METROCENTER CORRIDOR STUDY€¦ · E Design and Constructability Issues—Supporting Documentation...

DRAFT

METROCENTER CORRIDOR STUDY

TIER 2 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES

JUNE 20, 2005

Tier 2 Evaluation of Alternatives Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Overview ............................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Project Description ................................................................................................ 1

2.0 EVALUATION PROCESS ............................................................................................. 5

2.1 Process ................................................................................................................. 5 2.2 Findings of the Tier 1 and Subsequent Evaluations.............................................. 7 2.3 Alternatives Carried Forward for Tier 2 Evaluation ............................................. 16

3.0 DEFINITION OF TIER 2 ALTERNATIVES .................................................................. 17

3.1 No-Build............................................................................................................... 17 3.2 Baseline............................................................................................................... 19 3.3 LRT Alternative 1................................................................................................. 21 3.4 LRT Alternative 4................................................................................................. 23 3.5 BRT Alternative 4 ................................................................................................ 30

4.0 TIER 2 EVALUATION CRITERIA................................................................................ 39

4.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................... 39 4.2 Criteria Considered ............................................................................................. 39

5.0 TIER 2 EVALUATION.................................................................................................. 62 6.0 TIER 2 FINDINGS ........................................................................................................ 80

6.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................... 80 6.2 Findings............................................................................................................... 80

TABLES

2-1 LRT Alternatives Considered in the Tier 1 Evaluation 2-2 BRT Alternatives Considered in the Tier 1 Evaluation 2-3 Tier 1 Evaluation Recommendations Alternatives to be Retained 2-4 Tier 1 Evaluation Recommendations Alternatives to be Eliminated 2-5 New Rail/BRT Riders (% Increase over LRT Starter Line) 2-6 Comparison of At-Grade and Aerial Alignments Along 19th Avenue 3-1 MAG Regional Transportation Plan Highway Projects 3-2 MAG FY 2004-2007 Special TIP Highway Projects 3-3 No-Build Alternative (2025) Transit Service Comparison 3-4 No-Build Alternative Transit Centers 3-5 No-Build Alternative Park-and-Rides 3-6 Baseline Alternative Transit Service Comparison 3-7 Baseline Alternative Peak Transit Service Comparison 3-8 LRT Alternative 1 Stations and Park-and-Ride Facilities

Tier 2 Evaluation of Alternatives Page ii

3-9 LRT Operating Plans 3-10 LRT Alternative 4-Option 4-A/4-C Stations and Park-and-Ride Facilities 3-11 LRT Alternative 4-Option 4-A/4-D Stations and Park-and-Ride Facilities 3-12 LRT Alternative 4-Option 4-B/4-C Stations and Park-and-Ride Facilities 3-13 LRT Alternative 4-Option 4-B/4-D Stations and Park-and-Ride Facilities 3-14 BRT Operating Plans 3-15 BRT Alternative 4-Option 4-A/4-C Stations and Park-and-Ride Facilities 3-16 BRT Alternative 4-Option 4-A/4-D Stations and Park-and-Ride Facilities 3-17 BRT Alternative 4-Option 4-B/4-C Stations and Park-and-Ride Facilities 3-18 BRT Alternative 4-Option 4-B/4-D Stations and Park-and-Ride Facilities 4-1 Tier 2 Alternatives Screening Criteria 4-2 Noise and Vibration Screening Distances 5-1 Tier 2 Alternative Evaluation Summary (No-Build, Baseline, LRT Alternative 1, LRT

Alternative 4 [Option 4-A/4-C]) 5-2 Tier 2 Alternative Evaluation Summary (LRT Alternative 4 [Options 4-A/4-D, 4-B/4-C, 4-

B/4-D]) 5-3 Tier 2 Alternative Evaluation Summary (BRT Alternative 4) 6-1 Tier 2 Alternatives Rating Comparisons 6-2 Major Advantages of the Tier 2 Build Alternatives 6-3 Major Disadvantages of the Tier 2 Build Alternatives 6-4 Comparison of the Baseline Alternative to the Build Alternatives 6-5 Comparison of the Baseline Alternative Ratings to the Build Alternatives

FIGURES 1-1 Metrocenter Corridor Study Area 2-1 Alternatives Evaluation Process 2-2 Tier 1 Alternatives—LRT Alternatives 1 and 2 2-3 Tier 1 Alternatives—LRT Alternatives 3 and 4 2-4 Tier 1 Alternatives—BRT Alternatives 1 and 2 2-5 Tier 1 Alternatives—BRT Alternatives 3 and 4 3-1 LRT Alternative 1 3-2 LRT Alternative 4-A/4-C 3-3 LRT Alternative 4-A/4-D 3-4 LRT Alternative 4-B/4-C 3-5 LRT Alternative 4-B/4-D 3-6 BRT Alternative 4-A/4-C 3-7 BRT Alternative 4-A/4-D 3-8 BRT Alternative 4-B/4-C 3-9 BRT Alternative 4-B/4-D 4-1 BRT Connection to CP/EV LRT—Concept A 4-2 BRT Connection to CP/EV LRT—Concept B 4-3 BRT Connection to CP/EV LRT—Concept C

Tier 2 Evaluation of Alternatives Page iii

APPENDICES A Traffic Issues—Supporting Documentation B Activity Centers Served—Supporting Documentation C Populations Served—Supporting Documentation D Historic Architectural Resources—Supporting Documentation E Design and Constructability Issues—Supporting Documentation F Capital and O&M Costs—Supporting Documentation

Tier 2 Evaluation of Alternatives Page 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 OVERVIEW The purpose of this report is to present the evaluation of the Tier 2 alternatives that are being considered for high capacity transit improvements in the Metrocenter Corridor. The Tier 2 alternatives include those that were retained following completion of the analysis of the initial, or Tier 1, set of alternatives (see Section 2.2 of this report and the separate Tier 1 Evaluation of Alternatives Report for more information). In addition, the Baseline Alternative is evaluated and compared to the Tier 2 alternatives for performance criteria (e.g., ridership and costs). The Baseline Alternative is used in the FTA’s Section 5309 New Starts process to compare the New Starts Build Alternative and is intended “to isolate the costs and benefits of the proposed major transit investment,” and “must include in the project corridor all reasonable cost-effective transit improvements short of investment in the new start project”. Section 1.2 of this report provides additional information about the overall study, its purpose, and the project development process. Chapter 2 describes the comprehensive process for evaluating and narrowing down the range of alternatives considered with the goal of achieving one Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) that will be studied in greater detail in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The definitions of the Tier 2 alternatives are presented in Chapter 3. Chapters 4 and 5 present the Tier 2 evaluation criteria and the results of the evaluation. The report concludes with Chapter 6 which summarizes the findings for each alternative. 1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1.2.1 Introduction Valley Metro Rail, Inc. and the cities of Phoenix and Glendale are undertaking an Alternatives Analysis (AA) and an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to evaluate high-capacity transit service improvements in the Metrocenter Corridor in the northwest portion of the City of Phoenix. Capital improvements under consideration include light rail transit (LRT) and bus rapid transit (BRT). In addition, a local bus network will be integrated into the selected higher capacity rapid transit system. The purpose of this study is to develop project information in sufficient detail so that citizen groups, local and federal agencies, elected officials, and other study participants can make informed decisions on the appropriate transit technology and alignment to address travel needs in the Metrocenter Corridor. This information includes, but is not limited to, the following: • Develop technology modes and potential alignment options; • Evaluate modes and alignments using a variety of criteria (as discussed in Chapter 4) to

narrow down the range of alternatives; • Define an enhanced bus system that integrates with the “build” alternative(s); • Select a preferred mode and route or “alignment”. For the selected alternative provide

detailed information about the following: - Operating plans; - Environmental impacts and appropriate mitigation;


- Cost estimates and financial plan; - Cost effectiveness and efficiency; - Forecasted ridership; - Land use and economic development implications; and - Location and configuration of stations, park-and-ride lots, and the maintenance facility.

1.2.1 Study Area Definition The study area (Figure 1-1) is bounded by Missouri Avenue to the south; 15th Avenue to the east; Cholla Street to the north; and 31st Avenue to the west. Although not a part of the formal AA/EIS process for the Metrocenter Corridor Study, secondary study areas in Phoenix north of the Metrocenter Corridor and west to Glendale are also being considered to identify opportunities for future transportation connections to those areas should Valley Metro Rail, Inc. later decide to move forward with those potential projects. Any further detailed planning and design for a future connection to either area would be prepared in accordance with stipulations of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 1.2.2 Project Background The Phoenix/Glendale Major Investment Study (MIS) was initiated in 1998 to identify high-capacity transportation improvements that would improve mobility and provide transit options in the corridors linking Metrocenter and downtown Glendale with central Phoenix. A secondary purpose was to answer the question on whether LRT planned in the Central Phoenix/East Valley Corridor should be extended into the Phoenix/Glendale study area. The MIS encompassed a study area which included the Metrocenter Corridor Study area. Nine transit technologies traversing various alignments were considered: • Busways; • Express bus; • Light rail transit; • Commuter rail; • Automated guideway transit; • Monorail; • Magnetically levitated railway (Mag Lev); • Heavy rail; and • Personal rapid transit. Using a variety of evaluation criteria, a locally preferred alternative (LPA) was recommended that included LRT as the selected transit mode. The alignment within the Metrocenter Corridor included a connection with the Central Phoenix/East Valley LRT (the LRT “starter line” that began construction in mid-2004) at Spectrum Mall on 19th Avenue near Bethany Home Road and continued north on 19th Avenue to Northern Avenue with various sub-option alignments to the Metrocenter Shopping Center. Since completion of the MIS in 1999, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has revised its planning process with new requirements for Alternatives Analysis (AA). AA requires a more detailed analysis of modal options, alignments, and travel demand forecasting. Therefore, the


AA for the Metrocenter Corridor Study re-evaluates reasonable technology modes as well as alignment options within the study area. The Metrocenter Corridor Project was included in the City of Phoenix’s Transit 2000 ballot initiative that was passed by voters in 2000 and provides a 0.4% sales tax to help fund the City’s transit program. The project also is included in the currently approved Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) financially constrained Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). 1.2.3 Project Development Process The Metrocenter Corridor Study is being advanced in accordance with the project development process outlined by FTA for major transit capital investments and in accordance with the rules and regulations specified under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The steps from Alternatives Analysis (AA) through Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) are considered to be the project planning phases. During this time, an analysis of various alternatives is conducted considering a variety of criteria. Based on the results of the evaluation and the public input received, the Phoenix City Council and the Valley Metro Rail, Inc., Board of Directors will identify a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA). The goal is to conduct a detailed analysis of the LPA and No-Build Alternative during the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and to propose mitigation measures for adverse impacts. Upon completion of the DEIS, it will be circulated for public review and comment, and public hearings will be held at that time. Based on the findings of the DEIS and public comments received, FTA, the Phoenix City Council, and the Valley Metro Rail, Board of Directors will then adopt a refined LPA. Preliminary Engineering (PE) will then be conducted concurrently with preparation of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) that responds to public comments and commits to specific mitigation measures for adverse impacts. Upon completion of the FEIS, it will be submitted to FTA for consideration, and FTA will then issue a Record of Decision (ROD) that provides environmental clearance. Following issuance of a favorable ROD, final design would be conducted, and the financing plan would be finalized. Construction would then begin, and the project is expected to be operational by 2012.


2.0 EVALUATION PROCESS 2.1 PROCESS A two-tiered process is being implemented to evaluate the Metrocenter Corridor alternatives (Figure 2-1). The first phase (Tier 1), which has already been completed, included a conceptual level evaluation that analyzed the advantages and disadvantages of a “long list” of potential alternatives to address the transportation needs of the corridor (see separate Tier 1 Evaluation of Alternatives Report for more information). The purpose of the Tier 1 evaluation was to determine which of the alternatives included on the “long list” were the most feasible, thus narrowing down the range of options to be considered for more detailed analysis. The Tier 1 evaluation criteria are mostly qualitative in nature and sought to eliminate alignment and, possibly, technology options that had fatal flaws, clearly did not meet project goals, or had other undesirable qualities. Section 2.2 summarizes the findings of the Tier 1 evaluation and supplemental analysis that occurred prior to Tier 2. The Metrocenter Corridor alternatives remaining after the Tier 1 evaluation are being subjected to a more detailed evaluation (Tier 2), and that is the subject of this report. The Tier 2 evaluation criteria begin to quantify ridership potential, capital costs, land use and economic development impacts, traffic issues, environmental factors, conceptual engineering, and public preferences. The Tier 2 build alternatives have been advanced to a schematic design evaluation level and their definitions include plans and cross-sections, right-of-way requirements, station locations, park-and-ride locations, intermodal transfer stations, end-of-line station location, future downtown Glendale connection options, future connections to the Deer Valley Core, feeder bus service, and operating plans (see Chapter 3 of this report and the separate Tier 2 Definition of Alternatives Report for more information). Capital cost estimates are also provided for each alternative. The evaluation of the Tier 2 alternatives is intended to eliminate all but a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) with possible design options. However, if the Tier 2 evaluation results in more than one optimal alternative with no clear choice, then those alternatives will be modeled and assessed against the Section 5309 New Starts criteria and community acceptance to help achieve the best possible project as identified by the FTA criteria. The alternative that most satisfies the criteria would then be the one recommended as the “preferred alternative” for further detailed evaluation in the Environmental Impact Statement. An essential component throughout the evaluation process is the Public Involvement Program (PIP). The PIP identifies the public, interested groups and stakeholders and will solicit their input and participation at key points in the process.


2.2 FINDINGS OF THE TIER 1 AND SUBSEQUENT EVALUATIONS 2.2.1 Tier 1 Evaluation Results A total of four Light Rail Transit (LRT) and four BRT alternatives were developed and analyzed (Figures 2-2 through 2-5 and Tables 2-1 and 2-2) in the Tier 1 evaluation. All alternatives begin at the northern terminus of the CP/EV LRT starter line near 19th Avenue/Bethany Home Road and follow various routes, as described in the tables and figures, to Cholla Street, which is at the northern boundary of the Metrocenter Corridor study area. The recommendations of the Tier 1 evaluation were that LRT Alternatives 1 and 4 (Figures 2-2 and 2-3) best met the goals and objectives for the project and should be retained for additional evaluation during a more rigorous Tier 2 analysis. Table 2-3 summarizes the benefits of these alternatives. It was also recommended that LRT Alternatives 2 and 3 and BRT Alternatives 2 and 3 be eliminated from further consideration for reasons summarized in Table 2-4. In addition, through conversations with FTA, BRT Alternatives 1 and 4 (with similar alignments to their LRT counterparts) should be subjected to additional ridership analysis from that conducted during Tier 1. 2.2.2 Additional Findings After the Tier 1 Evaluation Subsequent to the Tier 1 evaluation, it was decided that additional modeling would be conducted for the retained BRT alternatives that would give consideration to a more optimal BRT operating scenario to determine if more new riders would be attracted. The Tier 1 patronage evaluation for all of the BRT alternatives assumed that BRT operated only in the Metrocenter Corridor and would require a transfer to the Central Phoenix/East Valley LRT (CP/EV LRT) at its northern terminus at Spectrum Mall (19th Avenue near Bethany Home Road) to continue south. This forced transfer resulted in limited new riders being attracted to the transit system. New riders attracted is a critical measure of the alternative’s success given the FTA Section 5309 New Starts evaluation criteria and the Purpose and Need Report developed for the Metrocenter Corridor Study. The Purpose and Need for the Metrocenter Corridor Study identifies the necessity to attract new riders to the transit system as a mechanism to create additional passenger throughput in a highly congested corridor. The scenario used in the supplemental modeling considered the possibility that passengers on the BRT would have the choice of either transferring to the CP/EV LRT at Spectrum Mall or continuing south on the bus (without transfer) to the State Capitol and then to downtown Phoenix. Although the modeling focused on the retained BRT Alternatives 1 and 4, all of the LRT and BRT alternatives considered in the Tier 1 analysis were re-evaluated in order to determine how the retained BRT alternatives compared to the other alternatives in their ability to attract new riders. The results of the additional modeling are summarized in Table 2-5. In all cases, the LRT alternatives performed significantly better than their BRT counterparts in their ability to attract new riders. The best performing BRT operating scenario was the one that assumed rail operating speeds. However, it is unrealistic to assume that the operating speeds could be consistently achieved since the alternatives would operate in the existing I-17 HOV lanes. These lanes already experience congestion during some times of the day.


Figure 2-2 Tier 1 Alternatives LRT Alternatives 1 and 2


Figure 2-3 Tier 1 Alternatives LRT Alternatives 3 and 4


Figure 2-4 Tier 1 Alternatives BRT Alternatives 1 and 2


Figure 2-5 Tier 1 Alternatives BRT Alternatives 3 and 4


The BRT scenario that best reflects the type of operation that would be implemented for the project is the one that was coded as rail, but assumes express bus operating speeds in the I-17 Corridor. Under this scenario, the best performing alternative, BRT Alternative 4-A/4-D is only expected to attract about 10% new rail/BRT riders. This compares to its counterpart, LRT Alternative 4-A/4-D, which is expected to attract about 39% new rail riders.

TABLE 2-1 LRT ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN THE TIER 1 EVALUATION1

No. Location 1 19th Avenue 2 19th Avenue/Bethany Home Road/I-17 3 19th Avenue/Orangewood Avenue/31st Avenue/Metrocenter West/28th Drive 4 Four major options:

Options 4-A and 4-B serve the area between Spectrum Mall and Dunlap Avenue/25th Avenue. Options 4-C and 4-D serve the area between Dunlap Avenue/25th Avenue and Cholla Street. Option 4-A can be combined with either Option 4-C or 4-D to traverse the entire study area. Likewise, Option 4-B can be combined with either Option 4-C or 4-D. − Option 4-A - 19th Avenue/Dunlap Avenue to 25th Avenue − Option 4-B - 19th Avenue/Northern Avenue/23rd Avenue/Dunlap Avenue to 25th Avenue − Option 4-C - Dunlap Avenue at 25th Avenue north to Cholla Street − Option 4-D - Dunlap Avenue at 25th Avenue north to about Mountain View Road/New crossing of I-

17/Metrocenter East/28th Drive 1All alternatives begin at the northern terminus of the CP/EV LRT starter line near 19th Avenue/Bethany Home Road and end at Cholla Street, which at the northern end of the Metrocenter Corridor study area. The locations above indicate the specific routing between the two points.

TABLE 2-2 BRT ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN THE TIER 1 EVALUATION1

No. Location 1 19th Avenue (Same alignment as LRT Alternative 1.) 2 19th Avenue/Bethany Home Road/I-17 (Same alignment as LRT Alternative 2.) 3 19th Avenue/Glendale Avenue/31st Avenue/Metrocenter West/28th Drive 4 Four major options:

Options 4-A and 4-B serve the area between Spectrum Mall and Dunlap Avenue/25th Avenue. Options 4-C and 4-D serve the area between Dunlap Avenue/25th Avenue and Cholla Street. Option 4-A can be combined with either Option 4-C or 4-D to traverse the entire study area. Likewise, Option 4-B can be combined with either Option 4-C or 4-D − Option 4-A - 19th Avenue/Dunlap Avenue to 25th Avenue (Same alignment as LRT Option 4-A.) − Option 4-B - 19th Avenue/Northern Avenue/23rd Avenue/Dunlap Avenue to 25th Avenue (Same

alignment as LRT Option 4-B.) − Option 4-C - Dunlap Avenue at 25th Avenue north to Peoria Avenue/Peoria Avenue/I-17 − Option 4-D - Dunlap Avenue at 25th Avenue north to about Mountain View Road/New crossing of I-

17/Metrocenter East/28th Drive/Peoria Avenue/I-17 1All alternatives begin at the northern terminus of the CP/EV LRT starter line near 19th Avenue/Bethany Home Road and end at Cholla Street, which at the northern end of the Metrocenter Corridor study area. The locations above indicate the specific routing between the two points.


TABLE 2-3 TIER 1 EVALUATION RECOMMENDATIONS

ALTERNATIVES TO BE RETAINED1 Alternative Reasons for Retention

LRT Alternative 1 LRT Alternative 4 and all 4 options In addition: Option 4-A/4-C Option 4-A/4-D

− Competitive travel times − Direct travel through Corridor − Opportunities for transit-oriented and economic development − High mobility due to serving major activity centers along 19th Avenue and near I-

17 − High potential for attracting new riders − Transit-oriented development opportunity − Previously recommended in 1999 Phoenix/Glendale Major Investment Study

− Best proximity and ease of access to activity centers − Ranked #2 in ability to attract new riders

− Best proximity and ease of access to activity centers − Ranked #1 in ability to attract new riders (39%)

1Subsequent to the Tier 1 evaluation of alternatives, it was decided that BRT Alternative 4 (and all of its options) would also be retained for the Tier 2 analysis because it had the best ability to attract new riders of any of the BRT alternatives. See Section 2.2.2 for more information.


TABLE 2-4

TIER 1 EVALUATION RECOMMENDATIONS ALTERNATIVES TO BE ELIMINATED

Alternative Major Reasons for Elimination LRT Alternative 2 BRT Alternative 2 LRT Alternative 3 BRT Alternative 3

− Least potential of LRT alternatives for attracting new riders − Major I-17 traffic disruption during construction − Extensive utility relocation − Limited transit-oriented development opportunity − Poor access to LRT stations − Low potential for attracting new riders − Possible double-deck of I-17 by ADOT may make HOV direct access ramps

infeasible resulting in reduced transit service levels − Limited transit-oriented development opportunity − Poor access to LRT stations − Does not serve Corporate Center or other activity areas east of I-17 − Slow travel time due to circuitous routing through Corridor − Far from activity centers − Major impacts on residential driveways and on-street parking − Major impacts on existing right-of-way − Lack of community acceptance − Extensive utility relocation and impacts on water treatment plant − Limited transit-oriented development opportunity − Low potential for attracting new riders − Does not serve Corporate Center or other activity areas east of I-17 − Slow travel time due to circuitous routing through Corridor − Far from activity centers − Major impacts on residential driveways and on-street parking − Major impacts on existing right-of-way − Lack of community acceptance − Extensive utility relocation and impacts on water treatment plant − Limited transit-oriented development opportunity


TABLE 2-5

NEW RAIL/BRT RIDERS (% INCREASE OVER LRT STARTER LINE)1

Operating Scenario

Alternative LRT BRT (Metrocenter Only)2

BRT (Using Rail

Operating Speeds)3

BRT (Using Express Bus Operating

Speeds)4 1 30% -4% 14% 3% 2 24% -4% 12% 3% 3 36% 1% 18% 8%

4-A/4-C 37% -1% 19% 8% 4-A/4-D 39% 2% 23% 10% 4-B/4-C 35% 0% 18% 7% 4-B/4-D 33% -1% 17% 6%

1New rail/BRT riders also includes new riders over the CP/EV LRT starter line at the 19th Avenue/Montebello (Spectrum Mall) Station that is the northern terminus of the LRT starter line. 2This is the operating scenario assumed in the Tier 1 analysis of alternatives. 3The BRT travel speeds assumed in this scenario are unlikely to be consistently achieved since the I-17 HOV lanes already experience congestion at certain times of the day. 4This is the BRT operating scenario that would most likely be implemented for the project. Source: MAG model, April 2004 as reported in Metrocenter Corridor Study BRT Evaluation Report, April 13, 2004.

An aerial alignment was also evaluated to determine if an LRT fixed guideway should be constructed at grade or on elevated structure. A test case was analyzed for a 3.4-mile segment of 19th Avenue from Spectrum Mall to just north of Dunlap Avenue. The pertinent findings are presented in Table 2-6. Although right-of-way requirements and costs would be less for an aerial alignment than one that is at grade, the total costs of elevated (capital plus real estate costs) would be more than twice as much as an at-grade alignment ($40.5 million per mile for at grade; $92.9 million per mile for aerial [side-running] alignment; and $105.6 million per mile for aerial [median-running] alignment). In addition, the higher speed of an LRT aerial alignment (almost 6 miles per hour faster) as compared to an at-grade alignment would attract only a negligible difference in additional new riders. The considerably higher costs with no real difference in the ability to attract new riders, coupled with the introduction of an obtrusive elevated structure adjacent to numerous residences along the route, made it difficult to recommend implementation of an aerial alignment. The 4-D option for LRT Alternative 4 was designed to reach Metrocenter Mall by building a new bridge over I-17 north of the Arizona Canal. The possibility of tunneling underneath I-17 to access the mall was also considered. The most economical tunneling option would involve a 700-foot tunnel section with a 750-foot open-cut tunnel approach on each end to allow for the 4% maximum grade to the tunnel. The west tunnel approach would require realignment of Cheryl Drive and the east entrance to the mall to the south about 200 feet at a new intersection with Metro Parkway East. A bridge would need to be constructed for Metro Parkway East over the LRT tunnel approach. The cost of the tunnel option would be about twice as high as building a bridge over I-17 ($63 million for tunnel vs. $32 million for bridge). The Metrocenter Mall Station would also need to be moved further north along 28th Drive to accommodate the design approach grades, thus making pedestrian access between the mall and station less


convenient. For these reasons, the tunnel option for LRT Alternative Option 4-D was eliminated from further consideration.

TABLE 2-6 COMPARISON OF AT-GRADE AND AERIAL ALIGNMENTS ALONG 19TH AVENUE

Factor Aerial

(Median-Running)

Aerial (Side-Running) At Grade

Total capital cost 2010 (millions)1 Capital cost/mile (millions)

$347 $102.1

$316 $92.9

$138$40.5

Right-of-way costs (millions)2,3 $12 $12 $4 $30Total costs (millions)3 Total cost/mile (millions)

$359 $105.6

$328 $96.5

$320 $94.1

$168$49.4

Right-of-way requirements3 Full parcel acquisitions Partial parcel acquisitions Total Full parcel acquisitions/mile Partial parcel acquisitions/mile

12 91

103 4

27

11 51 62 3

15

54 48

102 16 14

8762

1492618

LRT average travel speed (mph) % increase rail riders for aerial as a result of the higher speed4 % increase new rail riders for aerial as a result of the higher speed4

35.4 1.6%

0.44%

35.4 1.6%

0.44%

29.8N/A

N/A

Number left-turn restrictions5 Total Restrictions/mile

83 24

0 0

14543

Number new traffic signals required Total Signals/mile

3 1

0 0

82

1Capital costs do not include light rail vehicles, maintenance and storage facility, or additional right-of-way. 2Right-of-way costs include relocations but do not include contingencies. 3Two values are given for right-of-way requirements for the elevated side-running alignment. The first value represents the minimum necessary. The second higher value considers what is more likely needed to achieve community acceptance due to purchase of those buildings most affected by visual impacts. 4The margin of error for sketch planning is +/- 10%. Source=MAG model, June 2004. 5Aerial (median-running alignment) was estimated. To determine the actual number of restricted left turns, further more detailed sight distance studies would be needed at the time that more refined design of actual pier locations were completed. Source: Comparison of At-Grade and Aerial Alignments Along 19th Avenue, Valley Metro Rail, Inc. July 19, 2004.

2.3 ALTERNATIVES CARRIED FORWARD FOR TIER 2 EVALUATION Although BRT’s ability to attract new ridership would be significantly less than LRT, it was decided that the best performing BRT alternative (BRT Alternative 4 and all of its options) would be carried into the Tier 2 evaluation to allow for a more detailed analysis of the BRT mode. Therefore, the Tier 2 evaluation considers the following build alternatives: LRT Alternative 1, LRT Alternative 4 (and all of its options), and BRT Alternative 4 (and all of its options). The No-Build and Baseline Alternatives are also compared to the build alternatives for performance criteria only. The LRT and BRT alternatives being considered in the Tier 2 analysis have been refined since Tier 1 with regard to end-of-line locations, and station locations have been defined. Definitions of the Tier 2 alternatives are presented in Chapter 3.


3.0 DEFINITION OF TIER 2 ALTERNATIVES 3.1 NO-BUILD The highway and roadway and transit network improvements included in the No-Build Alternative are discussed in this section. 3.1.1 Highway and Roadway Network The No-Build Alternative consists of the existing highway system as well as planned and programmed improvements identified in the 2025 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and the MAG FY 2004-2007 Special Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Tables 3-1 and 3-2 summarize the planned improvements.

TABLE 3-1 MAG REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN

HIGHWAY PROJECTS Segment Project Length Cost (2002$)

I-17: Loop 101 to Arizona Canal (between Peoria and Dunlap)

Add one general purpose lane in each direction

6 miles $53 million

I-17: McDowell Road to Arizona Canal (between Peoria and Dunlap)

Long term capacity improvements (target addition of one HOV lane and two general purpose lanes in each direction)

7 miles $1 billion

Total $1.053 billion Total (as percentage for transit) $105.3 million1 1The total capacity improvement on I-17 is 8 lanes (6 general purpose and 2 HOV). The total cost of the 2 HOV lanes is $263.25 million (25% of $1.053 billion). According to the Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes Interim Handbook (TCRP Project B-12, March 2000), the utilization of a standard HOV lane by transit is 40%. Therefore, the total cost of the improvements allocated to transit is $105.3 million (40% of $263.25 million). Source: MAG Regional Transportation Plan, November 25, 2003.

TABLE 3-2

MAG FY 2004-2007 SPECIAL TIP HIGHWAY PROJECTS

Segment Project Length Cost (2004$) I-17: Peoria to Greenway Construct auxiliary lanes and walls

(2005) 3 miles $14 million

I-17: At Peoria and at Cactus Reconstruct pump station/retention (2007)

n/a $5 million

Total $19 million Source: MAG FY 2004-07 Special TIP, November 25, 2003.

In addition, the City of Phoenix is planning to widen Camelback Road from five to six lanes between Central Avenue and 17th Avenue in conjunction with the construction of the CP/EV LRT project. This project is in close proximity to but technically outside the Metrocenter Corridor study area.


3.1.2 Transit Network The No-Build Alternative includes funded transit improvements from the CP/EV LRT Project Bus/Rail Plan rather than those outlined in the RTP. The Bus/Rail Plan includes a higher level of bus service than identified in the RTP and provides consistency with the 2020 Phoenix Transit Plan. In addition, the transit improvements listed in the Bus/Rail Plan are programmed with a dedicated funding source whereas some of the transit improvements listed in the RTP require an additional local funding match by partner jurisdictions. The No-Build Alternative includes bus service between 5 a.m. and midnight, Monday to Saturday, and service 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. on Sundays and holidays. Targeted frequencies by route are 15-minute service during the peak and 30-minute service during the off-peak. On some streets, such as 19th Avenue south of Dunlap Avenue, multiple routes will operate along the roadway and provide a combined peak hour frequency of 5 to 10 minutes. The CP/EV LRT segment within the Metrocenter Corridor, which terminates at 19th Avenue and Montebello Avenue, is scheduled to open in 2008 and by 2020 will provide service every six minutes during the peak and 12 minutes during the off-peak. A park-and-ride lot and transit center will also be constructed at this location as part of the CP/EV LRT Project. Table 3-3 compares existing transit service in the Metrocenter Corridor to the No-Build Alternative.

TABLE 3-3 NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE (2025)

TRANSIT SERVICE COMPARISON Element 2004 2025 Estimate1

Transit Service 11 Local Bus 4 Express 4 RAPID

10 Local Bus 1 Limited Stop 2 Express 6 RAPID 1 LRT

Weekday Hours of Service

Local Bus: 5am to 8:30pm (some routes provide service to midnight) Express: 6am to 8am, 4pm to 6pm RAPID: 5am to 9am, 3pm to 7pm

Local Bus: 5am to midnight Limited: 5am to 9am, 3pm to 7pm Express: 5am to 9am, 3pm to 7pm RAPID: 5am to 9am, 3pm to 7pm LRT: 5am to 1am

Frequency Local Bus: 30 minute peak, 60 minute off-peak Express: 30 minute peak RAPID: 15 minute peak

Local Bus: 15 minute peak, 30 minute off-peak (combined headway on some streets will be 5-10 minutes) Limited: 15 minute peak Express: 30 minute peak RAPID: 15 minute peak (combined headway as low as 3 minutes)

Source: Valley Metro Rail (2004). Transit capital projects are included in the No-Build Alternative and will be constructed with programmed revenues. The No-Build Alternative includes two transit centers and four regional park-and-ride facilities (Tables 3-4 and 3-5).


TABLE 3-4 NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE TRANSIT CENTERS

Transit Center Transit Service Comment Metrocenter Transit Center 5 Local Bus, 2 Express

3 RAPID Renovated in 2003

19th Avenue/Montebello LRT Station Transit Center

3 Local Bus 2 RAPID CP/EV LRT

Opens 2008

Source: MAG FY 2004-2007 Special TIP; Valley Metro (2004).

TABLE 3-5

NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE PARK-AND-RIDES Park-and-Ride Transit Service Parking Spaces Comment

I-17/Bell Park-and-Ride 2 Local Bus 5 RAPID

350 Existing park-and-ride

Metrocenter Park-and-Ride 6 Local Bus, 2 Express 3 RAPID

185 Existing park-and-ride

19th Avenue/Montebello LRT Station Park-and-Ride

3 Local Bus 2 RAPID CP/EV LRT

795 Opens 2008

I-17/Peoria Park-and-Ride 6 Local Bus, 2 Express 3 RAPID

283 Programmed (Structured parking facility at Metrocenter)

Source: MAG FY 2004-2007 Special TIP; MAG Park-and-Ride Study (2001); Valley Metro (2004).

3.2 BASELINE ALTERNATIVE FTA Final Rule 49 CFR Part 611 requires grantees to request FTA approval of the Baseline Alternative to be used in the FY 2006 Section 5309 New Starts Report as a comparison to the New Start Build Alternative. The Baseline Alternative is intended “to isolate the costs and benefits of the proposed major transit investment,” and “must include in the project corridor all reasonable cost-effective transit improvements short of investment in the new start project”. FTA guidance also states that the Baseline Alternative is best described as “transit improvements lower in cost than the proposed new start, which result in a better ratio of measures of transit mobility compared to cost than the no-build alternative;” but that it also may be defined as [the alternative] where the adopted financially constrained regional transportation plan includes within the corridor all reasonable cost-effective transit improvements short of the new start project”. The Baseline Alternative presented in this report is still in the process of being refined as Valley Metro Rail, Inc. and the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) continue to test the new MAG travel demand model and the performance of the Baseline Alternative. The Baseline Alternative provides an incremental expansion of transit services over the existing service levels in the Metrocenter Corridor. It includes all the elements of the fiscally-constrained No-Build Alternative, plus unfunded transit improvements normally considered as transportation system management (TSM) improvements. The Baseline Alternative includes funded transit improvements from the CP/EV LRT Project Bus/Rail Plan rather than those outlined in the RTP. The Bus/Rail Plan includes a higher level of bus service than identified in the RTP and provides consistency with the 2020 Phoenix Transit Plan. In addition, the transit improvements listed in the Bus/Rail Plan are programmed


with a dedicated funding source whereas some of the transit improvements listed in the RTP require a currently unfunded local match by partner jurisdictions. The Baseline Alternative also includes some unfunded transit operating and capital improvements that were not identified in the Bus/Rail Plan or the RTP. The Baseline Alternative includes bus service between 5 a.m. and midnight, Monday through Saturday, and service 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. on Sundays and holidays. Targeted frequencies by route are 15-minute service during the peak and 30-minute service during the off-peak. On some streets in the corridor, such as 19th Avenue, multiple routes will operate along the roadway and provide a combined peak hour frequency of 3 to 5 minutes. The LRT segment within the Metrocenter Corridor, which terminates at 19th/Montebello Avenues, is scheduled to open in 2008 and by 2020 will provide service every 6 minutes during the peak and 12 minutes during the off-peak. A park-and-ride lot and transit center will also be constructed at this location as part of the CP/EV LRT Project. Table 3-6 compares existing transit service in the Metrocenter Corridor to the Baseline Alternative.

TABLE 3-6 BASELINE ALTERNATIVE TRANSIT SERVICE COMPARISON

Element Existing 2004

Baseline 2025 Estimate

Transit Service 11 Local Bus 4 Express 4 RAPID

10 Local Bus 2 Limited Stop 2 Express 6 RAPID 1 LRT

Weekday Hours of Service

Local Bus: 5am to 8:30pm (some routes provide service to midnight) Express: 6am to 8am, 4pm to 6pm RAPID: 5am to 9am, 3pm to 7pm

Local Bus: 5am to midnight Limited: 6am to 8am, 4pm to 6pm Express: 6am to 8am, 4pm to 6pm RAPID: 5am to 9am, 3pm to 7pm LRT: 5am to 1am

Frequency Local Bus: 30 minute peak, 60 minute off-peak Express: 30 minute peak RAPID: 15 minute peak

Local Bus: 15 minute peak, 30 minute off-peak (combined headway on some streets will be as low as 3 minutes) Limited: 15 minute peak Express: 30 minute peak RAPID: 15 minute peak (combined headway on I-17 will be 3 minutes)

Source: Valley Metro Rail (2004).

The Baseline Alternative provides a substantial increase in headways throughout the Metrocenter Corridor. Transit service coverage, including combined headways in particular corridors, is presented in Table 3-7. Transit capital projects included in the Baseline Alternative include the same two transit centers and four regional park-and-ride facilities associated with the No-Build Alternative (see Tables 3-4 and 3-5). The only difference is the increase in local bus routes (from 3 to 5) serving the 19th Avenue/Montebello LRT Station Transit Center and Park-and-Ride facilities.


TABLE 3-7 BASELINE ALTERNATIVE PEAK TRANSIT SERVICE COVERAGE

Corridor Roadways Routes Buses per Hour

Combined Headways

19th Ave (Dunlap to Montebello) 15, 19, 19 Limited1 12 5 19th Ave (Northern to Montebello) 15, 19, 19 Limited*, 801 16 3.75 19th Ave (Glendale to Montebello) 15, 19, 19 Limited1, 24B1, 80B1 20 3 27th Ave (Dunlap to Camelback) 27 4 15 Camelback (35th Ave to 19th Ave) 50, 50 Limited 8 7.5 Bethany Home (35th Ave to 19th Ave) 60 4 15 Glendale (35th Ave to 19th Ave) 24A, 24B 8 7.5 Northern (35th Ave to I-17) 80A, 80B, 570 10 6 Dunlap (29th Ave to 19th Ave) 15, 90 8 7.5 Peoria (28th Dr to 19th Ave) 106, 122 8 7.5 I-17 (Bell to Bethany Home) I-17A, I-17B, I-17C, I-17E, I-17F 20 3 I-17 (Dunlap to Bethany Home) I-17A, I-17B, I-17C, I-17D,

I-17E, I-17F, 570, 581 28 2

1Routes currently unfunded. Source: Valley Metro Rail (2005).

The Baseline Alternative would also include new HOV direct access connections to I-17 within the Metrocenter Corridor study area. These connections would function similar to the HOV direct access ramps in downtown Phoenix that allow express buses to access the center HOV lane without having to weave through general purpose traffic. The Baseline Alternative would also add a series of unfunded transit priority treatments on 19th Avenue between Dunlap Avenue and Camelback Road. These improvements would increase the speed and reliability of bus service, including Routes 15, 19, 19 Limited, 24, and 80. Two forms of transit priority treatments would be included: queue jumps and traffic signal priority (TSP). Queue jumps allow buses to bypass known congestion points by giving the bus exclusive right-of-way. It can be combined with TSP to give green light time to the bus prior to general purpose traffic. The Baseline Alternative would include queue jumps and TSP at the one-mile arterial intersections between Dunlap Avenue and Camelback Road. 3.3 LRT ALTERNATIVE 1 LRT Alternative 1 is portrayed in Figure 3-1. It begins at Spectrum Mall and continues north on 19th Avenue to Peoria Avenue. Stations and park-and-ride facilities would be at the locations shown in Table 3-8.

TABLE 3-8 LRT ALTERNATIVE 1

STATIONS AND PARK-AND-RIDE FACILITIES Station/Park-and-Ride Location

19th/Glendale North of intersection 19th/Northern North of intersection 19th/Dunlap North of intersection

Date post:	18-Oct-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

METROCENTER CORRIDOR STUDY€¦ · E Design and Constructability Issues—Supporting Documentation...

Documents