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 October 26, 2017 Waco MPO Policy Board Meeting
Study Objectives Rapid Transit Corridor (RTC) as a catalyst Increase the efficiency of WTS operations and decrease overall transit travel times Existing WTS System Support and promote regional economic growth Increase access to employment opportunities and critical services Develop an implementation strategy leverage available local, state and Federal funding opportunities 2
Developing an RTC Step 1: Assess existing conditions Where are people coming from and where are they going? What are the primary travel corridors and roadways? How will the RTC support existing transit? Step 2: Develop potential solutions and evaluation metrics What are the right infrastructure, technology and service components? What are the effects to riders, stakeholders, and transportation providers? How much will the solutions cost to implement and operate? Step 3: Select a locally preferred alternative (LPA) Is this what the community wants? How do we pay for it? 3
Step 2: Infrastructure & Technology Alternatives Components and operational characteristics Frequent service (< 15 minutes) Partially dedicated facilities (lanes) Premium, rail-like stations Longer stop spacing (0.5 to 1 mile) Branding Higher capacity vehicles (seating up to 60) On-board technologies (i.e. payment options) curbside technologies (i.e. information displays) 5
Step 3: Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) Project-specific website http://www.waco-texas.com/cms-mpo/ http://www.aecomconnect.com/wacortc/ Stakeholder Charrette Workshop June 2017 Advisory Committees (Quarterly) RTC Project Steering Committee WTS Technical Advisory Committee MPO Technical Committee and Policy Board Public Preference Survey (July Sept 2017) Existing riders and online Inform development of Alternatives Public Open House (Nov) Draft Alternatives and evaluation approach / data 6
Public Preference Survey and Definition of Alternatives Waco RTC Feasibility Study
RTC Public Preference Survey Results Roughly 200 responders June 15 thru Sept 4 Public Preferences Alignment Station shelter type Station amenities Reasons for using transit Trip Attractions / Destinations 8
Preliminary Alignment Segments RTC Corridor divided into 4 segments North River Segment A Taylor Street / Bus US 77 (54) B Taylor Street / Bellmead Drive (55) 44% 28% 28% North Extension Segment A Bus US 77 to Crest Drive (67) B US 84 to Air Base Road (28) C Bellmead Drive / US 84 to Loop 340 (98) 51% 35% 15% C US 84 / Waco Drive (86) Downtown Segment South Segment A Franklin Avenue (91) B LaSalle Avenue (40) C US 84 / Waco Drive (66) 34% 20% 46% 10
Preferred Station Amenities Arrival Information Bike Storage Trash Cans Newspaper Pedestrian Safety Public WiFi Route Information Landscaping Bike Share Bike Repair Device Charging Ticket Vending Area information Emergency Call Box Safety Infrastructure 1 st Tier 2 nd Tier Total: 133 responses 13
Conceptual RTC Stations Right Sizing Elements Sense of place, comfort, safety, information Ridership demand Minimize cost & impacts Lane or pull out bay Sidewalk and station platform Adjacent property 14
Evaluation of Alternatives Waco RTC Feasibility Study
Alternative Evaluation Criteria Comparative benefits and impacts between 3 alignment alternatives Focused on preliminary station locations and opportunities for dedicated transit lanes Mobility Impacts Potential Ridership Economic Development Potential Safety Capital and Operating Costs Community Support 16
RTC Alignment Alternatives Alignment 1 Alignment 2 Alignment 3 US 84 Valley Mills Franklin Taylor / Hillsboro B 77 to Crest (TSTC) US 84 Valley Mills Franklin Taylor / Hillsboro US 84 to Loop 340 US 84 Waco Dr. Taylor / Hillsboro B 77 to Crest (TSTC) 14.3 Miles 13.0 Miles 14.1 Miles 17
Evaluation Process Quantitative Analysis Identify best performers for each criteria/sub-criteria using natural breakpoints High: best performing (Value of 5) Medium: moderate performing (Value of 3) Low: lower performing (Value of 1) Sub criteria results averaged to get summary rating for each criteria High Medium Low Example: Alignment 1 Alignment 2 Alignment 3 19
Preliminary Evaluation Results Criteria Alignment 1 Alignment 2 Alignment 3 Mobility Impacts Medium Medium Medium System / RTC Ridership (year) 3,550 / 780 (2023) 3,500 / 790 (2023) 3,600 / 860 (2023) 4,150 / 860 (2040) 4,100 / 850 (2040) 4,200 / 950 (2040) Economic Development Medium High Low Safety High High Medium (Conceptual) Cost $20 M $22 M $18.5 M $20 M $17 M $18.5 M Community Support TBD TBD TBD Overall Rating (Aggregate) Medium High Medium Alternative 2 rated highest US 84 Valley Mills Franklin Taylor / Hillsboro US 84 to Loop 340 20
Franklin/Washington: Cross Section Analysis 1-way Couplet Benefits and Impacts More affected intersections More pedestrian treatments Increased cost Diffused parking impacts for dedicated transit lanes One side only, both streets Spread the wealth between two streets Subject to peak period travel patterns 21
Franklin/Washington: Cross Section Analysis 2 way Conversion Benefits and Impacts Capacity on parallel streets Designate corridors for transit, bike, pedestrian or auto Cost savings Fewer intersections & infrastructure Efficient transit operations and passenger wayfinding All day traffic vs peak only 22
Potential DT Station Area Impacts Curbside Bulb Out Bus Pullout Bay Safety feature for passenger boarding Safety feature to maintain thru traffic at stations Passing lane needed Shorten intersection crossing distances Parking lane or shoulder impacts Difficult for bus operators to merge Parking lane or shoulder impacts High speed or congestion 23
Franklin vs Franklin/Washington Preliminary Evaluation Results Criteria Franklin 2-way Franklin / Washington Couplet Mobility Impacts Medium Low Ridership N/A N/A Economic Development High High Safety High Medium Cost $ $$ Community Support TBD TBD Overall Rating (Aggregate) High Medium 2-way operations on Franklin recommended 24
Draft Evaluation Results Top Performer: Alternative #2 US 84 Franklin Ave Taylor / Hillsboro US 84 & Loop 340 2-way operation on Franklin 15 preliminary station locations (13 mi) Modular (right-sized) station design Passenger information, safety, comfort Potential ridership (system / RTC) 3,500 / 800 (year 2023) 4,100 / 850 (year 2040) 1-way travel times: TBD min Conceptual capital costs: $ Future local bus network modifications 25
Proposed Daily Service Frequencies RTC Local Bus MONDAY FRIDAY: From 06:00 09:00 (15 min) From 09:00 15:00 (20 min) From 15:00 18:00 (15 min) From 18:00 20:00 (20 min) From 20:00 22:00 (30 min) MONDAY FRIDAY: From 05:15 to 19:15 (30 min) SATURDAY: From 07:00 22:00 (30 min) SATURDAY: From 06:15 20:15 (30 min) SUNDAY: From 07:00 19:00 (30 min) SUNDAY: From 7:00 19:00 (60 min) Annual O&M cost approximately $3.5M to $4M Additional O&M cost TBD 26
Next Steps Waco RTC Feasibility Study
Developing an RTC Step 1: Assess existing conditions Where are people coming from and where are they going? What are the primary travel corridors and roadways? How will the RTC support existing transit? Step 2: Develop potential solutions and evaluation metrics What are the right infrastructure, technology and service components? What are the effects to riders, stakeholders, and transportation providers? How much will the solutions cost to implement and operate? Step 3: Select a locally preferred alternative (LPA) Is this what the community wants? How do we pay for it? 31
Selecting a Locally Preferred Alternative Public Engagement MPO Policy Board 10/26 Public Open House Nov 16 th Board and Committee approvals Dec thru Jan 2018 Funding Refine Capital and O&M costs Identify potential funding partners / revenue sources City of Waco McLennan County TxDOT FTA Private 32
Overview of the FTA Small Starts Program Capital Improvement Grant Program (CIG) New Starts, Small Starts, Core Capacity What is Small Starts? Maximum capital cost - $300 M Maximum FTA SS funding - $100 M (or 80% of capital cost) Nationally competitive and subject to future Federal Funding availability Greater local funding participation makes applications more competitive for Federal funding Local / Non- Federal Share Most Successful SS BRT projects are requesting between 60% and 70% 30% Total Capital Costs $$$ 70% Federal Share Source: Final Interim Policy Guidance FTA CIG Program (June 2016) 33
FTA Small Starts Application Process Project Eligibility (RTC Definition of Alternatives) Minimum infrastructure, technology and service operating components Project Justification (RTC Alternatives Evaluation and LPA Selection) Letter to FTA requesting entry into Project Development* Identify project sponsor, agency partners and key staff Project description, maps, existing conditions, purpose & need Capital and Operating cost estimates Local funding commitments and supporting docs Proposed schedule for implementation Project Development (future) Refine LPA and adoption of local funding Preliminary Engineering and Small Starts Evaluation Criteria NEPA Environmental clearance Construction Funding * Can be submitted at any time. FTA will provide notice of acceptance to Project Development within 45 days of submittal of complete information
FTA Capital Investment Grant Program (CIG) Final Interim Policy Guidance (June 2016) 35
Project Development Assuming selection of Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) investment in rapid transit service: Conduct engineering and design study Determine funding sources Estimated cost $2 M - $5 M (pending level of infrastructure) Approximately 2 years Obtain any necessary right of way Construction/ purchase of rolling stock Approximately 2-3 years (pending level of infrastructure) 36
Thank You Waco RTC Feasibility Study