1 / 57

RTD Work Session May 30, 2014

Commuter Corridors Study. RTD Work Session May 30, 2014. Welcome!. Agenda. Welcome and Introductions Work Session Overview System Overview North Corridor Review Break Out Session #1 South Corridor Review East Corridor Review Breakout Session #2 Final Observations and Recommendations

garran
Download Presentation

RTD Work Session May 30, 2014

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CommuterCorridors Study RTD Work Session May 30, 2014 Welcome!

  2. Agenda • Welcome and Introductions • Work Session Overview • System Overview • North Corridor Review • Break Out Session #1 • South Corridor Review • East Corridor Review • Breakout Session #2 • Final Observations and Recommendations • Next Steps

  3. Work Session Overview • Goal: LPA for each corridor preliminarily determined • Tools: • URS recommendations for the system and corridors • Technical detailed analysis • Public & stakeholder sentiment • Cost estimates • Knowledge of the corridors • Format: • Presentation on analysis, input, and cost estimates • Breakout sessions allowing collaborative discussion and analysis of each corridor resulting in selection of LPA by table • Voting to understand level of consensus

  4. RTD Requests • Last mile connection • Scoring methodology • Weighting • Modeling • One seat ride in region • Hybrid alternatives

  5. Approach to Reaching Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) LPA Capital and O&M Costs Technical Evaluation (detailed) Public/Stakeholder Sentiment

  6. System Considerations

  7. System Consideration • Added frequency to local bus system and created connections to high-capacity transit corridors • Need to re-examine downtown routing for bus • Proposed system – approximately 32,000 riders per day • Currently running new travel demand model with proposed network • Existing system – approximately 9,000 riders per day • Coverage-based system with 30 to 60 min frequencies • New Embark program adding frequency to key routes

  8. URS System Recommendation • North: N1 • Future extension of streetcar to NW 63rd commuter rail station • Interline with South Corridor • Consideration of vehicle technology (DMU vs. LHV) • BNSF initial coordination • ROW constraints, IH 40 and Santa Fe Station • South: S1 • Interline with North Corridor • Consideration of vehicle technology (DMU vs. LHV) • BNSF & AMTRAK initial coordination • ROW constraints, Santa Fe Station • East: E1 option • Reno provides travel time efficiencies • BRT technology with contraflow lane • Coordination with Tinker on circulation approach • Do not preclude CR, allow ROW for simultaneous CR construction and BRT operation • Implementation • Bus, streetcar and corridors connections/integration analysis • Financial analysis and Funding Plan • Governance Plan

  9. Preliminary Financial Capacity ASSUMPTIONS • Bus Service with 40% Increase in Operations with Fleet Expansion • Assumes Operation of Streetcar and Future Expansion • North/South/East CRT – Starting 2021-2023 • O&M for BRT and Commuter Rail • On-Going Capital Maintenance – 1.5% of Investments Annually • Annual Fleet Replacements and Mid-Life Refurbishment of Rail Vehicles

  10. Preliminary Financial Capacity ASSUMPTIONS • Some “As You Go” Payments • Sales Tax Begins in 2017 • Mode Specific Farebox Recovery • Increases in 5307/Fixed Guideway Modernization (Estimated!!) • Modest Influx on 5309 Funds for Bus Replacements • Federal New Starts (33%) on Streetcar and Out-year Investments • Existing Revenue from Cities for Current Systems Removed

  11. Financial Capacity Regional ½ Cent Sales Tax

  12. Outreach Schedule Community & Stakeholder Workgroups • Round 1: July 2013 • Round 2: November 2013 • Round 3: April/May 2014 Public Open Houses • Round 1: November 2013 • Round 2: May 2014 (Road Shows in progress) Newsletters • Issue 1: January 2014 • Issue 2: April 2014 • Issue 3: Summer 2014 Webinars • January 2014 • May 2014

  13. Community & Stakeholder Workgroups – North Corridor Table Results

  14. Community & Stakeholder Workgroups – North Corridor Survey Results Which alignment is most appropriate for your corridor? Which mode is most appropriate for your corridor?

  15. Community & Stakeholder Workgroups – South Corridor Table Results

  16. Community & Stakeholder Workgroups – South Corridor Survey Results Which alignment is most appropriate for your corridor? Which mode is most appropriate for your corridor? S1 S2 S4

  17. Community & Stakeholder Workgroups – East Corridor Table Results

  18. Community & Stakeholder Workgroups – East Corridor Survey Results Which alignment is most appropriate for your corridor? Which mode is most appropriate for your corridor?

  19. Public Outreach – Road Shows • “Road Shows” in nine locations: • May Fair Arts Festival – Norman • University of Central Oklahoma – Edmond • University of Oklahoma – Norman • Rose State College – Midwest City • Touch-a-Truck – Edmond • Premiere on Film Row – Oklahoma City • Old Town Farmers Market – Moore • Edmond Jazz and Blues Festival – Edmond • Made in Oklahoma Wine, Beer, and Food Festival – Midwest City • Over 130 surveys completed so far!

  20. Public and Stakeholder Input – North Corridor • Road shows at: • University of Central Oklahoma (Edmond) – 5/6/14 • Touch-a-Truck (Edmond) – 5/17/14 • Edmond Jazz & Blues Festival (Edmond) – 5/24/14 • Surveys completed: 65 • Preferred alignment: N1 (63.5);N2 (23.5%); N7 (8%); N3 (5%) • Preferred mode for public transit in corridor: rail (84%);Bus (16%) • Most likely to use public transit for: traveling to entertainment and sports events, followed by shopping, work, and school. • Least likely to use public transit for: traveling to church

  21. Public and Stakeholder Input – South Corridor • Road shows at: • May Fair Arts Festival (Norman) – 5/3/14 • University of Oklahoma (Norman) – 5/7/14 • Premiere on Film Row (Oklahoma City) – 5/16/14 • Old Town Farmer’s Market (Moore) – 5/22/14 • Surveys completed: 58 • Preferred alignment: S1 (82%); S2 (15%); S4 (3%) • Preferred mode for public transit in corridor: rail (93%);bus (7%) • Most likely to use public transit for: traveling to entertainment and sports events, followed by shopping, and work • Least likely to use public transit for: traveling to school or church

  22. Public and Stakeholder Input – East Corridor • Road shows at: • Rose State College (Midwest City) – 5/14/14 • Made in Oklahoma Wine, Beer, and Food Festival – 5/31/14 • Surveys completed: 7 (more anticipated this weekend) • Preferred alignment: E1 (50%), E6 (50%) • Preferred mode for public transit in corridor: rail (86%); bus (14%) • Most likely to use public transit for: traveling to entertainment and shopping, followed by school and work • Least likely to use public transit for: traveling to sporting events and church

  23. Public Outreach – Webinar Webinar #2 • Held on May 28th, 2014 • Approximately 30 participants • Available for viewing online at www.centralokgo.org • Survey Results • 8 surveys completed to date • 100% agree that high-capacity transit can be an effective solution for improving mobility in Central Oklahoma • 75% agree with the criteria used to evaluate the different alternatives

  24. Public Outreach – Webinar Survey Results Continued • North Corridor • Preferred Alignments: N1: 33%; N2: 25%; N3: 25%; N7: 17% • Preferred Modes: CR: 50%; SC: 25%; LRT: 12.5%; Express Bus: 12.5%; BRT: 0% • South Corridor • Preferred Alignments: S1: 64%; S2: 18%; S4: 18% • Preferred Modes: CR: 86%; BRT: 14%; SC: 0%; LRT: 0%; Express Bus: 0% • East Corridor • Preferred Alignments: E1: 45%; E5: 36%; E6: 18 • Preferred Modes: CR: 43%; LRT: 29%; BRT: 29%; SC: 0%; Express Bus: 0%

  25. North Corridor: Analysis Review and Update, Technical Recommendation, and Public and Stakeholder Input

  26. Detailed Evaluation Process • Purpose: Evaluate recommended alternatives to identify the most technically viable alternative in each corridor • Evaluation criteria based on RTD/workgroup identified goals and objectives • Enhance Regional Connectivity • Support Economic Development and Shape Growth • Provide a Balanced and Coordinated Multimodal System • Technical Feasibility added • Scoring and Ranking • Each alternative scored on a 0-3 point scale; zero (red), one (yellow), two (light green), or three (dark green) for each criterion and totaled • Normalizing/balancing adjustment • Weighting applied to each criterion • Negative scores subtracted from positive scores to determine “total points” for each alternative

  27. North Corridor Recommended Alternatives • N1 (Commuter Rail) • 7 Stations • Uses Existing BNSF ROW • 100% Dedicated ROW • N2 (LRT/Streetcar/BRT) • 12 Stations • Uses Arterials and BNSF • 100% Dedicated ROW • N3 (LRT/Streetcar/BRT) • 12 Stations • Uses Arterials and Broadway Extension • 100% Dedicated ROW • N7 (Streetcar/BRT) • 11 Stations • Uses Arterials • No Dedicated ROW (i.e., shares lanes with other vehicles)

  28. North Corridor Detailed Evaluation Results New Workgroup Weighting New RTD Weighting N3 (BRT) N7 (BRT) N2 (BRT) N3 (LRT) N1 (CR) N2 (LRT) N3 (SC) N7 (SC) N2 (SC) N7 (BRT) N1 (CR) N2 (BRT) N2 (LRT) N2 (SC) N3 (BRT) N3 (LRT) N3 (SC) N7 (SC)

  29. Preliminary Ridership Estimates – North Corridor Source: Alliance Transportation Group, 2014. • Ridership likely under-reported • Model showing short commuter rail trips • LRT Mode – Ridership threshold not met • Potential to capture LRT ridership through Streetcar extension • Sensitivity Analysis upcoming • Assumes “gold standard” investments

  30. Capital and O&M Costs – North Corridor Source: URS, 2014. • Assumptions: • Capital costs developed using cost per mile approach (urban, suburban, rural) • Alternatives N1 & N2: Assumes BNSF willing to share ROW and accommodate schedule frequency • Alternative N1: Assumes construction of single track plus some additional station and passing sidings • Enhanced local bus service necessary for all alternatives at additional cost • Operate seven days per week • Operating hours: 5:30am – 10:30pm (weekdays); 7:00am – 9:00pm (weekends) • Headways: 15 min (peak); 30 min (off-peak)

  31. Detailed Evaluation Results and Costs – Side-by-Side Comparison N3 (BRT) N3 (LRT) N7 (SC) N1 (CR) N2 (LRT) N3 (SC) N7 (BRT) N2 (BRT) N2 (SC)

  32. URS Team’s Observations • High-capacity transit warranted in the region • LRT probably not warranted • Model suggests transit is more competitive for shorter trips • Trips are going to Downtown OKCbut pass-through trips are low • Detailed analysis trend consistent with ridership numbers; criteria is weighted toward ridership inputs • Commuter rail scores lower for population and activity centers, but higher for technical feasibility and environmental/social • North Corridor • Navigating across I-44 presents engineering challenges except for CR that uses existing track • Potential to extend streetcar north to NW 63rd or CR on BNSF ROW to gain benefit but not the full cost of N2

  33. URS Team’s Technical Recommendation • N1 Alternative (Commuter Rail) • Best combination of ridership, cost, and detailed analysis results • Existing BNSF ROW; avoids additional ROW impacts • Potential to avoid I-44 engineering constraint • DMU or LHV technology options • Potential to extend Streetcar up Classen • Capture some LRT ridership • Build on existing development momentum • One-seat ride “interlining” between Edmond and Norman/OU/SH 9

  34. Breakout Session #1 • At each of your tables, please review the handout materials for the North Corridor and discuss the alternatives under consideration • Focus on URS’ technically recommended alternative first and decide as a group if you agree with URS’ recommendation or not • If your table is in agreement with URS’ recommendation, please make a list of reasons why you think the technical recommendation is the best alternative for this corridor • If your table disagrees with URS’ recommendation, please review the other alternatives and come to a consensus on which alternative you think should be the technical recommendation for this corridor • Report out to the group on your technically recommended alternative, explaining why your table chose that particular alternative

  35. Considering the detailed analysis, ridership potential, costs, and public sentiment, which alternative do you feel is most appropriate for the North Corridor? (Choose 1) • N1 (Commuter Rail) • N2 (Light Rail) • N2 (Streetcar) • N2 (Bus Rapid Transit) • N3 (Light Rail) • N3 (Streetcar) • N3 (Bus Rapid Transit) • N7 (Streetcar) • N7 (Bus Rapid Transit)

  36. South Corridor: Analysis Review and Update, Technical Recommendation, and Public and Stakeholder Input

  37. South Corridor Recommended Alternatives • S1 (Commuter Rail) • 9 Stations • Uses Existing BNSF ROW • 100% Dedicated ROW • S2 (Streetcar/BRT) • 11 Stations • Uses Arterials and BNSF • 100% Dedicated ROW • S4 (Streetcar/BRT) • 12 Stations • Uses Arterials and IH-35 • 100% Dedicated ROW

  38. South Corridor Detailed Evaluation Results New Workgroup Weighting New RTD Weighting

  39. Preliminary Ridership Estimates – South Corridor Source: Alliance Transportation Group, 2014. • Ridership likely under-reported • Model showing short commuter rail trips • Sensitivity Analysis upcoming • Assumes “gold standard” investments

  40. Capital and O&M Costs – South Corridor Source: URS, 2014. • Assumptions: • Capital costs developed using cost per mile approach (urban, suburban, rural) • Alternatives S1 & S2: Assumes BNSF willing to share ROW and accommodate schedule frequency • Alternative S1: Assumes construction of single track plus some additional station and passing sidings • Enhanced local bus service necessary for all alternatives at additional cost • Operate seven days per week • Operating hours: 5:30am – 10:30pm (weekdays); 7:00am – 9:00pm (weekends) • Headways: 15 min (peak); 30 min (off-peak)

  41. Detailed Evaluation Results and Costs – Side-by-Side Comparison

  42. URS Team’s Observations • High-capacity transit warranted in the region • Model suggests transit is more competitive for shorter trips • Trips are going to Downtown OKCbut pass-through trips are low • Detailed analysis trend consistent with ridership numbers; criteria is weighted toward ridership inputs • Commuter rail scores lower for population and activity centers, but higher for technical feasibility and environmental/social • South Corridor • Lack of variation in detailed analysis scores expected • Engineering constraints associated with IH-35 crossover • Alternative S4: 100 percent dedicated ROW feasible but likely need to scale back in downtown Norman and OU • Longer corridor makes commuter rail more attractive

  43. URS Team’s Technical Recommendation • S1 Alternative (Commuter Rail) • Best combination of ridership, cost, and detailed analysis results • Existing BNSF ROW; avoids additional ROW impacts • Direct connection to Downtown Norman and OU Campus • Direct connection to Crossroads Mall (redevelopment potential) • Existing passenger rail service in corridor (Amtrak) • Potential to Avoid I-35 engineering constraint • DMU or LHV technology options • Potential to extend Streetcar down Shields (redevelopment potential) • One-seat ride “interlining” between Norman/OU/SH 9 and Edmond

  44. East Corridor: Analysis Review and Update, Technical Recommendation, and Public and Stakeholder Input

  45. East Corridor Recommended Alternatives E1 (Commuter Rail) • 6Stations • Uses Existing UP and Abandoned ROW • 100% Dedicated ROW E1A (BRT) • 7 Stations • Uses Existing UP and Abandoned ROW • 100% Dedicated ROW E5 (LRT/Streetcar/BRT) • 7 Stations • Uses Arterials and Abandoned ROW • 50% Dedicated ROW E6 (Streetcar/BRT) • 10 Stations • Uses Arterials • No Dedicated ROW (i.e., Mixed-Flow)

  46. East Corridor Detailed Evaluation Results New Workgroup Weighting New RTD Weighting

  47. Preliminary Ridership Estimates – East Corridor Source: Alliance Transportation Group, 2014. • Ridership likely under-reported • Disparity between E1 and E5/E6 ridership likely due to travel time differences • Sensitivity Analysis upcoming • Assumes “gold standard” investments

  48. Capital and O&M Costs – East Corridor Source: URS, 2014. • Assumptions: • Capital costs developed using cost per mile approach (urban, suburban, rural) • Alternative E1: Assumes UP willing to share ROW and accommodate schedule frequency • Alternative E1: Assumes construction of single track plus some additional station and passing sidings • Alternative E1A: Assumes use of contraflow bus-only lane during peak periods in the peak direction of travel • Enhanced local bus service necessary for all alternatives at additional cost • Operates seven days per week • Operating hours: 5:30am – 10:30pm (weekdays); 7:00am – 9:00pm (weekends) • Headways: 15 min (peak); 30 min (off-peak)

  49. Detailed Evaluation Results and Costs – Side-by-Side Comparison

  50. URS Team’s Observations • High-capacity transit warranted in the region • Trips are going to Downtown OKC but pass-through trips are low • East Corridor • Opportunity to use abandoned rail ROW • High exchange of ridership between Air Depot area in Midwest City and downtown OKC • Ridership results indicate high value placed on travel time in the corridor • Service to Tinker AFB riders challenging and harder to predict • Alternative E1: Engineering constraints • Alternative E1 option on Reno should be considered

More Related