sign in sign up
<<
Home , Bus bunching, Central Freeway, Rosedale Transit Center, Route capacity, Valley Metro Rail

CPHX

DRAFT TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM: TRANSIT IMPROVEMENT STRATEGIES

Note: This document presents a planning level assessment of the feasibility of various improvement strategies for consideration when developing MAG’s NexGen RTP. The RTP process would include further technical evaluation and vetting of the strategies with stakeholders and the public.

© All Rights Reserved, 2010 CENTRAL PHOENIX TRANSPORTATION FRAMEWORK STUDY Table of Contents

1.0 OVERVIEW ...... 1

1.1 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE ...... 1 1.1.1. Central Phoenix Transportation Framework Study ...... 1 1.1.2. Purpose of this Technical Memorandum ...... 3 1.2 SUMMARY ...... 3 1.3 CPHX CHARRETTE ...... 9 2.0 IMPLEMENTING TRANSIT IMPROVEMENT STRATEGIES ...... 11

2.1 SETTING THE STAGE ...... 11 2.2 LEGAL BASIS FOR IMPLEMENTING TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS ...... 12 3.0 POTENTIAL TRANSIT IMPROVEMENT STRATEGIES ...... 13

3.1 GENERAL STRATEGIES ...... 13 3.2 TRANSIT SERVICE ENHANCEMENT STRATEGIES ...... 13 3.2.1. High‐Capacity Transit ...... 14 3.2.2. ...... 16 3.2.3. Express Bus ...... 20 3.2.4. Multi‐way ...... 20 3.2.5. Complete Streets ...... 23 3.3 TRANSIT OPERATIONAL INNOVATIONS ...... 24 3.3.1. Transit Technologies ...... 24 3.3.2. Go Green ...... 24 3.3.3. Transit Advantages...... 25 3.4 STRATEGIES TO IMPROVE PUBLIC TRANSIT PERFORMANCE ...... 25 3.5 TRANSIT SYSTEM ASSET MANAGEMENT – “STATE OF GOOD REPAIR” ...... 26 3.6 TRANSIT SYSTEM/RIDER INTERFACE ...... 27 3.7 TRANSIT‐SUPPORTIVE POLICIES ...... 29 3.7.1. Transit‐Oriented Development (TOD) ...... 30 3.7.2. Mobility Management ...... 31 3.7.3. Actions to Encourage Transit Ridership ...... 34 4.0 FEDERAL PROGRAM SUPPORT FOR TRANSIT SERVICE ENHANCEMENT ...... 36

Attachments

ATTACHMENT A REFERENCE LIST OF GUIDES TO TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS ATTACHMENT B REVIEW OF TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT CONCEPTS: PUBLIC TRANSIT EXCERPT ATTACHMENT C EXISTING CONDITIONS & RAPID BUS SERVICE CONCEPTS: METRO TRANSIT ARTERIAL TRANSITWAY CORRIDORS STUDY ATTACHMENT D MULTI‐WAY BOULEVARD BASIC IMPROVEMENTS TEMPLATE ATTACHMENT E TOD WORKING GROUP UPDATE FOR THE METRO RAIL MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ATTACHMENT F FTA PROGRAM FACT SHEETS: MAP‐21

DRAFT TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Page i of ii Transit Service Improvement Strategies September, 2013 CENTRAL PHOENIX TRANSPORTATION FRAMEWORK STUDY List of Figures

FIGURE 1 CPHX STUDY AREA ...... 2 FIGURE 2 SUGGESTED/RECOMMENDED PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE CPHX CHARRETTE ...... 10 FIGURE 3 POTENTIAL TRANSIT/USER INTERFACE IMPROVEMENT STRATEGIES ...... 12 FIGURE 4 POTENTIAL HCT‐SUPPORTIVE CORRIDORS ...... 15 FIGURE 5 HIGLEY ROAD BRT STOP/STATION: MAIN STREET, MESA, AZ ...... 16 FIGURE 6 SYSTEM FEATURES: ARTERIAL BRT‐HEALTHLINE, EUCLID CORRIDOR, CLEVELAND, OHIO ...... 17 FIGURE 7 SYSTEM FEATURES OF ARTERIAL BRT ...... 19 FIGURE 8 GRAPHIC DEPICTION OF THE CONVERSION OF EL CAMINO CORRIDOR TO ACCOMMODATE MIXED‐FLOW BRT SERVICE ...... 19 FIGURE 9 MULTI‐WAY BOULEVARD TREATMENTS, PHOENIX, ...... 21 FIGURE 10 CENTRAL FREEWAY REPLACEMENT PROJECT, , CA ...... 22 FIGURE 11 MULTI‐WAY WITH SIDE ACCESS LANES, ...... 22 FIGURE 12 POTENTIAL TRANSIT/USER INTERFACE IMPROVEMENT STRATEGIES ...... 28 FIGURE 13 LOCAL AND REGIONAL IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES ...... 29 FIGURE 14 TRANSIT SUPPORTIVE PLANNING POLICIES ...... 30 FIGURE 15 TRANSIT IMPROVEMENT STRATEGIES ...... 31 FIGURE 16 METRO TRANSIT‐ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT: HIGHLIGHTED PROJECTS ...... 32 FIGURE 17 ROUTE STRUCTURE AND SERVICE IMAGES: TRANSMILENIO BRT SYSTEM, BOGOTA, COLUMBIA ...... 33 FIGURE 18 STRATEGIES FOR TRANSIT IMPROVEMENT AND ENCOURAGING TRANSIT RIDERSHIP ...... 35

List of Tables

TABLE 1 SUGGESTED TRANSIT SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE CPHX STUDY AREA ...... 4 TABLE 2 FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION (FTA) PROGRAMS FOR TRANSIT ENHANCEMENT ...... 37 TABLE 2 ‐ FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION (FTA) PROGRAMS FOR TRANSIT ENHANCEMENT (CONTINUED)...... 38

DRAFT TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Page ii of ii Transit Service Improvement Strategies September, 2013 CENTRAL PHOENIX TRANSPORTATION FRAMEWORK STUDY Technical Memorandum: Transit Service Improvement Strategies 1.0 Overview Recent rapid growth of the Phoenix metropolitan area and its core cities and expected future growth creates a dilemma for the region. As the cities grow larger, opportunities for work, education, and housing increase, which is good, but often these opportunities generally are widely dispersed and, even more so, not related geographically. The result is that the regional transportation system has become automobile focused, as individuals “across town” for work, school, medical services, even social and recreational activities. The transit system lacks continuity with this lifestyle, yet has become more important as travel distances and time increase. Therefore, it is necessary to examine and recognize opportunities to better serve changing demographics, reduce overall costs of living, limit impacts on the environment, and build healthier communities. Successfully planned investments in transit integrated with a wide range of community development and growth initiatives have the potential to strengthen communities and increase economic competitiveness. This Technical Memorandum has been prepared to aid in the conversation regarding transit improvement strategies to achieve more efficient, effective transit service in the Central Phoenix Transportation Framework Study (CPHX) study area.

1.1 Background and Purpose This Technical Memorandum is one in a series of Technical Memoranda prepared in support of analyses of the Central Phoenix Transportation Framework Study (CPHX) study area transportation system. It addresses the potential for improving public transit services and facilities.

1.1.1. Central Phoenix Transportation Framework Study The CPHX study was undertaken as one study in a series of Statewide Transportation Framework Studies conducted in conjunction with the Building a Quality Arizona (bqAZ) process – an activity of the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) to evaluate the state’s infrastructure needs. ADOT has engaged Councils of Governments (COGs), Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), the Governor's Office, the Arizona State Legislature, and the business community in the bqAZ process. Two previous studies conducted by the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) set the precedent for the bqAZ framework studies: the Interstate 10 (I-10)/Hassayampa Valley Roadway Framework Study and the I-8 and I-10/Hidden Valley Transportation Framework Study. The Statewide Transportation Framework Studies focus on identifying transportation needs under Buildout conditions. "Buildout" refers to the general development of available land at some hypothetical foreseeable maximum at an unspecified future date, which is expected to manifest in 40 to 60 years. It is important to note that Buildout does not imply the end of development; it refers to the development potential of known available land parcels in the study area. MAG has established assumptions for Buildout conditions based on information provided by its member jurisdictions. The premise of Buildout recognizes significant, even insurmountable, constraints likely will exist for transportation facilities, due to the inability to secure adequate rights-of-way. The intent of framework plans, therefore, is three-fold: (1) anticipate potential travel demand associated with intense population growth and economic activity; (2) identify multimodal transportation systems necessary to accommodate forecast mobility needs; and (3) assure necessary rights-of-way are preserved to allow construction of a multimodal transportation network capable of supporting expected growth. Thus, the planning dialogue and evaluation for the prior framework studies concentrated on identifying the potential land use patterns at Buildout and how it can be supported with a multimodal transportation system. The Central Phoenix Transportation Framework Study, while having the same focus as the previously completed framework studies, focused on examining the established transportation system already serving a complex and intensely developed urban setting rather than large areas of undeveloped land (Figure 1). In addition, communities

DRAFT TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Page 1 of 38 Transit Service Improvement Strategies September, 2013 CENTRAL PHOENIX TRANSPORTATION FRAMEWORK STUDY

FIGURE 1 CPHX STUDY AREA

METRO Light Rail Transit Rail Light METRO

DRAFT TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Page 2 of 38 Transit Service Improvement Strategies September, 2013 CENTRAL PHOENIX TRANSPORTATION FRAMEWORK STUDY transportation system planning activities undertaken during the CPHX study sought to be responsive to future social and economic needs by better integrating various physical facilities and services of alternative modes to respond to Buildout conditions and travel demands. Key to this planning process was understanding how various modal interactions can best serve not only the present or near-term transportation needs of the current community, but, also, the future "Buildout" community, which may evolve to an entirely different form.

1.1.2. Purpose of this Technical Memorandum Transit-supportive planning requires the attention, dedication, and coordination of a broad range of policies and stakeholders that can frame community needs and issues successfully within the context of a complete community. Transit planners, working with transit agencies, need to join in a conversation with transportation and community planners of municipalities and various jurisdictions to identify and define appropriate transit improvements to serve the mobility and accessibility needs of each community and the CPHX study area as a whole. Many transit-supportive principles and improvement strategies address the need to promote development patterns that make transit service less expensive by creating less circuitous routing. These strategies also are aimed at making transit service more convenient, more attractive, and more predictable to potential transit users. Other strategies seek to enhance the service and operational characteristics of a community’s transit system to reduce operating costs and improve reliability. The strategies presented in this Technical Memorandum have been compiled to aid in planning and decision-making discussions respecting potential transit improvement strategies in the CPHX study area. There is no intent to declare policy objectives, only to provide a range of information to be used at the discretion of MAG and its member agencies (and other planning authorities) for purposes of discussing opportunities for improving transit service in the region and, particularly, the CPHX study area. One fact is clear: circumstances and conditions vary from place to place. Therefore, these strategies may be deemed feasible, even desirable, in some places but not in others. The intent in preparing this document has been to expose potential solutions and approaches that could be considered for implementation to those who need to address transit service policies and operations. Implementation of any of the strategies presented herein is the responsibility of MAG’s member agencies and transit operating entities serving the CPHX study area in accordance with policies, guidelines, and standards adopted for the planning and development of transit services. Nevertheless, modifications to current practices may be appropriate should the strategies and concepts presented stimulate the need or desire for such action.

1.2 Summary There are numerous strategies, approaches, methods, and technical applications that can be implemented to enhance or improve public transit services in the CPHX study area. Consequently, there are a large number of publications available outlining (some in great detail) a wide assortment of improvement options that may be considered (a list of some relevant guides and studies is presented in Attachment A for additional reference). The objective of this Technical Memorandum has been to identify and evaluate strategies particularly pertinent to the issues and concerns associated with the CPHX study area. The areas of focus are: . General Strategies . Transit Service Enhancement Strategies . Transit Technologies . Strategies to Improve Public Transit Performance . Transit System Asset Management . Transit System/Rider Interface . Transit-Supportive Policies. A major contribution to understanding the potential for improvement of the public transit system effort derives from the results of a charette conducted March 26, 2013, to discuss and address transportation system attributes of the study area. Numerous suggestions for improvement were spawned by the charette relating to public transit services in the CPHX study area. Many of these suggestions could be addressed through application of improvement strategies and concepts discussed herein. Table 1 provides a summary of the suggestions/comments and the relevant improvement strategies that potentially would accomplish resolution of the issue or concern.

DRAFT TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Page 3 of 38 Transit Service Improvement Strategies September, 2013 CENTRAL PHOENIX TRANSPORTATION FRAMEWORK STUDY

TABLE 1 SUGGESTED TRANSIT SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE CPHX STUDY AREA Charrette Suggestion Relevant Improvement Strategy(s) Thomas Road – Loop 101 (Agua Fria Fwy) to Loop 101 (Pima Fwy). Baseline Road – BRT or LRT. 44th Street south of Thomas Road to McDowell Road. 44th Street, north of Camelback Road, extending from LRT, south of Camelback Road Service on either Thomas Road or McDowell Road. In dedicated lanes on Bell Road from Arrowhead Mall to Scottsdale Airpark. On 24th Street from Camelback Road to Sky Harbor International . §3.2.2 High‐Capacity Transit If we are envisioning a “Penn Station,” then the BRT service needs to come into Penn Station §3.3 Transit Technologies not at a location one mile away. §3.7.2 Mobility Management Dedicated BRT traffic lanes. Dedicated‐arterial BRT on Bell, Scottsdale Airpark to Arrowhead. Along 59th Ave, Bell to I‐10. On Thomas Road, L101 to L101. BRT should be reviewed as “High Capacity” without the definition of mode RAPID running along Baseline. Chandler road from I‐10/Pecos Park‐and‐Ride (P&R) east. CIRCULATOR Connection of Sky to METRO Light Rail at 44th St and Washington Station is important. Sky Train system cannot be extended to the south, as the system is airport‐specific and Extend Sky Train to the south. it could not be made into an “open” general‐purpose transit system. Elevated should be considered for "last mile" scenario at the Scottsdale Airpark. §3.2.4 Multi‐way Boulevard The region needs to embrace "last mile" local circulators to support the regional network. §3.2.5 Complete Streets Use “Orbit” (Tempe Circulators) to take people to METRO Light Rail. §3.7.2 Mobility Management Need enhancements of circulator service to support the larger system. Commuter Rail: Grand Ave to . Commuter Rail: I‐10 west, Grand Ave, Queen Creek, I‐10 south). Commuter Rail: Grand Avenue Commuter Rail: Should follow existing Union Pacific RR (UPRR) lines west, BSNF Railway up Grand Avenue. Commuter Rail: This service causes the outer suburban areas to continue to sprawl; only works §3.2.1 High‐Capacity Transit with changes in land use patterns (i.e., appropriate land use and density development). §3.7.1 Transit‐Oriented Development Commuter Rail: West along UPRR to Union Station. §3.7.2 Mobility Management Commuter Rail: Maybe SR‐30 (I‐10 Reliever) should be rethought as not a full freeway; rather, it should be a commuter rail corridor – definitely a shared use corridor. Commuter Rail: Not crazy about commuter rail, due to this service encouraging sprawl. Commuter Rail: No corridor in tribal land. There are issues outside of the CPHX study area, such as continuing south to Casa Grande. This will be determined from the ADOT Intercity Rail Study. DRAFT TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Page 4 of 38 Transit Service Improvement Strategies September, 2013 CENTRAL PHOENIX TRANSPORTATION FRAMEWORK STUDY

TABLE 1 ‐ SUGGESTED TRANSIT SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE CPHX STUDY AREA (CONTINUED) Charrette Suggestion Relevant Improvement Strategy(s) EXPRESS BUS Additional Express Bus service and BRT is an acceptable improvement. §3.2.3 Express Bus, §3.3 Transit Technologies, §3.4 Strategies to Improve Public Transit Performance Service should pass through the CPHX study area from external locations with no provisions for This apparently was a misunderstanding. The I‐17 RAPID service stops at the Bell people within the study area to access the service, e.g., I‐17 RAPID service from Anthem. Road/I‐17 P&R and the Metrocenter Transit Center. HIGH‐CAPCITY TRANSIT Baseline could be a good high capacity transit (bus or rail) corridor. Best examples of Arizona Parkway‐type facilities elsewhere in the world have transit in the middle with bike and pedestrian zones. Need to serve Desert Ridge area from Scottsdale Road or . Highlight Bell Road as and HCT corridor. On future SR‐30, west of Loop 202 (Santan Fwy). §3.2.1 High‐Capacity Transit Should high capacity options replace other lanes, maintaining rights‐of‐way? §3.4 Strategies to Improve Public Transit Performance Along Scottsdale Rd from Scottsdale Airpark to ASU‐Tempe and beyond to Chandler. §3.7.2 Mobility Management On Olive and Thunderbird west of I‐17 (Olive to US‐60, Thunderbird to 59th). South on 51st from I‐10 to Baseline (connecting to 59th). On 44th Street from Washington/44th to Camelback. Subway potential down Central Avenue where the other HCT lines intersect. Subway to replace LRT on that route. INTERCITY RAIL Potential termini for intercity rail as downtown Tucson, Phoenix, Tempe, or Airport. §3.2.1 High‐Capacity Transit Important for connecting communities §3.7.1 Transit‐Oriented Development Line to Queen Creek. MODERN STREETCAR To Southern/Rural and needs to be interoperable at the METRO Light Rail. §3.2.4 Multi‐way Boulevard Service on Rio Salado is desirable and needs to be interoperable at the METRO Light Rail. §3.2.5 Complete Streets Grand Avenue from Central Station to McDowell Road. §3.6 Transit System/Rider Interface In Tempe (Mill to Rural on Southern, and Rio Salado Corridor from Mill to Dobson). §3.7.1 Transit‐Oriented Development MULTIMODAL SYSTEM Not everybody goes to downtown Phoenix – major activity centers in the region must be connected multimodally. §3.6 Transit System/Rider Interface Need a “paradigm shift” in planning in making our communities more multimodal. §3.7.2 Mobility Management Link activity centers with mode choice. §3.7.3 Actions to Encourage Transit Ridership Reasonable/implementable multi‐modal plan for regional guidance.

DRAFT TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Page 5 of 38 Transit Service Improvement Strategies September, 2013 CENTRAL PHOENIX TRANSPORTATION FRAMEWORK STUDY

TABLE 1 ‐ SUGGESTED TRANSIT SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE CPHX STUDY AREA (CONTINUED) Charrette Suggestion Relevant Improvement Strategy(s) LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT Could be more oriented to the regional freeway circulation, being geared more along with bus and dedicated lanes. The LRT connects the downtowns – Connections from the exterior to LRT is needed. LRT mode and alignment to north via SR‐51 (Piestewa Fwy) should be reviewed. Baseline Corridor has most of the residential growth, and it would provide a strong connection between the mall and residential to the east. Extend METRO Light Rail (LRT) from existing line [at Washington/Jefferson/Central] to 79th Avenue, and build LRT along Thomas Road to Maryvale Mall area. Extend existing LRT from Central Avenue on Thomas Road to Loop 101 [Agua Fria Fwy) with P&R at Loop 101 (Agua Fria Fwy). Extend LRT along Camelback Road from Central Avenue to Scottsdale Road. Extend LRT from Scottsdale & Camelback Road down [south] Scottsdale Road to Chandler Boulevard, with P&Rs at Chandler Mall and Sky Song; also, from Scottsdale & Camelback roads north to the Scottsdale Airpark area, with circulator providing access around Scottsdale Airpark commercial center. Extend LRT to stadiums in Glendale, along Glendale Avenue to Loop 101 (Agua Fria Fwy). Extend Glendale LRT to Westgate. §3.2.1 High‐Capacity Transit th Complete LRT line between planned I‐10/79 Phoenix West line terminus north on Loop 101 §3.2.5 Complete Streets (Agua Fria Fwy) to Westgate. §3.3 Transit Technologies LRT extension north on I‐17 to Loop 101. §3.5 Transit System Asset Management LRT south on Central Avenue from downtown, east on Southern to Mill. §3.6 Transit System/Rider Interface LRT east on Camelback/Indian School to Scottsdale Road §3.7.1 Transit‐Oriented Development Extend N/E LRT east on Cactus to Scottsdale Road and north on Tatum from Cactus. 44th Street, north of airport, to Camelback Road, with BRT north of Camelback Road. Consider LRT along some corridors other than existing street system (e.g., along canals); cover the canals and make use of the canal corridors for transportation facilities. Thomas Road, Camelback Road, and Bell Road have multiple destinations so could serve as High Capacity Local Routes. Bell Road should be a high‐capacity route. Need to identify a High‐Capacity Corridor along 51st Avenue from Bell Road to Glendale Avenue; it would connect (ASU) West on Thunderbird Road with LRT extension on Glendale Avenue, and the 59th Avenue is almost equal distance between I‐17 and Loop 101 (Agua Fria Fwy). Highlight Baseline Road along with Southern Avenue for future LRT. Connect the N/E LRT extension to Paradise Valley with Scottsdale Road. LRT on Rural/Scottsdale is good. Scottsdale to Chandler via Scottsdale Road/Rural Road Connect all the downtowns with LRT

DRAFT TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Page 6 of 38 Transit Service Improvement Strategies September, 2013 CENTRAL PHOENIX TRANSPORTATION FRAMEWORK STUDY

TABLE 1 ‐ SUGGESTED TRANSIT SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE CPHX STUDY AREA (CONTINUED) Charrette Suggestion Relevant Improvement Strategy(s) PARK‐AND‐RIDE Commuters from outlying areas have limited options – P&R lots along I‐17 would be desirable. Maintaining multimodal options is important. Need to have P&R lots spaced at four mile intervals. Identify where there are existing P&Rs that could benefit from additional direct access HOV §3.2.1 High‐Capacity Transit lane, e.g., Shea Boulevard & SR‐51; Metrocenter; Bell Road & SR‐51; Bell Road & I‐17; Warner §3.2.2 Bus Rapid Transit Road & I‐10 (Papago Fwy). §3.2.3 Express Bus New P&Rs at Scottsdale Road & Loop 101 (Pima Fwy) and 51st Avenue & Loop 101 (Agua Fria §3.6 Transit System/Rider Interface Fwy). P&Rs are a huge part of the transit future – People do not necessary want to travel to all activity centers; they want to go from home to work (activity center), then work to home or an entertainment activity center, etc. PUBLIC TRANSIT ‐ GENERAL Transit travel times should be competitive with vehicle travel times. Need better East/West transit service in Scottsdale. Perhaps, the Thomas Road service should drop down to McDowell when it gets into Scottsdale. No “” transit – Pay for transit with property taxes to improve ridership. Get transit funding from somebody other than the users. Major employers will look at major transit availability and available transportation system as they are making their choices relating to the location of their business. Develop transit network that is compatible with a livable/walkable community. Where are the major Hubs? Where is our “Grand Central Station” for everything multimodal? There needs to be some sort of a “Transit Hub” developed, and it needs to be at the airport §3.2.4 Multi‐way Boulevard [Sky Harbor] or Downtown Phoenix, preferably at the old Railroad Depot, but the airport makes §3.2.5 Complete Streets the most sense. §3.3 Transit Technologies New “Bus Hub” should be considered at Central Avenue & Washington Street, where transit §3.4 Strategies to Improve Public Transit Performance lines cross. §3.5 Transit System Asset Management Local transit needs to serve the major transit grid. §3.6 Transit System/Rider Interface More frequent and dependable transit headways would be desirable. §3.7.3 Actions to Encourage Transit Ridership Arterial bus network needs to be bolstered to have more frequent headways to support the HCT network. Build a hierarchy of transit service much like roadway (i.e. local to freeway). Service should be based on employment centers. Transit‐intensive bundle that looks beyond LR/Streetcar/BRT; look at service levels, customer base, headways; buses should be operating at 10‐minute headways during the peak. Think of transit hierarchy (from rail to LR/Streetcar/Local Bus). Use transit to increase economic development and increase jobs. Provide service for early/late employees/riders.

DRAFT TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Page 7 of 38 Transit Service Improvement Strategies September, 2013 CENTRAL PHOENIX TRANSPORTATION FRAMEWORK STUDY

TABLE 1 ‐ SUGGESTED TRANSIT SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE CPHX STUDY AREA (CONTINUED) Charrette Suggestion Relevant Improvement Strategy(s) PUBLIC TRANSIT – GENERAL (Continued) In less established corridors, putting additional transit capacity from the start could be okay. Peak‐hour directional improvements along 7th and 7th. Should have a basic grid bus system within study area. At least every 30, peak every 10 minutes or so. Robust service frequency on the underlying bus system (match the LR frequency?). Need to have more bus pullouts or turnouts to reduce congestion; stops located after the Generally, the far‐side stop is preferred overall. It specifically is preferred when the intersections are more of a problem than before the . street is wide enough to permit vehicles to pass uncontrolled around the stopped bus. Near‐side stops are preferred on two‐lane roadways with restrictions on the ability of other vehicles to go around the stopped bus. Source: CPHX Charrette Working Groups Meeting Notes, March 26, 2012.

DRAFT TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Page 8 of 38 Transit Service Improvement Strategies September, 2013 CENTRAL PHOENIX TRANSPORTATION FRAMEWORK STUDY

1.3 CPHX Charrette In March, 2012, a charrette was conducted as part of the CPHX study. A charrette in the context of a planning study refers to a collaborative session involving an interested group of stakeholders examining potential solutions to the range of problems associated with the transportation system in the CPHX study area. The structure and focus of a charrette varies, depending on the problems being addressed and individuals in the group. Charrettes often involve attendees separating into sub-groups (workshops or forums) that focus on the specific issues at hand. Each sub-group then reports its work back to the full group and the various issues and concerns area discussed. A charrette serves as a way of quickly generating multiple potential solutions and aids in integrating the interests and concerns of a diverse group of people. The March charrette addressed a number of issues associated with the CPHX transportation system, including: arterial roadway improvements, arterial intersection improvements, transit services and facilities, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and the freeway system. The charrette process included the following:  PowerPoint presentation to set the tone for the charette;  Facilitated small working groups – evaluation process, identification of universe of alternative improvements, and refinement of alternatives;  Presentation of small or sub-group products to the full group;  Facilitated dialogue to identify common themes and sorting improvements directed toward refinement; and  Charrette results presented to the full group and discussion of next steps. All persons attending the charette were provided with a binder containing relevant information pertaining to: transportation, development, and environment; results from an extensive outreach program, involving focus groups, geographically-based dialogues, and individual interviews; a compendium of information regarding existing and future conditions within the CPHX study area; a review of potential transportation improvement alternatives (refer to Attachment B for alternative transit improvements); and examination of the current levels of transit service provided in the study area. The charette resulted in all sub-groups offering several specific suggestions/recommendations for improving transit system operations within the CPHX study area (Figure 2). The sub-groups suggested/recommended that eight new park-and-ride (P&R) facilities be added; five of the eight are associated with Loop 101 (Agua Fria and Pima freeways). The other three are located along the Scottsdale Road corridor (Note: The P&R lot shown at the Scottsdale Airport is operational as of this writing). In addition, the sub-group suggested/recommended development of a new HCT service on several travel corridors, including the complete length or portions of Bell and Thomas roads. The combination of sub-group suggestions/recommendations results in an extensive LRT system, beyond the current system and that envisioned in current planning documents. The sub-groups suggestions/recommendations also include ultimately replacing the existing METRO LRT line on Central Avenue with a subway system between the Washington/Jefferson connection and Camelback Road. Consistent with existing planning for Commuter Rail service, the sub-groups highlighted the need for such service in the existing railroad corridors of the (UPRR) and BNST Railway (BNSF). Finally, the sub-groups suggested/recommended that the Grand Avenue Corridor (US-60) between 19th Avenue and Loop 101 (Agua Fria Freeway) be converted to transit-oriented parkway.

DRAFT TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Page 9 of 38 Transit Service Improvement Strategies September, 2013 CENTRAL PHOENIX TRANSPORTATION FRAMEWORK STUDY

FIGURE 2 SUGGESTED/RECOMMENDED TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE CPHX CHARRETTE

DRAFT TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Page 10 of 38 Transit Service Improvement Strategies September, 2013 CENTRAL PHOENIX TRANSPORTATION FRAMEWORK STUDY 2.0 Implementing Transit Improvement Strategies The acceptance of the potential transit improvement strategies presented herein generally will be driven by user perceptions regarding transit service and facilities. The role of transit in the community, as well as the legal and policy framework of the community and supporting agencies and jurisdictions, also will be important to successful implementation of any strategy.

2.1 Setting the Stage Generally, transit improvement strategies in the past gave prominence to developing a route network with good coverage that would attract the greatest number of riders. Route structure and fleet growth was aimed at increasing ridership, and there was considerable emphasis on transit pricing and the effects of pricing on ridership, including incentives, such as a special fare structures, and punitive, such as downtown entry fees during the peak period. Thus, numerous strategies were devised (e.g., increase parking fees, parking subsidies, peak-hour pricing, express services) to get people out of their automobile to ride the transit system. While each strategy resulted in some benefits, the emphasis on how well the system performed financially and in terms of absolute magnitudes of riders generally outweighed its performance with respect to travel objectives of system users. A significant gap between transit service provided and the transit user also has been inadequate service frequency, an important factor in generating new and sustained ridership. In recent years, there has been a shift away from transit mantra of providing rides to one that focuses on managing mobility. The new paradigm for transit system operations is becoming integrated with new ideas about “community” and the need to create a livable social system that is sustainable relative to community resources and at the same time sustaining with respect to community goals and objectives relating to quality of life. This new societal momentum for community is a major factor calling for more highly integrated and mulitmodal transportation systems to serve the variety of mobility needs. Responding proactively to this call has become the force driving the success of fully coordinated transportation systems. Coordinated transportation systems are created through an understanding of the mobility needs of the community. In the past few decades, emphasis has been on getting people from Point A – generally a suburban area – to Point B – generally a downtown or center city area. While there is a definite need to accommodate Point A-to-Point B travel, today’s modern, technologically supported community encompasses a multitude of Point X to Point Y to Point Z to Point……travel patterns. Hence, transportation and community planners and community leaders are coming to embrace the concept of a dynamic social system needing a dynamic traveler system. The result of this new understanding of community has placed demands on transit systems to evolve, to diversify, to expand the services provided and become an integrated mode of travel linking not just origins and destinations, but serving a full range of travel objectives and trip purposes. This new line of thinking has become a new paradigm for transit services; it sets the stage for numerous transit improvement strategies designed to enhance transit operations and create dynamic, integrated linkages with the functions and activities of the community. A prominent aspect of transit linkages with the community is accessibility to the service through the various stops and stations provided. A recent article published by the University of California Transportation Center (UCTC) notes: …our study clearly shows that service frequency and reliability are most critical to rider satisfaction, other cost-effective measures—such as “next vehicle” arrival-time indicators that reduce rider uncertainty—can go a long way toward reducing the perceived burdens of transfers and waiting.1 The suggestion here is that connectivity with the transit system is beneficial to the rider, and improvements that enhance connectivity can prove cost-effective in adding to the quality of the experience. The next section identifies and provides definition of a number of transit improvement strategies consistent with this new focus on creating and integrated multimodal transportation systems.

1 “Thinking Outside the Bus” in ACCESS: the Magazine of UCTC, Hiroyuki Iseki et.al, at http://www.uctc.net/access/40/access40_outsidethebus.shtml [7/31/2012 1:39:27 PM]

DRAFT TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Page 11 of 38 Transit Service Improvement Strategies September, 2013 CENTRAL PHOENIX TRANSPORTATION FRAMEWORK STUDY 2.2 Legal Basis for Implementing Transit Improvements Public Law 112–141, the ‘‘Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act’’ or the ‘‘MAP–21,’’ includes eight Divisions. Division B addresses Public Transportation, through adoption and definition of the ‘‘Federal Public Transportation Act of 2012.” Section 20005, Metropolitan Transportation Planning, amends Section 5303, Metropolitan Transportation Planning, of Title 49 USC, Transportation, but retains intact Section 5303(h), which outlines strategies for planning the transit system. The complete wording of Section 5303(h) is presented Figure 3.

FIGURE 3 POTENTIAL TRANSIT/USER INTERFACE IMPROVEMENT STRATEGIES

49 USC Section 5303 – Metropolitan transportation planning (a) POLICY.—It is in the national interest to— (1) encourage and promote the safe and efficient management, operation, and development of surface transportation systems that will serve the mobility needs of people and freight and foster economic growth and development within and between States and urbanized areas, while minimizing transportation-related fuel consumption and air pollution through metropolitan and statewide transportation planning processes identified in this chapter; and (2) encourage the continued improvement and evolution of the metropolitan and statewide transportation planning processes by metropolitan planning organizations, State departments of transportation, and public transit operators as guided by the planning factors identified in subsection (h) and section 5304(d).* …..

(h) SCOPE OF PLANNING PROCESS.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The metropolitan planning process for a metropolitan planning area under this section shall provide for consideration of projects and strategies that will— (A) support the economic vitality of the metropolitan area, especially by enabling global competitiveness, productivity, and efficiency; (B) increase the safety of the transportation system for motorized and nonmotorized users; (C) increase the security of the transportation system for motorized and nonmotorized users; (D) increase the accessibility and mobility of people and for freight; (E) protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, improve the quality of life, and promote consistency between transportation improvements and State and local planned growth and economic development patterns; (F) enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system, across and between modes, for people and freight; (G) promote efficient system management and operation; and (H) emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system.

* Section 5304(d) pertains to statewide and nonmetropolitan transportation planning.

Section 5303(h) clearly provides the framework for identifying, evaluating, and implementing transit improvements that supports, increases, and enhances transit services within an integrated and balanced multimodal transportation system. The objective of this Technical Memorandum is to provide a rationale framework for identifying the potential for improving transit services and facilities by identifying a reasonable range of strategies that have been established or implemented by transit systems in the Phoenix metropolitan area and elsewhere.

DRAFT TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Page 12 of 38 Transit Service Improvement Strategies September, 2013 CENTRAL PHOENIX TRANSPORTATION FRAMEWORK STUDY

3.0 Potential Transit Improvement Strategies This section identifies and discusses transit improvement strategies that could be considered in fulfilling the requirements of Section 5303(h) relative to transit services in the CPHX study area. The first subsection addresses transit system operations; the second subsection addresses the interface of transit with the rider and the community.

3.1 General Strategies Livability Principles  Provide more transportation choices Some strategies have been implemented locally and some  Promote equitable, affordable housing are simply general statements that encourage  Enhance economic competitiveness consideration of certain directions or actions. These  Support existing communities general concepts are listed below.  Coordinate and leverage Federal policies and . Transit and Environmental Sustainability. investments . Livable and Sustainable Communities.  Value communities and neighborhoods . Livability in Transportation. . Smart Growth. These general concepts focus on the implementation of well-conceived strategies to aid in achieving broader community quality of life goals through enhance mobility and accessibility. Access to good jobs, affordable housing, quality schools, and safe streets is a function of deployed facilities and services of a transportation system, and transit plays a key role in that system. At the same time, planning and development of a sound, integrated multimodal transportation system is one of the foundational elements of the community upon which creating and sustaining good jobs, affordable housing, quality schools, and safe streets relies. A sustainable transportation system meets the needs of the community and supports quality of life goals with minimal impacts on available and future resources. Minimizing potential environmental impacts also is associated with sustainable transportation, and transit plays a key role by transporting large numbers of riders en masse, reducing transportation energy requirements and decreasing emissions. A transportation system also is sustainable when it satisfies the long-term economic and social health of the community in an equitable manner. A balanced and equitable transportation system accommodates effective and efficient personal movement via all reasonable modes of travel. SMART GROWTH PRINCIPLES A corollary concept is Smart Growth. Arizona ascribes to the  Mix land uses principles of Smart Growth, which promote developing and  Take advantage of compact building sustaining a “quality of life” infrastructure that supports design achievement of goals for “livable” communities. The goal of  Create a range of housing opportunities Smart Growth essentially is to plan and develop community and choices facilities and services in such a manner that the best of the past  Create walkable neighborhoods is preserved and maintained, while the future needs of  Foster distinctive, attractive communities generations to come are fully anticipated. Transit can support with a strong sense of place Smart Growth by integrating facilities and services into the  Preserve open space, farmland, natural fabric of the community to assure full and safe access and beauty, and critical environmental areas maximum mobility to a wide range of community assets (e.g.,  Strengthen and direct development schools, libraries, recreational venues, government offices, towards existing communities health institutions).  Provide a variety of transportation choices  Make development decision predictable, fair, and cost-effective 3.2 Transit Service Enhancement Strategies  Encourage community and stakeholder The traditional fixed-route service associated with urban transit collaboration in development decisions systems accomplishes much in the way of coverage and accessibility. Nevertheless, in heavily traveled corridors, there is a need to examine transit service concepts that offer greater

DRAFT TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Page 13 of 38 Transit Service Improvement Strategies September, 2013 CENTRAL PHOENIX TRANSPORTATION FRAMEWORK STUDY capacity to move system patrons between major activity centers or suburban areas to central areas quickly and efficiently in a predictable and cost-effective manner. Three service concepts receiving contemporary attention are discussed below.

3.2.1. High‐Capacity Transit High-capacity transit (HCT) is transit service typically operating frequently in a dedicated right-of-way at a relatively high speed. As it is generally separated from other traffic, HCT has the capability to provide much higher person-trip capacity than traditional bus transit service, and scheduled operations are considerably more reliable. A detailed analysis of the potential for implementing HCT service in the Phoenix metropolitan area was accomplished during the Sustainable Transportation and Land Use Integration Study (STLUIS) completed for MAG in July 2013.2 The special study investigated 40 separate travel corridors in the MAG region to determine their potential for supporting all-day HCT service in the form of bus rapid transit (BRT) and light rail transit (LRT). The intent of STLUIS was to determine the level of policy and other interventions that may be necessary to create conditions favorable for HCT service. Prospective HCT corridors were identified through a There is a need to examine transit service review of the MAG 2010 RTP Update and MAG concepts that offer greater capacity to move Regional Transit Framework Study. Identified system patrons between major activity corridors were discussed and evaluated with MAG centers or suburban areas to central areas staff to hone in on potentially viable corridors. quickly and efficiently in a predictable and Evaluation criteria then were developed to aid in cost-effective manner analyzing the feasibility of HCT service in the identified corridors. The initial 40 corridors were subjected to a high-level screening to determine those corridors that would support HCT service without substantial changes in existing densities, land use, and other key considerations affecting transit use. The highest scoring corridors were advanced to a second-level, more detailed screening against 24 weighted criteria in four different categories: . Demographics; . Land use and corridor conditions; . Commute conditions; and . Transit performance and service provisions. Eighteen potential HCT-supportive corridors advanced into this second-level screening were divided into two categories or “Tiers,” reflecting the ability to support HCT. The Tier 1 corridors were considered able to support HCT service in the near-term with little to no modifications or improvements. Tier 2 corridors were deemed to need moderate improvements, in terms of land use and level/intensity of development, in order to be considered HCT-supportive. The second-level screening resulted in identification of 14 Tier 1 corridors deemed to be “near-term HCT-supportive.” The remaining four corridors were considered HCT-supportive, but with the requirement for a moderate level of improvements. Figure 4 shows the 18 corridors and includes a table that indicates the scoring for each corridor and the categorization into three subdivisions of Tier 1 (A & B) and Tier 2. Tier 1A Corridors were determined to be worthy of consideration for near-term HCT-supportive investments in fixed guideway systems, such as LRT. Tier 1B Corridors were determined to have the potential for supporting near-term HCT investments in more flexible systems, such as BRT. Tier 2 Corridors also were determined to have the potential for supporting medium-term HCT investments in BRT-type systems. However, it was concluded that the Tier 2 Corridors would require a moderate level of improvements to be HCT-supportive. The STLUIS Memorandum notes that different segments of the same corridor (or parallel segments/corridor) were identified and defined for this analysis (e.g., Thomas Road). As these corridors could be served by one or more transit routes, it is reasonable to consolidate the 14 Tier 1A and Tier 1B corridors into “service corridors” for operational planning purposes.

2 Memorandum, MAG Sustainable Transportation and Land Use Integration Study – Corridor High-Capacity Transit (HCT) Supportive Analysis, Wong (ARUP) et al to Yazzie (MAG) et al, November 4, 2011 (Ref # 15078/MV). Key Recommendation and Tools completed July 2013.

DRAFT TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Page 14 of 38 Transit Service Improvement Strategies September, 2013 CENTRAL PHOENIX TRANSPORTATION FRAMEWORK STUDY

FIGURE 4 POTENTIAL HCT‐SUPPORTIVE CORRIDORS

NOTES: Circled #s identify Tier 1B Corridors Dashed lines indicate Tier 2 Corridors. NW Extension Phase 3 not shown.

Source: Table 9 – Step 2 HCT-Supportive Score (HCT All-Day Corridors), Memorandum, MAG Sustainable Transportation and Land Use Integration Study – Corridor High-Capacity Transit (HCT) Supportive Analysis, Wong (ARUP) et al to Yazzie (MAG) et al, November 4, 2011 (Ref # 15078/MV).

DRAFT TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Page 15 of 38 Transit Service Improvement Strategies September, 2013 CENTRAL PHOENIX TRANSPORTATION FRAMEWORK STUDY 3.2.2. Bus Rapid rapid transit (BRT) is an enhanced public transit system component oriented to providing bus service that supplies users with faster speeds, greater reliability, and increased convenience. BRT vehicles operate predominantly along exclusive or dedicated bus lanes, busways, or other transitways, resulting in a service that has the flexibility of buses but operational efficiency approaching that of rail transit. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) is committed to supporting communities in development of BRT systems and provides extensive resources on its Web site.3 Local and regional governments, seeking to get greater capacity for moving people out of transportation investments, past and future, also are supporting development of BRT systems. The FTA site identifies 19 U.S. cities and three cities outside the U.S. that have implemented or are planning to implement BRT systems. In addition, comprehensive region-oriented planning studies have been conducted for to evaluate BRT applications in large urban areas.

RPTA Comprehensive Arterial Bus Rapid Transit Planning Study This study performed for /RPTA and published in September, 2009, was a FIGURE 5 follow-up to the MAG HCT study highlighted in HIGLEY ROAD BRT STOP/STATION: MAIN STREET, MESA, AZ the previous section. Prior to initiation of this

study, the Main Street LINK BRT service had begun passenger service operations. Although

not corridor-oriented for the purpose of ROAD increasing capacity, this service was developed to supplement the METRO Light Rail service that

currently terminates at the Main St/Sycamore HIGLEY Station in Mesa by offering more direct access to the LRT service from east Mesa. Figure 5 shows one the BRT stop/station on Main Street at Higley Road in Mesa. Note that the BRT vehicles MAIN STREET do not operate within an exclusive or transitway. Also, the stations are constructed on raised platforms to facilitate vehicle entry/exit, and stops/stations are spaced one mile apart compared to more frequent stops associated with local fixed-route transit service. The RPTA study was undertaken specifically to Image Source: Bing Maps, 2012 identify demand for BRT service for the Arizona Avenue (slated to be a second LINK service to the LRT on Main Street) and four other regionally significant travel corridors: Grand Avenue, Scottsdale Road/Rural Road, South Central Avenue/Baseline Road, and Chandler Boulevard. These corridors were identified in the MAG Regional Transportation Plan and slated for funding under Proposition 400. In addition to identifying travel demand, the study addressed the operational characteristics of the BRT service, capital infrastructure needs, and fleet requirements. The RPTA study provided specific design guidelines for key elements of the BRT service infrastructure and operation and route-specific recommendations for the five travel corridors.

Euclid Corridor, Cleveland, Ohio This BRT project transformed Cleveland’s historic “Main Street” by incorporating reconstruction and improvement of streets and sidewalks in the corridor with attractive infrastructure, including: pavement treatments, street markings, landscaping and lighting improvements. The 6.7 mile Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (RTA) Healthline BRT route connects Cleveland’s downtown Public Square and and bus transit services to University Circle (Case Western Reserve University) and Louis Stokes Rapid Transit Station at Windermere in East Cleveland.

3 Bus Rapid Transit, News, Grants, etc. Federal Transit Administration at http://www.fta.dot.gov/about/12351_4240.html.

DRAFT TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Page 16 of 38 Transit Service Improvement Strategies September, 2013 CENTRAL PHOENIX TRANSPORTATION FRAMEWORK STUDY The $168.4 million construction project, in effect, brought about urban renewal for a dying portion of the central city area of Cleveland (in the 1980s alternative rail solutions were investigated for this corridor). Approximately four miles of the project provides, between Public Square and University Circle provide an exclusive center-median busway for 60-foot, hybrid, diesel-electric buses. The buses segue to curbside service from University Square to the Louis Stokes Rapid Transit Station at Windermere, another hub for RTA services, including the Red Line commuter rail service. This project provides significant travel-time savings and reduced congestion in the Euclid Corridor. Images of key components of this BRT system are shown in Figure 6.4

FIGURE 6 SYSTEM FEATURES: ARTERIAL BRT‐HEALTHLINE, EUCLID CORRIDOR, CLEVELAND, OHIO . le Earth, 2012. 2012. le Earth, g e Source: Goo e Source: g Image Source: Source: Image http://www.rtahealthline.com/healthline-what-is.asp Ima

EUCLID AVENUE Image Source: Google Earth, 2012. 2012. Google Earth, Source: Image

NOT TO SCALE

Selected Cross‐Section at E. 24th Street Station: Euclid Corridor BRT‐Healthline

4 Additional information about this BRT system is available at http://www.rtahealthline.com/healthline-how-works-station.asp.

DRAFT TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Page 17 of 38 Transit Service Improvement Strategies September, 2013 CENTRAL PHOENIX TRANSPORTATION FRAMEWORK STUDY Metro Transit, ‐St. Paul, Minnesota A far-reaching regional study for Metro Transit, the regional transit provider for the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area, highlights the corridor-focused character of BRT service. Metro Transit’s initial study completed in 2004 focused on developing “…a facility and service plan to enhance efficiency, speed, reliability, customer experience, and transit market competitiveness on 11 high-demand urban transitway corridors.”5 The study was undertaken to determine how best to improve regional transit service to support reaching a goal of doubling transit ridership by 2030. It addresses one of two broad approaches adopted by the Metropolitan Council for increasing transit ridership and meeting mobility needs, specifically: developing a network of bus and rail transitways. Like the MAG HCT study discussed in the previous section, a later (2008) study for the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area screened high-ridership corridors to determine the potential for implementing LRT or dedicated busways. Although the earlier study found that narrow rights-of-way and community impacts would preclude such facilities in some corridors, the later study substantiated the conclusion that transit speeds and higher service frequency potentially were possible. Subsequent to the 2008 study, completion of the 2030 Transit Master Study identified arterial BRT as a potential feasible service concept for the region and cited the need to further evaluate nine corridors. Two additional corridors were selected for evaluation to provide information relating to other transit improvements (an LRT corridor) and enhancing connectivity. The arterial BRT service investigated for these corridors is defined as “…high-frequency, limited-stop…,” which offers improved speed, passenger experience, and reliability through upgrades to the vehicle, operational environment, and station quality. The assumption is that these lower cost improvements, compared to the high capital costs, construction impacts, and right-of-way demands of LRT or the dedicated busway, will reduce operating costs, improve ridership, and permit expedited implementation. The study report indicates these types of improvements in several major cities through the nation, have resulted in travel time decreases and stimulated ridership increases at a cost substantial less than that associated with LRT and dedicated busway (see chart at right). The working definition of BRT adopted for the study is comparable to the Arizona Ave/Country Club Dr LINK and Main Street LINK service provides today in the East Valley to create an efficient connection with METRO Light Rail. Figure 7 shows the essential elements of arterial BRT service identified by this study. The primary focus on this study was stimulation of new ridership through the implementation of corridor-oriented transit improvements directed toward achieving the following goals: . Mobility – Faster connections between major destinations in the corridor; . Affordability – Reduction in implementation costs; . Integration – Seamless connectivity with existing and planned transit services; . Customer Experience – Development of enhanced passenger infrastructure and information services; and . Growth – Support for anticipated growth and redevelopment in the corridor. The goal of integration could easily be expanded to include connections with all transportation modes toward achieving a multimodal transportation system. To fully evaluate the potential of investing in the eleven corridors, four study elements were followed with the intent of development BRT concepts and which were best suited for near-term implementation, including: detailed existing transit, roadway, population, and land use conditions; a review of local bus, streetcar, and BRT operational implementation and experience of peer transit agencies; development of BRT concepts to evaluate costs, benefits, and potential ridership; and prioritization on a corridor-by-corridor basis. Two corridors – West 7th Street and Snelling Avenue – were recommended for near-term implementation, as a result of this study. The Existing Conditions and Rapid Bus Concept profiles developed for these two corridors are presented in Attachment C for reference. Figure 8 shows two renderings prepared by the Santa Clara Valley (VTA) revealing how El Camino Corridor could be converted from a traditional arterial street to accommodate mixed-flow BRT service.

5 Arterial Transitway Corridors Study, prepared for Metropolitan Council and Metro Transit, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota, April, 2012.

DRAFT TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Page 18 of 38 Transit Service Improvement Strategies September, 2013 CENTRAL PHOENIX TRANSPORTATION FRAMEWORK STUDY

FIGURE 7 SYSTEM FEATURES OF ARTERIAL BRT

Source: Arterial Transitway Corridors Study, prepared for Metropolitan Council and Metro Transit, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota, April, 2012.

FIGURE 8 GRAPHIC DEPICTION OF THE CONVERSION OF EL CAMINO CORRIDOR TO ACCOMMODATE MIXED‐FLOW BRT SERVICE

Source: El Camino at http://www.vta.org/brt/el_camino.html, 2013.

DRAFT TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Page 19 of 38 Transit Service Improvement Strategies September, 2013 CENTRAL PHOENIX TRANSPORTATION FRAMEWORK STUDY 3.2.3. Express Bus Rather than relying on dedicated or exclusive busways or transitways, the earliest forms of Express Bus service were primarily oriented to suburban commuters. Generally, express buses circulated on arterials in suburban communities gathering patrons at a limited number of designated stops (often at commercial centers) and transit centers. Express buses then would access freeways or other form a of high-capacity roadway for extended non-stop travel to downtown locations. This peak-period service would be reversed in the afternoon/evening, taking patrons from the downtown to the suburbs. With the construction of P&R facilities, particularly adjacent freeways, many express buses now deviate from the freeway to the pick up passengers, then re-enter the freeway for continuance of the trip. Thus, Express Bus service does not have the capacity of HCT or BRT systems, as it has a local service component. Currently, Valley METRO operates 15 Express Bus routes in the Phoenix metropolitan area. This service provides two to six trips inbound in the morning peak period on each route, which ranges from approximately 5:00AM to 8:30AM, depending on the route. A similar number of trips are provided in the evening peak period, which ranges from approximately 3:40PM to 7:00AM, depending on the route. Despite the limitations of Express Bus service, it is able to take advantage of operational enhancements of the transportation system within the CPHX study area, such as expedited operations via direct HOV (DHOV) access ramps, better access to park-and-ride lots, and queue jumper lanes at freeway on-ramps. Express Bus routing also can be initiated to accommodate suburb-to-suburb commutes, such as the Tempe/Scottsdale Airpark Express Route 511. New Express route should be a regular consideration in transit service planning to permit examination of connectivity needs between major activity centers. Also, new/future Express routes to take advantage of planned freeway facilities, particularly SR-30 (I-10 Reliever), Loop 202 (South Mountain Freeway), SR-24, should be added to the regional planning process. The RPTA Freeway Express Bus/BRT Operating Plan (2007) presents several recommendations regarding improvements to the Express Bus service in the Valley: . Integrate Express Bus service with METRO Light Rail; . Adjust Express Bus routing to serve both Central Station and the State Capitol complex; . Express Bus service should be oriented to local bus stops in the Phoenix downtown area; . Streamline Express Bus routes to eliminate “meandering” on surface streets, with greater orientation to and connectivity with METRO Light Rail, Valley Metro trunk lines, P&R lots, and alternate travel modes; . Involve existing riders in route planning and streamlining efforts; . Improve and assure accessibility and connectivity for non-vehicular access by creating timely transfers with fixed-route service, coordinating circulators, and enhancing bicycle and pedestrian routes to transit.

3.2.4. Multi‐way Boulevard Multi-way boulevards are adopted to separate through travel lanes from local access lanes. The concept simultaneously maintains vehicle through movements and parking, while providing a calm, spacious, pedestrian and living environment for adjacent residences. In commercial sectors, the multi-way boulevard is a high-quality pedestrian zone linking multiple properties with direct vehicular access. This concept also has been employed in several locations in the CPHX study area. Three applications of this concept in Phoenix are shown in Figure 9. Figure 10 shows a plan view of Octavia Boulevard in San Francisco, considered to be the first boulevard constructed in the U.S. in the past 50 years. This example shows the full breadth of the multi-way boulevard concept. Two additional examples from California are shown in Figure 11. Multi-way boulevards should be considered on existing or new streets, where opportunities exist for substantial street development or redevelopment and width allows. The multi-way boulevard essentially isolates higher speed arterial traffic to the inner lanes, which are buffered from the access lane by a curb and, possibly, landscaping. The one-way access lanes provide convenient angled or parallel parking with direct access to a sidewalk and fronting shops in commercial zones or driveway access in residential zones. In effect, a multi-way boulevard treatment can be considered an access management strategy that can be applied during new development or redevelopment actions. The Better Cities & Towns Web site concedes that converting corridors is a difficult endeavor, due to

DRAFT TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Page 20 of 38 Transit Service Improvement Strategies September, 2013 CENTRAL PHOENIX TRANSPORTATION FRAMEWORK STUDY established right-of-way and property ownership. Recommendations for implementing a mulit-way boulevard include:

FIGURE 9 MULTI‐WAY BOULEVARD TREATMENTS, PHOENIX, ARIZONA

Dr Ln th th th N. 47 N. 46 N. 44 W. Thomas

th SIDE ACCESS N. 45

SIDE ACCESS

W. Thomas

th th st N. 39 N. N. 40

SIDE ACCESS

W. Indian School Rd Dr th th th N. 56 N. 55 N. 57

Image Source: Bing Maps, 2013.

DRAFT TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Page 21 of 38 Transit Service Improvement Strategies September, 2013 CENTRAL PHOENIX TRANSPORTATION FRAMEWORK STUDY

FIGURE 10 OCTAVIA BOULEVARD CENTRAL FREEWAY REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SAN FRANCISCO, CA

NOTE: This project actually involved replacement of the Central Freeway (US-101) north Market Street, subsequent to destruction during an earthquake of the elevated extension of US-101. Haight ST Oak St Page St Rose St Waller ST Market ST

Source: American Multi-way Boulevard Examples presentation at http://www.ci.springfield.or.us/pubworks/transportation/Glenwood/American%20multiway%20boulevard%20examples.pdf

FIGURE 11 MULTI‐WAY BOULEVARDS WITH SIDE ACCESS LANES, CALIFORNIA

EL CAMINO REAL,

SHATTUCK AVE,

Source: American Multi-way Boulevard Examples presentation at http://www.ci.springfield.or.us/pubworks/transportation/Glenwood/American%20multiway%20boulevard%20examples.pdf

DRAFT TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Page 22 of 38 Transit Service Improvement Strategies September, 2013 CENTRAL PHOENIX TRANSPORTATION FRAMEWORK STUDY . Consideration of creating a side access lane and parking on private property abutting the arterial; . Investigating set-back requirements under commercial site design standards for creation of connected, high-quality pedestrian and vehicle zone; . Focusing efforts on a strategic block(s) the is ready for redevelopment; and . Consider the addition of a bike lane to the multi-way boulevard, as this will quality the project for funding through the Complete Streets program. The City of San Francisco developed a template that identifies the basic improvements associated with implementing a multi-way boulevard (Attachment D). The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), in examining multi-way boulevard concepts proposed by communities in the state, noted that the advantage of the treatment is enhancement of the pedestrian experience at the edges of streets. The buffering associated with access lanes, also can support multi-story, intense urban development at the right-of-way line, and limiting access to the arterial lanes can result in some increase in capacity. ODOT notes there are two distinct multi-way boulevard intersection control strategies. One, associated with Shattuck Avenue in Berkeley, California (refer to Figure 11) is designed to bring all access lane traffic back into the main through lanes prior to any controlled intersection. Traffic merges tend to reduce any benefits to overall mobility. The design adopted for Octavia Boulevard in San Francisco, California (refer to Figure 10) incorporates signal controls for the main lanes and side street traffic, while the side access lanes are stop- or signal-controlled. It is important to note that no left turns are permitted from the side access lanes and right turns occur across and in front of vehicles in the side access lanes. Although throughput on the main lanes is improved by eliminating merges, traffic control at intersections is “…ambiguous or contradictory.”

3.2.5. Complete Streets “Complete streets” represents an approach to urban roadway design that seeks to create a safe, comfortable, integrated transportation environment for all users, regardless of age, ability, or mode of transportation. Thus, this urban design concept aims to establish roadway functions that safely integrate pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and public transportation. Although clearly a lofty goal, substantial resources have been invested in defining, designing, and implementing projects that achieve this objective and for good reason: . Complete streets improve traveler safety – sidewalks, raised medians, better placement, traffic- calming measures, & treatments for disabled travelers improve the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists when crossing streets and moving in a zone of motorized traffic. . Complete streets encourage walking & bicycling for health – A safer mobility environment encourages more pedestrians and bicyclists, which translates into healthy exercise. . Complete Streets can lower transportation costs for families – Urban living environments that promote more walking, biking, and public transit use permits families and individuals to reduce higher costs associated with the private automobile. . Complete Streets foster strong communities – The availability of a safe walking and bicycling environment is key to livable community initiatives that seek to create safe and welcome streets. The Complete Streets Guide published by MAG identifies goals, strategies, and a planning process communities of the region can reference when reviewing their street design policies. The Guide seeks to provide the necessary resources to ensure bicycles, pedestrians, and public transit are recognized as integral to a properly designed and functioning street. The Complete Streets concept is important to transit in two ways. One, connectivity with walking and biking modes can significantly increase the travel distance for members of the community. By creating safer environments for accessing transit, walking and biking becomes more viable options when persons consider their trips. The second important aspect of the Complete Streets concept for transit is safer and expeditious movement of transit vehicle along the streets. Because the concept specifically addresses the mobility needs of each transportation mode, public transit is not relegated to a subordinate position on the street, which generally is the condition most often occurring on CHPX study area arterials today. The MAG Guide provides an examination of six different development/activity conditions and presents sample design outcomes based on the principles defined in the Guide. Each of these “outcomes” includes specific accommodation of public transit.

DRAFT TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Page 23 of 38 Transit Service Improvement Strategies September, 2013 CENTRAL PHOENIX TRANSPORTATION FRAMEWORK STUDY 3.3 Transit Operational Innovations Technological innovations can improve the convenience and experience of transit trips. A convenient listing of numerous technological and service innovations is presented on the MetroTransit Web site, the regional transit provider for the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area.6 These innovations are presented for public review as part of an effort to improve transit travel and contribute to quality of life goals of the community. Several of these strategies for enhancing transit effectiveness and efficiency already have been implemented by Valley METRO, as highlighted in italics.

3.3.1. Transit Technologies Numbered Bus Stop Signs – Identifying the Stop Number allows riders to get real-time bus departure information. Valley Metro recently implemented this service strategy systemwide. Mobile Compatibility and Apps – A transit system Web site in a version specially formatted for mobile devices and Applications (Apps) available through third-party developers makes use of the system more convenient. Valley Metro has established a Mobile site. Real-Time Departure Information – Real-time information can be made available via phone, web, and mobile device and on signs at bus stops, Park & Rides (P&R), and transit centers. The Valley Metro NextRide electronic service recently implemented by Valley Metro, lets riders use their phone or Internet connection to gain information regarding the next arrival and future arrivals of buses or by route number and STOP#. Smart Park-and-Ride Facilities – Freeway signs near P&R facilities can be employed to show the estimated travel times to downtown for vehicles in general traffic lanes compared to buses traveling in transit-advantage lanes. The signs also can show how many parking spaces are available at the upcoming P&R lot as an enticement to motorists to use transit. Transit Signal Priority – These systems enable buses to communicate with traffic signals and gain green time on approach to an intersection, if such a request will not disrupt overall traffic conditions. Valley METRO Light Rail and BRT-LINK vehicles have on-board traffic signal priority technology. Audio Bus Notification – An audio message as a transit vehicle approaches a stop, intersection, or cross-street give riders information regarding any connecting routes, and the information also can be displayed inside the bus; riders outside at a stop also can hear route number and destination information. This communication practice originally was employed on Valley METRO Light Rail vehicles, but was scaled back. Additional applications are under review.

3.3.2. Go Green Transit options available today can not only make the transit fleet and facilities more energy efficient and cleaner but, also, improve the overall efficiency and air quality of the community. The following strategies identified at the MetroTransit Web site are notable. A summary of “Green” initiatives associated with the Valley METRO system is provided at the agency’s Web site.7 Efficient Ride – Taking the bus or train or sharing the ride through carpooling or vanpooling produces fewer emissions and reduces congestion, which is a factor in excessive emissions. Valley METRO supports an aggressive rideshare program, marketing the practice to employers and individuals. Some and train shelters incorporate solar-cooling, living or landscaped roofs, or designs and shelter orientation to minimize energy use and provide rider/user comfort, thereby encouraging greater transit usage. Cleaner, More Efficient Vehicles – Newer buses can be deployed using renewable, ultra-low sulfur fuel with a biodiesel blend or natural gas options that produce less greenhouse age emissions, improved tired design and materials that improve fuel efficiency, and onboard electrical systems that Source: Efficient ride = greener ride, Go Greener, Transit Improvements, MetroTransit, support all-electric operations resulting in Zero emissions. Most Valley 2013 METRO Buses operate on Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) or Liquefied Natural Gas

6 “Transit Improvements,” About MetroTransit at http://www.metrotransit.org/transit-improvements. 7 “Green by Design,” Valley METRO at http://www.valleymetro.org/images/uploads/agency_transitresearch/2012_Valley_Metro_Agency_Green_Fact_Sheet.pdf.

DRAFT TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Page 24 of 38 Transit Service Improvement Strategies September, 2013 CENTRAL PHOENIX TRANSPORTATION FRAMEWORK STUDY (LNG) and new hybrid diesel buses have been added to the fleet. Also, the agency has outfitted buses with an environmentally-friendly, high-capacity air conditioning system refrigerant suitable for the hot desert climate and installed a heavy duty fan system to aid in extending fuel mileage. Cleaner, More Efficient Facilities – More efficient lighting systems, special insulated exterior doors, digital heating and cooling systems, and innovative operating methods (e.g., shoulder running and bus-only lanes in congested downtown areas) reduce energy costs and emissions. Environmental controls at the Valley Metro Operations and Maintenance Center for the METRO Light Rail automatically adjust lighting, heating, and cooling to maximize energy efficiency and the vehicle washing facility includes a water reclamation process. Shoulder running, however, is not permitted on State highways at this time. Add Vehicle Doors – Adding an additional door to the transit vehicle aids in expediting and alighting and, thereby, saves energy by reducing dwell times at stops. The LINK BRT vehicle shown at left has been deployed by Valley Metro to connect portions of Mesa, Chandler, and Gilbert with the METRO Light Rail; it has three doors.

3.3.3. Transit Advantages Bus-Only Shoulders – Transit works best when it can avoid Source: Valley Metro LINK Service at valleymetro.org, 2013. general traffic congestion and, thereby, gain an advantage. Advantage can be gained by having buses travel on highway shoulders for trip segments where congestion causes undue delay for transit. Valley METRO does not have bus-only shoulders for operations, but the DHOV access ramps on Interstate 10 at 79th Avenue gives transit vehicles an advantage with respect to accessing the 79th Avenue P&R lot. Ramp-Meter Bypass – This strategy allows buses to gain an operating advantage by not having to stop for ramp meter signals. Adopt-A-Shelter – A shelter adopter, whether an individual or a group, assists the transit operator by identifying special maintenance needs and reporting vandalism or suspicious activity, an activity that gives transit an advantage by improving perceptions of the system and providing a safe and clean environment for riders.

3.4 Strategies to Improve Public Transit Performance Clearly, there are a multitude of strategies for improving the performance of public transit services and facilities. Each of the strategies cited below has the potential to improve transit performance, improve energy use, and reduce emissions.8 However, they also tend to be long-term solutions that will require careful planning and coordination among and between the communities of the CPHX study area as well as a funding strategy. Several already have been implemented by Valley Metro, as indicated in italics.  Strategies to increase fuel efficiency – . Acquire new or upgrade diesel buses to gain fuel efficiency. Valley METRO’s buses fueled by diesel are clean-burning with particulate soot traps. . Acquire or convert buses to create hybrid operations. Most Valley METRO buses use Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) or Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) and new hybrid electric/diesel buses have been added to the fleet. . Upgrade/retrofit rail vehicles with regenerative braking. The METRO Light Rail fleet of Kinkisharyo vehicles is equipped with regenerative braking that puts energy back into the system on braking. . Evaluate and upgrade/retrofit station lighting and heating and cooling system in transit-related facilities. Valley METRO’s newer buses have an environmentally-friendly, high-capacity air conditioning system refrigerant designed for hot desert summer temperatures, and an LRT station in downtown Phoenix provides solar-cooled air conditioning for passengers.  Strategies to increase operational efficiency – . Grade separations, where feasible to reduce transit vehicle delays.

8 “Evaluating Public Transit As An Energy Conservation and Emission Reduction Strategy.” Todd Litman, Victoria Policy Institute (VTPI), July 26, 2011.

DRAFT TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Page 25 of 38 Transit Service Improvement Strategies September, 2013 CENTRAL PHOENIX TRANSPORTATION FRAMEWORK STUDY . Install bus prioritization capabilities to reduce transit vehicle delays. . Increase the opportunities for users to acquire pre-paid . Valley METRO retail fare sales locations are located throughout the system’s service area. . Construct bus pull-outs. Numerous bus pull-outs have been installed along the Valley’s major arterials.  Encourage Transit Oriented Development (TOD) characterized by clustered development with good walking and cycling conditions and good access to transit services/facilities (see also Section 3.7.1)– . Integrate transit services and facilities with land use. METRO Light Rail developed a TOD policy in 2008 and works with communities to implement TOD-related efforts – see Attachment E for synopsis of TOD effort as of February 29, 2012. The cities of Phoenix and Tempe have created overlay zoning to guide new development and site modifications. Also see Transit-Oriented Development under Section 3.6, Transit Supportive Policies. . Create compact, attractive shopping and mixed-use development with convenient, all-weather stations. METRO Light Rail has been instrumental in stimulating new development, e.g., Arizona State University Downtown Campus and a mixed-use commercial, apartments, and parking development at the southeast corner of Apache Boulevard and McClintock Drive. . Develop enhanced accessibility to/from stations. The City of Phoenix prepared the Economic Development Strategy to address potential development and redevelopment opportunities associated with LRT service in station areas within the city. The City of Tempe prepared Station Area Plans for the Dorsey, McClintock, Smith-Martin, and Price Freeway Stations in the Apache Boulevard Corridor. The City of Mesa prepared the West Main Street Plan.  Consider parking management policies – . Parking Cash-Out – Offer employees, who receive free parking, the option of cash or transit subsidy. . Unbundling – Building tenants pay only for the amount of parking desired or needed. . Reduced parking supply requirements on new developments coupled with transit subsidy.  Transit‐Supportive Strategies (see also Section 3.7) – . Roadway and parking pricing designed to shift drivers to high-quality transit service. . Encourage Smart Growth practices integrated with transit service planning – Smart Growth explicitly refers to compact, mixed-use development and redevelopment within existing urban areas in contrast to dispersed, automobile-dependent development at the urban fringe: o Improves accessibility and liveability rather than increasing system capacity o Reduces public infrastructure and service area costs o Reduces environmental impacts, helping to improve air quality.

3.5 Transit System Asset Management – “State of Good Repair” Two areas of contemporary emphasis have become intertwined through an emphasis on “State of Good Repair” (SGR) and transit asset management, as incorporated in MAP-21. MAP-21, Section 5337, created a new formula-based State of Good Repair (SGR) program dedicated to establishing sustainable transit services specifically relative to rail transit systems and high-intensity motor bus systems. SGR essentially is an outgrowth of asset (transit system) management, which encompasses activities extending well beyond day-to-day operations to developing and maintaining a supportive life-cycle investment program that addresses preventive maintenance, rehabilitations, and scheduled replacement. The MAP-21 program seeks to ensure “…public transit operates safely, efficiently, reliably, and sustainably so that communities can offer balanced transportation choices that help to improve mobility, reduce congestion, and encourage economic development.”9 Another part of MAP-21, Transit Asset Management (Section 5326), actually directs the Federal Transit Administration to establish a national transit asset management system, which includes definition of “State of Good Repair.” This will involve setting objective standards for gauging the condition of capital assets, which includes rolling stock (e.g., rail cars and buses), equipment, infrastructure (e.g., rail line and HOV lanes), and facilities.

9 Fact Sheet: State of Good Repair Grants, Section 5337, MAP-21, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century, Federal Transit Administration at http://www.fta.dot.gov (See Attachment ___).

DRAFT TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Page 26 of 38 Transit Service Improvement Strategies September, 2013 CENTRAL PHOENIX TRANSPORTATION FRAMEWORK STUDY Performance measures will be defined and local operators will be required to set targets to meet these new standards. A recent SGR project carried out by the City of Phoenix Public Transit Department involved upgrading and refurbishing the North Operations and Maintenance Facility. Although the Section 5337 funding currently is directed toward capital project to modernize or improve existing (older than seven years old) fixed guideway systems, other SGR projects that typically may be implemented by transit systems include: . Replace buses that are beyond their useful life with new, clean-burning vehicles (e.g., CNG, LPG, hybrid-electric, and clean diesel); . Rehabilitate transit vehicles to extend their useful life; . Upgrade asset management system software and processing equipment to more effectively track the condition of capital assets; . Upgrade or replace fueling facilities to accommodate CNG and LPG storage and provide for gas detection and fire suppression systems; . Upgrade or acquire new communications equipment (including satellite radios for vehicles) that complies with Federal Communications Commission (FCC) standards; . Installation of bike racks and other transit stop amenities, including repairs and access improvements, especially improvements to meet the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); . Structural repairs and maintenance of transit centers; . Construction of new intermodal center; . Scheduling software that allows the transit provider to send reminder phone calls for demand response (DR) trips and gives customers the opportunity to confirm or alter their scheduled trips; . Replace fareboxes and other point-of-sale equipment; and . Replace or acquire emergency generating equipment and fund other emergency-preparedness projects;

3.6 Transit System/Rider Interface “Transit stops are the gateways to public transportation. Each one welcomes riders into the system and provides a transition point for entry into the community.”10 This lead-in to the Purpose of Study to MAG’s Designing Transit Accessible Communities Study sets the stage for examining efforts to achieve pedestrian connectivity with transit service – the transit/rider interface, especially the elimination of barriers and interfering conditions transit patrons face going to and leaving transit stops. The result of this study was definition of strategies to improve the transit patron experience have, based on careful and deliberate considerations of the conditions and characteristics of transit stops in the Phoenix metropolitan area. The transit interface improvements cited in Figure 12 were developed during this study and folded into a “toolkit” for local communities to utilize in their transit service planning. The toolkit was created to provide “context sensitive” guidance regarding optimal or recommended streetscape and roadway infrastructure improvements for five specific Bus Stop Prototypes. The guidance is intended to aid communities in decision-making that supports safe and comfortable bus stop accessibility via foot and by bicycle and fosters positive change in coordinating and The MAG report summarizes two sets of strategies that can be implemented at the local and regional levels to improve the transit experience for Valley residents (Figure 12). The implementation strategies are categorized in the following manner: Prioritize, Outreach, Funding, and Policy and Guidance. It is recommended that these strategies be considered when considering implementation of multimodal improvements, specifically in transit catchment areas, and when addressing transit accessibility issues associated with future transit and community development programs. The intent is that the strategies identified will support local communities and agencies in efforts to plan for transit stop areas and environments that are safe, comfortable and inviting. The Bus Stop Prototypes, toolkit, and checklist for transit stop location and design provide a roadmap for improvements to integrating roadway and land use environments near bus stops throughout the MAG region. The toolkit includes relative to 11 potential improvements discussions of: issues relating to the type of improvement; characteristics describing the important of the improvement; improvement considerations; planning/policy guidance; and applicability to the improvement to the different Bus Stop Prototypes.

10 Designing Transit Accessible Communities Study, Final Report, Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG).

DRAFT TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Page 27 of 38 Transit Service Improvement Strategies September, 2013 CENTRAL PHOENIX TRANSPORTATION FRAMEWORK STUDY

FIGURE 12 POTENTIAL TRANSIT/USER INTERFACE IMPROVEMENT STRATEGIES

 Lighting – Important feature at bus stops and nearby street crossings used to access the bus stops for the safety and comfort of pedestrians and transit patrons.  Information Signage – Riders need to have easy, reliable, and up‐to‐date information regarding the availability and capability of transit service.  Wayfinding – Includes physical and visual elements (e.g., paths, landmarks, nodes, edges and districts) that orient and aid people in reaching their destination.  Seating – Provided independent of bus shelters, some form of seating offers comfort and convenience at bus stops.  Shelter – Provides protective shade, seating, protection from the elements, and serves as a prominent visual guide for transit stops and a recognizable transit system identifier.  Landscape Shading – Provides relief from the direct effects of uncomfortable environmental conditions like heat and sun.  Adjacent Land Uses – Locating bus stops adjacent to land uses that generate the most activity provides “eyes on the street,” enhancing the personal safety of transit system patrons; adjacency to commercial development can be useful to transit patrons and result in economic benefits to the community from transit investment.  Bicycle Access – Important extension of any transit system, as it improves mobility, extends and enhances transit service quality, and reduces reliance on automobiles.  Bicycle Parking – Allowing bicycles on buses and providing bicycle accommodations at bus stops can greatly expand the service area of a transit system.  Pedestrian Crossings – Improvements can include: marked crosswalks, traffic signals, pedestrian refuges, and curb extensions; pedestrian crossings should be as short as possible, reducing the amount of time pedestrians are expose to cross traffic.  Sidewalk ‐ Widening and detaching sidewalks from the street with “buffer zones” accommodates heavier and safer pedestrian movements, which improves real and perceived pedestrian safety.

Source: Designing Transit Accessible Communities Study, Final Report, Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG).

DRAFT TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Page 28 of 38 Transit Service Improvement Strategies September, 2013 CENTRAL PHOENIX TRANSPORTATION FRAMEWORK STUDY

FIGURE 13 LOCAL AND REGIONAL IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES

Source: Designing Transit Accessible Communities Study, Final Report, Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG).

existing stop areas and development of new stop areas that can facilitate creation of transit service system integrated and coordinated among and between communities in the MAG region.

3.7 Transit‐Supportive Policies The Ontario Ministry of Transportation (Province of Ontario, Canada) recently published a revised set of Transit-Supportive Guidelines (Figure 14). According to a presentation prepared by the Ministry, the Guidelines are intended to support the efficient and effective provision of transit services throughout the Province by assisting municipalities in the implementation of transit-supportive policies.11 It is important to note that these policies are in many ways consistent with current efforts associated with the regional framework plans developed by MAG. The framework plans seek to anticipate growth and promote a pro-active initiative to assure the availability of rights-of-way to permit the construction of needed future roadways and more fully accommodate new transit facilities and services. The Ministry Guidelines specifically now includes a comprehensive section identifying Transit Improvement Strategies within the following areas:

11 Presentation: “Ontario’s 2012 Transit-Supportive Guidelines,” Ontario East Municipal Conference, September 12, 2012, Ministry of Transportation at http://www.slideshare.net/OntarioEast/transit-supportive-guidelines-overview.

DRAFT TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Page 29 of 38 Transit Service Improvement Strategies September, 2013 CENTRAL PHOENIX TRANSPORTATION FRAMEWORK STUDY

FIGURE 14 TRANSIT SUPPORTIVE PLANNING POLICIES

 Integrating transportation and land use considerations at all stages of the planning process;  Identifying growth areas, nodes and corridors;  Emphasizing intensification and the creation of a more compact urban form;  Promoting a land use pattern, density and mix of uses that minimize the length and number of vehicle trips and support transit as a viable mode choice;  Promoting energy efficiency and improved air quality through land use and development patterns which promote the use of public transit and other alternative transportation modes; and  Protecting corridors and rights‐of‐way for transit and transit‐related facilities.

Source Introduction, Transit Improvement Guidelines in Transit-Supportive Guidelines, Ontario Ministry or Transportation, 2012

. System Service and Operations; . Planning and Performance Monitoring; . Trip Planning and Navigation; . Passenger Accommodation and Service; and . Ridership Strategies.12 These improvement strategies are outlined in Figure 15. The objective of the guidelines is to provide a framework for effecting transit-supportive urban planning and design policies in concert with best practices in transit planning and delivery of customer-oriented transit service. Through this guidance, Ontario seeks to establish strategies for achieving increases in ridership by examining and applicability of a range of tools, management approaches, and technologies.

3.7.1. Transit‐Oriented Development (TOD) The Board of Sound Transit, the Regional Transit Authority for Puget Sound, Seattle, Washington, recently adopted a transit-oriented development (TOD) policy with the intention of achieving increased ridership by promoting "positive land use and development," specifically relative to areas within walking distance of transit facilities. The policy directs the Authority to develop at TOD Strategic Plan and supporting procedures and guidelines for its implementation. The Authority is looking to identify and implement strategies that establish the transit system’s stations “…as magnets for vibrant commercial and residential projects that create places where people want to live, work and play, attracting even more riders."13 According to the report in Progressive Railroading, the policy provides guidance for supporting TOD strategies specifically relating to Authority’s own properties, but also in areas surrounding its stations and recognizes that implementing the policy will require working closely with local jurisdictions as well as private partners. The TOD policy embraces all aspects of the system’s regional expansion of 36 additional LRT miles, including planning, construction, and operations. It directs officials of the Authority to work with other governmental agencies and the private sector to:

12 Chapter 3: Transit Improvement Guidelines in Transit-Supportive Guidelines, Ontario Ministry or Transportation, 2012. 13 “Sound Transit to develop transit-oriented development strategy,” in Progressive Railroading, Passenger Rail, News, December 27, 2012.

DRAFT TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Page 30 of 38 Transit Service Improvement Strategies September, 2013 CENTRAL PHOENIX TRANSPORTATION FRAMEWORK STUDY . identify and preserve right-of-way for transit FIGURE 15 facilities; TRANSIT IMPROVEMENT STRATEGIES . develop regional and local policies and plans that support TOD; . develop and implement financial, land use and other System Service and Operations strategies to encourage TOD; and  Transit Service Types . develop and implement stakeholder advocacy.14  Transit Scheduling  Demand–Responsive Transit Services Locally, , Inc., (METRO Light Rail)  Transit Travel Time TOD policy promotes high quality, more intensive Planning and Performance Monitoring development on and near properties adjacent to the LRT line, recognizing that this position can increase ridership  Performance Monitoring and Evaluation and support for long-term system capacity. Specifically,  Data Collection and Analysis the policy supports increasing TOD projects “…through  New Technologies creative planning and development partnerships with local  Asset Management communities,” and advocating “…for city-centered local Trip Planning and Navigation general plan and zoning regulation amendments,” and  Static Trip Planning Information coordinating “…with local governments and developers  Real‐time Trip Planning Information on [METRO] initiatives by applying a “good neighbor”  Wayfinding for Transit Facilities approach to gain a proper understanding of mutual 15 Passenger Accommodation and Service opportunities, issues and concerns.”  Universal Design for Accessibility The cities of Phoenix, Tempe, and Mesa have taken  Access for Cyclists actions to stimulate development in association with the  Amenities and Services investment in the METRO Light Rail system (refer to  Safety and Security Section 3.4, Strategies to Improvement Public Transit Performance). As of the summer of 2013, private Ridership Strategies development attributed to the METRO Light Rail line in  Fare Strategies the three cities has spawned 169 projects with a capital  Changing Demographics investment value of $5.39 billion.16 This represents an  Targeting Ridership through Partnerships investment that is 3.6 times the public capital investment  Promotion and Education of $1.48 billion expended for the METRO Light Rail  Transportation Demand Management system. Five TOD projects have been singled out as prime examples of the beneficial impact of the METRO Source Chapter 3: Transit Improvement Guidelines in Transit-Supportive Guidelines, Ontario Ministry or Light Rail construction (Figure 16). Transportation, 2012 3.7.2. Mobility Management Mobility management strategies focus on moving persons not vehicles and the number of persons in each vehicle. In this way, the focus of transit service turns to policies and strategies designed to (1) enhance the ability of transit system patrons to reach their destinations and (2) improve accessibility of the system through integrated solutions involving all modes of travel. The TransMilenio BRT system in Bogota, Columbia, had expanded to 11 operating lines, totaling 54 route miles serving 114 stations, since its inaugural runs in December, 2000. The system, however, became a victim of its own success; an overcrowded, deteriorated state emerged in 2012. Figure 17 shows the TransMilenio route structure, which is very similar to major subway systems in New York and London, and images of service. The management of TransMilenio, which operates what is commonly recognized as the world’s highest capacity BRT system, examined a number of proposed short-term strategies to relieve overcrowding and improve operations, as cited below:17

14 Ibid. 15 METRO TOD Policy at http://www.valleymetro.org/metro_projects_planning/metro_tod_policy, 2013. 16 Light Rail Economic Development – Highlights, Valley METRO, Summer, 2013, at http://www.valleymetro.org/images/uploads/agency_transitresearch/B- Economic_Dev_Highlights_07-11-13_WEB.PDF. 17 Source: Report on South American Bus Rapid Transit Field Visits: Tracking the Evolution of the TransMilenio Model, Final Report, FTA USDOT, December, 2007.

DRAFT TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Page 31 of 38 Transit Service Improvement Strategies September, 2013 CENTRAL PHOENIX TRANSPORTATION FRAMEWORK STUDY

FIGURE 16 METRO LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT‐ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT: HIGHLIGHTED PROJECTS

Campbell/Central Avenue Phoenix

Washington/Central Avenue- Jefferson/1stAve Phoenix

Dorsey/Apache Blvd Tempe (Future)

McClintock Dr/Apache Blvd Tempe

Sycamore/Main St Mesa (Future)

Source: Light Rail Economic Development – Highlights, Valley METRO, Summer 2013.

DRAFT TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Page 32 of 38 Transit Service Improvement Strategies September, 2013 CENTRAL PHOENIX TRANSPORTATION FRAMEWORK STUDY

FIGURE 17 ROUTE STRUCTURE AND SERVICE IMAGES: TRANSMILENIO BRT SYSTEM, BOGOTA, COLUMBIA

Source: TransMilenio Web site at http://www.transmilenio.gov.co/WebSite/Default.aspx.

Credit: Scott Dalton for The New York Times Credit: Scott Dalton for The New York Times Source: Bogota’s New Transit System, World, The New York Times, 2013, at http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2009/07/10/world/0710BOGOTA_index.html .

Source: TransMilenio Web site at http://www.transmilenio.gov.co/WebSite/Default.aspx.

DRAFT TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Page 33 of 38 Transit Service Improvement Strategies September, 2013 CENTRAL PHOENIX TRANSPORTATION FRAMEWORK STUDY . First – Evaluate upgrades to the control system to be fully operational with cameras and citywide coverage with the objective of reducing bus bunching and resulting load imbalances. . Second – Investigate the potential of transit signal priority and coordination to achieve shorter delays at intersections (Note: This strategy was considered potentially effective only at intersections not already operating at capacity). Recent reports on system operations indicate the buses receive priority.18 . Third – Consider larger stations and longer vehicles (bi-articulated) for Express services, even though significant capital investment will be required. It has been reported that the agency is integrating new bi-articulated buses into the overall system as station modifications permit (see Figure 17 for photo of the new bus).19 . Fourth – Evaluate increasing short-turning capabilities to achieve greater operational flexibility. . Fifth – Examine the potential for diversifying the points of sale for fare cards by installing machines in convenience stores and other locations frequented by passengers, as a means of reducing wait times to purchase or reload cards. Recent reporting indicates this strategy has not yet been implemented; backups occur during heavy travel times as a result of riders purchasing trip cards at stations.20 Other strategies evaluated included: . Feeder network to trunk-line services. More recent reporting indicates an extensive system of private buses (“Colectivos”) operate as circulators through the city; however, this system is not integrated formally with the TansMilenio BRT operation.21 The city was developing in 2011 an Integrated Public Transportation System, but the resulting system may prove too large of the operational capabilities of the BRT system.22 A blog post prepared for the International Federation for Housing and Planning indicates a “smart card” is in use for the TransMilenio BRT service, but not for the many colectivos acting as feeders and circulators.23 . Linking the BRT project to larger urban renewal or mobility programs. . Establishing nonmotorized access, evaluating parking policies, examining redevelopment of public spaces, and reviewing reallocation of valuable road space.

3.7.3. Actions to Encourage Transit Ridership Public transit systems support a relatively small portion of total travel in urbanized areas. However, they do serve a much larger portion of certain types of travel involving the transit-dependent population; therefore, public transit is an effective solution to certain transport problems. The Victoria (Canada) Transport Policy Institute has determined that public transit service is most suitable for: (1) medium-distance trips in urban areas or on any corridor with adequate demand, and (2) as an alternative mode for travelers, who, for any reason, cannot use a private automobile (i.e., the transit-dependent user). The Institute’s Online TDM Encyclopedia identifies a number of strategies for improving public transit service and encouraging increased ridership, as shown in Figure 18. The Institute’s TDM Encyclopedia cites the Phoenix area RAPID service operated by Valley METRO as a service that has caught on with the commuters. It also highlights the FTA Web site Innovative Practices for Increased Ridership.24 At this site, two practices in Arizona are documented: Tempe in Motion Marketing Campaign (City of Tempe) and Coyote Run (Town of Oro Valley). The former seeks to convey to citizens that riding the bus, bicycling, and walking are accessible and convenient modes of transportation. The City also engages in events and promotions, as well as a comprehensive advertising and public relations campaign, to raise awareness. The latter program is a service focusing on improving ridership, but mostly mobility, for the Town’s transportation-dependent population and persons over 62 years of age and/or with a disability. The great satisfaction rating for the service has been attributed to: (1) an emphasis on safety (safety certificates are awarded annually to drivers for safe driving), and (2) a focus on compassion and customer service.

18 “Bogota’s TransMilenio serves as model for Cincinnati’s planned BRT” in UrbanCincy, Randy A. Simes, May 9, 2011. 19 Ibid. 20 Ibid 21 Ibid. 22 “TransMilenio: The Good, the Bus, and the Ugly” in EMBARQ Network. 23 “Mobility in Bogota,” International Federation for Housing and Planning, December 3, 2012, Monday 14:54. 24 “Innovative Practices for Increased Ridership,” Federal Transit Administration at http://ftawebprod.fta.dot.gov/BPIR/splash-BPIR.aspx.

DRAFT TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Page 34 of 38 Transit Service Improvement Strategies September, 2013 CENTRAL PHOENIX TRANSPORTATION FRAMEWORK STUDY

FIGURE 18 STRATEGIES FOR TRANSIT IMPROVEMENT AND ENCOURAGING TRANSIT RIDERSHIP

 Increase service ‐ more routes, increased frequency, and longer operating hours.  Improved coordination among modes ‐ buses, trains, and .  Transit Priority ‐ bus lanes, queue‐jumper lanes, bus‐priority traffic signals, and other measures that reduce delay to transit vehicles. Grade separation so transit is not delayed by cross‐streets and traffic congestion.  Reallocate Road Space to transit and walking.  Comfort improvements, such as reduced crowding, better seats and cleaner vehicles.  Improved Stops and Stations, including shelter (enclosed waiting areas, with heating in winter and cooling in summer), seating, Wayfinding and other Navigation Tools, washrooms, refreshments, Internet services, and other convenience and comfort features.  Lower fares and discounts, and more convenient fare payment (such as electronic “smart cards”).  Improved rider information and Marketing programs, including real‐time information on transit vehicle arrival.  Transit Oriented Development and Smart Growth, which result in land use patterns more suitable for transit transportation [these concepts emphasize accessibility over travel movements].  Pedestrian and Cycling Improvements that improve access around transit stops.  Bike and Transit Integration (bike racks on buses, bike routes and Bicycle Parking near transit stops).  Universal Design of vehicles, stations and pedestrian facilities to accommodate people with disabilities and other special needs.  Park & Ride facilities.  Reform transport Regulations and Organizations to increase transit service efficiency and responsiveness (PPIAF 2006).  Improved Security for transit users and pedestrians.  Multi‐Modal Access Guides, which includes maps, schedules, contact numbers and other information on how to reach a particular destination by public transit.  Services targeting particular travel needs, such as express commuter buses, Special Event service, and various types of Shuttle Services.

Source: “Transit Improvements,” Improved Transport Options, TDM Strategies in TDM Encyclopedia, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (VTPI), Updated August 28, 2013.

DRAFT TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Page 35 of 38 Transit Service Improvement Strategies September, 2013 CENTRAL PHOENIX TRANSPORTATION FRAMEWORK STUDY

4.0 Federal Program Support for Transit Service Enhancement The U.S. Congress establishes legal authority for the FTA to commence and continue transit-supportive programs through authorizing legislation covering several years. MAP-21, cited earlier, was signed by President Obama on July 6, 2012. This Act reauthorized surface transportation programs through Fiscal Year (FY) 2014. As of today, the FTA administers 20 separate programs directed toward enhancing development and delivery of public transit services in communities through the . A summary of these programs is shown in Table 2. Attachment F provides for reader reference Fact Sheets describing key features of each program.

DRAFT TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Page 36 of 38 Transit Service Improvement Strategies September, 2013 CENTRAL PHOENIX TRANSPORTATION FRAMEWORK STUDY

TABLE 2 FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION (FTA) PROGRAMS FOR TRANSIT ENHANCEMENT Section #, Program Title Summary Description 49 U.S.C. 5331 Alcohol and Controlled Maintains authority for the U.S. Secretary of Transportation to establish a

Substances Testing program requiring grantees to conduct pre‐employment, reasonable suspicion, random, and post‐accident testing of public transportation employees responsible for safety‐sensitive functions.

5339 Bus and Bus Facilities Provides capital funding to replace, rehabilitate, and purchase buses and related equipment and to construct bus‐related facilities.

Bus Testing Facilities Provides for an FTA‐funded bus testing facility, where all new models purchased using FTA capital assistance must be tested to meet performance standards for safety, structural integrity, reliability, performance (including braking performance), maintainability, emissions, noise, and fuel economy. 5310 Enhanced Mobility of Seniors & Intended to enhance mobility for seniors and persons with disabilities by

Individuals with Disabilities providing funds for programs to serve the special needs of transit‐dependent populations beyond traditional public transportation services and complementary Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) paratransit services. 5309 Fixed‐Guideway Capital Provides grants for new and expanded rail, bus rapid transit, and systems Investment Grants that reflect local priorities to improve transportation options in key corridors. This program defines a new category of eligible projects, known as “core capacity projects,” that expand capacity by at least 10% in existing fixed‐ guideway transit corridors already at or above capacity today, or expected to be at or above capacity within five years. The program also includes provisions for streamlining aspects of the New Starts process to increase efficiency and reduce time required to meet critical milestones. Flexible Funding Programs ‐ Provides support for maintaining the condition and performance of the National National Highway Performance Highway System (NHS), constructing new facilities on the NHS, and ensuring

Program (NHPP) investments of Federal‐aid funds in highway construction are directed to support progress toward the achievement of performance targets established in a State’s Asset Management Plan for the NHS. This is a new program under MAP‐21. Flexible Funding Programs ‐ Provides funding that may be used by States and localities for a wide range of Surface Transportation Program projects to preserve and improve the conditions and performance of surface

(STP) transportation, including highway, transit, intercity bus, bicycle and pedestrian projects. This program encourages communities to examine and fund various multimodal opportunities within the transportation system. Flexible Funding Programs ‐ The TAP program consolidates funding from FHWA’s former Transportation Transportation Alternatives Enhancements, Recreational Trails, and Safe Routes to School programs. A

Program (TAP) number of transit‐related planning, design, and construction activities are eligible to compete for program funds.

5311 Formula Grants for Rural Area Provides capital, planning, and operating assistance to states to support public transportation in rural areas with populations less than 50,000, where many residents often rely on public transit to reach their destinations. 5322 Human Resources & Training FTA may make grants or enter into contracts for human resource and workforce development programs as they apply to public transportation activities. Such programs may include: Employment training; an outreach program to increase minority and female employment in public transportation activities; research on public transportation personnel and training needs; and training and assistance for minority business opportunities. This is a new program under MAP‐21. 5303, 5304, Metropolitan & Statewide Provides funding and establishes procedural requirements for multimodal 5305 Planning and Non‐Metropolitan transportation planning in metropolitan areas and states that follows the 3C Transportation Planning process (cooperative, continuous, and comprehensive) and results in long‐range plans and short‐range programs of transportation investment priorities. Planning programs are jointly administered by FTA and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), which provides additional funding.

DRAFT TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Page 37 of 38 Transit Service Improvement Strategies September, 2013 CENTRAL PHOENIX TRANSPORTATION FRAMEWORK STUDY

TABLE 3 ‐ FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION (FTA) PROGRAMS FOR TRANSIT ENHANCEMENT (CONTINUED) Section #, Program Title Summary Description 49 U.S.C.

Program Consolidation Focuses on improving the efficiency of grant program operations by consolidating certain programs and repealing other programs. This is a new initiative under MAP‐21. 5324 Public Transportation Emergency Helps states and public transportation systems pay for protecting, repairing,

Relief Program and/or replacing equipment and facilities that may suffer or have suffered serious damage resulting from an emergency, including natural disasters, such as floods, hurricanes, and tornadoes. Improves coordination between the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to expedite assistance to public transit providers in times of disasters and emergencies. 5312 Research, Development, Supports research activities that improve the safety, reliability, efficiency, and Demonstration, and Deployment sustainability of public transportation by investing in development, testing, and Projects deployment of innovative technologies, materials, and processes; carries out related endeavors; and supports the demonstration and deployment of low‐ emission and no‐emission vehicles to promote clean energy and improve air quality.

5337 State of Good Repair Grants Commitment to ensuring that public transit operates safely, efficiently, reliably, and sustainably so that communities can offer balanced transportation choices that help to improve mobility, reduce congestion, and encourage economic development. This new MAP‐21 formula‐based State of Good Repair program is FTA’s first stand‐alone initiative written into law that is dedicated to repairing and upgrading the nation’s rail transit systems along with high‐intensity motor bus systems that use high‐occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, including bus rapid transit (BRT). 5314 Technical Assistance & Standards Provides capital funding to replace, rehabilitate, and purchase buses and

Development related equipment and to construct bus‐related facilities. 5326 Transit Asset Management Establishes new requirements for Transit Asset Management by FTA’s grantees as well as new reporting requirements to promote accountability. The goal of improved Transit Asset Management is to implement a strategic approach for assessing needs and prioritizing investments for bringing the nation’s public transit systems into a State of Good Repair.

5329 Transit Safety & Oversight Grants FTA the authority to establish and enforce a new comprehensive framework to oversee the safety of public transportation throughout the United States, as it pertains to heavy rail, light rail, buses, ferries, and streetcars. This is a new requirement of MAP‐21 requiring, among other things, that FTA update the State Safety Oversight (SSO) program to ensure rail transit systems are meeting stringent safety requirements. MAP‐21 also includes important new safety provisions for bus‐only operators. FTA will implement the new law in consultation with the transit community and DOT’s Transit Rail Advisory Committee for Safety (TRACS), which has been working since September of 2010 to help guide this effort. Transit Oriented Development Provides funding to advance planning efforts that support Transit‐Oriented

Planning Pilot Development (TOD) associated with new fixed‐guideway and core capacity improvement projects. TOD focuses growth around transit stations to promote ridership, affordable housing near transit, revitalized downtown centers and neighborhoods, and encourage local economic development.

5307, 5340 Urbanized Area Formula Grants Provides grants to Urbanized Areas (UZA) for public transportation capital, planning, job access and reverse commute projects, as well as operating expenses in certain circumstances. These funds constitute a core investment in the enhancement and revitalization of public transportation systems in the nation’s UZAs, which depend on public transportation to improve mobility and reduce congestion. Source: MAP‐21 Programs at Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation at http://www.fta.dot.gov/15035.html.

DRAFT TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Page 38 of 38 Transit Service Improvement Strategies September, 2013 CENTRAL PHOENIX TRANSPORTATION FRAMEWORK STUDY

ATTACHMENTS

DRAFT TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Bicycle & Pedestrian Improvement Strategies September, 2013 CENTRAL PHOENIX TRANSPORTATION FRAMEWORK STUDY

Attachment A Reference List of Guides to Transit Improvements

DRAFT TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Bicycle & Pedestrian Improvement Strategies September, 2013 CENTRAL PHOENIX TRANSPORTATION FRAMEWORK STUDY

 Chapter 21, “Operations Strategies,” Part IV: “Special Topics,” in Status of the Nation’s Highways, Bridges, and Transit: 2002 Conditions and Performance, A Report to Congress at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/2002cpr/index.htm.

 Transit‐Supportive Guidelines, Ontario Ministry of Transportation, 2012, at: http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/transit/supportive‐guideline/index.shtml.

 Chapter Nine: “Ongoing Transportation Improvement Strategies,” in Draft Middlesex County Transportation Plan Update – “New Horizons in Mobility” (Element of the County Comprehensive Master Plan (Middlesex County Transportation Master Plan), March 2013, at: http://co.middlesex.nj.us/planningboard/transportation‐plan.asp.

 “Evaluating Public Transit As An Energy Conservation and Emission Reduction Strategy,” Todd Litman, Victoria Transport Policy Institute, 26 July 2012, at: http://www.vtpi.org/tran_climate.pdf.

 Ontario’s 2011 Transit‐Supportive Guidelines, “Integrating Land Use, Transit, and Active Transportation,” Jeannie Lee and Robin Kortright, Paper prepared for presentation at the Successes in Integrating Sustainable Transportation and Land Use Session of the 2011 Annual Conference of the Transportation Association of Canada, Edmonton, Alberta, September 11‐14, 2011, at: http://www.tac‐atc.ca/english/annualconference/tac2011/docs/sut1/kortright.pdf.

 “Collaborative Strategies For Improving Transit Systems,” Guidance for Coordination, Cooperation, and Collaboration, Office of Transit, Minnesota Department of Transportation, July, 2012, at: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/transit/grants/Transit%20for%20our%20Future/Guidance%20for%20C oordination%20Cooperation%20Consolidation.pdf.

 “Complete Streets Local Policy Workbook,” Smart Growth Network and National Complete Streets Coalition, August 2012, Update Spring 2013, at: http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/guides/complete‐streets‐local‐policy‐workbook/.

 Livability in Transportation Guidebook, “Planning Approaches that Promote Livability,” Federal Transit Administration, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, FHWA‐HEP‐10‐028, at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/livability/case_studies/guidebook/.

 Bicycles and Transit, “A Partnership That Works,” Federal Transit Administration, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, at: http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA_Bicycles_and_Transit_Booklet_1999.pdf.

 Arterial Transitway Corridors Study, Metropolitan Council and Metro Transit, Minneapolis, Minnesota, April, 2012, at: http://metrotransit.org/arterial‐study.

 American Multi‐way Boulevard Examples, Presentation by Department of Public Works, City of Springfield, Oregon, at: http://www.bing.com/search?q=Multi‐ way+Blvd+Examples_America_City+of+Springfield%2C+OR&src=IE‐SearchBox&FORM=IE8SRC.

 Complete Streets Guide, Maricopa Association of Governments, January 25, 2011, at: http://www.azmag.gov/Documents/BaP_2011‐01‐25_MAG‐Complete‐Streets‐Guide‐December‐ 2010.pdf.

DRAFT TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Bicycle & Pedestrian Improvement Strategies September, 2013 CENTRAL PHOENIX TRANSPORTATION FRAMEWORK STUDY

 Designing Transit Accessible Communities Study, Final Report, Maricopa Association of Governments, June, 2013, at: http://www.azmag.gov/Documents/DTAC_2013‐07‐08_Designing‐ Transit‐Accessible‐Communities‐Study‐Final‐Report.pdf.

 Sustainable Transportation and Land Use Integration Study, Key Recommendations and Tools, Maricopa Association of Governments, July, 2013, at: http://www.bqaz.org/pdf/sustainable/BQAZ‐ STLU_2013‐03‐29_Key‐Findings‐and‐Recommendations.pdf.

 RPTA Comprehensive Arterial Bus Rapid Transit Planning Study, Final Report, Valley Metro/RPTA, September, 2009, at: http://www.valleymetro.org/images/uploads/projects/Final_Comprehensive_BRT_Report.pdf.

 Regional Transit Framework Study, Draft Final Report, Maricopa Association of Governments, at: http://www.bqaz.org/pdf/framework/present/BQAZ‐RTFS_2009‐06‐23_Draft‐MAG‐Regional‐ Transit‐Framework‐Final‐Report.pdf.

 VTA Transit Sustainability Policy, Service Design Guidelines and BRT – Bus Rapid Transit Service Design Guidelines, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, 2007, at: http://www.vta.org/projects/tsp/pdf/2_service_design_guidelines_modal_summary.pdf, and

 “Bus Rapid Transit Service Design,” Recommended Practice, APTA Standards Development Program, APTA BTS‐BRT‐RP‐004‐10, APTA Bus Rapid Transit Working Group, American Public Transportation Association, October, 2010, at: http://aptastandards.com/Portals/0/Bus_Published/004_RP_BRT_Service_Design.pdf.

 Bus Rapid Transit: Projects Improve Transit Service and Can Contribute to Economic Development, U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), GAO‐12‐811, July 25, 2012, at: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO‐12‐811.

 Transit‐Oriented Development in Phoenix, City of Phoenix and METRO Light Rail, at: http://www.valleymetro.org/images/uploads/lightrail_publications/TOD_Brochure.pdf.

 “Federal Transit Administration Guidance on Joint Development,” Proposed Federal Transit Administration Circular, XXXX 2013, at: http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/2013‐03‐ 07_Proposed_Joint_Development_Circular_(FINAL)_(2).pdf.

DRAFT TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Bicycle & Pedestrian Improvement Strategies September, 2013 CENTRAL PHOENIX TRANSPORTATION FRAMEWORK STUDY

Attachment B Review of Transportation Improvement Concepts: Public Transit Excerpt

DRAFT TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Bicycle & Pedestrian Improvement Strategies September, 2013

RREEVVIIEEWW OOFF TTRRAANNSSPPOORRTTAATTIIOONN IIMMPPRROOVVEEMMEENNTT CCOONNCCEEPPTTSS PPuubblliicc TTrraannssiitt

Prepared for

By

December 2010, Rvsd January 2011, Rvsd June 2011

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 1 RAIL TRANSIT SYSTEM CONCEPTS 2 BUS TRANSIT SYSTEM CONCEPTS 5 EXPRESS LANE CONCEPTS 9 TRAFFIC FLOW IMPROVEMENT CONCEPTS 10

INTRODUCTION A multi-level network alternatives screening process will be used to ultimately arrive at the preferred alternative for the Central Phoenix Transportation Framework Study. Phase I begins the process with identification of a broad collection of transportation improvement strategies by mode or action followed by formulation of a field of five or ten candidate multi-modal mobility improvement concepts that incorporate varying travel modes and investment levels. A criteria- and performance-based assessment will be conducted at the conclusion of Phase I to develop three alternative bundles incorporating the best elements of the mobility improvement concepts. Phase II continues the process with an iterative planning, engineering, and operations evaluation of the three bundles. This activity focuses on defining the preferred elements of each bundle that will comprise the Best Performing Multi-Modal Transportation Framework Plan. This Plan then will be the focus of a mobility and land use sensitivity assessment to refine its various components in accordance with community goals and objectives. The following matrices document the first step in the screening process – identification of the collection of transportation improvement strategies by mode. Based on review of project goals and objectives and stakeholder feedback, this collection of strategies will be packaged into the five to ten candidate mobility improvement concepts as the project progresses.

1

RAIL TRANSIT SYSTEM CONCEPTS Concept Description Advantages Disadvantages Implementation Commuter Rail A heavy rail system (see below) that  Cost savings for riders  High fixed costs, due to the need  Planning, engineering, and operates at a lower frequency, but at  Congestion mitigation for exclusive transitway and environmental studies higher speeds, usually between a city  Safety through reduced more expensive vehicles  Extensive negotiations with center and outer suburbs and traffic-related injuries and fatalities  May operate at-grade, resulting in operating railroads following a fixed schedule.  Environmentally friendly safety concerns at roadway  Station location studies  Stations can stimulate commercial crossings  Modifications to local bus routes and residential development  Stops typically are far apart to feed commuter rail service  Can be operated concurrently with freight rail services Rail Runner Express, Albuquerque, NM, MAG Photo Heavy Rail A rapid transit system of high capacity  Typically integrated with other  High fixed costs, due to the need  Dedicated tracks and frequency, which is public transit elements, often for exclusive transitway and  Large capital outlay grade-separated on an exclusive operated by the same public transit more expensive vehicles  Planning, engineering, and guideway or transitway from other authority  Power commonly delivered via a environmental studies traffic, either in underground tunnels  Faster and higher capacity than third, “live” rail, exposed to  Extensive negotiations with or elevated above street level. Outside light rail traveling public particularly at operating railroads urban centers, rapid transit lines  Not as fast or as far-reaching as stations  Station location studies sometimes run at ground level, but commuter rail.  Requires dedicated tracks to crossing transportation facilities are  Additional security precautions  Stations can stimulate commercial prevent delays and conflicts grade-separated. due to exposed “live” third rail Chicago Transit Authority Red Line, Daniel Schwen and residential development  Stops typically are farther apart, Typical capacity: 300-1,200 passengers  Modifications to local bus routes Elevated compared to light rail transit, per train; 12,000-36,000 per hour to feed commuter rail service Subway which has a more local Trains: six to twelve car trains with orientation passenger capacity of 100 to 150 in each car Top speed: 78 mph Cost: $15 - 100 million per mile Elevated Operates on guideways constructed  Cheaper than tunnels  Stations are architectural  Planning, engineering, and approximately 30 feet above grade or  Visual sign of active and modern structures incorporating environmental studies for both more depending on clearance transportation system and the superstructure and station requirements along the route. Sound  Attractive visual experience for  Visual and aesthetic impacts structures barriers may be constructed as a wall riders often are a prime target for  Station location studies along the guideway. criticism First , Sioux City Rapid  Noise impacts greater than Transit Company, Sioux City History.org at-grade operation

Miami-Dade County Metrorail Railway-technology.com, Net Resources International

2

RAIL TRANSIT SYSTEM CONCEPTS (Continued) Concept Description Advantages Disadvantages Implementation Subway Refers to a rapid transit system or  Tunnels move transit service from  Stations are subterranean  Planning, engineering, and (rarely) a light rail/streetcar system street level, removing service from structures incorporating environmental studies for both that goes underground. The term may effects of congestion and escalators and elevators the tunnel and station structures refer only to the underground parts of operating conflicts  Most cost intensive transit  Careful planning to avoid major the system, or to the full system.  Minimizes land takings for infrastructure underground utility services and right-of-way and stations  Greater disruption of deep, other known and unknown  Construction impacts generally expensive utility subterranean features limited to station areas  Extensive geotechnical studies required

Los Angeles Red Line, Carlos A. at yelp.com

MagLev Maglev is an innovative transportation  FTA has demonstrated that  Initial infrastructure costs and  Low-speed MagLev is feasible maglev.net technology by which trains are low-speed magnetic levitation availability of safety and  Substantial up-front costs supported by magnetic forces without systems are advanced enough to operationally certified maglev  Unexpected challenges and any wheels contacting the rail merit consideration as urban technologies are intimidating obstacles should be expected, as surfaces. system alternatives  Urban MagLev poses a the technology is not proven for  Desirable qualities: operate in fundamental change in day-to-day service challenging terrain with steep technology grades, tight turns, all weather  Stations require escalators and operation, low maintenance, rapid elevators acceleration, quiet operation, and superior ride quality  Typically unmanned Light Rail (LRT) A rapid transit system operating in a  Provides smooth ride.  Generally, remains at the same  Planning, engineering, and dedicated or exclusive right-of-way,  Power commonly delivered via operating level as buses and cars, environmental studies for both usually at street level, and is designed overhead catenary system although some segments may be the transitway and station for light passenger loads and fast  Stations can stimulate commercial elevated, rarely in subway structures movement. and residential development  Adequate roadway cross-section  Signalization changes at Typical capacity: 12,000 to 19,000  Flexible and adaptable to daily and is required, and at-grade intersections along the route passengers per hour seasonal transportation needs of a transitway often replaces traffic  studies Trains: two to four car consists community lanes  Pedestrian safety/design features Top speed: 66 mph  Potential for LRT conflicts with and traffic impact s are Cost: $15 - 100 million per mile  Low-cost infrastructure elements – stations usually at-grade other transportation modes particularly critical Phoenix Metro Light Rail

3

COMPARISON OF SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS AMONG DIFFERENT TYPES OF RAIL PASSENGER SERVICES BASED UPON TYPICAL NORTH AMERICAN PRACTICE

Type of Service Characteristic Conventional Midwest Fast Light Rail Heavy Rail Commuter Rail High-Speed Rail Intercity Rail Trains System Elements & Infrastructure Modern Modern subway Locomotive- Locomotive- Locomotive- Diesel-electric Usual Vehicles articulated or elevated cars hauled or self- hauled coaches hauled coaches hauled coaches streetcars coaches propelled coaches 8-10 coaches Train Length 1-3 cars 4-10 cars 2-8 coaches 2-14 coaches 8-12 coaches (est.) Electric using Electric using Diesel-electric Electric using High horsepwr Propulsion System Diesel-electric overhead wire third rail [a] overhead wire diesel-electric Upgraded Existing main- New grade- Existing main- Existing main- Right-of-Way New surface existing or new line track separated line railway line railway Requirements alignment main-line upgraded; some alignment trackage trackage railway new grade Typical Route trackage separation 5-15 5-15 20-50 50-2,000 100-500 150-400 Length (miles) Average Station 0.25-1 0.5-2 2-5 5-50 10-50 30 Spacing (miles) Boarding Platforms Low or High High Low Low High Low at Stations Typical Fare At stations or Not yet Self-service At stations On board On board Collection on board specified SpeedMethod(s) (miles per hour) 110, except Maximum 50 70 79 79-90 125-250 secondary Operating lines: 79 Average Along 10-20 [b] 25-40 30-50 40-70 100-150 Unknown Route 20-30 [c] Trips within metropolitan Trips within Trips within Long-distance Trips among areas between densely densely Long-distance trips between major Typical Primary suburbs and developed developed trips between major centers and Passenger Market major urban urbanized urbanized cities metropolitan intermediate centers areas areas areas cities including central Frequency of Service 90-150 mins. Peak-Period 5-10 minutes 5-10 minutes 30-60 minutes 1-2 hours 30-60 minutes (prelim.) 3-5 hours Non-Peak Period 10-20 minutes 10-20 minutes 1-3 hours Daily 1-2 hours (prelim.)

Footnotes: [a] Self-propelled coaches may be either diesel-electric, diesel-hydraulic, or diesel-mechanical. [b] Involves extensive use of street rights-of-way. [c] Involves extensive use of exclusive, grade-separated rights-of-way.

Source: Table data from Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission reported in Newsletter, August, 1998, Vol. 38, No. 2, page 10, as reported at www.trainweb.org/KenRail/Rail_mode_table.html; information highlighted in blue indecates 2009 estimates added by

4

BUS TRANSIT SYSTEM CONCEPTS Concept Description Advantages Disadvantages Implementation Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) BRT is an enhanced bus system that  Operates at faster speeds,  Requires special system  Will require policies that give operates on dedicated or exclusive bus provides greater service components: such as priority to bus operations (e.g., lanes, or transitways, to combine the reliability, and increased - Dedicated/exclusive transitway signal priority, block signaling) efficiency of rail systems with the customer convenience compared - Enhanced control and and investment in crucial system flexibility of bus service: to traditional fixed-route service communication systems components a flexible, rubber-tired transit mode  Running time reliability and - Advanced vehicle technology  Non-exclusive bus lanes typically that combines stations, schedule adherence is high  Maximum benefits accrue when are restricted only during peak vehicles, services, running ways, and  Utilizes a combination of combined with community land hours in the peak directions Intelligent Transportation System advanced technologies, use and development policies  BRT requires freestanding (ITS) elements infrastructure and operational  Need of adequate roadway stations to accommodate into an integrated system with a investments cross-sections for transitway boarding and deboarding of strong positive identity.  Low-cost infrastructure  Need to maintain the capacity of passengers Operating speed: 17 to 30 mph. elements; stations basically general-purpose traffic lanes  EmX vehicles cost $960,000 to Cost: $6.25 million per mile. ar-grade purchase (Franklin Corridor - Busway: $18.6 million  Potential for noise and air quality Evaluation) - Vehicles: $5.9 million impacts in travel corridors (Franklin Corridor Evaluation). Curbside Bus Lanes A traffic lane on a surface street  Reserved lanes help buses pass  Bicyclists, right-turning vehicles,  Special or unique traffic reserved for the exclusive use of buses congested traffic. and vehicles can be control/flow measures may be  Priority enables bus lanes to permitted, making lane operation necessary to assure efficient, move many more people than more complex rapid operation general traffic  Bus movements can be impeded by curbside – illegal – parking and right-turns by sharing vehicles (if permitted)

Jim Henderson

Median (Exclusive) Bus Lanes Median lanes usually physically  Not prone to becoming  Requirement for passenger  Wide roadway cross-section separated from general traffic lanes by congested platforms and patrons movements required for bus lanes a raised curb or buffer and striping  Improves operating speed to center of street for access to bus  Special or unique traffic  Reduces overall potential for  Possibility that bus operational control/flow measures will be bus/vehicle conflicts failure can block the bus lane necessary to assure efficient,  Conflict created with left-turning rapid operation traffic  Signal phasing may need altered  Wide roadway cross-section need to reduce potential conflicts with to accommodate bus lanes general traffic flow

Martha Welborne

5

BUS TRANSIT SYSTEM CONCEPTS (Continued) Concept Description Advantages Disadvantages Implementation Contraflow Bus Lanes Dedicated lane of an otherwise  Takes advantage of underutilized  Difficult to justify removal of travel  Research demonstrated there one-way street that is reversed for roadway capacity in the travel lane from general traffic should be a minimum of 20 to 30 buses and other mass transit during direction opposed to the peak  Physical constraints include: buses per hour or 800 to 1,200 the AM and PM peak hours to take period flow roadway geometry, lane widths, peak hour bus passengers to advantage of excess capacity.  Increases bus speeds and lowers on-street parking justify implementing a contraflow travel time  Most often employed on a one-way bus lane (Miami/Dade Study)  Enhances bus system reliability – street segment  Requirement for signal schedule adherence  Unfamiliar vehicle operations can modifications, striping, signage, be dangerous to other vehicle and, potentially, special curbing Miami/Dade Study operators and pedestrians  Scheduling may need to be adjusted due to increase operational efficiency Fixed-Route Transit Service Fixed route service consists of a  Dependable routing and  Bus service can be impeded by  Private company or public transit passenger bus traveling along the schedule congestion on roads traveled authority same prescribed route at regular  Flexibility to change routing and  Frequent stops place a strain on  Signage along routes and “fixed” times each day with scheduling to coincided with operating systems published, posted schedule of designated bus stops along the route. changes in use/demand  Requires a large number of drivers, service This is what most people think of  Buses are relatively cheap to the salaries of which generally  Vehicles that meet the Americans when they envision public transit acquire and maintenance is account for the greatest operating with Disabilities Act (ADA) service. reasonably standardized expense for the system  Bus operations can be accommodate on established roadways without special procedures or physical changes to the roadway Bus Preemption Interruption of the normal operation  Improve intersection capacity  Modifies delay and queue length  Equipping of traffic signal to (Transit Signal Priority) of traffic signals to give preferential  Enhances bus system reliability – for traffic at signalized recognize preemption activation treatment of high-occupancy vehicles, schedule adherence intersections signal specifically transit vehicles. Sometimes  Improves travel time  Activation signals need careful  Signal activation integral to combined with separate bus lanes;  Can stimulate use of transit, due calibration to avoid indiscriminate transit vehicle signal return to normal operation to improved travel efficiency preemption at other intersections  Adjustments of cycle and phase subsequent to preemption.  Interruption of optimized traffic duration for preemption phase Unconditional and conditional modes  Potentially reduce congestion flow control  Generally, only one preemption are feasible. allowed per signal cycle

Opticom Signal, Millersville, PA, Nigara

6

BUS TRANSIT SYSTEM CONCEPTS (Continued) Concept Description Advantages Disadvantages Implementation Bus Signal Queue Jumping Typically employed with BRT  Permits buses to get a  Requires additional phase at  Analysis of potential impacts to systems, this treatment consists of an “head-start” over queued intersections affected traffic additional travel lane at intersections, vehicles  Queue jumping may be used by  Traffic engineering studies to generally accompanied by a separate  Eliminates need to merge into unauthorized vehicles identified required geometrics bus signal phase or bus preemption. traffic and any requirement for May or may not incorporate a  Improves operational efficiency additional right-of-way receiving lane on the opposite side of of the transit system  Signalization changes, as required the intersection  May be use by bicycles, moped,  Adjustments to the transit and motorcycles schedule and route capacity in response to more efficient transit operations Two Types of Queue Jumping

Bus Bays and Turnouts Bus stop areas recessed from the  Provides a safe waiting area for  Concrete pad is necessary  Facilities should be designed so thoroughfare, providing an en route transit users  Requires bus to merge into traffic that bus operators have clear bus with an off-street service point  Removes bus from traffic at turnout, which can cause rear-vision capabilities necessary that does not interfere with traffic stops with high passenger operational delays and safety issues for safe re-entry into traffic movement. volumes and/or high traffic  Accel and decal lanes should be  Right-of-way studies to Width or Depth: 15 feet for arterials volumes provided, where possible determine availability for turnout and 20 feet for highways  Recommended for mid-block  Signage Length: Dependent on service locations: may not work well with  Shelter and, if possible, volume, vehicle size, and transfer near-side and far-side stops landscaping needs: 50 feet per bus  Additional right-of-way required Bus Stop Design Guidelines, OMNITRANS may be  Construction likely will result in temporary traffic impacts A bus bulb, also known as a nub, curb  Reduces risk of accidents by  Narrowing of roadway can  Appropriate for corridors with extension, or bus eliminating the bus-weaving interfere with bike lanes high transit patronage bulge, is a section of sidewalk that maneuver associated with a bus  Not appropriate for two-lane  Roadways that pose re-entry extends from the curb of bay roadway problems for buses a parking lane to the edge of a  Reduces congestion of sidewalks  Right-of-way may be inadequate  Appropriate where there is through lane. Buses stop in the traffic at stops with high passenger for installation of passenger congestion on sidewalks due to lane at the bulb, instead of weaving volume amenities, such as a shelter or high transit patronage into a parking-lane curbside stop.  Provides space for bus shelter, benches and landscaping where sidewalk space is at a premium  Compatible with streets with parallel parking Bus Bulb, Vancouver, BC  Eliminates need for bus to merge back into traffic

7

BUS TRANSIT SYSTEM CONCEPTS (Continued) Concept Description Advantages Disadvantages Implementation Improved Amenities Transit system treatments and devices  Greater mobility  Additional costs  Audio and visual announcements to help passengers feel more at ease  Faster service  Greater coordination and (interior and exterior) with service provided., including  More convenient service communication  Active station signs  Benches  Reduced reliance on automobile  Restructuring and realignment may  Internet access to real-time bus  Schedule information – static and  Enhanced patron safety be necessary operating information electronic interactive  Improved accommodation of  Community-based service  Signage – static, dynamic, & patron needs  Intelligent Bus System (IBS) electronic applications  Shelters  Bike accommodations on transit vehicles & bike lockers  Park-and-Rides (P&R) PACE  Transit Centers with traveler conveniences, such as restrooms, refreshments, food, shelter, etc.

8

EXPRESS LANE CONCEPTS Concept Description Advantages Disadvantages Implementation Reversible Lanes A contraflow lane created by the  Alleviates congestion in the peak  Requires specialized equipment  Cones or bollards (sometimes placement of a temporary physical direction by providing additional  Creates unique traffic control and retractable) are manually barrier, which then is used for travel capacity flow issues positioned in the roadway to in the opposite direction, or  Electronic signage and control  Can confuse travelers and isolate travel lanes construction of permanently isolated can be used for directional lane pedestrians  Proper lane control, pavement lanes the flow of which is reversed control, allowing timely response  Requires unique traffic control markings, and signs are required according to peak period directional to congestion, construction, or procedures and restrictions on left demand. accident impacting traffic flow turns NJ: 725 buses per hour, resulting in 1,700 buses during peak hours  There must be a large directional carrying more than 60,000 passengers flow during peak periods to make (MiamiDade Study). this a viable solution: typically Central Federal Lands Highway Division, FHWA justified when 65/35 peak direction of flow obtains Zipper Lanes See Reversible Lanes above. Zipper  Alleviates congestion by  Requires specialized machinery, a  Often restricted to buses, Lanes are created using a movable providing additional capacity in Barrier Transfer Machine at a cost , and barrier, which does not require major the peak direction of $1 million  A Barrier Transfer Machine construction actions within the travel  Does not require investment in  Creates unique traffic control and places a string of connected, corridor. New advances in additional roadway cross-section flow issues, which can confuse movable concrete barriers on a technology and equipment allow and, potentially, additional travelers and pedestrians roadway to isolate travel lanes Barrier Transfer Machines to shift the right-of-way  Is labor intensive and presents moveable barrier the width of one full safety issue during the movement traffic lane (14 feet) in a single pass, of temporary barrier Miami/Dade Study while traveling at 10 miles per hour (Caltrans). One mile of barrier can be moved in six to seven minutes.

9

TRAFFIC FLOW IMPROVEMENT CONCEPTS Concept Description Advantages Disadvantages Implementation Reversible Lanes Different forms of traffic flow  Flexibility with respect to  Logistics can be cumbersome, if  There must be a large directional modifications implemented to take responses in traffic flow physical barriers are employed flow during peak periods to advantage of underused capacity on a conditions  Requirement for specialized consider implementing this facility.  Reduced need for additional monitoring and control equipment strategy construction of physical capacity and facility  Lane control techniques, signage,  Changing traffic pattern can be and special pavement markings confusing for drivers

Seventh Street, Phoenix, AZ, Google Maps

Signalization and Timing Sophisticated control and  Low cost for upgrading system  Usually a short-term solution;  Supporting analysis of coordination to ensure traffic moves  Aids in achieving signal additional physical capacity may be intersection geometrics as smoothly and safely as possible and progression necessary  Coordination with local and pedestrians are assured safe crossing  Reduce frequency and severity  Can not eliminate critical left-turn regional signalization system conditions. of intersection conflicts movements along corridors  Improve air quality by moving  Improvement for one direction,  Compatibility with other traffic more efficiently movement, or phase pinalizes other strategies planned for or affecting directions, movements, and phases the corridor  Potential for emergency vehicle preemption

Jefferson and Seventh Street, Phoenix, AZ, Google Maps

On-Street Parking Reduce or eliminate on-street  Reduce delays to the traffic  Removes direct, easy access to  Policies regarding time-of-day parking to remove traffic stream properties abutting right-of-way permissions/restrictions and interference and gain add capacity  Decrease potential for traffic  Replacement parking will be parking rates (if applied) for traffic movements. flow conflicts associated with necessary to assure accessibility to  Signage entry/exit of the parking space properties  Consultation/coordination with  Eliminate visual sight  May adversely impact access for affected property owners obstruction for pedestrians persons with disabilities  Compliance/enforcement crossing roadway

Third Street, Phoenix, AZ, Google Maps

10

TRAFFIC FLOW IMPROVEMENT CONCEPTS (Continued) Concept Description Advantages Disadvantages Implementation Loading Zone Locations Evaluate loading zone locations and  Remove interference of traffic  Can impact delivery schedules  Planning/traffic study regulations to determine consistency flow due to truck movements  Potential for negative impact on  Municipal Ordinance with traffic flows, particularly in the during peak periods customer supply line associated  Signage peak periods. with truck deliveries  Enforcement

Romana Street, Pensacola, FL, Google Maps Left-Turn Restrictions Eliminate left turns, which removes  Permits higher volume of  Will increase travel for drivers  Review of left-turn volumes one phase from intersection through movements desiring to access roadway or  Implementation time can be signalization or removes impedence  Reduces conflict points and property left of the roadway relatively short to traffic flow due to turns into potential for crashes  Potential impacts on adjacent  Review of local roadway abutting property. street network as drivers circle network surrounding around, divert direction of travel, intersection or access point to to access restricted roadway identify potential impacts  Potential adverse impacts on the  Public information campaign to use and viability of abutting alert drivers of changes Seventh Street, Phoenix, AZ, Google Maps properties

Left-Turn Bays Lanes added to the interior of a  Remove vehicles from the  May require additional  In-roadway construction action roadway to facilitate the queuing of general purpose lanes and the right-of-way  Traffic engineering studies to vehicles drivers desiring to turn left. potential for a queue to form  Wider roadway width could place determine acceptable geometrics  Permits a separate signal phase pedestrians at more risk, due to and whether additional for left turns, reducing the additional distance required right-of-way is necessary potential for crashes  Generally, adds a phase to the  Changes to signalization and signal, which reduces green time intersection striping for through movements

Central Avenue, Phoenix, AZ, Google Maps

11

TRAFFIC FLOW IMPROVEMENT CONCEPTS (Continued) Concept Description Advantages Disadvantages Implementation Right-Turn Bays Lanes added to the outside edge of a  Facilitates right-turn-on-red  May require additional  In-roadway construction action roadway to facilitate the queuing of movement right-of-way  Traffic engineering studies to vehicles drivers desiring to turn  Eliminates a through vehicle  Wider roadway width could place determine acceptable geometrics right. blocking driver that desires to pedestrians at more risk, due to and whether additional turn right on red additional distance required right-of-way is necessary  Permits more efficient flow in  Potential impacts to abutting  Physical relocation of signal the curbside general traffic lane properties stanchion, depending on by removing right-turning original location and type of vehicle that may need to wait signal mount structure for left-turning vehicles or  Intersection striping through vehicle movements on the crossing street Street Widening Physical reconstruction of a roadway  Creates more efficient facility  May require additional  Evaluation of safety issues to provide additional traffic lane  Improves traffic flow, reducing right-of-way relating to structural integrity capacity or change roadway delays  Results in traffic congestion and and traffic flows geometrics to improve traffic flow.  Potentially decreases potential delays  Detailed maintenance of traffic for crashes  Could result in disruption, even plan relocation, of activities abutting  Public information campaign the roadway  Median barrier installation,  Results in noise and air pollution special signage and striping, and traffic control devices I-10, West of Phoenix, Pulice Construction  Utility relocations  Staged construction actions

Signage Provide enhanced signage to reduce  Low-cost method for  Relies heavily on motorists to be  No significant legislative or delays caused by driver confusion improving traffic flow diligent with regard to administrative actions are and minimize the potential for  Providing reliable, visible information and required crashes. notification of required or instructions/guidance provided  Conduct inventory desired maneuver reduces by the signage  Get community and visitor last-minute actions perspectives  Determine need  Determine responsibilities  Develop plan  Develop signage  Monitor effectiveness

12 CENTRAL PHOENIX TRANSPORTATION FRAMEWORK STUDY

Attachment C Existing Conditions & Rapid Bus Service Concepts: Metro Transit Arterial Transitway Corridors Study

DRAFT TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Bicycle & Pedestrian Improvement Strategies September, 2013 18 Arterial Transitway Corridors Study

SNELLING AVENUE EXISTING CONDITIONS

Snelling Avenue The proposed Snelling Avenue corridor follows Snelling Avenue from Future Land Use Changes Rosedale Transit Center to Ford Parkway, and then continues west along ► Redevelopment opportunity at Ford Parkway and 46th Street to the 46th Street Blue Line (Hiawatha) LRT Snelling and University, with Station. Major destinations along the corridor include Rosedale Mall, Har potential for St. Paul’s highest Mar Mall, the University of Minnesota’s St. Paul Campus, HHH Job Corps, density development outside of the Minnesota State Fairgrounds, Hamline University, Midway Shopping downtown. Center, Macalester College, Sibley Plaza, Highland Village, and the recently- ► Stable demand for gradual closed Ford Plant. increases in housing density from St. Catherine University, Population and Employment within 1/2 mile of corridor Macalester College, Hamline University, and St. Thomas University. ► Potential for enormous change in land use and density/intensity at the Ford Plant. ► Substantial ongoing, planned, and anticipated growth at 46th Street LRT Station.

(2030 forecasts based on approved local plans)

General Roadway Conditions Existing Transit Service Snelling Avenue is generally a four-lane Route 84 is the primary route serving the Snelling Avenue corridor. roadway with no parking allowed. On Ford Route 84 operates daily with two primary patterns—one between Parkway and 46th Street, there are one or Rosedale Transit Center and 46th Street Station and the other between two lanes per direction, and parking is Rosedale Transit Center and Davern Street. The route generally allowed in some sections. Signalized operates every 15 minutes on weekdays and Saturdays, with 30-minute intersections are located approximately every 3-4 blocks in St. Paul; signal spacing service during evenings and on Sundays. The portion of Route 84 north is wider in Roseville and in Minneapolis. of Ford Parkway is part of Metro Transit’s Hi-Frequency Network. The pattern serving 46th Street was identified as the Rapid Bus alignment due to higher ridership demand and increased service levels, as well as faster travel compared to the St. Paul Avenue-West 7th- Davern routing.

Key Performance Indicators (2010) Average Weekday In-Service Speed 16.2 mph Average Weekday Corridor Riders (All Routes) 3,800 Snelling Avenue at County Road B On-Time Performance 90.7%

In addition to Route 84, peak-only Route 144 provides express service to downtown Minneapolis for the segment of the corridor south of I-94. Routes 21 and 53 operate on portions of Snelling Avenue between University Avenue and Marshall Avenue, and several additional routes operate on Ford Parkway between Cleveland Avenue and 46th Street Station.

Snelling Avenue at Grand Avenue April 2012 Final Report 19

SNELLING AVENUE

EXISTING TRANSIT SYSTEM

20 Arterial Transitway Corridors Study

SNELLING AVENUE RAPID BUS CONCEPT

By the Numbers Conceptual Station Designs

► 9.7 miles long ► 21 proposed station locations ► 0.5 mile on average between stations ► 27% faster trip between Rosedale and 46th Street Station versus current Route 84

► 97% of existing customers within one stop of a station

► 2 transitway connections (Green Line LRT and Blue Line LRT)

► 9 buses needed to provide service Concept Operating Plan Upon implementation of Snelling Avenue Rapid Bus, the 46th Street pattern of Route 84 is replaced, and the Davern Street pattern is modified to serve Highland Park High School on select trips. Sunday service frequencies on Route 84 are improved to 30 minutes. Route 144 is replaced by Rapid Bus and Route 94 express or Green Line (Central) LRT service.

Weekday Frequency Cost and Ridership EXISTING Rush Late CONSTRUCTION COST (2011$) SERVICE Hours Midday Evening Night Total Estimated Cost to Build Route 84 15 15 15 30 (Includes Vehicles) $26,800,000 Route 144 20 - - - Cost per Mile $2,800,000

SERVICE Rush Late ANNUAL OPERATING COST (2011$) CONCEPT Hours Midday Evening Night Rapid Bus Base Service $4,870,000 Rapid Bus 10 10 15 30 Reductions to Existing Bus Service -$2,190,000 Route 84 30 30 30 30 Net Change in Service Costs $2,680,000 Route 144 Replaced Additional Rapid Bus Costs $1,070,000 Total Change in Costs $3,750,000

WEEKDAY RIDERSHIP 2010 Corridor Ridership 3,500 2030 Corridor Ridership 5,700 (“Baseline” without Rapid Bus) Additional Ridership From Adding Rapid Bus + 3,000 2030 Corridor Ridership 8,700 (Rapid Bus + Background Service) 50 Arterial Transitway Corridors Study

WEST 7TH STREET EXISTING CONDITIONS

West 7th Street The proposed West 7th Street corridor follows West 7th Street/TH 5 and I- Future Land Use Changes 494 between downtown St. Paul and the Mall of America. Outside of ► Recently, a prominent growth downtown St. Paul, the alignment serves a mix of medium to high density node was the Gateway housing residential and commercial land uses to Montreal Avenue. Beginning at this development at West 7th and point, all development is on the east side of the road until St. Paul Avenue. Davern Street. A redevelopment The corridor serves the MSP airport, and then continues south along TH 5 opportunity exists adjacent to the and I-494 to 34th Avenue, where it serves several office complexes and the Gateway housing development at Mall of America. the US Bank site. ► Significant growth node at the Population and Employment within 1/2 mile of corridor intersection with Montreal extending across I-35E to Otto Avenue. A number of residential and commercial intensification opportunities exist. ► Significant redevelopment opportunity at the Schmidt Brewery site with increased density in housing and retail. ► Opportunities for increased (2030 forecasts based on approved local plans) employment at the MSP airport.

General Roadway Conditions Existing Transit Service

Most of the West 7th Street corridor has Route 54 is the primary route serving the West 7th Street corridor. The two travel lanes in each direction. Parking route begins in downtown St. Paul and along West 7th Street. is allowed east of I-35E. Currently, no bike After crossing the Mississippi River, the route deviates to the Lindbergh lanes are on West 7th Street. Signalized Terminal Station at the Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport, and intersections are spaced every 4-5 blocks with closer spacing in downtown St. Paul. then continues along TH 5 and I-494 to 34th Avenue and ends at the Mall of America. This route operates a consistent service pattern all day. Weekday service frequencies are 15 minutes all day, including in the evenings. Saturday service frequencies begin at 30 minutes but transition to 15 minutes by mid-morning. Sunday service frequencies are 30 minutes all day. All of Route 54 is included in Metro Transit’s Hi- Frequency Network.

Key Performance Indicators (2010) Average Weekday In-Service Speed (Route 54) 19.1 mph Average Weekday Corridor Riders (All Routes) 4,200

West 7th Street and Maynard Avenue On-Time Performance (Route 54) 91.7%

In addition to Route 54, Route 70 and Route 74 both operate on portions of West 7th Street in St. Paul.

West 7th Street at Albion Avenue April 2012 Final Report 51

WEST 7TH STREET

EXISTING TRANSIT SYSTEM

52 Arterial Transitway Corridors Study

WEST 7TH STREET RAPID BUS CONCEPT

By the Numbers Conceptual Station Designs

► 12 miles long ► 17 proposed station locations ► 0.7 mile on average between stations ► 5% faster trip between MOA and St. Paul versus current route 54

► 100% of existing customers within one stop of a station

► 3 transitway connections (Green Line LRT, Blue Line LRT, and Red Line BRT)

► 8 buses needed to provide service Concept Operating Plan Upon implementation of West 7th Street Rapid Bus, Route 54 is replaced by Rapid Bus service, with improved frequency during peak periods, late evenings, and on weekends.

Weekday Frequency Cost and Ridership EXISTING Rush Late CONSTRUCTION COST (2011$) SERVICE Hours Midday Evening Night Total Estimated Cost to Build Route 54 15 15 15 30 (Includes Vehicles) $25,400,000 Cost per Mile $2,100,000

SERVICE Rush Late CONCEPT Hours Midday Evening Night ANNUAL OPERATING COST (2011$) Rapid Bus 10 15 15 15 Rapid Bus Base Service $4,790,000 Route 54 Replaced Reductions to Existing Bus Service -$4,730,000 Net Change in Service Costs $60,000 Additional Rapid Bus Costs $890,000 Total Change in Costs $950,000

WEEKDAY RIDERSHIP 2010 Corridor Ridership 3,900 2030 Corridor Ridership 6,000 (“Baseline” without Rapid Bus) Additional Ridership From Adding Rapid Bus 1,100 2030 Corridor Ridership 7,100 (Rapid Bus + Background Service) April 2012 Final Report 53

WEST 7TH STREET

RAPID BUS CONCEPT

CENTRAL PHOENIX TRANSPORTATION FRAMEWORK STUDY

Attachment D Multi-way Boulevard Basic Improvements Template

DRAFT TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Bicycle & Pedestrian Improvement Strategies September, 2013 Basic Improvements Kit of Parts to Consider Multi-way boulevard is a Raised Crossing Across Local Access Lane: new street type in San ß Slows traffic at intersections, decreases cut-through traffic, and increases visibility of pedestrians crossings Francisco which combines efficient through-traffic ß Installation can be costly travel with calmed local access lanes for neighbor- Shared Street Local Access Lane (Woonerf): hood commercial and ß Single surface reinforces the idea of the entire local residential use. access lane as pedestrian/neighborhood space through which vehicles may carefully pass Existing Challenges Include: Sidewalk Parking Local Access Median Travel Travel Median Travel Travel Median Local Access Parking Sidewalk ß Installation can be costly. ADA issues must be considered ß Side access lane widths are Lane / Bike Lane / Bike often too wide and have resulted in fast moving Trench Drain in Bulbout: cut-through traffic using these ß Adds visual interest to bulbout with attractive grate lanes which makes access for cleaning easy and decreases the cost of bulbout because existing ß Need to maintain adequate stormdrain does not need to be moved width for emergency vehicle ß Maintenance can be costly access Extended Bulbout/Corner Plaza: ß Better urban design of the ß Adds significant public space for seating, landscap- local access lane can improve ing, and/or pedestrian amenities its function for local residents sweN sweN sweN ß Can include trees, landscaping, and/or infiltration areas and business owners ß Installation can be costly Basic Improvements Include: ß Narrower entry at Infiltration Area Boardwalks: local access lanes ß Add interesting material and texture to the sidewalk ß Create large areas for infiltration and planting ß Wider side median ß Boardwalks are relatively easy to remove for access and narrower local to utilities access lane ß Corner curb exten- Mid-block Curb Extension Plazas: sions at every corner ß Provide useable open space for landscaping, furnish- ings, cafe seating, and other pedestrian amenities and visually narrows the street to calm traffic ß High visibility ß Installation can be costly crosswalks with 2 curb ramps at each corner ß Special paving in furnishing zones in commercial areas ß Landscaped infiltra- tion planters in side and center medians

Multi-way Boulevard 0 105 20 40 ft

Prepared for: Prepared by: DRAFT June 11, 2007 CENTRAL PHOENIX TRANSPORTATION FRAMEWORK STUDY Attachment E TOD Working Group Update for the METRO Rail Management Committee

DRAFT TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Bicycle & Pedestrian Improvement Strategies September, 2013

AGENDA ITEM 6 TOD Working Group Update

AGENDA ITEM 6

To: Chairman Cavazos and Members of the Rail Management Committee

Through: Stephen R. Banta, Chief Executive Officer

From: Wulf Grote, Director of Planning & Development

Date: February 29, 2012

Re: Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Activities and Working Group

PURPOSE In November 2011, the Rail Management Committee (RMC) requested that METRO staff provide an update of METRO’s TOD activities. Subsequently, the Rail Staff Working Group (RSWG) asked METRO to investigate the potential to create a TOD Working Group consisting of member agencies. The purpose of this memorandum is to present information regarding METRO’s TOD activities and the formation of a TOD Working Group. This agenda item is for information and discussion only; no action is required.

BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION METRO has a strong interest in TOD development as steward of the $1.4 billion light rail investment because TOD plays a crucial role in ridership success by focusing development and providing easy access to transit. TOD provides an opportunity to maximize the public’s return on investment by offering development supportive of a less auto-dependent lifestyle.

METRO staff developed a TOD policy in 2006 with significant input from member cities. The policy identifies METRO as an important resource to support member cities in:

• Developing high-quality, intensive, mixed use development near light rail stations • Improving access to public transportation • Making communities more pedestrian and bicycle friendly • Creating attractive investment opportunities for the private sector

Since the creation of METRO, staff has assisted cities in updating their general plans, developing policies, modifying zoning and creating station area plans to assure that development in close proximity to light rail is compatible with the light rail investment. METRO actively supports member cities in their TOD efforts through peer city research such as: joint-development and public-private partnership (PPP) strategies, successful TOD projects around the nation and identifying potential funding opportunities.

Rail Management Committee Memo February 29, 2012 Page 2

METRO also plays an important role in several current regional TOD-related efforts, such as the Sustainable Community Working Group (SCWG), Phoenix’s station planning efforts funded through the U.S. Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Community Challenge Planning Grant, and the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) Designing Transit Accessible Communities and Sustainable Transportation Land Use Integration studies. The MAG studies and Phoenix planning efforts, in concert with a $20 million TOD affordable housing fund secured by the SCWG, demonstrate the region’s commitment to transit-related development.

Additionally, METRO provides information related to the light rail system that supports TOD planning, including an inventory of city-owned remnant parcels, passenger ridership data by station, and potential TOD opportunity sites based on supportive land use planning efforts.

A concept on the formation of a TOD Working Group was presented to the RSWG in February 2012. RSWG members were supportive of the plan to move forward and provided several good suggestions to improve the TOD Working Group’s role.

The TOD Working Group would bring together transit planners, land use planners and economic development staff from member cities and regional agencies [e.g., MAG and Valley Metro/Regional Public Transportation Authority (RPTA)] to develop a cohesive policy regarding:

• Remnant parcels • Real estate acquisition and disposal • Land development • Entrepreneurial / revenue generating ventures • Joint-use partnerships

As an initial step, METRO plans to coordinate with participating cities and agencies to identify appropriate representatives with respective knowledge and experience to participate in the Working Group. A kick-off meeting is planned in March to define the TOD Working Group purpose, identify the appropriate structure, identify key responsibilities, and determine goals. It is proposed that the TOD Working Group initially meet on a monthly basis. At subsequent meetings this group will address issues such as identifying and prioritizing TOD related guidelines, strategies, programs, and objectives. Additionally, METRO will reach out to key regional agencies and stakeholder groups such as MAG and the (SCWG) to coordinate TOD-related initiatives.

Additional activities will include inviting guest speakers with TOD expertise that include individuals from the developer community, national public agency and private consultant TOD planners, and staff from the Phoenix metropolitan region representing Housing, Community Development, Economic Development, and Planning Departments.

The TOD Working Group will be tasked with developing aggressive near and long-term action plans to create TOD-related policies and plans for both rail and bus that have the

Rail Management Committee Memo February 29, 2012 Page 3

support of the METRO and RPTA Boards respectively. Ultimately, the adopted policies and plans will assist member cities in adopting local TOD-related policies.

Based on the support of Federal funding over the last few years for projects that include sustainable and livable elements, the TOD Working Group will work to put METRO and the region in an excellent position to secure funds for future corridor planning and TOD planning efforts. The Working Group will provide the region with leverage through a regionally collaborative initiative, one that has been proven successful by peer transit systems with advanced TOD projects.

FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with this agenda item.

RECOMMENDATION This item is for information and discussion only; no action is required.

CENTRAL PHOENIX TRANSPORTATION FRAMEWORK STUDY Attachment F FTA Program Fact Sheets: MAP-21

DRAFT TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Bicycle & Pedestrian Improvement Strategies September, 2013

FACT SHEET: ALCOHOL AND CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES TESTING SECTION 5331

Purpose

This program maintains authority for the U.S. Secretary of Transportation to establish a program that requires grantees to conduct pre-employment, reasonable suspicion, random, and post-accident testing of public transportation employees responsible for safety-sensitive functions.

Statutory References 49 U.S.C. Sections 5331 / MAP-21 Section 20022

What’s New? Adds a provision that gives FTA the ability to bar an entity from receiving federal transit assistance if that entity is not in compliance with FTA’s drug and alcohol regulations.

For additional information on FTA and MAP-21, visit www.fta.dot.gov/map21.

FACT SHEET: BUS AND BUS FACILITIES SECTION 5339

FY 2013 FY 2014 (in millions) (in millions) Bus and Bus Facilities $422 $427.8

Purpose

Provides capital funding to replace, rehabilitate and purchase buses and related equipment and to construct bus-related facilities.

Statutory References 49 U.S.C. Section 5339 / MAP-21 Section 20029

Eligible Recipients • Designated recipients and states that operate or allocate funding to fixed-route bus operators.

• Subrecipients: public agencies or private nonprofit organizations engaged in public transportation, including those providing services open to a segment of the general public, as defined by age, disability, or low income.

What’s New? • Replaces the Section 5309 Bus and Bus Facilities Program. • Funds are eligible to be transferred by the state to supplement urban and rural formula grant programs (5307 and 5311, respectively).

Eligible Activities • Capital projects to replace, rehabilitate and purchase buses, vans, and related equipment, and to construct bus-related facilities. Funding • $65.5 million will be allocated, with each state receiving $1.25 million and each territory (including D.C. and Puerto Rico) receiving $500,000. • Funds are available for three years after the fiscal year in which the amount is apportioned. • Remaining formula based upon population, vehicle revenue miles and passenger miles. • Federal share is 80% with a required 20% local match.

For additional information on FTA and MAP-21, visit www.fta.dot.gov/map21.

FACT SHEET: BUS TESTING FACILITIES

FY 2013 FY 2014 (in millions) (in millions) Bus Testing Facilities $3.0 $3.0

Purpose

Provides for an FTA-funded bus testing facility where all new models purchased using FTA capital assistance must be tested to meet performance standards for safety, structural integrity, reliability, performance (including braking performance), maintainability, emissions, noise, and fuel economy.

Statutory References 49 U.S.C. Sections 5318 / MAP-21 Section 20014

What’s New • Requires FTA to work with the industry to develop a pass/fail standard for bus testing. This standard must include safety standards established by FTA pursuant to Section 5329(b) (Safety). • FTA must issue a rule implementing the standard by September 30, 2014. In the interim, the current bus testing process applies. • Vehicles that do not receive a “pass” rating would not be eligible to be purchased with federal funds. • Test results cannot be interpreted as a warranty or guarantee that the tested bus will meet the purchaser’s specific requirements.

For additional information on FTA and MAP-21, visit www.fta.dot.gov/map21.

FACT SHEET: ENHANCED MOBILITY OF SENIORS AND INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES SECTION 5310

FY 2013 FY 2014 (in millions) (in millions) Formula Grants for the Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals $254.8 $258.3 with Disabilities

Purpose

This program is intended to enhance mobility for seniors and persons with disabilities by providing funds for programs to serve the special needs of transit-dependent populations beyond traditional public transportation services and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) complementary paratransit services.

Statutory References 49 U.S.C. Section 5310 / MAP-21 Section 20009

Eligible Recipients • States (for all areas under 200,000 in population) and

designated recipients. • Subrecipients: states or local government authorities, private non-profit organizations, or operators of public transportation that receive a grant indirectly through a recipient.

Eligible Activities • At least 55% of program funds must be used on capital projects that are: o Public transportation projects planned, designed, and carried out to meet the special needs of seniors and individuals with disabilities when public transportation is insufficient, inappropriate, or unavailable. • The remaining 45% may be used for: o Public transportation projects that exceed the requirements of the ADA. o Public transportation projects that improve access to fixed-route service and decrease reliance by individuals with disabilities on complementary paratransit. o Alternatives to public transportation that assist seniors and individuals with disabilities.

What’s New? • Consolidates New Freedom Program and Elderly and Disabled Program. • Operating assistance is now available under this program.

Funding • Funds are apportioned for urbanized and rural areas based on the number of seniors and individuals with disabilities. • Federal share for capital projects (including acquisition of public transportation services) is 80%.

(cont.) Formula Grants for the Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities

Funding (cont.) • Federal share for operating assistance is 50%. • Adopts New Freedom funding allocations: o 60% to designated recipients in urbanized areas with a population over 200,000. o 20% to states for small urbanized areas. o 20% to states for rural areas.

Ongoing Provisions

• Local share may be derived from other federal (non-DOT) transportation sources or the Federal Lands Highways Program under 23 U.S.C. 204 (as in former Section 5310 program). • Permits designated recipients and states to carry out competitive process to select subrecipients. • Recipients must certify that projects selected are included in a locally developed, coordinated public transit-human services transportation plan. The plan must undergo a development and approval process that includes seniors and people with disabilities, transportation providers, among others, and is coordinated to the maximum extent possible with transportation services assisted by other federal departments and agencies. • Permits acquisition of public transportation services as a capital expense. • Up to 10% of program funds can be used to administer the program, to plan, and to provide technical assistance.

For additional information on FTA and MAP-21, visit www.fta.dot.gov/map21.

FACT SHEET: FIXED GUIDEWAY CAPITAL INVESTMENT GRANTS (“NEW STARTS”) SECTION 5309

FY 2013 FY 2014 (in millions) (in millions) Fixed Guideway Capital Investment Grants (“New Starts”) $1,907 $1,907

Purpose

Provides grants for new and expanded rail, bus rapid transit, and ferry systems that reflect local priorities to improve transportation options in key corridors. This program defines a new category of eligible projects, known as core capacity projects, which expand capacity by at least 10% in existing fixed- guideway transit corridors that are already at or above capacity today, or are expected to be at or above capacity within five years. The program also includes provisions for streamlining aspects of the New Starts process to increase efficiency and reduce the time required to meet critical milestones.

Statutory References 49 U.S.C. Section 5309 / MAP-21 Section 20008

Eligible Recipients State and local government agencies, including transit agencies.

Eligible Projects • New fixed-guideways or extensions to fixed guideways (projects that operate on a separate right-of-way exclusively for public transportation, or that include a rail or a catenary system). • Bus rapid transit projects operating in mixed traffic that represent a substantial investment in the corridor. • Projects that improve capacity on an existing fixed-guideway system.

Funding • This discretionary program requires project sponsors to undergo a multi-step, multi-year process to be eligible for funding. • Maximum federal share is 80%.

What’s New? Program Reorganization • Fixed-guideway modernization and bus and bus facilities projects are no longer funded under this section. See State of Good Repair Program (Section 5337) and Bus and Bus Facilities Program (Section 5339) for funding information for such projects. (cont.) Fixed Guideway Capital Investment Grants (“New Starts”)

What’s New? (cont.)

Project Eligibility • Adds eligibility of core capacity projects.

Project Development Process • Eliminates the Alternatives Analysis requirement and instead relies on the review of alternatives performed during the metropolitan planning and environmental review processes. • Creates the Project Development phase, during which the environmental review is completed. Project sponsors must complete this phase within two years, or seek an extension from FTA. • Reduces the number of FTA approval steps by consolidating Preliminary Engineering and Final Design into a single engineering step. • Requires FTA to develop an expedited review process for determining the technical capacity of project sponsors to undertake the proposed project if they have recently and successfully completed at least one other new fixed guideway or core capacity project.

Project Evaluation and Rating • Allows for use of warrants under certain conditions, i.e., ways in which projects may qualify for automatic ratings on the project justification criteria. • Eliminates the operating efficiencies criterion. • Adds a congestion relief criterion. • Increases the number of evaluation criteria for Small Starts projects. • Requires FTA evaluate the benefits of a Small Starts project against the Federal share of the project, rather than the total project cost when developing the project justification rating.

Other New Provisions • Creates a competitive pilot program for expedited project delivery. • Funds Small Starts projects through a single year grant or an expedited grant agreement. Congressional notification of grant award is 10 days. • Funds New Starts and Core Capacity projects through a full-funding grant agreement. Congressional notification of grant award is 30 days.

Ongoing Provisions • All projects seeking funding from the program must be evaluated and rated based on project justification and local financial commitment criteria. • Small Starts projects must have total net capital cost of less than $250 million and seek a federal share of less than $75 million. • FTA must submit an Annual Report on Funding Recommendations to Congress. • Project sponsors must submit “Before and After Studies,” which FTA must summarize in a report to Congress annually.

For additional information on FTA and MAP-21, visit www.fta.dot.gov/map21.

FACT SHEET: MOVING AHEAD FOR PROGRESS IN THE 21ST CENTURY (MAP-21) FLEXIBLE FUNDING PROGRAMS – NATIONAL HIGHWAY PERFORMANCE PROGRAM (NHPP)

FY 2013 FY 2014 (in millions) (in millions) National Highway Performance Program* $21,800 $21,900 *Sum of estimated individual State apportionments

National Highway Performance Program (NHPP) The Federal Highways Administration (FHWA) Fact Sheet on the National Highway Performance Program (NHPP) can be found at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/nhpp.cfm.

Purpose The NHPP provides support for the condition and performance of the National Highway System (NHS), for the construction of new facilities on the NHS, and to ensure that investments of Federal-aid funds in highway construction are directed to support progress toward the achievement of performance

targets established in a State’s asset management plan for the NHS. This is a new program under MAP-21.

Statutory References 23 U.S.C. 119 / MAP-21 Section 1106 23 U.S.C. 104(f) and 49 U.S.C. 5334(i)

Eligible Recipients The FHWA apportions NHPP funds to States. States are responsible for selecting projects. A State may request that NHPP funds be transferred to FTA for an eligible public transportation project and be administered in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 53 of Title 49. Transferred fund may be awarded to States or local governmental entities eligible for assistance under FTA programs.

Eligible Transit-related Activities NHPP funds may only be used for the construction of a public transportation project that supports progress toward the achievement of national performance goals for improving infrastructure condition, safety, mobility, or freight movement on the NHS and which is eligible for assistance under chapter 53 of title 49, if: the project is in the same corridor as, and in proximity to, a fully access-controlled NHS route; the construction is more cost-effective (as determined by a benefit-cost analysis) than a NHS improvement; and the project will reduce delays or produce travel time savings on the NHS as well as improve regional traffic flow.

(cont.) FLEXIBLE FUNDING PROGRAMS – NATIONAL HIGHWAY PERFORMANCE PROGRAM (NHPP)

Other public transportation projects that meet the above criteria and may be eligible include:

• Construction, rehabilitation or replacement of ferry boats and facilities • Bicycle transportation and pedestrian walkways; • Infrastructure-based intelligent transportation system capital improvements; and • Construction of publicly owned intracity or intercity bus terminals servicing the NHS.

What’s New • MAP-21 explicitly mentions eligibilities for transit projects. • NHPP is a new program under MAP-21, receiving more than half of highway funding dedicated to preserving and improving the National Highway System.

Funding • NHPP funds can be transferred (or “flexed”) over from the States to transit agencies and local governments for transit projects. • States can request that FHWA transfer NHPP funds to FTA for public transportation projects that are generally administered under the Urbanized Area Formula Grants Program (49 U.S.C.5307), Formula Grants for the Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities Program (49 U.S.C. 5310), and the Formula Grants for Rural Areas Program (49 U.S.C. 5311), and which are administered in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 53 of Title 49. • Funding for the NHPP program is contract authority from the Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund. Funds are subject to the overall Federal-aid obligation limitation.

Federal Share NHPP funds transferred to FTA are subject to the guidelines of the FTA program being funded, except for the Federal Share for NHPP funds, which is governed by 23 U.S.C. 120. For States that have implemented an asset management plan within the established timeframe, the Federal Share is generally 80 percent, subject to the upward sliding scale adjustment for States containing public lands. Certain safety improvements as listed in 23 U.S.C. 120(c)(1) may have a Federal share of 100 percent. This provision is limited to 10 percent of the total funds apportioned to a State under 23 U.S.C. 104. The Federal share for NHPP projects for a State that has not implemented an asset management plan within the established timeframe is limited to 65 percent.

For additional information on FTA and MAP-21, visit www.fta.dot.gov/map21.

FACT SHEET: MOVING AHEAD FOR PROGRESS IN THE 21ST CENTURY (MAP-21) FLEXIBLE FUNDING PROGRAMS – SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM (STP)

FY 2013 FY 2014 (in millions) (in millions) Surface Transportation Program* $10,000 $10,100 *Sum of estimated individual State apportionments

Surface Transportation Program (STP) The Federal Highways Administration (FHWA) Fact Sheet on the Surface Transportation Program can be found at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/stp.cfm.

Purpose The STP provides funding that may be used by States and localities for a wide range of projects to preserve and improve the conditions and performance of surface transportation, including highway, transit, intercity bus, bicycle and pedestrian projects.

Statutory References 23 U.S.C. 133 / MAP-21 Section 1108 23 U.S.C. 104(f) and 49 U.S.C. 5334(i)

Eligible Recipients The FHWA apportions STP funds to States. A State may request that STP funds be transferred to FTA for an eligible public transportation project and be administered in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 53 of Title 49. Transferred funds may be awarded to States or local governmental entities eligible for assistance under FTA programs.

Eligible Transit-related Activities • Transit research and development and technology transfer • Surface transportation planning programs • Capital costs for transit projects eligible under Chapter 53 of Title 49, which may include: o o Public transportation electric and natural gas vehicles and infrastructure o Bicycle facilities and pedestrian projects having a nexus to public transportation o Transit safety infrastructure improvements • Transportation Alternatives

What’s New • MAP-21 did not substantially change the transfer criteria of STP for projects eligible under Chapter 53 of Title 49. (cont.) Flexible Funding Programs – Surface Transportation Program (STP)

Funding

• STP funds can be transferred (or “flexed”) over from the States to transit agencies and local governments for transit projects. • A State may request that FHWA transfer STP funds to FTA for any Chapter 53-eligible projects and be administered in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 53 of Title 49.

Federal Share

• STP funds transferred to FTA are subject to the guidelines of the FTA program being funded. However, the Federal Share for STP funds is governed by 23 U.S.C 120. It is generally 80 percent, subject to the upward sliding scale adjustment for States containing public lands. Certain safety projects (e.g., priority control systems for transit vehicles at signalized intersections), as provided in U.S.C. 120(c), may have a Federal share of 100 percent.

For additional information on FTA and MAP-21, visit www.fta.dot.gov/map21.

FACT SHEET: FLEXIBLE FUNDING PROGRAMS – TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES PROGRAM (TAP)

FY 2013 FY 2014 (in millions) (in millions) Transportation Alternatives (TAP)* $809 $820 *Sum of estimated individual State apportionments

Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP)

The Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Fact Sheet on the Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) can be found at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/tap.cfm.

Purpose The TAP program consolidates funding from FHWA’s former Transportation Enhancements, Recreational Trails, and Safe Routes to School programs.

Statutory References 23 U.S.C. § 213 / § 1122 of MAP-21 23 U.S.C. § 104(f) and 49 U.S.C. § 5334(i)

Eligible Recipients • FHWA suballocates 50 percent of each State's TAP funds (after deducting the set-aside for the Recreational Trails Program, if applicable) to areas based on their relative share of the total State population. The remaining 50 percent is available for use in any area of the State. The funds are then obligated based on competitive processes developed by the States and MPOs. Transit agencies, regional transportation authorities, and local governments are among the eligible entities that may apply for TAP funds. A State may request that TAP funds be transferred to FTA for an eligible public transportation project selected through the competitive process.

Transferred funds may be awarded to States or local governmental entities eligible for assistance under FTA programs.

Eligible TAP Activities Related to Transit In order for TAP funds to be transferred to FTA, the TAP activities identified below must have a direct nexus to an eligible public transportation project under chapter 53 of title 49, United States Code. The FTA Office of the Chief Counsel must review any request to transfer TAP funds for eligibility purposes and approve such request. Some eligible TAP activities are as follows: • Construction, planning, and design of on-road and off-road trail facilities for pedestrians, bicyclists, and other nonmotorized forms of transportation, including sidewalks, bicycle infrastructure, and transportation projects to achieve compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.C. 12101 et seq.). • Construction, planning, and design of infrastructure-related projects that will provide safe routes for non- drivers, including children, older adults, and individuals with disabilities.

(cont.)

Flexible Funding Programs – Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP)

Eligible TAP Activities Related to Transit (cont.) • Conversion and use of abandoned railroad corridors for trails for pedestrians, bicyclists, or other nonmotorized transportation users. • Community improvement activities, which include but are not limited to: o historic preservation and rehabilitation of historic transportation facilities; o vegetation management practices in transportation rights-of-way to improve roadway safety, prevent against invasive species, and provide erosion control; and o archaeological activities relating to impacts from implementation of a transportation project eligible under this title. • Any environmental mitigation activity, including pollution prevention and pollution abatement activities and mitigation to: o address stormwater management, control, and water pollution prevention or abatement related to highway construction or due to highway runoff; or o reduce vehicle-caused wildlife mortality or to restore and maintain connectivity among terrestrial or aquatic habitats. What’s New • MAP-21 eliminates the 10 percent set-aside under the Surface Transportation Program for “transportation enhancements” and replaces it with the new “transportation alternatives” program (funded through set-asides from five separate FHWA programs). • These changes do not affect the eligibility of “Associated Transit Improvements,” formerly known as “Transit Enhancements” under Chapter 53. • MAP-21 eliminated the definition of transportation enhancement activities in section 101 of title 23 and inserted in its place a definition of transportation alternatives, which does not include several activities that were previously eligible as independent transportation enhancement activity projects.

Federal Share • TAP funds transferred to FTA are subject to the FTA program requirements under which the funds are being administered. However, the Federal share for most TAP projects is governed by 23 U.S.C. § 120. The Federal share generally is 80 percent, subject to the adjustments described in 23 U.S.C, § 120. Certain safety improvements as listed in 23 U.S.C. § 120(c)(1) may have a Federal share of 100 percent. This provision is limited to 10 percent of the total funds apportioned to a State under 23 U.S.C. § 104.

For additional information on FTA and MAP-21, visit www.fta.dot.gov/map21.

FACT SHEET: FORMULA GRANTS FOR RURAL AREAS SECTION 5311 FY 2013 FY 2014 (in millions) (in millions) 5311 Grants $537.6 $545.6 Tribal 30.0 30.0 Appalachian Region 20.0 20.0 Rural Transit Assistance Program 11.9 12.2

5311 Program Total $599.5 $607.8

Purpose

This program provides capital, planning, and operating assistance to states to support public transportation in rural areas with populations less than 50,000, where many residents often rely on public transit to reach their destinations.

Statutory References 49 U.S.C. Section 5311 / MAP-21 Section 20010

Eligible Recipients • States, Indian tribes

• Subrecipients: State or local government authorities, nonprofit organizations, operators of public transportation or intercity bus service that receive funds indirectly through a recipient.

Eligible Activities • Planning, capital, operating, job access and reverse commute projects, and the acquisition of public transportation services.

What’s New? • Low-income populations in rural areas now incorporated as a formula factor, similar to the repealed Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) program. • Planning is now an eligible activity. • The Tribal program provides $25 million in formula funds and $5 million for discretionary awards. • Appalachian Development Public Transportation Assistance Formula Program is a set-aside program. • Administration, planning, and technical assistance set-aside for states reduced to 10% from 15%. • Cost of unsubsidized portion of privately provided intercity bus service that connects feeder service is now eligible as in-kind local match. • Certain expenditures by operators may be used as local match.

(cont.)

Formula Grants for Rural Areas

Funding • Federal share is 80% for capital projects. • Federal share is 50% for operating assistance. • Federal share is 80% for Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) non-fixed-route paratransit service, using up to 10% of a recipient’s apportionment. Rural Formulas • 83.15% of funds apportioned based on land area and population in rural areas • 16.85% of funds apportioned based on land area, revenue-vehicle miles, and low-income individuals in rural areas. Tribal Programs • $5 million discretionary tribal program. • $25 million tribal formula program for tribes providing public transportation. • Formula factors are vehicle revenue miles and number of low-income individuals residing on tribal lands. Appalachian Development Public Transportation Assistance Formula Program • $20 million formula program for states in the Appalachian Region.

For additional information on FTA and MAP-21, visit www.fta.dot.gov/map21.

FACT SHEET: HUMAN RESOURCES AND TRAINING SECTION 5322

FY 2013 FY 2014 (in millions) (in millions) Human Resources $5.0 $5.0 National Transit Institute (NTI) $5.0 $5.0

Purpose

Under this new program, FTA may make grants or enter into contracts for human resource and workforce development programs as they apply to public transportation activities. Such programs may include: • Employment training; • An outreach program to increase minority and female employment in public transportation activities; • Research on public transportation personnel and training needs; and • Training and assistance for minority business opportunities.

Statutory References 49 U.S.C. Section 5322 / MAP-21 Section 20015

Eligible Recipients For a national transit institute, the recipient must be a public four-year degree-granting institution. For the other workforce development activities, eligible recipients are not defined in the legislation, however, there are a number of selection criteria.

What’s New • Workforce Development o Establishes a competitive grant program to assist in the development of innovative workforce development activities. o Authorizes funding for activities that address human resource needs. o Authorizes an Innovative Public Transportation Workforce Development program. This program aims to assist with the development of innovative workforce development activities. o Requires FTA to report to Congress by September 30, 2014, on measurable outcomes and impacts of human resource programs funded under Section 5322.

• National Transit Institute o A national transit institute, formerly authorized under Section 5315, is now authorized under Section 5322. o The institute is authorized to develop training and education programs related to topics in public transportation. o Training and education will continue to be provided at no cost to the states and local governments for subjects that are a federal program responsibility. (cont.) Human Resources and Training

Funding • Workforce Development: o Funding is discretionary. o The federal share is 50% with a required 50% non-federal share for all projects. • National Transit Institute: o The federal share is 100%.

For additional information on FTA and MAP-21, visit www.fta.dot.gov/map21.

FACT SHEET: METROPOLITAN & STATEWIDE AND NONMETROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLANNING SECTION 5303, SECTION 5304, SECTION 5305

FY 2013 FY 2014 (in millions) (in millions) Planning Programs $126.9 $128.8

Purpose

Provides funding and procedural requirements for multimodal transportation planning in metropolitan areas and states that is cooperative, continuous, and comprehensive, resulting in long-range plans and short-range programs of transportation investment priorities. The planning programs are jointly administered by FTA and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), which provides additional funding.

Statutory References • 49 U.S.C. Section 5303 / MAP-21 Section 20005 – Metropolitan transportation planning • 49 U.S.C. Section 5304 / MAP-21 Section 20006 – Statewide and Nonmetropolitan transportation

planning • 49 U.S.C. Section 5305 – Planning Programs

Eligible Recipients States, with allocation of funding to Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO).

Funding Federal share is 80% formula-based with a required 20% non-federal match.

What’s New? Establishes a Performance-Based Planning Process • Requires MPOs and states to develop transportation plans and transportation improvement programs through a performance-driven, outcome-based approach to planning. • Requires MPOs to establish performance targets that address both the surface transportation performance measures set forth in 23 U.S.C 150(c), in coordination with the state, and public transportation performance measures in coordination with providers of public transportation, to ensure consistency with performance targets related to transit asset management and transit safety, as set forth in 49 U.S.C. 5326(c) and 5329(d). • MPO plans must include performance targets that address performance measures and standards and a System Performance Report. • Transportation Improvement Programs (TIP) must include a description of the anticipated progress brought about by implementing the TIP toward achieving the performance targets.

(cont.) Metropolitan & Statewide and Nonmetropolitan Transportation Planning

What’s New? (cont.) • By October 1, 2017, DOT must submit a Report to Congress evaluating the effectiveness of performance-based planning and assessing the technical capacity of MPOs in smaller areas to undertake performance-based planning. Supports Optional Scenario Development • MPOs may undertake Scenario Development in preparing the metropolitan transportation plan and are encouraged to consider alternative demographic growth and revenue options. Requires Transit Representation on MPO Policy Boards in Large Urbanized Areas • Within two years, MPOs in urbanized areas designated as transportation management areas must include transit officials on their policy boards. Allows Designation of Regional Transportation Planning Organizations • Regional transportation planning organizations may be designated, comprised of volunteer local government and transportation officials to assist the state in addressing the needs of nonmetropolitan areas. Authorizes Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Pilot Program • Creates a pilot program for TOD planning around new fixed guideway or core capacity projects.

Ongoing Provisions • Documents: Unified Planning Work Program, Transportation Plan, TIP, Public Participation Plan, and Congestion Management Process. • Concepts: Eight planning factors, Certification of Transportation Management Areas.

For additional information on FTA and MAP-21, visit www.fta.dot.gov/map21.

FACT SHEET: PROGRAM CONSOLIDATION

Purpose MAP-21 focuses on improving the efficiency of grant program operations by consolidating certain programs and repealing other programs.

Statutory References 49 U.S.C. Sections 5307, 5308, 5309, 5310, 5311, 5317, 5320, 5337, 5339 / MAP-21 Sections 20002, 20007, 20009, 20010, 20027, 20029

What’s New? • The following programs expired on September 30,

2012 and no new funding is authorized beyond fiscal year 2012:

• Alternatives Analysis (5339) • Clean Fuels (5308) • Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) (5316) • New Freedom (5317) • Transit in the Parks (5320), and • Over the Road Bus (3038 of TEA-21).

• Job access and reverse commute activities are now eligible under the Urbanized Area Formula program (5307) as well as the Rural Area Formula program (5311). • Activities eligible under the former New Freedom program are now eligible under the Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities program (5310). • In lieu of the current Bus Discretionary Program (section 5309), a new formula-driven Bus and Bus Facilities Program (5339) is established in MAP-21. • With regard to the Transit in the Parks (5320) program, public transportation investments serving national parks and other federal lands remain eligible under the Federal Lands Transportation Program administered by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). • The elimination of several discretionary programs underscores the need for grantees to carefully prioritize the needs of their own systems and align their capital plans with the new streams of formula assistance provided under MAP-21. • Grantees may continue to obligate funds apportioned for the repealed programs prior to September 30, 2012, through the period of availability.

For additional information on FTA and MAP-21, visit www.fta.dot.gov/map21.

FACT SHEET: PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION EMERGENCY RELIEF PROGRAM SECTION 5324

Purpose This program helps states and public transportation systems pay for protecting, repairing, and/or replacing equipment and facilities that may suffer or have suffered serious damage as a result of an emergency, including natural disasters such as floods, hurricanes, and tornadoes. The program also improves coordination between U.S. DOT and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to expedite assistance to public transit providers in times of disasters and emergencies.

Statutory References 49 U.S.C. Section 5324 / MAP-21 Section 20017

Eligible Recipients States and governmental authorities, including public transportation agencies.

Eligible Activities • Capital projects to protect, repair, reconstruct, or replace equipment and facilities of a public transportation system, including on an Indian reservation, which are in danger of, or have suffered serious damage, as a result of an emergency. Emergencies are defined as natural disasters affecting a wide area or as catastrophic failures resulting from an external cause, and as a result, the governor of a state has declared as an emergency and the Secretary of Transportation has concurred, or the President has declared a major disaster. • Operating costs related to evacuation, rescue operations, temporary public transportation service; or reestablishing, expanding or relocating public transportation route service before, during, or after an emergency.

Funding • Funds will be appropriated by Congress as necessary. • The grants are only for expenses that are not reimbursed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). • Grants made under this program are subject to terms and conditions that the U.S. Secretary of Transportation determines are necessary. • The federal share for capital and operating costs is 80%, with a 20% non-federal share, although FTA may waive the local match. • Operating costs are eligible for one year beginning on the date of declaration or for two years if the Secretary of Transportation determines there is a compelling need.

Memorandum of Agreement U.S. DOT and DHS will enter into a memo of agreement (MOA) in order to improve coordination between the departments and to expedite the provision of federal assistance for public transportation systems relating to a major disaster or emergency.

(cont.)

Public Transportation Emergency Relief Program

Memorandum of Agreement (cont.) • Prior to entering into the agreement, U.S. DOT and DHS, in consultation with state, local and tribal governments that have experienced a major disaster or emergency, will review after action reports to identify areas where coordination should be improved. • The Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall jointly brief the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs and the Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs of the Senate by March 31, 2013, and provide quarterly briefings to the Committees subsequent to execution of the MOA.

For additional information on FTA and MAP-21, visit www.fta.dot.gov/map21.

FACT SHEET: RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, DEMONSTRATION, AND DEPLOYMENT PROJECTS SECTION 5312

FY 2013 FY 2014 (in millions) (in millions)

Section 5312 $70.0 $70.0

Purpose To support research activities that improve the safety, reliability, efficiency, and sustainability of public transportation by investing in the development, testing, and deployment of innovative technologies, materials, and processes; carry out related endeavors; and to support the demonstration and deployment of low-emission and no-emission vehicles to promote clean energy and improve air quality.

Statutory References 49 U.S.C. Section 5312 / MAP-21 Section 20011

Eligible Recipients Federal government agencies, state and local governments, providers of public transportation, private or nonprofit organizations, technical and community colleges, and institutions of higher education.

Eligible Activities Research Public transportation research supporting the development and deployment of innovative ideas, practices and approaches that improve public transportation. These focus areas could include research on performance management, capital and operating efficiencies, alternative fuels, safety improvements, energy efficiency, data and communication systems, and other topics that advance the interests of public transportation. Innovation and Development Projects that seek to improve public transportation systems nationwide by developing, testing, and evaluating technologies, materials, and processes that may provide more efficient and effective delivery of public transportation services. Demonstration, Deployment and Evaluation Activities that promote the early deployment and demonstration of innovation in public transportation that have broad applicability to the transit industry. Project evaluation is required within two years of award. This activity also includes a Low or No Emission Vehicle Deployment program that includes eligibility for acquiring or leasing low- or no-emissions vehicles, constructing or leasing facilities and

(cont.)

Research, Development, Demonstration, and Deployment Projects

Eligible Activities (cont.) equipment, and rehabilitating or improving existing public transportation facilities to accommodate low- or no-emission vehicles.

Funding • Federal share is 80% with a required 20% non-federal share for all projects (non-federal share may be in-kind). • Low- or no-emission bus projects and low- or no-emission bus facilities projects must comprise 65% and 10%, respectively, of the total annual appropriation.

What’s New? • The previous Section 5312 (Research, Development, Demonstration, and Deployment Projects) and Section 5314 (National Research Programs) are now consolidated into one program under Section 5312. • Amends the government share for the program, such that 80% of funding is federal share with a 20% non-federal share (state, local, or private funds). • FTA is required to report annually on research activities to Congress. This includes a description of projects, an evaluation of each project funded, and a proposal of allocations of assistance for the next fiscal year. • Funds under the Low or No Emission Vehicle Deployment Program are subject to the requirements of Section 5307.

For additional information on FTA and MAP-21, visit www.fta.dot.gov/map21.

FACT SHEET: STATE OF GOOD REPAIR GRANTS SECTION 5337 FY 2013 FY 2014 (in millions) (in millions) State of Good Repair Formula Grants $2,136.3 $2,165.9

Purpose A new formula-based State of Good Repair program is FTA’s first stand-alone initiative written into law that is dedicated to repairing and upgrading the nation’s rail transit systems along with high-intensity motor bus systems that use high-occupancy vehicle lanes, including bus rapid transit (BRT). These funds reflect a commitment to ensuring that public transit operates safely, efficiently, reliably, and sustainably so that communities can offer balanced transportation choices that help to improve mobility, reduce congestion, and encourage economic development.

Statutory References

49 U.S.C. Section 5337 / MAP-21 Section 20027

Eligible Recipients • State and local government authorities in urbanized areas with fixed guideway public transportation facilities operating for at least 7 years.

What’s New? • Replaces the Fixed Guideway Rail Modernization Formula Program with the State of Good Repair Formula Grants Program. • High-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes are no longer part of the definition for fixed-guideway systems. There is a new definition for high-intensity motor buses, which is defined as public transportation that shares lanes with other HOV vehicles. • Projects are limited to replacement and rehabilitation or capital projects required to maintain public transportation systems in a state of good repair. • Projects must be included in a Transit Asset Management plan.

Eligible Activities • Capital projects to maintain a system in a state of good repair, including projects to replace and rehabilitate: rolling stock; track; line equipment and structures; signals and communications; power equipment and substations; passenger stations and terminals; security equipment and systems; maintenance facilities and equipment; and operational support equipment, including computer hardware and software. • Transit Asset Management Plan development and implementation.

(cont.) State of Good Repair Grants

Funding Program • Federal share is 80% with a required 20% match. • The program comprises two separate formula programs:

High Intensity Fixed Guideway • Comprises 97.15% of FY2013 and FY2014 apportionments, noted in funding table above. • 50% based on SAFETEA-LU formula under FY2011 Fixed Guideway Rail Modernization Program, with key modification: buses operating on lanes not for exclusive use of public transportation vehicles are excluded. • 50% based on revenue vehicle miles and route miles (with same bus exclusion as above). Includes a hold-harmless provision preventing formula allocations from decreasing by more than 0.25 percent year-to-year.

High Intensity Motorbus • Comprises 2.85% of FY2013 and FY2014 apportionments, noted in funding table above. • 60% based on revenue vehicle miles. • 40% based on route miles of buses operating on lanes not fully reserved only for public transportation vehicles.

For additional information on FTA and MAP-21, visit www.fta.dot.gov/map21.

FACT SHEET: TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT SECTION 5314

FY 2013 FY 2014 (in millions) (in millions) Technical Assistance and Standards Development $7.0 $7.0

Purpose To provide technical assistance to the public transportation industry and to sponsor the development of voluntary and consensus-based standards to more effectively and efficiently provide transit service, as well as support the improved administration of federal transit funds.

Statutory References 49 U.S.C. Section 5314 / MAP-21 Section 20012

Eligible Recipients Federal government agencies, state DOTs, public transportation agencies, nonprofit and for-profit entities.

Funding Grants require a 20 percent non-federal share (non-federal share may be in- kind)

What’s New? • New section dedicated to carrying out technical assistance and the development of voluntary and consensus-based standards. • Authority is granted for a broad range of activities, including: o Technical assistance to support compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), human services transportation coordination requirements, transportation needs of elderly individuals, increased transit ridership, transportation equity needs, and any other technical assistance activities deemed necessary by FTA. o The development of voluntary and consensus-based standards and best practices by public transportation industry experts, including standards and best practices for safety, fare collection, Intelligent Transportation Systems, accessibility, procurement, security, asset management to maintain a state of good repair, operations, maintenance, vehicle propulsion, communications, and vehicle electronics. • Requires FTA to provide an annual report to Congress, including a description of each project that received funding under this section, an evaluation of the activities carried out by each organization that received assistance, and a proposal for allocationof funds for the following fiscal year.

For additional information on FTA and MAP-21, visit www.fta.dot.gov/map21.

FACT SHEET: TRANSIT ASSET MANAGEMENT SECTION 5326 Purpose

This section establishes new requirements for transit asset management by FTA’s grantees as well as new reporting requirements to promote accountability. The goal of improved transit asset management is to implement a strategic approach for assessing needs and prioritizing investments for bringing the nation’s public transit systems into a state of good repair.

Statutory References 49 U.S.C. Section 5326 / MAP-21 Section 20019

Eligible Recipients & Activities

Not applicable; no grants are established under this section. This section establishes cross-cutting requirements across FTA’s grant programs.

What’s New National Transit Asset Management System Through regulation, FTA will establish a national transit asset management system. The regulation will: • define “state of good repair;” • set objective standards for measuring the condition of capital assets (including equipment, rolling stock, infrastructure, and facilities); and • establish performance measures for state of good repair, under which all FTA grantees will be required to set targets. Grantee Plans As established by the above regulation, all FTA grantees and their subrecipients will be required to develop transit asset management plans that include, at a minimum: • capital asset inventories and condition assessments; and • investment prioritization. Reporting Requirements As established by the above regulation, each designated recipient of FTA formula funding will be required to report on: • the condition of their system; • any change in condition since the last report; • targets set under the above performance measures; and • progress towards meeting those targets.

(cont.)

Transit Asset Management

What’s New (cont.)

Performance Targets • Each recipient is required to establish performance targets in relation to the definition of state of good repair established by FTA. • As part of the performance-based planning process (49 U.S.C. Sections 5303 and 5304), metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) and states are required to coordinate their performance targets with the targets for state of good repair set by grant recipients. Technical Assistance FTA will support this effort through technical assistance. In particular, FTA will develop an analytical process or a decision support tool for estimating capital investment needs over time and assisting with investment prioritization.

For additional information on FTA and MAP-21, visit www.fta.dot.gov/map21.

FACT SHEET: TRANSIT SAFETY & OVERSIGHT SECTION 5329 FY 2013 FY 2014 (in thousands) (in thousands) State Safety Oversight Formula Grants $21,989 $22,293

Purpose MAP-21 grants FTA the authority to establish and enforce a new comprehensive framework to oversee the safety of public transportation throughout the United States as it pertains to heavy rail, light rail, buses, ferries, and streetcars. The law requires, among other things, that FTA update the State Safety Oversight (SSO) program to ensure that rail transit systems are meeting basic, common-sense safety requirements. The law also includes important new safety provisions for bus-only operators. FTA will implement the new law in consultation with the transit community and the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Transit Rail Advisory Committee for Safety

(TRACS), which has been working since September of 2010 to help guide this effort.

Background Since 1964, FTA, which finances nearly half of the capital expenditures for transit systems nationwide, has been prohibited by law from issuing basic safety standards to protect rail transit passengers and rail workers. The result is a patchwork of state laws that do not provide seamless or consistent safety coverage. The transit safety provisions in MAP-21 will help to remedy these long-standing shortcomings. In December 2009, DOT formally transmitted to Congress a legislative proposal to establish and enforce minimum federal safety standards for rail transit systems. Many of the safety provisions included in MAP-21 are reflected in the Administration’s original proposal.

Statutory References 49 U.S.C. Section 5329 / MAP-21 Section 20021

Safety Performance Criteria FTA must develop safety performance criteria for all modes of transportation.

Vehicle Safety Performance Standards • FTA must develop minimum safety performance standards for transit vehicles not regulated by other modes in DOT or any other federal agency. • The Bus Testing Program will be required to incorporate the new safety performance standards into a new Pass/Fail rating system.

(cont.)

Public Transportation Safety

Public Transportation Safety Certification Training Program for Federal and State Personnel • FTA will develop a public transportation safety certification training program that applies to transit grantees regardless of mode. The program is for federal and state employees or other personnel who conduct audits as well as employees of public transportation agencies responsible for safety oversight. • Section 5307 and 5311 recipients may use up to 0.5 percent of formula funds to pay for up to 80% of the cost to participate in the public transportation safety certification training program for SSO agency employees.

Transit Agency Safety Plans for all Federal Transit Recipients • All recipients of FTA funding will develop an agency safety plan and certify that the plan meets FTA requirements. At a minimum, these plans must include: o Strategies for identifying risks and minimizing exposure to hazards. o An adequately trained safety officer to report directly to the general manager or equivalent. o Performance targets based on the safety performance criteria above. o Staff training program. • For recipients receiving 5311 funds, the plan may be drafted and certified by the recipient or the state. • For recipients receiving 5307 funds, FTA must issue a rule designating the small public transportation providers or systems that may have their safety plans drafted or certified by the state.

State Safety Oversight Program (for States with Rail Systems not Regulated by FRA) Requirements • Each state with rail systems not regulated by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) will meet requirements for an SSO program. At a minimum, this must include: o assuming responsibility for oversight of rail fixed-guideway public transportation safety; o enforcing federal law for rail fixed-guideway public transportation safety; and o establishing a State Safety Oversight agency. • SSO programs must encompass an SSO agency’s capacity, organizational structure, financing, and activities. • FTA must approve state SSO programs. Funding • FTA will develop a formula for states that takes into account revenue miles, route miles, and passenger miles. • Federal share is 80%. Certification • FTA will certify whether each state SSO is adequate and meets the requirements. • FTA will oversee implementation of the SSO programs and audit each SSO agency at least triennially.

Additional Authorities • FTA has the authority to inspect and audit all public transportation systems; to make reports and issue directives with respect to the safety of public transportation systems; to issue subpoenas and take depositions; to require the production of documents; to prescribe recordkeeping and reporting requirements; to investigate public transportation accidents and incidents; to enter and inspect equipment, rolling stock, operations and relevant records; and to issue regulations to carry out section 5329. • FTA has enforcement authority, and is permitted to issue directives, require more frequent oversight, impose more frequent reporting requirements, and require that formula grant funds be spent to correct safety deficiencies before funds are spent on other projects.

For additional information on FTA and MAP-21, visit www.fta.dot.gov/map21.

FACT SHEET: TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT PLANNING PILOT

FY 2013 FY 2014 (in millions) (in millions) Transit-Oriented Development Planning Pilot $10 $10

IMPORTANT NOTE: Under the FY2013 Continuing Resolution (CR), funding is not available for this new discretionary program, which was authorized by MAP-21 but not identified in Section 154 of the CR. FTA does not expect funds to be available until a full FY2013 Appropriations Act is passed by Congress, likely in March 2013.

Purpose

Provides funding to advance planning efforts that support transit-oriented development (TOD) associated with new fixed- guideway and core capacity improvement projects. TOD focuses growth around transit stations to promote ridership, affordable housing near transit, revitalized downtown centers and neighborhoods, and encourage local economic development.

Statutory References MAP-21 Section 20005(b)

Eligible Recipients State and local government agencies.

Funding Funds are awarded competitively.

What’s New? • Creates a pilot grant program for TOD planning associated with a new fixed guideway or core capacity improvement project, as those projects are defined in 49 U.S.C. 5309 (Fixed Guideway Capital Investment Grants Program). • Authorizes FTA to make grants for comprehensive planning that seeks to: o Enhance economic development, ridership, and other goals established during the project development and engineering processes; o Facilitate multimodal connectivity and accessibility; o Increase access to transit hubs for pedestrian and bicycle traffic; o Enable mixed-use development; o Identify infrastructure needs associated with the eligible project; and o Include private-sector participation. • Establishes the minimum contents of an application for funding assistance.

For additional information on FTA and MAP-21, visit www.fta.dot.gov/map21.

FACT SHEET: URBANIZED AREA FORMULA GRANTS SECTION 5307 & SECTION 5340

FY 2013 FY 2014 (in millions) (in millions) 5307 Grants $4,367.95 $4,428.65 Passenger Ferry Grants $30.00 $30.00

5307 Program Total $4,397.95 $4,458.65 Growing States/High Density Formula (5340) $518.70 $525.90

Purpose This program provides grants to Urbanized Areas1 (UZA) for public transportation capital, planning, job access and reverse commute projects, as well as operating expenses in certain circumstances. These funds constitute a core investment in the enhancement and revitalization of public transportation systems in the nation’s urbanized areas, which depend on public transportation to improve mobility and reduce congestion.

Statutory References 49 U.S.C. Sections 5307, 5336, and 5340 / MAP-21 Sections 20007, 20026

Eligible Recipients FTA apportions funds to designated recipients, which then suballocate funds to state and local governmental authorities, including public transportation providers.

Eligible Activities • Capital projects. • Planning. • Job access and reverse commute projects that provide transportation to jobs and employment opportunities for welfare recipients and low-income workers. • Operating costs in areas with fewer than 200,000 in population. • Operating costs, up to certain limits, for grantees in areas with populations greater than 200,000, and which operate a maximum of 100 buses in fixed-route service during peak hours (rail fixed guideway excluded).

1 An area with a population of 50,000 or more, defined and designated in the most recent decennial census as an ‘urbanized area’ by the U.S. Secretary of Commerce.

(cont.)

Urbanized Area Formula Grants

What’s New? • Operating costs, up to certain limits, for grantees in areas with populations greater than 200,000, and which operate a maximum of 100 buses in fixed-route service during peak hours (rail fixed guideway excluded). • Transit enhancements are removed and replaced by more narrowly defined “associated transportation improvements.” Recipients must expend at least 1% of their 5307 apportionment on these improvements. • Funding provided by other government agencies or departments that are eligible to be expended on transportation may be used as local match. • Certain expenditures by vanpool operators may be used as local match. • MAP-21 removes eligibility for the transfer of 5307 transit funds to highway projects.

Ongoing Provision • Recipients must expend 1% for transportation security projects or certify that it is not necessary to do so.

Funding • Federal share is 80% for capital assistance. • Federal share is 50% for operating assistance. • Federal share is 80% for Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) non-fixed-route paratransit service, using up to 10% of a recipient’s apportionment.

Formula • For areas of 50,000 to 199,999 in population, the formula is based on population and population density, and number of low-income individuals. • For areas with populations of 200,000 and more, the formula is based on a combination of bus revenue vehicle miles, bus passenger miles, fixed guideway revenue vehicle miles, and fixed guideway route miles, as well as population and population density and number of low-income individuals.

Passenger Ferry Grant Program • $30 million is set aside for passenger ferry grants, to be allocated through competitive selection.

For additional information on FTA and MAP-21, visit www.fta.dot.gov/map21.