Case Studies of UMTA Private Sector Initiative Projects in Syracuse
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
8 U M T A-M A-06-0049-87-4 HE 1 , 5 A3 7 n o „ DOT TSC Case Studies of UMTA Private UMTA- apartment B7 1 Sector Initiative Projects in nsportation m uon Mass Syracuse, Central New Jersey Transportation Administration and Atlanta UMTA/TSC Evaluation Series Final Report December 1987 Transportation Solutions UMTA Technical Assistance Program NOTICE This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. NOTICE The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers' names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of this report. HE n.s M7 Technical Report Documentation Page toT- FB> 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. > mT^ UMTA-MA-06-0049-87-4 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date December 1987 Case Studies of UMTA Private ^^cor Initiative Projects 6. Performing Organization Code in Syracuse, Central New Jersey, and Atlanta DTS-49 8. Performing Organization Report No. 7. Authors) David, Curry DOT-TSC-UMTA-87-12 9. Performing Organization Nam* and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) UM527/R5631 vx noouLxatt.0, „ 11. Contract or Grant No. 120 Santa Margarita Avenue Menlo Park, CA 94025 DTUM60-86-C-71299 13. Type of Report and Period Covered , 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address Final Report U.S. Department of Transportation Aug 1983 - Feb 1986 Urban Mass Transportation Administration Office of Technical Assistance 14. Sponsoring Agency Cod* Washington, DC 20590 URT-30 15. Supplementary Not** U.S. Department of Transportation Research and Special Programs Administration *Under contract to: Transportation Systems Center Cambridge, MA 02142 16. Abstract This report documents the results of three grants awarded in 1983 by the Urban Mass Transit Admini- stration for Section 8 Private Sector Initiative projects. The grants were intended to encourage cooperative public and private planning for the solution of specified local transportation problems The resulting projects involved transit services, ridesharing and flex-time promotion, traffic man- agement, changes in parking policies or facilities, and potentially zoning, development and bicycle policies or plans. DEPARTMENT TRANSPORTATlJ) The grant recipients were: The Metropolitan Development Foundation (MDF) in Syracuse, New York; The Middlesex Somerset Mercer Regional Study Council (MSM) , centered in Princeton, New Jersey and serving the three surrounding Counties for which it is named; and Central Atlanta Progress (CAP), in downtown Atlanta, Georgia. The first two of these organizations have evolved separate transportation management organizations (TMOs) for administering their grant and for receiving supporting donations from member firms. For them, the challenge grants were "seed money" that helped to finance both the transportation studies of interest and the organizing efforts for the TMOs. In contrast, CAP used its existing organization and private funding channels to act as a temporary TMO in managing a feasibility study of a downtown bus loop that will likely be operated by the local transit agency, MARTA, without significant further involvement by CAP. 17. Koy Words 18. Distribution Statement Transportation Management Association, DOCUMENT IS AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC THROUGH THE NATIONAL TECHNICAL Transportation Management Organization, INFORMATION SERVICE, SPRINGFIELD, Ridesharing, Transit Service, Parking VIRGINIA 22161 19. Security Clossif. (of this report) 20. Security Clossif. (of this pope) 21» No. of Pages 22. Price Unclassified Unclassified 100 (8-72) Form DOT F 1700.7 Reproduction of completed page authorized PREFACE This report presents three case studies of private sector organizations that were awarded grants in 1983 from the Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA) for Section 8 Private Sector Initiative Projects (also referred to as "challenge grants" by UMTA) . The three case studies constitute the three sections of this report, each with a common outline: 1. Geographic setting and transportation issues 2. Transportation project aims 3. Form and history of TMO 4. Project results and TMO evolution through January 1986. We are grateful for the continued support of the local project managers for the challenge grants in preparing these case studies. They were: David Mankiewitz of MDF , Nancy Podeszwa of MSM, E. Larry Fonts of CAP, and Ed Armentrout of CAP. Eric Schreffler was the TSC project manager for this evaluation, and Jim Bautz was the project manager for UMTA. i i i 1 1 o u. 2—8 w 3 - - *% 3 31 s a 9 & £ > E> (/) j-a s If! 3 m "9 z = i e • o y. •s • • • i - g > a-- o • 4 « 8 if C o .«» 3 r S 11 A A <0 - if.ssJU 77 72 3 » —JU<*> i? I 3 a : »• 8- (A --a O r) (O <0 Is 3 «<>« to O <N - O — O Ot « bd <•» *- b 6 « *• d c» d <o *- 3 S3 - . 8 Z - — j s $ m g o- .1 * IS it K % t O 5 fg § I g • S & > if 2 El •5 a e m m « V a u, ill 1 2 . So < I! if if ! * -a S 0 0 £ ill i 5 q T 1 3 litll IS si &3 2 EsSS 3 3 3 2 E § i E (J > 1 111. 1 . EE © (/t FACTORS s « a mil dii mi miiiiilDi mi iiiiuin nnliiiiliiii mi mi mi mi mi mi mi nn mi mi mi mi nn mi mi mi mi mi mi mi mi mi mi mi mi mi mi mi mi mi mi mi mi mi CONVERSION 1 T|T 'I'l'l* 'I’l'l' 'I'l'l' 'I'l'l' 'I'l'l' 'I'l'l' 'I'l'l' 'I'l'l' 'I'l'l' 'I'l'l' 'I'l'l' 'I'l'l' 'I'l'l' 'I'l'l' 'I'l'l' T|'l' •I'l'l * f* 1 aa P% 1 V 5 f3 METRIC £ i g «=><=> a > ii EEE _ i £ o </> ? 1 s3 I a • « 1 e Si S 2 3 ib 0 g ]J 8 <• ii 2 3 E Ex • g g 2 • 5 £i d o 5 EE z s s s s I 2 ? .*5 is 55 «««•«• Mil SJ 3 I 3 3 1 ni 35 =S^S|S «« Si is 77 772 &:* 2 E E E 333 I 3 3 z © . ? > < a » ^ Ifl ©» <0 10 « <e UJ 10 8 cq (0 n « a g^o II "3 ca®- loberid > o o niflj-dodnad 11s S? Z < ft S I 3 > <• c £ H ^ 3 Ijll . I -| X 3 12 c 2§ e •• a 5 o O S J > S » a * > w > • • • • o § ii - § a e|.s .2 Srf -§ s * fi ^ 0 |o,. s a C f 3 3 3 3 5| leg iS < <s f J -1 5 1 f S SfSS X sr sr sr sr i ii- 33 s 0 a a ® u u i s i 3 j: 3 ci s *; O 7 i« « E at 3 Sr §) «S <n d 11 nil 34 U Q> S’ > <12_ IV TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1. DOWNTOWN SYRACUSE AND UNIVERSITY HILL 1 1.1 Geographic Setting and Transportation Issues.... 1 1.2 Transportation Project Aims and Schedule 4 1.3 Form and History of TMQ 10 1.4 Project Results and TMO Evolution Through January 1986 12 2. GREATER PRINCETON AREA 19 2.1 Geographic Setting and Transportation Issues.... 19 2.2 Transportation Project Aims and Schedule 23 2.3 Form and History of TMA 25 2.4 Project Results and TMA Evolution Through January 1986 27 3. CENTRAL ATLANTA 35 3.1 Geographic Setting and Transportation Issues.... 35 3.2 Transportation Project Aims 37 3.3 Form and History of TMO 39 3.4 Project Results and TMO Evolution Through January 1986 41 APPENDIX A: ILLUSTRATIONS. A-l APPENDIX B: 1-81 CLOSURE BROCHURE B-l APPENDIX C: CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION, BYLAWS, AND MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR GREATER PRINCETON AREA C-l REFERENCES R-l LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Recommended System Operating Characteristics 42 2. Characteristics of Comparable Downtown Circulator Bus Systems 43 3. Estimated Annual Ridership 44 v/vi 1. DOWNTOWN SYRACUSE AND UNIVERSITY HILL 1.1 GEOGRAPHIC SETTING AND TRANSPORTATION ISSUES Syracuse is a city of 170,000 population located in upstate New York. It is the central city for a large metropolitan area, currently at a population of 650,000. The regional economy is changing in emphasis from manufacturing to service industries, creating a growing concentration of employment in downtown Syracuse. Besides the retail core of the city, these service industries now include all levels of government, financial and insurance firms, hotels, cultural attractions, some apartments, and, especially in the adjoining University Hill area, schools, hospitals, and other medical enterprises. The growth is continuing, spurred by revitalization efforts to increase the cultural and recreational attractiveness of downtown Syracuse for employees and visitors. Along with the growth is coming the usual access problems of dense urban centers: scarce parking, spot peak period highway congestion, and difficulties providing adequate transit service. The information on these problems that follows is principally summarized from References 1 and 2. Figure 1* delineates the sixty blocks or so that comprise downtown Syracuse, and also shows the location of some 10,000 public off-street parking spaces out of a total of 11,000 such spaces. Another 2,000 on-street spaces are available, plus 5,000 private off-street spaces, for a total of 18,000. The downtown area is served on its eastern boundary by 1-81, the north/south freeway through the city, and on its north by 1-690, the east/west freeway. These facilities merge in the section between Townsend and Salina Streets.