTC) Feasibility Study. 1.1 Alternatives Identificatin and Screening Prcess The transit technlgy alternatives pass/fail analysis cmpares each transit service type in rder t evaluate the viability f each transit technlgy. The transit technlgy alternatives will ultimately help select a preferred technlgy alternative. The evaluatin criteria assciated with each step includes a cmbinatin f quantitative and qualitative perfrmance measures. Early steps apply fewer and brader measures, including infrmatin frm previus crridr/area studies. Later steps apply mre and finer perfrmance measures, including highly-specific Federal Transit Administratin (FTA) perfrmance criteria. This multi-step prcess will result in the identificatin f a Lcally Preferred Alternative that nt nly meets the lcally-identified prject Purpse and Need, but is als cmpetitive fr federal funding. 1.2 Transit Technlgy Assessment The purpse f the technlgy assessment is t review transit technlgy types t find a right fit fr the selected Wac RTC and the selected crridr. With such a wide array f available transit technlgies, the prcess can seem a little daunting at first glance. A quick review f lcal cnditins and technlgy characteristics prduces a reasnable set f technlgies fr review. Other technlgies may emerge thrugh the public engagement and can be included in the review. Befre reviewing technlgy types, it is imprtant t review the verall prject gal: intrduce a premier transit service type in Wac that meets prject bjectives. Reginal transit investment crridrs can be classified in many ways including by speed ( rapid transit ), capacity ( intermediate r high-capacity ), level f investment ( majr transit investment crridr ), and general quality ( really great transit ). These terms can be used interchangeably. Mst regins develp a branding name fr the service type that highlights its mst ppular characteristics. As a rule, the mre perating advantages the transit service ffers ver ther transprtatin mdes, the higher the demand will be t ride the service. These advantages vary widely and can include advantageus placement in the streetscape, signal pririty, reserved lanes, r cmplete separatin frm ther traffic (such as a private travelway r vertical separatin like an elevated guideway). Thrugh securing pririty treatments fr transit, the crridr has a greater prpensity t achieve and maintain strng ridership and cst efficiencies. 1

4 1.3 Existing Characteristics Wac s urbanized area has a ppulatin f rughly 183, It is hme t Baylr University, a majr higher educatin institutin with a student ppulatin that has a high prpensity t ride transit. The premier transit crridrs in university cities f similar size t Wac are generally cnsidered successful if they carry between 5,000 and 10,000 daily riders when schl is in sessin. Wac likely has little need fr a reginal transit technlgy that carries mre riders than this range. Wac s existing transprtatin infrastructure includes majr highways that generally run suthwest t nrtheast, including Interstate-35 and US-84. Majr arterials run parallel t these highways, including Franklin and LaSalle Avenues. Highway cnnectrs intersect arterial and lcal streets t frm the central city grid. The Unin Pacific Railrad passes thrugh the middle f dwntwn adjacent t Wac Creek. Sme abandned railrad right-f-way remains intact thrugh the city s cre. Using the assessment f radways and intersectins frm the Existing Cnditins Mem, it was revealed that the existing transit infrastructure is nt well suited fr immediate implementatin f a majr transit investment crridr. The limited availability f existing infrastructure, hwever, prvides the pprtunity fr Wac t develp a system that meets current and future needs. The current transit service utilizes a flag stp system and therefre fixed stp lcatins are nt prevalent alng the crridrs that are being analyzed. The suthern and nrthern crridrs cnsidered shw that there is ample right-f-way t allw fr the pssible implementatin f larger bus stps r statins with sidewalk bulb uts (t enable transit vehicles t stp inline), as well as the pssibility fr transfer lcatins with ther fixed rutes. The central area has a mre limited right-f-way and cnstraints. Transit stps n these streets may impede traffic and larger stp facilities may nt be pssible t maintain prper ADA sidewalk widths and access. The existing intersectins d nt cntain transit pririty equipment at traffic signals, nr d mst cntain full pedestrian facilities that meet ADA cmpliance. There are minimal pedestrian and/r bike facilities available alng many f the crridrs as well. 2. Transit Technlgy Alternatives Given the abve-mentined capacity requirements in Wac, very high-capacity and gradeseparated transit mdes (such as rail rapid transit r a peple mver technlgy using a fully exclusive right-f-way like an aerial guideway r subway) are nt recmmended. Lng-distance passenger transprtatin mdes, such as a freeway mtr cach, intercity passenger rail, MagLev, r ther lng-distance technlgies are als nt recmmended fr crss-twn trips in Wac. A single statin designed fr these lng-distance mdes culd exceed the cst f a highquality transit crridr using arterial radways r at-grade rights-f-way. Based n the characteristics f the existing crridr, transit technlgy alternatives recmmended fr cnsideratin include: N-Build, a cntinuatin f the flag stp peratin with little restructuring r expansin. Rute Restructuring Lcal Bus, a frmalizatin f the existing peratin with sme cnslidatin f bus stps and limited imprvements t waiting envirnments; 1 US Census 2015, retrieved via Census Reprter website n May 17, 2017 at wac-tx-urbanized-area/ 2

5 Enhanced Bus, rute restructuring t prvide frequent transit service in the areas with highest demand, transit-pririty treatments at sme prblematic cngestin pinch pints and signals, and waiting envirnment imprvements at high-demand lcatins. Higher-Capacity Transit Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), investment in high-quality statins that are spaced fr efficient crss-twn trips, innvative fare payment methds t speed passenger barding and limit dwell times, and pririty intersectins. A higher level f investment can include reserved lanes r semi-exclusive right-f-way; Light Rail Transit (LRT), a transit technlgy that is mre cmmn in larger metrplitan areas with higher-capacity demand and lnger transit travel distances. Light rail vehicles are mst cmmnly electrified but can als use self-pwered vehicles with a variety f prpulsin types (similar t Austin s diesel-pwered railcars). LRT prvides limited stps and can perate in a street (usually with dedicated lanes and signal pririty r pre-emptin) r in a reserved right-f-way; Streetcar/Tram, a technlgy featuring small t medium-sized light rail vehicles in street peratin. It has frequent stps and ften travels in lanes shared with ther traffic. Streetcars are designed fr shrter, lcal trips. This technlgy has a reputatin fr imprving prperty values and thus is ften spnsred by develpment interests; and Cmmuter Rail r a similar technlgy using existing and/r imprved railrad crridrs. Cmmuter Rail mst cmmnly uses passenger rail-type trainsets pulled r pushed by lcmtives. This type f service is cmmn in large metrplitan areas t address peak lng-distance demand. Other services perate mre like light rail and prvide trips thrughut the day and befre and after peak cmmutes. Figure 1 includes sample images f higher-capacity transit technlgy vehicles. Figure 2 prvides an peratinal and capital cst cmparisn f these technlgies. Infrmatin in the summary table is based n FTA-funded prjects in recent years. Figure 1: Vehicles Assciated with Higher Capacity Transit Mdes Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Light Rail Transit (LRT) Streetcar Cmmuter Rail 3

6 Figure 2: Cmparisn f Higher Capacity Transit Mdes 2.1 Transit Technlgy Recmmendatin The Study Team recmmends Bus Rapid Transit as the preferred transit technlgy fr highercapacity transit in Wac. This recmmendatin assumes pursuing a dedicated transit travelway (reserved lanes) where achievable and where the greatest benefit can be realized frm this investment. The fllwing factrs influenced this recmmendatin: Crridr Length: The analysis crridr, rughly 13 miles in length, is t lng t be effectively served by a streetcar investment, effectively eliminating that mde fr the full crridr length. Mdern streetcar crridrs typically require private champins and /r lcal imprvement districts t partner with the capital investment. Selecting BRT fr the reginal mde des nt preclude a future streetcar investment in the city s cre. Cmmuter Rail crridrs are rarely shrter than 20 miles in length and t few statins wuld be available t serve priritized transit destinatins in central Wac. Capital Cst: BRT s capital cst range starts at rughly $2 millin per mile, the lwest cst f all cnsidered technlgies. The listed high-end cst fr BRT represents a separate right-f-way, such as a highway facility with a statin in a median and vertical bridge circulatin fr custmer access. BRT n arterial streets withut reserved lanes fall int the lwer end f the cst spectrum. LRT rarely is achieved fr less than $50 millin per mile. 4

7 The substantial capital cst fr LRT is rarely supprted by regins with fewer than 1 millin residents and is unlikely t meet FTA cst effectiveness in Wac. Rider Capacity: Bth BRT and LRT prvide apprpriate capacity levels that start at under 10,000 riders per day. While a BRT crridr with in-street peratin is generally cnsidered cst effective with fewer than 10,000 riders, LRT usually demands mre riders. Wac des nt shw demand n a regular basis fr LRT capacity. The Alternatives Analysis prcess will determine which radway segments are apprpriate fr shared lane vs. dedicated travelway BRT service. It will als clarify the level f investment required t implement a BRT crridr meeting the prject s Purpse and Need. The fllwing sectins cnsider in further detail essential aspects f a successful Wac Enhanced Transit r BRT crridr Transit Access and Egress, and Waiting Envirnment It is imprtant t understand hw custmers will access a new BRT crridr. In uter areas, statin parking may be needed t attract riders. Others will cnnect via intersecting bus rutes, shuttles, taxis and ride share services. Transit riders always have sme prtin f their trip as a pedestrian and the trip ften includes nn-mtrized and lcal assist mdes (such as bikes, scters, skatebards, etc.). Fr this reasn, accmmdating pedestrians, bikes and ther mdes in a transit crridr is crucial. A transit trip can be divided int three categries: 1. Getting t and frm the transit vehicle (first and last mile), 2. Waiting fr the transit vehicle, and 3. Riding transit. T supprt transit access and egress, nn-mtrized transprtatin imprvements must be cnsidered alng any transit crridr. Urban crridrs typically priritize the walking and biking envirnment. The experience f waiting fr transit is typically perceived as taking twice as lng as it actually des. Waiting is ften the mst uncmfrtable part f a transit trip. Small imprvements in the shelter, cmfrt fr riders, waiting envirnment imprvements t maximize shelter, persnal cmfrt, custmer infrmatin and the perceptin f safety make waiting fr yur ride mre pleasant Transitways and Guideways Lcal bus services perate n public rads, typically in shared lanes. As such, lcal buses can be affected by traffic, ften causing rute delays. Enhanced Bus and BRT rutes als perate n public rads, but with pririty treatments fr transit. Dedicated BRT rutes prvide reserved transit lanes, which are situated either in the center f the rad r alng the curb edge s that the busway is clear f traffic fr higher efficiency. These lanes may be separated frm general traffic by means f striping, a painted r physical buffer r barrier, a bike lane, rumble strips, lights r reflectrs, r traversable dmes. Sme BRT crridrs prvide a semi-exclusive travelway and mix with ther traffic nly at crssings. Cntraflw can als be utilized in dedicated BRT lanes, which allws buses t travel in the ppsite directin f traffic r t even switch the directin f a bus lane during peak hurs. Maintenance f the transit travelway and/r reserved guideway shuld be included in prject cst assumptins. 5

8 2.1.3 Statins Many lcal bus stps have few amenities, such as an identifying sign, bench and/r small shelter. The stp elements typically fit within the public right-f-way. Mre cmplex enhanced bus systems may require additinal space fr additinal statin amenities. BRT stps typically include level barding fr custmers using wheelchairs r with strllers r luggage. They may als ffer ff-bard fare cllectin t minimize statin dwell times. BRT statins are ften larger and may require significant right-f-way reservatin. These statins ften include ther amenities such as a signature landmark design, cmfrtable seating, cnvenience utlets, lighting fr visibility and safety, bike share facilities r strage, wayfinding and cncessin r vending pprtunities. All statins must be ADA cmpliant t accmmdate persns with disabilities. Cnsideratin shuld als be given t the maintenance requirements at each statin, which may require accmmdatins fr pwer, water and hses fr wash dwn, and pull-ffs fr maintenance vehicles Vehicles BRT Vehicles are typically 60 articulated vehicles. Lcal buses are ften smaller and require mre step-climbing than sme f the mre advanced vehicles that may be used in BRT systems. Specialized BRT vehicles can have lwer flrs t make barding easier and can have a greater capacity. Buses n BRT systems may be equipped with specialized technlgy t allw peratrs t be mre precise in dcking the BRT vehicles. This minimizes gaps between the platfrm and the BRT vehicle fr the safety and cmfrt f passengers as they bard and alight. Often, BRT buses are branded, creating an riginal and chesive lk fr the system. BRT systems shuld cnsider whether the rientatin f their statins will require buses that can be barded frm either side, and als cnsider the psitive effects n access/egress time when multiple drs are available. Additinal amenities that can be prvided nbard transit vehicles include bike strage, audible annunciatin f stps, WiFi, security cameras, ADA tie-dwns, and autmated passenger cunters Fare Cllectin and Equipment Lcal bus rutes ften utilize pay-as-yu-bard methds, which reduce the amunt f equipment needed but als increases dwell time as each individual rider prvides their fare upn barding thrugh ne dr. This can be further cmplicated where custmers pay upn exiting and must negtiate a crwded bus aisle in rder t exit. As previusly mentined, BRT systems ften utilize fare cllectin machines at their statins, which allw riders t pay their fares and cllect their tickets befre the transit vehicle arrives. Cnsideratin shuld be given t the number f fare cllectin machines needed fr current ridership as well as fr the future. As technlgy evlves, mre advanced fare cllectin machines utilize tap and g payments fr digital passes and mbile devices play an increasing rle. Randm fare checks by security persnnel can increase the custmer s perceptin f safety Intelligent Transprtatin Systems By creating an advanced and efficient system that can be mnitred and cntrlled remtely, Intelligent Transprtatin Systems (ITS) technlgy can greatly enhance the general flw f traffic alng any cngested crridr. Signal priritizatin ffers extended r early green time t BRT vehicles at signalized intersectins and can be prvided thrughut a crridr with ITS. Traffic signal systems can ffer ther transit pririty measures such as queue jumps, which ffer transit vehicles their wn signal phase. ITS can enable transit vehicle lcatins thrugh crdinatin with Autmatic Vehicle Lcatin (AVL) systems. AVL als prvides the ability t mnitr schedule and reliability f the transit vehicles and can be used t prvide real-time arrival infrmatin fr custmers, available thrugh multiple media surces. 6

9 2.1.7 Ancillary, Maintenance and Strage Facilities Articulated BRT vehicles require specialized areas fr servicing. Emerging bus prpulsin systems, such as alternative fuels and battery peratin, add specialized vehicle maintenance needs. Buses require strage areas when nt in use as well as maintenance facilities fr regularly scheduled and unanticipated maintenance. Transit terminals and maintenance barns can range in size and shuld be built t handle the scale f the system in use. Maintenance f statins and equipment necessary fr peratin f a transit system is als needed, which requires supprt vehicles, equipment and staffing Safety Cnsideratins Transit system safety cnsideratins include, but are nt limited t; statin security, transit vehicle security, pedestrian and bicycle access, and driver training. Statin and transit vehicle security may invlve illuminatin, clear lines f sight, emergency call buttns, CCTV mnitring, custmer infrmatin and plice mnitring. The gal f these elements is t ensure transit patrn, emplyee and public safety. In additin t prviding a safe envirnment at statins and nbard vehicles, it is als necessary t prvide safe access t the transit service. Safe and cnvenient pedestrian and bicycle access, particularly near the statin, is integral t a successful transit investment. Bicycles must be able t mve bth alng and acrss transit perating in radways, which may demand separated travelways (such as prtected bike lanes r cycletracks and island transit platfrms). Intersectins and statin lcatins will require specific elements t ensure pedestrian and bicyclist safety. Cnnecting pedestrian netwrks include and are nt limited t: cntinuus and barrier-free sidewalk r path netwrks t statins, cnvenient statin lcatins, ramps t access high platfrms, and mid-blck r grade-separated crssings where statin lcatins are nt at walkable intersectins. Adequate ADA features, including tactile warning at pedestrian ramps and platfrm edges, are imprtant fr the safety f all riders and shuld be lcated at all lcatins. ADA requirements vary fr different mdes f transit. Crssing traffic r standing at unsafe lcatins shuld be deterred using railings r ther deterring devices such as pyramids. Trash receptacles shuld be blast and fire resistant and away frm cngregating passengers. 7

10 Abut AECOM AECOM (NYSE: ACM) is built t deliver a better wrld. We design, build, finance and perate infrastructure assets fr gvernments, businesses and rganizatins in mre than 150 cuntries. As a fully integrated firm, we cnnect knwledge and experience acrss ur glbal netwrk f experts t help clients slve their mst cmplex challenges. Frm high-perfrmance buildings and infrastructure, t resilient cmmunities and envirnments, t stable and secure natins, ur wrk is transfrmative, differentiated and vital. A Frtune 500 firm, AECOM cmpanies had revenue f apprximately US$19 billin during the 12 mnths ended June 30, See hw we deliver what thers can nly imagine at aecm.cm Cntact Andrew Ittigsn Prject Manager T +01 (214) E andrew.ittigsn@aecm.cm aecm.cm 8