Broward County Intermodal Center And People Mover. AASHTO Value Engineering Conference Presentation. September 1, 2009 San Diego, CA

Transcription

1 Project Development & Environment Study Broward County Intermodal Center And People Mover AASHTO Value Engineering Conference Presentation September 1, 2009 San Diego, CA

2 Background P D & E Study Regional Context Project Study Area Central Broward East West LPA 2

3 P D & E Study Background Project Need Access Congestion (people and freight) - driven by demand at Airport and Seaport Major Economic Engines in the County Rarity for two major terminals to be in such close proximity Project Goal Address Need and build on Synergy between Port and Airport (FLL-PEV movements) Catalyst to support Transit and Economic Development in the County and Region 3

4 P D & E Study Background Techno-Economic Feasibility Study on Project Identify feasible technologies Identify feasible funding Findings: Project is viable, but needs External Funding Eligibility to receive Federal and/or State funding requires compliance with NEPA PD&E for Project (to demonstrate NEPA Compliance) Authorized by BOCC in March 2005 Demonstrate compliance with NEPA to achieve eligibility for Federal and/or State Funding Federal Lead Agency Federal Highway Administration State Lead Agency FDOT District 4 Project Identified in the MPO Long Range Transportation Plan as an unfunded project 4

5 Background P D & E Study NEPA Compliance Eligibility for Federal and/or State Funding NO BUILD is not an option LONG TERM HORIZON (20 25 years from now) Project Sponsor selects the Recommended Alternative Federal and State Agency evaluate and concur by issuing Record of Decision (ROD) or Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) Recommended Alternative Best Value alternative on the basis of Technical Merit and Cost/Benefit Technical Merit based on Addressing Need Environmental, Social and Physical Impacts Cost based on Capital and Operations & Maintenance 5

6 PD&E Study P D & E Study Key Project Milestones Class of Action Determination by FDOT/FHWA EA with a potential FONSI (less onerous than EIS process) Multiple Public Information Meetings throughout process Viable Corridor Alternatives Converging multiple alternatives to only viable alternatives April 2007 concurrence by FHWA 6

7 Corridors and Alternatives P D & E Study Corridor Evaluation Intermodal Center Location Options Initial Project Options Airport to Port Alternatives: At-grade Rail At-grade Mixed Traffic /Dedicated Busway APM /Elevated Busway 1 APM /Elevated Busway 2 On-airport segment 1 7

8 Corridors and Alternatives P D & E Study Intermodal Center Location Options 3 Viable Project Corridors People Mover and IMC Location Per Project Corridor Workshop and Corridor Report dated January 2007 accepted by FHWA in April 2007 On-airport segment 1 Airport to Port People Mover Alternatives: Bus- Mixed Traffic / Exclusive Lanes APM/ Bus on Elevated Structure 8

9 Alternatives P D & E Study Project Development Considerations People Mover Alternatives No Build Bus APM Bus/APM Combination Bus Phasing to APM Potential Project Phasing Phase-1 Project s near term Midport Congestion Mitigation Phase-2 On-Airport Segment Phase-3 Extension to Midport Phase-4 Extension to Northport IMC Location Alternative Intermodal Facility for Regional Connectivity Parking Element (not in project but programmed) 9

10 Alternatives P D & E Study Project Alternatives No Build DO NOTHING Automated People Mover Alternatives: Alignment 1: Alignment 2: Alignment 6: Alignment 6A: Bus Alternatives (at grade and/or Elevated) Alignment 5 5A: APM on Airport, Bus on Grade/Dedicated lane for Port 5B : Bus on Elevated busway 5C: APM on Airport, Bus on Grade/Dedicated lane for Port 5D: APM on Airport, Bus on Elevated busway on Port 10

11 P D & E Study Alternatives No Build Projected Conditions (Planning Horizon Year 2026, per Master Plans) Access Roadways Airport & Port access roadways DEMAND EXCEEDS CAPACITY Processing constraints of Curbfront and Port security gates Impact on freight traffic accessing Port cargo container yards. Curb staging requirements for cruise buses Location Staging (number of buses) Current Capacity Projected Need (2026) FLL * Midport Northport *two levels and some double stacking of buses 11

12 Alternatives P D & E Study Projected Operations 2026 Based on projected peak demand of 6,744 passengers per hour per direction 34,000 daily passengers per day over 3.5 AM hours (7:30 to 11:00AM) and 4.5 PM hours (11:00 AM to 3:30 PM) per forecast from PEV Master/Vision Plan for full build-out; 5.96M multi-day cruise passengers; Cruise Season per O-D Survey: 67.7% of PEV multi-day cruise passengers use FLL Weekend/ Weekday Bus Alternatives APM Alternatives Peak (Nov. Thru April) Weekend (2 days to potential 3 days per PEV M/VP) 150 bus trips during peak hour Bus staging and berthing terminals necessary at Airport and Seaport 4 car APM (train) every 2 minutes. Weekday (5 days) 32 bus trips during peak hour Bus staging and berthing terminals necessary at Airport and Seaport 2 car APM (train) every 3 minutes. Off Peak (May Thru Oct) Weekend (2 days potential 3 days per PEV M/VP) 53 bus trips during peak hour Bus staging and berthing terminals necessary at Airport and Seaport 4 car APM (train) every 4 minutes. Weekday (5 days ) 27 bus trips during peak hour Bus staging and berthing terminals necessary at Airport and Seaport 2 car APM (train) every 3 minutes. 12

13 PD&E Study P D & E Study Project Value Engineering Value Engineering Conducted by FDOT District 4, January 14-18, 2008 Summary of FDOT VE Team Findings: No Build is not an option according to VE Team Provide a near term Midport congestion mitigation Use Bus as immediate solution to be converted to APM when needed In addition to phasing some additional suggestions were: - build one station only at Airport - combine Midport and Terminal 18 Station 13

14 P D & E Study Alternatives Preliminary Consolidated Ratings (1) No Build 5B 6A Evaluation Criteria No Action Bus elevated APM Construction and Engineering Costs Operations and maintenance costs Right of Way Costs and Business Damages Environmental Impacts (natural, physical and cultural) Social and Economic Impacts Operational Analysis (connection to) Regional transportation network Enhanced Ground Access thru put to meet demand at Port 1 * 4 5 Enhanced Ground Access thru put to meet demand at Airport 1 * 4 5 Operational Flexibility and System Scalability Greatest use of existing County rights-of-way Level of Service for users 1 * 3 5 Safety and Security Totals * Unsustainable for year 2026 projections. Maximum Total of 60 Legend: Note 1: Reviewed with BCAD, PEV staff on 3/14/08, 3/21/08 and 4/11/08 1-Worst; 2-Poor; 3-Neutral; 4-Good; 5-Best 14

15 Alternatives P D & E Study Preliminary Ratings - IMC Alternatives (1) IMC Location Options 1 3 System functionality with People Mover alignment alternatives 5 2 Property Impacts 5 5 Inter-modality Environmental Impacts 4 3 Security Issues 5 2 Viability & Space for IMC Egress and Access Elements Project Constructability 4 4 Total Score Note 1: Reviewed with BCAD, PEV staff on 3/14/08, 3/21/08 and 4/11/08 Maximum Total of 35 Legend: 1-Worst; 2-Poor; 3-Neutral; 4-Good; 5-Best 15

16 Estimated Capital Costs in 2007$ P D & E Study Feasibility Study vs. PD&E Study Update Project Segment Feasibility Study APM Project Funding Options PD&E Update APM (6A) PD&E Update Elevated Bus (5B) On-Airport $227M $173M $82M Extend to Midport $470M $410M $227M Extend to Northport $326M $177M $110M Sub-total People Mover $1,023M $760M $419M IMC $464M $79M $79M TOTALS $1,487M $840M $498M Notes 1. From Phase 1 Feasibility Study Escalated to year 2007$ at annual rate of 4% 2. Change in IMC Need resulted in IMC Project costs limited to Transit element cost only. 3. Includes R.O.W Cost, frontage impacts and property for Bus or APM maintenance yard. 16

17 P D & E Study Segment of System Project Funding Options Estimated Capital and O&M Costs Full Build of APM Alternative 6A Period of Development Cost in 2007$ Capital Escalated to YOE (Year of Expenditure) Annual Operating & Maintenance Cost in 2007$ Startup Year On-Airport $173M $267M $4.6M (*) $6.3M (*) Extend to Midport $410M $683M $8.5M $12.3M Extend to N. Port $177M $295M $3.6M $5.3M IMC $79M $132M $1.0M $1.4M Totals $840M $1,377M $17.7M $25.3M Note : * = Offset by RCF Bus operation cost transferred to APM : APM System would replace current shuttle bus operation for RCF. By agreement, portion of Customer Facility Charge (CFC) equivalent to current cost for RCF shuttle bus can be applied to cover APM operation costs. 17

18 P D & E Study Project Funding Options Estimated Capital and O&M Costs Full Build of Elevated Bus Alternative 5B Segment of System Period of Development Cost in 2007$ Capital Escalated to YOE (Year of Expenditure) Annual Operating & Maintenance Cost in 2007$ Startup Year On-Airport $82M $126M $4.0M + (+ exist RCF) $5.5M + (+ exist RCF) Extend to Midport $227M $378M $10.3M $15.0M Extend to N. Port $110M $184M $4.4M $6.3M IMC $79M $132M $1.0M $1.5M Totals $498M $820M $19.7M $28.3M Note : + : Covers incremental cost for the IMC to Airport shuttle bus operation for Airport / Seaport connection. Current shuttle bus operation for Rental Car Facility to continue with use of CFC. 18

19 P D & E Study Financial Analysis Project Funding Options Revenues and Costs for the APM/IMC Potential Local Funding Sources APM Users Fees Passenger Facility Charges RCC Customer Facility Charges Concessions Capital and O&M Costs People Mover Intermodal Center Phased Development Scenarios tied to benefit Project Financing Assessment Integrated Financing Model Multi-Tiered Debt (Senior, TIFIA) Multiple Issuances Incorporates Reserves, Issuance Costs Simulates All Stages of Financing Transactions Financial Assessment Financial Assessment 19

20 Financial Sensitivity Analysis Coverage With Range of PFCs and User Fee P D & E Study Project Funding Options Funding Scenario Percent of Project Financed Multi-Day Cruise Pax Fee Full APM APM to Midport Full Elevated Bus Elevated Bus to Midport $ % 40% 53% 49% Notes: User fee is per trip applied to multi-day cruise passengers using system between FLL & PEV Passenger Facility Charges (PFC) could finance facilities used directly by airport passengers and level of PFC could be based on share of airport passengers using the system. However, future PFC availability is uncertain. Coverage Ratio for Senior Debt = 1.85 Results similar to Feasibility Study 20

21 P D & E Study Project Funding Options Financial Sensitivity Analysis Cost per Rider by Segment Cost Per Rider Segment Full APM APM to Midport Full Elevated Bus Elevated Bus to Midport Airport to IMC $1.30 $0.80 IMC to Port $21.50 $21.20 $15.10 $ ) Airport users include Airport / Seaport passengers and Airport Rental Car Patrons 2) Potential Funding Sources: i) Airport to IMC : Potential funding sources to cover a portion of costs include PFCs for capital costs and rental car Customer Facility Charges (CFC) for operating costs. ii) IMC to Port : Potential funding sources to cover a portion of costs - APM passenger user fee. 21

22 Project Funding Options P D & E Study External Funding Strategies Federal Approval of PD&E will create external funding opportunities State of Florida Strategic Intermodal System Funds Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) programs Public Private Partnership (P3) Some combination of the above Focused Approach for External Funds Reduces reliance on local sources 22

23 Project Phasing P D & E Study Project Phasing Considerations Midport Congestion Mitigation Notes 1. Midport Congestion Mitigation Option (estimated cost 80 M), cost included as part of Midport Extension for financial analysis 23

24 P D & E Study Project Phasing Deferred Conversion to APM Incremental Steps to build from Near-term to Final RA Phases I Alternatives APM Bus on Bridge Bus at-grade Midport Congestion Mitigation II On-Airport On-Airport III IV Extend to Midport Extend to Northport Extend to Midport Extend to Northport Steps Phase Description Facility and Roadway Improvements Step 1 I Build Midport Phase I Step 2 II Airport Elevated Bridge for Bus Step 2A II Switch to APM Step 3 III Extend to Midport with Bus Step 3A III Extend to Midport with APM Step 4 III Switch to APM Step 5 IV Extend to Northport PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 24

25 P D & E Study Project Phasing Advanced Conversion to APM Incremental Steps to build from Near-term to Final RA Phases I Alternatives APM Bus on Bridge Bus at-grade Midport Congestion Mitigation II On-Airport On-Airport III IV Extend to Midport Extend to Northport Extend to Midport Extend to Northport Steps Phase Description Facility and Roadway Improvements Step 1 I Build Midport Phase I Step 2 II Airport Elevated Bridge for Bus Step 2A II Switch to APM Step 3 III Extend to Midport with Bus Step 3A III Extend to Midport with APM Step 4 III Switch to APM Step 5 IV Extend to Northport PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 25

26 P D & E Study Next Steps 1. Based on BOCC s designation of Recommended Alternative, Draft and Final EA Submitted to FDOT and FHWA days agency and public comment period after Notice of Availability. 3. Public Hearing during the comment period 4. Prepare FONSI Documents 5. Final Approval from FHWA Further activities will require Board action based on facility needs, phasing, funding opportunities and other considerations. 26