PAWG Meeting #2. May 17, 2017 LYNX Central Station Open Area

Similar documents
PAWG Meeting #3a Tier 1 Evaluation

Public Meeting. June 15, :30 7:30 p.m.

Service Quality: Higher Ridership: Very Affordable: Image:

Downtown Transit Connector. Making Transit Work for Rhode Island

APPENDIX I: [FIXED-GUIDEWAY TRANSIT FEASIBILITY]

Bus Rapid Transit. Jennifer Flynn and Cheryl Thole Senior Research Associates Commuter Choice Workshop January 2012 Tampa, FL

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

Public Meeting. City of Chicago Department of Transportation & Department of Housing and Economic Development

Public Meeting. March 21, 2013 Mimosa Elementary School

Needs and Community Characteristics

SERVICE DESIGN GUIDELINES

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

August 2, 2010 Public Meeting

Waco Rapid Transit Corridor (RTC) Feasibility Study

Click to edit Master title style

What is the Connector?

UTA Transportation Equity Study and Staff Analysis. Board Workshop January 6, 2018

I-26 Fixed Guideway Alternatives Analysis

4 Evaluation Process and Initial Alternatives Considered

An Overview of Rapid Transit Typical Characteristics. Date April 30, 2009

Northeast Corridor Alternatives Analysis. Public Involvement Round 2 Input on Alternatives for Further Study

12/10/2018. December 6, Item #1 CITIZENS PARTICIPATION

Valley Metro Overview. ITE/IMSA Spring Conference March 6, 2014

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

Draft Results and Open House

Streetcar and Light Rail Design Differences. March 2015

Kendall Drive Premium Transit PD&E Study Project Kick-Off Meeting SR 94/Kendall Drive/SW 88 Street Project Development and Environment (PD&E) Study

DRAFT Subject to modifications

PEACHTREE CORRIDOR PARTNERSHIP. Current Status & Next Steps

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

KANSAS CITY STREETCAR

Draft Results and Recommendations

Shared Mobility Action Plan Overview

What IS BRT, Really? Not BRT and RNY

Status of Plans March Presented by CAPITOL REGION COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS

LEED v4 Building Design and Construction Quiz #3 LT

BROWARD BOULEVARD CORRIDOR TRANSIT STUDY

Tempe Streetcar. March 2, 2016

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

Rapid Transit and Land-Use Integration a Reality

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Region Rapid Transit and Land-Use Integration

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

CTfastrak Expansion. Stakeholder Meeting #4 Manchester Town Hall June 3, 2016

QUALITY OF LIFE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY REPORT I O N S TAT I O N

The City of Toronto s Transportation Strategy July 2007

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

Denver Car Share Program 2017 Program Summary

Bi-County Transitway/ Bethesda Station Access Demand Analysis

5. OPPORTUNITIES AND NEXT STEPS

Shared Mobility Action Plan Overview July 2017

CEDAR AVENUE TRANSITWAY Implementation Plan Update

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

HOT Lanes: Congestion Relief and Better Transit

FACT SHEET. US 192 Alternatives Analysis Modal Technologies. Alternative Description/Overview

Kenosha-Racine-Milwaukee (KRM)

Parking Management Strategies

Midtown Corridor Alternatives Analysis Initial Screening Analysis

2030 Multimodal Transportation Study

Troost Corridor Transit Study

Aren t You Really a Mobility Agency? Why The Vanpool Works for Transit

Vanpooling and Transit Agencies. Module 3: Benefits to Incorporating Vanpools. into a Transit Agency s Services

Kendall Drive Premium Transit PD&E Study

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

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

ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA

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

Proposed Program of Interrelated Projects

Sustainable Mobility Project 2.0 Project Overview. Sustainable Mobility Project 2.0 Mobilitätsbeirat Hamburg 01. July 2015

Leadership NC. November 8, 2018

Develop ground transportation improvements to make the Airport a multi-modal regional

DFW HSR Station Plans People Movers Hyperloop

The South Waterfront District and the Portland Aerial Tram

CENTRAL FLORIDA EXPRESSWAY AUTHORITY Master Plan Update Board Workshop #2

Miami Streetcar Efficient Transportation. A Discussion on Future Transportation Opportunities

Van Ness Transit Corridor Improvement Project. Engineering, Maintenance and Safety Committee March 25, 2015

1 On Time Performance

US 29 Bus Rapid Transit Planning Board Briefing. February 16, 2017

Chicago Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor

Restoration of Historic Streetcar Services in Downtown Los Angeles

Chicago Transit Authority Service Standards and Policies

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

Pacific Electric Right-of-Way / West Santa Ana Branch Corridor Alternatives Analysis

GO Transit s deliverable: the 2020 Service Plan

DOWNTOWN CONCORD SPECIFIC PLAN

Streetcar and Light Rail Design Differences. February 2015

Restoration of Historic Streetcar Services in Downtown Los Angeles

Chapter 4 : THEME 2. Transportation

Metro Reimagined. Project Overview October 2017

STRATEGIC MOBILITY PLAN DECEMBER 2016 STRATEGIC MOBILITY PLAN MOBILITY OPTIONS & CORRIDORS

Transportation Demand Management Element

Midtown Corridor Alternatives Analysis. Policy Advisory Committee Meeting February 12, 2014

Preliminary Definition of Alternatives. 3.0 Preliminary Definition of Alternatives

I-35W Past, Present, and Future: METRO Orange Line

Newmarket GO Station Mobility Hub Study. Open House #1 MAY 18, 2017

Husky Stadium: TMP Modernization Project

METRO Orange Line BRT American Boulevard Station Options

A Transit Plan for the Future. Draft Network Plan

Travel Time Savings Memorandum

Yonge-Eglinton. Mobility Hub Profile. September 19, 2012 YONGE- EGLINTON

Attachment 5. High Speed Transit Planning Study REPORT SUMMARY. Prepared by: City of Edmonton Transportation Planning Branch. Stantec Consulting Ltd.

Transcription:

PAWG Meeting #2 May 17, 2017 LYNX Central Station Open Area 1

SR 434 I-4 Study Area 23 Miles along SR 436 Regional and gateway corridor Connects 7 jurisdictions 11 LYNX routes along and 8 LYNX routes across the corridor 3 SuperStops Red Bug Lake Aloma SR 50 SR 408 Curry Ford Hoffner OIA 2

Study Goals Understand existing conditions (to frame project needs and goals) Analyze relationship between transit and land use Identify feasible alternatives to achieve project goals 3

Schedule What are the issues, opportunities, & objectives? 1/17-5/17 What are our alternatives? 6/17-8/17 Which alternatives best meet our goals, needs, & objectives? 9/17-12/17 Which alternatives do we want to move forward? 1/18-4/18 How can we best fund & implement the preferred alternative? 5/18-6/18 2017 Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov 2018 Mar May 2018 4

Stakeholder Interviews IN-PERSON INTERVIEWS 5

Community Events EVENTS 6

Community Events Gateway Orlando Rebranding Semoran Block Party Full Sail SCA Networking Summit Casselberry EarthFest EVENTS Neighborhood Leadership Council* Orlando Gateway Guardian* * Future Red, Hot, and Boom* 7

Website K PAGE VIEWS 8

Survey Highlights RESPONSES 9

What s your Home ZIP? 10

What s your relationship to SR 436? 11

Modes of Travel on SR 436 91% 16% 13% 9% 8% 7% 2% NOTE: Numbers do not add up to 100% because percentages calculated based on unique respondents (N= 286) 12

Why not bus? 73% 27% 6% 8% 17% 17% 16% 14% NOTE: Numbers do not add up to 100% because percentages calculated based on unique respondents that did not take the bus (N= 267) 13

Common Likes Lots of businesses, stores and restaurants Straight path to the airport Traffic flows pretty well 14

Common Dislikes Too much traffic and too many signals out of sync Pedestrians crossing at midblock Lack of pedestrian and bike accommodations 15

Existing Conditions 16

Existing Conditions What are the corridor issues and opportunities that can help frame project goals and objectives? 17

One Street, Many Roles 18

One Street, Many Roles 19

FDOT Context Classification Context classification informs planners and engineers about the type and intensity of users along various roadway segments. For non-limited-access roadways, the FDOT Design Manual (FDM) provides design criteria and standards based on context classification FDOT Design Manual Design Speed Ranges for Non-limited Access Facilities Context Classification Allowable Design Speed Range for Non-SIS (mph) C1 Natural 55-70 C2 Rural 55-70 C2T Rural Town 25-45 C3 Suburban 35-55 C4 Urban General 30-45 C5 Urban Center 25-35 C6 Urban Core 25-30

Context Classification Matrix Primary Measures Secondary Measures Context Classification Distinguishing Characteristics

SR 434 I-4 FDOT Context Classification Red Bug Lake Aloma SR 50 SR 408 Curry Ford Hoffner OIA 22

SR 434 I-4 Character Segments Red Bug Lake Aloma SR 50 SR 408 Hoffner 23

OIA Expansion New intermodal facility and new south terminal coming to OIA soon 24

SR 434 I-4 Development and Redevelopment Trends OIA and Airport Influence Area Lee Vista Area Full Sail Area City of Casselberry City of Altamonte Springs Red Bug Lake Aloma SR 50 SR 408 Curry Ford Hoffner OIA 25

SR 434 I-4 Employment Red Bug Lake Aloma SR 50 SR 408 Curry Ford Hoffner Retail, Hospitality, and Other Services Manufacturing and Logistics Healthcare, Education, and Government Professional Services Dense employment pockets provide natural transit anchors OIA Source: Robert Manduca, using LEHD 2014 data

SR 434 I-4 Employment Red Bug Lake Aloma SR 50 SR 408 Curry Ford Retail, Hospitality, and Other Services Hoffner Manufacturing and Logistics Healthcare, Education, and Government OIA Professional Services Source: Robert Manduca, using LEHD 2014 data

SR 434 I-4 Employment Red Bug Lake Aloma Only 2% of OIA employees took LYNX to work in 2015, down from 7% in 2000 Source: GOAA Employee TDM Survey SR 50 SR 408 Curry Ford Retail, Hospitality, and Other Services Hoffner Manufacturing and Logistics Healthcare, Education, and Government OIA Professional Services Source: Robert Manduca, using LEHD 2014 data

Travel Patterns Travel patterns emphasize need for system-level thinking 86% of trips start or end outside of the corridor Internal Inbound 14% 43% Outbound 43% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Percentage of Trips Interacting with the Study Corridor Source: AirSage Data (April 2015), obtained from MetroPlan Orlando 29

Travel Patterns Travel patterns emphasize need for system-level thinking 86% of trips start or end outside of the corridor All Trips HBW Percentage of Trips Internal to the Study Corridor 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 8% 14% HBO 18% NHB 12% Source: AirSage Data (April 2015), obtained from MetroPlan Orlando 30

Travel Patterns Short-distance trips within character districts April 2015 - All Day Trips To Airport_F Airport Influence Area Mid-Density Est. Communities Suburban Communities Suburban Commercial Rest of Region Trips From Airport_F 26,679 31,490 3,448 1,853 1,335 165,792 Airport Influence Area 32,721 42,709 5,918 2,947 1,878 197,578 Mid-Density Est. Communities 3,981 6,547 28,540 5,867 1,568 112,333 Suburban Communities 2,114 3,142 5,756 61,093 12,647 209,594 Commercial Areas 1,417 1,840 1,590 12,317 53,622 204,726 Rest of Region 178,230 205,901 111,130 207,876 205,121 6,594,352 Source: AirSage Data (April 2015), obtained from MetroPlan Orlando 31

Bus Transfers Travel Patterns Most SR 436 riders must transfer routes Source: Lynx On-Board Survey (January to April 2017) 32

Travel Patterns Lots of transfers in one location (Fern Park) Source: Lynx On-Board Survey (January to April 2017) 33

Transportation Infrastructure Infrastructure not inviting to pedestrians and bicyclists Ample ROW could be used for multimodal infrastructure Several planning and implementation efforts targeted to address safety 34

35

36

Development Patterns Development is primarily suburban and car-oriented Source: FDOT CARS data (2011-2015) 37

Development Patterns Wide setbacks Large blocks that average 770 feet long, but can range up to 2,600 feet. 38

SR 434 SR 434 I-4 I-4 Access Red Bug Lake Red Bug Lake Management Aloma Aloma Access management is often not consistent with land uses SR 50 SR 50 Signals are spaced 1,600 ft. apart (on average) SR 408 Curry Ford SR 408 Curry Ford Hoffner Hoffner OIA OIA 39

Safety Half of all fatal crashes involved pedestrians Rear End Pedestrian Angle Other Left Turn Bicycle Fixed Object/Run-Off Road Right Turn Head On Sideswipe Incapacitating Injury Fatal 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% % of Incapacitating Injury and Fatal Crashes Source: FDOT CARS data (2011-2015) 40

SR 434 I-4 Housing & Transportation Affordability Red Bug Lake Aloma SR 50 Many residents burdened by the cost of housing and transportation 45% > 45% and 60% > 60% and 75% > 75% and 90% > 90% OIA SR 408 Curry Ford Hoffner Source: Center for Neighborhood Technology, American Community Survey 2011-2015 41

Housing & Transportation Affordability In the MetroPlan Orlando region, the average household is also burdened (61%) Source: Center for Neighborhood Technology, MetroPlan Orlando Fact Sheet: http://htaindex.cnt.org/fact-sheets/?focus=cbsa&gid=281# 42

Auto Traffic Operations 43

SR 434 I-4 Average Travel Speeds Red Bug Lake Slowdowns are limited to certain segments Aloma SR 50 No LOS F conditions SR 408 Curry Ford Speeding is common in off-peak Source: HERE/NPMRDS Data (2016). Obtained from FDOT Central Office 15-18 mph 18-23 mph 23-31 mph 31-50 mph 50+ mph OIA Hoffner 44

SR 434 I-4 Signalized Intersection Operations Turning movement counts Pedestrian and bicyclist activity Queuing and signal delay analyses Red Bug Lake Aloma SR 50 SR 408 Curry Ford Hoffner OIA 45

Transit Operations 46

47

Annual Ridership Millions Ridership Links 436N and 436S account for ~7% of LYNX ridership Recent declines mirror systemwide LYNX trends 2.0 1.5-12% 1.0 0.5-10% Source: LYNX (2003-2015) - 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 48

Ridership 15,400 daily boardings and alightings Steady ridership through midday hours Source: LYNX Automatic Passenger Counter Reports, August 2016 Schedule Period 49

Revenue Ridership and farebox revenues are high for 42, 436N, and 436S $2.56 29% Source: Lynx 2016 Performance Report 50

SR 434 I-4 Passenger Flow Red Bug Lake Ridership is dispersed along the long corridor Aloma SR 50 SR 408 Curry Ford Hoffner OIA Source: Lynx Automatic Passenger Counter Reports, August 2016 Schedule Period 51

Stops Enhancements at key stops can make for a better transit experience 52

SR 434 I-4 Stops Red Bug Lake Bus riders must wait very close to fast moving traffic Aloma SR 50 40% of stops are just sticks in the ground SR 408 Curry Ford Real-time arrival info app coming soon Hoffner OIA 53

Project Goals & Objectives 54

Definitions Goal: A desired result or outcome that an organization: Envisions, Plans, and Commits to achieve Ex: Enhance transit experience to support existing users and to attract a wider range of potential users. Objective: A step an organization can take to achieve a goal. Specific Achievable Measurable Ex: Improve transit travel times along the corridor Source: Wikipedia, Forbes 55

Key Goals Enhance transit experience to support existing users and to attract a wider range of potential users. Make walking and bicycling safer and more comfortable. Encourage development and redevelopment consistent with community goals. Promote reliable and safe mobility options for all corridor users. Invest in multimodal improvements with a high return on investment. 56

Enhance transit experience to support existing users and to attract a wider range of potential users. Improve transit travel times along the corridor Improve transit reliability Address congestion-related delay for transit vehicles 57

Make Walking and Bicycling Safer and More Comfortable Provide safe and appealing pedestrian facilities and environments between transit and destinations Increase station area street connectivity Improve corridor permeability 58

Encourage Development and Redevelopment Consistent with Community Goals Serve areas with development / redevelopment potential Serve areas with zoning/future land use that allows higher intensity development and mixed uses Minimize adverse environmental impacts 59

Promote reliable and safe mobility options or all corridor users. Improve automobile travel time reliability Improve transit travel time reliability 60

Invest in multimodal improvements with a high return on investment. Invest in cost-effective infrastructure Leverage investment to attract private/public partnership 61

Interactive Exercise 1. Five stations and five rounds of collaboration 2. Grab a stack of cards (five cards) 3. Go to the station in your first card 4. Work with your team to come up with a few objectives for that goal 5. When time is up, go to the station in your second card and repeat 62

Time 63

Potential Objectives 64

Transit Technologies 65

Vanpool Vanpool Single rail track that operates in an elevated Average Daily configuration Ridershipat speeds 7 to 15up to 45 mph Typical Route Fully-automated Length and 15 to grade-separated 35 miles Stop Spacing Serves relative small 15 to area 35 miles such (1 as to airports, 3 stops per parks of districts (downtown, route ) for example) LYNX Vanpool Densities: Typically Residential operated Low by private to Moderate entities Densities: Employees Low to Moderate Route length between 1 and 15 miles Capital Costs Negligible* Capital Costs: $140 to $200 Million/mile Operating Cost $20 to $25 per vehicle hour Defining characteristics - Provide shared rides in vans or buses between homes or a central location (park-and-ride lot) to a regular destination - Vans used for public transit are typically owned by a public transit agency and riders are charged a weekly or monthly fare Space Coast Area Transit Vanpool Las Vegas Monorail Disney World Monorail 66

City Bus Local/City Bus Passengers per vehicle 40 to 75 Link 436 N Average Daily Ridership Typical Route Length Stop Spacing Densities : Residential Densities: Employees Capital Costs Operating Costs Varies Varies 500 feet to 1 mile (most common spacing is 1,000 to 1,200 feet) 3 du/acre 2 to 5 jobs/acre Less than $1 million/mile $85 - $130 per vehicle hour Link 28 Defining characteristics - Fixed route and fixed schedule - Mix of federal and local funding 67

Express/Enhanced Bus Albuquerque Rapid Ride Red Line Fort Lauderdale, FL Express/Enhanced Up to Bus 120 passengers per vehicle Runs in mixed-traffic Passengers per vehicle Up to 120 Fewer stops; farther apart Average Daily Varies Ridership Longer routes, connecting city centers to Typical Route Length smaller suburban 15 to 35 miles centers Stop Spacing May have Fewer enhanced stops, farther stations apart Densities: Residential May have 10 transit du/acresignal priority Densities: Employees Typically 5 have jobs/acre strong branding and image Capital Costs $1 to $2 million/mile Regular buses or larger buses Operating Cost $85 - $130 per vehicle hour Peak periods or all-day service Defining - Runs in mixed-traffic characteristics Capital Costs: - Longer $1-2 routes, Million/mile connecting city centers to suburban centers - May have enhanced stations - Typically have strong branding and image - Regular buses or larger buses Orlando, FL 68

Bus Rapid Transit Bus Rapid Transit Average Daily Ridership 4,500 to 1M+ Typical Route Length Stop Spacing Densities: Residential 4 to 25 miles Dependent on land use 5 to 20 du/acre Cleveland Health Line Densities: Employees Capital Costs Operating Cost 30 jobs/acre $4 to $40 million/mile $95 - $150 per vehicle hour Defining characteristics - Enhanced stations - Off-board fare payment - Branding - Transit signal priority - Can run in mixed traffic or on exclusive lanes - Rubber tire vehicles with modern design Orlando Downtown LYMMO 69

Elements of Bus Rapid Transit Corridor Based BRT Operates in mixed traffic Frequent bi-directional service on weekdays Defined stations Transit Signal Priority Short headway times *FTA BRT Categories Fixed Guideway BRT Operates in exclusive lane on >50% of alignment during peak periods Frequent bi-directional service on weekdays and weekends Defined Stations Transit Signal Priority Short headway times 70

Elements of Bus Rapid Transit *FTA BRT Categories Corridor Based BRT* Operates in mixed traffic Frequent bi-directional service on weekdays Defined stations Transit Signal Priority Short headway times Fixed Guideway BRT* Operates in exclusive lane on >50% of alignment during peak periods Frequent bi-directional service on weekdays and weekends Defined Stations Transit Signal Priority Short headway times BRT Standard Ranking Criteria Criteria Available Points BRT Basics Dedicated Right-of-Way 8 Busway Alignment 8 Off-Board Fare Collection 8 Intersection Treatments 7 Platform-Level Boarding 7 Service Planning Multiple Routes 4 Express, Limited and Local Services 3 Control Center 3 Located in Top Ten Corridors 2 Demand Profile 3 Hours of Operations 2 Multi-Corridor Network 2 Infrastructure Passing Lanes at Stations 4 Minimizing Bus Emissions 3 Stations Set Back from Intersections 3 Center Stations 2 Pavement Quality 2 Stations Distances Between Stations 2 Safe and Comfortable Stations 3 Number of Doors on Bus 3 Docking Bays and Sub-Stops 1 Sliding Doors in BRT Stations 1 Communications Branding 3 Passenger Information 2 Access and Integration Universal Access 3 Integration with Other Public Transport 3 Pedestrian Access 4 Secure Bicycle Parking 2 Bicycle Lanes 2 Bicycle Sharing Integration 1 71

Modern Street Car Portland, OR Portland Streetcar Washington, DC Modern Streetcar Exclusive Lanes or mixed traffic Average Runs Daily on Ridership embedded 5,000 steel to 25,000 rail tracks Typical Route Length 2 to 10 miles Typical station spacing is between ½ mile to 1 Stop Spacing mile Between ½ to 1 mile Densities: Historic Residential trolleys or 20 modern to 35 du/acre street car Densities: Short Employees segments, can 60 jobs/acre be 5 miles or less within Capital Costs urban core and neighborhoods $25 to $50 million/mile Operating Typically Cost slower in $170 speeds - $300 than per LRT vehicle hour Capital Costs: $25 to $50 Million/mile Defining characteristics - Exclusive lanes or mixed traffic - Runs on embedded steel rail tracks - Short segments, can be 5 miles or less within urban core and neighborhoods - Typically slower in speed than LRT 72 Seattle Streetcar

Light Rail Transit Light Rail Average Daily Ridership 7,500 to 40,000 Typical Route Length Stop Spacing Densities: Residential Densities: Employees 10 to 30 miles Between 1 to 3 miles 5 to 35 du/acre 60 jobs/acre Charlotte Blue Line MAX Green Line Capital Costs Operating Cost $45 to $130 million/mile $300 - $450 per vehicle hour Defining characteristics - Electric powered rail cars typically propelled by overhead wires (some battery sections) - Can operate in mixed-traffic or exclusive ROW - Dedicated stations; off-board ticketing - Typically in urban centers and neighborhoods 73

Commuter Rail SunRail, FL MARC Train, MD Commuter Rail Average Daily Ridership 2,500 to 9,000 Exclusive lanes Typical Route Length 20 to 100 miles Diesel powered locomotives Stop Spacing 3+ miles Longer distance, commuting Densities: travel Residential 1.3 to 35 du/acre Densities: Typical Employees station spacing is 30 3 miles jobs/acre or more Capital Costs $3 to $25 million/mile Can cross streets but typically Operating Cost $1,250 - $5,500 per vehicle separated from roadway ROW hour Typically shares or uses freight Defining characteristics - Exclusive lanes corridors - Diesel powered trains Capital Costs: $3 to $25 - Longer distance, commuting travel Million/mile - Typically shares or uses freight corridors - Can cross streets but typically separated from roadway ROW 74

Heavy Rail Chicago L Train Heavy Rail Typically consist of steel-wheeled, electric Average Daily powered Ridership vehicles operating 60,000 in or trains more of two or more cars Typical Route Length 10 to 30 miles Provides regional, urban type of service Stop Spacing Urban core: < 1 mile Typical distance between stations in the urban Periphery: 1 to 5 miles core is less than one mile while in the periphery Densities: between Residential 1 and 5 miles 12 to 35 du/acre Densities: Does Employees not operate in roadway 200 jobs/acre rights-of-way Capital Costs Capital Costs: $50 to $250 $50 to Million/mile $250 million/mile Operating Cost $1,100 - $2,000 per vehicle hour Washington D.C. Metro Defining characteristics - Steel-wheeled, powered by in-ground electrified third rail - Provides regional, urban type of service - Does not operate in roadway rights-of-way 75

Monorail Seattle Center Monorail Monorail Single rail track that operates in an elevated Average Daily configuration Ridershipat speeds Varies up to 45 mph Typical Route Fully-automated Length and 1 to grade-separated 15 miles Stop Spacing Serves relative small Varies area such as airports, parks of districts (downtown, for example) Densities: Residential Varies Densities: Typically Employees operated Varies by private entities Route length between 1 and 15 miles Capital Costs $140 to $200 million/mile Capital Costs: $140 to $200 Million/mile Operating Cost $800 to $1,100 per vehicle hour* Walt Disney World Monorail Las Vegas Monorail Defining characteristics - Single rail track that operates in an elevated configuration at speeds up to 45 mph - Fully-automated and gradeseparated - Serves relatively small areas such as airports, parts of districts (i.e. Downtowns) - Typically operated by private entities *Limited information available due to the fact that most monorail systems are privately owned and operated Disney World Monorail 76

Gondola Gondola Single rail track that operates in an elevated Average Daily configuration Ridershipat speeds 4,000 to up 60,000 to 45 mph Typical Route Fully-automated Length and 0.5 to grade-separated 4.5 miles Stop Spacing Serves relative small Varies area (up such to 1.88 as miles) airports, Densities: parks Residential of districts (downtown, Low High for example) Mi Teleférico Gondola System, La Paz, Bolivia Ngong Ping 360 Gondola System, Hong Kong Las Vegas Monorail Densities: Typically Employees operated Low by private to High entities Capital Costs NA* Route length between 1 and 15 miles Operating Cost NA* Capital Costs: $140 to $200 Million/mile Defining characteristics - Aerial lift consisting of a large number of relatively small (six to 15 passenger) gondolas that travel around a continuously circulating ropeway - Carriers move at higher speeds along the line, but slow to a creep speed or stop for passenger loading and unloading - Typically used in urban districts and recreation or tourist areas Disney World Monorail 77

Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) Heathrow Airport PRT, London, England Morgantown PRT, WV *Limited information available for PRT cost per vehicle-hour Personal Rapid Transit Average Daily Small Ridership automated vehicles 1,000 to can 6,000 operate very quietly on grade Typical Route Length 2 to 10 miles separated, exclusive-use guideway Stop Spacing Varies at an average speed of 25-45 mph Densities: Residential Varies Typically serve relatively small Densities: Employees Varies areas such as academic campuses Capital Costs and airports $10 to $26 million/mile Operating Cost NA* Often used as a last-mile Defining characteristics application in conjunction - Small, with automated vehicles that operate quietly on grade other transit modes separated guideways at an Can operate at extremely average low speed of 25-45 mph headways (as low as 2 seconds) to provide almost continuous vehicle availability other transit modes Typical capital cost per mile is $10 to $26 million - Typically serve small areas such as academic campuses and airports - Often used as a last-mile application in conjunction with - Can operate at low headways (as low as 2 seconds) to provide almost continuous vehicle availability 78

MagLev (Magnetic Levitation) Shanghai MagLev JR-MagLev in Japan Defining characteristics - Relatively new mode currently has three public systems around MagLev MagLev is relatively new and currently Average has Daily three Ridership public systems 30,000around the Typical world Route (Japan, Length China, 4 and to 600 South mileskorea) Stop Spacing Average top speeds Varies are between 250-350 Densities: mph Residential Varies Densities: Operations Employees occur on Varies a raised track above Capital ground; Costs cannot be paired $100 to with $650 other million/mile transit types Operating Cost $2,100 to $2,500 per vehicle mile Technology based on magnet attraction and repulsion; may have less track noise but more wind noise than the other worldrail modes) - Average top speeds range between 250-350 mph Capital Costs: $100 -to Operations $650 Million/mile occur a gradeseparated track; cannot be paired with other transit types - May have less track noise but more wind noise than other rail modes 79

Emerging and Automated Transit Modes Local Motors Citymapper On-demand transit Driverless shuttles and buses Dynamic bus routes Chariot, Citymapper etc. Automated People Movers Uber Pool/Lyft Line APM, Miami 80

Characteristics of Transit Technologies Transit Mode Typical Length (miles) Typical Densities Residential Employees (dwelling units/ac) (jobs/acre) Capital Cost (million per mile) Operating Cost (per vehicle hour)*** Average Daily Ridership Local/City Bus Varies 3 2 to 5 $0.25 to $0.5 $85 - $130 Varies Rapid/ Enhanced Bus Vanpool 15 to 35 15 to 35 10 5 $1 to $2 $85 - $130 1,000 to 6,000 Low to Moderate Low to Moderate <$0.5 $20 to $25 7 to 15 Bus Rapid Transit 4 to 25 5 to 20 30 $4 to $40 $95 - $150 4,500 to 20,000 Modern Streetcar 2 to 10 20 to 35 60 $25 to $50 $150 - $300 5,000 to 25,000 Light Rail Transit 10 to 30 5 to 35 60 $45 to $130 $300 - $450 7,500 to 40,000 Commuter Rail 20 to 100 1.3 to 35 30 $3 to $25 $1,250-$5,500 2,500 to 9,000 Heavy Rail 10 to 30 12 to 35 200 $50 to $250 $1,100 -$2,000 60,000 Gondola 0.5 to 4.5 Low to High Low to High 4,000 to 60,000 Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) 2 to 10 $10 to $26 1,000 to 16,000 Monorail 1 to 15 $140 to $200 $800-$1,100** Varies Magnetic Levitation 4 to 600 $100 to $650 $2,100-$2,500 *Limited information available **Limited information available due to the fact that most monorail systems are privately owned and operated. *** Operating cost per hour varies with frequency and span of service 81

Next Steps Next PAWG meeting in late June/early July 2017 Refined Goals/Objectives/Performance Measures Begin developing Long List of Alternatives Visit and share our website: www.lynxsr436.com Help us distribute our survey: https://form.jotform.com/70656151609154 Comments on the map: http://maps.kittelson.com/436transitstudy# Look out for meeting minutes in your inbox 82

Questions? 83

Thank You! 84