RTD Meeting

July 17, 2014

Commuter Corridors Study

Welcome!

Meeting Goal & Agenda

Agenda• Welcome and Introductions• Meeting Overview• North Corridor Overview and LPA Formalization• South Corridor Overview and LPA Formalization• East Corridor Review and LPA Formalization• Final Observations & Next Steps

2

Goal: Formalize Locally Preferred Alternatives (LPAs) for each of the three corridors

Study Process Overview and Status

33

Visions / Ideas, Goals & Objectives

Review of Possible Alignments

Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives

Select Locally Preferred Alternatives

Coor

dina

ted

Enga

gem

ent

Engage and

Document

Organize

Prioritize

Support

Solution

You Are Here

Outreach Schedule

Community & Stakeholder Workgroups Round 1: July 2013 Round 2: November 2013 Round 3: April/May 2014

Public Open Houses/Road Shows Round 1: November 2013 Round 2: May 2014

Newsletters Issue 1: January 2014 Issue 2: April 2014• Issue 3: Summer 2014

Webinars January 2014 May 2014

4

Public Outreach – Road Shows

5

• “Road Shows” in nine locations:– May Fair Arts Festival – Norman– University of Central Oklahoma – Edmond– University of Oklahoma – Norman– Rose State College – Midwest City– Touch-a-Truck – Edmond– Premiere on Film Row – Oklahoma City– Old Town Farmers Market – Moore– Edmond Jazz and Blues Festival –

Edmond– Made in Oklahoma Wine, Beer, and Food

Festival – Midwest City

• Nearly 200 surveys completed!

North Corridor Overview and LPA Formalization

6

Community & Stakeholder Workgroups – North Corridor Survey Results

7

N1 N2 N3 N7

80%

7%0%

13%

Which alignment is most appropriate for your corridor?

13%20%

0%

67%

Which mode is most appropriate for your corridor?

Community & Stakeholder Workgroups – North Corridor Survey Results

8

Which mode is most appropriate for your corridor?

Public Input (Road Shows & Webinar) – North Corridor

• Road shows at:– University of Central Oklahoma – 5/6/14– Touch-a-Truck – 5/17/14– Edmond Jazz & Blues Festival – 5/24/14

• Surveys completed: 65– Preferred alignment: N1 (64%); N2 (24%); N7 (8%); N3 (5%)– Preferred Mode: Rail (84%); Bus (16%)

• Webinar Survey Results:– Preferred Alignments: N1 (39%); N2 (22%); N3 (22%); N7 (17%) – Preferred Mode: CR (50%); SC (17%); LRT (17%); Express Bus

(8%); BRT (8%)

9

RTD Work Session Results

• Hybrid LPA Developed– N1 (Commuter Rail) from

Santa Fe Station to downtown Edmond

– Streetcar Extension from NW 10th/Walker, along Classen Blvd, to the NW 63rd Commuter Rail station

• Work Session preliminary LPA vote

• Reached Consensus on preliminary LPA at Work Session

10

N1 (Commuter R

ail)

N2 (Light R

ail)

N2 (Stre

etcar)

N2 (Bus R

apid Tran

sit)

N3 (Light R

ail)

N3 (Stre

etcar)

N3 (Bus R

apid Tran

sit)

N7 (Stre

etcar)

N7 (Bus R

apid Tran

sit)

N1/N2 (6

3rd; C

R/SC)

7% 7%

0% 0%

87%

0%0%0%0%0%

11

North Corridor LPA

• N1 (Commuter Rail) utilizing existing BNSF ROW where feasible

• Connects from Santa Fe Station to downtown Edmond

• One-seat ride from Edmond to Norman

• Streetcar extension to connect from north end of planned Phase 1 streetcar to Commuter Rail station near Chesapeake Energy Campus (approx. 5 miles)

• Capital Cost:• N1: $260-$360M• SC Extension: $270-$370M• Total Annualized Cost* (N1+SC

Extension): $36.5M• O&M Cost:

• N1: $5M/year• SC Extension: $2.5M/year

• Ridership (per day): • N1/S1: 5,656• SC Phase I + SC Extension: 2,103

* Based on mid-point of capital cost range

12

Final North Corridor LPA Vote

• The Locally Preferred Alternative for the North Corridor includes:• Alternative N1 (Commuter Rail) utilizing existing BNSF ROW

where feasible• Commuter Rail connects from Santa Fe Station to downtown

Edmond with one-seat ride from North Corridor to South Corridor

• Streetcar extension to connect from north end of planned Phase 1 streetcar to Commuter Rail station near Chesapeake Energy Campus

South Corridor Overview and LPA Formalization

13

Community & Stakeholder Workgroups – South Corridor Survey Results

14

Which alignment is most appropriate for your corridor?

Which mode is most appropriate for your corridor?

75%

0%0%

25%

13%0%0%

88%

S1 S2 S4

Community & Stakeholder Workgroups – South Corridor Survey Results

15

Which mode is most appropriate for your corridor?

Public Input (Road Shows & Webinar) – South Corridor

• Road shows at:– May Fair Arts Festival – 5/3/14– University of Oklahoma – 5/7/14– Premiere on Film Row – 5/16/14– Old Town Farmer’s Market – 5/22/14

• Surveys completed: 58– Preferred alignment: S1 (82%); S2 (15%); S4 (3%)– Preferred mode: rail (93%); bus (7%)

• Webinar Survey Results:– Preferred Alignment: S1 (60%); S2 (20%); S4 (20%)– Preferred Mode: CR (81%); BRT (19%); SC (0%); LRT (0%);

Express Bus (0%)

16

RTD Work Session Results

• Hybrid LPA Developed– S1 (Commuter Rail)– Streetcar Extension

(alignment TBD)

• Work Session Preliminary LPA Vote

• Reached Consensus on S1 (commuter rail) from Santa Fe Station to Norman/OU and SH-9

17

18

South Corridor LPA

• S1 (Commuter Rail) utilizing existing BNSF ROW where feasible • Connects from Santa Fe Station to

SH-9 • One-seat ride from Norman to

Edmond

• Potential for SC extension (alignment TBD by further study)

• S1 Capital Cost:• Total: $310-$410M• Annualized*: $21.5M

• O&M Cost: $5.5M• N1/S1 Ridership (per day): 5,656

* Based on mid-point of capital cost range

19

Final South Corridor LPA Vote

• The Locally Preferred Alternative for the South Corridor includes:• S1 (Commuter Rail) utilizing existing BNSF ROW where

feasible• Potential SC extension (alignment TBD) to be studied further• Commuter Rail connects from Santa Fe Station to SH-9 with

one-seat ride from South Corridor to North Corridor

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

20

RTD Work Session Requests

21

• Input from East Corridor representatives at July 17th RTD meeting

• More public input• Additional information and analysis

– Potential connection to passenger rail service on Sooner Sub from Sapulpa

– Meet with Tinker AFB– Comparison to Hill AFB (Utah)– Meet with Midwest City and Del City

Community & Stakeholder Workgroups – East Corridor Survey Results

22

Which alignment is most appropriate for your corridor?

Which mode is most appropriate for your corridor?

57%

0%

43% 29%

14%14%

43%

Public Input (Road Shows & Webinar) – East Corridor

• Road shows at:– Rose State College – 5/14/14– Made in Oklahoma Wine, Beer, and Food Festival – 5/31/14

• Surveys completed: 61– Preferred alignment: E1/E1A (38%), E5 (30%), E6 (32%)– Preferred mode: rail (80%); bus (20%)– Most likely to use public transit for: traveling to entertainment and

sporting events, followed by shopping and work – Least likely to use public transit for: traveling to school and church

• Webinar Survey Results:– Preferred alignment: E1 (47%); E5 (32%); E6 (20%)– Preferred mode: CR (49%); LRT (30%); BRT (21%); SC (0%);

Express Bus (0%)

23

East Corridor – Passenger Rail on Sooner Sub from Sapulpa

Input from East Corridor Stakeholders – Tinker AFB Meeting

25

• Meeting held on Monday, June 16th, 2014

• Met with Tinker leadership• Feedback

– Supportive of transit service to Tinker

– No mode preference specified– Security is an issue, but not deal-

breaker– Internal circulation is key– Serve buildings 3001 and/or

9001– Connection to Will Rogers Airport

not a high priority– Aware of transit service at Hill

AFB– Open to continued coordination

Hill AFB (UT)

26

• Nearly 7,000 acres with 228 miles of roads, 28 miles of railroads, 1,475 buildings, and 11 aircraft hangars

• Ogden Air Logistics Complex is major organization at Hill AFB – Over 23,500 civilian, military, and

contractors

• Currently served by Transit– Hourly rail service – Large number of riders coming from airport – Two Local bus routes to two main gates

• Both local bus routes continue on base providing 20 on-base stops

• Operates at peak service times only

• Existing Vanpool program– Currently has over 1,100 riders in 116 vans

Hill AFB and Tinker AFB Comparison

27

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

is approximately two miles away from Hill AFB main gate

High-Capacity Transit at Tinker AFB

28

• Direct access to area with high concentration of Tinker “shift-work” employees (Building 3001)

• Enhanced access to regional activity centers and events for on-base personnel and families

• Internal circulator buses would have to be housed on-base• Potential to alleviate current and future parking issues on base• Tinker Mass Transit Questionnaire

– 3,400 questionnaires completed– 78% would commute via transit if available– 54% would use transit five or more times per week– Factors with most influence on using transit for commute

• Drop-off location near work area • Cost of round trip service

– 15% of respondents carpool at least once per week

• Existing “Transit Benefit Program”– $130 per month maximum for all federal employees– Agree to ride transit or vanpool at least three times per week

Input from East Corridor Stakeholders

29

• Reached out to East Corridor reps for July 17th RTD meeting attendance

• Presentation to Midwest City Council – July 8, 2014– Provided overview of CentralOK!go study– City provided new variation on Alternative E5 (now called

E5A)– Q&A with city council members

• Meeting with Del City – July 10, 2014– Met with the Mayor, City Manager, and planning staff– Discussed East Corridor alternatives under consideration– LPA needs to be a rail alternative– E1A (Streetcar) preferred

• Best Frontage for Del City• Best economic development potential

• Meeting with Midwest City – July 14, 2014– Met with the Community Development Director– Discussed East Corridor alternatives under consideration– LPA needs to be a rail alternative– Direct connection to Health Sciences and Tinker important

30

East Corridor Alternatives Recommended for Detailed Evaluation

E1 (Commuter Rail)• 6 Stations• Uses Existing UP

and Abandoned ROW

• 100% Dedicated ROW

E1A (Streetcar/BRT)• 8 Stations• Uses Arterials

and Abandoned ROW

• 100% Dedicated ROW

E5 (LRT/Streetcar/BRT)

• 7 Stations• Uses Arterials

and Abandoned ROW

• 50% Dedicated ROW

E6 (Streetcar/BRT)

• 10 Stations

• Uses Arterials

• No Dedicated ROW (i.e., Mixed-Flow)

31

East Corridor Detailed Evaluation Results

EE0

20406080

Technical Feasibility

Provide a Balanced & Coordinated Multimodal System

Support Economic Development and Shape Growth

Enhance Regional Connectivity

E1 (CR) E1A (BRT) E1A (SC) E5 (BRT) E5 (LRT) E5 (SC) E6 (BRT) E6 (SC)0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Preliminary Ridership Estimates – East Corridor

Alternative* Daily Ridership

Annual Ridership

E1 (Commuter Rail) 2,220 677,000

E1A (BRT/Streetcar) 2,260 696,000

E5 (BRT/LRT/Streetcar) 760 232,000

E6 (BRT/Streetcar) 770 235,000

32

Source: Alliance Transportation Group, 2014.* Assumes alternate extension south on Douglas to Tinker 24-hour gate

• Connection to Tinker accounts for 500-900 trips per day

• Disparity between E1/E1A and E5/E6 ridership likely due to travel time differences

• Assumes “gold standard” investments

Assumptions:

• Capital costs developed using cost per mile approach (urban, suburban, rural)

• Alternative E1: Assumes UP willing to share ROW and accommodate schedule frequency

• Alternative E1: Assumes construction of single track plus some additional station and passing sidings

• Alternative E1A (BRT): Assumes use of contraflow bus-only lane during peak periods in the peak direction of travel

• Enhanced local bus service necessary for all alternatives at additional cost

• Operates seven days per week

• Operating hours: 5:30am – 10:30pm (weekdays); 7:00am – 9:00pm (weekends)

• Headways: 15 min (peak); 30 min (off-peak)

Alternative Capital Costs (mil)

Annualized Capital Costs* (mil) Annualized O&M Costs* (mil)

E1 (Commuter Rail) $200 - $280 $14.0 $3.5

E1A (BRT) $120 - $160 $8.5 $2.0

E1A (Streetcar) $320 - $440 $22.5 $2.5

E5 (LRT) $370 - $510 $25.5 $3.5

E5 (Streetcar) $320 - $440 $22.0 $2.5

E5 (BRT) $140 - $200 $10.0 $2.0

E6 (Streetcar) $430 - $580 $27.0 $3.5

E6 (BRT) $40 - $60 $3.0 $3.0

Capital and O&M Costs – East Corridor

33

Source: URS, 2014. * Based on the mid-point of the capital cost range

Considering the detailed analysis, ridership potential, costs, and public sentiment, which alternative do you feel is most appropriate for the East Corridor? (Choose 1)

A. E1 (Commuter Rail)

B. E1A (Bus Rapid Transit)

C. E1A (Streetcar)

D. E5/E5A (Light Rail)

E. E5/E5A (Streetcar)

F. E5/E5A (Bus Rapid Transit)

G. E6 (Streetcar)

H. E6 (Bus Rapid Transit)

34

Considering the detailed analysis, ridership potential, costs, and public sentiment, which alternative do you feel is most appropriate for the East Corridor? (Choose 1)

A. E1 (Commuter Rail)

B. E1A (Bus Rapid Transit)

C. E1A (Streetcar)

D. E5/E5A (Light Rail)

E. E5/E5A (Streetcar)

F. E5/E5A (Bus Rapid Transit)

G. E6 (Streetcar)

H. E6 (Bus Rapid Transit)

35

36

Final East Corridor LPA Vote

• The locally Preferred Alternative for the East Corridor should include:• Alignment E1a with a streetcar technology that connects

Tinker, uses the abandoned ROW in Midwest City and then uses Reno Av to the Santa Fe Hub to potentially tie in with the Downtown OKC streetcar.

• In addition, a connection via streetcar to the Health Sciences Center from the Santa Fe Hub should be advanced as a part of the regional transit system.

• A system to distribute riders within Tinker AFB should be developed to complement the regional system.

Final Observations and Next Steps in CentralOK!go Study

37

Final Observations and Next Steps

Plan• LPA Formalization

– RTD Formal Vote– ACOG ITPC/Board Approval

• Adoption of plan• Endorsements of plan

Governance• RTA legislation recently approved• Establish MOA and MOU• Road Shows

Funding/Finance• Short-list of potential funding sources• Determine yields for each short-listed funding source• Municipalities determine and approve funding contributions

Phasing• Depending on funding commitments, system build-out will likely require phasing of

projects• Determine order of phasing based on regional needs, desires, and funding potential

38

Commuter Corridors Study

RTD Meeting

July 17, 2014

Next Steering Committee Meeting:

TBD

Meeting Adjourned

West Corridor Overview

41

East Corridor Preferred Alternatives – Side-by-Side Summary Comparison

Source: URS, 2014.

Criteria Pts Received Rating Pts Received Rating Pts Received RatingTravel Time 4 Very Good 4 Good 1 Very PoorRidership 3 Good 5 Very Good 1 Very PoorBenefits to Midwest City 3 Good 5 Very Good 4 GoodImpacts to Midwest City 2 Fair 3 Fair 3 FairBenefits to Del City 1 Poor 5 Very Good 4 GoodImpacts to Del City 4 Good / Zero Impact 3 Fair 3 FairBenefits to Oklahoma City 4 Good 5 Very Good 5 Very GoodImpacts to Oklahoma City 5 Best 3 Fair 1 Very Poorintegration to Sooner Line 4 Good/But Challenging 2 Poor 3 FairSystem Intregration/Interline 5 Very Good 5 Very Good 2.5 LRT Poor/CRT FairConnection to the East 5 Very Good 3 Fair 5 Very GoodPublic/Stakeholder Preference 4 Good 3 Fair 3 FairConnection to Health Science 1 Very Poor 1 Very Poor 5 Very GoodEngineering Challenges 3 Fair 4 Good 2 PoorCost 4 Good 2 Poor 1 Very PoorTotal Points 52 53 43.5Average Points 3.47 3.53 2.90

E1 (CR) E1A (SC)Alternatives

E5A (LRT/DMU)