Technical Memorandum

Date: Monday, December 03, 2018 Project: Moving Forward TV Highway – Enhanced Transit and Access Plan To: Dyami Valentine ( County) and Marah Danielson (ODOT) From: Tom Shook (HDR)

FINAL Technical Memorandum 4: Case Study Analysis of HCT Treatments in Subject: Mixed Traffic

1.0 Introduction

The purpose of this technical memorandum is to review a series of (BRT) case studies and identify planning and implementation opportunities for application of BRT along TV Highway. Information gathered from transit agencies that recently planned and implemented BRT service will provide Washington County, Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), and other partnering agencies with valuable insight and lessons learned related to BRT development along TV Highway.

This technical memorandum provides an overview of examples of BRT services in regional and national locations with similar corridor character, challenges, and issues that have been identified along TV Highway in Washington County. Case studies on four unique BRT systems operating in similar environments to TV Highway highlight key characteristics of planning, funding, implementing, and operating the services. To collect the case study information, the project team researched and conducted phone interviews with the case study agencies identified by Washington County and ODOT staff. The technical memorandum presents and synthesizes results and lessons learned from BRT planning and implementation in the four case study locations.

The organization of this technical memorandum begins with a brief overview of key BRT characteristics and a summary of the benefits of BRT. This overview is followed by a detailed look at key service characteristics drawn from each peer agency interview, synthesized into a set of key lessons learned, which were then identified for each case study corridor.

1.1 Themes Explored

Three major lessons learned themes were explored during the case study interviews, as follows:

• Project Funding: Agency representatives discussed project costs and types of funding pursued during project planning/project development and how their agency agreed on a financial strategy to implement the project. • Project Planning: Agency representatives provided an overview of the overall corridor problem statement and discussed initial corridor deficiencies/opportunities; High Capacity Transit (HCT)

Moving Forward TV Highway | Enhanced Transit and Access Plan 1

concepts considered (including BRT) and rationale for selecting BRT; traffic and transit operations analysis techniques; community reactions and strategies to build project support; and other project-related challenges/strategies to successfully pre-position each corridor for BRT construction and revenue service operation. Several unique challenges were presented for each of the corridors that required a creative approach and inter-agency negotiation to successfully deliver the project. • Project Design & Implementation: A number of design and implementation considerations were discussed, including transit priority treatments, access management strategies, access to transit improvements, service design, stop spacing, concurrent corridor projects, and operating requirements, all of which provide valuable lessons learned on design and implementation strategy. These themes contribute to BRT’s ability to deliver improved travel times, reliability, safety, all while increasing corridor ridership. Each agency was asked at the end of the interview about unique lessons learned they wanted to share regarding the BRT planning and implementation experience.

2.0 Brief Overview of BRT

2.1 General BRT Characteristics

Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is a high-quality transit service that integrates a host of strategies and technologies to improve transit travel speed, reliability, capacity, passenger comfort, and unique transit identity over traditional fixed-route bus service. BRT strategies include:

• High-quality transit service – service that features reduced transit travel times, long spans of service, longer stop spacing, and high frequency of service. • Dedicated transit guideway and/or transit priority treatments – roadway and intersection infrastructure allowing transit vehicles to bypass congested segments or intersections. Transit guideway alignment may include median alignments, curb-run alignments, or hybrids. Intersection priority treatments include signalized queue jumps, bus-only lanes, business access and transit (BAT) lanes, and other specialized treatments. • Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) – ITS facilitates operations through a coordinated system of technology that allows the bus and driver to communicate with traffic signals, stations, and communications centers as well as customers. ITS elements may include transit signal priority, optical guidance systems, and computer aided dispatch/automated vehicle locators systems. • Enhanced fare collection systems – innovative fare collection tools and methods that reduce boarding times. This most often includes off-board fare collection but may include turnstile- controlled proof-of-payment. • Enhanced stations – high amenity stations that may include covered waiting areas, platform level boarding for quick passenger loading and unloading, off-board fare collection, next-bus displays, Wi-Fi, and other features.

Moving Forward TV Highway | Enhanced Transit and Access Plan 2

• Specialized vehicles – unique buses that often feature a stylized appearance package, high passenger-carrying capacity, and interiors with open seating patterns, quality lighting, and large windows. • BRT branding – unique designs and marketing to separate BRT from local bus service. This often includes unique names, visually different vehicles, and branded station designs. In general, BRT has operating costs slightly higher than local bus service, primarily due to technology costs (TSP operations), and maintenance at stations (e.g., off-board fare machines). However, in most cases, increases in speed, and therefore reduction in travel time, will provide opportunities to reinvest saved operating resources along the corridor or elsewhere in the transit network. Capital costs for BRT differ based on the strategies employed. Dedicated running ways, high-end vehicles, sophisticated fare collection systems, and full-feature stations will dictate capital costs. Discretionary federal and other specialized grant programs at the local and state levels often subsidize capital costs.

2.2 BRT Design Flexibility

The range of strategies employed differentiates BRT systems, typically falling into a spectrum of BRT investment. The lower end of the spectrum typically applies to service in mixed traffic and targeted strategies such as queue jumps, TSP, and increased stop spacing (often referred to as “arterial,” “corridor,” or “lite” BRT); whereas the higher end BRT (or “true” or “fixed guideway” BRT) employs many or all of the above suite of strategies, most notably an exclusive or segregated guideway needed to reduce travel times and improve service reliability. Each corridor that has undergone or is planning for BRT investment is unique and requires targeted investment to mitigate specific transit needs and/or deficiencies. BRT is intended to be flexible and allows for a variety of different features and strategies necessary to improve transit service in a cost-effective manner with minimal impacts.

For eligibility purposes of the Federal Transit Authority (FTA)’s Capital Investment Grant (CIG) Program, FTA defines BRT as either “fixed guideway” or “corridor-based,” both requiring accessible stations, short headways, faster passenger travel times through priority treatments, and separate and consistent brand identity. “Fixed guideway” BRT is defined as a corridor with over 50 percent of the route operating in separated right-of-way dedicated for transit use during peak periods, whereas “corridor-based” BRT is defined as a corridor that does not operate in a separated right-of-way dedicated for transit during peak periods. Both are eligible for FTA’S CIG Small Starts funding and both are evaluated through the same FTA-administered rating system, because they both provide investment to improve the quality of transit service along a defined corridor or network of corridors. The Small Starts rating system considers a set of criteria used to compare other eligible projects, including mobility improvements, environmental benefits, congestion relief, cost-effectiveness, economic development, land use, and local financial commitment, each of which is weighted differently.

Corridor projects considering FTA Small Starts funds may utilize project justification warrants to automatically receive a satisfactory (“medium”) rating on three of the evaluation criteria, including mobility improvements, congestion relief, and cost-effectiveness. These warrants are eligible for

Moving Forward TV Highway | Enhanced Transit and Access Plan 3

projects that fall within certain weekday ridership and total project capital cost thresholds as defined by FTA’s CIG Policy Guidance.1

3.0 Case Studies for Review

3.1 Selected Case Studies

BRT has been developed in a variety of forms in many cities across the country, ranging from fully exclusive operations, mixed traffic operations, center running, curbside running, and other forms that prioritize transit service. Washington County and ODOT selected four peer agencies that have planned and implemented some form of BRT service, each of which achieved mobility goals and provided a greater level of transit service. The four peer agencies were selected are listed in Table 1 below.

Table 1. BRT Case Study Agencies and Corridors Transit Agency Location BRT Line Opening Year C-TRAN Vancouver, WA The Vine 2017 LTD Eugene, OR West EmX Extension 2017 Snohomish Co., WA SWIFT I (Blue Line) 2009 Transfort Fort Collins, CO The MAX 2014

Each peer agency was asked a series of questions related to planning, concept development, funding, priority treatments, service design, implementation, and other topics related to lessons learned implementing BRT service. Table 2 below summarizes key BRT features of each of the four case study corridors along with several key performance indicators as a result of BRT investment.

1 Source: Final Interim Policy Guidance, Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grant Program, June 2016.

Moving Forward TV Highway | Enhanced Transit and Access Plan 4

Table 2. Case Study Features and Performance Indicators Summary BRT Feature/ C-TRAN’s The Vine LTD’s West EmX Community Transfort’s MAX Performance Indicator Transit’s SWIFT Blue Line Queue Jumps Yes Yes Yes Yes BAT lanes Yes (much pre- No Yes No existed on corridor) Bus-only lanes No No No Yes Level boarding Near-level Near-level Near-Level Near-Level Off-board fare collection Yes Yes Yes Yes All-door boarding Rear two doors Yes Yes Yes On-board bike racks Yes Yes Yes Yes TSP Yes Yes Yes Yes Real-time information Yes, at stations Yes, at stations Yes, at stations Yes, at stations Vehicle length 60-foot articulated 60-foot articulated 60-foot articulated 60-foot articulated Key Performance Indicators Total Project Cost $53 M $96.5 M $29 M $86.8 M +75% in first 6 +16% in corridor months Ridership Increases +45% in first year +14% in first 3 months ridership in first year +200% in 4 years since opening 30% reduction in travel time, or 19 Travel Time 12% reduction in Projected 28% minutes of savings Improvements scheduled travel time reduction in travel time2 (including dwell time reduction 4 times Reduction in 1 that of typical stop) vehicle More reliable transit Anecdotal reliability Reliability 89% reduction in late travel times with queue improvements with Improvements departures jumps and BAT lanes compulsory stops3 Several new $161 million New station areas to $82.5 million generated development generated through nearly 600 acres of Economic Development through 6 housing projects within 845 new housing vacant or redevelopable Impact developments totaling proximity of units and 301K sq. land; created jobs for 391 units stations, and more ft. of commercial 63 local companies2 underway space

2 Source: LTD, APWA Oregon Chapter Public Works Project of the Year Application, 2017. 3 Compulsory stops at all SWFIT stations were initiated to be as rail-like as possible, thus improving travel time reliability and consistency. A mid-route dwell point was also initiated to manage headways and improve on-time departures.

Moving Forward TV Highway | Enhanced Transit and Access Plan 5

3.2 C-TRAN’s The Vine

Location: Vancouver, Washington Length: 6 miles Route: Fourth Plain Boulevard/Ft. Vancouver Way from Downtown Vancouver to Vancouver Mall Project Cost: $53 million Opening Year: 2017

The Vine operates between Downtown Vancouver and Van Mall 3.2.1 Corridor Overview Transit Center primarily along Fourth Plain Boulevard, the highest The Vine BRT was the first BRT line in ridership corridor in the C-TRAN network. Source: C-TRAN.com the Portland-Vancouver Metro area. The line operates entirely within the City of Vancouver. The corridor extends from downtown Vancouver at Turtle Place (7th Street/Main Street) with an eastern terminus at the Westfield Vancouver Transit Center. The Vine operates along a major arterial, with advanced BRT features, including state-of-the-art transit signal priority, signals, articulated vehicles, and other unique features. The project required all new investment since no pre-existing BRT features existed along the corridor. The corridor operates entirely in mixed traffic due to design and operational constraints along Fourth Plain Boulevard.

Corridor Features: • Service design: BRT service operates every 10 minutes on weekdays and every 15 minutes on weekends, with no local service underlay. Overall corridor ridership increased by approximately 45 percent with the introduction of the new service. • Design elements: Eighteen station pairs with approximately 1/3 mile stop spacing. Signalized queue jumps are located at several locations along the corridor. Sixty-foot articulated vehicles include interior bike racks to accommodate up to three bicycles, three-door boarding on right side only, and space for two wheelchairs using a passive restraint security system. Fourteen-inch near-level boarding platform heights with off-board fare payment machines, enhanced shelters, real-time arrival boards, and security systems. • Operational elements: The Vine operates with based schedules, where a vehicle leaves each terminal every 10 minutes and does not rely on a published schedule at specific timepoints. Stations include “welcome mats” for operators to quickly and precisely align doors at stations. Although the vehicles each have three doors, passengers are only allowed to board and alight through the two rear doors, which improves efficiency by minimizing interaction between passengers and operators.

3.2.2 Cost and Funding

The total project cost was $53 million, with approximately 80 percent of the funds coming from a mix of FTA CIG Small Starts program (approximately 73 percent) and a Federal Congestion Mitigation and Air

Moving Forward TV Highway | Enhanced Transit and Access Plan 6

Quality (CMAQ) grant. The remaining 20 percent came from a mix of C-TRAN reserves and a Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Regional Mobility Grant. The local match of the project was made possible by the success of a ballot measure that increased the regional sales tax to pay for transit improvements. C-TRAN was successful in securing a few partnerships with corridor businesses and institutions, including Walmart's financial support for a station and a Clark College land donation.

3.2.3 Project Planning

Project Need & Vision The purpose of the Fourth Plain Transit Improvement Project was to cost-effectively increase transit ridership as well as enhance transit’s comfort, convenience and image by reducing transit travel time, improving trip reliability, and increasing transit capacity to meet current and long-term transit travel demand, while also enhancing the safety and security of the corridor. The project was intended to support the City of Vancouver’s Fourth Plain corridor revitalization efforts and be consistent with the Southwest Washington Regional Transportation Commission’s (RTC) HCT System Plan, which C-Tran participated in developing, as well as other local land use and transportation plans. The need for the project resulted from:

• Capacity issues as a result of very high corridor ridership – the Fourth Plain corridor had the agency’s highest transit ridership, and was an obvious first candidate for the HCT system • Poor reliability and bus bunching of the previous service, which was partially due to a the number of over-capacity trips, a high number of wheelchair boardings, the influence of bridge lifts, and recurring congestion across the Oregon/Washington I-5 Interstate Bridge • Continuing increases in corridor transit delays and travel times as a result of long dwell times and closely spaced bus stops • Increasing need for east/west travel and transit connectivity • Corridor safety and security concerns, including insufficient access and limited crossing treatments • Mobility constraints to job creation and retention, and economic growth

Alternatives Considered During the initial planning phase of the project, a series of HCT alternatives were considered, including light rail transit, full BRT with exclusive lanes, arterial-based BRT operating primarily in general purpose traffic, and streetcar. The alternatives considered for BRT included mixed traffic (both curbside and inside lane), BAT lane conversion, BAT lane added, single bi-directional center lane, double center running lanes added, and double center running lanes converted. Based on transit ridership, capital cost, and operating costs, project decision makers recommended that HCT service on Fourth Plain should use the BRT-Hybrid (mixed both the curbside and left lane configurations proposed for the BRT) concept with sections of exclusive right-of-way where practical and other sections operating in mixed traffic. The preferred alternative that was selected and ultimately built was BRT operating in mixed traffic on the curbside, which resulted in the fewest impacts to general corridor traffic flow and ended up the most cost-effective. Most significantly, the recommended Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) met the publicly supported Purpose and Need to improve transit travel time, reliability, and capacity.

Moving Forward TV Highway | Enhanced Transit and Access Plan 7

The Vine project originally planned to operate along the same downtown Vancouver couplet alignment as the planned MAX light rail extension into Vancouver. However, once that project was discontinued, The Vine maintained a similar couplet alignment into downtown, where it terminated on the west end of the corridor. The Vine replaced C-TRAN Route 4, which previously operated across the Oregon/Washington I-5 Bridge, and provided a one-seat ride from Fourth Plain Boulevard to the Delta Park/Vanport MAX light rail station in North Portland. However, due to severe reliability issues caused by recurring I-5 congestion and regular bridge lifts, the project team made the decision to remove the interstate portion of the service to ensure the Fourth Plain portion of the corridor remained reliable once The Vine began operation. While The Vine route is shorter by terminating in downtown Vancouver and requires a transfer to get across the Oregon/Washington I-5 Interstate Bridge, ridership on the corridor increased by approximately 45 percent compared to Route 4 once The Vine was implemented.

Analysis Techniques Auto and freight operations, travel times, capacity, and reliability were evaluated for a forecast year of 2035 using a combination of RTC’s regional travel demand model and detailed traffic analysis using VISSIM and Synchro microsimulation models. Using Synchro and VISSIM was key in the Vancouver Mall/Westfield Center area, where stakeholders needed to see that the signals functioned well at peak times.

3.2.4 Project Design & Implementation

Transit Priority Treatments Transit signal priority (TSP) implementation went fairly well, but had some challenges because it was the first of its kind for the City of Vancouver. Through the Fourth Plain development process, the City of Vancouver was able to monitor its effectiveness and build more support for future corridors.

Queue jumps or bypasses were designed at two major intersections, which include an exclusive transit signal head and a dynamic “No Right Turn” sign to avoid any conflict with right turning autos. Each of these queue jumps were implemented with their own initial operational challenges. In fact, the General Andersen Avenue queue jump along the corridor seldom hinders transit operations by not allowing a vehicle to proceed. This queue jump was designed to allow a bus to utilize a right turn pocket as a near-side station. However, the transit signal may not change when the bus is ready to proceed, contributing to undesired delay. The queue jump signal is still in place because it is tied to the location of the near-side station. Bus drivers may be required to wait a few signal cycles until the transit signal changes, or proceed through the intersection without the signal switching for buses to proceed after checking to see no through traffic in the adjacent lane is approaching.

Moving Forward TV Highway | Enhanced Transit and Access Plan 8

Station Design Stations were designed with two typologies related to pedestrian integration around the station: a bypass station with sidewalk behind the station area, and a pedestrian through station that utilizes the platform to travel along the sidewalk. Each station location was equipped with one of these typologies depending on corridor design and right-of-way constraints. The bypass typology (18 feet wide with a 12--foot platform width and a 6-foot sidewalk) has a larger footprint and was often implemented in locations with high pedestrian demand, or where on-street parking could be repurposed, such as downtown or on portions of McLoughlin Boulevard. Many stations on Fourth Stations in Downtown Vancouver are designed to Plain Boulevard had tight right-of-way connect with local bus service, but allow The Vine buses constraints, similar to TV Highway; therefore, to jump in front of local buses to minimize delay approaching stations. these locations relied on the pedestrian through station typology (12 feet wide, with some a narrow as 9 feet wide, depending on site constraints). The project team also addressed station concerns for bicycle and pedestrian connectivity by utilizing the City of Vancouver’s standards for bike lanes and sidewalk allowances. Station spacing concerns were raised by stakeholders who wanted to ensure that transit remained easily accessible for the high rate of transit-dependent and disabled residents. The preferred option also explored shifting some station locations to limit property impacts.

Moving Forward TV Highway | Enhanced Transit and Access Plan 9

Access to Transit The project included two new signalized pedestrian crossings and wider sidewalks in several station areas to improve access to the new service. The project deployed very limited access management along the corridor, with the exception of the pedestrian refuge islands constructed for access purposes. Streetscape improvements, such as lighting and aesthetically pleasing stations and railings were also included in the project design.

Concurrent Projects The City of Vancouver was interested in integrating several sidewalk gap closure projects into The Vine project, although funding was limited for construction. The C-TRAN maintenance facility was also expanded to accommodate 60-foot articulated vehicles needed to operate The Vine service. In addition, the Vancouver Mall Transit Center was relocated and built with enhanced Stations were primarily placed at locations with pre-existing marked crossings. In features needed to serve as a terminal point and layover addition, the corridor includes a queue jump location for The Vine service. to improve transit operations. Source: HDR

Community Reaction The project evolved and changed throughout the course of the process based upon the input received from the public and project stakeholders. Initially, issues were crafted into the project’s Goals and Objectives as part of the overall Purpose and Need Statement. Additionally, other changes were made, such as the narrowing the range of BRT lane configuration concepts considered. The double center lane (with dedicated BRT lanes) and bi-directional lane configurations were eliminated from consideration for both Fourth Plain Boulevard and Fort Vancouver Way due to the concerns about impeding vehicular travel and analysis validating those concerns.

The political environment in Clark County and issues regarding the Columbia River Crossing (CRC) planning process had significant impact early on. The preferred alternative assumed the light rail component of the CRC project would cover the cross-river service that the previous Fourth Plain service covered (Route 4). Building political support was difficult and was sidetracked when RTC produced animations showing a fixed guideway concept with disappearing low rise buildings and sprouting high rises throughout the corridor. Ultimately, it was crucial to get business owners to champion the project, as they had the ears of key C-Tran board members.

During the project advisory committee’s deliberations prior to their LPA recommendations, they requested that the future phases of the project implement a robust public process and preserve the decisions made in the initial process (i.e., using curbside running and the hybrid option as a starting point for decision-making and design).

Moving Forward TV Highway | Enhanced Transit and Access Plan 10

3.2.5 Key Lessons Learned

• A clearly defined project purpose and need is a helpful tool for decision-making, design features, and a funding strategy. • Flexibility in station design provides opportunities to design and construct stations effectively within constrained areas, which limits right-of-way (ROW) acquisitions. • Visualizations are prone to misinterpretation by the public and stakeholders; do not render preconceived solutions. • Understand existing fiber infrastructure needed for TSP treatments; project was delayed by limited inter-agency communication. • Plan review: C-Tran did not have the staff to properly review plans at the 30 percent, 60 percent, 90 percent level. Bring on third party design review at the start of preliminary design to review for constructability and value engineering.

3.3 LTD’s West EmX

Location: Eugene, Oregon Length: 9 additional miles in addition to the existing 15 miles of EmX service. Route: W 11th Avenue from Downtown Eugene to West Eugene via W 6th/7th Avenues Project Cost: $96.5 million Opening Year: 2017 The West EmX project extended the pre-existing EmX line from Downtown Eugene to West Eugene along W 11th Ave via W 6th/7th Aves. Source: LTD.org 3.3.1 Corridor Overview

The West Emerald Express (EmX) was the second BRT line in the Eugene area. The line is an extension of the pre-existing Eugene-Springfield BRT line, and interlines service to create a seamless trip between West Eugene and Springfield, OR via downtown Eugene. The extension connects downtown Eugene at Eugene Station (W 10th Avenue between Olive Street and Willamette Street) to West Eugene at Commerce Street/W 11th Avenue. EmX operates along several major arterials and ODOT roadways, with advanced BRT features, including transit signal priority, queue jump signals, extensive BAT lanes, articulated vehicles, and other unique features. The project required all new investment because no pre- existing BRT features existed along the corridor. The pre-existing eastern terminus transit center is the exception because it serves as the interline point between the West EmX and the Franklin/Springfield EmX lines.

Corridor Features: • Service design: BRT service operates every 10 minutes on weekdays and every 15 to 30 minutes on weekends, with no local service underlay. The introduction of the extension resulted in a 14 percent increase in area ridership within the first three months of service.

Moving Forward TV Highway | Enhanced Transit and Access Plan 11

• Design elements: Fourteen additional station pairs with approximately 1/2 mile stop spacing. BAT lanes are included in most of the corridor in both directions of travel. Sixty-foot articulated vehicles include interior bike racks to accommodate up to three bicycles, three-door boarding on right side only, and space for two wheelchairs. Near-level boarding platform heights with off-board fare payment machines, enhanced shelters, real-time arrival boards, and security systems. • Operational elements: EmX operates with timepoint based schedules, although real time information displays bus arrivals at every station. Stations include “welcome mats” for operators to quickly and precisely align doors at stations.

3.3.2 Cost and Funding

The project cost was $96.5 million, with approximately $75 million of the funds coming from the FTA Small Starts Capital Investment Grant program and the remaining $21.5 million through Oregon state funding (Oregon Lottery bonds and Connect Oregon grant), FTA formula funds, and local farebox funding.

3.3.3 Project Planning

Project Need & Vision The purpose of the West Eugene EmX Extension project was to implement a high-capacity public transportation service in the West 11th Corridor (east/west) that utilizes the adopted high-capacity transit mode identified in the Regional Transportation Plan which is less hindered by congestion and provides efficient, effective, dependable, and visually appealing service throughout the life of the project.

Alternatives Considered The project only considered BRT as an alternative because the intent was to extend the already existing EmX between downtown Eugene and Springfield. Alternatives analyzed early in the process included adding lanes to the corridor alignment and creating exclusive transit lanes. Adding lanes was found to have major negative impacts on properties and street character, while BAT lanes were preferred as they limit the impacts to the large number of business accesses along the corridor.

Analysis Techniques Lane County Council of Governments (LCOG), the Metropolitan Planning Microsimulation modeling was an effective way to help the Organization (MPO) for the Lane County public and project stakeholders visualize the project. Source: LTD area, maintains its own regional travel

Moving Forward TV Highway | Enhanced Transit and Access Plan 12

demand forecasting model. Detailed traffic analysis was conducted using VISSIM microsimulation models, which not only helped to identify needed transit priority treatments, but also helped educate the public on project benefits.

3.3.4 Project Design & Implementation

Due to potential issues with wetlands, endangered species, and recreation/parklands, the original terminus moved approximately two miles to the east resulting in a shorter alignment. Although the project was able to avoid adjacent creek and trail impacts, sidewalk improvements were required along one side of an existing bridge that crosses over the creek and trail, in order to include BAT lanes along this segment.

Nine driveways were altered in order to implement access management along the alignment due to station location and operational considerations. Of the nine driveways, three were modified and six were closed. For the six properties that had driveways closed, each had multiple driveways, so the impact to access was minimal.

Transit Priority Treatments With the successful implementation of BAT lanes on the original EmX project, BAT lanes were extensively deployed on much of the West EmX extension corridor, including several locations along ODOT facilities. In addition, several locations included bus-only lanes to facilitate queue jumps and bus exclusive bus turning movements.

Access to Transit In addition to expanding EmX service across the community, the West Eugene EmX project added two new bike/pedestrian bridges over Amazon Creek, linking the Fern Ridge Path with West 11th Avenue. This provides access for residents who live south of Amazon Creek to businesses along West 11th Avenue and makes it easier to reach the EmX stations.

Community Reaction Since the EmX West project began in 2007, LTD used a broad array of strategies to engage public and agency stakeholders, providing access to project information and providing many venues for the community to share their opinions and concerns. Outreach efforts included meetings, briefings, workshops, field tours, newsletters, postings on the project website, media releases, radio advertising, open houses, information booths at community events, and public forums. Through final design, engineering, and construction, significant efforts were made to reduce the impact of the project design and short-term impacts of construction on the Two pedestrian bridges were included with the West adjacent property owners, business owners and EmX project to improve access and connectivity to the residents. transit corridor. Source: LTD.org

Moving Forward TV Highway | Enhanced Transit and Access Plan 13

Even though this extension project was not LTD’s first attempt to develop BRT, it resulted in substantial community pushback because one neighborhood did not support the idea of a new BRT investment. Residents believed the project would threaten property values as a result of needed parking and tree removal to build the project. An alignment alternative along W 11th Avenue and W 13th Avenue scored the highest in a technical assessment, but through additional analysis and community engagement, an alignment along 6th and 7th Avenues was selected instead.

Analysis three months after opening showed that the ridership within LTD’s West Eugene service area increased by 14 percent.

Microsimulation and animation were key in helping agencies, stakeholders, and the wider community understand how the project would function and interact with existing traffic. When the community was able to view the 3D VISSIM model and understand that the project would work efficiently, they more strongly supported the project.

3.3.5 Key Lessons Learned

• Determine transit way type early on in the process (i.e. whether all BRT only lanes throughout the entire network or BRT only lanes for certain portions) in order to increase community support. • Determine pedestrian/bicycle facility requirements early on in the project to create a more accurate cost estimate. • Display analytical results (VISSIM model demonstrating project will work) early on in the project in order to increase community support. • Develop strategic and targeted engagement strategies to avoid any fatal flaws, and be flexible if substantial community pushback creates project development risk.

Moving Forward TV Highway | Enhanced Transit and Access Plan 14

3.4 Community Transit’s SWIFT Blue Line

Location: Snohomish County, Washington Length: 17 miles Route: Highway 99 from City of Everett to City of Shoreline Project Cost: $29 million Opening Year: 2009

3.4.1 Corridor Overview

SWIFT was the first BRT line to operate in the State of Washington. The line operates within the City of Everett, Snohomish County, and other local jurisdictions including the Cities of Edmonds and Shoreline. SWIFT operates along a major arterial, with advanced BRT features, including BAT lanes, unconditional TSP, articulated vehicles, enhanced stations, and unique branding. The corridor was planned and designed to be as rail-like as possible, with long stop spacing, larger vehicles, The SWIFT Blue Line reduced travel time by compulsory stops, and a local service underlay. The locating stations about 1 mile apart, while project was able to incorporate pre-existing BRT features maintaining local service along the corridor that existed along the corridor, including BAT lanes, with shorter stop spacing. Source: which helped to keep project costs down. Communitytransit.org

Corridor Features: • Service design: BRT service operates every 12 minutes on weekdays and every 20 minutes on weekends, with local service provided by both Community Transit and local routes operating as a corridor underlay. Local service levels were reduced from 15 minutes to 30 minutes along the corridor with the introduction of the SWIFT Blue Line. Overall corridor ridership increased by 16 percent with the introduction of service redesign. Travel time reduced by nearly 30 percent, largely due to the elimination of a major transfer and a reduction in station dwell time by 4 times less than typical local stops. In response to a major recession- based service reduction, Community Transit was forced to cut SWIFT service from 10-minute peak headways to 12-minute peak headways and all Sunday service, however service has been restored to original service levels starting in late September 2018. • Design elements: Sixteen station pairs with approximately one mile stop spacing needed to achieve higher speeds; local service stops every 1/10 to 1/4 mile. Pre-existing BAT lanes along the corridor provided opportunity to introduce BRT service. Queue jumps and signal technology are located at either ends of the BAT lane to effectively transition service into general purpose through lane. Sixty-foot articulated vehicles include interior bike racks to accommodate up to three bicycles, three-door boarding on right side only with “plug” doors for more efficient boarding/alighting activity, and space for two wheelchairs using a passive restraint security

Moving Forward TV Highway | Enhanced Transit and Access Plan 15

system. Ten-inch near-level boarding platform heights with off-board fare payment machines, real-time arrival boards, and security systems. Stations do not service local service, but local stops are placed within 100 feet for transfer availability. • Operational elements: SWIFT operates with off-board fare payment and compulsory stops at each station even when passengers are not present to mimic rail operations and improve reliability. SWIFT buses have flexibility to travel in any lane to improve speed and pass local buses at any time. Stations include “welcome mats” for operators to quickly and precisely align doors at stations. Service operates with headway based operations, where a vehicle leaves each terminal every 10 minutes and does not rely on a published schedule at specific timepoints. This technique requires the service to operate to the speed of the drivers, which is monitored by dispatch. If two vehicles are 6 minutes apart, the trailing bus is held back at a mid-point locations to recover to a 10 minute headway.

3.4.2 Cost and Funding

The total project cost was $29 million, with nearly $4.5 million coming from various FTA formula funding and earmarks, $5 million from Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) Regional Mobility Grants, $1 million from a Senate appropriation line item, and nearly $18.5 million in local Community Transit and City of Everett contributions. This line is unique in that it did not use any FTA discretionary funding (Small or Very Small Starts), which was intentional in order to speed up the implementation date. In addition, FTA funding was exclusively used for vehicle purchases. Community Transit was successful in developing an agreement with the City of Everett to fund all capital infrastructure within City of Everett limits. Operational costs are also shared between the two jurisdictions.

3.4.3 Project Planning

Project Need & Vision Community Transit operated Route 101 along Highway 99 and carried the highest ridership in the network. The City of Everett operates a separate system within a geographic boundary surrounded by Community Transit’s service area. Transit riders required a transfer at the boundary line between Everett Transit and Community Transit.

The Highway 99 corridor was selected as a result of a Highway 99 corridor study and The SWIFT Blue Line leveraged pre-existing BAT lanes to improve Board decision to pursue BRT. The vision for travel time and reliability. Source: Flickr the corridor was to be as rail-like as possible, with speed and capacity as the primary goals of the service, and underlying local service acting as a “last mile” connection. The approach to planning and project development was driven by a number

Moving Forward TV Highway | Enhanced Transit and Access Plan 16

of goals, largely to reduce travel time, improving operational efficiency, and trying to mimic rail as much as possible. Goals included:

• Provide a seamless trip along the Highway 99 corridor through the service area boundaries of different transit agencies • Leverage economic development opportunities along the corridor • Reduce dwell time at stations and achieve a maximum of 10 seconds of dwell time at each location

Analysis Techniques Community transit was able to leverage the existing CAD/AVL data on the previous corridor bus lines to identify spot improvements where buses are regularly slowed at specific locations. In addition, they conducted AM/PM peak hour intersection analysis for existing and future (with and without project) conditions using a combination of Synchro and VISSIM software.

3.4.4 Project Design & Implementation

Transit Priority Treatments The Highway 99 corridor had a seven-lane profile, allowing flexibility to leverage transit priority treatments and in-lane stops. The SWIFT Blue Line project included BAT lanes, which existed prior to SWIFT, queue jumps, and unconditional TSP. Additional features will be included in Community Transit’s second BRT line (Green Line), including enhanced transit signal priority, BAT lanes, and several signalized queue jumps. The Green Line corridor is more constrained given its five-lane cross section, although lessons learned from the Blue Line development have proven to be beneficial in project development and implementation.

Stations Blue Line stations required very minimal driveway impacts only where warranted. Stations were sited at locations with ample length and width along the corridor, which eliminated the need for access management or driveway changes during design and construction of the stations. Station locations were selected at locations with pre-existing sidewalk and pedestrian crossings to avoid major pedestrian access improvements. However, sidewalk and trail standards at a single specific location Stations were design with welcome mats to improve stop required pedestrian access improvements. precision, while vehicles were designed with plug doors for a more efficient boarding process, both to reduce dwell time. Source: Masstransitmag.com

Moving Forward TV Highway | Enhanced Transit and Access Plan 17

Concurrent Projects The Blue Line project did not include any concurrent projects. Community Transit’s second line (Green Line currently under construction) includes several concurrent, non-project related improvements, a series of sidewalk gap and pedestrian lighting improvements identified and funded by Snohomish County. These were folded into the overall project’s financial strategy and incorporated into the project’s design.

Community Reaction During project planning, the project did not encounter any substantial challenge or pushback from the community. Most community members were either skeptical or neutral because they had not seen BRT before. The Community Transit CEO took the lead as the project champion throughout planning and project development, which proved effective for its success. Most community reaction occurred during construction, although it never really caused any issues in progress. Once the service was fully operational, the biggest complaint Community Transit received focused on “speeding” buses, which Community Transit considered a success. The corridor was designed to be as rail-like as possible, with speed improvement as a primary objective. Therefore, once the service began, the operational improvements were substantial enough to create public concern with speeding buses. This concern was eventually diminished once the public became accustomed to a higher quality transit service along the corridor. The current construction of the second BRT line (Green Line) has resulted in unfavorable public reaction, although the three-year outreach effort that preceded construction has been helpful in responding to public comment.

Because the Blue Line corridor travels through many jurisdictions, this was an opportunity to engage and educate the jurisdictions about BRT, since it was so new to Washington. This included some inter-agency design charrettes, which helped in building support and ownership. Because many jurisdictions have different standards and expectations, regular communication with all was helpful to address concerns and build support. Community Transit current development of their second BRT line (Green Line) included more advocacy at the State level, including a new WSDOT transit division, which has been helpful in receiving approvals needed to implement the project.

Community Transit was and continues to be flexible with WSDOT when corridors are on or cross WSDOT jurisdiction. Community Transit engaged WSDOT very early in the process to manage risks and navigate any potential design and implementation challenges. WSDOT has since created an internal transit division which helped with advocacy on subsequent BRT projects.

3.4.5 Key Lessons Learned

• Develop a defined vision and an achievable set of goals for the project from the start; these provide influence on key operations and design decisions throughout the project. • Leverage pre-existing transit priority treatments to support project operational goals. • Identify opportunity to maintain local service along the corridor, which will provide speed and reliability benefit to the BRT line by lengthening stop spacing.

Moving Forward TV Highway | Enhanced Transit and Access Plan 18

• Work closely with local and regional partners from the beginning to identify cost-sharing opportunities and achieve inter-agency mobility goals.

3.5 Transfort’s MAX BRT

Location: Fort Collins, CO Length: 5 miles Route: Mason Street/McClelland Drive from Downtown Fort Collins to South Transit Center Cost: $87 million Opening: 2014

3.5.1 Corridor Overview

MAX BRT was the first BRT line developed in the state of Colorado. The line operates exclusively within the City limits of Ft. Collins. The project replaced pre-existing local bus service along the parallel College Avenue corridor that carried high transit ridership. A large portion of the corridor includes an exclusive bus guideway, a portion of which exists within BNSF rail right-of-way. The corridor also includes transit signal priority and unique operations due to the design of the stations and corridor within proximity of the BNSF right-of-way. MAX also uses articulated vehicles, enhanced stations, and unique branding. The project required all new investment because no pre-existing BRT features existed along the corridor.

Corridor Features: • Service design: BRT service operates every 10 minutes during peak times on weekdays, every 15 minutes on Saturday, and every 30 minutes on Sundays, with no local service underlay. The corridor MAX operates along a mix of exclusive guideway and experienced an 80 percent ridership general purpose roadways. The line exists along a freight increase after the first year of rail line, which created challenges and opportunities to build the project. Source: Coloradoan.com implementation, whereas the corridor ridership has increases by 67 percent over the last four years since starting operation. • Design elements: Half-mile stop spacing on average with 14 stations, with a slightly shorter stop spacing in Downtown Fort Collins. The majority of the corridor south of downtown includes an

Moving Forward TV Highway | Enhanced Transit and Access Plan 19

exclusive guideway adjacent to the BNSF rail right-of-way. A portion of the guideway is one lane only, which required bi- directional operation and specific signaling technology. The corridor includes transit block signal heads, transit signal priority, several queue jumps to effectively transition service into general purpose lanes, and crossing guards at locations where the guideway The portion of the corridor with a single, bi-directional lane required intersects with general specific traffic signal improvements to eliminate any conflicts between buses operating in both directions. The picture above shows the entrance purpose traffic. Stations are into one end of a bi-directional segment, which is approximately 560 feet primarily curbside in the long between University Station and W Pitkin Street. Source: HDR downtown area, and transition to center stations along the exclusive guideway. Sixty-foot articulated vehicles have doors on right side only, requiring unique contra-flow operations within proximity of the center stations. Each vehicle can accommodate up to four bikes on the interior bike racks. • Operational elements: MAX operates with off-board fare payment and timepoint based schedule because weekend service drops to a level that requires scheduled timepoints. MAX buses benefit from the exclusive guideway, although buses are required to stop when a train passes along the adjacent rail line. Vehicles operate contra-flow as they approach a station because doors are on the ride side of the vehicles. The exclusive guideway includes crossing guards to restrict access for general purpose vehicles.

3.5.2 Cost and Funding

The total project cost was $87 million, with approximately 80 percent of the funds coming from the FTA Small Starts Capital Investment Grant program, and the remaining 20 percent coming from a mix of local and state funds. The local match of the project was made possible by the success of a ballot measure that required three attempts before it was approved by voters. The local match of the project proved to be one of the biggest funding challenges to get the project fully funded. This delayed the project schedule, although the project development continued to progress. Local funds included a partnership with Colorado State University and State funding for the transit center development located at the southern terminus of the corridor. Nearly $5 million of the project cost included a perpetual lease of BNSF rail right-of-way to construct the exclusive bus guideway along the majority of the corridor. The lease cost was significantly higher than the appraised value of the land, but the lease was necessary to move the project forward.

Moving Forward TV Highway | Enhanced Transit and Access Plan 20

3.5.3 Project Planning

Project Need & Vision The corridor began being evaluated in 1997 after a change of political philosophy to shift travel away from auto use and make alternate modes more appealing, reduce congestion, provide better choices, and improve air quality.

Alternatives Considered The result was a corridor plan to consider a wide range of alternatives to improve the corridor and invest in alternative modes of travel. The plan selected BRT as the preferred mode of travel, since rail was too costly and a multi-use path already existed along the corridor, which provided an opportunity for BRT integration to ensure safe access to transit. During the planning phase, the portion of the corridor that travels through downtown was never considered for an exclusive guideway treatment. This was due to physical constraints and the presence of the railroad in the middle of the road. Additionally, the segment between W Swallow Road and W Horsetooth Road was originally planned for transit use only; however, through a value engineering exercise, this segment was converted to general purpose in order to reduce project cost.

The time frame for the process was always a concern given challenges that came up along the way, including railroad negotiations, legal requirements to build alongside the rail line, and challenges in securing local funding for the project. FTA also required a Transit Oriented Development (TOD) overlay/rezone along the corridor to ensure land use coordination and encourage transit supportive development.

Rail Corridor Strategy The preferred corridor identified during project planning is within close proximity of the BNSF rail right-of-way. Transfort project planners had approached BNSF for years to request use of their right-of-way for BRT investment, although never succeeded in reaching a deal, which hindered project progress. However, BNSF The project agreed to build a raised curb along the corridor rail line needed to improve safety and access management in exchange for rail realized they needed to ROW used for the transit guideway. Source: HDR improve a portion of the track within Downtown Fort Collins that exists in the center of Mason Road north of Old Main Drive in downtown Fort Collins. The tracks are flush with the pavement on both sides, and vehicles had the ability to drive onto the track at any time, creating a safety and operational issues for trains using the line.

Moving Forward TV Highway | Enhanced Transit and Access Plan 21

This identified rail safety and operation need provided a unique opportunity for Transfort to use as a BNSF negotiation tool. The project team agreed to pay for and construct a raised curb on either side of this portion of the rail line as an access management tool to restrict vehicles from turning onto the tracks in exchange for a lease of rail right-of-way for the BRT guideway. The lease agreement included a perpetual surface lease with a one-time cost at the front end if the project paid for the construction of the curb to separate the track. Several different separation options were considered, including a jersey barrier, guard rail, and fencing, but a raised curb was selected as the most cost-effective option.

3.5.4 Project Design and Implementation

Transit Priority Treatments Because the corridor operates in a mix of general purpose lane and exclusive guideway, some intersections needed a bus-only lane approaching signals, particularly at an entrance to the exclusive guideway. These locations required signalized queue jumps (e.g., southbound at Laurel Street where the southbound bus enters into the bi-directional guideway) and crossing guards to restrict general purpose use of the guideway. Crossing Crossing guards were installed at all entrances to the guards were a requirement by BNSF and have exclusive transit guideway to restrict general purpose use of since become a maintenance issue once in the busway. Source: HDR. operation. The crossing guards malfunction frequently and the size of the battery cabinets are generally a hazard for the adjacent multi-use path.

TSP was included and tailored for each intersection along the line to provide better opportunity for transit operational benefits. During project planning, a certain level of signal priority was assumed to estimate travel times, although priority was reduced in some locations based on requirements for signal operations. This required a change in schedule to increase travel time, which resulted in the requirement of more vehicles. In addition, BNSF requires buses to stop when a train passes alongside the bus guideway due to the proximity to the track. This has resulted in a minor operational inconvenience and has not impacted passenger travel due to the current 10 minute frequency. Delays and schedule deviations created by these vehicle stops are recovered at the terminus layover locations.

Moving Forward TV Highway | Enhanced Transit and Access Plan 22

Stations Stations were located and uniquely designed outside of the rail right-of-way as required by BNSF due to concerns with pedestrians crossing the rail line. As a result, the buses are forced to meander and operate a “reverse weave” to access the stations because the line uses right door boarding. Fencing was required within proximity of stations to restrict pedestrians from crossing the adjacent rail line. These fences did not result in any pedestrian access barriers because the stations were placed in close proximity to major cross streets, which Stations were designed to avoid rail ROW to limit pedestrians crossing have protected pedestrian crossings. The the tracks. This design resulted in buses to operate a “reverse weave” two locations not at major cross streets to access stations using right door boarding. Source: Transfort. (Troutman and Spring Creek Stations) included a major pedestrian underpass and overpass to provide sufficient station access. The uniquely designed stations, which require a contra-flow operation, initially hindered operational efficiency, but that was resolved with additional operator training and testing.

Access to Transit Additional transit access components were included in the project, primarily sidewalks to and from stations, and adjacent multi-use path improvements to improve connectivity. The adjacent “Mason Trail” path has proven to provide easy and sufficient access to MAX stations for both cyclists and pedestrians. It enhances walkability of the corridor, even though it is primarily on the opposite side of the rail tracks. Bike shelters were installed at the transit center at the southern terminus, while most stations were equipped with bike parking stalls.

Concurrent Projects BNSF attempted to find ways to close at-grade crossings in conjunction with the project, however, the project leveraged separately funded new grade-separate rail crossings as a strategy to improve relationship with BNSF decision makers. The crossing included: • One new overpass near Colorado State University in the middle portion of the corridor to improve pedestrian and bike connection over the tracks. This project was included in the overall project cost that received FTA Small Starts funding. • One new underpass near the south end of the corridor at Troutman Parkway. This project was also included in the overall project cost, but was funded through Colorado State funding and was allocated as part of the local match for the FTA Small Starts funding grant.

Moving Forward TV Highway | Enhanced Transit and Access Plan 23

Community Reaction The project required a long process of community building because it was a first of its kind in the region and in the state of Colorado. Original pushback from the public included skepticism that no one would use the project given the level of investment required, in particular auto dealers along the corridor since they thought their businesses were at stake with the proposed rezone. A targeted marketing campaign was very effective for the project during planning, design, and construction to build support and ensure a successful project delivery. This campaign included marketing materials that were focused on identifying community benefits of the project.

3.5.5 Key Lessons Learned

• Identify leveraging opportunities with other corridor agencies to negotiate land leases needed to implement the project successfully. • Continue to plan and develop the project even if funding and design challenges come up along the way. • Develop a strategic marketing campaign to engage corridor businesses and residents, particularly when developing the first BRT corridor in a community. • Be creative with design components if constraints exist, particularly at station locations, which require more investment and typically have a larger footprint. • Work closely with local and regional partners from the beginning to identify cost-sharing opportunities and achieve inter-agency mobility goals.

3.6 Case Study Applications to TV Highway Corridor

The four BRT case studies described above each provide lessons learned that can be applied to planning and project development for the TV Highway corridor. All of the projects identified viable funding opportunities early in project planning (in three of the four cases, FTA’s Small Starts grant funding) and aligned project development activities around funding requirements. This presents a strategic opportunity for successfully implementing TV Highway transit improvements, particularly when defining the project limits. The project will be more likely to receive FTA Small Starts funding if the project extends farther than the current three-mile Moving Forward TV Highway study corridor, especially after reviewing the corridor extents of the three case studies that successfully received a Small Starts grant.

In addition, the case study projects were flexible to balance the mobility needs of the corridor by identifying the design and cost constraints needed to efficiently and effectively begin operations. Each of the four case studies provide unique lessons learned for potential application to TV Highway as follows:

1. C-TRAN’s The Vine o A clearly articulated project purpose and need is critical to guide corridor evaluation and decision-making, which can assist in articulating a path forward and investment strategies for the TV Highway corridor.

Moving Forward TV Highway | Enhanced Transit and Access Plan 24

o Transit signal priority (TSP) and signalized queue jump implementation requires close collaboration with corridor signal operations to ensure effectiveness and minimal traffic disruptions, a strategy that can assist in implementation of TSP along TV Highway. o Station typologies were flexible to minimize ROW by consolidating sidewalks and station boarding areas, a technique that can be applied to constrained areas of TV Highway. o The project removed corridor segments that caused significant reliability issues and delay; this helped focus the funding on investments that provide significant ridership benefits. This is important for the TV Highway corridor as the project limits are defined to cost-effectively provide the highest benefits.

2. LTD’s West EmX o Determine design alternatives early in the process to inform decision-making and support community engagement strategy. Flexibility with alignment decisions can also avoid complications with community pushback. Both of these lessons can help guide TV Highway corridor decision-making and engagement strategy moving forward. o The West EmX project identified the full suite of multi-modal improvements early in the project to improve the accuracy of the corridor cost estimate, which is applicable to TV Highway given the need to improve facilities for all corridor travel modes. o Corridor visualizations articulated design options along the West EmX corridor, which can assist in TV Highway project development and engagement strategies.

3. Community Transit’s SWIFT Blue Line o A clearly articulated vision for the BRT system was critical to guide corridor planning and design. Community Transit developed a vision to develop SWIFT as rail-like as possible, focusing on speed as a priority. This goal inspired the long stop spacing and other key travel time reduction strategies. The vision for transit improvement along TV Highway should be developed early to guide a path forward through planning and project development. o SWIFT Blue Line corridor implemented a local service underlay to ensure ample access to service for individuals in need. This can provide guidance to TV Highway if the corridor warrants exploring multiple types of service (BRT service with local underlay) in order to lengthen potential station spacing along the corridor. o The SWIFT Blue Line and subsequent corridors were successful in working with local and regional partners to identify partnerships and concurrent projects as funding leverage, which will assist the TV Highway corridor as a financial plan is developed. o The TV Highway corridor can leverage pre-existing and committed transit priority treatments into the project as the SWIFT Blue Line did, which provides opportunities to minimize project cost or improve corridor cost-effectiveness.

Moving Forward TV Highway | Enhanced Transit and Access Plan 25

4. Transfort’s MAX o The MAX project identified rail corridor improvements as leverage to negotiate a lease with the adjacent rail agency by. This is a helpful strategy for the TV Highway corridor to explore if rail ROW is needed for the transit investment along the corridor. Identifying needed rail improvements along the TV Highway corridor during the planning phase can help identify what projects can be used as negotiation leverage. o The MAX project incorporated fencing around stations to deter pedestrians from crossing the adjacent rail line, which has been successful due to the proximity of the stations to signalized pedestrian crossings. TV Highway stations should consider the proximity to existing signalized rail crossings for pedestrians accessing the neighborhoods to the south. In addition, the MAX’s successful integration of two grade-separated pedestrian crossings can provide guidance to possibly incorporate grade-separated crossings at the existing corridor rail line. Costs for grade-separated crossings can be included in the project cost. Also, local or state funding for crossings can be considered a project local match, similar to the MAX project funding approach. o A pre-existing multi-use path along the corridor provided an opportunity to be integrated into the MAX project, which has provided ample pedestrian access to stations. A corridor multi-use path is being considered along TV Highway, which may provide sufficient access to corridor transit stations.

Moving Forward TV Highway | Enhanced Transit and Access Plan 26