1. RTD Meeting July 17, 2014 Commuter Corridors Study Welcome!

2. Meeting Goal & Agenda Agenda Welcome and Introductions Meeting Overview North Corridor Overview and LPA Formalization South Corridor Overview and LPA Formalization East Corridor Review and LPA Formalization Final Observations & Next Steps 2 Goal: Formalize Locally Preferred Alternatives (LPAs) for each of the three corridors

3. Study Process Overview and Status 3 3 Visions / Ideas, Goals & Objectives Review of Possible Alignments Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives Select Locally Preferred Alternatives Coordinated Engagement Engage and Document Organize Prioritize Support Solution You Are Here

4. Outreach Schedule Community & Stakeholder Workgroups Round 1: July 2013 Round 2: November 2013 Round 3: April/May 2014 Public Open Houses/Road Shows Round 1: November 2013 Round 2: May 2014 Newsletters Issue 1: January 2014 Issue 2: April 2014 Issue 3: Summer 2014 Webinars January 2014 May 2014 4

5. Public Outreach – Road Shows 5 “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 Nearly 200 surveys completed!

6. North Corridor Overview and LPA Formalization 6

7. Community & Stakeholder Workgroups – North Corridor Survey Results 7 Which alignment is most appropriate for your corridor? Which mode is most appropriate for your corridor?

8. Community & Stakeholder Workgroups – North Corridor Survey Results 8 Which mode is most appropriate for your corridor?

9. Public Input (Road Shows & Webinar) – North Corridor Road shows at: –University of Central Oklahoma – 5/6/14 –Touch-a-Truck – 5/17/14 –Edmond Jazz & Blues Festival – 5/24/14 Surveys completed: 65 –Preferred alignment: N1 (64%); N2 (24%); N7 (8%); N3 (5%) –Preferred Mode: Rail (84%); Bus (16%) Webinar Survey Results: –Preferred Alignments: N1 (39%); N2 (22%); N3 (22%); N7 (17%) –Preferred Mode: CR (50%); SC (17%); LRT (17%); Express Bus (8%); BRT (8%) 9

10. RTD Work Session Results Hybrid LPA Developed –N1 (Commuter Rail) from Santa Fe Station to downtown Edmond –Streetcar Extension from NW 10 th /Walker, along Classen Blvd, to the NW 63 rd Commuter Rail station Work Session preliminary LPA vote Reached Consensus on preliminary LPA at Work Session 10

11. 11 North Corridor LPA N1 (Commuter Rail) utilizing existing BNSF ROW where feasible Connects from Santa Fe Station to downtown Edmond One-seat ride from Edmond to Norman Streetcar extension to connect from north end of planned Phase 1 streetcar to Commuter Rail station near Chesapeake Energy Campus (approx. 5 miles) Capital Cost: N1: $260-$360M SC Extension: $270-$370M Total Annualized Cost* (N1+SC Extension): $36.5M O&M Cost: N1: $5M/year SC Extension: $2.5M/year Ridership (per day): N1/S1: 5,656 SC Phase I + SC Extension: 2,103 * Based on mid-point of capital cost range

12. 12 Final North Corridor LPA Vote The Locally Preferred Alternative for the North Corridor includes: Alternative N1 (Commuter Rail) utilizing existing BNSF ROW where feasible Commuter Rail connects from Santa Fe Station to downtown Edmond with one-seat ride from North Corridor to South Corridor Streetcar extension to connect from north end of planned Phase 1 streetcar to Commuter Rail station near Chesapeake Energy Campus

13. South Corridor Overview and LPA Formalization 13

14. Community & Stakeholder Workgroups – South Corridor Survey Results 14 Which alignment is most appropriate for your corridor? Which mode is most appropriate for your corridor? S1S2S4

15. Community & Stakeholder Workgroups – South Corridor Survey Results 15 Which mode is most appropriate for your corridor?

16. Public Input (Road Shows & Webinar) – South Corridor Road shows at: –May Fair Arts Festival – 5/3/14 –University of Oklahoma – 5/7/14 –Premiere on Film Row – 5/16/14 –Old Town Farmer’s Market – 5/22/14 Surveys completed: 58 –Preferred alignment: S1 (82%); S2 (15%); S4 (3%) –Preferred mode: rail (93%); bus (7%) Webinar Survey Results: –Preferred Alignment: S1 (60%); S2 (20%); S4 (20%) –Preferred Mode: CR (81%); BRT (19%); SC (0%); LRT (0%); Express Bus (0%) 16

17. RTD Work Session Results Hybrid LPA Developed –S1 (Commuter Rail) –Streetcar Extension (alignment TBD) Work Session Preliminary LPA Vote Reached Consensus on S1 (commuter rail) from Santa Fe Station to Norman/OU and SH-9 17

18. 18 South Corridor LPA S1 (Commuter Rail) utilizing existing BNSF ROW where feasible Connects from Santa Fe Station to SH-9 One-seat ride from Norman to Edmond Potential for SC extension (alignment TBD by further study) S1 Capital Cost: Total: $310-$410M Annualized*: $21.5M O&M Cost: $5.5M N1/S1 Ridership (per day): 5,656 * Based on mid-point of capital cost range

19. 19 Final South Corridor LPA Vote The Locally Preferred Alternative for the South Corridor includes: S1 (Commuter Rail) utilizing existing BNSF ROW where feasible Potential SC extension (alignment TBD) to be studied further Commuter Rail connects from Santa Fe Station to SH-9 with one-seat ride from South Corridor to North Corridor

20. East Corridor: Analysis Review and Update, Public and Stakeholder Input, and LPA Formalization 20

21. RTD Work Session Requests 21 Input from East Corridor representatives at July 17 th RTD meeting More public input Additional information and analysis –Potential connection to passenger rail service on Sooner Sub from Sapulpa –Meet with Tinker AFB –Comparison to Hill AFB (Utah) –Meet with Midwest City and Del City

22. Community & Stakeholder Workgroups – East Corridor Survey Results 22 Which alignment is most appropriate for your corridor? Which mode is most appropriate for your corridor?

23. Public Input (Road Shows & Webinar) – East Corridor Road shows at: –Rose State College – 5/14/14 –Made in Oklahoma Wine, Beer, and Food Festival – 5/31/14 Surveys completed: 61 –Preferred alignment: E1/E1A (38%), E5 (30%), E6 (32%) –Preferred mode: rail (80%); bus (20%) –Most likely to use public transit for: traveling to entertainment and sporting events, followed by shopping and work –Least likely to use public transit for: traveling to school and church Webinar Survey Results: –Preferred alignment: E1 (47%); E5 (32%); E6 (20%) –Preferred mode: CR (49%); LRT (30%); BRT (21%); SC (0%); Express Bus (0%) 23

24. East Corridor – Passenger Rail on Sooner Sub from Sapulpa

25. Input from East Corridor Stakeholders – Tinker AFB Meeting 25 Meeting held on Monday, June 16 th, 2014 Met with Tinker leadership Feedback –Supportive of transit service to Tinker –No mode preference specified –Security is an issue, but not deal-breaker –Internal circulation is key –Serve buildings 3001 and/or 9001 –Connection to Will Rogers Airport not a high priority –Aware of transit service at Hill AFB –Open to continued coordination

26. Hill AFB (UT) 26 Nearly 7,000 acres with 228 miles of roads, 28 miles of railroads, 1,475 buildings, and 11 aircraft hangars Ogden Air Logistics Complex is major organization at Hill AFB –Over 23,500 civilian, military, and contractors Currently served by Transit –Hourly rail service –Large number of riders coming from airport –Two Local bus routes to two main gates Both local bus routes continue on base providing 20 on-base stops Operates at peak service times only Existing Vanpool program –Currently has over 1,100 riders in 116 vans

27. Hill AFB and Tinker AFB Comparison 27 Hill AFB located much farther from central city than Tinker AFB Higher concentration of base facilities at Hill AFB Hill AFB has large numbers coming from SLC airport; not the case at Tinker Existing internal circulation at Hill AFB (20 stops); no existing or planned at Tinker Potential to get high-capacity transit closer to main gates at Tinker AFB; closest rail station is approximately two miles away from Hill AFB main gate

28. High-Capacity Transit at Tinker AFB 28 Direct access to area with high concentration of Tinker “shift-work” employees (Building 3001) Enhanced access to regional activity centers and events for on-base personnel and families Internal circulator buses would have to be housed on-base Potential to alleviate current and future parking issues on base Tinker Mass Transit Questionnaire –3,400 questionnaires completed –78% would commute via transit if available –54% would use transit five or more times per week –Factors with most influence on using transit for commute Drop-off location near work area Cost of round trip service –15% of respondents carpool at least once per week Existing “Transit Benefit Program” –$130 per month maximum for all federal employees –Agree to ride transit or vanpool at least three times per week

29. Input from East Corridor Stakeholders 29 Reached out to East Corridor reps for July 17th RTD meeting attendance Presentation to Midwest City Council – July 8, 2014 –Provided overview of CentralOK!go study –City provided new variation on Alternative E5 (now called E5A) –Q&A with city council members Meeting with Del City – July 10, 2014 –Met with the Mayor, City Manager, and planning staff –Discussed East Corridor alternatives under consideration –LPA needs to be a rail alternative –E1A (Streetcar) preferred Best Frontage for Del City Best economic development potential Meeting with Midwest City – July 14, 2014 –Met with the Community Development Director –Discussed East Corridor alternatives under consideration –LPA needs to be a rail alternative –Direct connection to Health Sciences and Tinker important

30. 30 East Corridor Alternatives Recommended for Detailed Evaluation E1 (Commuter Rail) 6 Stations Uses Existing UP and Abandoned ROW 100% Dedicated ROW E1A (Streetcar/BRT) 8 Stations Uses Arterials 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)

31. 31 East Corridor Detailed Evaluation Results

32. Preliminary Ridership Estimates – East Corridor Alternative*Daily Ridership Annual Ridership E1 (Commuter Rail)2,220677,000 E1A (BRT/Streetcar)2,260696,000 E5 (BRT/LRT/Streetcar)760232,000 E6 (BRT/Streetcar)770235,000 32 Source: Alliance Transportation Group, 2014. * Assumes alternate extension south on Douglas to Tinker 24-hour gate Connection to Tinker accounts for 500-900 trips per day Disparity between E1/E1A and E5/E6 ridership likely due to travel time differences Assumes “gold standard” investments

33. 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 (BRT): 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) AlternativeCapital Costs (mil) Annualized Capital Costs* (mil)Annualized O&M Costs* (mil) E1 (Commuter Rail) $200 - $280$14.0 $3.5 E1A (BRT) $120 - $160$8.5 $2.0 E1A (Streetcar) $320 - $440$22.5 $2.5 E5 (LRT) $370 - $510$25.5 $3.5 E5 (Streetcar) $320 - $440$22.0 $2.5 E5 (BRT) $140 - $200$10.0 $2.0 E6 (Streetcar) $430 - $580$27.0 $3.5 E6 (BRT) $40 - $60$3.0 Capital and O&M Costs – East Corridor 33 Source: URS, 2014. * Based on the mid-point of the capital cost range

34. Considering the detailed analysis, ridership potential, costs, and public sentiment, which alternative do you feel is most appropriate for the East Corridor? (Choose 1) A.E1 (Commuter Rail) B.E1A (Bus Rapid Transit) C.E1A (Streetcar) D.E5/E5A (Light Rail) E.E5/E5A (Streetcar) F.E5/E5A (Bus Rapid Transit) G.E6 (Streetcar) H.E6 (Bus Rapid Transit) 34

35. Considering the detailed analysis, ridership potential, costs, and public sentiment, which alternative do you feel is most appropriate for the East Corridor? (Choose 1) A.E1 (Commuter Rail) B.E1A (Bus Rapid Transit) C.E1A (Streetcar) D.E5/E5A (Light Rail) E.E5/E5A (Streetcar) F.E5/E5A (Bus Rapid Transit) G.E6 (Streetcar) H.E6 (Bus Rapid Transit) 35

36. 36 Final East Corridor LPA Vote The locally Preferred Alternative for the East Corridor should include: Alignment E1a with a streetcar technology that connects Tinker, uses the abandoned ROW in Midwest City and then uses Reno Av to the Santa Fe Hub to potentially tie in with the Downtown OKC streetcar. In addition, a connection via streetcar to the Health Sciences Center from the Santa Fe Hub should be advanced as a part of the regional transit system. A system to distribute riders within Tinker AFB should be developed to complement the regional system.

37. Final Observations and Next Steps in CentralOK!go Study 37

38. Final Observations and Next Steps Plan LPA Formalization –RTD Formal Vote –ACOG ITPC/Board Approval Adoption of plan Endorsements of plan Governance RTA legislation recently approved Establish MOA and MOU Road Shows Funding/Finance Short-list of potential funding sources Determine yields for each short-listed funding source Municipalities determine and approve funding contributions Phasing Depending on funding commitments, system build-out will likely require phasing of projects Determine order of phasing based on regional needs, desires, and funding potential 38

39. Commuter Corridors Study RTD Meeting July 17, 2014 Next Steering Committee Meeting: TBD Meeting Adjourned

40. West Corridor Overview

41. 41 East Corridor Preferred Alternatives – Side-by-Side Summary Comparison Source: URS, 2014.