Platform, Parking and Access Planning Introduction April 5, PDF Free Download

Gold Line Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Platform, Parking and Access Planning Introduction April 5, 2007

Meeting Objectives Provide an understanding of the platform, parking, and access needs; planning process and schedule. Introduce station platform, parking, and access standards and explain technical criteria.

Role of Station Platform & Parking IFT Participants REPRESENT You are here as representatives of your community. Get the perspective of local friends, neighbors and businesses. LEARN Develop deeper understanding of requirements, limitations, opportunities and issues associated with the location of station platforms and parking facilities. PARTNER Partner with community members, the project team and local municipalities to explore the pros/cons of different recommendations. COMMENT Provide recommendations on the location of station platforms and parking facilities.

Meeting Agenda Draft Environmental Impact (DEIS) Project Update Platform, Parking, and Access Planning Electric Multiple Unit (EMU) Streetcar

Draft Environmental Impact (DEIS) Project Update Don Ulrich CH2M Hill

What is the Gold Line EIS Project? Purpose: Implement fixed guideway transit from Denver Union Station to Ward Road in Wheat Ridge, Colorado. EIS Process: Test alternatives, including alternative alignments, for performance and environmental impacts. Construction Budget: Limits of expenditure in 2014 dollars: $463,500,000 Assumes 50% Federal funding

Gold Line DEIS Overview Gold Line EIS Workshops & Hearings Project Scoping Summer 2006 Fall 2006 Winter 2007 Spring 2007 Summer 2007 Fall 2007 Public Hearing DEIS February 08 Winter 2008 Winter 2009 Alternatives Analysis Preferred Alternative EIS/BE Studies PE/Final EIS Publish DEIS December 07 Dependent on RR Negotiations 2011-2015 2015 CONSTRUCTION FTA Issues ROD EIS Complete February 09

Gold Line Alignments

Alternative Technologies (EMU vs. Streetcar) Electric Multiple Unit Streetcar

EMU: BNUP Update 7 stations (same as in FasTracks) 38 th Ave. Station shifted slightly north to improve bus/vehicular access Pecos Station shifted slightly east to accommodate potential NW Rail transfer 38 th Ave. and Pecos Stations could provide cross-platform transfers to NW Rail Feeder bus routes optimized Station-specific parking demand identified Indemnification bill progressing well

Streetcar: Harlan Update 13 stations provides optimal performance More stations reduces ridership, fewer stations reduces accessibility Streetcar would have exclusive use during peak and would share traffic lanes in offpeak Bus routes optimized Station-specific parking demand identified Higher travel time and lower ridership continue to be challenges to this alternative

Updated Alternatives Comparison Financial Capital Cost (2007) Within FT Budget? Cost Share w/ NW Rail? FTA Fundable? EMU: BN/UP $383 M Yes Yes Probable Streetcar: Harlan $362 M Yes No Possible Performance Ridership Travel Time Mixed Flow % EMU: BN/UP 15,900-18,200 25 minutes 0% Streetcar: Harlan 10,500-11,000 41 min. (peak)* 45 min. (off-peak) 34% (peak)* 62% (off-peak) * Assumes streetcar has exclusive use of one lane on 38 th Ave. during peak hours and operates in mixed-flow during off-peak.

Updated Alternatives Comparison Stations & Parking Stations 2030 Parking Demand 2030 Proposed Parking 2015 (Opening Day) Proposed Parking EMU: BN/UP 7 Stations, All w/ parking 5,389 5,390 2,250 Streetcar: Harlan 13 Stations, 6 w/ parking 3,071 3,071 2,250

Platform, Parking & Access Planning Mark Leese / Jean Sanson URS Corporation

Platform, Parking & Access Planning 1. Planning Process 2. Planning Principles 3. EMU Technical Criteria & Examples 4. Streetcar Technical Criteria & Examples 5. Local Plans 6. Next Steps/Upcoming Meetings

Planning Process Objective: Identify platform, parking, and access locations to evaluate in the DEIS. Determine scope, impacts and cost. Considerations: RTD service planning and RR negotiations Engineering and design standards Station context Site opportunities and constraints Environmental factors Community vision Public/agency opinion

Station Design Criteria Provides direct access from an arterial street Has convenient connections from community Is consistent with local TOD plans Optimizes ridership Considers operational needs of each station Accommodates projected opening day parking needs Is safe, secure and visible Would minimize relocation of homes and/or businesses Would minimize environmental and community impacts Would have reasonable cost to acquire Would minimize need for costly improvements Does not conflict with freight tracks

Planning Process Facility planning is achieved in several steps Step 1: April, 5 2007 (tonight all stations) Introduction to process, principles, & criteria Step 2: April 10-25, 2007 (station-specific meetings) Develop/evaluate station site plan alternatives Step 3: May 2007 Refine most promising site plan alternatives Step 4: May/June 2007 Select preferred site plans Step 5: Fall/Winter 2007 50% Design

Evolution of a Transit Station NOW 2007/2008

Access Hierarchy

Station Context An ideal station site shall have connections to destinations within 5-10 minute walk (1/4- to 1/2-mile).

Station Area Elements Dallas, TX Example Wrapped Parking Garage Residential Ground-Floor Retail Train Platform Commuter Parking Bus Connections A station area may have some (or all) of these elements in the near vicinity

Evolution of Station Design Initial Stage Evolving Final Stage

EMU EMU facilities are very different from streetcar facilities

EMU Engineering Requirements Platform shall allow 300 of length for the initial phase and another 200 for future station expansion.

EMU Engineering Requirements (view from above) (cross section) Platforms shall be on a straight track segment; a minimum of 85 away from curves.

EMU Engineering Requirements 300 FEET PREFERRED Preferred platform location is at least 300 away from an atgrade street crossing.

EMU Engineering Requirements Platform shall allow level-boarding.

EMU Station Configuration PARKING 1. Adjacent to a major arterial street and to a signaled intersection. 2. Good pedestrian and bicycle connections, with easy links between the rail platform and buses/shuttles. 3. Ticket vending, public information and drop-off/pick-up. 4. Parking.

EMU Station Types Main Street Transit Function Main street walk-up station. Local and feeder bus service, kiss-n-ride drop off, and park-n-ride. Typical Area Character Sub-regional destination. Ideal location for mixeduse redevelopment with diverse residential options as well as local commercial/employment uses. Typical Scale 2-4 stories Downtown Littleton

EMU Station Types Neighborhood Walk-Up Transit Function Neighborhood walk-up station. Local bus service and kiss-n-ride drop off. Typical Area Character Residential area with limited neighborhood commercial uses. Typical Scale 1-3 stories Louisiana Pearl LRT Transit Station Plaza URS Corporation

EMU Station Types Local Commuter Transit Function Capture station for commuters. Feeder bus service, kiss-n-ride drop off, park-n-ride. Typical Area Character Residential area with limited neighborhood commercial uses. Typical Scale 1-3 stories Madison, CT

EMU Station Types Matrix Main Street Neighborhood Walk- Up Local Commuter Parking (opening day) 38 th 500 Pecos 300 Federal 300 Sheridan 300 Olde Town 300 Arvada Ridge 150 Ward 200

Station Example Longmont Diagonal Rail 1 st & Terry station Downtown redevelopment site

Station Example Longmont Diagonal Rail Station overview, south side of platform

Station Example Longmont Diagonal Rail Platform area

Streetcar Streetcar facilities are very different from EMU facilities

Streetcar Engineering Requirements Far-side platform Vehicle length = 65 feet Distance beyond intersection = 30-50 feet Sidewalk = 4 feet Station area = 8 feet

Streetcar Engineering Requirements Near-side platform Vehicle length = 65 feet Distance beyond intersection = 30-50 feet Sidewalk = 4 feet Station area = 8 feet

Streetcar Engineering Requirements Mid-block platform Vehicle length = 65 feet Sidewalk = 4 feet Station area = 8 feet

Streetcar Engineering Requirements Side-loading platform 10 th Ave., Portland, OR

Streetcar Engineering Requirements Center-loading platform Tacoma, WA Courtesy: Dale Bracewell, Railvolution 2004

Streetcar Engineering Requirements Section: Streetcar on Collector Street 38 th Ave Harlan (portion) Marshall (portion)

Streetcar Engineering Requirements Section: Streetcar on Local Street Old Wadsworth to Ward Road

Streetcar Simulation 38 th & Zuni existing 38 th & Zuni proposed

Streetcar Station Types Main Street Transit Function Main street walk-up station. Local and feeder bus service, kiss-n-ride drop off, and park-n-ride. Typical Area Character Sub-regional destination. Ideal location for mixeduse redevelopment with diverse residential options as well as local commercial/employment uses. Portland, OR Typical Scale 2-4 stories Tacoma, WA Courtesy: Donna Datsko, Railvolution 2004

Streetcar Station Types Neighborhood Walk-Up Transit Function Neighborhood walk-up station. Local bus service. Small park-nride, if any. Typical Area Character Residential, commercial, or mixeduse development. Typical Scale 1-7 stories Portland, OR

Streetcar Station Types Local Commuter Transit Function Capture station for commuters. Feeder bus service. Park-n-ride. Typical Area Character Residential or commercial area. Typical Scale 1-3 stories Gold Line, Metropolitan Los Angeles

Streetcar Station Types Matrix Main Street Neighborhood Walk- Up Local Commuter Parking (opening day) Fox/38 th 922 Kalamath/38 th 0 Zuni/38 th 0 Federal/38 th 0 Lowell/38 th 0 Tennyson/38 th 0 Sheridan/38 th 335 Harlan/38 th 0 Harlan/45 th 123 Marshall/54 th 0 Olde Town 196 Arvada Ridge 237 Ward 237

Denver: 38 th & Inca Station Area Planning Building on Typology in TOD Strategic Plan Urban Neighborhood Typology Neighborhood walk-up station Residential and locally serving neighborhood retail Station Area Plan to begin Fall 2007

Adams County: Pecos & Federal Station Area Planning

Arvada: Transit Station Framework Plan Extensive public process over last year Plans for Sheridan, Olde Town and Kipling Olde Town Plan Draft plan now available comments due April 19, 2007 Website: www.arvada.org/transportation/projects Contact: Kevin Nichols, 720-898-7464

Wheat Ridge: Northwest Sub-Area Plan

Local Planning Contacts Denver: Karen Good karen.good@ci.denver.co.us 720-865-2942 Adams County: Scott Tempel stempel@co.adams.co.us 303-453-8811 Station Planning Consultant: RNL Design Don Ryan 303-575-8491 Arvada: Kevin Nichols knichols@arvada.org 720-798-7464 Wheat Ridge: Sally Payne spayne@ci.wheatridge.co.us 303-235-2852

Future Tasks At the upcoming IFT meetings this month: Develop/evaluate alternative locations for platforms, parking, and access. Discuss site opportunities and constraints. Provide feedback.

Upcoming Meetings Date/Meeting April 10, 2007 EMU Arvada Ridge & Ward Road IFT April 12, 2007 EMU Sheridan & Olde Town IFT April 17, 2007 EMU 38 th Avenue, Pecos & Federal IFT April 18, 2007 Streetcar 38 th Avenue West of Federal & Harlan IFT April 24, 2007 Streetcar Olde Town to Ward Road IFT April 25, 2007 Streetcar 38 th Avenue East of Federal IFT Time/Place 5:30 7:30 King of Glory Lutheran Church 10001 West 58 th Avenue 5:30 7:30 Heritage Community Bible Church 5615 West 64 th Avenue 5:30 7:30 Highlands Masonic Center 3550 Federal Boulevard 6:00 8:00 Wheat Ridge Senior Center 6363 West 35 th Avenue 5:30 7:30 King of Glory Lutheran Church 10001 West 58 th Avenue 5:30 7:30 Quigg Newton Senior Center 4430 Navajo Street

Resources Gold Line Website: www.rtdgoldline.com City of Denver TOD: denvergov.org/tod Adams County Long Range Planning: co.adams.co.us/index.cfm?d=standard&b=1&c=26&s=1 30&p=842 City of Arvada Transit Station Planning Project: arvada.org City of Wheat Ridge Northwest Sub-Area Plan: ci.wheatridge.co.us

Questions?