NOTICE OF MEETING AND AGENDA

BI-STATE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY / METRO

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.


28