How to Conduct a Cost-Effective Transit Alternatives Analysis

1. How to Conduct a Cost-Effective Transit Alternatives Analysis Jim Czarnecky, AICP, DMJM Harris David Schmitt, AICP, AECOM Consult 11th TRB Planning Applications Conference Daytona Beach, Florida May 6th-10th, 2007

2. What is a Cost Effective AA? • A Cost Effective AA facilitates informed decisions earlier in the project development process • Intended to reduce risk of delays, budget overruns and do-overs due to: • Inadequate funding • Lack of data and/or adequate analysis tools • Contractual scope changes • Flawed process • Untimely redirection from other agencies • There are exceptions, as each project is unique to its own environment

3. Optimize Project Development AA PE/EIS FD $ $$$$$$$ $$$$ Historical Pattern Potential time & cost savings New Pattern $$ $$$ $$$$

4. Motivations • “Planning projects don’t die, they simply mutate” • Make managers aware of common pitfalls/issues that contribute to a loss of focus while in the AA process • FTA is increasing its involvement in AAs • Recent trends indicate projects are reaching “critical decisions” in AA rather than PE phases • Stresses importance on best data available in AA → importance of preparation!

5. Preparing for the study • Before the AA… • Alternatives evaluation • During the AA… • Preparing for the next phase • After the AA…

6. Funding • Secure full funding for the study prior to issuing RFP • Temptation is to issue NTP prior to having all the funding in place → Often leads to project delays • AAs are time sensitive • Politics, land development, joint venture opportunities etc. change • Risk loosing intellectual property during delays based on staff availability • Budgets are tied to duration

7. Understand the Local & Federal Expectations • Sponsor needs to understand the local objectives & the federal requirements for New Starts funding • Common purpose of the AA should be to identify “the project” • Mode, alignment, benefits and costs • Develop realistic and conservative estimates • Dominant Federal criteria is the transportation Cost Effectiveness • Cost of travel time savings compared to a low cost option • Local need may be to provide a catalyst for economic development • Build it and they will come philosophy

8. Address Local & Federal Differences • Possible divergence from a New Starts project to a local project needs to be explicit • RFP and scope need to deal with differing dominant criteria • Educate the public, stakeholders and decision makers • Establish milestones where the “type” of project is identified • New Starts, Small Starts, Very Small Starts, Local Project, No-build) • Final scope and deliverables dictated by the “type” of project identified at the milestone

9. Know Your Corridor • Knowing corridor can help mid-stream redeployment or “backtracking” • Be honest! Tendency to get caught up in hype • Need to know: • Travel and transit use patterns • Transportation system…what is the real problem? Is there one? • Identify activity centers • Population & employment trends • Needs to be expressed in travel markets, congestion • Will be foundation of purpose & need, make-the-case memo

10. Travel Demand Model Check-Up • Addressing major modeling issues during AA causes slowdowns & lack of momentum • When the numbers change mid-stream…it’s awkward • Cannot eliminate/address all issues prior to AA • Why? Evolving regulations, standards, knowledge • What you should know: • Is your latest transit on-board survey less than 5 years old? • Do you have recent traffic counts of highways and arterials across the region, and especially in your corridor? • Can the model meet New Starts modeling needs? • Lack of immediate ‘yes’ probably means ‘no’! • How recent is your travel demand model validation?

11. Preparing for the study • Before the AA… • Alternatives evaluation • During the AA… • Preparing for the next phase • After the AA…

12. Ridership Forecasts • Lack of FTA participation will lead to surprises • Engage the FTA early and often • Review model & results to date • Establish the No-build and Baseline early • Solicit FTA feedback regarding the evaluation of the build alternatives

13. Know Who’s Who • Lack of authority may lead to gridlock - exclusionism definitely will • Establish Technical Workgroup • Works with the project team frequently to address technical aspects of the study → avoids cumbersome protocol to minimize project schedule • Typically technical specialists from various agencies • Advises the Steering Workgroup • Establish Steering Workgroup • Decision making body • Meets less frequently to make milestone decisions to advance project • Consultants should not be advocate planners • They provide data so others can make informed decisions

14. Public/Stakeholder Involvement • A robust Public Involvement plan reduces the chance of having to revisit dismissed alternatives • Transparency • Be proactive – perception is reality in the public eye • Advertise the process and provide information from beginning to end • Present quantitative data whenever possible → commensurate with level of confidence • Engage in meaningful participation • Teach the public about the need, process, project drivers etc. • Explore some of public’s ideas • Respond to all comments and questions • Get your story out by providing the media with information

15. Right-size the Technical Scope • Don’t get ahead of yourself…we’re in the big picture here! • Engineering should be limited to determining reasonable feasibility, costs and impacts • Defer surveys, soil borings, traffic counts • Environmental evaluation should focus on tangible differentiators (e.g. Demographics, Environmental Justice, Land Use, Economics, ROW Impacts) • Architectural dog and pony show comes after you find out if you have a project • Final tasks in scope can be an option based on the “type” of project

16. Avoiding Paralysis by Analysis • It’s easy to get lost in the details and stall • Design is evolutionary not revolutionary • Establish explicit methodology with some flexibility • Agree to definitions at each step and try to avoid changes midstream • Don’t muddle - significant impacts to cost and performance requires scope changes • If the story does not change, move on and refine as you go • Recognize that ridership estimates are inherently limited • Focus on deal breakers

17. Dealing with Preconceived Solutions • Milestone decisions must be informed to avoid regressive analysis and surprises • Perform equal analysis for all alternatives at same stage of study • Do not dismiss alternatives prematurely • Clearly communicate and document the key reasons/differentiators for dismissing an alternative • Cost effective projects vs. effective projects • Federal criteria vs. local preference • New Starts eligibility decision point! • When the “type” of project is identified, prepare for next phase

18. Preparing for the study • Before the AA… • Alternatives evaluation • During the AA… • Preparing for the next phase • After the AA…

19. Preparing for the Next Phase • Failure to adequately prepare for the next step costs time, money, project support & momentum • Establish a strong project champion and political support • Prepare project approach and timeline based on the “type” of project • Secure funding for next phase • Gather new data (e.g. ground/aerial survey, utilities, census, transit surveys) • Select consultants • Schedule Scoping Meeting and file Notice of Intent (if applicable)

20. Conclusive Action • Ambiguity leads to do-overs • Steering Workgroup and/or Agency identifies LPA with formal motion • Use specific language (i.e. one mode and one alignment, and next steps) • Next steps are dictated by the “type” of project • New Starts, Small Starts, Very Small Starts, Local project, No-build, etc. • Amend the Long Range Plan • Prepare and submit appropriate documentation • New Starts application?

21. Check ListPreparing for the Study • Local objectives and expectations are understood • New Starts criteria is understood • RFP and scope deals effectively with both • Full funding is available for study • Corridor socioeconomics and transportation patterns are understood • Transit survey less than 5 years old • Recent traffic counts on highways and arterials • The TDM satisfies New Starts needs • The TDM has been validated recently

22. Check ListAlternatives Evaluation • Evaluation process and key decision milestones have been established • Decision makers have been identified • Technical advisors have been identified • Project has been advertised and notification given to the FTA • A robust Public Involvement Plan has been implemented • Media kits have been utilized • Appropriate technical scope has been established • FTA has reviewed the TDM and project materials on multiple occasions • Avoided paralysis by following methodology and focusing on the deal breakers • Milestone decisions were fully informed • Type of project is identified and next steps planned accordingly

23. Check ListPreparing for the Next Phase • Project Champion and political support is established • Project approach and timeline for next phase is developed • Funding for next phase is secured • New data requirements are identified/obtained • Consultant is selected • Scheduled Scoping Meeting and filed Notice of Intent (if applicable) • LPA and next steps is identified in formal motion • Long Range Transportation Plan is amended • New Start Application is submitted or other materials prepared

24. Questions/Comments Contact Info • Jim Czarnecky, DMJM Harris • Jim.Czarnecky@dmjmharris.com • Dave Schmitt, AECOM Consult • David.Schmitt@dmjmharris.com