I-70 Corridor Transit Alternatives Analysis
July 2007 I-70 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS TABLE OF CONTENTS JULY 2007
TABLE OF CONTENTS
page
1.0 Purpose and Need...... 1-1 1.1 Proposed Action...... 1-1 1.2 Description of I-70 Corridor...... 1-3 1.2.1 Land Use and Activity Centers...... 1-3 1.2.2 Population and Employment ...... 1-4 1.2.3 Travel Market ...... 1-7 1.3 Project History...... 1-9 1.4 Transportation on the I-70 Corridor...... 1-10 1.4.1 Roadways ...... 1-10 1.4.2 Public Transit ...... 1-12 1.4.3 Railroads...... 1-14 1.5 Transportation Problems and Needs ...... 1-14 1.5.1 Congestion and Decreasing Mobility...... 1-15 1.5.2 Level and Quality of Transit Service ...... 1-21 1.5.3 Limited Access to the Transportation System...... 1-22 1.5.4 Need for Sustainable Development ...... 1-22 1.5.5 Effect on Air Quality ...... 1-26 1.5.6 Financial Constraints...... 1-27 1.6 Planning Context...... 1-28 1.6.1 FTA Planning and Project Development Process...... 1-28 2.0 Transit Alternatives ...... 2-1 2.1 Introduction...... 2-1 2.2 TSM Alternative...... 2-1 2.2.1 TSM Alternative Facilities...... 2-1 2.2.2 TSM Alternative Express Routes ...... 2-3 2.2.3 TSM Alternative Local Routes...... 2-3 2.2.4 TSM Alternative Summary ...... 2-4 2.3 Express Bus Alternative...... 2-4 2.3.1 Express Bus Alternative Facilities...... 2-4 2.3.2 Express Bus Alternative Routes...... 2-6 2.3.3 Express Bus Alternative Local Routes...... 2-7 2.3.4 Express Bus Alternative Summary...... 2-7 2.4 Commuter Rail Alternative...... 2-8 2.4.1 Commuter Rail Alternative Description ...... 2-8 2.4.2 Commuter Rail Alternative Station Locations...... 2-8 2.4.3 Commuter Rail Alternative Service Concept...... 2-11 2.4.4 Commuter Rail Alternative Connectivity...... 2-12 2.4.5 Commuter Rail Alternative Equipment...... 2-12 2.4.5.1 Diesel Multiple Units (DMUs) ...... 2-13 2.4.5.2 Locomotive Hauled, Bi-Level Passenger Rail Cars ...... 2-14 2.4.5.3 Comparisons of Technologies ...... 2-15 2.4.6 Commuter Rail Alternative Supporting Infrastructure...... 2-15 2.4.6.1 Stations ...... 2-15
PAGE TOC-1 I-70 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS TABLE OF CONTENTS JULY 2007
2.4.6.2 Track and Signal ...... 2-15 2.4.6.3 Rail/Highway Grade Crossings ...... 2-16 2.4.6.4 Layover Facility ...... 2-16 2.4.6.5 Repair and Maintenance Facility...... 2-16 3.0 Downtown Commuter Rail Terminal Evaluation ...... 3-1 3.1 Potential Terminal Locations...... 3-1 3.2 Kansas City Union Station ...... 3-1 3.3 Riverfront (Third Street and Grand Avenue) ...... 3-3 3.4 Recommended Terminal Location ...... 3-6 4.0 Transit Alternatives Costs ...... 4-1 4.1 Bus Capital and Operating Costs...... 4-1 4.1.1 Assumptions for Vehicle and Related Facilities’ Capital Costs...... 4-1 4.1.2 Assumptions for Annual Bus O&M Costs ...... 4-1 4.1.3 Alternatives Bus Cost Estimates...... 4-2 4.1.3.1 TSM Alternative...... 4-2 4.1.3.2 Express Bus Alternative ...... 4-2 4.1.3.3 Commuter Rail Alternative Bus Service ...... 4-3 4.1.4 Alternatives Bus Cost Estimates Summary ...... 4-3 4.2 Commuter Rail Capital and Operating Costs...... 4-5 4.2.1 Track and Signals Upgrade Costs ...... 4-5 4.2.1.1 KCS-Proposed Capital Improvements ...... 4-5 4.2.1.2 Potential Phasing Plan ...... 4-10 4.2.2 Non-Track and Non-Signal Capital Costs ...... 4-13 4.2.2.1 Station Capital Costs...... 4-13 4.2.2.2 Layover Facility Costs ...... 4-14 4.2.2.3 Locomotive Hauled, Bi-Level Passenger Rail Cars...... 4-14 4.2.2.4 Total Non-Track and Non-Signal Capital Costs Summary ...... 4-15 4.2.3 Total Rail Capital Costs ...... 4-16 4.2.4 Operations and Maintenance Costs...... 4-16 4.3 Alternatives Cost Estimate Summary...... 4-18 5.0 Ridership Forecasts...... 5-1 5.1 Introduction...... 5-1 5.2 Aggregate Rail Ridership Forecasting Model...... 5-1 5.2.1 Overview of the Aggregate Rail Ridership Forecasting Model...... 5-1 5.2.2 Application of the ARRF Model to the I-70 Corridor...... 5-2 5.2.3 Summary...... 5-10 5.3 Ridership Forecasts...... 5-11 5.3.1 Overview and Summary of Key Assumptions ...... 5-11 5.3.2 Assumptions for Commuter Rail Level of Service...... 5-13 5.3.3 Discussion of Model Runs...... 5-14 5.3.4 Summary...... 5-16 6.0 Transit Alternatives Evaluation ...... 6-1 6.1 Comparison to Alternatives...... 6-1 6.1.1 Ridership...... 6-1 6.1.2 Cost...... 6-2 6.1.3 Purpose and Need ...... 6-2 6.2 New Starts Project Evaluation Process...... 6-4
PAGE TOC-2 I-70 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS TABLE OF CONTENTS JULY 2007
6.2.1 Project Justification Ratings...... 6-5 6.2.1.1 Cost Effectiveness...... 6-6 6.2.1.2 Transit Supportive Land Use and Future Patterns ...... 6-6 6.2.1.3 Mobility Improvements ...... 6-9 6.2.1.4 Operational Efficiencies...... 6-10 6.2.1.5 Environmental Benefits...... 6-10 6.2.2 Project Local Financial Commitment Rating ...... 6-10 6.2.2.1 Share of Non-New Starts Funding ...... 6-10 6.2.2.2 Capital Funding Plan ...... 6-11 6.2.2.3 Operating Funding Plan ...... 6-11 6.3 Proposed Rail Alternative New Starts Evaluation Discussion...... 6-11 6.3.1 Cost Effectiveness...... 6-12 6.3.2 Land Use Assessment ...... 6-12 6.3.2.1 Existing Land Use ...... 6-13 6.3.2.2 Transit Supportive Plans and Policies...... 6-17 6.3.2.3 Recommendations to Improve Transit Supportive Land Uses.... 6-21 7.0 Summary of Findings ...... 7-1 7.1 Summary...... 7-1 7.2 Recommendations ...... 7-4 7.3 Commuter Rail Viability in the Future...... 7-4
PAGE TOC-3 I-70 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS TABLE OF CONTENTS JULY 2007
LIST OF FIGURES
page
1.1 Study Area...... 1-2 1.2 Major Activity Centers ...... 1-5 1.3 Projected Population to 2030...... 1-6 1.4 Projected Employment to 2030...... 1-8 1.5 Parallel Networks to I-70...... 1-11 1.6 Park ‘n Ride Facilities (Transit) ...... 1-13 1.7 Travel Time Comparison...... 1-16 1.8 Existing AM Peak Hour Deficiencies...... 1-17 1.9 Existing PM Peak Hour Deficiencies...... 1-18 1.10 Future AM Peak Hour Deficiencies...... 1-19 1.11 Future PM Peak Hour Deficiencies...... 1-20 1.12 Minority Population by Density...... 1-23 1.13 Population by Income ...... 1-24 1.14 Zero-Car Households by Density...... 1-25
2.1 TSM Alternative ...... 2-2 2.2 Express Bus Alternative...... 2-5 2.3 Commuter Rail Alternative...... 2-9 2.4 Commuter Rail Alternative Routing...... 2-10
3.1 Union Station Passenger Rail Platform...... 3-2 3.2 Riverfront Station (Southern View) ...... 3-4 3.3 Riverfront Station (Northern View) ...... 3-4 3.4 Riverfront Station Area...... 3-5
5.1 Overlay of the Proposed I-70 Alignment and the 8-County Kansas City Region...... 5-3 5.2 Buffer Circles of 1, 2, and 6 Miles Around Each of the I-70 Corridor Stations ...... 5-4 5.3 Access and Egress Buffers for Selected Station-to-Station JTW Flows ...... 5-7
6.1 2000 Population Density Map ...... 6-18 6.2 2030 Population Density Map ...... 6-19
PAGE TOC-4 I-70 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS TABLE OF CONTENTS JULY 2007
LIST OF TABLES
page
1-1 List of Major Activity Centers in the I-70 Study Area...... 1-4 1-2 Population Growth...... 1-4 1-3 Past and Projected Employment...... 1-7 1-4 Journey-to-Work for Year 2000...... 1-9 1-5 Comparison of Travel Purposes ...... 1-9 1-6 The Metro Bus Routes Serving the I-70 Study Area...... 1-12 1-7 Travel Time Comparison for Representative Travel Markets ...... 1-22 1-8 Kansas City Metropolitan Area Highway Congestion ...... 1-27
2-1 Example Schedule: Odessa-Kansas City ...... 2-12 2-2 Self-Powered Rail Cars...... 2-14 2-3 Locomotive Hauled Bi-Level Passenger Rail Cars ...... 2-14
4-1 TSM Alternative O&M Cost Estimate...... 4-2 4-2 Express Bus Alternative O&M Cost Estimate ...... 4-3 4-3 Commuter Rail Alternative O&M Cost Estimate ...... 4-3 4-4 Summary of Bus Capital Cost and Annual O&M Cost Estimates ...... 4-4 4-5 KCS Commuter Rail Improvement Plan Cost Estimate ...... 4-7 4-6 Phased Implementation Cost Summary ...... 4-12 4-7 Locomotive Hauled Bi-Level Passenger Rail Cars ...... 4-14 4-8 Rolling Stock Capital Costs...... 4-15 4-9 Corridor Non-Track and Non-Signal Capital Costs ...... 4-16 4-10 Total Rail Capital Cost Matrix ...... 4-16 4-11 Annual Rail Service Operating Costs...... 4-17 4-12 Detailed Alternatives Cost Summary ...... 4-18 4-13 Alternatives Cost Summary ...... 4-19
5-1 Journey to Work Travel Estimated at the Census TAZ Level of Detail ...... 5-4 5-2 Journey to Work Travel Patterns at the 8 County Region Level ...... 5-5 5-3 Systemwide Flows Used as Inputs to ARRF Riverfront Terminal...... 5-5 5-4 Systemwide Flows Used as Inputs to ARRF Alternative Terminal ...... 5-6 5-5 Journey to Work Travel for Odessa-to-Downtown and Blue Springs-to-Downtown... 5-6 5-6 Summary of Level of Service Inputs to Demand Adjustment Factor...... 5-8 5-7 Estimates of Work Flows and Workers with Buffer Area – I-70 Corridor ...... 5-9 5-8 Unadjusted ARRF Ridership Estimates – Buffer Area Work Flows ...... 5-9 5-9 ARRF Adjustment Factors to Reflect Rail Level of Service on I-70 Corridor ...... 5-10 5-10 Adjusted ARRF Ridership Estimates – Buffer Area + Rail Level of Service ...... 5-10 5-11 Summary of Headways of Bus Transit Routes in the I-70 Corridor ...... 5-12 5-12 Summary of Base-Year and Future-Year No Build, TSM and I-70 Commuter Rail Ridership Forecasts ...... 5-15
6-1 Forecast 2030 Daily Ridership...... 6-1 6-2 Alternatives Additional Cost ...... 6-2 6-3 Alternatives Additional Cost Per New Annual Rider ...... 6-2 6-4 Cost Effectiveness Ranges...... 6-6
PAGE TOC-5 I-70 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS TABLE OF CONTENTS JULY 2007
6-5 Ratings Guidance for Existing Land Use Assessment...... 6-7 6-6 Ratings Guidance for Transit Supportive Plans and Policies...... 6-7 6-7 Ratings Guidance for Performance and Impacts of Land Use Policies ...... 6-8 6-8 Existing Land Use Ratings Benchmarks...... 6-9 6-9 Corridor Policies and Station Area Zoning Ratings Benchmarks...... 6-9 6-10 Non-New Starts Funding Share Ratings...... 6-11 6-11 Cost Effectiveness Comparison...... 6-13 6-12 FTA New Starts Rating Guidance Planned Densities...... 6-22
7-1 Alternatives Cost Summary ...... 7-2 7-2 Commuter Rail Cost Comparison ...... 7-3
PAGE TOC-6 1.0 Purpose andNeed I-70 CORRIDOR TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED JULY 2007
1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED
The Mid-America Regional Council (MARC) in cooperation with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) is undertaking an Alternatives Analysis to study high capacity transit solutions in the I-70 east corridor in the Kansas City metropolitan region. This report supplements the I-70 Major Investment Study (I-70 MIS) by providing additional detail on transit alternatives options, benefits and costs. The I-70 corridor is located in Jackson County, Missouri as shown in Figure 1.1.
The Alternatives Analysis phase of the project includes preparation of a report to supplement the I-70 MIS report, in order to provide documentation to enable a decision to be made for the locally preferred transit strategy within the I-70 corridor. The purpose of this project is to: x Develop a Purpose and Need Statement; x Describe existing transit services and infrastructure; x Develop baseline transit alternatives for the corridor; x Update the regional travel model to produce comparative measures of effectiveness for the alternatives; x Develop initial operating and maintenance cost forecasts; and x Assess the viability of the proposed transit alternatives in the corridor to provide input into the process of identifying a Local Preferred Alternative (LPA) in the Kansas City region.
This chapter of the Alternatives Analysis report summarizes the need for transit improvements in the I-70 corridor and describes: the background of the proposed project; existing transportation facilities and services; transportation problems and needs; and goals and objectives for evaluating alternatives developed to address the transportation problems in the corridor.
1.1 Proposed Action The purpose of the project is to examine high capacity transit alternatives that: x Improve the mobility of corridor residents and workers within the I-70 corridor, including those who are transit dependent; x Provide the necessary capacity to accommodate existing and future transit demands; x Improve service to major activity centers, including downtown Kansas City, Independence, and suburban areas of Blue Springs and Grain Valley, as well as cities just becoming part of the suburban fringe including Oak Grove and potentially Odessa; x Further sustainable economic investment around potential transit centers; and x Contribute to improving the region’s air quality.
PAGE 1-1 Kansas City Metro Area I-70 Transit Alternatives Analysis
FIGURE 1.1
Study Area
LEGEND
Interstates
Highways
Railroads
Water Bodies
Municipalities
Project Boundaries
JULY 2007 I-70 CORRIDOR TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED JULY 2007
The Alternatives Analysis is consistent with the I-70 MIS definitions, and includes an analysis of a No-Build Alternative, a Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Alternative and Build Alternatives. The No-Build Alternative consists of existing transportation services and facilities plus improvements already under construction or that have committed funding in the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and in the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). The No-Build serves as a base scenario to compare with the other alternatives. The TSM alternative consists of modest increases in bus service in the I-70 corridor, plus the strategies described in the I-70 MIS including alternative work hours, ridesharing and advance implementation of Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) projects through the Kansas City Scout program. There are two Build Alternatives that consist of two technologies: commuter rail transit and freeway express/bus rapid transit (BRT). The conclusion of the Alternatives Analysis process is the determination of a LPA, if appropriate. The LPA is the alternative that best meets the community’s needs.
1.2 Description of I-70 Corridor Interstate 70 is one of the most important transportation corridors in Missouri. Few sections of highway carry more traffic through and within the Kansas City region than I-70 in Jackson County, Missouri. Each day, I-70 carries over a hundred thousand vehicles transporting commuters, travelers, and tons of goods to countless destinations within the Kansas City region. As a result, the I-70 corridor is increasingly important to the economic development and sustainability of the entire Kansas City region.
Interstate 70 has aging infrastructure and is one of the oldest interstate corridors in the United States. At the same time, travel demand along the corridor has increased over the past decade due to growth in population and economic activity occurring in Independence, Lee’s Summit, Blue Springs and Grain Valley. As a result of these trends, congestion and safety have become important transportation issues for this corridor.
The I-70 corridor through the Kansas City region in Missouri is approximately 40 miles in length from downtown Kansas City (the northeast corner of the loop), eastward to Odessa. The I-70 corridor is shown in Figure 1.1.
In addition to serving local needs, I-70 is also the main artery for traffic traveling to and from other cities and places across the state, such as St. Louis, Jefferson City, and Columbia. Some of the interstate traffic heading east and west through Kansas City is bound for major population centers in the adjacent states of Kansas and Illinois, as well as nationwide travel.
1.2.1 LAND USE AND ACTIVITY CENTERS Land uses in the study area can generally be described as urban in the western region for approximately 12 miles, as it passes through Kansas City, Independence and Blue Springs. The dominant land uses adjacent to I-70 are primarily a mixture of commercial, industrial and residential uses. From just east of the I-470 interchange to Blue Springs a transition occurs from heavily urbanized to more rural with a mixture of commercial, residential and agricultural/open space land uses along the corridor. The remainder of the study area to Odessa has prevalent land uses of residential and agricultural.
PAGE 1-3 I-70 CORRIDOR TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED JULY 2007
In addition to the varied towns in the study area, there are also many major traffic generators in and adjacent to the I-70 corridor. Table 1-1 summarizes the major activity centers in the I-70 study area, while Figure 1.2 identifies their locations in relation to the corridor.
Table 1-1 List of Major Activity Centers in the I-70 Study Area
Districts and Activity Centers Key Features/Attributes 1. Country Club Plaza Retail, Office, Residential 2. Crown Center Retail, Office, Residential 3. Kansas City, MO Central Business District (CBD) Government Center, Office, Retail, Residential 4. River Market Retail, Office, Residential 5. Berkley Park Recreation, Residential 6. Truman Sports Complex Recreation 7. Blue Ridge Mall Redevelopment Retail 8. Downtown Independence Retail, Office 9. Independence Center Retail 10. Downtown Blue Springs Retail, Office 11. Grain Valley Residential 12. Oak Grove Residential 13. Odessa Retail, Residential
1.2.2 POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT Population Population increases are evident throughout the metropolitan area, with substantial increases in the surrounding suburbs of Kansas City between 1990 and 2000. The western region of the study area has been developed for several decades whereas the eastern region has only recently been developed. The study area contains large employment centers in downtown Kansas City and Independence. The study area also includes rapidly developing suburbs including Blue Springs, Grain Valley, Oak Grove, and Odessa. Approximately 6,000 of the 21,000 increase in population, between 1990 and 2000, came from the inner city with the remainder in the outlying communities. Figure 1.3 shows the population change expected to occur over the next 30 years, while Table 1-2 shows the increase in ten-year increments.
Table 1-2 Population Growth
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 Jackson County 633,234 654,880 669,782 690,999 709,992 Kansas City, Mo 435,187 441,828 448,455 455,182 462,010 Independence 112,378 113,298 114,204 115,118 116,039 Blue Springs 40,650 48,286 55,915 64,750 74,981 Grain Valley 2,071 5,313 8,235 12,353 17,912 Oak Grove 4,704 5,601 6,209 7,202 8,354 Odessa 3,703 4,833 5,945 7,330 9,038 Source: Mid-America Regional Council, HNTB Corporation
PAGE 1-4 Kansas City Metro Area I-70 Transit Alternatives Analysis
FIGURE 1.2
Major Activity Centers
LEGEND
Interstates
Highways
Railroads
Water Bodies
Municipalities
Project Boundaries
Activity Centers
JULY 2007 Kansas City Metro Area I-70 Transit Alternatives Analysis
FIGURE 1.3
Projected Population to 2030
LEGEND
Interstates
Highways
Railroads
Water Bodies
Municipalities
Project Boundaries Population Growth
-2% or More
-0.9% to -1.9%
0.0% to 4.9%
5.0% to 9.9%
10% or More
JULY 2007 I-70 CORRIDOR TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED JULY 2007
Employment Kansas City is the hometown headquarters of Hallmark Cards, Sprint/Nextel, Russell Stover Candies, YRC Worldwide (Yellow Freight and Roadway), H&R Block, the Community of Christ Church (formerly the Reorganized Church of Latter Day Saints), the Nazarene Church, Unity School of Christianity, Interstate Bakeries, AMC Theaters, American Century, Cerner and numerous other businesses (Kansas City, 2001). Supporting such companies and businesses with the necessary infrastructure underscores the critical need to repair and improve the transportation system to accommodate commuters. There is a distinct pattern of daytime population shift from the surrounding communities of Kansas City to places of business in downtown Kansas City and portions of North Kansas City. Most of the area east of downtown decreases its population by 50% or more and the areas in the CBD and commercial areas along I-70 increase their daytime population by at least 50%. This pattern suggests heavy movement of commuters into the business districts, in and around the downtown, during the workday. These numbers are continuing to grow as Table 1-3 demonstrates. According to MARC, about 332,000 people are employed within the city of Kansas City and 165,000 are employed outside the city. Approximately 385,000 of them drive to work alone, 68,000 car pool, and 14,000 use public transit. The majority of these commuters, about 195,000, travel between 15 to 29 miles to work and about 150,000 drive 30 miles or more. Figure 1.4 show the employment growth expected over the next 30 years.
Table 1-3 Past and Projected Employment
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 Jackson County 442,089 479,203 543,781 609,217 639,868 Kansas City, Mo 191,684 331,494 382,962 430,169 453,352 Independence 41,888 46,439 53,573 59,394 65,872 Blue Springs 10,983 12,711 16,057 18,585 21,510 Grain Valley 518 1,328 2,059 3,134 4,478 Oak Grove 1,176 1,400 1,552 1,725 2,088 Odessa 926 1,208 1,486 1,832 2,259 Source: Mid-America Regional Council, HNTB Corporation
1.2.3 TRAVEL MARKET Table 1-4, Journey-to-Work for Year 2000, shows the movement of work trips from origins in the I-70 corridor to the Kansas City CBD and surrounding area. This information comes from the total 2000 Census of Population included as part of the Census Transportation Planning Package. It provides information about travel between places where people reside and their work location. For the purposes of this study, the Kansas City CBD and surrounding area includes the Downtown Loop, the Crossroads District and Crown Center. Table 1-5 presents a comparison of year 2000 and 2020 travel purpose information for the study area as well as the Kansas City region. The travel purpose statistics are very similar for both 2000 and 2020, as well as between the study area and the entire region. Overall, about 15 percent of the daily trips are for work commute purposes and seven percent of all trips are for shopping. The vast majority of daily trips are for other reasons including personal business, recreation, or trips made by commercial businesses.
PAGE 1-7 Kansas City Metro Area I-70 Transit Alternatives Analysis
FIGURE 1.
rojecte E oy ent to 2
LEGEND
Interstates
Highways
Railroads
Water Bodies
Municipalities
Project Boundaries Employment Growth
or More
to
to
to
or More
JULY 2007 I-70 CORRIDOR TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED JULY 2007
Table 1-4 Journey-to-Work for Year 2000
Journey-to-Work 2000 Odessa to Blue Springs 145 Odessa to Independence 215 Odessa to Kansas City, KCMO CBD 420 Oak Grove to Blue Springs 310 Oak Grove to Independence 310 Oak Grove to KCMO CBD 750 Grain Valley to Blue Springs 405 Grain Valley to Independence 295 Grain Valley to KCMO CBD 865 Blue Springs to Independence 3,165 Blue Springs to KCMO CBD 8,740 Independence to KCMO CBD 19,705 Source: 2000 Census Transportation Planning Package, US Census Bureau
Table 1-5 Comparison of Travel Purposes
Percent of Total Trips by Purpose
Category Work Commute Shopping Other Trip Trips Trips Purposes
2000 Daily – Study Area 15% 7% 78% 2000 Daily – Kansas City region 16% 7% 77% 2020 Daily – Study Area 15% 7% 78% 2020 Daily – Kansas City region 16% 8% 76% Source: I-70 MIS; estimated from MARC travel demand model.
1.3 Project History The Kansas City metropolitan area grew from 1.56 million to 1.77 million between 1990 and 2000. Population estimates for the metropolitan area in 2004 were 1.87 million. Much of the growth in the region occurred in suburban areas, including the suburban communities located along I-70. Studies to address transportation problems in the I-70 corridor were initiated in the late 1990s. A series of regional transit planning projects were completed in the late 1990s and early 2000s. These planning projects culminated in the development of a regional transit plan called Smart Moves. Smart Moves is a regional transit service plan cooperatively developed by MARC, Kansas City Area Transportation Authority (KCATA), Johnson County Transit and Unified Government Transit. This plan builds on a series of previous transit studies including a consumer demand study and recommended service plan concept (MARC’s Metropolitan Transit Initiative, 1998); a generalized funding strategy (Transit Investment Strategy, 2001); various sub-area or single mode plans; and principles of transit-supportive development (MARC’s Creating Quality Places
PAGE 1-9 I-70 CORRIDOR TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED JULY 2007
and Smart Choices initiatives). The plan provides service plans for the seven-county area and introduces new transit services including expanded freeway express service, bus rapid transit service and local circulator service. The plan is proposed to be funded by a regional sales tax. Implementation also includes working with the local municipalities to locate the street locations of routes and related public improvements; and coordinating transit services with existing and proposed land use.
As the Kansas City metropolitan area has begun to recognize the need for a more extensive public transportation system, commuter rail has begun to be regarded with increased interest. In addition to potential benefits that may be seen in terms of congestion management, air quality improvements and economic investment, commuter rail is a transit option that may work efficiently in a dispersed urban area such as Kansas City.
To examine commuter rail opportunities, a study was completed that examined the feasibility of utilizing rail corridors for commuter rail. The study entitled, Kansas City Regional Commuter Rail Study, evaluated the feasibility of operating commuter rail on existing rail lines or right-of-way. The report investigated 19 individual rail lines radiating from downtown Kansas City. These lines were grouped into eight corridors and evaluated for their future commuter rail potential over a 20-year planning horizon. The I-70 corridor was identified as one of three corridors that had the greatest potential for commuter rail service, in addition to the I-35 corridor that had previously been identified. The rail line serving this corridor is owned and operated by the Kansas City Southern Railroad. The Regional Commuter Rail Study studied commuter rail service extending between the Kansas City CBD to either Oak Grove or Odessa.
Highway and multimodal transportation needs within the I-70 corridor were addressed by the I-70 MIS. The I-70 MIS was completed in 2004. It included recommendations related to capacity improvements on I-70. Explored in the study were concepts to provide additional through lanes, improved interchanges, and managed lanes – for potential peak direction use, possible use by High Occupancy Vehicles (HOV), or as High Occupancy vehicles and High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lane use. Commuter rail strategies and impacts were incorporated from the Regional Commuter Rail Study. The recommendations included reconstruction of the existing facility between the CBD and US 40, located just east of I-435; reserving area within the median for the future construction of managed, reversible lanes; widening from six to eight lanes between US 40 and Missouri Route 7; and providing a six-lane section to the east of Missouri Route 7. MoDOT is preparing to initiate an environmental study of the I-70 corridor from the Kansas City CBD to east of I-470. A tiered environmental approach will be used to identify the range of alternatives to be considered (Tier 1) and to select a preferred alternative (Tier 2) for improvements to I-70.
1.4 Transportation on the I-70 Corridor 1.4.1 ROADWAYS There are five major roadways that provide a parallel network of east-west roads to I-70. These routes are US 24, Truman Road/Route 12, 23rd Street/Route 78, 31st/39th Streets, and US 40. Some of these adjacent road networks have numerous stop signs, traffic signals and transitions from two lanes to four lanes with parking along the sides. These roadways offer very few opportunities in their current condition to provide alternatives to using I-70, particularly for trucks and buses. Figure 1.5 shows the parallel networks to I-70.
PAGE 1-10 Kansas City Metro Area I-70 Transit Alternatives Analysis
FIGURE 1.
ara e Net or s to I
LEGEND
Interstates
Highways
2 Railroads
Water Bodies
Municipalities
Project Boundaries
JULY 2007 I-70 CORRIDOR TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED JULY 2007
1.4.2 PUBLIC TRANSIT The Kansas City Metropolitan Area has approximately 35 park-and-ride facilities. Most of these are shared-use facilities that are located in shopping malls, churches and other convenient locations, and owned by private groups. Some of the current park-and-ride facilities have no transit service and are used only as commuter carpool facilities. Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) owns some of the park-and-ride facilities that have express commuter service. These facilities are experiencing high demand for enhancements. The locations of the park-and-ride facilities and existing transit services are indicated in Figure 1.6.
Currently, the KCATA Metro bus service is the primary transit operator in the Kansas City metropolitan area. The Metro operates a high level of transit service in parts of the study area. The Metro is the only public bus service in Missouri currently available from eastern Jackson County to the Kansas City CBD. These bus services are concentrated more in the western part of the study area, north of I-70, with no service extending past Blue Springs. The Blue Springs Express operates along a large portion of the I-70 corridor. Currently, there are about 16 bus routes (including six Independence intra-community routes) operating in the study area. A limited number of these routes provide weekend service. Table 1-6 lays out “The Metro” bus routes serving the study area.
Table 1-6 The Metro Bus Routes Serving the I-70 Study Area
The Metro Route Description Bus Route No. 12 12th Street (Kemper Arena to Nowlin Hall) 123 23rd Street (31st & Jarboe to Park Tower) 24 Independence (Independence Square to 10th & Main Transit Plaza) Blue Ridge (Downtown KCMO to Ruskin) – KCATA operates this route Monday through Saturday on Blue Ridge Boulevard along Kansas City’s eastern boundary 28 between Downtown Kansas City, Missouri and the City of Grandview. The route also serves the Blue Ridge Mall. Raytown residents on the west side of the community use this service. 63rd Street (63rd & Ward Parkway to 63rd & Winchester) – KCATA operates this route along 63rd Street from Ward Parkway on the west to Blue Ridge Cut-Off on 163 the east Monday through Saturday. The route terminates at Brywood Shopping Center. Lee’s Summit/Raytown Express (Crown Center to Raytown & Lee’s Summit) – This commuter express service operates between the cities of Lee’s Summit and 152 Raytown and Downtown Kansas City, Missouri. This service provides three morning inbound trips and three afternoon outbound trips Monday through Friday. 155 55th Street (St. Luke’s Hospital to Pemberton Heights) Blue Springs Express (Crown Center to White Oak Plaza) – The KCATA operates this service between Blue Springs and Downtown Kansas City, Missouri along I-70. 170X A small number of Lee’s Summit residents, particularly from the northern part of the City, use this service by driving to the park and ride lot at Woods Chapel Road and I-70. 175 75th Street (Southeast High School to Ward Parkway Center) Independence Intra-Community service – These intra community services operate 183, 284, 285, on a one hour service frequency, and converge at Independence Square, in the 291, 292, 293 heart of Independence. Timed connections at Independence Square will result in no wait time for passengers needing to transfer between buses.
PAGE 1-12 Kansas City Metro Area I-70 Transit Alternatives Analysis
FIGURE 1.6
Park ‘n Ride Facilities (Transit)
LEGEND
Interstates
Highways
Railroads
Water Bodies
Municipalities
Project Boundaries
KCATA Bus Service
Park ‘n Ride Facilities
Note: Park ‘n Ride Facilities include Metro and MoDOT facilities.
JULY 2007 I-70 CORRIDOR TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED JULY 2007
1.4.3 RAILROADS The rail service in the I-70 corridor is provided on track owned and operated by the Kansas City Southern Railway (KCS). The length of track between Odessa and the Kansas City Union Station is 37.75 miles in length. This segment was formerly part of the Gateway Western Railway Subdivision No. 3. The line hosts five freight trains per day. The line consists of one main track, with no signal system and is controlled by Track Warrants (TWC). There is no passenger service on the line. The maximum train speed is 40 mph. To access Union Station, commuter trains would also use 6.2 miles of Kansas City Terminal (KCT) track between Rock Creek Junction (see Figure 2.3) and Union Station. The KCS tracks continue westward to the north side of the CBD.
One key issue to be addressed in this study is the potential western terminus point for the I-70 commuter rail line. The Regional Commuter Rail Study determined Union Station as the “clear choice” for a center city terminal. Because of physical constraints related to existing rail capacity and the amount of freight traffic that moves on the KCT tracks, other rail lines such as the KCS line with tracks which run to the north of the Kansas City CBD provide an alternate route to reach the central area of Kansas City.
The other rail line that is partially located in the I-70 corridor includes track owned and operated by Union Pacific (UP). Within the Kansas City metropolitan area, this line extends between Union Station (using KCT track), Independence, Lee’s Summit and Pleasant Hill. This single-track segment of the Sedalia Subdivision is part of UP’s major route between St. Louis, Missouri and Kansas City, Missouri/Kansas. Between Rock Creek and Kansas City, commuter trains would utilize the KCT’s belt line. Missouri and Northern Arkansas (MNA)—a regional carrier, uses UP tracks between Pleasant Hill and Rock Creek Junction. UP and MNA trains are permitted to run up to 55 mph. UP (and MNA) operate a total of 34 trains per day over the line. In addition, the Sedalia Subdivision hosts three Amtrak passenger trains: the Kansas City Mule, the St. Louis Mule and the Ann Rutledge. Amtrak trains are restricted to a maximum speed of 70 mph.
1.5 Transportation Problems and Needs The problems and needs of persons living, working or traveling through the I-70 corridor are defined in this section. The purpose of this project is to address these problems and needs as part of a preferred alternative to be identified as part of this Alternatives Analysis Study.
The problem and needs of the I-70 corridor were investigated within the context of the regional long-range plan completed by MARC in 2003. The plan, entitled Transportation Outlook 2030 explores and explains the region’s ability to solve transportation problems. The plan assessed transportation improvements in the context of supporting a strong regional economy and maximizing access to this economy through the transportation system. The plan provided direction to increase the choice of travel modes available across the region. This policy direction applies to the I-70 corridor.
Other studies involving the I-70 corridor, including the I-70 MIS and the Regional Commuter Rail Study identified transportation-related problems and needs for the I-70 corridor. x Congestion on I-70 and the parallel street system is decreasing travel mobility.
PAGE 1-14 I-70 CORRIDOR TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED JULY 2007
x While potential transit demand exists, there is a low level of transit service (i.e. low frequency, long travel time, number of transfers and limited availability) in the I-70 corridor is low.
x There is a percentage of the population that does not have access to the auto-oriented transportation system.
x There is a need to create potential land use advantages to help support sustainable development in suburban settings.
x Increased travel and congestion have contributed to the negative effects on air quality in the region.
x There are increased costs for expanding and maintaining the highway system given statewide, regional and local financial constraints for transportation projects.
1.5.1 CONGESTION AND DECREASING MOBILITY Increased traffic congestion has reduced travel mobility in the I-70 corridor and reduced access to the major employment centers located in the central portion of the region. The change in access to downtown Kansas City over the years has been documented in travel time surveys completed by MARC over a period of years. Figure 1.7 shows 20-minute travel time contours for 1957, 1977, 1987, 1990, 1993, 1996 and 2000 extending from the Kansas City, Missouri CBD. From 1957 to 1993, these contours show that motorists could travel greater distances due to transportation improvements. However, by 1996, the contour along I-70 begins to contract, meaning motorist’s traveled less distance in 20-minutes than they did in 1993. By the year 2000, congestion within the I-70 corridor caused the contours to retract to 1990 levels, and in some cases 1987 levels.
Traffic capacity is defined as the maximum number of vehicles that a highway can accommodate with a reasonable margin of safety, within a specific amount of time. Capacity is measured by what is known as "Level of Service" (LOS). LOS qualifies traffic conditions in terms of such factors as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, and comfort and convenience. LOS categories range from A to F. Each level represents a range of operating conditions, with LOS A-B representing the best operating conditions (free-flowing traffic) and LOS D-F the worst (extremely congested, stop-and-go traffic).
Figure 1.8 shows that in the year 2000 mainline I-70 is over capacity (LOS E and F) in the morning peak hours from downtown east through I-470. Figure 1.9 shows the evening peak hour is over capacity from Brooklyn Avenue east through Noland Road. Figures 1.10 and 1.11 show that in 2025 the mainline of the corridor will be over capacity from downtown to east of Missouri Route 7 during the morning and evening peak periods. The inadequate LOS will be due to large traffic volumes, unbalanced lane geometrics and insufficient acceleration and deceleration lanes between ramps and the mainline. The existing conditions on the mainline generate conditions that reach or exceed the capacity between downtown and I-470. The increase of 13% of traffic in some areas pushes conditions beyond capacity and produces excessive congestion for the corridor.
PAGE 1-15 Kansas City Metro Area I-70 Transit Alternatives Analysis
FIGURE 1.
rave i e Co arison
LEGEND
Interstates
Highways
Railroads
Water Bodies
Municipalities
Historic Drive Times
JULY 2007 Kansas City Metro Area I-70 Transit Alternatives Analysis
FIGURE 1.8
Existing AM Peak Hour Deficiencies
LEGEND
Interstates
Highways
Railroads
Water Bodies
Municipalities
Project Boundaries Level-of-Service
Mainline or Better
Cross-Street Intersection
or Better
Source: I-70 MIS
JULY 2007 Kansas City Metro Area I-70 Transit Alternatives Analysis
FIGURE 1.
E istin M ea o r De iciencies
LEGEND
Interstates
Highways
Railroads
Water Bodies
Municipalities
Project Boundaries Level-of-Service
Mainline D or Better
E
F Cross-Street Intersection
D or Better
E
F
70
JULY 2007 Kansas City Metro Area I-70 Transit Alternatives Analysis
FIGURE 1.1
FtreAM ea o r De iciencies
LEGEND
Interstates
Highways
Railroads
Water Bodies
Municipalities
Project Boundaries Level-of-Service
Mainline or Better
Cross-Street Intersection
or Better
Source: I-70 MIS
JULY 2007 Kansas City Metro Area I-70 Transit Alternatives Analysis
FIGURE 1.11
FtreM ea o r De iciencies
LEGEND
Interstates
Highways
Railroads
Water Bodies
Municipalities
Project Boundaries Level-of-Service
Mainline or Better
Cross-Street Intersection
or Better
70
JULY 2007 I-70 CORRIDOR TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED JULY 2007
The ramps experience worse LOS more frequently in the morning peak hours than when compared to the evening peak hours. These poor service levels on the highlighted ramps are due to large traffic volumes and inadequate physical facilities to handle the exchange of traffic between the ramps and the mainline.
In the I-70 MIS it was stated that a trip between Oak Grove and the Kansas City CBD took 38.5 minutes in 2000 and the same trip in 2020 would take nearly one hour; this represents nearly a 50 percent increase.
It is estimated that highway congestion costs the U.S. nearly $63.2 billion annually (in urban areas). According to the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI), congestion in the Kansas City area cost $215 million and a total of 12,025,000 hours of travel delay in 2002. The annual delay per traveler has gone up from two to 15 hours from 1982 to 2002.
Annual delay per traveler is the extra travel time for peak period travel during the year divided by the number of travelers who begin a trip during the peak period (6 to 9 AM and 4 to 7 PM). Free-flow speeds (60 mph on freeways and 35 mph on principal arterials) are used as the comparison threshold.
Congestion decreases the quality of life and increases the cost of doing business thus making a region less attractive to those in a prospective workforce and for business. The consequences of congestion can be far-reaching throughout the corridor, and secondary effects can be experienced beyond the corridor boundaries.
The continued growth in commercial and residential development along the corridor increases the need for transportation improvements to move people to and from existing and planned developments. As the I-70 corridor becomes increasingly congested, many people who drive will find their work and shopping trips take longer, as congestion on the roads impede the flow of traffic. Without improvements to support existing and proposed developments, the ability to sustain growth may be reduced.
1.5.2 LEVEL AND QUALITY OF TRANSIT SERVICE Table 1-7 presents a comparison of travel times via highway and transit for several representative travel markets in the study area. These travel markets extend from Odessa at the eastern end of the study area to the Kansas City CBD/Crown Center at the western end. The first two columns in the table compare typical congested highway travel times for year 2000 and 2020 base conditions. In general, travel times are projected to increase for all travel markets in year 2020. The travel time increase is most pronounced for areas east of Blue Springs. The combination of continued economic growth in eastern Jackson County and limited infrastructure investment in the corridor will contribute to degrading service levels within the study area.
Currently for the eastern part of our study area no regular transit service is available. For the markets where transit service is regularly available, transit travel times are projected to remain similar from 2000 to 2020, although transit times are projected to exceed highway travel times in both years. As a result, transit service will continue to experience low accessibility, impeded travel times and limited mobility as it continues to share the roadway system with an increasing number of vehicles.
PAGE 1-21 I-70 CORRIDOR TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED JULY 2007
Table 1-7 Travel Time Comparison for Representative Travel Markets
Congested Highway Time Transit Time Travel Market (minutes) (minutes) 2000 2020 2000 2020 Odessa to Kansas City CBD 46.5 65.7 N/A N/A Oak Grove to Kansas City CBD 38.5 57.7 N/A N/A Blue Springs to Kansas City CBD 31.8 46.3 33.0 33.0 Independence to Kansas City CBD 25.3 27.3 49.7 49.7 N/A – Regularly scheduled fixed-route transit service not available between these travel markets Source: I-70 MIS, as estimated from MARC travel demand model
1.5.3 LIMITED ACCESS TO THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM Surveys have indicated that the region’s quality of life is typically the most important factor in the attractiveness of a region for prospective workers. This means that the most competitive regions will need to maintain a high quality of life if they wish to attract and retain a strong employment base. In addition, many businesses still depend heavily on transportation, and view accessibility as a major consideration when selecting sites for new or expanded operations. Areas with substantial congestion have a greater cost of doing business and are often, therefore, less attractive for economic development.
Availability of transportation options is important for all demographic groups, especially for the minority population. Figure 1.12 shows minority households within the study area. A majority of the minority population within the study area are just east of the Kansas City CBD. Income affects travel mode choices.
Lower income households may not have an automobile available for trips by all household members, and these households are therefore more dependent on transit for basic mobility. Therefore, lower income travelers are more likely to elect to use transit for a given trip. Figure 1.13 shows families below the poverty line within the study area. Low-income households are defined by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services as households where the median income is less than or equal to 120% of the low-income level ($17,050) for a family of four. A majority of families below the poverty line are just east of the Kansas City CBD.
The most transit dependent demographics are the households without cars. Figure 1.14 shows the distribution of zero car households within the study area. The distribution pattern of zero car households follows closely that of minority and low-income households. A majority of households are just east of the Kansas City CBD.
1.5.4 NEED FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT MARC currently has a program called Creating Quality Places. The program is comprised of 20 principles which are a set of affirmative statements that represent a powerful consensus on what is needed to design successful neighborhoods, vibrant mixed-use commercial areas and efficient transportation systems – all within a healthy natural environment. The principles are grouped into four categories: Homes and Neighborhoods; Commercial Areas; Transportation and Public Places; and Environmental Quality.
PAGE 1-22 Kansas City Metro Area I-70 Transit Alternatives Analysis
FIGURE 1.12
Minority Population by Density
LEGEND
Interstates
Highways
Railroads
Water Bodies
Municipalities
Project Boundaries
Minority Households (1 dot = 20 Families)
JULY 2007 Kansas City Metro Area I-70 Transit Alternatives Analysis
FIGURE 1.1
o ation y Inco e
LEGEND
Interstates
Highways
Railroads
Water Bodies
Municipalities
Project Boundaries
a ilies Below Poverty ine (1 Dot = 20 Families)
JULY 2007 Kansas City Metro Area I-70 Transit Alternatives Analysis
FIGURE 1.14
Zero-Car Households by Density
LEGEND
Interstates
Highways
Railroads
Water Bodies
Municipalities
Project Boundaries
Zero Car Households (1 Dot = 20 Households)
JULY 2007 I-70 CORRIDOR TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED JULY 2007
An important principle is to have a multimodal quality transportation system that accommodates automobiles, public transit, public safety vehicles, freight, pedestrians and bicycles in a balanced way to maximize access and mobility and to minimize congestion throughout the community. Another one of the principles is to create transit supportive development. Easy pedestrian access and a mix of uses are encouraged at existing and proposed transit stops to allow transit to become a viable alternative to the automobile. Private development and public places need to be designed to maximize opportunities for a regional transit network.
1.5.5 EFFECT ON AIR QUALITY Clean air is an important quality of life issue for the Kansas City region. It affects health and comfort of everyone, particularly sensitive groups such as children, the elderly and those with health concerns. While vehicles are not the only source of air pollution in the region, they are a major source of some pollutants. In the Kansas City Region, on-road mobile sources account for 60 percent of volatile organic chemicals (VOCs), the precursors to the formation of ground- level ozone.
The Kansas City region is currently designated as ‘in attainment’ of the one-hour and eight-hour air quality standards. In the past, the Kansas City region has been designated as a maintenance area. In the recent past, favorable weather conditions have contributed to improved air quality for ozone, and have resulted in the reclassification as an area in attainment of air quality standards. During the summer of 2006 ozone monitors within the Kansas City maintenance area boundary registered 24 exceedances of the 8-hour ozone standard. While a violation of the federal ground-level ozone standard has not yet occurred, there is a high potential for a violation in the summer of 2007. Given specific concern with ground-level ozone and the general desire for good air quality, it is important to support transportation strategies that will sustain good air quality in the region.
The standard measure for growth in automobile usage is vehicle miles traveled (VMT). In the Kansas City region, annual VMT has risen 53 percent between 1982 and 2003. Table 1-8 shows that annual VMT in 1982 was approximately 7.3 million and in 2003 15.5 million. While VMT does not correlate directly with the levels of vehicle emissions produced, it can serve as an indicator. Vehicles produce more pollutants per miles traveled when operating at low speeds or in stop and go traffic. As VMT increases in a region, it generally increases traffic congestion and decreases travel speed. This can result in an increase in pollutants. There are other factors that affect pollution levels, including average gas mileage and the vehicle mix of the vehicles driven in the region. The presence of pollution controls (catalytic converters or formulated gas for example) also has impacts on the level of vehicle emissions. Over time, if newer lower polluting vehicles are added and older more polluting vehicles are retired from the vehicle fleet, emissions could drop as long as VMT growth is not too high.
Transit strategies that reduce the number and miles of vehicle trips will contribute to improvements in air quality. Transit strategies in the I-70 corridor may also help reduce traffic congestion, further contributing to meeting air quality standards.
PAGE 1-26 I-70 CORRIDOR TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED JULY 2007
Table 1-8 Kansas City Metropolitan Area Highway Congestion
Year Daily VMT Annual VMT 1982 20,005,000 7,301,825,000 1983 20,445,000 7,462,425,000 1984 20,845,000 7,608,425,000 1985 22,545,000 8,228,925,000 1986 23,435,000 8,553,775,000 1987 24,450,000 8,924,250,000 1988 25,270,000 9,223,550,000 1989 26,225,000 9,572,125,000 1990 27,470,000 10,026,550,000 1991 27,970,000 10,209,050,000 1992 32,695,000 11,933,675,000 1993 33,525,000 12,236,625,000 1994 34,930,000 12,749,450,000 1995 37,180,000 13,570,700,000 1996 37,330,000 13,625,450,000 1997 39,310,000 14,348,150,000 1998 40,145,000 14,652,925,000 1999 40,145,000 14,652,925,000 2000 41,000,000 14,965,000,000 2001 41,580,000 15,176,700,000 2002 42,260,000 15,424,900,000 2003 42,545,000 15,528,925,000
Source: Urban Mobility Report, Texas Transportation Institute, 2005.
1.5.6 FINANCIAL CONSTRAINTS The cost of providing transportation projects and operations continues to increase. The I-70 MIS identified a number of options to increase highway capacity on I-70 that had high costs due to the need for acquiring right-of-way, construction and mitigating potential impacts of the project. Transit operations have been constrained by increasing operational costs and fluxuation with sales tax revenues.
Providing roadway capacity to meet travel demand is a problem across the country and the I-70 corridor is no exception. The costs of any of the options to reconstruct I-70 would range from approximately $300 million for basic reconstruction to over $1 billion to reconstruct the freeway and to add new travel lanes. Improvements to the I-70 corridor are included in the region’s long range transportation plan. The plan includes a placeholder for the specific improvements to be determined from further study. Corridor-wide improvements to I-70 are not included in the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) or the regional Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).
PAGE 1-27 I-70 CORRIDOR TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED JULY 2007
1.6 Planning Context 1.6.1 FTA PLANNING AND PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PROCESS The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) planning and project development process in which federal, state and local officials plan and make decisions regarding major transit capital investments contains five phases: 1. System Planning; 2. Alternatives Analysis; 3. Preliminary Engineering/EIS; 4. Final Design; and 5. Construction. As projects are conceived and advanced through these phases, their design, costs, benefits, impacts and tradeoffs are more clearly defined, with alternatives being successively eliminated until an alternative remains that is the most cost-effective and provides the greatest benefit with the fewest adverse impacts. Final design of the project may then be initiated, and if the necessary funding arrangements can be negotiated, the project will be constructed.
This Alternatives Analysis is an initial analytical phase of a project development process that, should project sponsors decide to advance the project at several points, would include preliminary engineering, environmental documentation required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and Final Design. Those elements would complete the planning process necessary to move the recommended project into construction.
This process follows the guidelines of the FTA for projects seeking to use federal funds for planning and construction. It is a regionally driven decision-making process that includes the participation of the FTA and other relevant federal, state and local agencies in all its phases. A brief description of each stage of the process follows.
An alternatives analysis focuses on a single transportation corridor and is conducted in the context of the relevant Metropolitan Planning Organization’s (MPO’s) long-range planning process. In the case of this study, MARC selected the I-70 corridor. The Alternatives Analysis defines and evaluates a range of practical alternatives, including various routes and modes (for example, commuter rail and express bus), to address mobility needs or deficiencies in the corridor. The analysis provides information on benefits, costs and impacts of each alternative to guide the regional decision-making process. Early in the study evaluation criteria is selected to help guide the ultimate selection of the LPA that may be advanced into subsequent planning phases. Evaluation criteria typically include effectiveness, impacts, cost-effectiveness, financial feasibility and equity.
An alternatives analysis also includes an analysis of potential local funding sources, for both capital and operating costs, for the selected alternative. And, finally, alternatives analyses are notable for their high levels of stakeholder (public) involvement, which is an important element of the decision-making process.
At the conclusion of the Alternatives Analysis, if a decision is made by MARC to advance the LPA into preliminary engineering, the preferred alternative needs to be included in the agency’s financially constrained long-range plan.
Should a decision be made to advance the project into preliminary engineering as part of the FTA’s New Starts funding process, the project’s sponsor(s) would complete a formal request to the FTA for approval to take that step. The application for approval to move into preliminary
PAGE 1-28 I-70 CORRIDOR TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED JULY 2007
engineering includes data produced for the Alternatives Analysis on such performance measures as ridership, costs, environmental impacts (including social and economic), and the initial review of potential local funding sources to provide the necessary match for federal funds. In addition, the application includes a section on regional land-use conditions and policies to indicate the degree to which existing and future conditions are supportive of transit, that is, to what degree do they serve to increase ridership and make the system more cost-effective.
During preliminary engineering, plans are refined for the project to allow more accurate estimates of projects, benefits and costs than was the case during the Alternatives Analysis. This phase also includes project management and fleet management plans, as well as the commitment of local funds for the construction and operation of the project. Since a second New Starts approval by FTA is required to advance into the next, and final, planning phase, Final Design, preliminary engineering also includes the development of information required in the New Starts submittal. This includes more rigorous requirements in the area of transit-supportive land-use policies than that which was required for the application to begin preliminary engineering.
Before the LPA moves out of preliminary engineering, the project sponsor(s) will need to meet the requirements of NEPA, which will likely necessitate the completion of an Environmental Assessment (EA) and/or a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). Such environmental documents are sometimes completed concurrently with an alternatives analysis, but in this case MARC chose to complete a stand-alone Alternatives Analysis, deferring the EA or DEIS until after the completion of the Alternatives Analysis.
A DEIS is a rigorous evaluation of transportation alternatives, focusing on environmental impacts of the various options. These include natural environmental elements, such as air, water, wildlife and parklands, as well as social and economic environmental impacts. A focus is on eliminating, minimizing or mitigating adverse impacts that are caused by the project. Commitments to carry out the required mitigation are also included. After a DEIS is circulated for comments, the process is completed with the preparation of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS).
An EA is completed if the FTA is uncertain whether an EIS will be required and helps determine if it is. The EA meets NEPA requirements if it is determined that likely environmental impacts are not significant enough to warrant an EIS.
Upon the completion of preliminary engineering and the requisite NEPA documentation, project sponsor(s) will submit an application to FTA for approval to advance the LPA to Final Design. The factors assessed are the costs, benefits and impacts of the project, as was the case with the request to move into preliminary engineering. However, the expectation is that the region will have made further progress in such areas as local funding and transit-supportive development policies.
After FTA approval the project will move into Final Design. This is the last phase of project development before construction begins. It includes right-of-way acquisition, utility relocation, and the preparation of final construction plans, detailed specifications, construction cost estimates and bid documents.
PAGE 1-29 2.0 Transit Alternatives I-70 CORRIDOR TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 2.0 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES JULY 2007
2.0 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES
2.1 Introduction The I-70 Corridor Transit Alternatives Analysis includes an analysis of a Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Alternative, an Express Bus Alternative and a Commuter Rail Alternative. The TSM Alternative provides the baseline for establishing the environmental impacts of the alternatives and the cost-effectiveness of the other alternatives. Additionally, the TSM Alternative provides the baseline against which the proposed guideway alternative is evaluated. The TSM Alternative reflects the “existing + committed” transit network. The TSM Alternative is required as part of the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) New Starts process and represents the “best that can be done” to improve transit service in the I-70 corridor without major capital investment. The Express Bus Alternative represents the introduction of express bus service in the I-70 corridor with appropriate modification of local and express bus service. The Commuter Rail Alternative reflects the introduction of commuter rail service in the corridor with appropriate modification of local and express bus service. The conclusion of the Alternatives Analysis process is the determination of a locally preferred alternative (LPA), if appropriate. The LPA is the alternative that best meets the community’s needs.
2.2 TSM Alternative The TSM Alternative reflects the “existing + committed” transit network, plus the strategies described in the I-70 MIS including alternative work hours, ridesharing and advance implementation of Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) projects through the Kansas City Scout program. Street and highway projects include projects included in the MARC 2004-2007 Transportation Improvement Program. The existing transit network includes the entire Kansas City Area Transportation Authority’s (KCATA) bus service as currently operated. Existing KCATA service coverage in the corridor primarily extends from downtown Kansas City to Independence Center, with the exception of the Blue Springs Express Route which extends service to Missouri Route 7. There are no existing transit services in the Grain Valley, Oak Grove and Odessa communities. With regard to committed transit projects, the TSM Alternative also includes the Metro Area Express (MAX) which is KCATA’s new bus rapid transit (BRT) line connecting the River Market, Downtown, Union Station, Crown Center and The Plaza areas. The TSM Alternative assumes that funding levels will keep pace with transit operating and maintenance (O&M) costs to support the continuation of “existing + committed” services.
The bus operating plan for the TSM Alternative includes the following key bus facilities and services in the corridor.
2.2.1 TSM ALTERNATIVE FACILITIES The owner and/or sponsor will need to rehabilitate the Blue Springs Transit Center/Park and Ride (P&R) lot in the vicinity of I-70 and Missouri Route 7 (Exit 20 – Figure 2.1). This project is a Smart Moves recommendation and is programmed in the MARC 2004-2007 Transportation Improvement Program (project # 995001).
PAGE 2-1 Kansas City Metro Area I-70 Transit Alternatives Analysis
FIGURE 2.1
M ase ine A ternative
LEGEND
Interstates
Highways
Railroads
Water Bodies
Municipalities
Project Boundaries
CA A Bus ervice
Par Ride ots
JULY 2007 I-70 CORRIDOR TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 2.0 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES JULY 2007
2.2.2 TSM ALTERNATIVE EXPRESS ROUTES #24X - Farview Express This existing express route runs between Farview Shopping Center and downtown Kansas City via US 24, Kiger, and Truman. The route makes limited stops along Truman at Blue Ridge Boulevard, Vincil, Winchester, Cleveland, Bellefontaine, Prospect, Paseo, and Troost; and makes all local stops east of Truman and Winner Roads. In downtown Kansas City, the bus routing distributes riders on Holmes and Grand between Truman and Admiral. Service is two morning inbound trips and two afternoon outbound trips Monday through Friday (frequency is approximately 60 minutes).
#24X - Highleah Express This existing express route runs between Highleah Apartments and downtown Kansas City via Missouri Route 78, 23rd Street, Main, Winner, and Truman. The route makes limited stops along Truman at Blue Ridge Boulevard, Vincil, Winchester, Cleveland, Bellefontaine, Prospect, Paseo, and Troost; and makes all local stops east of Truman and Winner Roads. In downtown Kansas City, the bus routing distributes riders on Holmes and Grand between Truman and Admiral. Service is two morning inbound trips and two afternoon outbound trips Monday through Friday (frequency is approximately 60 minutes).
#170 - Blue Springs Express This existing express route was operated on a short term basis, but would be continued in this alternative to run between Blue Springs and downtown Kansas City via I-70. The route serves three P&R lots: White Oak Plaza P&R at US 40 and Missouri Route 7, Exit 20 P&R at I-70 and Missouri Route 7, and Exit 18 P&R at I-70 and Woods Chapel Road. In Kansas City, the bus routing distributes riders destined to downtown via 13th, Locust, 9th/10th, and Grand and then travels via Grand and Pershing to Crown Center and Union Station destinations. Service includes three morning inbound trips and four afternoon outbound trips Monday through Friday (frequency is approximately 30 minutes).
2.2.3 TSM ALTERNATIVE LOCAL ROUTES #24 - Independence This route provides local service between downtown Kansas City and Independence Square via Independence Avenue and US 24. Weekday service is 10 minutes during peak hours and 15 minutes base.
#28 - Blue Ridge This route provides local service between downtown Kansas City and the Blue Ridge Mall (and continues south to Longview Square) via I-70, US 40, Pittman, and 42nd/43rd. Weekday service is 12 minutes during peak hours and 30 minutes base via 31st Street instead of I-70.
Independence Intra-City Metro Service This service consists of six routes (#183, #284, #285, #291, #292, and #293) which converge at Independence Square and provide an excellent feeder/distribution network. The routes provide service along major thoroughfares in Independence including Truman, 15th Street, US 24, 23rd
PAGE 2-3 I-70 CORRIDOR TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 2.0 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES JULY 2007
Street, Missouri Route 291, Noland Road, and Sterling. Service is provided to many Independence neighborhoods and major destinations such as Independence Center, Wal-Mart, Target, The Hub, Blue Ridge Community College, Truman Library, Alton Plaza, K-Mart, Noland Fashion Square and Independence Regional Health Clinic. Service is 60 minutes all day on all routes. Passengers can transfer to #24 at Independence Square and to #28 at Blue Ridge Mall.
Kansas City Intra-City Metro Service In addition, the bus operating plan for the TSM Alternative includes the following services to enhance trip distribution for downtown Kansas City transit passengers: Metro Area Express (MAX) – This service is the above mentioned BRT. Weekday service is 10 minutes during peak hours and 15 minutes base. Routes #110, #126, and #173 – These routes are connected to the Max service end-of- line station at River Market (northeast quadrant of Grand and 3rd). It is assumed that these routing modifications would be operation and maintenance (O&M) cost neutral to the existing KCATA bus operations.
2.2.4 TSM ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY In summary, the TSM Alternative bus operating plan results in seven AM peak direction express commuter trips to downtown Kansas City and eight PM peak direction express commuter return trips as follows:
x Blue Springs to Downtown – Three stops at US 40/Missouri Route 7, I-70 Exit 20, and I-70 Exit 18. Three AM trips and four PM trips, peak direction.
x Independence to Downtown – Stops at Farview Shopping Center, Highleah Apartments, Independence Square and eight stops along Truman. Four trips AM and PM, peak direction. Local service in the corridor east of I-435 is provided by #24, #28, and the Independence Intra- City Metro routes, whereas the MAX and other local downtown routes provide secondary feeder and distribution service in downtown Kansas City.
2.3 Express Bus Alternative The Express Bus Alternative is designed to address identified transportation needs in the corridor service area utilizing the express bus service mode. The Express Bus Alternative reflects new commuter bus service from Odessa, Oak Grove, and Grain Valley; expanded and modified commuter bus service from Blue Springs and Independence; and new and expanded local bus service in Blue Springs and Independence. Beginning with the TSM Alternative bus operating plan, the following facilities and services are added and/or modified to develop the Express Bus Alternative bus operating plan.
2.3.1 EXPRESS BUS ALTERNATIVE FACILITIES New Grain Valley Transit Center with P&R Lot This new transit center and P&R lot would be located in the vicinity of I-70 and Missouri Route BB/Buckner Tarsney Road (Exit 24). This is a Smart Moves recommendation (see Figure 2.2).
PAGE 2-4 Kansas City Metro Area I-70 Transit Alternatives Analysis
FIGURE 2.2
Express Bus “Build” Alternative
LEGEND
Interstates
Highways
Railroads
Water Bodies
Municipalities
Project Boundaries
KCATA Bus Service
Enhanced Bus Service
Transit Center
Park & Ride Lots
ote ransit centers include par n ride acilities
JULY 2007 I-70 CORRIDOR TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 2.0 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES JULY 2007
New Oak Grove P&R Lot This new P&R lot would be located in the vicinity of I-70 Exit 28. A small informal P&R lot (joint use agreement with existing commercial parking lot) would be required on the north side of the interchange to facilitate bus operations. The existing MoDOT P&R lot in the southwest quadrant of the interchange would not work well for bus operations and is already at capacity.
Upgrade Odessa P&R Lot The existing MoDOT P&R lot on Missouri Route 131 near downtown Odessa would be expanded and paved.
2.3.2 EXPRESS BUS ALTERNATIVE ROUTES #24X - Independence For this alternative, the two existing express route patterns (#24X - Farview and #24X - Highleah) would be replaced with one express route that would terminate at Independence Square (Lexington/Osage), i.e., the route would only run between Independence Square and downtown Kansas City. From Independence Square, the route would run west on Lexington and Winner to Truman, and then follow Truman and the same routing in downtown Kansas City as existing #24X routes. The route would make limited stops at Winner/Truman and along Truman at Blue Ridge Boulevard, Vincil, Winchester, Cleveland, Bellefontaine, Prospect, Paseo, and Troost. Service would be four morning inbound trips and four afternoon outbound trips Monday through Friday (frequency is approximately 30 minutes).
#170 - Grain Valley/Blue Springs Express For this alternative, the existing #170 route would be modified as follows: delete segment on Route 7 from White Oak Plaza P&R to I-70; extend the route east to Grain Valley (I-70 Exit 24). Then, this express route would run between Grain Valley/Blue Springs and downtown Kansas City via I-70. The route would serve three P&R lots: Exit 24, Exit 20 and Woods Chapel Road (Exit 18). Routing in downtown Kansas City would be the same as existing #170. Service would include six morning inbound departure times and six afternoon outbound departure times, Monday through Friday (frequency is approximately 20 minutes). Reverse peak service could also be provided at 20 minute frequencies. This service is Freeway Flyer (FF) #5 within the Smart Moves recommendation.
#171 - Odessa/Oak Grove Express This new express route would run between Odessa/Oak Grove and downtown Kansas City via I-70. The route would serve two P&R lots: Existing MoDOT P&R lot on Missouri Route 131 near downtown Odessa and Oak Grove, Exit 28 P&R lot. In the AM, the route would begin at the Odessa P&R lot, and then proceed to I-70 via Missouri Route 131 and access I-70 at Exit 37. After making the second P&R lot stop at Exit 28, the route would proceed to, and distribute trips in, downtown Kansas City via same routing as #170. The PM routing would be reversed. Service would be four morning inbound trips and four afternoon outbound trips, Monday through Friday (frequency is approximately 40 minutes).
PAGE 2-6 I-70 CORRIDOR TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 2.0 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES JULY 2007
2.3.3 EXPRESS BUS ALTERNATIVE LOCAL ROUTES #24 - Independence There would be no change in routing or service level from TSM Alternative.
#28 - Blue Ridge There would be no change in routing or service level from TSM Alternative.
Independence Intra-City Metro Service Existing service needs to be modified to 30 minutes during peak hours and 60 minutes base for all six routes (#183, #284, #285, #291, #292, and #293). This is a Smart Moves recommendation.
#L45 - Blue Springs This is a new local route. The route would run in both directions from the new Blue Springs Transit Center/P&R lot in the vicinity of I-70 and Missouri Route 7, south on Missouri Route 7, west on Main, south on 15th Street, west on Webster Memorial Parkway (US 40), north on Little Blue Parkway (circulating in commercial areas on south and north side of I-70 Exit 16), and west on 39th Street to the Independence Center. Weekday service would be 30 minutes during peak hours and 60 minutes base. This is a Smart Moves recommendation.
2.3.4 EXPRESS BUS ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY In summary, the Express Bus Alternative bus operating plan results in 14 AM and 14 PM peak direction express commuter trips to/from downtown Kansas City. This operating plan is proposed as a means to provide limited stop/express service to downtown Kansas City from select P&R lots and community stops/transit centers. The proposed peak period route patterns are as follows:
x Odessa/Oak Grove to Downtown – Two stops at Missouri Route 131 near downtown Odessa and I-70 Exit 28. Four trips AM and PM, peak direction.
x Grain Valley/Blue Springs to Downtown – Three stops at I-70 Exits 24, 20, and 18. Six trips AM and PM, peak direction.
x Independence to Downtown – Stop at Independence Square and eight stops along Truman. Four trips AM and PM, peak direction.
In addition to the peak direction service, the #170 would provide reverse peak commute service from/to downtown Kansas City to suburban employment sites in Blue Springs. This reverse commute service is a component of FF #5 in the Smart Moves recommendation.
Local service in the corridor east of I-435 would be provided by #24, #28, the Independence Intra-City Metro Routes, and a new local #L45 Blue Springs Route, whereas the MAX and other local downtown routes would provide secondary feeder and distribution service in downtown Kansas City. No changes are proposed for these KCATA transit services, except for the addition of new route #L45 and increasing the service of the six Independence Intra-City Metro Routes from 60 minutes to 30 minutes during peak hours of operation.
PAGE 2-7 I-70 CORRIDOR TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 2.0 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES JULY 2007
2.4 Commuter Rail Alternative The Commuter Rail Alternative is reflected as a new commuter rail service between Odessa and downtown Kansas City, along with modifications to corridor commuter express and local bus service.
2.4.1 COMMUTER RAIL ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTION This rail corridor extends east from Kansas City to Odessa paralleling the Missouri River and I-70. Most of the likely commuter rail route in this corridor is owned and operated by Kansas City Southern Railway (KCS). The portion of the Mexico Subdivision between Rock Creek Junction and Odessa (approximately 34.4 miles – see Figure 2.3) consists of one main track, with no signal system and is controlled by Track Warrants Control (TWC), wherein movement of trains is governed by verbal authority of the dispatcher, conveyed by radio. There is currently no passenger service on the line. The maximum train speed is currently 40 mph.
Three alternate routes are under consideration between Rock Creek Junction and downtown Kansas City (see Figure 2.4), including:
x Option 1 - KCS Pittsburg Subdivision and Kansas City Terminal Railway (KCT) to Kansas City Union Station;
x Option 2 - KCS Pittsburg Subdivision to a Riverfront Station in the vicinity of Grand Avenue and 3rd Street ; and
x Option 3 - KCT Main Tracks to Kansas City Union Station.
Given input from the KCT regarding freight activity, the likely western terminal will be at a Riverfront Station. Chapter 3 provides a detailed discussion of the evaluation process. To do so, track would need to be placed back within the 2nd Street right-of-way between Grand Avenue and Troost Street to connect with the BRT Station at that location.
2.4.2 COMMUTER RAIL ALTERNATIVE STATION LOCATIONS Outlying Communities As part of the Regional Commuter Rail Study, five stations were suggested for the corridor at Odessa, Oak Grove, Blue Springs, Independence-Little Blue and Independence-Central, as detailed below. Another station that was considered but not recommended in that the regional study was a station at Grain Valley. A station for this community will be re-evaluated in this study. Although specific potential locations and suggested station prototypes are identified, these locations and station types should receive careful consideration in implementation planning. Community input and participation is vital to this aspect of project development.
Odessa – The proposed station would be located north of the city on North Johnson Road, just north of I-70. The site is presently being utilized for agricultural use with a fiber optic switching station within close proximity.
PAGE 2-8 Kansas City Metro Area I-70 Transit Alternatives Analysis
FIGURE 2. Co ter Rai i A ternative
LEGEND
Interstates
Highways
Railroads
Water Bodies
Municipalities
Project Boundaries
KCATA Bus Service
Commuter Rail Service
Potential Future Commuter Rail Service Option
Commuter Rail Station
JULY 2007 Kansas City Metro Area I-70 Transit Alternatives Analysis
FIGURE 2.4 Commuter Rail Alternative Routing
LEGEND
Interstates
Highways
Railroads
Water Bodies
Municipalities
Project Boundaries
Co uter Rail Routing
ption
ption elected
ption
JULY 2007
CA I-70 CORRIDOR TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 2.0 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES JULY 2007
Oak Grove – There are two general locations for a station in Oak Grove. One potential station is located on the east side of town, north of the railroad tracks at the southeast corner of SE 10th Street and SE Salem Street. This site is approximately six blocks from I-70 and two blocks from downtown. A second potential station location assumed in this analysis is west of Broadway Street (Missouri Route F) along either side of the tracks. Grain Valley – A potential station would be located adjacent to the railroad tracks in the vicinity of Main Street (Missouri Route BB). Blue Springs – The proposed station is located in the center of the town, five blocks west of Missouri Route 7, at the location of a former rail station at 13th Street and Main Street. The station would be less than one mile from either I-70 or US 40. Independence-Little Blue – The proposed station is located east of the Little Blue Parkway between I-70 and 39th Street. Independence-Central – A number of possible small sites are located in the vicinity of 23rd Street and Crysler Avenue. The location of a potential station could be on small vacant properties adjacent to the railroad on 23rd Street to the east of Crysler Avenue or on other sites located to the west of Crysler Avenue.
Downtown Kansas City Three downtown terminals were reviewed in the previous study, two of which, Kansas City Union Station and a Riverfront site near Grand Avenue and 3rd Street are under active consideration. The Riverfront terminal location is the recommended location from this study and is described in greater detail in the next chapter.
2.4.3 COMMUTER RAIL ALTERNATIVE SERVICE CONCEPT With improvements to the rail, passenger speeds of 60 mph could be achieved and projected commuter train running time between Odessa and Kansas City Union Station would be about 66 minutes. Expected running time between Odessa and Riverfront would be similar and will be developed in this study.
Hours of Operation and Direction Commuter rail service would be implemented as a peak period/direction service, i.e., inbound to Kansas City in the morning and outbound in the evening. Upon implementation, service would operate on weekdays only. As ridership builds, consideration could be given to operating midday and reverse direction trains.
Frequency and Headways Initially, a service consisting of three or four trains each way per day would be appropriate in view of the ridership projections. An example schedule for four trains is illustrated in Table 2-1. Headways of 40 minutes would result in all four inbound trains arriving at Kansas City Union Station within a period of two hours. The same pattern could be used in the evening, or departures could be spread out to provide more flexibility for those who work late. For example, the first train could be scheduled to arrive in downtown Kansas City at 6:55 AM, with the last trainset arriving at 8:55 AM. Outbound train departures could be spaced between 4:00 PM and 6:30 or 7:00 PM. As demand increases, the commuter service likely would consider broadening its operating hours and adding reverse direction and midday service.
PAGE 2-11 I-70 CORRIDOR TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 2.0 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES JULY 2007
Table 2-1 Example Schedule: Odessa-Kansas City
Station Morning Inbound to Union Station Odessa 5:49 AM 6:29AM 7:09AM 7:49 AM Oak Grove 6:06 AM 6:46AM 7:26 AM 8:06 AM Blue Springs 6:20 AM 7:00AM 7:40 AM 8:20 AM Independence - Little Blue 6:32 AM 7:12AM 7:52 AM 8:32 AM Independence Central 6:39 AM 7:19AM 7:59 AM 8:39 AM Riverfront 6:55 AM 7:35AM 8:15 AM 8:55 AM Riverfront 4:10 PM 4:50 PM 5:30 PM 6:10 PM Independence Central 4:25 PM 5:05 PM 5:45 PM 6:25 PM Independence - Little Blue 4:32 PM 5:12 PM 5:52 PM 6:32 PM Blue Springs 4:44 PM 5:24 PM 6:04 PM 6:44 PM Oak Grove 4:58 PM 5:38 PM 6:18 PM 6:58 PM Odessa 5:16PM 5:56PM 6:36 PM 7:16 PM
2.4.4 COMMUTER RAIL ALTERNATIVE CONNECTIVITY Connectivity with transit service is critical, especially in downtown Kansas City. Potential transit connections include the MAX BRT system, dedicated feeder buses scheduled to match train arrivals and departures and connections with existing, possibly rescheduled, transit service.
Connections with existing or new transit services at outlying stations are also desirable, especially in terms of developing mobility options for those who cannot or choose not to use an automobile.
2.4.5 COMMUTER RAIL ALTERNATIVE EQUIPMENT Each scheduled train at service startup likely will require a dedicated trainset. Running times are expected to be too long for the first inbound train to complete its run to the downtown terminal, discharge passengers and return to Odessa in time to make another inbound trip during the peak period. As demand builds and more scheduled trains are called for, extending the duration of the peak period, it may be possible to “turn back” early trains and make a reverse run to the opposite terminal and make another trip in the peak direction during the peak period. However, operating trains in the “reverse peak” direction, whether carrying passengers in revenue service or as empty “deadhead” movements, consume far more rail line capacity and may necessitate additional rail capacity improvements.
The first consideration in equipment selection is the need to operate on the KCS Rail System in compliance with FRA passenger car safety standards. The only currently acceptable arrangement under which FRA would allow use of non-compliant equipment in Kansas City service would be strict time separation of the conventional freight services and the new passenger service, i.e., operating freight trains only at night when no passenger trains were operating. However, KCS is unlikely to want to restrict freight operations to nighttime hours. In addition since the KCS line must cross and at one point for a short period run upon a UP line, with heavy volumes of freight traffic, such an arrangement would likely be precluded.
PAGE 2-12 I-70 CORRIDOR TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 2.0 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES JULY 2007
Because the equipment under consideration most likely will have to be compliant, the next major decision involves selecting between self-propelled diesel multiple units (DMUs) or conventional locomotive-propelled coaches.
2.4.5.1 DIESEL MULTIPLE UNITS (DMUS) DMUs of various designs have been in use for over 70 years, often as the replacement for a locomotive-hauled passenger train in light density applications. Other DMUs have been used in commuter service. While specific breakpoints at which one technology becomes more cost-effective than the other are not precise, one may generalize that locomotive-hauled trains are superior in moving large numbers of people during peak periods. DMUs are a better choice in which to handle relatively smaller passenger loads, especially when there are frequent headways. One of the primary features distinguishing various DMU rail cars is whether or not they are in compliance with Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) passenger car safety standards. FRA regulates structural safety standards with respect to passenger equipment to be operated in “shared use,” i.e., over tracks jointly used by both freight and passenger equipment. Equipment which meets FRA recommendations in this regard is termed “compliant”; equipment which does not meet the recommendations is termed “non-compliant.” Non-compliant equipment is generally lighter and therefore may cost less, requires less power, consumes less fuel and may have better acceleration, turning and braking characteristics, compared with compliant equipment. The Self-Powered Rail Car Technologies Subcommittee of the Transportation Research Board (TRB) reported that there are 75 self-powered rail cars, including DMUs currently operating, on order or in engineering, on behalf of North American urban transit applications.1 The Subcommittee groups DMUs into three categories:
x Category 1 describes FRA compliant cars; x Category 2 includes non-compliant railway cars; and x Category 3 covers diesel light rail vehicles, also non-compliant, which are described by the Subcommittee as “shorter, lighter, articulated cars designed to negotiate tight turns required for street running trolley operations.”2 Category 1 includes cars from three different manufacturers, Budd/AMF, United Transit Systems and Colorado Rail Car. Of the three, the Budd cars are remanufactured, no longer produced and available units are extremely difficult to procure. As shown in Table 2-2, costs vary between $1.8 million for a Budd car to $4.2 million per car for Colorado Rail Car’s Double- Deck DMU. Colorado Rail Car’s units can run on a diesel-ethanol blend of up to five percent, without voiding their warranty. Category 2 includes cars from manufacturers Bombardier and Siemens, ranging from $3.9 million to $4.2 million. Category 3 features cars from the manufacturer, Stadler, ranging in price from $3.6 million to $5.4 million; although the latter price reflects parts, support and finance charges.
1 2006 Self-Powered Railcar Fact Sheet. Transportation Research Board. February 24, 2006. 2 Ibid.
PAGE 2-13 I-70 CORRIDOR TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 2.0 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES JULY 2007
Table 2-2 Self-Powered Rail Cars (In Service, On Order or In Engineering)
Approx. Cost Approx. Cost System Manufacturer Type Seating (Millions) Per Passenger DART, Dallas, TX Budd/AMF Single Level 96 $1.80 $18,800 Triangle Transit, Raleigh, NC United Transit Systems Single Level 80 $2.64 $33,000 Tri-Rail, Miami, FL Colorado Rail Car Single Level 92 $2.90 $31,500 Tri-Rail, Miami, FL Colorado Rail Car Bi-Level 188 $4.20 $22,300 Tri-Met, Portland, OR Colorado Rail Car Single Level 76 $3.60 $47,400 O-Train, Ottawa, ON Bombardier Single Level 135 $3.90 $28,900 Sprinter, Oceanside, CA Siemens Single Level 139 $4.22 $30,400 River Line, New Jersey Transit Stadler Single Level 90 $3.60 $40,000 Metro, Austin, TX Stadler Single Level 90 $5.40 $60,000 Source: TRB.
Since DMUs can be used individually or in multiple units, a variety of service options and flexibility are available, especially when using double-deck equipment such as that from Colorado Rail Car. The company makes single level and double-deck trailers (no propulsion) that can be hauled by either of their powered models. The single level trailer can seat 92 and their double-deck trailer can seat 218. The costs of these versions are $2.0 million and $3.1 million, respectively. A single level DMU pushing/pulling a double-deck trailer could seat 310 at a cost of $6.3 million3 while a double-deck DMU pushing/pulling a double-deck trailer could seat 406 at a cost of $7.3 million. According to the July 2006 edition of Trains magazine, Tri-Rail has opted to reduce the number of seats in its double decked DMU to 167 from 180 and similarly reduce the seats in its double deck trailer from 218 to 180. The revisions were made to increase leg room by featuring a transit-style seating configuration as opposed to the high-end seating and tables included in the prototype.4
2.4.5.2 LOCOMOTIVE HAULED,BI-LEVEL PASSENGER RAIL CARS Bi-level cars are fairly typical of commuter rail systems that feature locomotive hauled passenger rail cars. As seen in recent sales to systems in California, New Mexico and Rhode Island, the average current cost of such a car is around $2 million, as displayed in Table 2-3 below.
Table 2-3 Locomotive Hauled Bi-Level Passenger Rail Cars Approx. Cost Approx. Cost System Manufacturer Seating (Millions) Per Passenger Metrolink, Los Angeles, CA Rotem 140-150 $2.02 $13,900 Rail Runner, Albuquerque, NM Bombardier 140 $2.30 $16,400 MBTA, RI Kawasaki 182 $2.00 $11,000 Source: Manufacturers, service operators and various media.
3 When contacted by phone in February of 2006 Colorado Rail Car quoted $3.2 million as the cost of their single level model as opposed to the $2.9 million quoted by the TRB as the cost to Tri-Rail. 4 Craighead, Alexander B. “Tri-Rail gets a growth spurt.” Trains, July 2006.
PAGE 2-14 I-70 CORRIDOR TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 2.0 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES JULY 2007
Locomotives such as Wabtec Corporation’s MPXpress model have been purchased at a cost of approximately $2.5 million apiece as in the case of New Mexico’s Rail Runner service. Subsequently, a train made up of a locomotive and three bi-level passenger cars would cost approximately $8.5 million and seat between 420 and 546 passengers, depending on the configuration for Americans with Disability Act (ADA) compliance and/or crash management systems.
2.4.5.3 COMPARISONS OF TECHNOLOGIES The pros of DMU railcars can include fuel economy, flexibility and efficient handling of small passenger loads. The cons include reduced efficiency under large passenger volumes and a market currently limited to a single supplier of compliant equipment. Additionally, the single supplier has a relatively short service history with its equipment. For this study conventional equipment (locomotive-hauled rail cars) is assume to be used, as it is currently the standardized procurement practice and the conservative planning approach. The use of DMUs continues to becoming more common, so there will be an increasing amount of real-world performance data available in the intervening time while the Kansas City region is considering its options. Consequently, it would be prudent to revisit the availability, cost and advantages of DMUs, as well as new and used locomotive-hauled equipment, as service implementation nears.
Trainsets include a diesel locomotive, four bi-level coaches and a bi-level cab control car (a coach equipped with an engineer’s compartment with operating controls so that the train can be operated with that car in the lead). This enables push-pull operations instead of having to turn the train upon completion of each run. This greatly improves operating efficiency and is standard commuter rail operating procedure where diesel-powered trains are used. Coaches could be single level or bi-level. Bi-level cars are prevalent with agencies purchasing new equipment. Their greater seating capacity is cost-effective and the cars generally are popular with customers.
2.4.6 COMMUTER RAIL ALTERNATIVE SUPPORTING INFRASTRUCTURE 2.4.6.1 STATIONS The service sponsor and/or individual municipalities would construct stations. Platforms and some other facilities would be on land purchased or leased from KCS, while parking lots and most other facilities would be on land acquired by the service sponsor and/or municipality. Design of platforms and other features on KCS property or affecting KCS operations would be coordinated with KCS.
2.4.6.2 TRACK AND SIGNAL Current freight train speed on the line is 40 mph east of Independence and 30 mph between Independence and Rock Creek Junction. In order to support these freight train speeds, KCS maintains the track to Federal Railroad Administration Class III standards, which allows passenger train speeds of 60 mph. While the track standards would permit that speed, the absence of a signal system would limit passenger train speeds to a maximum of 59 mph. Although this speed is sufficient for the commuter train schedules contemplated by this study, it is inevitable that some track upgrades would be recommended by KCS to improve safety and/or ride quality.
PAGE 2-15 I-70 CORRIDOR TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 2.0 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES JULY 2007
2.4.6.3 RAIL/HIGHWAY GRADE CROSSINGS There are 31 public rail/highway grade crossings between Odessa and Rock Creek Junction. Six of these crossings are protected by flashing lights and gates, 14 by flashing lights only and 11 by crossbucks and/or stop signs.
Commuter service will require various improvements to the existing crossing protection. Because train speeds will be increased, the existing track circuits that control flashing lights and gates will have to be lengthened in order to provide sufficient warning time. Higher train speeds and increased train frequency will create a higher risk of more severe grade crossing accidents, calling for increased protection at selected at-grade crossings.
2.4.6.4 LAYOVER FACILITY Layover facilities are required for overnight train storage and light servicing and cleaning. It is preferable to locate these as close as possible to a commuter rail line's outer terminals. It is assumed that a layover facility would be constructed near Odessa. It would include the following:
x Sufficient tracks for four trainsets, with additional space to expand considering the possibility of future fleet size increases. x 480-volt standby power (required to maintain train heat and cooling and operate lights and doors without running the train's locomotive). x Crew and maintenance building. x Fencing and security. x Lighting. x Level storage tracks with drip pans for locomotives. x Ability to switch (change) exists without entering the main track. x Roadway vehicle access to all tracks.
2.4.6.5 REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE FACILITY The commuter rail service could construct its own repair and maintenance facility or it can use contract equipment maintenance provided by one of the railroads or equipment maintenance contractors in the region. For the purpose of this study, it is assumed that the commuter rail service would initially use contract equipment maintenance. It is not deemed economical to construct a shop facility for the small start-up fleet, but it may be desirable to do so as additional trains or lines are added and the fleet increases.
PAGE 2-16 3.0 Downtown Commuter Rail Terminal Evaluation I-70 CORRIDOR TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 3.0 DOWNTOWN COMMUTER RAIL TERMINAL EVALUATION JULY 2007
3.0 DOWNTOWN COMMUTER RAIL TERMINAL EVALUATION
3.1 Potential Terminal Locations Downtown terminal locations were addressed in the Kansas City Region Commuter Rail Study completed in 2002. That study considered potential service on eight corridors radiating from downtown. The three sites examined in the previous study were:
x Kansas City Union Station x Riverfront (Second and Cherry Street) x West Bottoms (Third Street East of Broadway)
Of the three, two candidates, Union Station and the Riverfront location were focused on for the purposes of this study. The West Bottoms was screened out in the earlier study. No other suitable site was found in the Central Business District (CBD). The West Bottoms location was the best attempt at having a CBD location. Union Station was the recommended location of that last study but the Riverfront location offers an opportunity to address concerns of the potential hosting railroad as well as suitability to other transportation developments such as the Metro Area Express (MAX) bus rapid transit service.
The current study focuses on service connecting Odessa and points on the I-70 corridor with downtown. The terminal evaluation carries forward Union Station and an alternate Riverfront location, now presumed to be at Third Street and Grand Avenue. These locations were evaluated in terms of several key factors, including:
x Destination accessibility and potential impact on ridership; x Rail access and capacity; x Site characteristics – sufficient space, street access; and x Interface with other transportation services.
3.2 Kansas City Union Station Union Station served as a rail transportation hub from its opening in 1914, and currently hosts Amtrak's six daily arrivals and departures. Its heritage and atmosphere are unique, and it remains strongly associated with rail travel in the public mind. Union Station serves Crown Center destinations well, with many being accessible via enclosed walkways. Downtown employment destinations are further than most people would choose to walk, but can easily be reached via shuttle busses operating on main streets or by using the MAX service.
A role as a transit center was an important component of the redevelopment of Union Station. Busses call at both the east and west entrances. Union Station is included on the route of the bus rapid transit project, locally referred to as Metro Area Express or MAX that was implemented in 2005. Running north-south, MAX will link the River Market, Government
PAGE 3-1 I-70 CORRIDOR TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 3.0 DOWNTOWN COMMUTER RAIL TERMINAL EVALUATION JULY 2007
Center, Convention and Hotel District, Crown Center, Midtown and The Plaza and could serve as a distributor of disembarking commuter rail patrons to those various locations.
Union Station has sufficient space for passenger facilities and amenities, plus it enjoys good access to major downtown streets. Enclosed waiting space, snacks and beverages already exist at this site and reading material and sundries could easily be offered. However, there are a number of constraints to the viability of Union Station serving as the downtown terminus of a commuter rail service. Changes to the surrounding infrastructure, current usage of that infrastructure and concerns of Kansas City Terminal Railway (KCT) all pose serious challenges to the development of commuter rail service to Union Station.
In the intervening years since the 2002 Kansas City Region Commuter Rail Study, the track layout in the immediate vicinity of Union Station has changed. Gone is the third station track and adjoining passenger platform, leaving just one passenger platform and two tracks available to serve both Amtrak and commuter rail service as shown in Figure 3.1. In its place KCT has constructed a third main line for freight traffic, which limits access to and the capacity of Union Station for commuter rail trains.
Figure 3.1 Union Station Passenger Rail Platform
PAGE 3-2 I-70 CORRIDOR TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 3.0 DOWNTOWN COMMUTER RAIL TERMINAL EVALUATION JULY 2007
Commuter trains from the I-70 corridor could reach Union Station directly from the east by way of KCT Main Tracks. Alternatively, a route consisting of Kansas City Southern railroad (KCS) tracks via Knoche Yard and KCT’s Bluff Line could be used, entering Union Station from the west.
Further complicating the access and capacity of Union Station are the on time record of Amtrak trains and the increase of freight traffic in the area. In 2003, short-distance Amtrak trains, those traveling less than 400 miles, had an on-time performance of 77 percent1. In Fiscal Year 2004 state supported Amtrak trains in Missouri such as the Ann Rutledge and the Kansas City/St. Louis Mule were late 37 percent of the time2. The morning peak service period for a prospective commuter rail service currently sees two Amtrak departures: the eastbound Ann Rutledge is scheduled to depart Union Station at 7:30 AM while the eastbound Southwest Chief is scheduled to depart at 7:45 AM. Given the lack of passenger train storage capacity at Union Station, even a minor delay could have an adverse impact on ridership of a newly implemented commuter rail service. Amtrak’s demonstrated performance makes conflicts with morning commuter trains a likelihood.
Chronic poor performance can have a negative effect upon commuter rail ridership. A worst case scenario of the impact of delays on ridership was experienced by the Virginia Railway Express (VRE) in 1997 when a CSX derailment caused several long-term delays and multiple cancellations. As a result, ridership decreased 30 percent and growth remained stagnant for a number of years. Meanwhile freight traffic is robust enough that KCT felt the need to build a third mainline at Union Station, which is what has constrained the ability to store passenger trains or to develop additional passenger train facilities.
During the previous study, KCT expressed a concern as to the impact a commuter rail service would have on its operations within the Union Station area. How such a service would reach Union Station and the impact that it would have on KCT’s main lines were of primary concern. The easiest way to reach Union Station would be approaching from the east on the KCT mainline. However, this would disrupt KCT operations and consequently the railroad expressed a preference that an alternate approach to Union Station from the west should be considered.
3.3 Riverfront (Third Street and Grand Avenue) This location offers an easy connection with the MAX bus rapid transit station at 3rd and Grand, which is within the River Market, approximately a half block from the City Market area. The location does not directly serve the downtown (about one mile away) or the Crown Center area (almost two miles away) particularly well, however, its proximity to the MAX station could allow the system to serve as a distributor of disembarking commuter rail patrons as it could with Union Station. A spacious, recently paved parking lot occupies the site (see Figures 3.2 and 3.3) and a future rail layout could be configured to allow for a direct transfer between MAX and commuter rail service. While tying into the MAX service and facilities does allow for a number of synergies, proposed commuter rail service will require its own space as well as its own dedicated connecting downtown bus (feeder/distribution) system.
1 Bureau of Transportation Statistics 2 Amtrak On-Time Performance of Missouri supported trains supplied by Rodney Massman of MoDOT.
PAGE 3-3 I-70 CORRIDOR TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 3.0 DOWNTOWN COMMUTER RAIL TERMINAL EVALUATION JULY 2007
Such a configuration would require the rebuilding of a portion of the recently removed 2nd Street rail line. Evidence of its removal can be seen in the foreground of Figure 3.2. The partially rebuilt 2nd Street line could be extended into the parking lot and immediately adjacent to the BRT Station Site at 3rd and Grand, as illustrated in Figure 3.4.
Figure 3.2 Riverfront Station (Southern view showing the River Market in the background)
Figure 3.3 Riverfront Station (Northern view)
PAGE 3-4 I-70 CORRIDOR TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 3.0 DOWNTOWN COMMUTER RAIL TERMINAL EVALUATION JULY 2007
This location does offer one advantage with respect to trains from the Odessa line; instead of crossing the north-south Union Pacific (UP) and KCS main tracks at-grade under the new Sheffield Flyover, they would avoid the Sheffield area entirely by using the KCS via KCS trackage by way of Rock Creek Junction and Knoche Yard. In addition, the congested main tracks of KCT can be avoided as well. The area has ample room for the storage of commuter rail train sets during the day layovers waiting for the afternoon return service to Odessa.
Another advantage associated with the proposed Riverfront Station is that the location is within a few blocks of emerging retail, office and restaurant development along 3rd Street, which may appeal to a prospective commuter rail patron.
Figure 3.4 Riverfront Station Area
Source: Delorme Street Atlas 2005, RLBA.
PAGE 3-5 I-70 CORRIDOR TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 3.0 DOWNTOWN COMMUTER RAIL TERMINAL EVALUATION JULY 2007
3.4 Recommended Terminal Location The proposed Riverfront terminal location at 3rd Street and Grand Boulevard is the recommended downtown terminal location. Neither the Riverfront nor the Union Station downtown terminal candidate sites provide ideal access to the CBD area. Both will require other transit service to provide access to the CBD area. The primary reason for the Riverfront location preference over the Union Station location is better commuter rail access. The possible conflicts at Union Station with a high volume of freight traffic and Amtrak passenger service have a significant likelihood of negatively impacting commuter rail reliability, which is not acceptable when building ridership.
PAGE 3-6 4.0 Transit Alternatives Costs I-70 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 4.0 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES COSTS JULY 2007
4.0 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES COSTS
Capital, operating and maintenance costs were estimated for the three alternatives being considered to improve transit service in the I-70 corridor. The TSM Alternative and Express Bus Alternative include bus capital, operating and maintenance costs. The Commuter Rail Alternative includes costs for bus and rail service. The bus costs for the three alternatives are discussed together in the following section. The cost for the rail service is discussed in the Section 4.2.
4.1 Bus Capital and Operating Costs Estimates of bus and related facilities’ capital and annual operating and maintenance (O&M) cost differentials for the TSM Alternative, the Express Bus Alternative and the Commuter Rail Alternative have been developed. Assumptions used to prepare these cost estimates are described below.
4.1.1 ASSUMPTIONS FOR VEHICLE AND RELATED FACILITIES’CAPITAL COSTS For the bus capital cost estimates, it is assumed that new express services will utilize 40-foot over-the-road (OTR) coaches; and, as the Kansas City Area Transportation Authority (KCATA) operates today, local services will use a combination of 30-foot urban coaches and 22-foot “Metroflex” vehicles. The following unit capital costs are assumed:
x 40-foot OTR Coach $438,000 x 30-foot Urban Coach $275,000 x 22-foot Metroflex Vehicle $64,000 Source: APTA 2004 Public Transit Factbook, 2003-04 average costs inflated by 3 percent annually to reflect 2006 costs.
The peak bus requirements have been calculated based on the operating plans for each alternative. The fleet vehicle requirements were estimated by adding a 20 percent spare ratio to the peak bus requirement.
The related bus facilities’ capital costs include new and upgraded park and ride (P&R) lots and transit centers. The Mid-America Regional Council (MARC) 2004-2007 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) includes the rehabilitation of the Blue Springs P&R lot/transit center, and this project is included in all three alternatives as already programmed (i.e., no additional cost). It is assumed that the Grain Valley transit center and P&R lot would cost $600,000 (the Red Bridge P&R lot/transit center facility in the MARC TIP was used to estimate the cost). A joint use agreement and paving is assumed to cost $350,000 for the Oak Grove P&R lot. Upgrading the existing MoDOT P&R lot in Odessa is assumed to cost $250,000.
4.1.2 ASSUMPTIONS FOR ANNUAL BUS O&M COSTS The daily platform bus-miles and bus-hours were calculated from the operating plans for each alternative. Since the commuter rail service is initially proposed as a weekday only service, the
PAGE 4-1 I-70 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 4.0 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES COSTS JULY 2007 bus operating statistics are average weekday as well. The annual bus O&M costs were estimated from the KCATA 2005 O&M spreadsheet which contains the following three cost components:
x Direct labor charge, x Direct mileage charge, and x Indirect mileage charge.
The KCATA annualization factor is 255 weekdays per year. The costs were increased 3 percent to produce cost estimates in 2006 dollars. The KCATA cost model differentiates costs by large bus, small bus and Metroflex vehicle. However, KCATA pays for the Independence Intra-City service at the small bus labor rate regardless of whether small buses or Metroflex vehicles are utilized. Therefore, the annual O&M cost estimates are based on the large bus rates for the proposed express services and the small bus rates for the proposed local services.
4.1.3 ALTERNATIVES BUS COST ESTIMATES 4.1.3.1 TSM ALTERNATIVE The TSM Alternative would require no additional vehicles for operation nor would it incur any additional costs for facilities.
The annual O&M costs are estimated to be $1,570,000. Table 4-1 provides a summary of the annual O&M cost considerations for the TSM Alternative.
Table 4-1 TSM Alternative O&M Cost Estimate (2006 Dollars)
Annual Annual Annual Total Daily Daily Annual Annual Direct Direct Indirect Annual Platform Platform Platform Platform Labor Mileage Mileage O&M Bus Type Miles Hours Miles Hours Charge Charge Charge Cost Large Bus 744 33.2 189,720 8,466 $296,000 $87,000 $267,000 $650,000 Small Bus 1,006 72.1 256,530 18,386 $459,000 $100,000 $361,000 $920,000 Metroflex 0 0.0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total 1,750 105.3 446,250 26,852 $755,000 $187,000 $628,000 $1,570,000 NOTES: Annual Direct Labor Charge Rate LB=$34.972 SB=$24.965 M=$21.425 Annual Direct Mileage Charge Rate LB=$0.448 SB=$0.389 M=$0.219 Annual Indirect Mileage Charge Rate LB=$1.407 SB=$1.407 M=$1.407
4.1.3.2 EXPRESS BUS ALTERNATIVE The bus fleet requirements for the Express Bus Alternative would be five OTR coaches at $438,000 each, six Urban Coaches at $275,000 each, and five additional Metroflex vehicles at $64,000 each. The total vehicle capital costs for this alternative are estimated to be $4,160,000.
This alternative would incur all of the facilities costs at Grain Valley, Oak Grove and Odessa totaling $1,200,000.
PAGE 4-2 I-70 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 4.0 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES COSTS JULY 2007
The annual O&M costs for this alternative are estimated to be $2,759,000. Table 4-2 provides a summary of the annual O&M cost considerations for the Express Bus Alternative. Table 4-2 Express Bus Alternative O&M Cost Estimate (2006 Dollars)
Annual Annual Annual Total Daily Daily Annual Annual Direct Direct Indirect Annual Platform Platform Platform Platform Labor Mileage Mileage O&M Bus Type Miles Hours Miles Hours Charge Charge Charge Cost Large Bus 1,603 63.3 408,765 16,142 $565,000 $187,000 $575,000 $1,327,000 Small Bus 1,575 111.7 401,625 28,484 $711,000 $156,000 $565,000 $1,432,000 Metroflex 0 0.0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total 1,750 175.0 446,250 44,625 $1,276,000 $343,000 $1,140,000 $2,759,000 NOTES: Annual Direct Labor Charge Rate LB=$34.972 SB=$24.965 M=$21.425 Annual Direct Mileage Charge Rate LB=$0.448 SB=$0.389 M=$0.219 Annual Indirect Mileage Charge Rate LB=$1.407 SB=$1.407 M=$1.407
4.1.3.3 COMMUTER RAIL ALTERNATIVE BUS SERVICE The Commuter Rail Alternative would require six additional Urban Coaches and five additional Metroflex vehicles, resulting in an additional vehicle cost for this alternative of $1,970,000.
The estimated annual O&M costs for this alternative are $1,452,000. Table 4-3 provides a summary of the annual O&M cost considerations for the Commuter Rail Alternative.
Table 4-3 Commuter Rail Alternative O&M Cost Estimate (2006 Dollars)
Annual Annual Annual Total Daily Daily Annual Annual Direct Direct Indirect Annual Platform Platform Platform Platform Labor Mileage Mileage O&M Bus Type Miles Hours Miles Hours Charge Charge Charge Cost Large Bus 0 0.0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Small Bus 1,618 111.7 412,590 28,484 $711,000 $161,000 $580,000 $1,452,000 Metroflex 0 0.0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total 1,618 111.7 412,590 28,484 $711,000 $161,000 $580,000 $1,452,000 NOTES: Annual Direct Labor Charge Rate LB=$34.972 SB=$24.965 M=$21.425 Annual Direct Mileage Charge Rate LB=$0.448 SB=$0.389 M=$0.219 Annual Indirect Mileage Charge Rate LB=$1.407 SB=$1.407 M=$1.407
4.1.4 ALTERNATIVES BUS COST ESTIMATES SUMMARY As shown in Table 4-4, the vehicle capital costs for the Express Bus Alternative are approximately $4,160,000 more than the TSM Alternative and approximately $2,190,000 more than the Commuter Rail Alternative. The Express Bus Alternative incurs all of the facilities costs at $1,200,000. The annual bus O&M costs for the Commuter Rail Alternative are $118,000 less than the TSM Alternative and $1,307,000 less than the Express Bus Alternative.
PAGE 4-3 I-70 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 4.0 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES COSTS JULY 2007
Table 4-4 Summary of Bus Capital Cost and Annual O&M Cost Estimates (Year 2006 Dollars)
Bus Operations Alternatives Characteristic TSM Express Bus Commuter Rail Additional Peak Vehicles Required Over-the-Road Coach 0 4 0 Small Bus 0 5 5 Metroflex Vehicle 0 4 4
Additional Fleet Vehicle Requirements Over-the-Road Coach 0 5 0 Small Bus 0 6 6 Metroflex Vehicle 0 5 5
Vehicle Capital Costs Over-the-Road Coach $0 $2,190,000 $ 0 Small Bus 0 1,650,000 1,650,000 Metroflex Vehicle 0 320,000 320,000 Total $0 $4,160,000 $1,970,000
Facilities Costs Rehab. Blue Springs P&R Programmed in TIP Programmed in TIP Programmed in TIP Grain Valley P&R n/a $ 600,000 n/a Oak Grove P&R n/a 350,000 n/a Upgrade Odessa MoDOT P&R n/a 250,000 n/a Total $0 $1,200,000 $0
Total Vehicle and Facilities Costs Total Capital Costs $0 $5,360,000 $1,970,000 Difference (vs. TSM) n/a $5,360,000 $1,970,000 Difference (vs. Baseline) n/a n/a -$3,390,000
Annual O&M Cost Estimates Large Bus $ 650,000 $1,327,000 $ 0 Small Bus/ Metroflex Vehicle 920,000 1,432,000 1,452,000 Total $1,570,000 $2,759,000 $1,452,000 Difference (vs. TSM) n/a $1,189,000 -$118,00 Difference (vs. Baseline) n/a n/a -$1,307,000
PAGE 4-4 I-70 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 4.0 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES COSTS JULY 2007
4.2 Commuter Rail Capital and Operating Costs The costs to implement and operate commuter rail service include the cost to upgrade the track and signals in the corridor, the cost for the rolling stock, and the cost to operate and maintain the commuter rail service in the corridor. The estimated capital cost to upgrade the track and signals to facilitate the service was developed by the Kansas City Southern (KCS) railway company. The KCS estimate was reviewed by the study team and a phased implementation of improvements is recommended by the study team. The phasing was based on the premise that initially the number of commuter rail trains in operation will be minimal, so all improvements are not needed initially. As demand on the I-70 corridor increases and commuter rail service in other corridors that use the same tracks to access downtown are implemented, the remaining improvements can be implemented. The capital cost estimate for rolling stock and the annual O&M costs were developed for commuter rail service utilizing three and four train sets in each peak hour. All costs shown are in 2006 dollars.
4.2.1 TRACK AND SIGNALS UPGRADE COSTS A plan to upgrade the existing KCS tracks and signals to allow commuter rail operations was developed by TranSystems on behalf of KCS. The proposed rail upgrade plan was reviewed by the study team and a proposed phased improvement approach was developed. The objective of the phased improvement plan was to reduce the required initial investment in track upgrades. As commuter rail demand grows the latter phases can be implemented.
4.2.1.1 KCS-PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS The KCS commuter rail improvement plan envisions several commuter rail corridors joining together to access the Riverfront Station from the east. Along with the I-70 corridor, these could include an Airport corridor using a former Rock Island alignment, a Kearney corridor via Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) and a Pleasant Hill corridor using a former Rock Island line.
The stated objective of the capital improvements plan was to devise exclusive passenger trackage (no freight train use) with minimum at-grade crossings of freight railroads, using railroad-owned right-of-way to a maximum extent in order to enhance the constructability of the proposed plan.
The plan for track and signal upgrades developed by KCS is presented in detail along with the estimated capital costs. A detailed review by the study team of the estimated costs for the KCS-proposed plan is then provided. Finally, an evaluation of the KCS plan is presented.
Overview of KCS Trackage Improvement Plan The following is a summary description of the KCS proposal to improve the existing trackage between Odessa and Rock Creek Junction and develop an exclusive commuter rail track between Rock Creek Junction and Riverfront Station, as presented by its consultant.
KCS Mexico Subdivision Track Improvements from Odessa to Rock Creek – Install continuous welded rail (CWR) in the entire commuter service area between Odessa and Rock Creek Junction as follows: purchase 4.5 miles of new 115-pound rail, then remove the existing rail, crop (trim the ends off), weld and reinstall it. The purchased rail makes up for the loss when cropping the existing rail. Necessary tie and surface work also would be performed.
PAGE 4-5 I-70 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 4.0 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES COSTS JULY 2007
New Commuter Route from Rock Creek to Sheep Junction – Construct a new commuter line starting at Rock Creek Junction connected to the KCS Mexico Subdivision, located south of and roughly paralleling the Union Pacific (UP) line. Cross the east-west Kansas City Terminal (KCT) line at-grade and turn north paralleling and running east of the KCS line. Cross Big Blue River on a new bridge and pass under the Sheep Jump viaduct through an existing opening.
New Commuter Route from Sheep Junction to East Knoche – The commuter line would begin climbing before going under Sheep Jump viaduct. Once sufficient height is reached, it would cross above the KCS and UP tracks on a new bridge while turning onto an east-west alignment. It then would descend to grade and continue on the east-west alignment along the south edge of the present Knoche Yard.
New Commuter Route from East Knoche to I-35 – Construct a new passenger route along the south edge of Knoche Yard. KCS would reconfigure Knoche Yard to have six long interchange tracks and would relocate switching activities to the new Richards-Gebauer facility. A new grade separation of Kansas Avenue would be constructed at the west end of the Knoche Yard.
New Commuter Route from I-35 to Riverfront Station (2nd Street & Grand Blvd.) – West of the Knoche Yard near the I-35 overpass, the commuter line would climb again. It would cross over KCS, the BNSF-KCS interchange track and four UP main tracks. The west end of the bridges would connect with the former KCS Second Street spur line right-of-way under the Heart of America Bridge/Missouri Route 9 near the former power plant.
Riverfront Station – The commuter line would expand to three stub platform tracks on the former KCS right-of-way alongside the public parking lot between Second and Third Streets along Grand Avenue.
KCS Freight Improvements – KCS proposes to relocate its primary freight car switching activity from the Knoche Yard to Richards-Gebauer. This will be done in part to free up room for the proposed commuter track along the south side of the present Knoche Yard and make available other space within the present yard footprint.
The estimated total cost of the KCS plan is $120 million (2006 dollars). The cost estimate was developed by KCS’s consultant. Total costs summarized by item are provided in Table 4-5.
PAGE 4-6 I-70 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 4.0 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES COSTS JULY 2007
Table 4-5 KCS Commuter Rail Improvement Plan Cost Estimate (Year 2006 Dollars)
12 Percent 20 Percent Item Base Engineering Contingency Signal Total Odessa – Rock Creek $ 9,186,200 $ 1,102,344 $ 1,837,240 $ 2,550,000 $ 14,675,800 Rock Creek – Sheep Jump 4,574,300 548,916 914,860 570,000 6,608,100 Sheep Jump – East Knoche 17,023,100 2,042,772 3,404,620 150,000 22,620,500 East Knoche – I-35 10,068,300 1,208,196 2,013,660 390,000 13,680,200 Kansas Ave Separation 9,030,000 1,083,600 1,806,000 0 11,919,600 I-35 – Riverfront 26,380,600 3,165,672 5,276,120 0 34,822,400 Riverfront Station 299,200 35,904 59,840 180,000 574,900 KCS Freight Improvements 11,274,400 1,352,928 2,254,880 75,000 14,957,200 Totals $87,836,100 $10,540,332 $17,567,220 $3,915,000 $119,858,700 Flagging 219,000 Project Total $120,077,700 Sources: TranSystems June 31, 2006 worksheet; RLBA Calculations.
Review of KCS Plan Cost Estimates The cost estimate provided by KCS was reviewed based on an initial field inspection of the proposed service area on June 23, 2006. Mobilization estimates are allotted and seem appropriate. Unit costs were in line with industry standards when broken out and not part of a lump sum determination (such as with construction of bridges). Some minor inconsistencies involving unit costs exist between the Odessa to Rock Creek area estimate and the remainder of the areas1. Those inconsistencies are minor when taken in context of the entire project. Engineering estimates of twelve percent and contingencies of twenty percent are common within the industry at this level of planning. Costs associated with flagging broken out in the summary sheet allow for one full year of flag protection and appear appropriate for the level of work estimated. Individual points of interest associated with each item are broken out below.
No documentation was provided for the $12.0 million estimated to be utilized in construction of an overpass at Kansas Avenue, so a detailed review was not possible.
KCS Mexico Subdivision Track Improvements from Odessa to Rock Creek Junction – Cost estimates reflect rehabilitation of the entire 33.8 miles of main track contained within those limits along with refurbishment and/or extension of some passing sidings, totaling about 36.8 miles.
Track Labor and Material – As presented at the June 23, 2006 meeting, cost estimates reflect the purchase of new 115-pound per yard CWR. After replacement with the new rail, relay quality rail taken up will be cropped and flash butt welded (in the field) to cascade to the next area for replacement. This is a cost-effective approach. Along with installing CWR between Odessa and Rock Creek Junction, cost estimates reflect replacing, on average, over 1,200 ties per mile.
1 Some minor inconsistencies involving unit costs exist between Item 1 and the remainder of the areas involving: 1) Ties, 7” x 9” x 9’; 2) Anchors, 115# SH; 3) Spikes, new (240 per Keg); 4) Ballast, Mainline and 5) Ballast, Side Track.
PAGE 4-7 I-70 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 4.0 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES COSTS JULY 2007
Signal – Signal related costs are specified on the summary sheet and the $2,550,000 figure seems reasonable given the distance covered and the potential differences from existing freight to proposed passenger speeds.
New Commuter Route from Rock Creek to Sheep Junction – As noted, this is the only section of the improvements that required property acquisition under the KCS improvement plan.
Property – Only two acres of property acquisition is estimated in this item.
Track Material – See note above concerning differences in unit costs between Item 1 and all others.
Bridges & Culverts – It should be noted that the lump sum amount allotted to construct a bridge over the Big Blue River is over half of the subtotal of this item before additives.
New Commuter Route from Sheep Junction to East Knoche – As can be seen below, two line items account for 96 percent of the cost of this item before additives.
Site Preparation – Heavy amounts of “Borrow and Haul” are allocated to this item and this one line item amounts to almost ten percent of the subtotal before additives. This line item most likely augments the bridge construction below.
Bridges & Culverts – It should be noted that the lump sum amount allotted to construct a bridge over the UP track is over 86 percent of the subtotal of this item before additives.
New Commuter Route from East Knoche to I-35 – This portion of the project poses the greatest concern noted during analysis of the cost estimates. While the cost estimates reflect existing track removal and new track construction, no money is credited to the estimated total for residual value of existing rail and ties to be removed that may be used elsewhere in the project. Salvage could approximate $900,000 or more for rail in this item alone. Some ties also may have relay value.
Track Work Labor – The cost estimate reflects removal of about 25.54 miles of track (134,851 TF) and constructing approximately 5.24 miles of new track, which accounts for the majority of this subset, about 79 percent. Sixteen miles are estimated to require surface, lining and tamping during this subset. It appears that some of the existing yard tracks are to be realigned to make the long transfer tracks without requiring new construction. Further clarification is needed regarding this and the next item.
Track Material – For the estimated 3.5 mile “passenger only” track it is estimated that about 4.2 miles of new 136-pound CWR and about 7.8 miles of 115-pound CWR second hand rail will be purchased from the tonnage estimates provided2. If the commuter rail sponsor is paying for the second hand rail from inventory as well as new ties, then it should receive credit for the relay rail and ties taken up. The same principle applies to turnouts taken up.
2 RLBA scaled off the proposed alignment of the “passenger only” track and estimated it to approximate 3.5 miles.
PAGE 4-8 I-70 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 4.0 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES COSTS JULY 2007
New Commuter Route from I-35 to Riverfront Station (2nd Street & Grand Blvd.) – Again, as can be seen below, two line items account for 96 percent of this area before additives.
Site Preparation – Large amounts of “Borrow and Haul” are allocated to this item and this one line item amounts to almost ten percent of the subtotal before additives.
Bridges & Culverts – It should be noted that the lump sum amount allotted to construct a bridge over the KCS, BNSF and UP tracks is almost 85 percent of the subtotal of this item before additives.
Miscellaneous – A $200,000 lump sum allowance was estimated for utility protection/relocation and most likely is appropriate.
Riverfront Station – There are no real issues or concerns contained within this item.
KCS Freight Improvements – This item coincides with the relocation of yard tracks from the Knoche Yard to the proposed new yard at Richards-Gebauer and again causes concern about the use of second hand rail from inventory while not giving credit for relay materials taken up from existing yard tracks.
Site Preparation – Some site preparation is required to accomplish the yard relocation and accounts for just over twelve percent of the subtotal before additives.
Track Work Labor – Cost estimates reflect constructing about 19.16 miles (101,177 TF) and surface, line and tamping the same track footage.
Track Material – Cost estimates reflect purchasing about 24.5 miles of 115# CWR, second hand from KCS inventory. Again, no credit for any value of relay rail and ties to be taken up is reflected.
Bridges & Culverts – A $309,000 lump sum allotment is estimated for culverts in this subset. This is the only allotment for culverts in the provided estimate.
Signal – KCS appears to share the cost (50 percent) of a new control point with the commuter rail sponsor in conjunction with this area of the project.
Generally, the cost estimate is accurate and unit costs appear along industry lines. The greatest cause of concern centers around the apparent lack of credit given to the commuter rail sponsor for relay rail and ties taken up from existing yard tracks that may be used elsewhere either on this project or another.
Evaluation of KCS Plan KCS developed its own projection as to what rail lines might host commuter rail in the future. It apparently screened out all lines that experience high levels of freight use. The projections do not reflect the findings of the Kansas City Region Commuter Rail Study prepared on behalf of MARC in 2002.
The KCS plan does a very good job of meeting its stated objectives. West of Rock Creek Junction, the plan creates a dedicated passenger route to Riverfront Station. The proposed
PAGE 4-9 I-70 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 4.0 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES COSTS JULY 2007 route crosses only one railroad at grade, that being the extreme east end of the KCT Main Track near its connection with UP. The plan uses only one piece of non-railroad property, and that is a small segment of an industrial operation that can be readily obtained. The KCS plan includes two elements that may be set aside for separate consideration. One is KCS freight improvements and the second is providing a grade separation at Kansas Avenue. As presented, KCS would like to construct six long interchange tracks at the Knoche Yard site and relocate all switching activities to newly constructed trackage at Richards-Gebauer. On the surface, this provides little benefit to commuter rail. It was indicated that space would be freed up at Knoche Yard, which might be a good site for commuter rail shop facilities. There was no clear statement that any land would be swapped for this $14 million item. In addition, a commuter rail shop would require only a fraction of the space to be made available at Knoche Yard. Grade separation at Kansas Avenue is the other element that should receive separate analysis. Other remedies such as crossing closure or improved signalization may be appropriate at Kansas Avenue, and other funding avenues may be available. The KCS plan proposes elimination of all passenger-freight track sharing and reduction in at-grade crossings to one. These enhancements would minimize passenger-freight conflicts, to the benefit of both services. Passenger service would be more reliable due to the absence of freight trains sharing and crossing the passenger route. Freight interests also are well served, especially given that once service is implemented freight trains generally are expected to yield to passenger trains. Commuter rail must operate reliably on-time to attract and maintain riders. This is particularly true of new-start commuter services where riding trains has not had time to become ingrained into commuters’ lifestyle, habits, job and housing decisions and automobile buying choices. The need to provide reliable service makes the KCS plan to minimize passenger-freight conflicts quite attractive. The question of what a project can justify is not easily answered. If, in 2036, numerous commuter trains were operating over the corridors identified by KCS and were streaming into Riverfront Station, passing over significantly increased volumes of freight trains without delay, one could conclude that the KCS plan was cost effective. But in 2007, it is difficult to justify the entire KCS plan to support start-up service levels on the single proposed corridor linking Odessa and Kansas City. Indeed, the question of what expenditure is justified should be addressed only once all results of this study are available to be considered in light of needs and resources region-wide.
4.2.1.2 POTENTIAL PHASING PLAN A normal and logical approach to implementing any high-cost project is to consider doing so in phases or increments. In that context, the KCS plan was reviewed to determine whether there were any reasonable opportunities to achieve it in phases. It must be remembered that KCS is under no obligation to implement commuter service on any terms other than its own, and it may reject any phasing plan. But if KCS becomes convinced that it is necessary to phase the railroad improvements in order to have a commuter rail project, it may consider that alternative. Accordingly, a phasing plan has been developed. While certainly open to modification, it can serve to support the determination as to whether the parties would be interested in proceeding under similar conditions. If so, the phasing plan could be revisited and refined.
PAGE 4-10 I-70 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 4.0 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES COSTS JULY 2007
The study team believes that the worst potential location in terms of potential passenger-freight interference for commuter rail using KCS trackage would be the crossing of the UP River Subdivision and UP Coffeyville Subdivision. Each of these lines consists of two main tracks, in the vicinity of Gillis Street and East 1st Street about 0.6 miles east of Riverfront Station. The crossings are known as Gillis Street and Troost Avenue in railroad parlance. Both UP lines connect Neff Yard (east of River Market) with UP lines and connections to the west. Both are heavily used, hosting 30 or more freight trains per day each3. The Coffeyville Subdivision maximum speed is believed to be 40 mph and the River Subdivision maximum is believed to be 15 mph in this area. Trains are often moving slowly on both lines because of traffic congestion. Typical train length is in excess of one mile. The combination of slow speeds, long trains and traffic delays makes the freight train occupancy of those crossings a severe impediment to reliable commuter rail service. Just east of this location, commuter trains using existing KCS tracks would encounter conflicts with freight train movements where KCS track connects with UP and BNSF. The proposed phasing plan adopts the bridge over the UP, BNSF and KCS lines in the first phase, but scales back other aspects of the KCS proposal. An overview of the proposed phasing plan is included in the following section:
Phase 1 – In the first phase, commuter trains would utilize (1) existing (upgraded as necessary) KCS tracks on the east end of the route between Odessa and Air Line Junction, and (2) newly constructed, dedicated commuter track between Air Line Junction and Riverfront Station. Specific provisions, from east to west, include:
x Install CWR and ties on KCS line between Odessa and Rock Creek Junction as proposed.
x Operate initial commuter trains from Odessa into Knoche Yard on the existing KCS freight route. This entails entering UP trackage from the south side at Rock Creek Junction, crossing over the UP tracks, entering KCS trackage and crossing UP at grade at Air Line Junction before entering the Knoche Yard.
x Construct a single new passenger main track along the south edge of Knoche Yard. This track would diverge from the KCS trackage west of but as close to Air Line Junction as possible. The diverging switch should be a power switch. Reconfiguration of tracks may be necessary in the vicinity of the present intermodal facility, which is to be relocated by KCS. This could include installing a switch in the passenger track to give access to the intermodal tracks, if still present. An option might be to construct a new passenger track along the north side of Knoche Yard. In the long term, this would conflict with KCS’s desire to construct six long interchange tracks along the north side, but the initial passenger track probably could be designed for easy conversion to freight use if/when those KCS plans materialize. The commuter trains would operate over the single new passenger track through Knoche Yard.
x Make street and signal improvements at the Kansas Avenue crossing in lieu of constructing a grade separation.
3 Reported by TranSystems.
PAGE 4-11 I-70 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 4.0 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES COSTS JULY 2007
x Construct a passenger line between I-35 and the Riverfront Station as proposed by KCS, including overpasses over KCS, BNSF and UP (two double-track lines). Construct Riverfront Station tracks as proposed or in an alternate configuration. Capital Costs associated with Phase 1 as presented would include all of rail replacement from Odessa to Rock Creek Junction, a portion of the East Knoche to I-35 improvements, all of I-35 to Riverfront Station improvements and the Riverfront Station improvements. The approximate costs would be $54 million.
Phase 2 – A likely Phase 2 scenario, which would be prompted by significantly more commuter trains, would be the construction of the KCS-proposed improvements between Rock Creek Junction and East Knoche. These improvements consist of providing a dedicated passenger rail line along the UP and KCT, with new bridges over Big Blue River and the KCS and UP near Airline Junction. This would include the Rock Creek to Sheep Jump improvements and the Sheep Jump to East Knoche improvements of the KCS plan, for an approximate cost of $29 million.
Phase 3 – Phase 3 might include making improvements to relocate KCS yard activities to the Richards-Gebauer site, provided that the commuter service were to recognize commensurate benefits such as transfer of property at Knoche Yard or other benefits. Those benefits are not clear at this time. The relocation cost would include a portion of the East Knoche to I-35 improvements and all of the KCS Freight improvements, at an approximate amount of $26 million.
Kansas Avenue – The study team believes that improvements should be made at Kansas Avenue in the course of commuter rail implementation. As indicated previously, the range of improvements includes closing, improved signaling and grade separation. Because of the uncertainty as to what improvements are appropriate, Kansas Avenue improvement costs are not incorporated in any of the potential phases. The KCS plan is effective in establishing a route that minimizes freight-passenger conflicts, but also is expensive. The route would provide increasing benefits as the number of commuter trains and routes increased, but if and when that might happen is uncertain. Elements of the plan that call for relocation of freight facilities and grade separation at Kansas Avenue require further analysis to examine benefits and potential alternatives. It is possible to split the KCS plan into phases that could be implemented over time, sustaining viable commuter service at each level. However, there is no assurance that KCS would agree to such a plan. Table 4-6 summarizes the estimated cost for each phase.
Table 4-6 Phased Implementation Cost Summary (Year 2006 Dollars) Phase Capital Cost 1 $54,000,000 2 $29,000,000 3 $26,000,000
PAGE 4-12 I-70 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 4.0 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES COSTS JULY 2007
4.2.2 NON-TRACK AND NON-SIGNAL CAPITAL COSTS Capital costs associated with passenger rail stations, equipment and a layover facility were estimated. These costs along with the capital cost required to upgrade and implement track and signal improvements represent the required initial investment to implement commuter rail in the I-70 corridor.
4.2.2.1 STATION CAPITAL COSTS Stations typically are commuter-oriented, with connections to local bus and shuttle routes and more limited facilities than traditional intercity rail stations. Access to and from these stations will be primarily via private automobile, although some passengers also will travel by bus, bicycle and foot. Station facilities can be basic, with simple platforms and basic amenities such as public phones, benches, along with an information kiosk, passenger drop-off area and a bus or shuttle stop. Commuter rail stations located outside of an established area should be located and designed to optimize:
x visibility from major roadways, x safe and convenient access along well defined access routes with adequate capacity, x safe and efficient on-site traffic operations both for cars and for local and express bus services, x safe and efficient parking, x convenience and safety for pedestrians walking between their cars and the commuter rail platform, x facilities for dropping off and picking up (kiss-and-ride) car passengers, and x adequate and comfortable facilities available for waiting and alighting commuter rail passengers. The Music City Star commuter rail service, which operates between Lebanon and Nashville, Tennessee, began operation in September, 2006. Station costs related to this service average $2.4 million per station, typically including one 300-foot platform, three canopies and a 200 space parking lot. A temporary station in Martha has been included in the Music City Star system at a cost of $138,681, featuring a single platform, three paved ADA parking spaces and a gravel parking lot for 80 vehicles. However, there is already concern that the parking will be inadequate and that costs will rise considerably when the issue is addressed. Station costs, of the Rail Runner Commuter Rail Service between Albuquerque and Belen, New Mexico which began June, 2006, averaged about $2 million according to the Director of Transportation and Planning Services of the Mid-Region Council of Governments. Costs varied according to parking lot size and length of access roads, with the cheapest costing about $1.8 million. Stations feature one 300-foot platform with two canopies covering about half of its length. Parking varies at each station, with the largest facility having over 250 spaces. Given the commuter rail service scenario, an estimated station cost of $2 million is used for each of the outlying stations such as at the Odessa, Oak Grove, Grain Valley, Blue Springs, Independence-Mall and Independence Central. The station at downtown Kansas City (Riverfront) was estimated to cost about $1 million due to the existence of parking and other amenities. It should be noted that any new service can choose to spend as much or as little as it may want in the start-up time period.
PAGE 4-13 I-70 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 4.0 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES COSTS JULY 2007
4.2.2.2 LAYOVER FACILITY COSTS Layover facilities (associated with regular commuter passenger service) are required in conjunction with overnight train storage, light servicing and cleaning. It is preferable to locate these as close as possible to a commuter rail line’s end terminals. It is assumed that a layover facility for nighttime layover would be constructed near Odessa depending on land availability. Daytime layover would likely be accomplished at the Riverfront Station area. Estimated to cost about $1.8 million (plus land acquisition cost), it would include the following: x Sufficient tracks for three or four trainsets, with additional space to expand considering the possibility of future fleet size increases; x 480 volt standby power (required to maintain train heat and cooling and operate lights and doors without running the train’s locomotive); x Crew and maintenance building; x Fencing and security; x Lighting; x Roadway vehicle access to all tracks, and x Level storage tracks with drip pans for locomotives.
4.2.2.3 LOCOMOTIVE HAULED,BI-LEVEL PASSENGER RAIL CARS Bi-level cars are fairly typical of commuter rail systems that feature locomotive hauled passenger rail cars. As seen in recent sales to systems in California, New Mexico and Rhode Island, average current costs of such cars approach around $2 million, as displayed in Table 4-7 below.
Table 4-7 Locomotive Hauled Bi-Level Passenger Rail Cars (Year 2006 Dollars)
Approx. Cost System Manufacturer Seating (Millions) Metrolink, Los Angeles, CA Rotem 140-150 $2.02 Rail Runner Albuquerque, NM Bombardier 140 2.30 MBTA, RI Kawasaki 182 2.00 Source: Manufacturers, service operators and various media.
Locomotives such as Wabtec Corporation’s MPXpress model have been purchased at a cost of approximately $2.5 million each as in the case of New Mexico’s Rail Runner service. Subsequently, a train made up of a locomotive and three bi-level passenger cars would cost approximately $8.5 million and seat between 420 and 546 passengers, depending on configuration, ADA compliance and/or crash management systems. Fleet costs covering three locomotives and one spare and nine passenger cars and two spares would total $32 million. That would allow operation on three trains in each peak period. To increase service to four peak period trains, the cost would increase to $40.5 million assuming that the same number of spares would be needed. Table 4-8 summarizes the cost calculations for each scenario.
PAGE 4-14 I-70 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 4.0 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES COSTS JULY 2007
Table 4-8 Rolling Stock Capital Costs (Year 2006 Dollars)
Cost Item 3 Peak Trains 4 Peak Trans Locomotive $2.5 Bi-level Passenger Car $2.0 Number of Passenger Cars 3 Total Passenger Cars $6.0 Total Train Set $8.5 Number of Trainsets 3 4 Operating Trainsets Total $25.5 $$34.0 Spare Locomotives 1 1 Spare Passenger Cars 2 2 Spare Total $6.5 $6.5 Total Cost $32.0 $40.5
The used rail passenger equipment market including passenger cars and locomotives can vary widely depending on a number of factors. Occasionally passenger rail agencies, such as Chicago’s Metra have sold surplus bi-level railcars for as little as one dollar or just a few thousand dollars. Nashville was able to procure locomotives for $400,000 each for the Music City Star service. However, such opportunities are not regularly available and, while worth investigating at the time of procurement, such a market may not exist when the next would-be passenger rail service looks to acquire rolling stock.
Self-propelled diesel multiple units (DMUs) provide an alternative to traditional locomotive hauled trainsets. The benefit of DMU railcars can include fuel economy, flexibility and efficient handling of small passenger loads. The current arguments against DMU railcars include reduced efficiency under large passenger volumes and a market currently limited to a single supplier of compliant equipment, with a relative short service history of its equipment4. It is the study team’s opinion that for the purposes of this study conventional equipment (locomotive- hauled rail cars) should be assumed as it is currently the standardized procurement practice and the conservative planning approach. DMUs are becoming more utilized and there should be an increasing amount of real-world performance data available in the intervening time the Kansas City region is considering its options. Consequently, it would be prudent to revisit the availability, cost and advantages of DMUs as service implementation nears.
4.2.2.4 TOTAL NON-TRACK AND NON-SIGNAL CAPITAL COSTS SUMMARY Total non-track and non-signal capital costs of the corridor are displayed in Table 4-9. Included are seven stations, three and four train sets and related spares as well as allowance for one layover facility.
4 Compliant equipment meets FRA passenger car safety standards, so it can be operated on rail lines that carry freight rail traffic.
PAGE 4-15 I-70 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 4.0 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES COSTS JULY 2007
Table 4-9 Corridor Non-Track and Non-Signal Capital Costs (Year 2006 Dollars)
3 Peak Trains 4 Peak Trains Stations & Parking $13,000,000 $13,000,000 Layover Facility $1,800,000 $1,800,000 Equipment Cost $32,000,000 $40,500,000 Total $46,800,000 $55,300,000 Source: RLBA Estimates
4.2.3 TOTAL RAIL CAPITAL COSTS The capital cost estimate to make track and signal improvements ranges from $54.0 million to complete the recommended Phase 1 improvements to $120.1 million to implement the complete KCS plan. The number of trains running in each peak hour results in the non-track and non-signal costs that range from $46.8 million to $55.3 million. Table 4-10 provides a total cost for the four possible combinations of capital improvements.
Table 4-10 Total Rail Capital Cost Matrix (Millions of Year 2006 Dollars)
Track and Signal Improvement Scenario 3 Peak Trains 4 Peak Trains KCS Proposal $166.9 $175.4 Recommended Phase 1 $100.8 $109.3
4.2.4 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COSTS Estimated operating costs are based upon the recommended service plan, consisting of three or four round trips per day upon start-up. The inputs required to operate the service, such as labor hours and outputs, such as locomotive-miles, were calculated. Next, appropriate unit costs from passenger railroad experience were applied. Finally, adjustments were made as appropriate, to reflect any unique characteristics of the proposed service. Principal operating cost components examined include:
Train Operations Costs include crew wages, fuel, clerical support, supplies, dispatching and supervision. Crew wages were estimated based upon train schedules, crew assignments and typical compensation. Fuel and other remaining costs were estimated based upon train-miles to be operated under each service plan.
Equipment Maintenance Costs were developed based upon equipment fleet size as well as miles operated. There initially is no corresponding capital cost for a maintenance facility as it is expected that the service initially would contract equipment maintenance to one of the railroads or equipment maintenance contractors in the region. It is not deemed economical to construct a shop facility for the small start-up fleet, but it may be desirable to do so as additional trains or lines are added and the fleet increases.
PAGE 4-16 I-70 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 4.0 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES COSTS JULY 2007
Access and Maintenance Costs pay for access to track owned by others. Rail passenger services operating over freight railroad tracks generally pay for track access in two ways: 1) by making capital improvements or contributions to improve line condition or increase line capacity, or both and 2) by means of a variable cost approach which recognizes both the use of existing facilities and the additional resources needed to maintain facilities to support passenger service. The first component is included in the infrastructure portion of the capital cost estimate elsewhere in this report. The second component based on the amount of use measured by train-miles includes the compensation paid to the track owner for a share of track maintenance, dispatching, supervision and overhead costs in addition to an incentive payment, as well as a host railroad profit component, all of which are included in the operating estimate. The rate used in the I-70 estimate is based upon current agreements governing other commuter rail operations. It is too early to know whether KCS would retain ownership of the proposed new commuter rail trackage (which is located for the most part on KCS right-of-way), or whether it would be public-owned. The per-mile access fee is appropriate in the former case; in the latter, the public would be responsible for the maintenance cost, which would be somewhat higher than the amount shown under Access and Maintenance Costs. Establishing the appropriate access and maintenance cost reimbursement through negotiations between the commuter rail sponsor and KCS can be anticipated to be a lengthy and contentious process.
Insurance expense and general and administrative (G&A) expenses were projected based on the experience of other commuter and light rail services, with particular attention to experience typical of the first years of operation. G&A costs reflect establishment of a modest administrative and funding agency, or a new adjunct to an existing governmental or transit entity. This new agency would be responsible for marketing, public outreach, contract administration, security coordination and financial matters. A summary of total operating costs applied to the I-70 Commuter Rail service appears in Table 4-11. Table 4-11 Annual Rail Service Operating Costs (Year 2006 Dollars)
Description 3 Trains 4 Trains Operating Costs: Train operations $1,126,000 $1,401,000 Equipment maintenance 4,110,000 5,453,000 Railroad Access Fees 993,000 1,324,000 Station maintenance & operations 280,000 280,000 Subtotal Operating Costs $6,509,000 $8,458,000 General and Administrative $1,811,000 $1,811,000 Insurance 810,000 810,000 Contingency (5 Percent) 457,000 554,000 Total $9,587,000 $11,633,000 Source: RLBA.
PAGE 4-17 I-70 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 4.0 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES COSTS JULY 2007
In estimating the operating costs associated with operating three or four trains during each peak period, the estimates are based on the operating premise that a trainset and crew would be required to operate each of the trainsets. The study team does not believe that it is prudent to assume that the first peak period train could complete its trip, operate in service or deadhead to the opposite terminal and make another trip in the peak direction. In addition to running time, the schedule would have to account for turnaround time at each end and time required to meet commuter and/or freight trains on the single track portions of the line.
The concept of turning a peak period train to make a second trip is worth evaluating in implementation planning and taking up with the host railroad. The concept is more feasible if a train operating somewhat outside the peak period is deemed useful, allowing a greater opportunity to turn a trainset. Another possible operating scenario is operating a morning “short turnback” train that would offload at Riverfront Station and turn back only as far as Grain Valley or Independence, for example, and then make a second inbound trip from that location.
4.3 Alternatives Cost Estimate Summary The total capital and annual O&M costs for each of the alternatives are presented in Table 4-12. The capital cost for equipment and facilities are summarized separately. Equipment cost includes the cost for bus or rail vehicles. The facilities cost includes track, station, and associated infrastructure improvements. For the TSM Alternative and the Express Bus Alternative no variations are provided for either alternative. For the Commuter Rail Alternative cost estimates are provided for four variations reflecting varying levels of track and signal improvements and varying number of trains being run in the peak period. The Commuter Rail Alternative costs include the supportive transit service recommended as part of the alternative.
Table 4-12 Detailed Alternatives Cost Summary (Millions of Year 2006 Dollars) Equipment Facilities Total Annual Alternative Capital Capital Capital O & M TSM $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $1.6 Express Bus $4.2 $1.2 $5.4 $2.8 Commuter Rail: - Phased Plan / 3 Trains $34.0 $68.8 $102.8 $11.0 - Phased Plan / 4 Trains $42.5 $68.8 $111.3 $13.1 - KCS Plan / 3 Trains $34.0 $134.9 $168.9 $11.0 - KCS Plan / 4 Trains $42.5 $134.9 $177.4 $13.1
Given the expected limited initial demand for the commuter rail service, the costs for providing three trains in the peak direction best reflects expected initial operation. The level of initial track and signal improvements will depend on KCS’s willingness to accept a phased improvement approach. In assessing the viability of the alternatives both the track and signal improvement scenarios should be considered, so a range of capital cost for the Commuter Rail Alternative is provided. Table 4-13 summaries the recommended costs for comparison of alternatives.
PAGE 4-18 I-70 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 4.0 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES COSTS JULY 2007
Table 4-13 Alternatives Cost Summary (Millions of Year 2006 Dollars)
Alternative Capital Annual O & M TSM $0.0 $1.6 Express Bus $5.4 $2.8 Commuter Rail $102.8 - $168.9 $11.0
PAGE 4-19 5.0Ridership Forecasts I-70 CORRIDOR TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 5.0 RIDERSHIP FORECASTS JULY 2007
5.0 RIDERSHIP FORECASTS
5.1 Introduction The basis of the ridership forecasts for this project was the MARC regional travel demand model that has been originally estimated based on the 1990 Kansas City household survey. This model was modified at different stages of the process and was subsequently used in the Southtown Light Rail Transit (LRT) corridor study, the Northland Downtown Major Investment Study (MIS) study, and the I-70 Alternatives Analysis study. To account for various weaknesses of the model, different project teams have added correction factors to the trip generation, trip distribution, and mode choice components of the model.
The I-70 project team reviewed the latest existing version of the MARC model and incorporated various changes to the existing MARC model system. These changes were first documented and presented to FTA staff in a memo dated March 23, 2005 and titled “MARC Model Review and Enhancements for Application to the I-35 and I-70 Corridor Alternatives Analysis Studies”. This memo was discussed with FTA and project team staff on April 14, 2005.
Following the incorporation of changes to the MARC model, a second memo was sent to the FTA on April 4, 2006 entitled ”MARC Model Enhancements for Application in the I-35 and I-70 Corridor Alternatives Analysis Studies – Round 2”. The FTA’s response on September 5, 2006 discussed the results of these changes and included suggestions for additional improvements that would need to be implemented before proceeding with use of the model for a New Starts application.
The recommendations made by the FTA are currently being incorporated into the new MARC model that is currently under development. As part of this model update, the recently collected household survey for the Kansas City region is now being used to update the MARC model to current year conditions and make the MARC model more suitable for New Starts applications.
5.2 Aggregate Rail Ridership Forecasting Model
5.2.1 OVERVIEW OF THE AGGREGATE RAIL RIDERSHIP FORECASTING MODEL
The Aggregate Rail Ridership Forecasting (ARRF) model is intended to develop order-of- magnitude estimates of ridership for new rail lines in metropolitan areas where no existing fixed guideway transit facilities are present. The model was calibrated to represent ridership on existing systems throughout the country that are generally similar in size and level of service to lines that are in operation in growing metropolitan areas. The calibration of the model excludes commuter rail and LRT systems in large metropolitan areas and those systems that have been in operation for many decades.
ARRF’s commuter rail ridership estimates are based on Year 2000 Census Transportation Planning Package (CTPP) Journey-to-Work flows. In particular, the travel flows that are taken
PAGE 5-1 I-70 CORRIDOR TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 5.0 RIDERSHIP FORECASTS JULY 2007
into account include the journey-to-work movements from each of the proposed stations to all of the other proposed stations as follows: x Travel flows that originate in areas within a 6-mile dissolved buffer (the union of co-centric buffers of every station in the system) for high- and middle-income workers; x Travel flows that originate in areas within a 2-mile dissolved buffer for low-income workers; and x Travel flows that have as a destination those locations near the proposed stations that are encompassed by a dissolved one-mile buffer around each station.
The workers are classified into three different income categories based on annual household income as follows: x Households with incomes less than $25,000 are assigned to the low-income group; x Incomes between $25,000 and $60,000 are assigned to the middle-income group; and x Incomes above $60,000 are assigned to the high-income group.
For low-income workers, a 2-mile production buffer is assumed, based on an assumption that low-income workers are less likely to have a vehicle available for traveling to commuter rail stations. Therefore, they would have relatively limited access to commuter rail. As an upper limit for egress, a distance of one mile is assumed.
After the application of expected modal shares to the total work flows, an unadjusted ridership estimate for total unlinked rail transit trips is obtained. This estimate is then adjusted further based on the level of service characteristics of the commuter rail system. During this process, the unadjusted ridership estimate multiplied with a multiplicative adjustment factor reflects: x Operating speed, x Frequency of service, and x Rail connectivity at the downtown terminal location.
The rail connectivity index is a binary variable that takes the value of 1.0 if an LRT system exists to connect the proposed rail terminal with other possible downtown destinations. If such a service is not available, the rail connectivity index takes the value of 0.5. More detailed information on assumptions used, the case studies analyzed, and the statistical significance of individual coefficients and models can be found in model documentation provided by the FTA reports titled: “CTPP-Based Aggregate Rail Ridership Forecasting Model, Part I: Model Application Guide, Part II: Input Data Development Guide, and Part III: Model Calibration Report”.
5.2.2 APPLICATION OF THE ARRF MODEL TO THE I-70 CORRIDOR
The commuter rail alignment and station locations for the proposed commuter rail service in I-70 Corridor are shown in Figure 5.1, along with the Census TAZ layer within the 8-County Area.
Six-mile, two-mile and one-mile dissolved buffer areas are defined around the station locations as shown in Figure 5.2.
PAGE 5-2 I-70 CORRIDOR TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 5.0 RIDERSHIP FORECASTS JULY 2007
County-to-County flows within the region were summarized using the Bureau of Census County to County estimates and summarizing the JTW data at the TAZ level of detail. The comparison of Tables 5-1 and 5-2 indicates that there is a high level of agreement in the inter-county flows. Intra-county flows are underestimated systematically since the convention used to estimate a more accurate number of worker flows from the raw Census data does not take into account those workers who work from home. It has been discussed and decided that such a small difference would have no adverse impact on the ARRF ridership estimates.
Figure 5.1 Overlay of the Proposed I-70 Alignment and the 8-County Kansas City Region
PAGE 5-3 I-70 CORRIDOR TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 5.0 RIDERSHIP FORECASTS JULY 2007
Figure 5.2 Buffer Circles of 1, 2, and 6 miles Around Each of the I-70 Corridor Stations
Table 5-1 Journey to Work Travel Estimated at the Census TAZ Level of Detail Lafayett Johnso Leaven Wyando Cass Co. Clay Co. Jackson Platte e Co. n Co. worth tte Co. All MO MO Co. MO Co. MO MO KS Co. KS KS Cass Co. MO 13,055 816 16,209 42 216 6,686 10 977 38,010 Clay Co. MO 113 44,611 26,811 11 10,039 5,938 229 4,267 92,020 Jackson Co. MO 2,777 14,451 224,911 538 4,078 39,017 259 11,584 297,615 Lafayette Co. MO 93 502 5,184 7,296 72 341 5 281 13,774 Platte Co. MO 26 7,117 9,548 17 14,835 3,304 793 2,452 38,094 Johnson Co. KS 587 3,766 49,684 33 1,984 154,363 847 14,792 226,056 Leavenworth Co. KS 72 351 1,701 7 712 3,559 18,029 3,793 28,224 Wyandotte Co. KS 75 1,707 11,003 3 1,163 18,995 612 30,607 64,165 All 16,798 73,322 345,052 7,947 33,099 232,204 20,784 68,753 797,958 Source: CS Analysis of 2000 US Census Journey to Work Database at the TAZ level
PAGE 5-4 I-70 CORRIDOR TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 5.0 RIDERSHIP FORECASTS JULY 2007
Table 5-2 Journey to Work Travel Patterns at the 8 County Region Level Lafayett Johnso Leaven Wyando Cass Clay Co. Jackson Platte e Co. n Co. worth tte Co. All Co. MO MO Co. MO Co. MO MO KS Co. KS KS Cass Co. MO 14,616 816 16,208 42 216 6,686 10 977 39,571 Clay Co. MO 113 47,238 26,812 11 10,039 5,938 229 4,267 94,647 Jackson Co. MO 2,777 14,451 233,408 538 4,078 39,018 259 11,585 306,114 Lafayette Co. MO 93 502 5,184 7,926 72 341 5 281 14,404 Platte Co. MO 26 7,119 9,548 17 16,264 3,304 793 2,452 39,523 Johnson Co. KS 587 3,766 49,687 33 1,984 165,924 847 14,791 237,619 Leavenworth Co. KS 72 351 1,701 7 712 3,560 19,105 3,793 29,301 Wyandotte Co. KS 75 1,707 11,004 3 1,163 18,996 612 31,919 65,479 All 18,359 75,950 353,552 8,577 34,528 243,767 21,860 70,065 826,658 Source: 2000 County-to-County US Census Journey to Work Database
Using a GIS program, flows starting between the six-mile to one-mile buffers by workers from high and mid-income groups, and the flows in the two-mile to one-mile buffers for low-income groups are identified and summarized in Table 5-3. In order to analyze the possible effects of an alternative terminal location closer to downtown, the system coverage and ARRF estimates are provided for the Riverfront and an alternate terminal location. Tables 5-3 and 5-4 feature the total amount of JTW flows taking place between origin and destination buffers for the Riverfront and alternative terminal location in downtown. The comparison of Tables 5-3 and 5-4 shows that the change in the terminal downtown location results in an increase in coverage and worker flows by 28 to 33 percent.
Table 5-3 Systemwide Flows Used as Inputs to ARRF Riverfront Terminal
Variables Sum of Workers High Income Flows 6-to-1Mile 17,779 Mid Income Flows 6-to-1Mile 17,270 Low Income Flows 6-to-1Mile 1,978 All Flows from 6-to-1Mile 40,525 All Flow from 2-to-1Mile 18,112
PAGE 5-5 I-70 CORRIDOR TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 5.0 RIDERSHIP FORECASTS JULY 2007
Table 5-4 Systemwide Flows Used as Inputs to ARRF Alternative Terminal Variables Sum of Workers High Income Flows 6-to-1Mile 22,963 Mid Income Flows 6-to-1Mile 22,865 Low Income Flows 6-to-1Mile 2,537 All Flows from 6-to-1Mile 53,722 All Flow from 2-to-1Mile 21,969
In order to provide examples to demonstrate the order of magnitude of flows at the station level, flows starting from Odessa and Blue Springs six-mile buffers and destined to Riverfront terminal one-mile egress buffer locations are summarized in Table 5-5. Figure 5.3 provides a illustrative representation of these flows.
Table 5-5 Journey to Work Travel for Odessa-to-Downtown and Blue Springs-to-Downtown TAZ Selection Journey-To-Work Selected Journey-To-Work Flows Criteria1 Flows2 Odessa to Downtown Kansas City 10% 340
Blue Springs to Downtown Kansas City 10% 4,448 1 If a buffer covers a portion of a TAZ at greater than the criteria given in this column, then the TAZ is assigned to that buffer. 2 One-way directional flows of works.
PAGE 5-6 I-70 CORRIDOR TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 5.0 RIDERSHIP FORECASTS JULY 2007
Figure 5.3 Access and Egress Buffers for Selected Station-to-Station JTW Flows
Level of service indicators that are used as an input to the ARRF model are calculated and summarized in Table 5-6. In addition to the base alternative, three alternative operational scenarios were also tested in order to provide an estimate of the sensitivity to different level of service assumptions. The base alternative assumes only six trains per day. Sensitivity Run #1 assumes additional outbound service. Run #2 assumes 4 trains with outbound service, and Run#3 assumes a faster rail service. This last sensitivity run was structured to emulate the 20 percent travel time savings that is used when comparing the in-vehicle travel time of rail compared to an equivalent bus service. The highlighted fields in Table 5-6 are inputs to the ARRF model.
PAGE 5-7 I-70 CORRIDOR TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 5.0 RIDERSHIP FORECASTS JULY 2007
Table 5-6 Summary of Level of Service Inputs to Demand Adjustment Factor "Base Sensitivity Runs Option" 3 Peak 3 Peak 4 Peak 4 Peak Direction Trains (12 Trains (16 Trains (16 Trains (6 total) at 48 total) at 48 total) at 60 total) at 48 mph mph mph mph Route Length (miles) 40.5 40.5 40.5 40.5 No. of Trains Per Day 6 12 16 16 No. of Cars (Vehicles) Per Train 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Revenue Trip Length 40.50 40.50 40.50 40.50 Revenue Miles Per Day 729 1,458 1,944 1,944 Weekdays Per Year 260 260 260 260 Holidays 5 5 5 5 Revenue Service Days 255 255 255 255 Annual Revenue Vehicle Miles 185,895 371,790 495,720 495,720 Average Speed (mph) 48.0 48.0 48.0 60.0 Average Travel Time (hours) 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.68 Daily Revenue Vehicle Hours 15.1875 30.375 40.5 32.4 Annual Revenue Vehicle Hours 3,873 7,746 10,328 8,262 Daily Revenue Train Miles 243 486 648 648 Annual Revenue Train Miles 61,965 123,930 165,240 165,240
Table 5-7 features the worker flows summarized in Table 5-3 and 5-4 along with the expected modal shares for different market segments. Table 5-8 shows the unadjusted ridership for the Riverfront terminal and the alternate terminal location in downtown.
PAGE 5-8 I-70 CORRIDOR TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 5.0 RIDERSHIP FORECASTS JULY 2007
Table 5-7 Estimates of Work Flows and Workers within Buffer Area - I-70 Corridor
Riverfront Alternative Station Terminal Description Coefficients 10% Zonal 10% Zonal Coverage Coverage Six miles to One mile radius flows - High Income 0.069 17,779 22,963 Six miles to One mile radius flows - Medium Income 0.041 17,270 22,865 Two miles to One mile radius flows - Low Income 0.151 1,978 2,537 Number of Workers - Six miles to One mile radius 40,525 53,722 Number of Workers - Two miles to One mile radius 18,112 21,969
Table 5-8 Unadjusted ARRF Ridership Estimates - Buffer Area Work Flows
Alternative Riverfront Station Terminal Unadjusted ARRF Ridership 2,233 2,905
Table 5-9 displays the parameters used in the calculation of the level of service adjustment factors and adjustment factors for each alternative operational scenario. It can be seen that the proposed I-70 rail speed is higher than the average level of service assumed by the ARRF model and results in a positive percentage deviation when compared to the default average system speed. However, frequency of service is low, as reflected by the negative coefficient on the percent deviation from average train miles by mile, when compared with the default average frequency considered by the ARRF model. The lack of a LRT system that can connect the downtown terminal location to other possible downtown destinations brings down the rail connectivity index to 0.5. Therefore resultant adjustment coefficient ranged between 0.36 and 0.53.
Finally, Table 5-10 features the base year ARRF estimates for the I-70 Corridor Commuter Rail Service terminating at the Riverfront Station location and an alternative downtown location under different operational scenarios. According to the ARRF model estimates, base year ridership is expected to be in the range of 800 -1,200 daily unlinked trips, while a change in terminal location is expected to improve ridership by 30 percent, to the range of 1,000-1,500 daily unlinked trips.
PAGE 5-9 I-70 CORRIDOR TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 5.0 RIDERSHIP FORECASTS JULY 2007
Table 5-9 ARRF Adjustment Factors to Reflect Rail Level of Service on I-70 Corridor
"Base Sensitivity Runs Option" 3 Peak 3 Peak 4 Peak 4 Peak Direction Trains (12 Trains (16 Trains (16 Trains (6 total) at 48 total) at 48 total) at 60 total) at 48 mph mph mph mph Route Length 40.5 40.5 40.5 40.5
Directional Route Miles 81.0 81.0 81.0 81.0
Annual Revenue Vehicle Miles 185,895 371,790 495,720 495,720
Annual Revenue Vehicle Hours 3,873 7,746 10,328 8,262
System Average Speed 48.0 48.0 48.0 60.0
Percent Deviation in System Average Speed 0.294 0.294 0.294 0.508
Weekday Train Miles per Directional Route Miles 3.00 6.00 8.00 8.00
Percent Deviation in Train Miles per Mile -1.098 -0.528 -0.251 -0.251
Rail Connection Index 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500
Annual Revenue Train Miles 61,965 123,930 165,240 165,240
ARRF Demand Adjustment Factor 0.36 0.46 0.50 0.53
Table 5-10 Adjusted ARRF Ridership Estimates - Buffer Area + Rail Level of Service
"Base Option" Sensitivity Runs 3 Peak 3 Peak Trains 4 Peak Trains 4 Peak Trains Direction (12 total) at 48 (16 total) at 48 (16 total) at 60 Trains (6 total) mph mph mph at 48 mph Riverfront Station 815 1,023 1,124 1,190
Alternative Terminal 1,060 1,330 1,461 1,548
5.2.3 SUMMARY
The ARRF sketch-planning tool offers an additional “data point” to evaluate the demand forecasts generated for the I-70 rail corridor. These estimates do not rely on the MARC model, but are driven exclusively by the 2000 US Census journey to work travel flows and the relative levels of rail service envisioned for the corridor. The underlying GIS data, level of service data, and all assumptions made are documented in this memo and the accompanying spreadsheet.
PAGE 5-10 I-70 CORRIDOR TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 5.0 RIDERSHIP FORECASTS JULY 2007
Overall, the ARRF process produced ridership estimates that are consistent with the estimates generated by the MARC model that are discussed in the next section. These independently- derived estimates provide another “data point“ for the evaluation of the proposed rail service along the I-70 corridor. The sensitivity to the terminal location, the speed of rail service and the frequency of service also were consistent with the sensitivity runs conducted using the MARC model. These estimates provide the range of ridership that would be expected under these different scenarios.
5.3 Ridership Forecasts
5.3.1 OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY OF KEY ASSUMPTIONS
This section summarizes the daily transit ridership forecasts for the Base Year conditions and for future year 2030. The Future year, Future Year No Build, TSM, TSM & Enhanced Express Bus, and Commuter Rail Alternatives for the I-70 corridor. Commuter rail alternative runs also included five different scenarios, each reflecting an introduction of an additional change in one of the key level of service (LOS) parameters. These forecasts are based on the updated MARC model that was described in the April 4, 2006 memo to the FTA titled “MARC Model Enhancements for Application in the I-35 and I-70 Corridor Alternatives Analysis Studies – Round 2”.
A review of the rail and bus level of service inputs and the connectivity of the transit routes focused particularly on the routes and transit services most relevant to the I-70 corridor. The following provides an overview of the review effort and changes made to the inputs.
Transit Schedules: Existing bus schedules were reviewed for the corridor bus lines and input files were updated accordingly to reflect the 2000 Base and 2030 Base scenarios. For TSM and TSM & Enhanced Express Bus scenarios, headways were altered to reflect the descriptions provided in Chapter 2, Transit Alternatives.
In the earlier runs, there was an inconsistency in the treatment of headways in the model code that was due to the definition of the AM and PM peak periods. The model code has been modified to reflect the frequency of service that is envisioned for the two hour peak period described in the definition of alternatives. The headways that appear in the model input files reflect the proposed headways as described in Chapter 2. In cases where only the number of trains or bus runs was mentioned, headways were adjusted to reflect the level of frequency that would correspond to the hour peak period. Table 5-11 features a summary of headways of each bus transit route relevant to the I-70 corridor.
Transit Fares: The fare structure reflects the year 2000 fares and has been maintained throughout our analysis. A fare of $2.00, and $2.50 in the sensitivity runs, are assumed for commuter rail and a fare of $2.00 is assumed for express bus runs in TSM and TSM & Enhanced Express Bus. All other fares correspond to existing fare structures and fare levels.
PAGE 5-11 I-70 CORRIDOR TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 5.0 RIDERSHIP FORECASTS JULY 2007
Table 5-11 Summary of Headways of Bus Transit Routes in the I-70 Corridor
Peak/Off- Headway (mins) Route # Description Peak Base 2000 Base 2030 TSM XBUS RAIL Peak 30 30 30 30 30 12A 12th Street (Truman) Off-Peak 40 40 40 40 40 12th Street Peak 30 30 30 30 30 12B (Hard./Mercier) Off-Peak 40 40 40 40 40 Peak 60 60 60 60 24 F Fairview Express Off-Peak Peak 30 24X XBUS Replacement Off-Peak Peak 60 60 60 60 24 H Highleah Express Off-Peak Peak 10 10 10 10 10 24 I Independence Local Off-Peak 15 15 15 15 15 Peak 20 20 20 20 20 27 27th Street Off-Peak 30 30 30 30 30 Peak 20 20 12 12 12 28 Blue Ridge Off-Peak 30 30 30 30 30 Peak 36 36 36 36 36 28 A Blue Ridge (51st) Off-Peak 60 60 60 60 60 Peak 30 30 30 30 30 28 E Blue Ridge Express Off-Peak Peak 60 60 60 60 60 28 L Blue Ridge-Lin Off-Peak 60 60 60 60 60 Peak 36 36 36 36 36 28 X I-435 Express Off-Peak Blue Springs Peak 30 30 L 45 Connector Off-Peak 60 60 Peak 10 10 10 10 10 MAXI Country Club Off-Peak 15 15 15 15 15 Peak 10 10 10 10 10 MAXO Country Club Off-Peak 15 15 15 15 15 Peak 45 45 45 45 45 109 A 9th Street Off-Peak 45 45 45 45 45 Peak 45 45 45 45 45 109 B 9th Street Off-Peak 120 120 120 120 120 Lee's Summit/ Peak 60 60 60 60 60 152 Raytown Express Off-Peak Peak 30 30 30 20 170 Blue Springs Express Off-Peak Odessa/Oak Grove Peak 40 171 Express Off-Peak Woodland Brooklyn Peak 60 60 60 60 60 110 (Feeder 1) Off-Peak 60 60 60 60 60 East 5th Street (Feeder Peak 60 60 60 60 60 126 2) Off-Peak 60 60 60 60 60 Casino Cruiser Peak 50 50 50 50 50 173 (Feeder 3) Off-Peak 50 50 50 50 50 Independence Intra- Peak 60 60 60 30 60 183 City Metro Service Off-Peak 60 60 60 60 60 Independence Intra- Peak 60 60 60 30 60 284 City Metro Service Off-Peak 60 60 60 60 60 Independence Intra- Peak 60 60 60 30 60 285 City Metro Service Off-Peak 60 60 60 60 60 Independence Intra- Peak 60 60 60 30 60 291 City Metro Service Off-Peak 60 60 60 60 60 Independence Intra- Peak 60 60 60 30 60 292 City Metro Service Off-Peak 60 60 60 60 60 Independence Intra- Peak 60 60 60 30 60 293 City Metro Service Off-Peak 60 60 60 60 60
PAGE 5-12 I-70 CORRIDOR TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 5.0 RIDERSHIP FORECASTS JULY 2007
Transit Alignment: The coding for route L45 for TSM & Enhanced Express Bus and Rail alternatives, the feeder routes in Independence (route #183, #284, #285, #291, #292, and #293) and the routes in downtown Kansas City (route #110, #126, and #173) were reviewed and revised where necessary to ensure proper level of connectivity with the rail stations and the terminal location at the Riverfront Station. The alignment for Route 24I was reinstated from earlier runs where Route 24I had been truncated to test the route's level of competition with rail service.
Transferring: Walk access links that connected bus routes to the rail stations at the Blue Springs station and at the Independence station were added to enable easier transfers to rail from bus stops near station locations.
Park ‘n Ride and Kiss ‘n Ride networks were examined and links between Park ‘n Ride lot and Blue Springs Station were added.
In order to facilitate transfers from rail service to buses at the Riverfront Terminal, the wait time at the bus stop just south of the terminal was changed to 3 minutes to reflect a high level of synchronization of bus arrival times with the arrival of commuter trains to the terminal.
5.3.2 ASSUMPTIONS FOR COMMUTER RAIL LEVEL OF SERVICE
We have tested five different scenarios for commuter rail level of service. The first three model runs reflect changes in one of the service attributes that include rail headways, rail fares, and rail operating.
Model Run 1 Assumptions: x Headway: Service is offered every 30 minutes to reflect the availability of 4 trains in the peak direction during a two-hour peak period. x Speed: An average operating speed of 48 mph is used to reflect the weighted average speed of 30 mph between Independence and Riverfront stations and the 60 mph speed between Independence and Odessa stations. x Fare for rail is set at $2.00.
Model Run 2 Assumptions: x Headway: Service is offered every 40 minutes and is equivalent to 3 trains in the peak direction during a two-hour peak period. x Speed: An average operating speed of 48 mph is used to reflect the weighted average speed of 30 mph between Independence and Riverfront stations and the 60 mph speed between Independence and Odessa stations. x Fare for rail is set at $2.00.
Model Run 3 Assumptions: x Headway: Service is offered every 40 minutes and is equivalent to 3 trains in the peak direction during a two-hour peak period.
PAGE 5-13 I-70 CORRIDOR TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 5.0 RIDERSHIP FORECASTS JULY 2007
x Speed: An average operating speed of 48 mph is used to reflect the weighted average speed of 30 mph between Independence and Riverfront stations and the 60 mph speed between Independence and Odessa stations. x Fare: An increased fare of $2.50 was assumed for this scenario.
The fourth model run reflects the impacts of FTA-approved assumptions for the effective headways for infrequent transit service. The fifth model run reflects the relative benefit for rail service by treating rail travel times as 20 percent less onerous than bus travel times.
Model Run 4 Assumptions: x Headway: This scenario incorporates FTA’s treatment of wait times for longer headways of service. Although the service remains at 3 peak direction trains in a two-hour peak period, a lower effective headway definition is used for the infrequent rail. It is assumed that the wait time for the first fifteen minutes is ½ of the headway while the portion of the headway beyond 15 minutes is weighted by ¼ when calculating the additional wait time. As a result, a headway of 40 minutes results in a wait time of 13.75 minutes. x Speed: An average operating speed of 48 mph is used to reflect the weighted average speed of 30 mph between Independence and Riverfront stations and the 60 mph speed between Independence and Odessa stations. x Fare: An increased fare of $2.50 was assumed for this scenario.
Model Run 5 Assumptions: x Headway: This scenario also incorporates FTA’s treatment of wait times for longer headways of service. As a result, a headway of 40 minutes results in a wait time of 13.75 minutes. x Speed: This scenario incorporates the lower perceived travel time on rail following FTA guidance for commuter rail scenarios. The travel time on rail is discounted by 20 percent to reflect that ten minutes of travel on bus is equivalent to 8 minutes of travel on rail. A higher average speed is used to reflect these travel time savings. x Fare: An increased fare of $2.50 was assumed for this scenario.
5.3.3 DISCUSSION OF MODEL RUNS
The results of the final model runs are summarized in Table 5.12 and reflect the estimated daily ridership. Key assumptions about the rail level of service are repeated in the top three rows of the table under “Commuter Rail”. Estimates of bus ridership are presented for routes that are relevant to the I-70 corridor, although they may not necessarily follow the I-70 alignment closely or in its entirety (“I-70 Corridor Routes - Bus” routes). Estimates of rail ridership by station are summarized under the “I-70 Corridor Routes - Rail” box for all alternatives examined.
PAGE 5-14 I-70 CORRIDOR TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 5.0 RIDERSHIP FORECASTS JULY 2007
Table 5-12 Summary of Base-Year and Future-year No Build, TSM, and I-70 Commuter Rail Ridership Forecasts
Forecast Year 2000 2030 2030 2030 2030 2030 2030 2030 2030
No Model Run Scenario Base TSM Rail Rail Rail Rail Rail Build Bus TSM & / Express Enhanced Commuter Commuter Commuter Commuter Commuter
Version 1 2 3 4 5 Headway (min) 30 40 40 27.5 27.5 Rail Speed (mph) 48 48 48 48 60 LOS Fare (¢) 200 200 250 250 250
12 1,508 1,096 1,096 1,095 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 24 5,449 4,522 4,509 4,129 4,454 4,481 4,446 4,398 4,364 27 860 677 676 676 674 674 674 674 674 28 3,305 3,668 3,764 3,709 3,709 3,739 3,707 3,670 3,651 L45 - - -172623212424 Bus 109 104 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 152 205 262 263 259 222 234 234 212 201 170X 584 1,011 1,013 1,302 - - - - - 171X - - -269----- Bus Subtotals 12,015 11,302 11,387 11,522 10,251 10,317 10,248 10,144 10,080 Riverfront Station Independence 1 81 47 42 88 113 Independence 2 210 148 125 197 234 Blue Springs Rail 612 502 427 548 609 Grain Valley 157 130 110 141 157 Oak Grove 176 150 130 161 180 Odessa 122 99 83 109 132 Rail Subtotals 1,358 1,076 917 1,244 1,425 I-70 Routes Subtotals 12,015 11,302 11,387 11,522 11,609 11,391 11,166 11,387 11,505 Total Transit 53,627 54,602 54,691 55,688 56,070 55,655 55,263 55,707 55,948
PAGE 5-15 I-70 CORRIDOR TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 5.0 RIDERSHIP FORECASTS JULY 2007
Key observations from Table 5-12 include the following: x Total transit ridership under the Base 2030 conditions is marginally higher than year Base 2000 while transit ridership on the I-70 bus routes is marginally lower. Although bus routes 24, 12 and 27 appear to lose ridership in the future, bus routes 170, 28, and 152 are projected to gain ridership most likely reflecting the changes in population and employment in areas served by exiting bus routes. x The TSM Alternative is projected to generate only few additional riders on the I-70 corridor bus routes. This pattern generally reflects the similar levels of service assumed for this transit alternative. x The TSM & Enhanced Express Bus Alternative shows a measurable increase in the utilization of the 170 express bus route versus the TSM. This projected growth in ridership can be attributed in part to the increase in the service frequency under this scenario for bus route 170 and 171. x The Rail Version 1 alternative maintains the bus network under the TSM Alternative, with the exception of bus route 170 which was removed, the addition of L45 as a feeder line, and the proposed I-70 commuter rail service. A total of six outlying rail stations and the downtown Riverfront Station are served by rail operating at an average speed of 48 mph, a headway of 30 minutes (equivalent to 4 trains in the peak period), and a fare of $2. The ridership of 1,358 reflects the following assumptions: o Wait time was calculated as half the headway of 30 minutes (original assumption used in the model and consistent with earlier guidance by the FTA). o The sensitivity to rail travel time was assumed to be the same as the sensitivity to bus travel time (original assumption consistent with FTA’s earlier guidance). x The Rail Version 2 alternative reflects the same conditions as Version 1 with the exception of a lower frequency of service. Since three instead of four trains are expected to serve the peak period demand, there is a reduction of about 20 percent in 282 boardings. While some rail riders shifted to other transit alternatives, this scenario also resulted in a net loss of 218 transit boardings. x The Rail Version 3 alternative is the same as Version 2 but uses an increased fare of 2.50. This rate hike resulted in a reduction of 159 rail boardings. x Rail Version 4 incorporates the revised FTA assumption on the impact of headways on wait time. The positive impact on ridership is significant with a net gain of 327 boardings in rail service. A total of 104 riders were attracted from other transit lines in the corridor and there were a total of 223 new rail riders. x Rail Version 5 assumes a faster service in order to accommodate a rail constant that is worth roughly 20 percent in travel time savings. The revised average speed that was used results in a total of 1,425 daily riders compared to 1,244 in Version 4 and 917 in Version 3. Sixty-four riders were attracted from bus routes in the corridor, while 118 new riders chose the rail service under these assumptions.
5.3.4 SUMMARY
The MARC model, like every regional forecasting model, reflects a multitude of assumptions that aim to replicate the regional daily travel patterns and the highway and transit level of
PAGE 5-16 I-70 CORRIDOR TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 5.0 RIDERSHIP FORECASTS JULY 2007
service and market share. A regional model is also used to quantify the impact of changes in underlying transit and highway service on the projected travel flows within the region and shifts in ridership to different modes. Since the MARC model is currently being updated to reflect the recent Kansas City household survey, some of the underlying assumptions will change and may result in somewhat different ridership forecasts. Furthermore, addressing the FTA comments on the model may also influence the estimates of future ridership forecasting efforts.
The ridership forecasts prepared in this phase of the project rely on the current MARC model and suggest that the Express Bus Alternative and the Commuter Rail Alternative are more or less comparable in terms of their ability to draw transit riders. Both of these alternatives provide a better level of service than the TSM Alternative and both enjoy a higher level of projected transit ridership. The similarities in the ridership estimates between the rail and the express bus service scenarios that were obtained in this phase of the project reflect in part: x The comparable frequency of service and fare levels that were tested for the express bus and rail modes; x The “starter” nature of the proposed commuter rail service with service available only during the peak hours and with service in the peak direction; x The existing and projected land use patterns along the I-70 corridor, around each individual station location, and in the downtown Kansas City area; x The travel time advantage offered by the rail mode and the better accessibility to jobs in downtown Kansas City offered by the express bus service; x The improved circulation in suburban areas offered by the proposed express bus service which allows multiple boarding point opportunities; and x The location of the downtown Riverfront rail station which requires a transfer to a bus service to access most of the jobs in downtown Kansas City.
The model results were also echoed in the application of the ARRF sketch planning tool. This additional analysis was deemed necessary to provide MARC and the project team with an additional data point in evaluating the potential of commuter rail service in the I-70 corridor. This method does not rely on the existing MARC model and provides an independent assessment of ridership. It utilizes the 2000 US Census journey-to-work database to quantify travel flows to and from each of the I-70 stations. It also reflects the experience that FTA has gained with New Starts applications by utilizing estimates of rail market share for different market segments.
The sensitivity of the ARRF model to changes in the frequency and speed of rail service was similar to the sensitivity of the MARC model. Furthermore, the direct linkage between ridership and the amount of trips originating within six miles of each rail station and destined within one mile of each station provides a way of assessing the impacts of different land use scenarios. Finally, the ARRF model tested the impact of a more centrally located rail station in downtown Kansas City. These sensitivity runs suggested that as much as 30 percent additional ridership could be expected if a downtown terminal was located in a more convenient location with closer access to job concentrations
PAGE 5-17 6.0 Transit Alternatives Evaluation I-70 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 6.0 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION JULY 2007
6.0 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
The I-70 Corridor Transit Alternatives Analysis includes an analysis of a Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Alternative, an Express Bus Alternative and a Commuter Rail Alternative. The TSM Alternative provides the baseline for comparison of the other two alternatives. The ridership attracted to the alternatives and the cost per new transit rider are used to compare the alternatives. The Express Bus Alternative and Commuter Rail Alternative are evaluated to see how well they meet the purpose and need defined for the study.
If the Commuter Rail Alternative were to move forward with the expectation that FTA New Starts funding would be used, the FTA New Starts planning process will be followed. This process includes a project rating process that evaluates the project against other projects across the country. A summary of that process is provided to illustrate what are the important characteristics of a project to be successful in competing for New Starts funding. The final section in this chapter discusses how the Commuter Rail Alternative measures up at this time relative to general cost effectiveness and supporting land use.
6.1 Comparison of Alternatives The alternatives are compared based on ridership, cost and how well the alternative addresses the purpose and need that was identified for the corridor. The following section provides a summary of the analysis for each comparison factor.
6.1.1 RIDERSHIP To compare ridership forecasts for the Express Bus Alternative and Commuter Rail Alternative the number of riders attracted to the service can be used and the number of new transit riders when compared to the TSM Alternative can be used. For the Express Bus Alternative the forecast ridership for the two express bus lines are added together. Table 6-1 summarizes the ridership and number of new transit riders for each alternative for the forecast year 2030.
Table 6-1 Forecast 2030 Daily Ridership
Total Transit New Transit Alternative Total Ridership Ridership Ridership TSM (#170) 1,013 54,691 N/A Express Bus (#170 & #171) 1,571 55,688 997 Commuter Rail 1,425 55,948 1,257
The Commuter Rail Alternative is forecast to generate a higher number of new transit riders than the Express Bus Alternative. This is the result of the improved service provided by the Commuter Rail Alternative that exceeds the impact of the Express Bus Alternative’s ability to directly serve more employment destinations in the CBD. The Commuter Rail Alternative provides better service while the Express Bus Alternative provides a “one-seat” ride (no transfers) to many more destinations downtown.
PAGE 6-1 I-70 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 6.0 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION JULY 2007
6.1.2 COST The comparison of capital and annual operating costs for the Express Bus Alternative and the Commuter Rail Alternative uses the increase in cost above the TSM Alternative cost. As presented in Chapter 4, the TSM Alternative requires no additional capital cost and the additional annual operating cost is $1.6 million. Table 6-2 summarizes the additional capital and annual operating cost above the TSM Alternative. The capital cost for the Commuter Rail Alternative is much higher than the Express Bus Alternative, while the annual operating costs for the Commuter Rail Alternative is twice as much.
Table 6-2 Alternatives Additional Cost (Millions of Year 2006 Dollars)
Annual Alternative Capital O & M Express Bus 1 $10.8 $4.0 Commuter Rail $102.8 - $168.9 $9.4 1 Costs increased 2 times to reflect higher than expected ridership demand requiring more vehicles than originally planned.
The Express Bus Alternative and the Commuter Rail Alternative can also be compared based on cost per annual new transit rider. Table 6-3 shows as expected, that the cost per new rider for the Commuter Rail Alternative is significantly higher than for the Express Bus Alternative. The slightly higher number of new transit riders with the Commuter Rail Alternative does not outweigh the additional costs for the Commuter Rail Alternative.
Table 6-3 Alternatives Additional Cost Per New Annual Rider (Year 2006 Dollars)
Annual Alternative Capital O & M Express Bus $42.48 $15.73 Commuter Rail $320.71 - $526.93 $29.33
6.1.3 PURPOSE AND NEED As discussed in the Chapter 1, Purpose and Need, the purpose of this project is to address six primary problems and needs in the I-70 corridor. How each of the proposed alternatives would address each problem and need is discussed to compare and evaluate each alternative. The six problems and needs are:
x Congestion on I-70 and the parallel street system is decreasing travel mobility;
x While potential transit demand exists, the level and quality of transit service in the I-70 corridor is low;
x There is a percentage of the population that does not have access to the auto-oriented transportation system;
PAGE 6-2 I-70 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 6.0 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION JULY 2007
x There is a need to create potential land use advantages to help support sustainable development in suburban settings;
x Increased travel and congestion have contributed to the negative effects on air quality in the region; and x There are increased costs of expanding and maintaining the highway system given statewide, regional and local financial constraints for transportation projects.
CONGESTION AND DECREASING MOBILITY When compared to the TSM Alternative, the Express Bus Alternative will remove 997 people from travel in personal vehicles in the I-70 corridor and the Commuter Rail Alternative will remove 1,257 people. These are the estimated number of new transit riders in the corridor. Moving these people to transit will reduce the level of congestion in the corridor to some extent, but is not enough to reduce the number of highway lanes required in the corridor. The differential in congestion reduction benefit between the Express Bus Alternative and the Commuter Rail Alternative is insignificant in the context of overall vehicular demand in the corridor.
LEVEL AND QUALITY OF TRANSIT SERVICE Both the Express Bus Alternative and the Commuter Rail Alternative would significantly improve transit service in the study corridor by providing transit service to Grain Valley, Oak Grove and Odessa, which currently have no transit service available. Both alternatives will also increase transit service provided to the locations in the western portion of the study area that currently have access to transit. From the standpoint of quality of transit service related to reliability, the Commuter Rail Alternative will provide benefits over the Express Bus Alternative because the express buses will be impacted by general traffic congestion in the corridor as congestion levels increase. The Express Bus Alternative does provide better direct access to the CBD area.
LIMITED ACCESS TO THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM The Express Bus Alternative and the Commuter Rail Alternative increase transit service in the I-70 corridor, so transportation options will be increased for people living in the corridor. These improved options will provide improved access to the significant number of jobs located in the downtown area. Both of the alternatives being considered provide similar increases in transportation options.
NEED FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT The ability of commuter rail stations to assist in growth management by encouraging transit oriented development makes the Commuter Rail Alternative preferred over the Express Bus Alternative. Fixed guideway transit has demonstrated the ability to promote both new development and redevelopment in the vicinity of station locations. Express bus service has not been found to generate development. Both the Express Bus Alternative and the Commuter Rail Alternative do enhance the multimodal nature of the transportation system in the study corridor.
EFFECT ON AIR QUALITY Similar to the impact on congestion, both the Express Bus Alternative and the Commuter Rail Alternative will remove people from personal vehicles and attract them to transit. This will
PAGE 6-3 I-70 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 6.0 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION JULY 2007 reduce the number of vehicle miles traveled, which will reduce mobile source emissions resulting in improved air quality. Given the limited ridership when compared to the number of daily commuters in the corridor, the air quality benefits will be limited, but any reduction in emissions is beneficial. The differential between the Express Bus Alternative and the Commuter Rail Alternative is not significant in the context of overall vehicle emissions in the corridor.
FINANCIAL CONSTRAINTS The financial benefit of either the Express Bus Alternative or the Commuter Rail Alternative would be significant if the ridership attracted allowed fewer general traffic lanes to be constructed. The construction cost for additional lanes in an urban corridor such as the I-70 corridor is extremely high when expensive right of way must be purchased. The forecast ridership for both the Express Bus Alternative and the Commuter Rail Alternative will not reduce the number of lanes required in the I-70 corridor. Although, the diversion of people to the improved transit service would delay the date at which the widening would be necessary.
6.2 New Starts Project Evaluation Process While a full New Starts project evaluation process has not been completed at this time, the evaluation process that will be used to rate the Commuter Rail Alternative in comparison to other projects across the country is summarized. This summary is provided to illustrate the project characteristics that are considered important differentiators between competing major transit projects. If the Commuter Rail Alternative progresses into submittal of a New Starts funding application, these factors must be addressed. In Section 6.3, the Commuter Rail Alternative is discussed in relation to critical considerations.
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) New Starts program is in a period of transition. The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), which is the most recent federal surface transportation act, made a number of significant changes to the program. Procedures for project planning and development for projects desiring to receive New Starts funding are being revised. Revised policy guidance for New Starts went into effect on May 22, 2006. As part of these revised procedures some adjustments were made in the methodology used to evaluate, rate and recommend funding for New Starts projects. Additional refinements are expected in the final rule making process that will extend into 2008.
The FTA has a detailed methodology used to evaluate, rate and recommend funding for New Starts projects requesting more that $25 million in New Starts funding1. The evaluation considers project justification and local financial commitment. Project justification criteria that are defined in Federal law are as follows:
x Mobility improvements; x Environmental benefits; x Operating efficiencies; x Cost-effectiveness; and x Public transit supportive land use polices and future patterns.
1 Projects requesting less than $25 million in News Starts funding are statutorily exempt projects, which are not required to submit project justification information and do not receive ratings.
PAGE 6-4 I-70 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 6.0 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION JULY 2007
The criteria used to measure local financial commitment are as follows:
x Proposed share of total project costs from sources other than New Starts; x Strength of the proposed capital funding plan; and x Strength of the proposed operating finance plan
The FTA assigns a proposed project a rating for each of the criterion and then assigns a summary rating for local financial commitment and project justification. Finally, FTA develops an overall project rating. A New Starts project must receive an adequate rating to move into preliminary design, to move from preliminary design into final design and to be recommended for New Starts funding. For a proposed project to move into preliminary design or into final design it must have an overall rating of Medium or High and a justification rating of Medium or High. To be eligible for an FTA funding recommendation the overall project rating must be Medium or High.
The newly mandated rating system for each of the project justification and local financial commitment criterion is based on the following five point scale:
x High (5 points) x Medium-High (4 points) x Medium (3 points) x Medium-Low (2 points) x Low (1 points)
The following rules are being used to produce the overall project rating until completion of final rulemaking:
x High = At least a Medium-High for finance and project justification x Medium = At least a Medium for finance and project justification x Low = Rating less than Medium for finance and/or project justification
The final rulemaking process will implement the five-point scale for overall project rating consistent with the rating of individual criteria.
6.2.1 PROJECT JUSTIFICATION RATINGS The summary project justification rating is an average of the cost effectiveness and land use criteria ratings. The mobility improvement rating is used as a tiebreaker to determine if the average rating is raised or lowered to the nearest rating. For example, if the cost effectiveness rating was Medium and the land use rating was Medium-High the mobility rating would be used to raise the overall rating to Medium-High or lower it to Medium. The operating efficiencies and environmental benefits ratings are not used in determining the overall rating.
Several of the criteria have several measures that are used to determine the rating for the criterion. Where a criterion is represented by more than one measure, the ratings of the measures are averaged to provide the criterion-specific rating.
PAGE 6-5 I-70 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 6.0 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION JULY 2007
6.2.1.1 COST EFFECTIVENESS Cost effectiveness is measured in dollars per hour of transportation system user benefits. The incremental annual capital and operating cost of the proposed New Starts project is divided by the annual transportation system user benefits. Table 6-4 shows the cost effectiveness ranges used to rate projects for fiscal year 2008.
Table 6-4 Cost Effectiveness Ranges
Annual Cost Rating Per Hour of User Benefit High $11.49 and under Medium-High $11.50 to $14.99 Medium $15.00 to $22.99 Medium-Low $23.00 to $28.99 Low $29.00 and over Source: Reporting Instructions for the Section 5309 New Starts Criteria, Appendix B, FY 2008 Evaluation and Rating Process, FTA, May 2006.
6.2.1.2 TRANSIT SUPPORTIVE LAND USE AND FUTURE PATTERNS The FTA considers the following factors in assessing the land use affecting New Starts projects:
x Existing Land Use x Transit Supportive Plans and Policies o Growth Management o Transit supportive corridor policies o Supportive zoning regulations near transit stations o Tools to implement land use policies. x Performances and Impacts of Policies o Performance of land use policies o Potential impact of transit projects on regional land use
To develop the transit supportive land use and future patterns rating the factors for each of the three categories are averaged. Then, the three category averages are averaged. When significant differences in characteristics exist across proposed station areas for a project, an “average” rating is assigned that considers the relative contribution of each station area.
The ratings assignment guidance changes as the project development process progresses based on the premise that land use plans and polices should begin showing results as time passes and the project develops. As an illustration of the rating guidance, Tables 6-5, 6-6 and 6-7 show general rating guidance for rating land use prior to beginning preliminary design. The ratings of Medium-High and Medium-Low are used when the situation falls between High and Medium or Medium and Low, respectively.
PAGE 6-6 I-70 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 6.0 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION JULY 2007
Table 6-5 Ratings Guidance for Existing Lane Use Assessment
Rating and Explanation
HIGH – Current levels of population, employment, and other trip generators in station areas are sufficient to support a major transit investment. Most station areas are pedestrian-friendly and fully accessible. MEDIUM – Current levels of population, employment, and other trip generators in station areas marginally support a major transit investment. Some station areas are pedestrian-friendly and accessible. Significant growth must be realized. LOW – Current levels of population, employment, and other trip generators in station areas are inadequate to support a major transit investment. Station areas are not pedestrian-friendly.
Source: Reporting Instructions for the Section 5309 New Starts Criteria, Appendix B, FY 2008 Evaluation and Rating Process, FTA, May 2006.
Table 6-6 Ratings Guidance for Transit Supportive Plans and Policies
Factors Rating and Explanation
Growth HIGH – Adopted and enforceable growth management and land conservation policies are in place Management throughout the region. Existing and planned densities, along with market trends in the region and corridor are strongly compatible with transit. MEDIUM – Significant progress has been made toward implementing growth management and Weight 25% land conservation policies. Strong policies may be adopted in some jurisdictions but not others, or only moderately enforceable policies (e.g., incentive-based) may be adopted regionwide. Existing and/or planned densities and market trends are moderately compatible with transit. LOW – Limited consideration has been given to implementing growth management and land conservation policies; adopted policies may be weak and apply to only a limited area. Existing and/or planned densities and market trends are minimally or not supportive of transit.
Transit- HIGH – Conceptual plans for the corridor and station areas have been developed. Discussions Supportive have been undertaken with local jurisdictions about revising comprehensive plans. Land use Corridor patterns proposed in conceptual plans for station areas (or in existing comprehensive plans and Policies institutional master plans throughout the corridor) are strongly supportive of a major transit investment. MEDIUM –Conceptual plans for the corridor and station areas are being developed. Discussions Weight 25% have been undertaken with local jurisdictions about revising comprehensive plans. Land use patterns proposed in conceptual plans for station areas (or existing in local comprehensive plans and institutional master plans) are at least moderately supportive of a major transit investment. LOW – Limited progress, to date, has been made toward developing station area conceptual plans or working with local jurisdictions to revise comprehensive plans. Existing station area land uses identified in local comprehensive plans are marginally or not transit-supportive.
Supportive HIGH – A conceptual planning process is underway to recommend zoning changes for station Zoning areas. Conceptual plans and policies for station areas are recommending transit-supportive Regulations densities and design characteristics. Local jurisdictions have committed to examining and Near Transit changing zoning regulations where necessary. Alternatively, a “high” rating can be assigned if Stations existing zoning in most or all transit station areas is already strongly transit-supportive. MEDIUM – A conceptual planning process is underway to recommend zoning changes for station areas. Local jurisdictions are in the process of committing to examining and changing zoning Weight 25% regulations where necessary. Alternatively, a “medium” rating can be assigned if existing zoning in most or all transit station areas is already moderately transit-supportive. LOW – Limited consideration has been given to preparing station area plans and related zoning. Existing station area zoning is marginally or not transit-supportive.
PAGE 6-7 I-70 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 6.0 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION JULY 2007
Table 6-6 (continued) Ratings Guidance for Transit Supportive Plans and Policies Factors Rating and Explanation
Tools to HIGH – Transit agencies and/or regional agencies are working proactively with local jurisdictions, Implement developers, and the public to promote transit-supportive land use planning and station area Land Use development. Local agencies are making recommendations for effective regulatory and financial Policies incentives to promote transit-oriented development. Capital improvement programs are being developed that support station area land use plans and leverage the Federal investment in the proposed major transit corridor. Weight 25% MEDIUM – Transit agencies and/or regional agencies have conducted some outreach to promote transit-supportive land use planning and station area development. Agencies are investigating regulatory and financial incentives to promote transit-oriented development. Capital improvements are being identified that support station area land use plans and leverage the Federal investment in the proposed major transit corridor. LOW – Limited effort has been made to reach out to jurisdictions, developers, or the public to promote transit-supportive land use planning; to identify regulatory and financial incentives to promote development; or to identify capital improvements.
Source: Reporting Instructions for the Section 5309 New Starts Criteria, Appendix B, FY 2008 Evaluation and Rating Process, FTA, May 2006.
Table 6-7 Ratings Guidance for Performance and Impacts of Land Use Polices
Factors Rating and Explanation HIGH - Transit-supportive housing and employment development is occurring in the corridor. Performance Significant amounts of transit-supportive development have occurred in other, existing transit of Land Use corridors and station areas in the region. Policies MEDIUM - Station locations have not been established with finality, and therefore, development Weight 66.6% would not be expected. Moderate amounts of transit-supportive housing and employment development have occurred in other, existing transit corridors and station areas in the region. LOW - Other existing transit corridors and station areas in the region lack significant examples of transit-supportive housing and employment development.
HIGH - A significant amount of land in station areas is available for new development or Potential redevelopment at transit-supportive densities. Local plans, policies, and development programs, Impact of as well as real estate market conditions, strongly support such development. Transit Project on Regional MEDIUM - A moderate amount of land in station areas is available for new development or Land Use redevelopment at transit-supportive densities. Local plans, policies, and development programs, as well as real estate market conditions, moderately support such development.
Weight 33.3% LOW - Only a modest amount of land in station areas is available for new development or redevelopment. Local plans, policies, and development programs, as well as real estate market conditions, provide marginal support for new development in station areas.
Source: Reporting Instructions for the Section 5309 New Starts Criteria, Appendix B, FY 2008 Evaluation and Rating Process, FTA, May 2006.
In addition to the primary land use rating categories, FTA takes into consideration, but does not rate separately, an optional category: other land use considerations. The demonstration of supportive “other factors” may incrementally influence the overall rating.
PAGE 6-8 I-70 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 6.0 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION JULY 2007
In supplemental guidance provided by FTA, Guidelines and Standards for Assessing Transit-Supportive Land Use2, general benchmark values are provided for use in assigning land use ratings. The bench marks are intended as a rough guide rather than a hard-and-fast decision rule. As input to developing the Existing Land Use Assessment rating the measures provided are number of employees served by the system and average population density. Table 6-8 summarizes the thresholds used to assist in assigning a rating.
Table 6-8 Existing Land Use Ratings Benchmarks
Employment Served Average Population Density Rating by System (persons/square mile) High > 250,000 > 15,000 Medium-High 175,000 to 250,000 10,000 to 15,000 Medium 125,000 to 175,000 6,667 to 10,000 Medium-Low 75,000 to 125,000 3,333 to 6,667 Low < 75,000 <3,333 Source: Table 5, Page 40, Guidelines and Standards for Assessing Transit-Supportive Land Use. Federal Transit Administration, Office of Planning. May 2004.
The supplemental guidance also provides benchmarks for assessing planned corridor development densities. The benchmarks are provided for planned development densities in the core CBD area and other areas where stations are proposed. For the core CBD and other areas, benchmarks for planned commercial density are provided as commercial floor area ratios. For the areas outside of the CBD, planned development density benchmarks are provided for residential dwelling units per acre. Table 6-9 provides the benchmark values.
Table 6-9 Corridor Policies and Station Area Zoning Ratings Benchmarks
CBD Core Non-CBD Core Floor Area Ratio Floor Area Ratio Residential Dwelling Rating Commercial Density Commercial Density Units Per Acre High >10.0 > 2.50 > 25 Medium-High 8.0 to 10.0 1.75 to 2.50 15 to 25 Medium 6.0 to 8.0 1.00 to 1.75 10 to 15 Medium-Low 4.0 to 6.0 0.50 to 1.00 5 to 10 Low < 4.0 < 0.50 < 5 Source: Table 5, Page 40, Guidelines and Standards for Assessing Transit-Supportive Land Use. Federal Transit Administration, Office of Planning. May 2004.
6.2.1.3 MOBILITY IMPROVEMENTS The FTA uses three measures to estimate mobility improvements: 1) normalized travel time savings; 2) number of low income households served; and 3) employment near stations. To determine the normalized travel time savings the total annual travel time savings for all transit users is divided by the annual passenger miles traveled on the proposed New Starts project. The number of households below the poverty level within ½ mile of stations is used to calculate
2 Guidelines and Standards for Assessing Transit-Supportive Land Use. Federal Transit Administration, Office of Planning. May 2004.
PAGE 6-9 I-70 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 6.0 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION JULY 2007 the number of low income households served. Similarly, the ½ mile zone around stations is used to calculate the employment near stations. The rating of each measure is not based on a predetermined scale. Instead, the values for each measure for all projects being rated are aligned in a continuum of values. The values are divided into five groups based on logical breakpoints in the values with each group assigned ratings from low to high.
6.2.1.4 OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCIES The change in system-wide operating cost per passenger mile in the forecast year is used as the measure for operational efficiency. The difference between the system-wide cost per passenger mile with and without the proposed New Starts project in the forecast year is the value used. The FTA has found that data submitted to document operating efficiencies have not been useful as a basis for selection of one project over another, so operational efficiency rating is not used in determining the overall rating.
6.2.1.5 ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS Environmental benefits are measured as the: 1) change in emissions; 2) change in regional energy consumption; and 3) current regional air quality designation. The emissions considered are carbon monoxide (CO), particulate mater (PM10), nitrogen oxides (NOX), volatile organic compounds (VOC) and carbon dioxide (CO2). The measure of change in energy consumption reflects the net impact on energy consumption in British Thermal Units (BTUs). The rating based on the current regional air quality designation is determined using the following rules:
x Projects in non-attainment areas for any transportation-related pollutants that demonstrate a reduction in that pollutant receive a “High” rating.
x Projects that are in attainment areas that demonstrate reductions in any transportation- related pollutant receive a “Medium” rating.
x All other projects are rated “Low.”
The Kansas City region is currently an attainment area, but there is a high probability that the region may not meet ground level ozone level requirements over the next several years. This could result in the region being designated a non-attainment area.
Similar to the operating efficiency rating, the environmental benefits rating is not used to make the overall project justification rating.
6.2.2 PROJECT LOCAL FINANCIAL COMMITMENT RATING The purpose of the local financial commitment criteria is to ensure that New Starts projects are supported by adequate local financial commitment and resources. The ratings for a proposed New Starts project assess the share of non-New Starts funding, the capital funding plan and the operating funding plan. To calculate the overall financial commitment rating the share of non-New Starts funding is weighted as 20%, the capital funding plan is weighted as 50% and the operating funding plan is weighted at 30%. The expectation of how firm non-New Starts funding commitments are evolves as a project moves through the project development process and the ratings reflect these increased expectations.
PAGE 6-10 I-70 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 6.0 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION JULY 2007
6.2.2.1 SHARE OF NON-NEW STARTS FUNDING The measure of the funding share of non-New Starts funding is simply the percentage of project capital cost that is funded with non-Section 5309 (New Starts) funds. The scale in Table 6-10 is used to assign ratings.
Table 6-10 Non-New Starts Funding Share Ratings
Percentage of Capital Funding From New Starts (Section 5309) Rating >60% Low 50 to 60% Medium 35 to 49% Medium-High < 35% High Source: Reporting Instructions for the Section 5309 New Starts Criteria, Appendix B, FY 2008 Evaluation and Rating Process, FTA, May 2006.
6.2.2.2 CAPITAL FUNDING PLAN The capital funding plan rating is designed to assess the stability and reliability of the proposed capital funding plan. The following factors are assessed:
x Current capital condition; x Completeness of plan; x Commitment of capital funds; x Capital funding capacity; and x Reasonable capital planning assumptions and cost estimates.
The FTA’s most recent guidance in ratings for each factor is provided in Appendix B of the Reporting Instructions for the Section 5309 New Starts Criteria.
6.2.2.3 OPERATING FUNDING PLAN The operating funding plan rating is designed to assess the sponsoring agency’s ability to fund operation and maintenance of the entire system as planned once the New Starts project is built. The following factors are assessed:
x Current operating financial conditions; x Completeness of operating plan; x Commitment of operations and maintenance funds; x Operations and maintenance funding capacity; and x Operations planning assumptions and cost estimates.
Similar to the capital funding plan, the FTA’s most recent guidance in ratings for each of the operating funding plan factors is provided in Appendix B of the Reporting Instructions for the Section 5309 New Starts Criteria.
PAGE 6-11 I-70 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 6.0 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION JULY 2007
6.3 Proposed Rail Alternative New Starts Evaluation Discussion An actual New Starts evaluation cannot be completed because all of the travel demand modeling efforts required to develop all of the evaluation inputs have not been completed, as discussed in Chapter 5, and because some of the ratings are based on other projects across the country that are rated at the same time. This section provides a discussion of some of the evaluation considerations for which corridor specific information has been developed. Steps that can be taken to improve the corridor’s ranking at the time the project is submitted to FTA are also discussed.
6.3.1 COST EFFECTIVENESS As part of a formal New Starts submittal, the FTA asks project sponsors to provide estimates of transportation system user benefits that the project is expected to generate. These benefits reflect the ridership and performance of the locally preferred alternative (LPA) as it compares to the transportation systems management option (TSM). The resulting benefits reflect the extent to which the LPA alternative provides a better level of service to travelers in the study area.
Large differences in projected ridership between the TSM and the LPA alternatives and a better level of service offered by the LPA alternative result in a large value for transportation system user benefits. Differences in level of service between these two options could reflect a more frequent service, shorter origin-destination travel times, lower fares, or better accessibility either at the origin or at the destination of commuters’ travel. The Summit program that uses outputs from the regional model is applied to provide these benefit estimates.
The system user benefits are then compared against the annualized capital and operating cost to calculate the cost effectiveness index. Similarly estimated cost effectiveness indices from different projects are then compared to evaluate the relative benefits of each project that has submitted an application for funding under the New Starts program.
Table 6-11 summarizes recent projects that have applied for New Starts funding and are similar in nature with the transit alternatives considered for the I-70 corridor in the Kansas City metropolitan area. A comparison of the projected daily weekday ridership and the total capital and annual operating costs envisioned for this project provides a first-cut assessment of the cost effectiveness of this project relative to similar projects around the country. The projects that have comparable costs have a higher estimate of ridership while projects with similar ridership have much lower capital and operating costs. This comparison suggests that increases in ridership and decreases in costs would be needed to make the I-70 corridor more competitive in the New Starts process.
6.3.2 LAND USE ASSESSMENT The I-70 corridor is being considered for implementation of commuter rail service from Kansas City to the city of Odessa in Jackson County. Commuter rail service could serve as a growth management tool to accommodate future growth within established cities along I-70, a heavily-utilized interstate in the Kansas City region. However, transit supportive land uses, plans, and policies are needed in order for the region to secure federal funding to implement commuter rail service. The following land use assessment describes the existing land uses, plans, and policies for the seven proposed station areas, as well as recommended policies to encourage transit supportive land uses.
PAGE 6-12 I-70 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 6.0 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION JULY 2007
Table 6-11 Cost Effectiveness Comparison Forecast FTA Total Total Year New Overall Review Length Capital Ridership Cost Project Description Location Annual Riders Project Date (miles) Cost (Ave. Per Operating Weekday) (Ave. Rating (YOE) Weekday) Rider Cost Oceanside-Escondido San Diego, CA FFGA1 Nov-2005 3 22.0 $351.52 M 5 N.A. 19,000 N.A. $72.6 Rail Corridor South West Corridor Chicago, IL FFGA1 Nov-2004 4 12.0 $198.12 M 5 N.A. 13,800 7,600 $56.3 Commuter Rail Weber Co. to Salt Lake City Salt Lake City, UT Medium Nov-2005 3 43.0 $611.7 M $15.5 M 11,800 6,100 $203.3 Commuter Rail North Central Corridor Chicago, IL FFGA1 Nov-2004 4 18.6 $225.52 M 5 N.A. 8,400 N.A. $105.3 Commuter Rail Minneapolis- Northstar Corridor Rail Medium Nov-2005 3 40.0 $265.2 M $12.0 M 5,600 1,300 $185.7 Big Lake, MN Union-Pacific Chicago, IL FFGA1 Nov-2005 3 8.5 $134.56 M 5 N.A. 3,900 N.A. $135.3 West Line Extension Wilsonville to Beaverton Washington Co., OR Medium Nov-2005 3 14.7 $117.3 M $8.8 M 3,000 1,900 $136.1 Commuter Rail South County Providence, RI Small Start 2 Nov-2005 3 20.0 $43.7 M N.A. 2,300 N.A. $74.5 Commuter Rail East Corridor Nashville, TN Small Start 2 Nov-2005 3 32.0 $41.0 M $3.0 M 1,900 700 $84.6 Commuter Rail
I-70 Corridor - Phased Plan Jackson Co., MO Not Rated N.A. 40.5 $102.8 M $9.6 M 1,425 N.A. $282.9
I-70 Corridor - KCS Plan Jackson Co., MO Not Rated N.A. 40.5 $168.9 M $11.0 M 1,425 N.A. $464.8
Notes: 1 FFGA - Project under a Full Funding Grant Agreement 2 Because the proposed New Starts share is less than $25 million, the project is exempt from the New Starts criteria and is thus not subject to FTA’s evaluation and rating (49 USC 5309(e)(8)(A)). 3 Published in Annual Report on New Starts Proposed Allocations of Funds for Fiscal Year 2007, FTA, 2006 4 Final New Starts funding was provided in FY 2006, so the projects were not included in the FY 2007 report. 5 The total project cost under the Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA)
6.3.2.1 EXISTING LAND USE Appropriate land uses and development character within a station area will provide an environment that supports transit use. This typically includes mixed-use commercial, office, retail, entertainment, and residential uses in a medium- to high-density, pedestrian-oriented development framework. The following analysis highlights the existing land uses and development framework within each station area. The commuter rail corridor and station locations are highlighted on Figure 2.3 in Chapter 2.
Riverfront The overall station area is a mixed-use urban district along the Missouri River in Kansas City with good connections to the downtown office market by car, bus, bike, or on foot. A traditional street and block network contains moderate-density buildings, an interconnected sidewalk system, and on-street parking. The station area also contains numerous surface parking lots and parking structures. Although the majority of buildings are built to the sidewalk, the lack of
PAGE 6-13 I-70 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 6.0 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION JULY 2007 retail and “blank walls” along parking structures does not provide for vibrant street activity, except for the City Market area.
The commuter station is proposed at 3rd Street and Grand Boulevard within the River Market district of downtown Kansas City. The “City Market,” a destination-oriented retail and farmer’s market, located at 3rd Street and Grand Boulevard was a trading market in pre-colonial America. The same intersection is the location of the MAX Bus Rapid Transit transit center, which serves downtown and outlying neighborhoods to the south with regular service. A former railroad line was contained on 2nd Street, but was torn out for conversion to a paved street. Therefore, a new railroad connection to the overall corridor would need to be re-built along this alignment.
The River Market district also contains a mix of converted warehouses and former industrial buildings into residential loft condominiums and offices, as well as street-level retail and restaurants near the City Market. The area does contain some vacant lots and underutilized industrial buildings with potential for future residential, office, and retail uses. The area also contains well-utilized industrial land uses, such as the Trigen Power Station and two active freight rail corridors.
The entire River Market district is very pedestrian-oriented due to the traditional street grid and block pattern. There is a special streetscape program with pedestrian street lights, street trees, benches, and crosswalks along 5th Street and around the City Market. A multi-use biking and walking path, the Riverfront Heritage Trail, is accessible from this district and connects with the Richard Berkley Riverfront Park along the Missouri River, a city-wide recreational amenity and destination.
The remaining station area is divided from the River Market district by highways—State Route 9 running north-south and U.S. Interstate 70/35 running east-west in a depressed below grade environment. Although there is adequate street-level vehicle and pedestrian access, these two highways are physical barriers that separate the River Market district from adjacent neighborhoods and the core of the CBD.
The Columbus Park neighborhood lies to the east of State Route 9 and north of the interstate. South of 5th Street, the neighborhood contains a mix of single- and multi-family homes, churches, limited retail and restaurants, and the local open space park called Columbus Square. North of 5th Street, the area contains a mix of vacant lots and marginal industrial buildings. The overall neighborhood is relatively well-connected with sidewalks and bus transit.
The station area south of the interstate is the beginning of the City’s Financial District. There is a mix of office commercial, light industrial and multi-family residential uses along 6th and 7th Streets. There are recent and planned conversions of historic and modern buildings into residential condominiums. Numerous surface parking lots and parking structures exist in this area to serve adjacent land uses, as well as the River Market and Convention Center Districts.
Independence Central The overall station area contains a suburban arterial with auto-oriented commercial uses and single family residential neighborhoods. The lack of an interconnected sidewalk network would dictate that the proposed station become a park-and-ride facility.
PAGE 6-14 I-70 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 6.0 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION JULY 2007
The commuter station is proposed at the intersection of Crysler and South Avenues and one block north of State Route 78, a major arterial. West of Crysler Avenue, State Route 78 contains marginal auto-oriented commercial uses and light industrial uses. East of Crysler Avenue, Route 78 contains the Crysler Baseball Stadium and additional auto-oriented commercial, light industrial uses, and institutional uses.
North of Route 78, modest single-family homes in a semi-rural setting are the pre-dominant land uses. There are relatively few sidewalks in the residential neighborhoods. However, there are numerous stately single-family homes, sidewalks, and a landscaped median along the Lexington Street and Winner Road corridor in the northern perimeter of the station area, west of Crysler Avenue. A historic railroad station, active and obsolete industrial uses, and the Community of Christ Church World Headquarters are located in the far north perimeter, east of Crysler Avenue.
South of Route 78, modest single-family homes in a semi-rural setting are also the pre-dominant land uses. A large multi-family residential use, Timber Creek Apartments, also exists in this area. A National Guard station is located on Crysler Avenue.
U.S. Interstate 70 is located one and a half miles south of the proposed station location, and is generally accessible via Crysler Avenue. Although the station area contains some residential streets with sidewalks, the entire area is predominately auto-oriented. However, Metro provides bus service in limited areas, and Amtrak provides two daily stops at the historic train station in the northern perimeter of the station area.
Independence East The overall station area may be characterized as a growing suburban commercial center. It contains auto-oriented commercial, office, and residential uses in separate areas that are primarily accessible by car. A multi-use trail travels along the Little Blue River through the station area and its open spaces. Just beyond the station area, the Independence Center is a regional shopping mall with national department stores, retailers, and restaurants.
The commuter station is proposed at the intersection of Little Blue Parkway and 39th Street, approximately one-half mile from the Interstate 70 exit. Adjacent to this exit on Little Blue Parkway, the Hartman Heritage Center is an auto-oriented suburban commercial center with big-box retailers, restaurants, a hotel, and a four-story office building.
Along 39th Street, the Centerpoint Medical Center is a recently-constructed regional hospital and medical office complex. An office and warehouse business park is under construction north of the proposed station site on 39th Street. An upscale single-family residential subdivision was recently constructed further east on 39th Street.
The remaining land area contains fallow and active farmland and woodlands. Due to the adjacent land uses, market demand and development pressures will likely cause the conversion of farmland into commercial and residential uses.
Blue Springs The overall station area is a suburbanizing rural center. It contains a traditional mixed-use downtown along Main Street, an auto-oriented commercial corridor along State Route 7, and
PAGE 6-15 I-70 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 6.0 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION JULY 2007 single-family residential neighborhoods. The station area is primarily auto-oriented due to the lack of sidewalks and separation of land uses.
The commuter station is proposed at Main and 14th Streets, which contains the City’s historic train depot. To the east, Main Street stretches for three blocks and contains a mix of local retail and service uses, institutions, and City Hall. To the west, the “Old Town Historic District” contains the City’s original single-family residential neighborhood. A light industrial and heavy commercial area lies just north of Main Street. The downtown contains some vacant and underutilized parcels that could provide future development opportunities near the station.
Outside the downtown area, the majority of the land uses are single-family residential uses. There are a few multi-family residential uses in the station area. Two public schools lie in the northwest quadrant of the station area. Along the eastern perimeter of the station area is State Route 7, a commercial corridor with strip shopping centers, restaurants, and separate retail and service uses. Route 7 provides direct access to Interstate 70, approximately one mile north of the proposed station.
Grain Valley The overall station area is a suburbanizing rural center. Civic, commercial, and service uses exist along Main Street, which is directly accessible to Interstate 70. The City’s residential neighborhoods generally lie west of Main Street. Light industrial uses and open space generally lie east of Main Street. The station area is auto-oriented due to conventional development patterns and the lack of sidewalks.
The commuter station is proposed at Main and Front Streets, which is adjacent to the City’s traditional commercial district that is aging and underutilized. Modern commercial uses are situated on Main Street close to the Interstate exit. In addition, a new “Main Street” style strip shopping center is located further south at Main Street and Old U.S. 40. There are opportunities for infill development and redevelopment along Main Street.
The City’s older residential neighborhood is located north of the railroad and west of Main Street. This neighborhood contains single-family residential uses, and is primarily auto-oriented due to the lack of sidewalks. An older single-family neighborhood also exits south of the railroad and west of Main Street. Adjacent to this area, newer single-family subdivisions exist north of Old U.S. 40 and west of Garden Street.
Oak Grove The overall station area is a suburbanizing rural center. A traditional commercial district lies at the center of the city along Broadway Street, which provides direct access to Interstate 70. The residential neighborhoods primarily contain single-family residential uses that are auto-oriented. The City’s elementary, middle, and high schools are located off Main Street on 12th Street, just south of the proposed station.
The proposed station is located at 10th and Salem Streets. To the northwest, farmland is slowly being developed for residential uses, including the Oak Grove Apartments. To the southeast, a conventional residential subdivision contains single-family homes likely built over the last two decades. To the southwest and northeast, the single-family neighborhoods contain modest homes. The residential neighborhoods do not contain sidewalks and are auto-dependent.
PAGE 6-16 I-70 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 6.0 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION JULY 2007
Further east of the station, Broadway Street contains the City’s traditional commercial center from 10th to 14th Streets. Modern commercial uses are located further north on Broadway Street, close to the Interstate exit. The City’s older residential neighborhoods exist west of Main Street, north and south of the railroad, and are a mix of historic and modern conventional single-family homes.
Odessa The overall station area may be characterized as rural. The proposed station is located at Johnson Drive and North Outer Road near the perimeter of the City’s current corporate limits. Interstate 70, just south of the proposed station, runs east-west through the station area and only provides for an eastbound on-ramp and a westbound off-ramp. Agricultural land uses exist north of the interstate. There is a mix of agricultural uses, office uses, and limited single-family residential uses south of the interstate. In addition, one of the major draws for the Odessa area is an outlet retail center. The city is accessible by car from U.S. 40, which travels parallel to the interstate. The traditional downtown is located approximately one mile from the proposed station.
Existing Population Density and Employment As discussed in Section 6.2.1.2, FTA provides guidance for development of land use ratings for rail projects. The guidance includes benchmarks for population density and employment served by the rail service. While not determinative, these benchmarks do provide an indication of how a rail corridor measures up to FTA’s vision of rail transit supportive development.
Since existing land uses ultimately affect population density, the FTA uses a quantitative rating system based on a station area’s population density. Based on 2000 and 2030 population statistics generated by the Mid-America Regional Council (MARC), two population density maps have been created to highlight the existing and future densities within each station area in the I- 70 corridor. Figures 6.1 and 6.2 show the population density maps. Significantly, none of the station areas have existing or future populations that would quality for an FTA rating of medium density, which is the minimum necessary for New Starts funding consideration.
The number of employees served by the rail system has a similar impact on ultimate usage of the rail service. The employment benchmarks provide guidance on desirable levels of employment being served that will support a major rail investment in a corridor. Base on MARC estimates of year 2000 and 2030 employment by traffic analysis zone, the estimated employment in the corridor is 44,900 existing and 46,300 in the year 2030. This number reflects employment inside the downtown freeway loop, between the freeway loop and the Missouri River and in traffic analysis zones that are completely or partially within ½-mile of the proposed stations. As shown in Table 6-5, a scenario with less than 75,000 employees being served by the system suggests a rating of Low. To reach a benchmark for a Medium rating, the rail system must serve at least 125,000 employees.
PAGE 6-17 Kansas City Metro Area I-70 Corridor Transit Alternatives Analysis
Uë Richmond FIGURE 6.1 WÑ WÔ âU Liberty WÄ I Year 2000: Missouri Population Density by !"a$ City Gladstone Traffic Analysis Zones Clay Co. KÆ Ray Co. Orrick WÇ !"`$ UÐ Claycomo (TAZ) Camden Clay Co.
%&l( Jackson Co. M Lexington Sibley isso u r i Yü R iv LEGEND e Kansas r City, KS North Wellington Kansas City Iu Buckner Levasy k Proposed Station Locations k Half Mile Buffers River Market Iu Qm WÀ Study Area
k Kansas WÒ Un Jackson Co. Jackson Co. Population Density (People/Sq. Mile)*
Lafayette Co. !"a$ City, MO Independence Lafayette Co. WÒ Independence - West Independence - East W½ ÐU < than 3,333 (Low) k WÎ WÅ 3,334 - 6667 (Low-Medium) 6,668 - 10,000 (Medium) I¹ !"f$ Grain Valley k Oak Grove WÝ Odessa 10,001 - 15,000 (Medium-High) Iy k k Raytown Blue Springs k > than 15,000 (High) %&m( Blue Grain Bates %&l( Springs Valley Oak City Odessa Qo Grove Johnson Co, KS Jackson Co, MO * Ratings are based on UÕ WÌ WØ Federal Transit Administration Lake WÈ (FTA) Criteria %&l( Lafayette Lake Qm Lotawana
Lee's Summit Iz Grandview Lone Jack Greenwood àU Iz Jackson Co. Belton Raymore Lake Cass Co. Winnebago Pleasant Hill
02.551.25 Miles Kansas City Metro Area I-70 Corridor Transit Alternatives Analysis
Uë Richmond FIGURE 6.2 WÑ WÔ âU Liberty WÄ I Year 2030: Missouri Population Density by !"a$ City Gladstone Traffic Analysis Zones Clay Co. KÆ UÐ Ray Co. Orrick WÇ !"`$ Claycomo (TAZ) Camden Clay Co.
%&l( Jackson Co. M Lexington Sibley isso u r i Yü R iv LEGEND e Kansas r City, KS North Wellington Kansas City Iu Buckner Levasy k Proposed Station Locations k Half Mile Buffers River Market Iu Qm WÀ Study Area
k Kansas WÒ Un Jackson Co. Jackson Co. Population Density (People/Sq. Mile)* Lafayette Co. !"a$ City, MO Independence Lafayette Co. WÒ Independence - West Independence - East W½ ÐU < than 3,333 (Low) k WÎ WÅ 3,334 - 6667 (Low-Medium) 6,668 - 10,000 (Medium) I¹ !"f$ Grain Valley k Oak Grove WÝ Odessa Iy k 10,001 - 15,000 (Medium-High) k k Raytown Blue Springs > than 15,000 (High) %&m( Blue Grain Bates %&l( Springs Valley Oak City Odessa Qo Grove Johnson Co, KS Jackson Co, MO * Ratings are based on UÕ WÌ WØ Federal Transit Administration Lake WÈ (FTA) Criteria %&l( Lafayette Lake Qm Lotawana
Lee's Summit Iz Grandview Lone Jack Greenwood àU Iz Jackson Co. Belton Raymore Lake Cass Co. Winnebago Pleasant Hill
02.551.25 Miles I-70 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 6.0 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION JULY 2007
6.3.2.2 TRANSIT SUPPORTIVE PLANS AND POLICIES According to the FTA criteria, transit supportive plans and policies are those which encourage development within a station area, enhance transit-friendly character of new development, create new pedestrian facilities, and manage parking supply to support transit. Essentially, transit supportive plans and policies should be documented within a community’s comprehensive plan or a station area plan and within its zoning code. The following analysis highlights whether each station area has transit supportive plans and policies within their current planning documents and zoning codes.
Riverfront In 1997, Kansas City adopted the Focus Kansas City Plan, a comprehensive plan with numerous elements. Its Urban Core Plan element contains a district plan for the River Market that incorporates a proposed light rail stop and a “transit impact zone,” which is the same location and station area as the proposed commuter rail station. Furthermore, it promotes mixed-uses, high-density residential uses, and pedestrian-oriented streets that would support transit.
In 2005, Kansas City adopted the Second Street Infrastructure and Development Plan. This is a sub-area plan that focuses on the River Market district north of 3rd Street. The Plan provides a framework for new development as a result of the deactivation of the Kansas City Southern rail yard and railroad along 2nd Street. The Plan highlights a transit hub at 3rd Street and Grand Avenue that currently serves as the terminus for the MAX Bus Rapid Transit route into downtown. Additionally, it highlights the fact that the Mid-America Regional Council (MARC) is studying the potential for commuter rail service from the River Market district to Odessa along the I-70 corridor. Overall, this sub-area plan provides a transit supportive development framework and design guidelines that could be used as a model for other station areas within the I-70 corridor.
Independence Central In 1993, the City of Independence adopted its Comprehensive Plan, which addresses the standard land use planning issues related to growth. Since the Plan pre-dates MARC’s 2002 regional commuter study, it does not reference or provide any policies to encourage a transit supportive development framework. In 2006, the City updated its zoning code, but nevertheless does not include typical transit-supportive zoning, such as mixed-use and high-density residential, within either of the City’s proposed station areas.
Independence East In 1999, the City of Independence completed the Little Blue Valley Comprehensive Plan Amendment, as an economic development strategy for Eastern Independence. This Plan recommends mixed-use districts, town center and village center development, residential villages, pedestrian-oriented transportation network, and design guidelines. However, the Plan only incorporates the northern portion of the proposed station area, north of 39th Street. Since the Plan’s policies and recommendations generally provide a more transit supportive development framework, the City of Independence could utilize the Plan for updating its city- wide comprehensive plan.
PAGE 6-20 I-70 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 6.0 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION JULY 2007
Blue Springs The City of Blue Springs recently adopted the Downtown Blue Springs Master Plan in September 2006. Significantly, the Master Plan explains that MARC completed a regional rail study in 2002, and is currently performing an Alternatives Analysis for the I-70 rail corridor. The Master Plan supports a Blue Springs station at the old depot location in downtown, and promotes a new “transit village” through redevelopment and new mixed- and multi-family uses along Main Street. Furthermore, the Master Plan promotes the following implementation initiatives:
x New downtown zoning code that is “form-based” instead of “use-based” x Expedited approval process for quality redevelopment x New parking management policies to fully utilize existing and future supply x Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority (LCRA) District for downtown x Priority system for downtown streetscape improvements x Community Improvement District (CID) as a means for funding improvements
Overall, the Master Plan establishes a bold vision for downtown Blue Springs that would accommodate a new station and new development within a transit supportive framework. The City’s Master Plan could be used as a planning model for the other station areas within the I-70 corridor.
Grain Valley The City of Grain Valley adopted its Comprehensive Plan in 2001. The City’s Plan uses the principles of integration set forth in MARC’s Creating Quality Places (2000), including pedestrian-friendly neighborhood streets, housing diversity, and mixed-use areas. The Plan also promotes the downtown core as the economic and cultural center of the city, and encourages a “New Urbanist” style of growth for future development. Although these principles and policies are transit supportive, the Comprehensive Plan pre-dates MARC’s 2002 regional commuter study. Therefore, the Plan does not accommodate a proposed station within its Conceptual Village Center Plan or provide adequate transit supportive land uses, such as multi- family residential, in its future land use plan.
Oak Grove The City of Oak Grove Comprehensive Plan, 1999-2020, addresses the standard land use planning issues related to growth. Since the Plan pre-dates MARC’s 2002 regional commuter study, it does not reference or provide any policies to encourage a transit supportive development framework. As such, the future land use framework and current zoning around the proposed station is not appropriate for transit-oriented development.
Odessa In 2002, the City of Odessa updated its Comprehensive Master Plan. Although MARC’s regional commuter study was underway at the time, the City’s comprehensive plan does not reference or provide any policies to encourage transit supportive development. Therefore, the City’s zoning code also does not incorporate transit-oriented development principles.
PAGE 6-21 I-70 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 6.0 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION JULY 2007
6.3.2.3 RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPROVE TRANSIT SUPPORTIVE LAND USES The station area communities within the I-70 corridor generally do not have plans or policies that are transit supportive, with the exception of Kansas City and the City of Blue Springs. Therefore, one of the first steps towards creating an appropriate environment for commuter rail service within the corridor is the adoption or amendment of plans and zoning codes to accommodate proposed station locations and transit supportive land uses. Some of the key elements that should be considered during the planning process include: x Identification of key development and redevelopment sites within the corridor. Underutilized or functionally obsolete land uses should be programmed for transit supportive land uses, such as multi-family residential and mixed-use. x Recommended improvements to the overall street network should be made to provide convenient and safe pedestrian and bicycle connections to proposed station locations. x Pedestrian-oriented street improvements should consider sidewalks along all streets within a station area, crosswalks at heavily-used intersections, medians on wide streets, and streetscape amenities such as shade trees and pedestrian lights. x Design guidelines aimed at creating mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly environments that encourage walking and transit use. Streetscape design, building design, and public spaces should be addressed as part of the design guidelines. x Parking management strategies to reduce the amount of land used as surface parking. A variety of strategies should be considered, including shared use parking lots, employee parking lots, and mixed-use parking structures. x Transit zoning overlays, mixed-use zoning, and multi-family zoning should be considered in updating zoning codes to promote transit supportive land uses near proposed stations.
An important aspect of transit oriented development is higher planned commercial and residential densities. Generally, the higher the density the better from a transit usage stand point. To provide an idea of the minimum densities that are considered to be acceptable in transit oriented development, FTA rating guidance can be used. Based on FTA guidance related to New Starts project rating, development densities in station areas needed to support significant transit investment are summarize in Table 6-12.
Table 6-12 FTA New Starts Rating Guidance Planned Densities
Type of Development Density Commercial Floor Area Ratio (FAR) > 1.0 Residential > 10 units per acre Source: Table 5, Page 40, Guidelines and Standards for Assessing Transit-Supportive Land Use. Federal Transit Administration, Office of Planning. May 2004.
These minimums are based on the lower end of the planned development density for a medium rating, as discussed in Section 6.2.1.2. As the FTA guidance states, the development density benchmarks are only provided as guidance and are not quantitatively used to determine actual ratings.
PAGE 6-22 I-70 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 6.0 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION JULY 2007
MARC could promote transit supportive land use planning through outreach and planning assistance to the I-70 corridor communities. As part of this effort, MARC should consider the minimum densities required within the station areas to support transit use according to FTA criteria. Ultimately, each community could amend their existing plans and codes in a way that would not only support their traditional village centers and commercial areas, but also support future transit use as a viable transportation alternative.
PAGE 6-23 7.0 Summary ofFindings I-70 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 7.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS JULY 2007
7.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
7.1 Summary It was determined within the study that certain transportation-related problems and needs for the I-70 corridor could be addressed through transit improvements. The identified problems and needs include the following: x Congestion on I-70 and the parallel street system is decreasing travel mobility. x There is a low level of existing transit service (i.e. low frequency, long travel time, number of transfers and limited availability) within the study area that does not meet current demand x There is a percentage of the population that does not have access to the auto-oriented transportation system. x There is a need to create potential land use advantages to help support sustainable development in suburban settings. x Increased travel and congestion have contributed to the negative effects on air quality in the region. x There are increased costs for expanding and maintaining the highway system given statewide, regional and local financial constraints for transportation projects.
The planning process identified and refined an Express Bus Alternative and a Commuter Rail Alternative for assessment of how well they address the purpose and need defined for the corridor. A TSM Alternative that reflects the “existing + committed” transit network was also developed to provide a baseline against which the proposed alternatives are evaluated. The two alternatives that were assessed are:
Express Bus Alternative – The Express Bus Alternative reflects new commuter bus service from Odessa, Oak Grove, and Grain Valley; expanded and modified commuter bus service from Blue Springs and Independence; and new and expanded local bus service in Blue Springs and Independence. This alternative also includes new park & ride lots in Grain Valley and Oak Grove, and an upgraded park & ride lot in Odessa.
Commuter Rail Alternative – The Commuter Rail Alternative is reflected as a new commuter rail service between Odessa and downtown Kansas City adjacent to the River Market area, along with modifications to corridor commuter express and local bus service. The alternative also includes the associated infrastructure such as stations and layover facilities. Stations are provided at Odessa, Oak Grove, Grain Valley, Blue Springs, eastern Independence, central Independence and downtown near the River Market.
Two candidate downtown terminal locations were evaluated. One location was at Kansas City Union Station and the other location was a Riverfront terminal at 3rd Street and Grand Boulevard adjacent to the River Market area. The proposed Riverfront terminal location at 3rd Street and
PAGE 7-1 I-70 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 7.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS JULY 2007
Grand Boulevard is the recommended downtown terminal location. Neither downtown terminal candidate site provides ideal access to the CBD area. Both will require other transit service to provide access to the CBD area. The primary reason for the Riverfront location preference over the Union Station location is better commuter rail access. Possible conflicts at Union Station with a high volume of freight traffic and Amtrak passenger service have a significant likelihood of negatively impacting commuter rail reliability, which is not acceptable when building ridership.
Capital cost and annual operating costs were estimated for the three alternatives. The range of capital costs for implementing the Commuter Rail Alternative results from whether or not a phased improvement plan will be acceptable. The phased improvement plan would have the lower initial capital cost. Chapter 4.0 provides details of the phased improvement plan. Table 7-1 summarizes the costs.
Table 7-1 Alternatives Cost Summary (Year 2006 Millions of Dollars)
Annual Alternative Capital O & M TSM $0.0 $1.6 Express Bus 1 $10.8 $5.6 Commuter Rail $102.8 - $168.9 $11.0 1 Costs increased 2 times to reflect higher than expected ridership demand requiring more vehicles than originally planned.
Ridership estimates for the proposed alternatives were developed using the regional travel demand model. The estimated ridership for the express bus serving Grain Valley, Blue Springs and Independence was estimated to attract 1,302 daily riders and the express bus providing service to Oak Grove and Odessa attracted 269 daily riders. The Commuter Rail Alternative attracted a maximum daily ridership of 1,425. The main reason that the Express Bus Alternative attracts a similar number of riders is the superior access provided to employment destinations in the CBD area. A much larger number of Commuter Rail Alternative riders must make a transfer to access employment destinations. The Aggregate Rail Ridership Forecasting sketch planning application also forecasted Commuter Rail Alternative ridership levels consistent with the regional model.
The comparison of alternatives showed that the Express Bus Alternative more cost effectively met the need for improved short or mid-range transit service in the I-70 corridor. Related to meeting the purpose and need defined for the project, both alternatives similarly address the needs. The one aspect of the purpose and need that the Commuter Rail Alternative addressed and the Express Bus Alternative did not is the ability to assist in growth management by encouraging transit-oriented development. Fixed guideway transit has been demonstrated to have the ability to promote both new development and redevelopment in the vicinity of station locations. Express bus service has limited potential to promote development.
Table 7-2 offers a comparison to commuter rail projects in other metropolitan areas that either currently are, or recently were,in the New Starts process. Of those projects in other locations that were subject to New Starts criteria, the lowest daily future year ridership is 3,000. This is twice as high as the ridership forecast for the I-70 corridor Commuter Rail Alternative. Two projects that were exempt from New Starts criteria, because the amount of New Starts funding
PAGE 7-2 I-70 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 7.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS JULY 2007
was less than $25 million, had forecast daily ridership of 2,300 and 1,900. The average annual cost per rider for the comparison projects is $117.10. The annual cost per rider for the I-70 corridor Commuter Rail Alternative, depending on whether a phased or full-build approach is implemented, ranges from $282.90 to $464.81, respectively.
Table 7-2 Commuter Rail Cost Comparison Forecast FTA Total Total Year New Overall Review Length Capital Ridership Cost Project Description Location Annual (Ave. Riders Project Date (miles) Cost (Ave. Per Operating Weekday) Rating (YOE) Weekday) Rider Cost ceanside- scondido San iego, A A1 o - 005 3 03515M5 A 1 ,000 A 7 6 ail orridor South est orridor hicago, L A1 o - 004 4 10 181M5 A 13,800 7,600 56 3 ommuter ail e er o to Salt La e ity Salt La e ity, Medium o - 005 3 43 0 611 7 M 15 5 M 11,800 6,100 03 3 ommuter ail orth entral orridor hicago, L A1 o - 004 4 18 6 5 5 M 5 A 8,400 A 105 3 ommuter ail Minneapolis- orthstar orridor ail Medium o - 005 3 40 0 65 M 1 0 M 5,600 1,300 185 7 Big La e, M nion-Pacific hicago, L A1 o - 005 3 85 13456M5 A3,00A1353 est Line tension ilson ille to Bea erton ashington o , Medium o - 005 3 14 7 117 3 M 8 8 M 3,000 1, 00 136 1 ommuter ail South ounty Pro idence, Small Start o - 005 3 0 0 43 7 M A ,300 A 74 5 ommuter ail ast orridor ash ille, Small Start o - 005 3 3 0 41 0 M 3 0 M 1, 00 700 84 6 ommuter ail
-70 orridor - Phased Plan ac son o , M ot ated A 40 5 10 8 M 6 M 1,4 5 A 8
-70 orridor - S Plan ac son o , M ot ated A 40 5 168 M 11 0 M 1,4 5 A 464 8
Notes: 1 FFGA - Project under a Full Funding Grant Agreement 2 Because the proposed New Starts share is less than $25 million, the project is exempt from the New Starts criteria and is thus not subject to FTA’s evaluation and rating (49 USC 5309(e)(8)(A)). 3 Published in Annual Report on New Starts Proposed Allocations of Funds for Fiscal Year 2007, FTA, 2006 4 Final New Starts funding was provided in FY 2006, so the projects were not included in the FY 2007 report. 5 The total project cost under the Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA)
An assessment of land use served by the Commuter Rail Alternative found that existing land use does not support commuter rail service. The station area communities within the I-70 corridor generally do not have plans or policies that are transit supportive, with the exception of Kansas City and Blue Springs. In terms of land use and development, one of the first steps towards creating a more favorable, appropriate environment for the eventual implementation of commuter rail service within the corridor is the adoption of policies that allow and encourage transit supportive development.
For the I-70 Commuter Rail Alternative, the likelihood of successfully competing for New Starts funding is minimal in light of the results of the study analyses: low ridership forecasts, high capital costs, and an environment that is currently unfavorable to achieving transit supportive development patterns (relative to other areas seeking funds for New Starts). Even if the capital costs to implement the Commuter Rail Alternative are reduced, the forecasted ridership is still
PAGE 7-3 I-70 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 7.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS JULY 2007 significantly lower than other projects that have received FTA ratings that allow the project to begin the New Starts funding process. The forecast demand for the Express Bus Alternative suggests that if express bus is enhanced in the corridor ridership will develop to support the service.
7.2 Recommendations 1) The Commuter Rail Alternative should be viewed as a longer-term proposition for the I-70 corridor, given the projected cost of deploying commuter rail compared to the level of forecasted ridership.
2) Enhanced express bus service should be viewed as the near-term strategy for the I-70 corridor. Ridership estimates show that it is warranted, and can be provided for a significantly lower initial capital cost and a lower operating cost than commuter rail service.
3) The area should work with MoDOT through their First Tier Environmental Impact Study of the I-70 corridor to further define short and long range transit and transportation solutions and strategies in this corridor.
7.3 Commuter Rail Viability in the Future In order to continue working toward a future long-term commuter rail strategy in the corridor, the following enhancements should be made to attract additional riders and improve the corridor’s competitiveness:
x Adopt or amend plans and zoning codes to foster transit supportive land uses in the area of proposed station locations.
x Consider connectivity between commuter rail and light rail in the current light rail planning process, as the direct connection by rail to downtown's concentration of employment would improve commuter rail ridership.
x Continue to examine opportunities to provide direct commuter rail service to Union Station from the east, which would attract additional riders to the commuter rail service.
Local funding to maximize the local match will be critical if or when a decision is made that ridership and land use issues have been addressed sufficiently to apply for New Starts funding. The percentage of local match is an important consideration in the FTA rating process. The minimum local match is 20 percent of the project cost. To receive a medium rating, local funding needs to cover 50 percent of the project cost. The high rating is received for a local match of 65 percent or higher.
With limited New Starts funding, the selection of appropriate projects to submit for New Starts funding needs to be coordinated on a regional level. From a regional perspective it makes the most sense to implement fixed guideway improvements in a strategic manner that will enhance the competitiveness of the next project chosen to pursue New Starts funding.
The need for a significant level of local funds to provide the local match and the need to strategically use limited New Starts funding in the region highlights the importance of the Smart
PAGE 7-4 I-70 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 7.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS JULY 2007
Moves regional transit plan. The Smart Moves concept of a regional funding mechanism will allow the local match to be generated by a larger base reflecting the regional benefit. The refinement of the Smart Moves regional transit plan will allow the concept of commuter rail in the I-70 corridor to be considered and evaluated on a regional basis to ensure that limit New Starts funding is used in the most efficient manner.
PAGE 7-5