Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Webinar #2 May 28, 2014 Commuter Corridors Study Welcome!

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Webinar #2 May 28, 2014 Commuter Corridors Study Welcome!"— Presentation transcript:

1 Webinar #2 May 28, 2014 Commuter Corridors Study Welcome!

2 Agenda Welcome and Introductions Review of Project Status Review of Detailed Evaluation Process Review of Each Corridor’s Recommended Alternatives and Detailed Analysis Results Next Steps 2

3 What is the Purpose of the Study? Analyze transportation options in three corridors identified in the region’s 2005 Fixed Guideway Study: –Between Edmond and Downtown OKC –Between Midwest City/TAFB and Downtown OKC –Between Norman and Downtown OKC Generate a “locally preferred alternative” for each corridor Corridors connect at Santa Fe Station in downtown OKC Project Sponsors: Association of Central Oklahoma Governments (ACOG) Del City; Edmond; Midwest City; Moore; Norman; Oklahoma City Consultant Lead: URS Corporation 3

4 Regional Transit Dialogue (RTD) 4 Initiated by ACOG in cooperation with local partners in spring 2009 Engages locally elected officials, policy stakeholders, private sector leaders, and general public Designed to define how transit can serve the Central Oklahoma region in the future Builds on recommendations from Fixed Guideway Study Guides CentralOK!go Commuter Corridors Study –Considers public input from workgroups and public open houses –Makes final study recommendations

5 Study Process Overview and Status 5 Completed steps one through three Initial detailed technical evaluation complete Capital and O&M costs complete Sensitivity analysis upcoming Selection of LPA at June 25 th RTD meeting

6 Approach to Reaching Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) 6 Public/Stakeholder Sentiment Technical Evaluation (detailed) Capital and O&M Costs LPA

7 Detailed Evaluation Process 7 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 Mobility –Support Economic Development and Shape Growth –Provide a Balanced and Coordinated Multimodal System –Technical Feasibility added Scoring and Ranking –Normalizing/balancing adjustment –Weighting applied to each criterion –Negative scores subtracted from positive scores to determine “total points” for each alternative

8 Review of Recommended Alternatives and Detailed Analysis Results: North Corridor 8

9 9 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)

10 Detailed Evaluation Results – North Corridor 10 N1 (CR) N2 (BRT) N2 (LRT) N2 (SC) N3 (BRT)N3 (LRT) N3 (SC)N7 (BRT) N7 (SC)

11 Preliminary Ridership Estimates – North Corridor AlternativeDaily Ridership Annual Ridership N1 (Commuter Rail)1,970600,000 N2 (BRT/LRT/Streetcar)3,3001,008,000 N3 (BRT/LRT/Streetcar)3,3001,008,000 N7 (BRT/Streetcar)370114, Source: Alliance Transportation Group, 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

12 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) Capital and O&M Costs – North Corridor 12 AlternativeCapital Costs (mil)Annualized Capital Costs (mil)Annualized O&M Costs (mil) N1 (Commuter Rail) $260 – $360 $18.1 $3.8 N2 (LRT) $720 – $980 $48.7 $5.3 N2 (Streetcar) $610 – $830 $41.6 $4.2 N2 (BRT) $510 – $690 $34.2 $3.2 N3 (LRT) $920 – $1,240 $62.2 $5.3 N3 (Streetcar) $790 – $1,070 $53.3 $4.2 N3 (BRT) $600 – $820 $40.4 $3.2 N7 (Streetcar) $550 – $750 $37.8 $5.7 N7 (BRT) $50 – $70 $3.5 $4.3 Source: URS, 2014.

13 Detailed Evaluation Results and Costs – Side-by-Side Comparison 13 N1 (CR) N2 (BRT) N2 (LRT) N2 (SC) N3 (BRT) N3 (LRT) N3 (SC) N7 (BRT) N7 (SC)

14 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 OKC but 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 14

15 15 Review of Recommended Alternatives and Detailed Analysis Results: South Corridor

16 16 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

17 Detailed Evaluation Results – South Corridor 17

18 Preliminary Ridership Estimates – South Corridor AlternativeDaily Ridership Annual Ridership S1 (Commuter Rail)3,060932,000 S2 (BRT/Streetcar)3,8101,161,000 S4 (BRT/Streetcar)4,2701,302, Source: Alliance Transportation Group, Ridership likely under-reported Model showing short commuter rail trips Sensitivity Analysis upcoming Assumes “gold standard” investments

19 Capital and O&M Costs – South Corridor 19 AlternativeCapital Costs (mil) Annualized Capital Costs (mil) Annualized O&M Costs (mil) S1 (Commuter Rail) $310 – $410 $21.5 $5.3 S2 (Streetcar) $640 – $860 $43.5 $4.5 S2 (BRT) $510 – $690 $34.2 $3.4 S4 (Streetcar) $850 – $1,150 $57.3 $4.5 S4 (BRT) $600 – $820 $40.6 $3.4 Source: URS, 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)

20 Detailed Evaluation Results and Costs – Side-by-Side Comparison 20

21 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 OKC but 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 21

22 22 Review of Recommended Alternatives and Detailed Analysis Results: East Corridor

23 23 East Corridor Recommended Alternatives E1 (Commuter Rail) 6 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)

24 24 Detailed Evaluation Results – East Corridor

25 Preliminary Ridership Estimates – East Corridor AlternativeDaily Ridership Annual Ridership E1 (Commuter Rail)1,150352,000 E5 (BRT/LRT/Streetcar)26080,200 E6 (BRT/Streetcar)27082, Source: Alliance Transportation Group, Ridership likely under-reported Disparity between E1 and E5/E6 ridership likely due to travel time differences Sensitivity Analysis upcoming Assumes “gold standard” investments

26 AlternativeCapital Costs (mil) Annualized Capital Costs (mil) Annualized O&M Costs (mil) E1 (Commuter Rail) $200 - $280$14.1 $3.4 E5 (LRT) $370 - $510$25.5 $3.8 E5 (Streetcar) $320 - $440$21.9 $3.0 E5 (BRT) $140 - $200$9.8 $2.3 E6 (Streetcar) $430 - $580$29.0 $4.2 E6 (BRT) $40 - $60$3.1 $3.2 Capital and O&M Costs – East Corridor 26 Source: URS, 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 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)

27 Detailed Evaluation Results and Costs – Side-by-Side Comparison 27

28 URS Team’s Observations 28 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

29 Next Steps in CentralOK!go Study 29

30 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

31 Public Outreach – Road Shows 31 “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 Surveys completed Upcoming Road Show Saturday May 31 st, 11:00 PM to 3:00 PM Made in Oklahoma Wine, Beer and Food Festival Reed Center, 5800 Will Rogers Road, Midwest City

32 Proposed Next Steps May Public Outreach: “Road Shows” Provide results of detailed technical analysis and capital and O&M costs Receive feedback on results as well as preferred alternatives May 30 th RTD Work Session Finish review of North Corridor Review East and South Corridors Review technical recommendation for each corridor Consider public & stakeholder feedback Identify preliminary LPAs June 25 th RTD Meeting Formalize LPA for each corridor 32

33 We need your input and your help! Complete the survey –www.surveymonkey.com/s/CentralOKgoWebinar centralokgo.org –Visit project website: centralokgo.org –Sign up for our mailing list –Stay current on project updates Tell your friends, family, and co-workers Stay engaged and help us plan for high- capacity transit in Central Oklahoma! 33

34 Commuter Corridors Study Thank you for your attendance! Any Questions or Comments? Webinar #2 May 28, 2014


Download ppt "Webinar #2 May 28, 2014 Commuter Corridors Study Welcome!"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google