St. Louis BRT Recommendations Feb 2014

8/13/2019 St. Louis BRT Recommendations Feb 2014

1/32

NOTICE OF MEETING AND AGENDABI-STATE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY / METRO

OPERATIONS COMMITTEETuesday, February 18, 2014, 8:00 A.M.

Headquarters Building707 North First Street, Board Room

St. Louis, MO 63102

This location is accessible to persons with disabilities. Individuals with disabilities needinginformation or communication accommodations should call Metro at (314) 982-1400, for TTYaccess, call Relay 711. Sign language interpreter services or other accommodations for personswith hearing or speech disabilities will be arranged if a request for such service is made at least twodays in advance of the meeting. Large print material, Braille material or other formats will also beprovided upon request.

Agenda Disposition Presentation1. Call to Order2. Roll Call

ApprovalQuorum

Chairman ScottShirley Bryant

3. Public Comment*4. Minutes from December 17, 2013 Operations Committee

InformationApproval

Chairman ScottChairman Scott


2/32

Bi-State Development Agency / MetroOperations Committee

Agenda ItemFebruary 18, 2014

From: Raymond A. FriemChief Operating Officer Transit Services

Subject: St. Louis Rapid Transit Connector Study RecommendationDisposition: ApprovalPresentation: Raymond A. Friem, Chief Operating Officer - Transit Services; Jessica Mefford-

Miller, Chief of Planning and System Development; Mark Phillips, Long-RangePlanner

Objective:

To obtain Operations Committee approval to forward to the Board of Commissioners the resultsand recommendations of the recently-completed St. Louis Rapid Transit Connecter Study (RTCS ), which sought to advance high-performance transit service, namely bus rapid transit

(BRT ), in the St. Louis region. Note: This is not a request to approve a given BRT plan; rather,it is a recommendation that, based on the results of the RTCS, staff believes that further study ofthese opportunities is warranted.

Board Policy:

Board Policy regarding major changes in service structure is contained within the Metro ServiceStandards guide, adopted in December of 2003, which outlines the requirement that the Board

formally approve service change proposals requiring new facilities and/or capital expenditures atcost levels consistent with Board Procurement Policies.


3/32

Operations CommitteeSt. Louis Rapid Transit Connector Study RecommendationFebruary 18, 2014Page 2

consists of staff from Metro, EWGCOG, the City of St. Louis, St. Louis County, and MoDOT.The TCIG met monthly and provided input and guidance to Metro and the study team.

Moving Transit Forward targeted four Missouri interstate corridors including I-70, I-64, I-44,and I-55 as potential candidates for high-performance transit service. Community andstakeholder input during the long-range planning process preliminarily identified BRT as theideal mode for these four corridors, in line with the nine core values that shaped the long-range

plan:

Expand premium service area into new communities and travel markets. Improve transits image as a regional asset. Enhance mobility for transit-dependent populations. Prove cost-effectiveness. Attract federal funding. Impact/support economic development. Protect the natural environment. Strengthen the regional core. Consider time and cost of implementation.

The first phase of the RTCS narrowed those four interstate corridors to the two that offer the bestopportunities for premium transit service in the near future, I-64 and I-70. The second phaseformulated four BRT options within that study area, two east-west corridors and two north-south

corridors. I-70 emerged as a strong option, but it was removed for further consideration pendingcompletion of MoDOT's I-70 Planning & Environmental Linkages Study, as well as politicalsupport from St. Charles County. The final phase of the alternatives analysis measured the


4/32

Operations CommitteeSt. Louis Rapid Transit Connector Study RecommendationFebruary 18, 2014Page 3

Avenue into Downtown St. Louis, making a loop through Downtown before ending at the CivicCenter Station. As currently proposed, its service frequencies would match MetroLink, andtransit prioritization strategies would be implemented along the corridor to speed transit travel.

The I-64 BRT would serve a Central Corridor that hosts 55,000 people and 115,500 jobs withinone half-mile, outside of Downtown St. Louis. The addition of this high-performance service tothe Metro System would provide the region's first rail-like transit option in West St. Louis

County, offering the first opportunity for all-day, single-seat service between Chesterfield andDowntown St. Louis, and reducing transfers from other areas by half. Along with reducingtransfers, it would improve transit travel time within the corridor by 30%, making it a much moreattractive alternative to the personal automobile. Ridership projections from EWGCOG'sregional travel demand model show a potential ridership market of 5,100 weekday riders, 2,100(41%) of whom would be new "choice" riders. That market is projected to grow to 6,800weekday riders by 2040.

West Florissant - Natural Bridge BRTThe other transit project included in the LPA is an arterial-based BRT route connecting North St.Louis County to Downtown St. Louis. This service would operate out of the new North CountyTransit Center, running 16 miles to Downtown via West Florissant Avenue, Lucas and HuntRoad, and Natural Bridge Avenue. As currently proposed, its service frequencies would matchMetroLink; stations with a high level of customer amenities would be spaced a minimum of onemile apart; and transit prioritization strategies would be implemented to speed travel.

The combined West Florissant-Natural Bridge corridor hosts 70,000 people and 18,000 jobswithin a half-mile, not counting Downtown St. Louis. Supplementing the local bus network inhi d i k ill i id f N h S L i Ci d N h


5/32

Metro Operations CommitteeFebruary 18, 2014

1


6/32

Presentation Purpose System Design Concept

RTCS Overview Locally Preferred Alternative Financial Strategy

Next Steps

AGENDA

2


7/32

Rapid Transit Connector Study is analternatives analysis directed by MovingTransit Forward

Completed by TCIG Oct 2012 Dec 2013 Seeking Board approval of locally preferred

alternative (LPA) consisting of two projects

If approved, LPA would be advanced to East-West Gateway Council of Governments forinclusion in regional TIP

PRESENTATION PURPOSE

3


8/32

Alternatives analysis evaluates mode andalignment options for a corridor Purpose is to inform local officials and

community members on costs and benefits ofoptions

Culminates when local / regional decision

makers select a locally preferred alternative,which is adopted by the MPO into regionallong-range transportation plan

STUDY PURPOSE

4


9/32

FEDERAL NEW STARTS PROCESS

PlanningProject

Develop-ment

Engineering FFGA

2 year limit

New Starts

Small Starts

PlanningProject

Development Grant

FTA Acceptance

FTA Evaluation, Rating, Approval

5


10/32

METRO SYSTEM DESIGN CONCEPT

MetroLink is the systems primary highperformance line, carrying many peoplequickly: Routing is fixed and should be tied to economic

development opportunities Capital investment is high

MetroBus is the reach of the hub-and-spoke system: Transit centers & ML stations serve as hubs Many different levels of service

Routing is flexible, capital investment relativelylow

6


11/32

High performance services include several basic

elements: Frequent service Dedicated stations Limited stops

Can be rail, BRT, or enhanced express Configuration depends on market demand,

development patterns & desired development

impact, funding resources Typically requires significant capital investment

Must be integrated with supporting services (local

bus routes, circulators)

HIGH PERFORMANCE TRANSIT

Low wait times Quick fare payment Transit prioritization strategies

7


12/32

8


13/32

Improve transit access to major population andemployment concentrations Residential concentrations north-south Major employment concentrations east-west

Focus on service complimentary to (existing &planned) MetroLink Meet community demands

Expand reach of high performance transit Invest in communities with no immediate access to ML Attract new riders while improving service and travel time

for current customers

Stimulate development or stabilize communities

MTF GOALS AND SERVICE NEEDS

9


14/32

Imperative: Expansion of higher-speed,higher-capacity transit services to keymarkets Complementary to existing transit network Cost-effective and sustainable Competitive for capital funding

Explored high-performance modes withlower costs than light rail Bus rapid transit, enhanced express bus,

premium arterial service

TCIG SOLUTION APPROACH

10


15/32

LPA presented here as two separateprojects Projects could be designed, funded, and

implemented simultaneously or separately

Project design and components can bechanged in next phase depending on localpreference, cost effectiveness, and resources

However, any bus project that does notemulate rail will not qualify for Small Starts

PRELIMINARY PROJECT DESIGN

11


16/32

TCIG RECOMMENDED LPA

I-64 BRT

West Florissant Nat. Bridge BRT

12


17/32

Service characteristics similar toMetroLink Span of service Frequency Bi-directional travel

Connectivity to major destinations Improves regional mobility

High performance corridors willsupport improved / more efficientlocal bus service More productive connecting routes Circulators to major nearby destinations

13

LPA OPERATING GOALS


18/32

LPA SYSTEM COMPONENTS Higher level of investment =

improved level of service

Needed to be competitive for federalcapital funding

Right-of-way & systems strategies

Mixed traffic, some business accessand transit (BAT) lanes

Transit signal prioritization (TSP)

Station & branding strategies Attractive, comfortable, branded,

high-capacity vehicles

Limited stops

Off-board fare payment14


19/32

I-64 BRT

Brentwood(Existing) Downtown

I-64 BRT Highest ridership by 2040 Strongest share of new riders, choice riders Most diverse trip purposes Public support Most improved access to job and activity Centers

Lowest capital cost of four alternatives Improves efficiency of local bus system

15


20/32

23-mile corridor operating on I-64, Forest Park Ave, andDowntown streets

Land use mix of major institutions, offices, culturalattractions, regional retail

55,000 people & 115,500 jobs 9 stations at major activity centers and transit connection

points

Dominated by park-ride access, with some bus/rail-based reverse commute demand

Parking and circulator routes at several stations

16

I-64 BRT


21/32

End-to-end transit travel time reduced from 76 minutes to53 minutes Compared to auto travel time of 25 minutes

Offers motorists option of comfortable, affordable, productivecommute

Corridor ridership projected to increase 357% from 1,115 to5,100 weekday riders opening year; 6,800 in 2040 2,100 (41%) new choice riders opening year

Enhanced service BRT option provides single-seat service not currently available

Reduce transfers by 50%

End-to-end service available all day, rather than only peak

Create additional hubs to make local bus service more efficient

I-64 BRT CONSUMER BENEFIT

17


22/32

W. FLORISSANTNATURAL BRIDGE BRT

North CountyTransit Center

Chambers

Lucas & Hunt

Natural BridgeGoodfellow

Kingshighway

Newstead

Grand

CassN. Florissant

Downtown

W. Florissant Natural Bridge BRT Highest N-S ridership by 2040 Strongest reverse commute market High density of people, particularly

transit-dependent Public support

Strong opportunity for neighborhoodrevitalization

18


23/32

16-mile corridor connects North County Transit Center withDowntown St. Louis Southern end replicates I-64 CBD loop

70,000 people, 18,000 jobs

Corridor hosts high density of transit-dependent population

Land uses include single-family homes, medium-densityapartments, local retail, offices, shopping centers

12 stations at major activity centers

19

W. FLORISSANTNATURAL BRIDGE BRT


24/32

End-to-end transit travel time reduced from 85 minutes to 42minutes Compared to auto travel time of 25 minutes

Attractive amenity package offers affordable, comfortable commute

Corridor ridership projected to increase 23% from 2,610 to3,200 opening year and 2040 (Natural Bridge) 600 (19%) new choice riders

Enhanced service BRT option supports fast single-seat ride to Downtown St. Louis

If paired with I-64 BRT, travel from North County to CWE and WestCounty would require only 1 transfer between 2 high-speed routes;currently requires multiple transfers and 2-3 local routes

W. FLORISSANTNATURAL BRIDGE BRT CONSUMER BENEFIT

20


25/32


26/32

CAPITAL COST

COST CATEGORY I-64 BRT

W. FLORISSANT -

NATURAL BRIDGEBRT

Guideway $1,771,000 $1,431,000Stations, Stops, Terminals $6,347,000 $7,030,000Support Facilities $0 $0

Sitework and Special Conditions $4,741,000 $3,504,000Systems $2,551,000 $3,239,000Right of Way, Land, Relocation $3,098,000 $847,000Vehicles $10,890,000 $14,025,000Professional Services $6,734,000 $7,169,000Subtotal $36,131,000 $37,245,000Unallocated Contingency $1,807,000 $1,862,000Total $37,938,000 $39,107,000Cost Per Mile $1,649,478 $2,444,188

22


27/32

CAPITAL COST COMPARISON

I-64 BRT capital costs = $37.9 million / corridor Capital cost per boarding over 20 years approx. $1.24

West Florissant Natural Bridge BRT capital costs =$39.1 million / corridor Capital cost per boarding over 20 years approx. $2.04

Light rail capital costs = $600-800 million / corridor Capital cost per ML boardings over 20 years approx. $4.60

23


28/32

OPERATING COST

SERVICE COST CATEGORY I-64 BRTW. FLORISSANT-NATURAL

BRIDGE BRTOperations $2,184,115 $1,708,105

40-ft.vehicle maintenance $2,200,594 $0

60-ft. vehicle maintenance $0 $1,737,026

Station cleaning & maintenance $175,000 $210,000

Park & ride pavement $40,500 $4,800*

TVM servicing $375,000 $450,000Fare collection $359,025 $280,779

TSP maintenance $126,000 $164,000

Total BRT O&M $5,460,234 $4,554,710

Operations $346,970 $0

40-ft vehicle maintenance $522,113 $0

Total Circulator O&M $869,083 $0

Operations ($1,143,519) ($1,208,957

40-ft. vehicle maintenance ($1,160,244) ($772,199

Total Local/Express O&M ($2,303,763) ($1,981,156)

Net O&M cost $4,025,554 $2,573,554

BRT service only

New Circulators

Changes toexistinglocal/expressservice

24


29/32


30/32

New capital and operating funding neededto support any expansion

Operations funding must be supportedlocally

Several options for capital support FTA Small Starts most logical path Competitiveness based on project rating

FUNDING PROGRAMS

26


31/32

FTA NEW STARTS PROCESS

Discretionary program to fund: Fixed-guideway transit lines Core capacity projects Corridor-based BRT

Projects must receive aMedium rating or higher

MAP-21 requires BRT projects

now emulate rail: definedstations, frequent & bi-directional service, limitedstops, TSP, low wait times,etc. 27


32/32

NEXT STEPS

Petition East West Gateway to amend Regional LongRange Transportation Plan (2040) to include BRT corridors.

Seek Guidance from FTA regarding project competitivenessand eligibility future federal funding Discussion will include whether these should be one project or two Discussion will also include what final attributes need to be included

to enhance project competitiveness.

28

Date post:	03-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	anonymous-0rawqwyjv
View:	219 times
Download:	0 times

St. Louis BRT Recommendations Feb 2014

Documents