PAWG Meeting #3a Tier 1 Evaluation

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

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

APPENDIX I: [FIXED-GUIDEWAY TRANSIT FEASIBILITY]

Streetcar and Light Rail Design Differences. March 2015

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

What is the Connector?

What IS BRT, Really? Not BRT and RNY

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

SERVICE DESIGN GUIDELINES

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

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

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

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

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

Needs and Community Characteristics

August 2, 2010 Public Meeting

Service Quality: Higher Ridership: Very Affordable: Image:

I-26 Fixed Guideway Alternatives Analysis

Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority. Joe Calabrese CEO/General Manager

Waco Rapid Transit Corridor (RTC) Feasibility Study

Downtown Transit Connector. Making Transit Work for Rhode Island

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

4 Evaluation Process and Initial Alternatives Considered

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

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

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

Status of Plans March Presented by CAPITOL REGION COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS

Tempe Streetcar. March 2, 2016

Midtown Corridor Alternatives Analysis Initial Screening Analysis

Streetcar and Light Rail Design Differences. February 2015

5. OPPORTUNITIES AND NEXT STEPS

KANSAS CITY STREETCAR

Transit on the New NY Bridge

Public Meeting. March 21, 2013 Mimosa Elementary School

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

BROWARD BOULEVARD CORRIDOR TRANSIT STUDY

PEACHTREE CORRIDOR PARTNERSHIP. Current Status & Next Steps

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

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

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

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

GO Transit s deliverable: the 2020 Service Plan

Tier 3 Screening and Selection. of the Recommended Alternative KISSIMMEE CORRIDOR. June Downtown CRA. US 192 Alternatives Analysis

Click to edit Master title style

DRAFT Subject to modifications

Preliminary Definition of Alternatives. 3.0 Preliminary Definition of Alternatives

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Region Rapid Transit and Land-Use Integration

Hillsborough County MPO Transit Study. Transit Concept for 2050 October 17, 2007

WELCOME. Transit Options Amherst - Buffalo Public Workshops

Kendall Drive Premium Transit PD&E Study

V03. APTA Multimodal Operations Planning Workshop August Green Line LRT

Kenosha-Racine-Milwaukee (KRM)

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

JTA S MOBILITY CORRIDORS. Improving System Performance Through Urban Design

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

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

4.0 TIER 2 ALTERNATIVES

Restoration of Historic Streetcar Services in Downtown Los Angeles

Metro Reimagined. Project Overview October 2017

3. PRELIMINARY DEFINITION OF ALTERNATIVES

Draft Results and Open House

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

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

Brian Pessaro, AICP National Bus Rapid Transit Institute

7 COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES

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

Community Outreach Meetings

6.0 Transit Technology Assessment

RELEASED UNDER THE OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT 1982

Informal Business Discussion Minutes Tuesday, May 3, :00 PM 1. Transportation

International and USA BRT TOD Comparisons. Cliff Henke and Kimi Iboshi Sloop, Parsons Brinckerhoff

CEDAR AVENUE TRANSITWAY Implementation Plan Update

Mountain View Automated Guideway Transit Feasibility Study Community Meeting September 25, 2017

Chicago Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor

Rapid Transit and Land-Use Integration a Reality

RTSP Phase II Update

Tier 2 Screening and Selection522. of the Short List Alternatives KISSIMMEE CORRIDOR. Downtown CRA. US 192 Alternatives Analysis

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

MPO Transit Study. Transit Concept for 2050 November 5, Transit Technologies

Unified Corridor Investment Study DRAFT Step 2 Scenario Analysis Report

I-10 West AA/EIS Pre-Screening and Tier 1 Analysis Results. Public Meeting. Wulf Grote, Director Project Development Rick Pilgrim, Project Manager

Bi-County Transitway/ Bethesda Station Access Demand Analysis

Denver Metro Association of Realtors

Draft Results and Recommendations

Clifton Corridor Transit Initiative. Briefing to Great Lakes Community February 11, 2016

Restoration of Historic Streetcar Services in Downtown Los Angeles

Chapter 4 : THEME 2. Transportation

2030 Multimodal Transportation Study

Leadership NC. November 8, 2018

LEED v4 Building Design and Construction Quiz #3 LT

Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority. Joe Calabrese - General Manager

Assessing Streetcar Feasibility in Your Community. Rail~Volution. Thomas Brennan Nelson\Nygaard Nygaard Consulting September 9, 2005

STRATEGIC PRIORITIES AND POLICY COMMITTEE MAY 5, 2016

TRANSIT IDEA STRATEGIC INITIATIVE On BUS RAPID TRANSIT (BRT)

Bus Rapid Transit: Basic Design for Non-Transit Planners

HOT Lanes: Congestion Relief and Better Transit

Midtown Corridor Alternatives Analysis Key Issues Memo

The Implications of Automated Vehicles for the Public Transit Industry

Clifton Corridor Transit Initiative. Briefing to Medlock Area Neighborhood Association (MANA) February 15, 2016

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

Transcription:

PAWG Meeting #3a Tier 1 Evaluation August 2, 2017 LYNX Central Station Open Area 1

Modes Screening 2

Trunk vs Feeder Trunk Modes High peak capacity Direct routes Feeder Modes Routing may be flexible Serve more dispersed origins and destinations Image Source: ROBERT W. KOSKI 3 GOALS & OBJECTIVES LESSONS MODES ALTERNATIVES HIA EVENTS

Trunk Mode: Local Bus Local/City Bus Passengers per vehicle 40 to 45 seated, 60-70 total Average Daily Ridership 2,700 to 3,200 Typical Route Length Stop Spacing Varies Approximately 1,200 feet Link 436 N Densities : Residential Densities: Employees Capital Costs Operating Costs >3 du/acre 2 to 5 jobs/acre $130K to $135K per mile $190K to $195K per mile Link 28 Defining characteristics - Fixed route and fixed schedule - Mix of federal and local funding 4

Trunk Mode: Limited Stop Bus Albuquerque Rapid Ride Red Line Fort Lauderdale, FL Limited-Stop Bus Up to (FastLink) 120 passengers per vehicle Runs in mixed-traffic Passengers per vehicle 40 to 75 seated; 120 total Fewer stops; farther apart Average Daily 300 to 6,000 Ridership Longer routes, connecting city centers to Typical Route Length smaller suburban 5 to 40 miles centers Stop Spacing May have Fewer enhanced stops, farther stations apart Densities: Residential May have 5 to transit 20 du/acre signal priority Densities: Employees Typically >5 have jobs/acre strong branding and image Capital Costs $75K to $200K per mile Regular buses or larger buses Operating Cost $20K to $250K per mile 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 Miami Dade Transit Metrobus Route 34 (Wikipedia) 5 NOTE: High-end limited-stop bus may qualify as FTA s Corridor-Based BRT

BRT Types BRT - Silver Ex: Cleveland Healthline Fixed Guideway BRT BRT - Bronze Ex: Eugene Emerald Express Corridor-Based BRT Limited-Stop Bus Ex: FastLinks Local Bus 6 GOALS & OBJECTIVES LESSONS MODES ALTERNATIVES HIA EVENTS

Trunk Mode: Bus Rapid Transit Bus Rapid Transit Average Daily Ridership 3,000 to 850,000 Typical Route Length Stop Spacing Densities: Residential 2 to 40 miles 0.5 to 2 miles 5 to >35 du/acre Cleveland Health Line Densities: Employees Capital Costs Operating Cost 5 to >60 jobs/acre $1.7M to $35M per mile $190K to $3M per mile 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 7

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 8

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 9

Trunk Mode: Bus Rapid Transit BRT - Bronze BRT - Silver BRT - Gold Eugene Emerald Express Cleveland s Healthline Bogota s Transmilenio Photo source: Wikipedia

Trunk Mode: Modern Street Car Portland, OR Washington, DC Portland Streetcar Modern Streetcar Exclusive Lanes or mixed traffic Average Runs Daily on Ridership embedded 15,200 steel to rail 27,300 tracks Typical Route Length 1 to 7 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 $25M to $50M per mile Operating Typically Cost slower in $1.8M speeds to $2.2M than LRT per mile 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 11 Seattle Streetcar

Trunk Mode: Light Rail Transit Light Rail Average Daily Ridership 16,200 to 23,200 Typical Route Length Stop Spacing Densities: Residential Densities: Employees 5 to 25 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 $130M per mile $15M to $40M per mile 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 12

Trunk Mode: Commuter Rail Commuter Rail SunRail, FL MARC Train, MD Average Daily Ridership 3,600 Exclusive lanes Typical Route Length 30 to 98 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 $38M per mile Can cross streets but typically Operating Cost $1.1M per mile separated from roadway ROW 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 13

Trunk Mode: 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 14 to 30 miles Provides regional, urban type of service Stop Spacing 1 to 5 miles Typical distance between stations in the urban 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 $50M Million/mile to $250M per mile Operating Cost $4.5M to $20M per mile 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 14

High Speed Rail Northeast Corridor Acela Florida s Brightline High Speed MagLev Rail is relatively new and currently Average has Daily three Ridership public systems 9,000 around to 45,000the Typical world Route (Japan, Length China, 25 and to > South 100 miles Korea) 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 $6.3M with to $510M other per mile transit types Operating Cost $5.7M per mile Technology based on magnet attraction and repulsion; may have less track noise but more wind noise than other rail modes) Capital Costs: $100 to $650 Million/mile Defining characteristics - Similar characteristics as commuter rail transit but at substantially higher speeds - Typically operates at speeds of up to 150 mph, and with dedicated tracks can exceed 200 mph - Does not operate in roadway rights-of-way - Used for intercity and interstate travel 15

MagLev (Magnetic Levitation) Shanghai MagLev JR-MagLev in Japan MagLev MagLev is relatively new and currently Average has Daily three Ridership public systems 10,000 around to 20,000 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 $150M with to $300M other per mile transit types Operating Cost $70M to $100M per year Technology based on magnet attraction and repulsion; may have less track noise but more wind noise than the other worldrail modes) between 250-350 mph Capital Costs: $100 to $650 Million/mile Defining characteristics - Relatively new mode currently has three public systems around - Average top speeds range - Operations occur on a gradeseparated track; cannot be paired with other transit types - May have less track noise but more wind noise than other rail modes 16

Feeder Modes On-Demand Transit Circulator Pictured: LYNX s NeighborLink (LYNX) Pictured: International Drive I-Ride Trolley (Wikipedia) 17

Feeder Modes Driverless Shuttles and Buses Personal Rapid Transit Pictured: Navya s Arma (Navya) Pictured: International Drive I-Trolley (Wikipedia) 18

Feeder Modes Automated People Movers Vanpool Pictured: Orlando International Airport s APM (GOAA) Pictured: LYNX s Vanpool (LYNX) 19

Feeder Modes Gondola Uber Pool/Lyft Line Pictured: La Paz s Mi Teleferico (Wikipedia) 20

Feeder Modes Monorail Pictured: Orlando Disney s Monorail (Disney) 21

Screening Project Alternatives Issues, opportunities, goals, objectives? What are our alternatives? What alternatives best meet our goals, and objectives? Which alternative do we want to move forward? How can we fund and implement the preferred alternative? Level 1 (Modes)ES Level 2 (Alignments & Segments) NTS/ Level 3 (Modes, Alignments/Segments, Operating Plans, General Station Characteristics) GOALS & OBJECTIVES LESSONS MODES ALTERNATIVES HIA EVENTS

ECON. DEV T BIKE/ PED TRANSIT Goals Level 1 Screening Objectives Level 1 Screening Criteria (Modes)* Improve transit travel times Existing and future pop. and emp. densities Improve transit travel time reliability/on-time performance support the mode's ridership potential Increase transit service frequency Existing and anticipated future ridership support Provide effective connections to other transportation infrastructure this mode Enhance transit amenities Mode is a proven technology in North America Serve existing and new customers Provide biked/ped amenities at transit stations Easy and simple accessibility of mode from Provide effective bike/ped connectivity to the stations bike/ped perspective Provide safe and comfortable bike/ped facilities Increase ability for bike/ped crossing Reduce bike/ped injuries and fatalities Serve existing destinations/centers Mode demonstrated potential to influence Serve areas with high redevelopment potential economic activity Serve areas where plans call for transit-supportive environments Ability for mode to adapt to evolving land use Provide substantial and permanent transit infrastructure patterns Provide roadways that support multimodal access Permanence or significance of infrastructure associated with this mode Minimize adverse environmental impacts 23 * Evaluated for more than 50% of the corridor

IMPLEMENTATION VEHICLE RELIA- BILITY Level 1 Screening Goals Objectives Level 1 Screening Criteria (Modes)* Reliable automobile travel times Right-of-way needs Incorporate access management and site design consistent with Potential impact of modes on automobile access land use and transportation contexts and turning movements Optimize transportation infrastructure through TSM&O Reduce vehicle crashes resulting in fewer fatalities and injuries Provide cost-effective infrastructure and operating plans Potential for adverse environmental impacts and Increase opportunities for partnerships to leverage transportation ROW costs investments Requires major corridor improvements Implement transportation investments that support healthy Relative capital cost of this mode community outcomes Relative operating cost of this mode Implement strategic incremental investments Ability for mode to be modified with minimal Implement community-supported strategies impacts and costs to meet the short- and longterm needs of the corridor * Evaluated for more than 50% of the corridor 24

25

Trunk Screening Pop. and emp. density Local bus Limited-stop bus Corridor Based BRT Fixed Guideway BRT BRT-Gold Modern Streetcar Light rail transit Commuter rail Heavy rail High speed rail Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No MagLev Ridership present Yes Yes Yes No No No No Yes No No No Proven in North America Easy/simple accessibility Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Influence economic activity Low Low Medium High High High High Medium High High Adapt to land use changes High High High Medium Medium Low Low Low Low Low Low Permanence of infrastructure Low Low Medium High High High High High High High High ROW Needs Low Low Low High High Medium High High High High High Impact on auto access/turns Environmental/ROW impacts Low Low Low Medium High Medium High High Medium Medium Medium Low Low Medium Medium High Medium High High High High High Req s major improvements Low Low Medium High High High High High High High High Relative capital cost Low Low Low Medium Medium High High High High High High Relative operational cost Low Low Low Low Low Medium Medium High High High High 26 Potential for simple mods High High High Medium Medium Low Low Low Low Low Low

Discussion 27

Feeder Screening Pop. and emp. density Ridership present Proven in North America Easy/simple accessibility On-demand transit Vanpool Circulator Uber Pool/Lyft Line Driverless shuttles and buses Personal Rapid Transit Automated People Movers Gondola Monorail Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No Influence economic activity Low Low Medium Low Low Low Medium Medium Low Adapt to land use changes Permanence of infrastructure ROW Needs Impact on auto access/turns Environmental/ROW impacts Uses existing infrastructure Relative capital cost Relative operational cost High High High High Medium Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low High High High High Low Low Low Low Medium High High High High Low Low Low Low Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Low Low Low Low Low High High High High Low Low Low Low Medium High High High High Low Low Low Low Low Medium Medium Medium High Low Low Low Low Medium Medium Medium Medium 28 Potential for simple mods High High High High Medium Low Low Low Low

Discussion 29

Next Steps Next PAWG meeting: September 14, 2017 Present long list of alternatives Present process for refining long list HIA Working Group in August 30, 2017 30

Thank You! 31