Northeast Corridor
Alternatives Analysis
Public Involvement–Round 2
Input on Alternatives for Further Study
Feb. 7-9, 2012
Agenda
Review project background
Progress summary
Recommended alternatives for further evaluation
Get your input!
2
Housekeeping Items
Silence all cell phones.
Be considerate of all meeting attendees and COTA staff.
When it is your turn to make a comment or ask a question, remain at
your seat and we will call upon you.
Comments and questions are limited to two minutes per person.
Ask one question at a time so the appropriate staff member may
address your comment.
3
The Northeast Corridor
Existing transit facilities in
corridor
Transit Centers—Linden
and Easton
P&R—Northern Lights,
Westerville
Cleveland Avenue
Second busiest route—
5,000 daily riders
Often has standing loads
COTA awarded federal grant
to study transit improvements
November 2010
Study began September 2011
4
Northeast Corridor Project
COTA is seeking to:
Identify improved transit alternatives in the corridor.
Address transportation needs in the corridor.
• On-time performance/service reliability
• Connections to jobs
• Streetscape improvements
Mode
Alignment
Terminal
Station
Alternative
5
FTA New Start Program
Very Small Starts Criteria:
Stations (more amenities than a
typical bus stop)
Signal priority/pre-emption
low-floor vehicles
Special branding of service
Frequent service (10 minute peak,
15 minute off peak)
Service at least 14 hours per day
Existing ridership is over 3,000
trips per day
Less than $50 million total cost
Less than $3 million per mile
Kansas City Max Line
Cleveland Avenue meets these funding
requirements
6
What is Very Small Starts Process?
Analysis is first step in the federal process to get project funding
Existing conditions/project need
Develop, screen, evaluate alternatives
Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA)
FTA approval
required
Alternatives
Analysis
1 Year
FTA approval
required:
Project Construction
Grant Agreement
(PCGA)
Project
Development
1-2 Years
Construction
Operation
1-2 Years
3-5 Years
7
Purpose and Need, Project Goals
The project’s purpose and vision are:
To expand and improve mass transit’s role and contribution to
the overall livability, sustainability and economic vitality of the
Northeast corridor and the central Ohio region through faster and
more-convenient transit service and improved amenities for
mass transit users.
Project goals:
Goal 1: Transit level of service improvements
Goal 2: Sustain and enhance economic vitality
Goal 3: Promote livability principles
Goal 4: Develop a financially feasible project
8
Project Outreach
Working group
Stakeholder/community leader group
Area leader interviews
Public meetings
Other
Stakeholder presentations
On-line survey (survey also available in
Spanish, Somali)
Comment cards
Social media
First round of public outreach: November 2011
Current round of public outreach: February 2012
9
Northeast Corridor AA Progress
Round 1 Public Involvement meetings
Introduced project
Presented existing conditions
Defined goals, purpose and need
Completed Purpose and Need/Existing Conditions report
Initiated environmental documentation
Initiated preliminary screening of alternatives
Continued coordination with City, County and other agencies
10
Existing Conditions Analysis
Need to connect population to
jobs
Major destinations
Downtown
Columbus State
Easton
St. Ann’s—Westerville
Population
West of Cleveland
Avenue, north and south
of Morse Road
11
Development of Alternatives
Mode
Alignment
Terminal
Station
Alternative
12
Potential Transit Modes
Heavy Rail Transit
HOV Bus
BRT—Separated Guideway
Limited Stop Bus
Commuter Rail
BRT—Mixed Traffic
LRT/Streetcar—Mixed Traffic
Automated Guideway Transit
LRT—Separated Guideway
13
Evaluation of Transit Modes
Potential transit modes were evaluated based on suitability for study
area, as determined by:
Number of passengers to be carried
Passengers making short or long trips
Travel speed
Space between stops/stations
Typical cost per mile to build and operate
Lane use and right-of-way considerations
14
Screening of Transit Modes
Heavy Rail Transit
HOV Bus
BRT—Separated Guideway
Limited Stop Bus
Commuter Rail
BRT—Mixed Traffic
LRT/Streetcar—Mixed Traffic
Automated Guideway Transit
LRT—Separated Guideway
15
Mode Evaluation Summary
Mode
Evaluation
HOV Bus
Freeway service would not serve key corridor trip purposes; Columbus
area has no HOV lanes
BRT—Guideway
Insufficient right-of-way in key corridor alignments; excessive capital cost
per mile
Limited Stop Bus
No real-time arrival information, traffic signal priority, street, sidewalk or
other capital improvements, lack of passenger amenities and little time
savings
LRT/Streetcar—Mixed
Traffic
Anticipated ridership does not match high capital cost per mile; can
complicate traffic patterns
LRT—Guideway
Insufficient right-of-way in key corridor alignments; excessive capital cost
per mile
Heavy Rail Transit
Higher capacity than warranted given corridor characteristics; excessive
capital cost per mile
Commuter Rail
Typical station spacing is inappropriate for corridor service needs; high
costs and right-of-way requirements
Automatic Guideway
Transit
Higher capacity than warranted given corridor characteristics; excessive
16
capital cost per mile
Recommendation: Mode to Evaluate
Bus Rapid Transit—
Mixed Traffic
Mode
Alignment
Terminal
Station
Alternative
17
What is Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)?
A mix of characteristics:
Special branding
• Unique name and identity
Faster service
• Fewer stops
• Signal priority
• Dedicated lane during peaks
Frequent service
Kansas City Max Line
• 10 min peak/15 min off peak
Service offered most of the day
Enhanced passenger amenities
• Real-time information
• Enhanced stations
• Off-board fare collection
18
Example Benefits of BRT—Kansas City MAX BRT
Before MAX BRT (Troost Line, October 2010):
Weekday average—7,600 boardings
After MAX BRT:
Service hours increased approximately 5-6 percent
Weekday average—8,400 boardings (Up 10.3 percent)
MAX quality rated 15 percent higher than regular bus service
23 percent of MAX riders new to transit
55 percent rated MAX excellent
69 percent “definitely recommend” MAX (55 percent for regular
service)
19
Evaluation of Terminal Locations
Many potential
terminal stations
considered
Mode
Alignment
Terminal
Station
Alternative
20
Evaluation of Alignments/Terminal Locations
Potential alignment/termini combinations were evaluated
Goal 1: Transit level of service improvements
• Ridership on existing COTA routes
• Connections to other COTA routes
Goal 2: Sustain and enhance economic vitality
• Development strength of northern terminal
• Alignment of job and population density
• Potential for TOD/redevelopment
Goal 3: Promote livability principles
•
•
•
•
Serve low-income/minority communities
Neighborhood livability
Environmental impact
Bicycle connections
Goal 4: Develop a financially feasible project
• Overall alignment length
21
Evaluation of Alignments
Many alignments considered
and screened
Alignments connecting to
Easton
Cleveland
Avenue south of
Fifth Avenue—
same for all
alternatives
Mode
Alignment
Terminal
Station
Alternative
22
Evaluation of Alignments
Many alignments considered
and screened
Alignments connecting to
Easton
Karl Road
Cleveland
Avenue south of
Fifth Avenue—
same for all
alternatives
Mode
Alignment
Terminal
Station
Alternative
23
Evaluation of Alignments
Many alignments considered
and screened
Alignments connecting to
Easton
Karl Road
Cleveland Avenue South
of I-270
Cleveland
Avenue south of
Fifth Avenue—
same for all
alternatives
Mode
Alignment
Terminal
Station
Alternative
24
Evaluation of Alignments
Many alignments considered
and screened
Alignments connecting to
Easton
Karl Road
Cleveland Avenue South
of I-270
Cleveland Avenue North
of I-270
Cleveland
Avenue south of
Fifth Avenue—
same for all
alternatives
Mode
Alignment
Terminal
Station
Alternative
25
Recommendation: Alternatives for Further Screening
Bus Rapid Transit in Mixed
Traffic
Cleveland Avenue from
Downtown to:
•
•
•
•
Easton via Morse
SR 161 via Morse/Karl
SR 161
Westerville Park and Ride
Cleveland
Avenue south of
Morse Road—
same for all
alternatives
Mode
Alignment
Terminal
Station
Alternative
26
Next Steps
Alternatives Analysis remaining schedule
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Public Outreach
Evaluate Alternatives
Recommended Alternative
Board Consideration of LPA
Public Meeting
Project development/construction—2013-2016
27
Contact Information
Mike McCann
Bus Rapid Transit Project Manager
[email protected]
Tim Rosenberger
Project Manager
[email protected]
COTA Customer Service: (614) 228-1776
For more information and to provide feedback, go to www.cota.com.
28
Thank You
Comments and questions?
29