TBARTA Board October 16, 2020
1 All-day modern mobility that provides quick, safe, reliable, frequent, and regional rapid service
Purpose 2 TBARTA Board
October (today) • Update on stations and vehicles
January • Select Recommended Alternative • Discuss coordination with FTA
Schedule Look Ahead 3 Vehicle Assessment
4 Las Vegas Express Mettis BRT (Metz, France) Flatiron Flyer (Denver) PSTA Sunrunner BRT
Assessment Process
Vehicle Look • 9 Vehicle Manufacturers • Length (30’, 35’, 40’) • Traditional vs. Stylized • Articulated (60’)
Vehicle Assessment 5 Key Considerations
1) Seating Capacity
2) Vehicle Technology 3) Passenger Comfort
4) Vehicle Cost
Vehicle Assessment 6 Seating Capacity
• Projected ridership/peak loads • Optimal seating capacity range • Wheelchair & bicycle accommodations
Vehicle Assessment 7 Seating Capacity Ridership Estimates
• Maximum peak bus load = 40-45 riders
• Optimal seating capacity =
35-50 riders
Plan for Capacity to Meet Demand
Vehicle Assessment 8 Seating Capacity
Seating Capacity Summary (up to # of seats) Prevost X3-45 Commuter… 49 58
MCI Commuter Coach 49 57
Van Hool Equi.City 42 61
Nova Bus LFS 41 62
Wright Bus Streetcar RTV 40 40
BYD K11 40 46 Low High
Gillig BRT/BRT Plus 39 39
New Flyer Xcelsior 32 61
Proterra ZX5 29 40
Vehicle Assessment 9 Optimal Seating Capacity Seating Capacity Range = 35-50 seats
Seating Capacity Summary (up to # of seats) Prevost X3-45 Commuter… 49 58
MCI Commuter Coach 49 57
Van Hool Equi.City 42 61
Nova Bus LFS 41 62
Wright Bus Streetcar RTV 40 40
BYD K11 40 46 Low High
Gillig BRT/BRT Plus 39 39
New Flyer Xcelsior 32 61
Proterra ZX5 29 40
Vehicle Assessment 10 Vehicle Technologies
Technologies • Propulsion options • Performance considerations 40-45 riders • Emerging technologies Diesel CNG
35-50 riders
Hybrid Hydrogen Electric Autonomous
Vehicle Assessment 11 Vehicle Technologies
Vehicle Fuel Type Trends – All U.S. Bus Services (1996-2019) 100% Sample data from APTA Public Transportation 90% Vehicle Database 80% Diesel 70% 60% CNG, LNG, and Blends 50% Hybrid 40% Biodiesel 30% 20% Gasoline 10% Other 0% 2011 1997 1999 1996 1998 2017 2013 2014 2015 2019 2016 2018 2001 2010 2007 2003 2002 2004 2005 2009 2006 2008 2000
Vehicle Assessment 12 Vehicle Technologies
Fuel Type – Recent US BRT Fleet Characteristics Estimated Cost City/County, BRT Corridor Fuel/Propulsion Length and Configuration Manufacturer per Vehicle Indianapolis, IndyGo BRT Battery Electric 60 ft, articulated BYD $1,250,000 (2019)
Stockton, Metro Express Rt 44 Battery Electric 40 ft Proterra $850,000 (2017)
Albuquerque, ART Diesel 60 ft, articulated New Flyer $870,000 (2019)
Houston, Post Oak BRT CNG 60 ft, articulated New Flyer $820,000 (2019)
Richmond, The Pulse CNG 40 ft, BRT exterior styling Gillig $940,000 (2017)
Denver, Flatiron Flyer Diesel 45 ft, coach MCI $594,000 (2015)
Cleveland, Healthline Hybrid 60 ft, articulated New Flyer $989,000 (2007)
Pinellas County, SunRunner Hybrid 40 ft, BRT exterior styling Gillig $832,000 (2020)
Las Vegas, SDX/Express routes Hybrid 62 ft, articulated Wright Bus $1,300,000 (2008)
Pau, France; Fébus BRT Hydrogen fuel cell 60 ft, articulated Van Hool $1,500,000 (2019)
Vehicle Assessment 13 Vehicle Technologies
Vehicle Range by Technology (miles) Diesel-Electric Hybrid 525
Diesel 475
CNG 400
Hydrogen Fuel Cell 200
Battery Electric 175
Vehicle Assessment 14 Vehicle Technologies
New & Emerging Vehicle Technologies
The future • Automated is electric • Connected • Electric
The future is The future is Adaptability is key! automated connected
Vehicle Assessment 15 Passenger Comfort
Passenger Experience/Comfort • Seating • Noise • Low floor boarding Seating in Commuter Coaches • Wheelchair accommodations • Bicycle accommodations • Other amenities
Precision Docking/Low Floor
Vehicle Assessment 16 Vehicle Costs
$1,500,000 Hydrogen Fuel Cell $1,500,000
$1,300,000 Battery Electric $1,000,000
Diesel-Electric $1,300,000 Hybrid $830,000
$950,000 CNG High Low $800,000
$900,000 Diesel $500,000
Vehicle Assessment 17 Station Site Opportunities
18 Tiered Screening Approach
• Data-driven analysis only (3-tier evaluation) Screen One: • Size and land use • Have not spoken to property owners, yet… Screen Two: • Agency Stakeholder comments • Frontage, signal density, natural and • Business Partner comments cultural resources • Public comment Result: Top 3-5 Site Opportunities to carry forward into Environmental Assessment
Station Site Selection Process 19 Screen Three – Top Site Opportunities
Cost and Feasibility (cost, policy/procedure hurdles, congestion, safety)
Equity and Visibility (serves affordable housing and transit dependent, visibility)
Community Accessibility (households, jobs within walking, biking distance)
Economic Development (redevelopment, TOD potential)
Station Site Selection Process 20 Note: Presented here are the results of the data-driven site screening technical analysis only. TBARTA staff has not spoken to property owners. These results do not represent the final selection of a station location as continued design and project development may bring forth SR 54 new recommendations. TBARTA does not plan to pursue eminent domain for this project.
Community Preference: Cost & Feasibility Equity and Visibility Community Access Economic Development
Suburban Neighborhood
Station Site Selection Process 21 Note: Presented here are the results of the data-driven site screening technical analysis only. TBARTA staff has not spoken to property owners. These results do not represent the final selection of a station location as continued design and project development may bring forth SR 54 new recommendations. TBARTA does not plan to pursue eminent domain for this project.
3rd • All sites in neighborhood • Closest to development opportunities – The Grove • Lower relative ROW costs 1st 2nd • Best bike access • Opportunity for vehicle “turn-around” and other RRT facilities • Would require time to travel to site
Station Site Selection Process 22 Note: Presented here are the results of the data-driven site screening technical analysis only. TBARTA staff has not spoken to property owners. These results do not represent the final selection of a station location as continued design and project development may bring forth Bearss Ave new recommendations. TBARTA does not plan to pursue eminent domain for this project.
Community Preference: Cost & Feasibility Equity and Visibility Community Access Economic Development
Urban Mixed Use Neighborhood
Station Site Selection Process 23 Note: Presented here are the results of the data-driven site screening technical analysis only. TBARTA staff has not spoken to property owners. These results do not represent the final selection of a station location as continued design and project development may bring forth Bearss Ave new recommendations. TBARTA does not plan to pursue eminent domain for this project. 1st & 2nd Ranked Sites: • Neighborhood sites close to transit dependent households 3rd • Highest population and jobs within walking and biking distance 2nd • Opportunities for economic development • Bearss Ave congestion (LOS E/F)
1st • Privately owned 3rd Ranked Site: • In-line with no ROW costs and easy access • Would require infrastructure investment
Station Site Selection Process 24 Note: Presented here are the results of the data-driven site screening technical analysis only. TBARTA staff has not spoken to property owners. These results do not represent the final selection of a station location as continued design and project development may bring forth Waters Ave/Bird St new recommendations. TBARTA does not plan to pursue eminent domain for this project.
Community Preference: Cost & Feasibility Equity and Visibility Community Access Economic Development
Urban Neighborhood
Station Site Selection Process 25 Note: Presented here are the results of the data-driven site screening technical analysis only. TBARTA staff has not spoken to property owners. These results do not represent the final selection of a station location as continued design and project development may bring forth Waters Ave/Bird St new recommendations. TBARTA does not plan to pursue eminent domain for this project. 1st & 2nd Ranked Sites: • In-line with no ROW costs • Access to population and jobs within walking and biking distance • Would require infrastructure investment
3rd & 4th Ranked Sites: • Neighborhood sites connecting to local st 3rd 1 transit • Highest population and jobs within walking and biking distance 4th • Opportunities for economic development
2nd • Privately owned
Station Site Selection Process 26 Note: Presented here are the results of the data-driven site screening technical analysis only. TBARTA staff has not spoken to property owners. These results do not represent the final selection of a station location as continued design and project development may bring forth Heights new recommendations. TBARTA does not plan to pursue eminent domain for this project.
Community Preference: Cost & Feasibility Equity and Visibility Community Access Economic Development
Urban Neighborhood
Station Site Selection Process 27 Note: Presented here are the results of the data-driven site screening technical analysis only. TBARTA staff has not spoken to property owners. These results do not represent the final selection of a station location as continued design and project development may bring forth Heights new recommendations. TBARTA does not plan to pursue eminent domain for this project. All Options Come with Challenges • Smaller parcel sizes, access is difficult
1st Ranked Site: • In-line with no ROW costs, avoids street level st 1 congestion, serves affordable housing • May not be feasible with current highway plans • Not what the community requested 2nd & 3rd Ranked Sites: • Neighborhood sites with highest population and 3rd jobs within walking and biking distance nd 2 • Serves affordable housing • Difficult to access, maybe historic resource
Station Site Selection Process 28 Note: Presented here are the results of the data-driven site screening technical analysis only. TBARTA staff has not spoken to property owners. These results do not represent the final selection of a station location as continued design and project development may bring forth Himes Ave new recommendations. TBARTA does not plan to pursue eminent domain for this project.
Community Preference: Cost & Feasibility Equity and Visibility Community Access Economic Development
Mixed Use Business / Urban Neighborhood Station Site Selection Process 29 Note: Presented here are the results of the data-driven site screening technical analysis only. TBARTA staff has not spoken to property owners. These results do not represent the final selection of a station location as continued design and project development may bring forth Himes Ave new recommendations. TBARTA does not plan to pursue eminent domain for this project. All Options Support Economic Development and Excellent Walk and Bike Access Tied for 3rd 1st & 3rd Ranked Sites: • Neighborhood sites serving affordable housing and transit dependent populations • Dale Mabry congestion (LOS E/F)
2nd 2nd Ranked Site: • In-line with no ROW costs, avoids street level st Tied for 1 congestion • Would require significant infrastructure investment
Station Site Selection Process 30 Note: Presented here are the results of the data-driven site screening technical analysis only. TBARTA staff has not spoken to property owners. These results do not represent the final nd selection of a station location as continued design and project development may bring forth 62 Ave N new recommendations. TBARTA does not plan to pursue eminent domain for this project.
Community Preference: Cost & Feasibility Equity and Visibility Community Access Economic Development
Urban Neighborhood
Station Site Selection Process 31 Note: Presented here are the results of the data-driven site screening technical analysis only. TBARTA staff has not spoken to property owners. These results do not represent the final nd selection of a station location as continued design and project development may bring forth 62 Ave N new recommendations. TBARTA does not plan to pursue eminent domain for this project. 1st & 2nd Ranked Sites: 3rd • Neighborhood site with lower relative ROW costs • Future bicycle/pedestrian improvements • Access to population and jobs within walking and biking distance • Access to transit dependent households 1st 2nd • Street-level congestion
3rd Ranked Site: • In-line with no ROW costs, avoids street level congestion • Would require infrastructure investment
Station Site Selection Process 32 Station Design Concepts
33 Conceptual Design Prototypes • Initial designs for discussion
• 3 neighborhood prototypes • At street-level • Serve walk and bike • Connect to local transit
• 2 In-line prototypes • Focus on rider comfort and convenience
Preliminary Station Design 34 Example Neighborhood Prototypes
Preliminary Station Design 35 Example Neighborhood Prototypes
Preliminary Station Design 36 Example Neighborhood Prototypes
Preliminary Station Design 37 Example In-line Prototypes
Preliminary Station Design 38 Example In-line Prototypes
SOUND WALL OPTIONS
Preliminary Station Design 39 Example In-line Prototypes
Preliminary Station Design 40 Approach to Parking Needs
Regional Transit Feasibility Plan – Parking spaces for all riders
RRT Milestone 1 – 1 space for every 2 riders (TCRP Rpt. 153)
RRT Milestones 2 & 3 – Detailed parking evaluation based on rider needs, neighborhood context, and public comment Feasibility PD&E Final Design
Level of Detail RRT Parking Needs 41 Guiding Principles for Parking Needs
1) Data-driven National best practices regarding recommended spaces per rider
2) Understand the neighborhood being served Neighborhood typology, automobile ownership rates, and walk/bike access
3) Listen to what the public told us Feasibility PD&E Final Design Public comment from RRT charrettes & virtual survey
RRT Parking Needs 42 Average Automobile Ownership Per Household SR 54 Higher SR 56* Higher Bearss Lower USF Area* Lower Waters/Bird Lower Heights Lower Tampa* Lower Himes Lower Westshore* Lower Gateway* Higher 62nd Lower Tropicana Lower 4th Lower
* FDOT is currently evaluating the opportunity for regional Intermodal Centers (IMC) which support the RRT 43 Forecasted Riders that Walk/Bike to Station SR 54 Lower SR 56* Lower Bearss Lower USF Area* Lower Waters/Bird Lower Heights Higher (53%) Tampa* Higher (55%) Himes Higher (54%) Westshore* Higher (63%) Gateway* Lower 62nd Higher (62%) Tropicana Higher (68%) 4th Higher (72%)
* FDOT is currently evaluating the opportunity for regional Intermodal Centers (IMC) which support the RRT 44 Public Comment and Preferences Minimum of Number of Parking Spaces 50 spaces Neighborhood Typology 1st Choice 2nd Choice Suburban 30 – 50 SR 54 100+ Spaces Neighborhood Spaces
Mixed Use Business 30 – 50 Maximum of Bearss 100+ Spaces 100 spaces Center Spaces
Waters/ Urban 100+ Spaces No Parking Maximum of Bird Neighborhood 30 spaces Urban 30 – 50 Heights No Parking Neighborhood Spaces
Mixed Use Business 30 – 50 Maximum of Himes 100+ Spaces 100 spaces Center Spaces
Urban 30 – 50 62nd 100+ Spaces Maximum of Neighborhood Spaces 100 spaces 1st choice and 2nd choice refers to the preferences derived from the virtual survey responses 45 Space Needs Per Station (Range for Alternatives 1, 3, and 5) SR 54 50 SR 56* 50 - 100 Bearss 30 - 60 USF Area* 100 - 240 Waters/Bird 70 - 100 Heights 25 - 30 Tampa* 70 - 110 Himes 45 - 100 Westshore* 85 - 150 Gateway* 220 - 340 62nd 45 - 90 Tropicana 10 - 30 th 4 20 - 30
* FDOT is currently evaluating the opportunity for regional Intermodal Centers (IMC); parking assumptions for these IMC stations list the needs of the RRT project only which support the RRT 46 Parking Need Summary
Data-Driven Parking Needs • Up to ~1,400 spaces need for the RRT
Design Goals – Shared Parking Strategies • On-street parking • Partnerships with locals • Partnerships with private sector • Encourage TOD (USF School of Architecture Best Practices)
No Garages Needed
RRT Parking Needs 47 Thank you!
Questions 48