Locally preferred bus rapid transit routes
Original source: http://www.metrostlouis.org/BoardNotices/operations%20committee%20open%20session%20package%20021814.pdf
Note: other unrelated pages removed from document prior to uploading
Locally preferred bus rapid transit routes
Original source: http://www.metrostlouis.org/BoardNotices/operations%20committee%20open%20session%20package%20021814.pdf
Note: other unrelated pages removed from document prior to uploading
Locally preferred bus rapid transit routes
Original source: http://www.metrostlouis.org/BoardNotices/operations%20committee%20open%20session%20package%20021814.pdf
Note: other unrelated pages removed from document prior to uploading
OPERATIONS COMMITTEE Tuesday, February 18, 2014, 8:00 A.M. Headquarters Building 707 North First Street, Board Room St. Louis, MO 63102
This location is accessible to persons with disabilities. Individuals with disabilities needing information or communication accommodations should call Metro at (314) 982-1400, for TTY access, call Relay 711. Sign language interpreter services or other accommodations for persons with hearing or speech disabilities will be arranged if a request for such service is made at least two days in advance of the meeting. Large print material, Braille material or other formats will also be provided upon request.
Agenda Disposition Presentation 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call Approval Quorum Chairman Scott Shirley Bryant 3. Public Comment* 4. Minutes from December 17, 2013 Operations Committee 5. Renewal of Intergovernmental Agreement With St. Clair County Sheriff's Department for Security Services 6. Contract Modification and Time Extension: The Harlan Company for MetroLink Tactile Warning Strip Replacement 7. Fiscal Year 2015 Fare Increase
8. St. Louis Rapid Transit Connector Study Recommendation
9. Unscheduled Business Information Approval Approval
Approval
Approval
Approval
Approval Chairman Scott Chairman Scott R. Friem / R. Zott
R. Friem / L. Jackson
R. Friem / J. Mefford-Miller R. Friem / J. Mefford-Miller / Mark Phillips Chairman Scott 10. Executive Session (If needed) If such action is approved by a majority vote of The Bi- State Development Agencys Board of Commissioners who constitute a quorum, the Board may go into closed session to discuss legal, confidential, or privileged matters under 610.021(1), RSMo 1988 Supp.; leasing, purchase or sale of real estate under 610.021(2); personnel actions under 610.021(3); discussions Approval
Chairman Scott
Bi-State Development Agency / Metro Operations Committee Agenda Item February 18, 2014 From: Raymond A. Friem Chief Operating Officer Transit Services Subject: St. Louis Rapid Transit Connector Study Recommendation Disposition: Approval Presentation: Raymond A. Friem, Chief Operating Officer - Transit Services; Jessica Mefford- Miller, Chief of Planning and System Development; Mark Phillips, Long-Range Planner
Objective:
To obtain Operations Committee approval to forward to the Board of Commissioners the results and recommendations of the recently-completed St. Louis Rapid Transit Connecter Study (RTCS), which sought to advance high-performance transit service, namely bus rapid transit (BRT), in the St. Louis region. Note: This is not a request to approve a given BRT plan; rather, it is a recommendation that, based on the results of the RTCS, staff believes that further study of these opportunities is warranted.
Board Policy:
Board Policy regarding major changes in service structure is contained within the Metro Service Standards guide, adopted in December of 2003, which outlines the requirement that the Board formally approve service change proposals requiring new facilities and/or capital expenditures at cost levels consistent with Board Procurement Policies.
The Board of Commissioners also approved the regional long-range transit plan, Moving Transit Forward (2010), which included several corridors to be studied further for possible system expansion, including BRT, light rail transit (LRT), or commuter rail opportunities. Moving Transit Forward was also adopted by East-West Gateway Council of Governments (EWGCOG), and is the guideline for developing locally-preferred alternatives for the pursuit of transit infrastructure funding.
Funding Source:
The Agency will work with EWGCOG to have the RTCS approved and placed on the regional Transportation Improvement Plan. The project is eligible for funding under MAP-21 federal guidelines for the Small Starts and Very Small Starts programs. The region might also choose to apply for other federal discretionary grants for the capital costs portion of these projects.
Background:
The completed RTCS was initiated in October 2012 and completed in December 2013. The RTCS was jointly managed by the Transportation Corridor Improvement Group (TCIG), which Operations Committee St. Louis Rapid Transit Connector Study Recommendation February 18, 2014 Page 2
consists of staff from Metro, EWGCOG, the City of St. Louis, St. Louis County, and MoDOT. The TCIG met monthly and provided input and guidance to Metro and the study team.
Moving Transit Forward targeted four Missouri interstate corridors including I-70, I-64, I-44, and I-55 as potential candidates for high-performance transit service. Community and stakeholder input during the long-range planning process preliminarily identified BRT as the ideal mode for these four corridors, in line with the nine core values that shaped the long-range plan:
Expand premium service area into new communities and travel markets. Improve transits image as a regional asset. Enhance mobility for transit-dependent populations. Prove cost-effectiveness. Attract federal funding. Impact/support economic development. Protect the natural environment. Strengthen the regional core. Consider time and cost of implementation.
The first phase of the RTCS narrowed those four interstate corridors to the two that offer the best opportunities for premium transit service in the near future, I-64 and I-70. The second phase formulated four BRT options within that study area, two east-west corridors and two north-south corridors. I-70 emerged as a strong option, but it was removed for further consideration pending completion of MoDOT's I-70 Planning & Environmental Linkages Study, as well as political support from St. Charles County. The final phase of the alternatives analysis measured the performance of each transit option in terms of the study's goals and evaluation criteria, including projected ridership, improved levels of service, revenues, and costs. The RTCS concluded with a recommended Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) of two BRT projects. The purpose of this study was to identify two transit projects and to develop them enough to compete for federal funding. If Metro succeeds at winning federal support, one or both of these projects will be advanced into full planning and development.
Analysis:
After careful consideration and analysis of the transportation corridors, the TCIG recommended as the locally-preferred alternative two BRT projects: I-64 between Chesterfield and Downtown St. Louis, and a north-south route connecting North St. Louis County to Downtown St. Louis primarily via West Florissant Avenue and Natural Bridge Avenue.
I-64 BRT The 1-64 BRT corridor spans 23 miles between the City of Chesterfield and Downtown St. Louis. It would serve a limited number of park-and-ride stations along I-64 between Chesterfield Mall and the Central West End. From the Central West End it would travel along Forest Park Operations Committee St. Louis Rapid Transit Connector Study Recommendation February 18, 2014 Page 3
Avenue into Downtown St. Louis, making a loop through Downtown before ending at the Civic Center Station. As currently proposed, its service frequencies would match MetroLink, and transit prioritization strategies would be implemented along the corridor to speed transit travel.
The I-64 BRT would serve a Central Corridor that hosts 55,000 people and 115,500 jobs within one half-mile, outside of Downtown St. Louis. The addition of this high-performance service to the Metro System would provide the region's first rail-like transit option in West St. Louis County, offering the first opportunity for all-day, single-seat service between Chesterfield and Downtown St. Louis, and reducing transfers from other areas by half. Along with reducing transfers, it would improve transit travel time within the corridor by 30%, making it a much more attractive alternative to the personal automobile. Ridership projections from EWGCOG's regional travel demand model show a potential ridership market of 5,100 weekday riders, 2,100 (41%) of whom would be new "choice" riders. That market is projected to grow to 6,800 weekday riders by 2040.
West Florissant - Natural Bridge BRT The other transit project included in the LPA is an arterial-based BRT route connecting North St. Louis County to Downtown St. Louis. This service would operate out of the new North County Transit Center, running 16 miles to Downtown via West Florissant Avenue, Lucas and Hunt Road, and Natural Bridge Avenue. As currently proposed, its service frequencies would match MetroLink; stations with a high level of customer amenities would be spaced a minimum of one mile apart; and transit prioritization strategies would be implemented to speed travel.
The combined West Florissant-Natural Bridge corridor hosts 70,000 people and 18,000 jobs within a half-mile, not counting Downtown St. Louis. Supplementing the local bus network in this strong and proven transit market will give residents of North St. Louis City and near-North County their first high-performance, rail-like transit option. It will reduce transit travel time and any required transfers by half. It would also greatly improve access and travel time between some of the region's most disadvantaged areas and major jobs centers in Downtown and the Central Corridor, particularly if paired with the I-64 BRT option. Ridership projections from EWGCOG's travel demand model show a potential ridership market of 3,200 weekday riders, 600 (19%) of whom would be new "choice" riders.
Attachment 1 is a presentation outlining much of the work product of the RTCS, including the locally-preferred alternative recommendations, information on costs and funding, and the activities required to put the LPA in a position to be evaluated for potential federal funding.
Committee Action Requested:
Staff requests that the Committee review the results of the RTCS and forward the results to the full Board of Commissioners for approval for the Agency to continue to work with our regional partners to more fully study the recommended alternatives. Staff anticipates that the next phase of study will include having these proposals included in the Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) at EWGCOG and pursuing grant funds to advance the study. Metro Operations Committee February 18, 2014 1 Presentation Purpose System Design Concept RTCS Overview Locally Preferred Alternative Financial Strategy Next Steps AGENDA 2 Rapid Transit Connector Study is an alternatives analysis directed by Moving Transit Forward Completed by TCIG Oct 2012 Dec 2013 Seeking Board approval of locally preferred alternative (LPA) consisting of two projects If approved, LPA would be advanced to East- West Gateway Council of Governments for inclusion in regional TIP PRESENTATION PURPOSE 3 Alternatives analysis evaluates mode and alignment options for a corridor Purpose is to inform local officials and community members on costs and benefits of options Culminates when local / regional decision makers select a locally preferred alternative, which is adopted by the MPO into regional long-range transportation plan STUDY PURPOSE 4 FEDERAL NEW STARTS PROCESS Planning Project Develop- ment Engineering FFGA 2 year limit New Starts Small Starts Planning Project Development Grant FTA Acceptance FTA Evaluation, Rating, Approval 5 METRO SYSTEM DESIGN CONCEPT MetroLink is the systems primary high performance line, carrying many people quickly: Routing is fixed and should be tied to economic development opportunities Capital investment is high MetroBus is the reach of the hub-and- spoke system: Transit centers & ML stations serve as hubs Many different levels of service Routing is flexible, capital investment relatively low 6 High performance services include several basic elements: Frequent service Dedicated stations Limited stops Can be rail, BRT, or enhanced express Configuration depends on market demand, development patterns & desired development impact, funding resources Typically requires significant capital investment Must be integrated with supporting services (local bus routes, circulators) HIGH PERFORMANCE TRANSIT Low wait times Quick fare payment Transit prioritization strategies 7 8 Improve transit access to major population and employment concentrations Residential concentrations north-south Major employment concentrations east-west Focus on service complimentary to (existing & planned) MetroLink Meet community demands Expand reach of high performance transit Invest in communities with no immediate access to ML Attract new riders while improving service and travel time for current customers Stimulate development or stabilize communities MTF GOALS AND SERVICE NEEDS 9 Imperative: Expansion of higher-speed, higher-capacity transit services to key markets Complementary to existing transit network Cost-effective and sustainable Competitive for capital funding Explored high-performance modes with lower costs than light rail Bus rapid transit, enhanced express bus, premium arterial service TCIG SOLUTION APPROACH 10 LPA presented here as two separate projects Projects could be designed, funded, and implemented simultaneously or separately Project design and components can be changed in next phase depending on local preference, cost effectiveness, and resources However, any bus project that does not emulate rail will not qualify for Small Starts
PRELIMINARY PROJECT DESIGN 11 TCIG RECOMMENDED LPA I-64 BRT West Florissant Nat. Bridge BRT 12 Service characteristics similar to MetroLink Span of service Frequency Bi-directional travel
Connectivity to major destinations Improves regional mobility
High performance corridors will support improved / more efficient local bus service More productive connecting routes Circulators to major nearby destinations 13 LPA OPERATING GOALS
LPA SYSTEM COMPONENTS Higher level of investment = improved level of service Needed to be competitive for federal capital funding Right-of-way & systems strategies Mixed traffic, some business access and transit (BAT) lanes Transit signal prioritization (TSP) Station & branding strategies Attractive, comfortable, branded, high-capacity vehicles Limited stops Off-board fare payment
14 I-64 BRT Brentwood (Existing) Downtown I-64 BRT Highest ridership by 2040 Strongest share of new riders, choice riders Most diverse trip purposes Public support Most improved access to job and activity Centers Lowest capital cost of four alternatives Improves efficiency of local bus system 15 23-mile corridor operating on I-64, Forest Park Ave, and Downtown streets Land use mix of major institutions, offices, cultural attractions, regional retail 55,000 people & 115,500 jobs 9 stations at major activity centers and transit connection points Dominated by park-ride access, with some bus/rail- based reverse commute demand Parking and circulator routes at several stations 16 I-64 BRT End-to-end transit travel time reduced from 76 minutes to 53 minutes Compared to auto travel time of 25 minutes Offers motorists option of comfortable, affordable, productive commute Corridor ridership projected to increase 357% from 1,115 to 5,100 weekday riders opening year; 6,800 in 2040 2,100 (41%) new choice riders opening year Enhanced service BRT option provides single-seat service not currently available Reduce transfers by 50% End-to-end service available all day, rather than only peak Create additional hubs to make local bus service more efficient
I-64 BRT CONSUMER BENEFIT 17 W. FLORISSANTNATURAL BRIDGE BRT North County Transit Center Chambers Lucas & Hunt Natural Bridge Goodfellow Kingshighway Newstead Grand Cass N. Florissant Downtown W. Florissant Natural Bridge BRT Highest N-S ridership by 2040 Strongest reverse commute market High density of people, particularly transit-dependent Public support Strong opportunity for neighborhood revitalization
18 16-mile corridor connects North County Transit Center with Downtown St. Louis Southern end replicates I-64 CBD loop 70,000 people, 18,000 jobs Corridor hosts high density of transit-dependent population Land uses include single-family homes, medium-density apartments, local retail, offices, shopping centers 12 stations at major activity centers 19 W. FLORISSANTNATURAL BRIDGE BRT End-to-end transit travel time reduced from 85 minutes to 42 minutes Compared to auto travel time of 25 minutes Attractive amenity package offers affordable, comfortable commute Corridor ridership projected to increase 23% from 2,610 to 3,200 opening year and 2040 (Natural Bridge) 600 (19%) new choice riders Enhanced service BRT option supports fast single-seat ride to Downtown St. Louis If paired with I-64 BRT, travel from North County to CWE and West County would require only 1 transfer between 2 high-speed routes; currently requires multiple transfers and 2-3 local routes W. FLORISSANTNATURAL BRIDGE BRT CONSUMER BENEFIT 20 LPA RIDERSHIP COMPARISON koute I 2013 Annua| Avg. Weekday !"#$% '()#"* +,-./+-+01 1+,-/2. !"#$%34 56 1,-./+-+0+ /7-187 9,. :$;5< 8-=2,-020 0-/=, I-64 8k1 1,S30,000 S,100 911 >?4 @@"A; 1-+7,-/0. +-+0/ 92/ B4 5C)?4 C?A;( 1-727-70= +-/+7 9,+ DE %$4 ));5# 1-1.2-=.0 7-/1. WIN8 8k1 960,000 3,200 9=1 >?;*F"$) 01+-822 8-/27 9.+ G;#H$;E I$4 <C" ,2=-0+, 8-=17 9=+ 3HJ;) KH5# 7+,-/=1 1-171 98/0 >E ;(#%5L>?")#"$M4 "E < 18/-,++ +.0 21 CAPITAL COST COST CATEGORY I-64 BRT W. FLORISSANT - NATURAL BRIDGE BRT Guideway $1,771,000 $1,431,000 Stations, Stops, Terminals $6,347,000 $7,030,000 Support Facilities $0 $0 Sitework and Special Conditions $4,741,000 $3,504,000 Systems $2,551,000 $3,239,000 Right of Way, Land, Relocation $3,098,000 $847,000 Vehicles $10,890,000 $14,025,000 Professional Services $6,734,000 $7,169,000 Subtotal $36,131,000 $37,245,000 Unallocated Contingency $1,807,000 $1,862,000 Total $37,938,000 $39,107,000 Cost Per Mile $1,649,478 $2,444,188 22 CAPITAL COST COMPARISON I-64 BRT capital costs = $37.9 million / corridor Capital cost per boarding over 20 years approx. $1.24
West Florissant Natural Bridge BRT capital costs = $39.1 million / corridor Capital cost per boarding over 20 years approx. $2.04
Light rail capital costs = $600-800 million / corridor Capital cost per ML boardings over 20 years approx. $4.60
23 OPERATING COST SERVICE COST CATEGORY I-64 BRT W. FLORISSANT-NATURAL BRIDGE BRT Operations $2,184,115 $1,708,105 40-ft.vehicle maintenance $2,200,594 $0 60-ft. vehicle maintenance $0 $1,737,026 Station cleaning & maintenance $175,000 $210,000 Park & ride pavement i t $40,500 $4,800* TVM servicing $375,000 $450,000 Fare collection $359,025 $280,779 TSP maintenance $126,000 $164,000 Total BRT O&M $5,460,234 $4,554,710 Operations $346,970 $0 40-ft vehicle maintenance $522,113 $0 Total Circulator O&M $869,083 $0 Operations ($1,143,519) ($1,208,957 40-ft. vehicle maintenance ($1,160,244) ($772,199 Total Local/Express O&M ($2,303,763) ($1,981,156) Net O&M cost $4,025,554 $2,573,554 BRT service only New Circulators Changes to existing local/express service 24 LPA SUMMARY Project Benefits Expansion of high-performance transit to more communities Improved regional mobility Travel speeds competitive with MetroLink Avg MO MetroBus speed = 16.02 mph Avg MO MetroLink speed = 25.63 mph I-64 BRT speed = 26.04 mph WFNB BRT speed = 25.71 mph Reduced transfers Greater productivity of connecting routes Enhanced customer experience Project Costs I-64 BRT: $37.9M capital; $4M net operating West Florissant Natural Bridge BRT: $39.1M capital; $2.6M net operating
25 New capital and operating funding needed to support any expansion
Operations funding must be supported locally
Several options for capital support FTA Small Starts most logical path Competitiveness based on project rating
FUNDING PROGRAMS 26 FTA NEW STARTS PROCESS Discretionary program to fund: Fixed-guideway transit lines Core capacity projects Corridor-based BRT Projects must receive a Medium rating or higher MAP-21 requires BRT projects now emulate rail: defined stations, frequent & bi- directional service, limited stops, TSP, low wait times, etc. 27 NEXT STEPS Petition East West Gateway to amend Regional Long Range Transportation Plan (2040) to include BRT corridors. Seek Guidance from FTA regarding project competitiveness and eligibility future federal funding Discussion will include whether these should be one project or two Discussion will also include what final attributes need to be included to enhance project competitiveness.