MADISON EAST-WEST BRT PLANNING STUDY · 9/17/2019 · Overview of Project Evaluation Process The...

MADISON EAST-WEST BRT PLANNING STUDY Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives

Technical Memo 4: Capital Costs

FINAL

September 2019

Prepared for:

City of Madison

Prepared by:

AECOM

FINAL Technical Memo 4: Capital Costs

MADISON EAST-WEST BRT PLANNING STUDY Page | ii

REVISIONS

Revision No. Date Prepared By


MADISON EAST-WEST BRT PLANNING STUDY Page | iii

Contents Overview .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 1

Corridor Context and Description ............................................................................................................................................ 1

Overview of Project Evaluation Process....................................................................................................................................... 3

Technical Memo #4 Overview ......................................................................................................................................................... 4

Description of Roadway Improvements by Segment ............................................................................................................ 4

Segments 1 and 2 ........................................................................................................................................................................... 5

Segment 3 .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 8

Segment 4 ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 10

Segment 5 ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 13

Segment 6 ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 14

Segments 7 and 8 ........................................................................................................................................................................ 18

Capital Costs ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 22

Methodology ................................................................................................................................................................................. 22

Parameters .................................................................................................................................................................................. 23

Data Sources .................................................................................................................................................................................. 23

Summary of Results ..................................................................................................................................................................... 24

Cost Effectiveness .............................................................................................................................................................................. 27

Methodology ................................................................................................................................................................................. 27

Data Sources .................................................................................................................................................................................. 27

Summary of Results ..................................................................................................................................................................... 28

List of Figures Figure 1. Madison East-West BRT Corridor ................................................................................................................................ 2 Figure 2. Segments 1 and 2 .............................................................................................................................................................. 5 Figure 3. Segment 3 ............................................................................................................................................................................ 8 Figure 4. Segment 4 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 10 Figure 5. Segment 5 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 13 Figure 6. Segment 6 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 15 Figure 7. Segment 7 and 8 ............................................................................................................................................................. 18

List of Tables Table 1. Evaluation Criteria ............................................................................................................................................................... 3


MADISON EAST-WEST BRT PLANNING STUDY Page | iv

Table 2. Segment 1 - Mineral Point Rd - S High to S Westfield (including S Westfield........................................... 6 Table 3. Segment 2MP - Mineral Point Rd - S Westfield to S Whitney Way ................................................................ 6 Table 4. Segment 2OT- Mineral Point Rd @ S Westfield to S Gammon Rd to Odana Rd to Tokay Blvd to S Whitney Way ....................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Table 5. Segment 3 - S Whitney Way @ Mineral Point to Sheboygan Ave to N Segoe Rd to University Ave@ Shorewood (including S Whitney Way and Shorewood) ................................................................... 8 Table 6. Segment 4 - University Ave @ Shorewood to University Ave @ University Bay to Campus Drive/University Ave @ Babcock (including Babcock) ........................................................................................................ 11 Table 7. Segment 5 - WB - University Ave @ Babcock to W Gorham St @ Broom ................................................ 14 Table 8. Segment 5 - EB - Campus Dr @ Babcock to W Johnson ................................................................................. 14 Table 9. Segment 6S WB - W Gorham St @ Broom to State St to Mifflin St to N Pinckney St to E Washington Ave @ Butler (including Broom and Butler) .................................................................................................. 16 Table 10. Segment 6S EB - W Johnson St @ Broom to State St to Carroll St to Main St to S Pinckney St to E Washington Ave @ Butler (including Broom and Butler) ................................................................................... 16 Table 11. Segment 6HW WB - Broom St @ W Gorham to W Doty St to S Henry St to Wilson St to S Butler St @ E Washington Ave (including Broom and Butler .......................................................................................... 17 Table 12. Segment 6HW EB - W Johnson St @ Broom to N Henry St to W Washington Ave to S Fairchild St to Doty St to S Webster St to E Washington Ave @ Butler (including Broom and Butler) .......... 17 Table 13. Segment 7 - E Washington Ave @ Butler to E Washington Ave @ First St (including First) ........... 19 Table 14. Segment 8 - E Washington Ave @ First to Wright St to Anderson Ave to Stoughton Rd to E Washington Ave to Eagan Rd to East Towne Mall ........................................................................................................... 20 Table 15. FTA SCC Capital Cost Estimate Organization ..................................................................................................... 22 Table 16. Summary of results by Segment and Alternative ............................................................................................. 25 Table 17. FTA Small Starts Thresholds for Cost Effectiveness .......................................................................................... 27 Table 18. Anticipated Small Starts Cost Effectiveness ratings ......................................................................................... 28

Appendices Appendix A: Capital Cost Estimate


MADISON EAST-WEST BRT PLANNING STUDY Page | 1

Overview

The Madison East-West Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Planning Study is a 12-month study led by the City of Madison in coordination with Metro Transit and the Madison Area Transportation Planning Board (MATPB).

The project will identify and evaluate a transit investment alternative for implementation within the study corridor (Figure 1), which runs from East Towne Mall to West Towne Mall, through the Isthmus. The corridor is approximately 15 miles long.

This study expands on previous planning work to identify a locally-preferred transit investment alternative that meets the needs set forth in the Purpose and Need Report. At a high level, these needs include providing safe, efficient, and expanded levels of mobility within the increasingly busy study corridor and to improve connectivity between the corridor and employment centers.

Following a multi-phase, iterative alternatives development and evaluation process that is supported by extensive public engagement activities, the City of Madison will recommend the locally preferred alternative (LPA) to the Common Council for adoption. The LPA will be the transit investment alternative that best meets the purpose of and need for the project (as defined in the Purpose and Need report) and is competitive for funding through the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Small Starts capital funding program.

The study is scheduled for completion in fall 2019.

Corridor Context and Description

The proposed BRT corridor runs from approximately East Towne Mall on the east side of Madison, to West Towne Mall on the west side of Madison, running through the Isthmus and the University of Wisconsin (UW) campus (Figure 1). Two options on the west side will be analyzed as part of this study, as well as two options in downtown. One of each of these will be selected as part of the LPA.



Figure 1. Madison East-West BRT Corridor

Source: City of Madison



Overview of Project Evaluation Process

The East-West BRT Planning Study is following a two-phase method to identify and develop the LPA.

• Phase 1 includes the detailed evaluation of the potential alignment alternative(s). The detailed evaluation will result in the identification of the preferred alternative, including the best-performing minimal operable segment1 (MOS), which will include a preferred alignment on the west side and around the Capitol in downtown. The alternative resulting from this evaluation will become the preferred alternative, which will advance for further refinement in Phase 2.

• Phase 2 will refine the preferred alternative selected at the end of Phase 1 to become the LPA. The LPA will include an MOS, which will be the first investment in construction of the full 15-mile corridor.

The evaluation criteria associated with each phase are a combination of quantitative and qualitative performance measures. Phase 1 will apply metrics that are linked to the project goals and objectives (as defined in the study Purpose and Need Report, available under separate cover) and will identify the preferred alternative. Phase 2 will evaluate the preferred alternative against federal criteria to determine the LPA. This two-phase process will result in the identification of an LPA that not only meets locally-identified project purpose and needs, but is also competitive for federal funding.

Table 1 presents the evaluation criteria that are likely to be used during the two phases of alternative evaluation. Phase 2 will build upon the criteria from Phase 1, ensuring a consistent rating throughout. Details of these criteria, including the methodology and screening thresholds, will be defined as the study progresses.

Table 1. Evaluation Criteria

Project Goals Evaluation Phases Phase 1: Detailed Evaluation Phase 2: Refinement of the LPA

Increase the efficiency, attractiveness, and utilization of transit for all users

• Ridership • Transit travel times

• Mobility improvementsa

Efficiently manage the forecasted increase in corridor travel demand

• Traffic impacts • Parking impacts • Potential right-of-way impacts • Bicycle and pedestrian impacts

• Mobility improvementsa • Congestion reliefa

1 An MOS is a segment of the LPA that provides the most cost-effective solution with the greatest benefits for the project. According to the FTA, the MOS must be able to function as a stand-alone project and not be dependent on any future segments being constructed.



Project Goals Evaluation Phases Phase 1: Detailed Evaluation Phase 2: Refinement of the LPA

Contribute to a socially-, economically-, and environmentally-sustainable transportation network

• Station area population and employment densities

• Station area equity characteristics • Station area land use and

economic development opportunities

• Environmental impacts/benefits

• Economic developmenta • Land use a • Environmental benefitsa

Develop and select an implementable and community-supported project

• Capital and operating and maintenance costs

• Cost effectiveness • Community support

• Financial capacity analysisa • Cost effectivenessa

a Consistent with FTA New Starts criteria.

Technical Memo #4 Overview

Six technical memoranda (tech memos) are being prepared to describe the results of the evaluation. The six tech memos include the following:

• Tech Memo 1: Station Areas • Tech Memo 2: Transportation • Tech Memo 3: Environmental Impacts • Tech Memo 4: Capital Costs • Tech Memo 5: Operating and Maintenance Costs • Tech Memo 6: Ridership

Results contained in the six tech memos are summarized in the Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives Report (available under separate cover).

This report (Tech Memo 4: Capital Costs) presents the results of the evaluation of the alternatives with respect to two sub-criteria:

• Capital costs • Cost effectiveness

A summary of the Capital Costs analysis can be found in the following sections.

Description of Roadway Improvements by Segment

As discussed in the Detailed Definition and Downtown Routing Memo, the corridor has been divided into segments to simplify the alternative definition and evaluation process. This segmentation will facilitate the identification of the MOS through the modular organization of data. Consistent data collection and analyses will be applied along the full length of the corridor, but the results are reported in segments defined in the following subsections. This will enable a quick comparison of different combinations of



segments as MOSs are developed and considered, and will facilitate internal and external decision making. These segments represent natural breakpoints in either corridor development character or right-of-way geometry.

Segments 1 and 2 Segment 1 runs from Mineral Point Road and High Point Road to Gammon Road, see Figure 2. The western-most station is Mineral Point Road and High Point Road, followed by West Towne Mall. There are two proposed stations in Segment 1. Segment 2 runs from West Towne Mall to Mineral Point Road and Whitney Way. There are two options under consideration and each will be evaluated in the following phase of this study. The first option is running on Mineral Point Road with stops at West Towne Mall, Yellowstone Road and Rosa Road. The second option is running on Odana Road, stopping at West Towne Mall, Grand Canyon Drive, Research Park and the West Transfer Point, at its current location. Table 2, Table 3, and Table 4 present the assumption for stations, transit signal priority (TSP), roadway improvements, and intersection improvements by alternative for segments 1 and 2.

Figure 2. Segments 1 and 2



Table 2. Segment 1 - Mineral Point Rd - S High to S Westfield (including S Westfield

Alternative 1 - Existing Bus Lanes Alternative 2 - Existing Bus Lanes w/TSP Stations 4 stations- S High Point Rd (2), S Westfield Rd (2)

TSP 3 intersections

• Mineral Point Rd @ High Point @ Randolph @ Westfield

Roadway Improvements

• New pavement markings and signing • Alternating red bus lane markings

(ex. bus lanes Mineral Point)

• New pavement markings and signing • Alternating red bus lane markings (ex. bus

lanes Mineral Point) • Alternating red bus lane markings

(ex. bus lanes Mineral Point) • Alternating red bus lane markings (ex. bus

lanes Mineral Point) Intersection Improvements

Table 3. Segment 2MP - Mineral Point Rd - S Westfield to S Whitney Way

Alternative 1 - Existing Bus Lanes Alternative 2 - Existing Bus Lanes w/TSP Stations 4 stations - S Yellowstone Dr (2), S Rosa Rd (2)

TSP 5 intersections

• Mineral Point Rd @ Gammon @ Grand Canyon @ Yellowstone @ Island @ Rosa


• New pavement markings and signing • Alternating red bus lane markings

(ex. bus lanes Mineral Point)

• New pavement markings and signing • Alternating red bus lane markings (ex. bus

lanes Mineral Point) Intersection Improvements

Table 4. Segment 2OT- Mineral Point Rd @ S Westfield to S Gammon Rd to Odana Rd to Tokay Blvd to S Whitney Way

Alternative 1 - Mixed

Traffic Alternative 2 - Mixed

Traffic w/TSP Alternative 3 - Bus Lanes

w/TSP

Stations 6 stations - West Towne Mall (2), Grand Canyon Dr (2), Research Park Blvd (2) Upgrade West Transfer Point and add BRT service

TSP

9 intersections • Mineral Point Rd @ Gammon • Gammon Rd @ Gammon Pl @ Odana • Odana Rd @ Grand Canyon @ Potomac @ Research

Park @ Tokay • Tokay Blvd @ Whitney Way • Whitney Way @ Science Dr


• New pavement markings and signing


• Resurfacing West Towne Mall


• Alternating red bus lane markings



Alternative 1 - Mixed

Traffic Alternative 2 - Mixed

Traffic w/TSP Alternative 3 - Bus Lanes

w/TSP • Bus lanes

o Mineral Point Rd - Ex. bus lanes

o Gammon Rd - WB ex. bus lane

o Odana Rd - Convert outside lanes - Widening Research Park to Tokay

o Tokay Blvd - Convert outside lanes - Widening all Tokay

o Whitney Way - Convert outside lanes

Intersection Improvements

Minor intersection widening • Odana/Research • Odana/Tokay • Odana/Whitney Way



Segment 3

Segment 3 runs from Mineral Point and Whitney Way north to Sheboygan Avenue, turning north on Segoe and then east on University Avenue to University Bay Drive. Table 5 present the assumption for stations, TSP, roadway improvements, and intersection improvements by alternative for segment 3.

Figure 3. Segment 3

Table 5. Segment 3 - S Whitney Way @ Mineral Point to Sheboygan Ave to N Segoe Rd to University Ave@ Shorewood (including S Whitney Way and Shorewood)

Alternative 1 - Mixed Traffic


w/TSP

Alternative 3 - Bus Lanes w/TSP

Alternative 4 - Mixed traffic

w/TSP and Queue Jump

Stations 10 stations - Whitney Way (2), Sheboygan Ave (2), Segoe Rd (2), Midvale Blvd (2), Shorewood Blvd (2)





w/TSP




TSP

7 intersections • Whitney Way @ Mineral Point @ Regent • Sheboygan @ Segoe • Segoe @ Frey • University Ave @ Segoe @ Midvale @ Shorewood






• Bus Lanes o Whitney Way -

Convert outside lanes - WB widening S Hill to Regent

o Median reconfiguration Whitney Way/Sheboygan


• Red queue jump lane markings

• Queue Jump o Whitney

Way - EB @ Regent, WB @ Regent

o University Ave - WB @ Segoe, EB @ Midvale, WB @ Midvale

• Widening University Ave - WB @ Segoe @ Highbury - EB @ Midvale

• Median reconfiguration Whitney Way/Sheboygan


Minor intersection widening • Whitney Way/Hill • Whitney

Way/Burnett • Whitney

Way/Regent • Whitney

Way/Sheboygan

Minor intersection widening • Whitney

Way/Sheboygan • University

Ave/Segoe • University Ave

Midvale • University

Ave/Highbury



Segment 4

Segment 4 runs from University Bay Drive east on Campus Drive to Breese Terrace and University Avenue/Johnson Street. Table 6 present the assumption for stations, TSP, roadway improvements, and intersection improvements by alternative for segment 4.

Figure 4. Segment 4



Table 6. Segment 4 - University Ave @ Shorewood to University Ave @ University Bay to Campus Drive/University Ave @ Babcock (including Babcock)



w/TSP


Alternative 4 - Mixed traffic w/TSP and

Queue Jump

Alternative 5 - Bus Only Shoulders

w/TSP - Restriping

Alternative 6 - Bus Lanes w/TSP - Reconstruction

Stations 2 stations - University Bay

TSP 6 intersections

• University Ave @ Ridge @ University Bay • Campus Dr @ University Ave (2) @ Babcock (2)






• Bus Lanes o Campus Dr

- Convert shoulders - widening all Campus Dr

o Widening 2 bridges @ Highland @ Walnut



• Queue Jump o Campus Dr -

WB @ University Bay

o Campus Dr - EB @ University Ave, WB @ Babcock



• Bus Lanes o Campus Dr -

Restripe and narrow lanes - use shoulder for bus lane during peak

o Campus Dr WB @ University Bay intersection - current project providing width for bus lane



• Bus Lanes o Campus Dr -

Convert shoulders - widening all Campus Dr

o Reconstruct 2 bridges @ Highland @ Walnut





w/TSP


Alternative 4 - Mixed traffic w/TSP and

Queue Jump

Alternative 5 - Bus Only Shoulders

w/TSP - Restriping

Alternative 6 - Bus Lanes w/TSP - Reconstruction

• Reconstruct retaining walls Campus Dr

• Lighting reconstruction

• Outside drainage reconstruction

• Campus Dr WB @ University Bay intersection - current project providing width for bus lane

• Campus Dr EB @ University Ave intersection - convert through lane

• University Ave WB (ex. bus lane downtown)

• Widening - Extend bus lane west of Babcock

• Widening WB @ Babcock

• Campus Dr EB @ University Ave intersection - convert through lane


• Reconstruct retaining walls Campus Dr

• Construct median barrier

• Lighting reconstruction

• Drainage reconstruction

• Campus Dr EB @ University Ave intersection - add bus lane


• Extend bus lane west of Babcock


• Major intersection widening - Campus Dr/Babcock

• Major intersection widening - Campus Dr/Babcock

• Major intersection widening - Campus Dr/University Ave, Campus Dr/Babcock



Segment 5

Segment 5 runs through the UW-Madison campus on Johnson Street and University Avenue, operating as a one-way pair to Bassett Street. Table 7 and Table 8 present the assumption for stations, TSP, roadway improvements, and intersection improvements by alternative for segment 5.

Figure 5. Segment 5



Table 7. Segment 5 - WB - University Ave @ Babcock to W Gorham St @ Broom

Alternative 1 - Existing Bus Lanes Alternative 2 - Existing Bus Lanes w/TSP

Stations 2 stations - Orchard (1), E Campus (1)

TSP

9 intersections • University Ave @ Randall @ Orchard @

Charter @ Mills @ Brooks @ Park @ E Campus @ Lake @ Francis



• Red bus lane markings (ex. bus lanes University Ave)

• New pavement markings and signing • Red bus lane markings (ex. bus lanes

University Ave)


Table 8. Segment 5 - EB - Campus Dr @ Babcock to W Johnson



w/TSP




Stations 2 stations - Orchard (1), E Campus (1)

TSP 10 intersections

• Campus Dr @Randall @Orchard @Charter @Mills @Brooks @Park @E Campus @Lake @Francis @Bassett





• Red bus lane markings

• Bus Lanes o Campus Dr

- Convert right lane



• Queue Jump o Campus Dr

- EB @ Randall


• Major intersection widening - Campus Dr/Randall

• Major intersection widening - Campus Dr/Randall

Segment 6 Downtown Madison and the Capitol Square is a regional hub of activity, particularly during spring, summer and fall. There are over 70 events annually that require Metro Transit to detour from the Capitol Square. Detours can create confusion and challenges with schedule reliability. BRT cannot detour to the



extent that regular service currently does. Several different alignments through the Isthmus and around the Capitol Square were considered, however only two fully met the goals of this project:

• Serve regional destinations • Fast service • Reliable service (resistant to detours) • Constructability/suitability of existing infrastructure • Coordination with local service for transfers and common stops.

The first option runs on State Street and around the Capitol Square, then traveling east on East Washington Avenue. The second option uses paired one-way streets, Henry/Broom and Doty/Wilson to travel around the Capitol Square, but not directly adjacent to it. One option will be chosen based on the results of the analysis in the next phase of this study. Table 9, Table 10, Table 11, and Table 12 present the assumption for stations, TSP, roadway improvements, and intersection improvements by alternative for segment 6.

Figure 6. Segment 6



Table 9. Segment 6S WB - W Gorham St @ Broom to State St to Mifflin St to N Pinckney St to E Washington Ave @ Butler (including Broom and Butler)


Alternative 2 - Mixed Traffic w/TSP


Stations 3 stations - W Johnson St (1), Wisconsin Ave (1), Webster St (1)

TSP

9 intersections • Gorham @ Broom @ State • State @ Johnson @ Fairchild @ Mifflin • Mifflin @ Wisconsin @ Pinckney • E Washington @ Pinckney @ Webster



• Red bus lane markings (Capitol Square only)




• Red bus lane markings • Bus Lanes

o E Washington Ave - Convert outside lanes

Intersection Improvements • State St/Gorham -

Protected WB left signal

• State St/Gorham - Protected WB left signal

• State St/Gorham - Protected WB left signal

Table 10. Segment 6S EB - W Johnson St @ Broom to State St to Carroll St to Main St to S Pinckney St to E Washington Ave @ Butler (including Broom and Butler)




Stations 3 stations - Dayton St (1), MLK (1), Webster St (1)

TSP

10 intersections • W Johnson @ Broom @ State • State @ Fairchild @ Carroll • Carroll @ Washington @ Main • Main @ MLK @ Pinckney • E Washington @ Pinckney @ Webster








o E Washington Ave - Convert outside lanes




Table 11. Segment 6HW WB - Broom St @ W Gorham to W Doty St to S Henry St to Wilson St to S Butler St @ E Washington Ave (including Broom and Butler




Stations 4 stations - Main St (1), MLK (1), Doty St (1), Gorham St (1)

TSP

6 intersections • Broom @ Gorham @ Johnson @ Washington @

Doty • Wilson @ Henry @ Butler






• Bus Lanes o All streets -

Convert outside lanes

Intersection Improvements • Two-way stop signs @ Butler/Main

• Two-way stop signs @ Butler/Main

• Two-way stop signs @ Butler/Main

Table 12. Segment 6HW EB - W Johnson St @ Broom to N Henry St to W Washington Ave to S Fairchild St to Doty St to S Webster St to E Washington Ave @ Butler (including Broom and Butler)




Stations 4 stations - State St/W Johnson St (1), Main St (1), MLK (1), Webster St (1)

TSP

10 intersections • W Johnson @ Broom @ Henry/State • W Washington @ Henry @ Fairchild • Fairchild @ Main @ Doty • Doty @ MLK @ Webster • Webster @ Main @ E Washington






• Bus Lanes o All streets -

Convert outside lanes


• Two-way stop signs @ Henry/Dayton

• New signal Henry/Washington







Segments 7 and 8

Segment 7 runs on East Washington Avenue from Livingston to 1st Street. Segment 8 will continue running along East Washington Avenue from First Street, making one detour to connect directly with Madison College, where the route then returns to East Washington Avenue and terminates at East Towne Mall. Table 13 and Table 14 present the assumption for stations, TSP, roadway improvements, and intersection improvements by alternative for segments 7 and 8.

Figure 7. Segment 7 and 8



Table 13. Segment 7 - E Washington Ave @ Butler to E Washington Ave @ First St (including First)



w/TSP Alternative 3 - Bus Lanes w/TSP Alternative 4 - Mixed traffic w/TSP

and Queue Jump

Stations 6 stations - Livingston (2), Baldwin (2), First (2)

TSP 6 intersections

• E Washington Ave @ Blair @ Livingston @ Paterson @ Ingersoll @ Baldwin @ First






o E Washington Ave - Convert parking

o EB widening - Franklin to Livingston

o EB remove bumpouts @ Livingston @ Brearly @ Few

o WB remove bumpouts @ Livingston @ Brearly @ Few @ Dickenson


• Red queue jump lane markings • Queue Jump

o E Washington Ave - EB & WB @ Blair @ Livingston @ Paterson @ Ingersoll @ Baldwin @ First

o EB widening - Franklin to Blair, Blount to Livingston

o EB remove bumpouts @ Livingston @ Brearly @ Few

o WB remove bumpouts @ Livingston @ Brearly @ Few @ Dickenson


Minor intersection widening - E Washington Ave @ Blair @ Blount @ Livingston @ Brearly @ Dickenson @ Few

Minor intersection widening - E Washington Ave @ Blair @ Blount @ Livingston @ Brearly @ Dickenson @ Few



Table 14. Segment 8 - E Washington Ave @ First to Wright St to Anderson Ave to Stoughton Rd to E Washington Ave to Eagan Rd to East Towne Mall



Alternative 3 - Bus Lanes w/TSP and Queue Jump

Alternative 4 - Mixed traffic w/TSP and Queue Jump

Stations 16 stations - 4th St (2), Milwaukee St (2), Marquette St (2), Melvin Ct (2), Madison College (2), Mendota (2), Thierer (2), East Towne Mall (2)

TSP

17 intersections • E Washington Ave @ Fourth @ Sixth @ Milwaukee @ Johnson @ Oak @ Marquette @

Aberg (2) @ Melvin @ Wright @ Stoughton @ Mendota @ Lien @ Thierer @ Eagan • Wright St @ Anderson • Anderson St @ Stoughton






• Bus Lanes o E Washington Ave -

First St to Aberg Ave - Convert parking

o EB widening - Milwaukee to Marquette

o EB remove bumpouts @ Fourth

o WB remove bumpouts @ Third @ Fourth @ Fifth @ Oak

o Wright St - Convert outside EB lane - Widen for WB lane

o Anderson St - Convert outside lanes



• Queue Jump o E Washington Ave o EB & WB @ Fourth @

Sixth @ Milwaukee @ Johnson @ Oak @ Marquette

o EB widening - Milwaukee to Union, 500' east of Union to Marquette

o EB remove bumpouts @ Fourth

o WB remove bumpouts @ Fourth @ Fifth @ Oak

o EB @ Wright @ Lien @ Thierer





Alternative 3 - Bus Lanes w/TSP and Queue Jump

Alternative 4 - Mixed traffic w/TSP and Queue Jump

• E Washington Ave - Thierer Rd to Eagan Rd - Convert outside lanes

• Queue Jump o E Washington Ave o EB @ Wright @ Lien @

Thierer o WB @ Aberg @ Thierer o Stoughton Rd - EB @ E

Washington - Widening

o WB @ Aberg @ Thierer o Stoughton Rd - EB @ E

Washington


• New signal Washington/Melvin


• Minor intersection widening - E Washington Ave @ Third @ Fourth @ Milwaukee @ Johnson @ Oak @ Lien


• Minor intersection widening - E Washington Ave @ Fourth @ Milwaukee @ Johnson @ Oak @ Lien




Capital Costs

Estimating capital costs is a critical component of the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) Capital Investment Program. Capital costs are the one-time expenditure required to build the system, including infrastructure costs and soft costs. Infrastructure costs typically include costs associated with the guideway, stations, structures, signalization and communication systems, support facilities, vehicles, and right-of-way acquisition. Professional services for items such as engineering, construction services, project management, surveys, testing, insurance, legal, permits and owner’s costs are also included as part of the overall capital cost. Contingencies are applied to the capital cost to account for uncertainty in both the estimating process and the scope of the project.

Methodology

Capital cost estimates have been prepared using the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) standard cost categories (SCC) format. Table 15 summarizes the SCC definitions, including groupings for organization of the data. The level of detail of the capital cost estimates for the Madison East-West BRT Planning Study is conceptual and preliminary in nature, as is typical with planning studies that evaluate numerous alternatives.

Table 15. FTA SCC Capital Cost Estimate Organization

STANDARD COST CATEGORY (SCC) DESCRIPTION SCC 10-Guideway Guideway grading and drainage; retaining walls,

bridges and tunnels; busway construction SCC 20-Stations, Stops, Terminal, Intermodal Construction of station/stop platforms, enclosures,

canopies, and fixtures; elevators; escalators and stairs

SCC 30-Support Facilities: Yards, Shops, Administration Buildings

Operations, maintenance, and storage facilities

SCC 40-Sitework and Special Conditions Demolition, clearing, and excavation; utilities and utility relocation; hazardous soil and water remediation; environmental mitigation; reconstruction of roadways, intersection and non-guideway structures; pedestrian and bicycle accommodations, sidewalks and trails; landscaping, fencing and lighting, park-and-ride facilities

SCC 50-Systems Communication systems; central control hardware and software; automated fare collection system; roadway traffic signals

SCC 60-Right-of-Way, Land, Existing Improvements

Acquisition of right-of-way or easements for guideway, stations, and other facilities; relocation of existing households and businesses



STANDARD COST CATEGORY (SCC) DESCRIPTION SCC 70-Vehicles Standard buses including 40’ and articulated (60’);

Electric BRT vehicles including 40’ and articulated (60’) non-revenue vehicles and spare parts.

SCC 80-Professional Services Preliminary engineering; final design; project management for design and construction; construction administration and management; insurance; legal, permit review fees; surveys, testing, investigation, inspection; agency force account work

SCC 90-Contingency Overall project contingency and reserves SCC 100-Finance Charges Estimated expenses for local financing of project

activities prior to federal funding commitment Source: Federal Transit Administration, 2017.

The capital cost estimates are based upon a number of assumptions derived from various sources. These assumptions include capital cost parameters applied at certain steps during the process, unit prices for the various capital cost line items, and quantity, location, and conceptual definitions for each of the alternatives.

Parameters Capital cost parameters are necessary assumptions that are not related to the specific location or design features of the corridor or the alternatives under consideration.

Base Year Year 2019 is used as the base year for definition of the unit prices and development of the capital cost estimates.

Contingencies Contingencies are intended to compensate for unforeseen items of work, quantity fluctuations, and variances in unit costs that develop as the project progresses through the various stages of design development.

Annualization Factors The Madison East-West BRT Planning Study uses the FTA’s annualization factors to convert 2019 year capital cost estimates into annualized capital costs for purposes of determining potential Small Starts grant recipients.

Data Sources Unit prices for the various capital cost elements are based on local and national references that include but are not limited to the following:

• WisDOT Bid Tabulations • Milwaukee East-West BRT Project • Laker Line BRT Project • Omaha Rapid Bus



The Study Team will review unit price assumptions from these sources to determine their applicability to the detailed alternatives under consideration for the Madison East-West BRT Planning Study. Appendix A presents draft capital costs by detailed alternative.

Summary of Results Table 16 presents the capital costs by segment and alternative. The range of capital costs range from $107 million to $177 million.



Table 16. Summary of results by Segment and Alternative

Preliminary Conceptual Opinion of Probable Cost City of Madison Today's Date 9/12/2019 Metro Transit Yr of Base Year $ 2019 Madison East-West Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Planning Study Yr of Revenue Ops TBD

Project Segment Cost Matrix

Segment

Alternative 1

Alternative 2

Alternative 3

Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Alternative 6

Minimum cost

alternative

Maximum cost

alternative Notes Mixed

Traffic

Mixed Traffic w/TSP

Bus Lanes w/TSP

Mixed Traffic

w/TSP & Queue jump

Bus Only Shoulders w/TSP -

Restriping

Bus Lanes w/TSP -

Reconstruction

1 $4,400,000 $6,400,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A $4,400,000 $6,400,000

2MP $5,700,000 $5,800,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A $5,700,000 $19,500,000 Min/Max

represents options for

seg. 2

2OT $10,800,000 $11,400,000 $19,500,000 N/A N/A N/A

3 $11,100,000 $11,300,000 $13,200,000 $13,800,000 N/A N/A $11,100,000 $13,800,000

4 $3,400,000 $3,500,000 $25,600,000 $4,500,000 $4,000,000 $48,200,000 $3,400,000 $48,200,000

5 WB $3,100,000 $3,300,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A $3,100,000 $3,300,000

5 EB $2,600,000 $3,100,000 $4,500,000 $3,600,000 N/A N/A $2,600,000 $4,500,000

6S WB $3,500,000 $3,900,000 $4,200,000 N/A N/A N/A $3,500,000 $5,800,000 Min/Max

represents options for

seg. 6



Project Segment Cost Matrix

Segment

Alternative 1

Alternative 2

Alternative 3

Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Alternative 6

Minimum cost

alternative

Maximum cost

alternative Notes Mixed

Traffic

Mixed Traffic w/TSP

Bus Lanes w/TSP

Mixed Traffic

w/TSP & Queue jump

Bus Only Shoulders w/TSP -

Restriping

Bus Lanes w/TSP -

Reconstruction

6S EB $3,500,000 $3,800,000 $4,200,000 N/A N/A N/A $3,500,000 $6,200,000

6H WB $4,600,000 $4,900,000 $5,800,000 N/A N/A N/A

6H EB $5,100,000 $5,200,000 $6,200,000 N/A N/A N/A

7 $6,900,000 $7,000,000 $12,800,000 $11,800,000 N/A N/A $6,900,000 $12,800,000

8 $19,000,000 $19,300,000 $27,500,000 $24,300,000 N/A N/A $19,000,000 $27,500,000

Choosing

the cheaper mixed traffic options results in the need for additional vehicles.

Construction Cost $63,200,000 $148,000,000 Vehicles + O&M $43,800,000 $29,300,000

Total $107,000,000 $177,300,000



Cost Effectiveness

The cost effectiveness measure is designed to assist the FTA in identifying the projects that will result in the highest level of usage (trips) for the minimal amount of federal investment. The FTA’s cost effectiveness rating for Small Starts is based on the annualized federal share of the project’s capital cost per project trip.

Methodology The annualized capital cost is determined by annualizing the cost of each project element over the useful life of that element using a discount rate of two percent. The FTA assigns a useful life ranging from 12 years (e.g. buses) to 125 years (e.g. real estate, utility relocation, demolition) based on how frequently the FTA assumes that element would need to be replaced over the life of the project. For Small Starts, the annualized cost is multiplied by the federal share of the project’s capital cost to determine the federal share of the annualized project cost. It should be noted that the maximum federal funding available through the FTA’s Small Starts program may not exceed 80 percent of project costs or $100 million dollars, whichever is less.

Annual trips taken on the project are based on the average weekday ridership forecast for the project multiplied by the annualization factor. The annualization factor assumed for BRT is 290, which was determined using the past five years of historical Metro Transit fixed-route bus ridership from the National Transit Database (NTD). The annualization factor accounts for lower ridership on the weekends compared to weekdays. The FTA uses an average of ridership forecasts for the current year and horizon (20 years in the future). Due to the preliminary nature of project planning if a cost effectiveness “score” is close to the FTA thresholds, both ratings were reported. Additional ridership and cost estimating should be completed based on more detailed design as the project advances. The FTA thresholds for determining cost effectiveness are shown in Table 17.

Table 17. FTA Small Starts Thresholds for Cost Effectiveness

Rating Small Starts High $0.01 - $0.99

Medium-High $1.00 - $1.99 Medium $2.00 - $3.99

Medium-Low $4.00 - $4.99 Low $5.00 or greater

Source: Final Interim Policy Guidance, FTA Capital Investment Grant Program, June 2016.

Data Sources

The cost effectiveness measure uses the capital costs contained in this tech memo as well as information from Tech Memo #6 Ridership. Ridership modeling was performed for 12 alternatives the alternatives which ridership forecasts were available.



Summary of Results

Based on our preliminary analysis, all the project alternatives are anticipated to receive a Medium rating or higher as shown in Table 18. The BAT with TSP on Odana have the highest ridership and as a result have the potential to receive a higher rating from the FTA for Small Starts Cost Effectiveness.

Table 18. Anticipated Small Starts Cost Effectiveness ratings

Alternative

Mixed Traffic

Capital cost (million)

Annualized Cost (million)

Annualized Federal Share

(million)

Weekday Ridership

Annual Ridership Anticipated Rating

Alternative A: Mineral Point and State $103.8 $6.4 $5.12 10,380 3,010,200 Medium or Medium-

High Alternative B: Mineral Point and Henry/Wilson $106.5 $6.4 $5.12 10,670 3,094,300 Medium or Medium-

High Alternative C: Odana and State $112.1 $6.9 $5.52 12,510 3,627,900 Medium-High

Alternative D: Odana and Henry/Wilson $114.8 $6.9 $5.52 12,730 3,691,700 Medium-High

Alternative

Mixed Traffic with TSP




(million)

Weekday Ridership Ridership Anticipated Rating

Alternative A: Mineral Point and State $100.5 $6.0 $4.80 10,770 3,123,300 Medium-High

Alternative B: Mineral Point and Henry/Wilson $102.9 $6.1 $4.88 11,020 3,195,800 Medium-High

Alternative C: Odana and State $111.8 $6.6 $5.28 12,970 3,761,300 Medium-High

Alternative D: Odana and Henry/Wilson $114.2 $6.7 $5.36 13,160 3,816,400 Medium-High



Alternative

BAT TSP




(million)

Weekday Ridership Ridership Anticipated Rating

Alternative A: Mineral Point and State $135.0 $7.0 $5.19 11,940 3,462,600 Medium-High

Alternative B: Mineral Point and Henry/Wilson $138.6 $7.2 $5.19 12,250 3,552,500 Medium-High

Alternative C: Odana and State $151.9 $7.9 $5.20 14,380 4,170,200 Medium-High or High

Alternative D: Odana and Henry/Wilson $155.5 $8.1 $5.21 14,650 4,248,500 Medium-High or High

Date post:	08-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

MADISON EAST-WEST BRT PLANNING STUDY · 9/17/2019 · Overview of Project Evaluation Process The...

Documents