Metro High Capacity Transit System Plan

1,677 views

Published on

Published in: Business, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,677
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
161
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
56
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Metro High Capacity Transit System Plan

  1. 1. High Capacity Transit System Plan A Performance Based Approach to Sustainable Regional Transit
  2. 2. Making the Greatest Place
  3. 3. 90 miles of rail built by 2016
  4. 4. High Capacity Transit Modes Current Future
  5. 5. Service Capacity Increase by 2014 Annual Rides Per Resident 3,500,000,000 LRT VMT Person - 3,000,000,000 CAPACITY Annual LIFT VMT 2,500,000,000 Person - CAPACITY 2,000,000,000 Annual Com Rail VMT Person - 1,500,000,000 CAPACITY Annual 1,000,000,000 Streetcar VMT Person - CAPACITY 500,000,000 Annual Freq Bus VMT 0 Person - CAPACITY 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 Annual
  6. 6. Annual Rides Per Resident
  7. 7. Planning for a sustainable region Vehicle Miles Traveled
  8. 8. HCT System Plan Highlights Determining what matters Process for prioritization Creating a dynamic process for project advancement
  9. 9. What Matters? HCT Think Tank
  10. 10. What Matters? HCT Think Tank
  11. 11. What Matters? Public Engagement
  12. 12. What Matters?
  13. 13. What Matters?
  14. 14. What Matters?
  15. 15. What Matters? Local Aspirations
  16. 16. What Matters? Local Aspirations – Criterion Index Tool
  17. 17. What Matters? Local Aspirations – Digital Charrettes
  18. 18. What Matters?
  19. 19. Evaluating Opportunities
  20. 20. Possibilities…
  21. 21. Round I Screening • Current and future ridership potential • Connectivity & system benefit • Cost &corridor availability • Environment constraints • Equity • Congestion • Alignment with 2040 Growth Concept • Transit origins and destinations
  22. 22. Planning for a sustainable region Corridor map
  23. 23. Multiple Account Evaluation (MAE) • Adopted from United Kingdom • New Approach To Transport Appraisal (NATA) • Multiple “benefit accounts” considered • Criteria selected based on local conditions/values
  24. 24. Applying the MAE • Organized into three “accounts” that correspond to the outcomes-based RTP evaluation approach:
  25. 25. 25 Evaluation Criteria Community Environment Economy Deliverability C1: Supportiveness of Existing Land Uses EN1: Reduction in EC1: Transportation D1: Total Project C2: Local Aspirations Emissions and Efficiency (Operator – Capital Cost C3: Placemaking and Urban Form Disturbance cost per rider) (Exclusive & Non- Exclusive ROW C4: Ridership Generators EN2: Risk of Natural EC2: Transportation Options) C5: Support of regional 2040 Growth Resource Disturbance Efficiency (System Concept annualized capital & D2: Capital Cost Per EN3: Risk of 4(f) operating cost per Mile (Exclusive & C6: Integration with Regional Transit System Resource Disturbance rider) Non-Exclusive ROW (Addressed in White Paper) (Addressed in White Options) C7: Integration with Other Road Uses Paper) EC3: Economic Competitiveness D3: Operating & C8: Congestion Avoidance Benefit (Change in Maintenance Cost C9: Equity Benefit employment served) D4: Total Corridor C10: Health (Promotion of Physical Activity) EC4: Rebuilding/ Ridership C11: Safety and Security (Addressed in Redevelopment White Paper) Opportunity (vacant D5: Funding Potential and redevelopable C12: Housing + Transportation Affordability land) Benefit C13: Transportation Efficiency (User Travel Time Savings)
  26. 26. MAE Matrix
  27. 27. Priority Tiers • Near Term Regional Priorities
  28. 28. Priority Tiers • Next Phase Regional Priorities
  29. 29. Priority Tiers • Developing Regional Priorities
  30. 30. Priority Tiers • Vision Corridors
  31. 31. Selecting the Next 30 Year Priorities
  32. 32. System Expansion Policy • Identifies which near-term regional priority corridor(s) should advance toward implementation • Delineates a process by which potential HCT corridors can move closer to implementation, advancing from one tier to the next through a set of coordinated Metro and local jurisdiction actions.
  33. 33. Rewarding Performance • Supportive Land Use MAE Evaluation • Station Context • Urban Form • Leadership • Connectivity • Housing Needs • Financial Capacity • Mobility Corridors • RTP triple bottom line approach guides MAE evaluation • MAE outcomes captured in SEP target areas
  34. 34. Scorecard Approach Target Score Target Minimum Meets Score Score Minimum Transit Supportive Land Use X 22 11 Y/N Station Context & Urban Form X 28 17 Y/N Community Support X 8 4 Y/N Political Leadership/Partnerships X 16 8 Y/N Regional Transit Network X 6 3 Y/N Connectivity Housing Needs Supportiveness X 14 7 Y/N Financial Capacity X 36 16 Y/N Integrated Transportation System X 1 1 Y/N Development Conceptual: Still under development
  35. 35. Focus on Corridors • Local jurisdictions required to form Corridor Working Group to advance project • Requires determination of corridor problem statement, mode selection and concept station areas • Focus on corridors encourages: – Development of complementary station types – Balance of access and destination uses – Density trades
  36. 36. Transit Supportive Land Use Criterion Station A Station B Station C Potential alignments ½ mile buffer of station area • Examine current and future land uses used to determine corridor readiness and appropriate mode
  37. 37. Transit Supportive Land Use Criterion • On-the-ground land uses are more critical as a project approaches implementation phases Regional Project Priority Tier On-Ground Land Zoned Land Use Use Near Term 80% 20% Next Phase 60% 40% Developing 40% 60% Vision 20% 80%
  38. 38. Example: Urban Form - Streets Urban Form (Streets) Sidewalk Coverage: Percent of Streets with Existing or Programmed Sidewalks within ½ Mile of Concept Station Areas • 75%+ = 6 • 50-74% = 4 • 25-49% = 2 • 0-24% = 0 Bicycle Facility Coverage: Percent of Arterials and Collectors (entering station area) with Existing or Programmed On-Street Bike Lanes or Parallel Bike Facilities within 2 miles of Concept Station Areas • 75%+ = 6 • 50-74% = 4 • 25-49% = 2 • 0-24% = 0 Conceptual: Still under development
  39. 39. Example: Financial Capacity Financial Capacity Availability of local funding mechanisms: Credit given for any of the following mechanisms in place in corridor • Urban renewal area = 2 • Tax increment financing= 2 • Local improvement district (LID) = 2 • Other proven funding mechanism = 2 Operating Subsidies Identified: Project specific operating subsidies/revenues beyond traditional local/regional sources identified to support operations • 20%+ of annual operating cost = 6 • 10 – 19% of annual operating cost = 4 • 1 – 9% of annual operating cost = 2 • 0% of annual operating cost = 0 Conceptual: Still under development
  40. 40. HCT System Plan Outcomes A virtuous cycle….
  41. 41. Making the Greatest Place Values • Strategies that support High Capacity Transit investments, ALSO: – Create vibrant communities – Encourage active transportation – Reduce air/water pollution and reduce GHGs – Support economic prosperity – Provide safe and reliable transportation – Enable equity of resource distribution and access
  42. 42. Local Prosperity Economy & Financial Sustainability • Portland residents are 2 times more likely to use transit; 7 times more likely to bicycle - Joe Cortright, Portland’s Green Dividend Cost to own and operate a car - $9,000
  43. 43. Transit System Finance Economy & Financial Sustainability Cost per boarding Boarding rides per hour
  44. 44. Transit System Use Economy & Financial 40,000 Sustainability 35,000 30,000 25,000 • For the same amount 20,000 of operating funds: 15,000 – 26 miles of LRT 10,000 – Or 148 miles of 5,000 Freq Frequent Bus LRT Bus Mix – Or 15 miles of LRT & 75 0 miles of Frequent Bus Additional AWD Boardings
  45. 45. Vibrant Neighborhoods Community Form and Vitality NW 23rd Sellwood Hillsboro
  46. 46. Trips Not Taken Community Form and Vitality
  47. 47. Environment & Climate Change
  48. 48. Team Effort Metro Lead Council: Carlotta Collette Metro Project Manager: Tony Mendoza NelsonNygaard Team Partners: • Stear Davies Gleave • HNTB • John Parker Consulting • Criterion Planners Public Involvement Team: • CH2M Hill • Jeanne Lawson Associates
  49. 49. Thank You Thomas Brennan Principal NelsonNygaard tbrennan@nelsonnygaard.com 503.228.2152 NN is hosting a Cocktail Party Thursday 5th 5:30- 7:30 RIGHT NEXT DOOR

×