East-West Corridor High Capacity Transit Plan

Virtual Public Meeting May 19, 2021 Agenda

• Introductions • Survey & Public Engagement Results • Study Recap • Select Summary Findings • Next Steps Where we’ve been

4

Insight2050 NextGen Corridor Concepts (2014) (2017) (2019) (2020) In 2020: • Launched two major Corridor initiatives • Formed a partnership of agencies to advance this work • Built on prior efforts to create an implementation Framework Strategy LinkUS will move our region forward.

The innovative approach will include: • High capacity and advanced rapid transit • Bikeways • Green space • Roadways • Pedestrian improvements • Development along key regional corridors throughout Central

EAST-WEST CORRIDOR HIGH CAPACITY TRANSIT PLAN What We’ve Heard So Far: Community Engagement Results Community Survey Results

• 423 responses from February-April 2021 • Travel options that residents would like to use but not available/easy: – 27% Public transit, 19% bicycle, 14% walk • 65% of respondents familiar with BRT • 68% likely or very likely to use BRT on Broad and Main Streets • Respondents have a strong desire for: – Dedicated lanes – Safe, well lit and well covered stops – More sidewalks in their neighborhoods and increased walkability – Transit to arrive reliably and on time – Traffic and bike lanes to not be too impacted • Kittie’s Cakes East-West • Brioso Coffee Roadshow • High & Broad Streets • Franklinton Fridays May 11-17 • • Whitehall Community YMCA Study Recap East-West Corridor Alignment

20 miles of diverse people, communities and businesses including: • King-Lincoln-Bronzeville • Prairie Township • Near East Side • Franklin Township • Franklin Park • • Eastlawn • Westgate • Mideast • Franklinton • Bexley • Downtown • Whitehall • Olde Towne East • Far East • South of Main • Jefferson Township • Reynoldsburg

EAST-WEST CORRIDOR HIGH CAPACITY TRANSIT PLAN Corridor Segments

16 Guideway: Mixed Traffic

17 Guideway: Dedicated Curb Lane

18 Guideway: Dedicated Median Lane

19 Project Goals Recap

Provide high capacity transit that carries more people with greater reliability, more frequent service, and fewer stops, resulting in shorter travel times.

Develop an implementable transit system plan that connects and integrates existing transit and high capacity transit corridors.

Provide increased transit options for Central Ohio residents who do not use auto transportation v and encourage increased use of transit to further regional sustainability needs.

Improve traditionally underserved communities’ access to employment opportunities and core services to address disparities in quality of life across the different corridor communities.

In order to sustainably accommodate expected growth, transit in the corridor needs to spur focused and compact infill and redevelopment along the corridor for sustainable growth. 20 Study Process

Initial Screening Develop Locally Preferred Alternative Evaluate each mode and alignment and Develop evaluation methodologies Select alternative that fares best eliminate fatally flawed alternatives for detailed evaluation against the evaluation criteria

Purpose and Need Identify Detailed Evaluation Identify goals, purpose and needs Identify corridor segments Analyze and evaluate viable as basis for evaluation criteria for detailed evaluation mode/alignment pairings 21 Detailed Evaluation: Components

• Evaluation results Transportation

organized by segment Environmental • Select results have Economic Development been fed into the

decision-making tool Capital Costs

Operating Costs Evaluation Areas Evaluation

Ridership

22 Summary Findings Equity: Historically Disadvantaged Populations Summary

Disadvantaged Populations Index Near (Broad) 1 Near East Columbus (Main) 2 Franklinton 3 Western Corridor 4 Eastmoor (Main) 5 Whitehall (Main) 6 McNaughten (Main) 7 Eastmoor (Broad) 8 Near East Bexley Eastmoor Whitehall Columbus McNaughten (Main) Reynoldsburg (Main) Whitehall (Broad) 9 (Main) (Main) (Main) (Main) Downtown 10 Hilltop 11 Reynoldsburg (Broad) 12 Reynoldsburg (Main) 13 Bexley (Main) 14 East Main Street sees a higher share of McNaughten (Broad) 15 Disadvantaged Populations than East Broad Street Bexley (Broad) 16 26 Potential Parking Space Implications (Dedicated Curb Lane in the East Corridor)

East Corridor

Potential Parking Spaces Impacted

27 • Broad St performs better Intersection #2: than turning to/from High St (East Main St alignment) High St and Broad St • Buses turning to/from High St require their own phase, decreasing overall capacity

2050 Evening Peak • Dedicated curbside Delay in Seconds alternatives perform marginally better than 2729 36 183 200 dedicated center median

Dedicated Dedicated Dedicated Dedicated center Existing center curbside – curbside – median – median – turn on Broad turn on Broad High Street High Street Street Street

28 Ridership: 2040: Avg. Weekday Boardings by Guideway and Alignment Options

Mixed Traffic Dedicated Curbside Dedicated Center Median 18,000 Guideway Alternatives Guideway Alternatives Guideway Alternatives

16,000 Western Project Area 14,000 Downtown

12,000 Eastern Project Area

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

0 Broad St Main St Main St Broad St Main St Main St Broad St Main St Main St via High St via 3rd/4th St via High St via 3rd/4th St via High St via 3rd/4th St 29 Travel Time Comparison (in minutes) Trip: E. Broad/Main at Hamilton Road to Broad at High Street

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

BRT: Center Median Lane

BRT: Curbside Lane

E Broad E Main BRT: Mixed Traffic

Local Bus Route 10

Personal Vehicle

30 O&M Costs Summary

Guideway Dedicated Alignment Alternative Alternative Center Median Dedicated Curbside Mixed Traffic

Peak Vehicles 13 14 16

E. Broad Street Dedicated Guideway 40.3 miles 40.3 miles 0 miles

Annual O&M (2021) $13.6 million $14.2 million $13.7 million

Peak Vehicles 14 15 17

E. Main Street Dedicated Guideway 40.8 miles 40.8 miles 0 miles

Annual O&M (2021) $14.2 million $14.9 million $14.4 million

31 Capital Cost Summary: By Guideway Alternative

Total Capital Cost by Guideway Alternative

$450,000,000 $421M $417M 10 GUIDEWAY & TRACK ELEMENTS (route miles) $400,000,000 $360M $358M $358M $356M 20 STATIONS, STOPS, TERMINALS, INTERMODAL (number) $350,000,000 30 SUPPORT FACILITIES: YARDS, SHOPS, ADMIN. BLDGS

$300,000,000 40 SITEWORK & SPECIAL CONDITIONS

$250,000,000 50 SYSTEMS $213M $213M $207M $200,000,000 70 VEHICLES (number)

$150,000,000 80 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (applies to Cats. 10-50)

90 UNALLOCATED CONTINGENCY $100,000,000

$50,000,000

$- Main via Main via Broad Main via Main via Broad Main via Main via Broad High 3rd/4th High 3rd/4th High 3rd/4th Mixed Traffic Median Dedicated Dedicated Curbside Note: Real estate and finance costs have not been determined at this time. 32 Evaluation Results Summary

Not a differentiator Alignment differentiators Guideway differentiators

• Environmental analysis • Station area analysis • Lowest travel time • Active transportation – E. Main – Dedicated center median • Highest ridership • Lowest O&M cost – E. Main – Dedicated center median • Lowest dedicated lane capital cost • Lowest traffic delay – E. Main – Dedicated center median • Lowest O&M cost • Lowest capital cost – E. Broad – Mixed traffic • Lowest travel time • Lowest impact to parking spaces – E. Broad – Mixed traffic

33 Q&A With Our Project Team v 37 Thank You!