Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ...... i Introduction ...... i Transit Concepts ...... ii Screening Criteria ...... ii Near-term Phase ...... iii Long-term Phase ...... v Transit Alternative Summary ...... ix Capital Funding Sources...... ix Operating Funding Sources ...... xiv Next Steps ...... xv Section 1 - Background ...... 1 Introduction ...... 1 Previous Studies ...... 4 Study Management ...... 7 Study Organization ...... 7 Section 2 - Corridor Characteristics ...... 9 Introduction ...... 9 Population Characteristics ...... 9 Household Characteristics ...... 11 Environmental Justice ...... 16 Employment Characteristics ...... 19 Demographic and Socio-economic Forecasts ...... 21 Land Use and Activity Centers ...... 25 Section 3 - Existing Conditions ...... 27 Introduction ...... 27 Existing Transit Service ...... 27 Existing Transit Facilities and Infrastructure ...... 33 Existing Roadway Conditions ...... 38 Section 4 - Transit Issues and Project Purpose & Need ...... 42 Introduction ...... 42 Transit Issues ...... 42 Project Purpose and Need ...... 43 Section 5 - Project Goals and Objectives ...... 45 Introduction ...... 45 Goal 1: Improve Transit Effectiveness ...... 45

Goal 2: Improve Transit Service Quality ...... 45 Goal 3: Support Planned Land Use Patterns ...... 45 Goal 4: Improve Travel Connectivity ...... 46 Goal 5: Improve Access to Major Employers and Destinations ...... 46 Goal 6: Support Growth ...... 46 Goal 7: Contribute to Improving the Environment ...... 46 Goal 8: Provide Cost-Effective Transit Solutions ...... 47 Section 6 - Potential Transit Concepts ...... 48 Introduction ...... 48 Transit Concepts ...... 48 Initial Screening of Transit Concepts ...... 62 Screening Criteria ...... 62 Rating Methodology ...... 63 Comparison of Transit Concepts ...... 64 Summary of Findings ...... 65 Section 7 - Recommended Service Plan ...... 68 Introduction ...... 68 Near-term Phase ...... 68 Long-term Phase ...... 80 Transit Alternative Summary ...... 90 Transit Ridership ...... 90 Section 8 - Financial Overview and Next Steps ...... 92 Introduction ...... 92 Capital Funding Sources...... 92 Operating Funding Sources ...... 96 Next steps ...... 98 Appendix A - Concept Transit Mode Evaluation Matrix ...... 100 Appendix B – Description of Goal Ratings ...... 102 Appendix C – Ridership Forecasting ...... 110 Appendix D – Service Extension Costs to 135th Street and Metcalf Avenue ...... 113

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Executive Summary

Introduction

The Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study analyzes and presents options to evolve transit service along the Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway corridors in the context as presented in Vision Metcalf, the West Gateway Vision Plan, and the East Gateway Redevelopment Plan. The purpose of this study is to provide a more detailed assessment of potential strategies that would improve transit services within these two corridors. This study was a collaborative effort by Johnson County Transit (JCT), the City of Mission, Kansas, and the City of Overland Park, Kansas. The study was completed with the assistance of the Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT) and the Mid-America Regional Council (MARC).

Significant changes are anticipated for the land use and density of the Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway corridors. Vision Metcalf, the West Gateway Vision Plan, and the East Gateway Redevelopment Plan seek to revitalize the corridor and show a conversion to a more dense development character. The higher density development will provide an opportunity for transit to serve a larger portion of mobility needs in these corridors. In addition, transit service along Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway is seen as becoming the spine of an enhanced transit network for Johnson County.

The study begins with a review of different transit options including improved local and express bus service, Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), Light Rail Transit (LRT), street car, development of new transit centers, and improvement of existing park-and-ride lots. Based upon this initial review, the BRT option was examined in greater detail. The study has been conducted in a manner that is consistent with Federal Transit Administration (FTA) study procedures.

Purpose of the Project

The purpose of the study is to identify a transit strategy that will increase transit capacity and ridership by providing safe and effective transit service options that are competitive with automobile travel for residents, workers, and visitors traveling within the corridor in a way that improves access, supports the environment, and promotes economic investment in the community.

Current Transit Needs

The following transit needs exist within the two corridors:

Expanded Transit Service – Existing span of service is limited to peak hour operation with some mid-day service and as such does not meet all of the needs of County residents and employers. Opportunities to increase the times of operation for transit operation within the study area should be explored.

Expanded Job Access Opportunities – The ability of those living outside of the study area to access jobs by transit within the study area is often limited and requires long travel times when service is provided. In addition, lack of evening or weekend service

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

also limits employment transit travel. As such, employers in the corridor do not fully benefit from transit service.

Faster Travel Time – Travel times are much greater for transit travel as compared to automobile travel resulting in a disincentive for transit use, particularly with potential choice transit riders.

Improved Transit Amenities – Transit amenities, such as shelters, benches, info kiosks, etc., are limited with the exception of the 6000 Lamar Transit Center and the part of the study area that encompasses the urban core. Amenities are vital to providing a base level of transit service to attract choice transit riders and to provide a comfortable environment for all passengers waiting to board transit vehicles.

Better Connectivity to the Regional Transit System – While coordination and connections between the three transit providers, Johnson County Transit (JCT), Unified Government Transit, and the Kansas City Area Transportation Authority (KCATA) exist, the ability to travel throughout the region can be difficult due to indirect routing, lack of transfer opportunity, limits to service frequency and service span, and because of limitations to coordination. Improvements to the connectivity and frequency of service are essential to supporting the anticipated densities and growth along the spine of the transit network.

Improve Air Quality – Vehicle exhaust emissions must be reduced in order to meet air quality standards.

Transit Concepts

A range of potential transit options were considered for application in the Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway corridors:

• Baseline (no-build); • Enhanced bus; • Express bus; • Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) in mixed traffic; • Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) with exclusive guideway elements; • Streetcar; and • Light Rail Transit (LRT).

Screening Criteria

Each of the seven transit alternatives was rated according to the following eight previously established goals:

• Improve transit effectiveness; • Improve transit service quality; • Support planned land-use patterns; • Improve travel connectivity; • Improve access to major employers and destinations; • Support economic development; • Contribute to improving the environment; and

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

• Provide cost-effective transit solutions.

Based on the evaluation, a BRT (mixed traffic) route was determined to be the most appropriate mode to advance for the near-term in the Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway corridors. Of the higher capacity modes, such as LRT, streetcar, and BRT (exclusive lane), the plan envisions moving toward an exclusive lane BRT option in the long-term.

Near-term Phase

The near-term phase describes transit improvements that can begin to be implemented within a two year time frame and then evolve over the following years as demand increases.

In this phase, the level of transit service in peak periods will increase over current levels and off-peak transit service will be introduced. The service concept includes retaining the current Route C - Metcalf - Downtown and replacing Route H - Metcalf - Plaza with peak hour and all-day service configured to operate in a BRT (mixed traffic) mode connecting the Plaza to Rosana Square with slightly higher frequencies between the Plaza and downtown Overland Park. Figure ES.1 displays the conceptual alignment.

Downtown Overland Park was chosen as a major transit point for the near-term phase because the current land use features a high degree of walkability, affordable housing, and mixed housing. These same aspects are emphasized and enhanced in Vision Metcalf which also specifically mentions a BRT stop along Metcalf Avenue, two blocks from Downtown Overland Park.

Roundtrip express buses from downtown Kansas City, Missouri to south Metcalf Avenue will increase service span by adding one southbound run and one northbound run in each direction during the peak periods and will have a service span of 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m., and 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., with 30 minute frequency.

Features of the near-term service include:

• Enhanced stations complete with shelters, benches, and iconic markers at the major transit points (see example in Figure ES.2).

• Automatic vehicle location (AVL) systems on vehicles will be linked with displays at the enhanced stations to give waiting passengers real time vehicle location information and arrival time estimates.

• Transit Signal Priority (TSP) technology through the route corridor to increase service reliability.

• Enhanced park & ride lots which will feature monument signs, shelters, and schedules and include real-time information kiosks at Rosana Square, Metcalf South Shopping Center and in Mission.

iii

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Figure ES.1 Near-term Transit Concept

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Features of the near-term service (cont.):

• Additional way finding signs will direct riders to enhanced park & ride lots.

• Use of low floor distinctive vehicles and consideration of clean vehicles (e.g. low- sulfur diesel fuel, diesel-electric hybrids, compressed natural gas, and possibly fuel cells in the future). An example is shown in Figure ES.3.

• Phased construction of 24 queue jumps at 12 key intersections to increase schedule reliability throughout the corridor.

• Unique branding, including specialized logos and distinctive vehicles, that create a unique identity by establishing a brand and a theme that patrons recognize and associate with the positive attributes of a BRT system.

Near-term Phase Costing

Operating Costs

Operating costs are determined by annual platform miles, hours of each service, and include direct and indirect labor costs, fuel, tires, and overhead costs. Total estimated annual operating cost for the near-term phase is $2,025,000. This estimated operating cost reflects BRT weekday, Saturday, and Sunday/holiday service and express bus weekday-only service.

Capital Costs

The near-term phase will add vehicles, operating hours, and passenger amenities to the current system. The added service frequency requires ten BRT vehicles and four additional standard buses for the express service. Express bus service will use vehicles similar to the 40’ low-floor vehicles currently utilized in the Johnson County system. The cost estimate assumes use of highly distinctive transit vehicles. Total vehicle requirements and other associated costs are estimated at $20,975,265.

Long-term Phase

The long-term phase will bring significant infrastructure investment to implement a higher capacity BRT (exclusive lane) mode. An example of a fixed-guideway service is shown in Figure ES.4. The service plan will still function on a Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway axis and connect the 119th Street area to the Plaza, with express service continuing to be provided from Rosana Square to downtown Kansas City, Missouri. The roundtrip express bus service will continue to provide a “one seat ride” from downtown KCMO to Rosana Square during peak periods at 30 minute frequencies and will utilize the length of Metcalf Avenue in the corridor and I-35. Figure ES.5 displays the conceptual alignment.

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Figure ES.2 – Typical BRT Station

Source: Olsson Associates

Figure ES.3 – Typical BRT Vehicle

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Figure ES.4 – Exclusive Lane BRT

Source: Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit, FTA

Features of the long-term service include:

• A transit spine between Rosana Square and the Plaza along Metcalf Avenue, Martway Street, and Shawnee Mission Parkway. This feature will ensure highly reliable and frequent transit connections to outlying bus routes.

• Service frequency would increase from the near-term phase, providing 10 minute peak headways and 15 minute off-peak headways.

• Transit stations fully developed as envisioned in the East Gateway Redevelopment Plan at Martway Street and Roeland Drive.

Long-term Service Phase Costing Operating Costs

The long-term phase establishes a BRT frequency of 10 minutes along the entire corridor length. Express Bus and BRT (Fixed Guideway) operating costs are determined by annual platform miles and hours of each service. All costs include direct and indirect labor costs, fuel, tires, and overhead costs. The long-term service annual operating cost is estimated at $2.9 million for BRT (Fixed Guideway). Express bus would operate concurrently.

Capital Costs

The long-term phase will require additional vehicles. Estimates for the long-term phase rolling stock costs include 4, 40’ standard low-floor coaches for the express bus service, 15 low floor, distinctive vehicles if the fixed guideway service is BRT, along with pre- delivery inspections and TSP equipment installation on each vehicle. This is five additional low floor, distinctive vehicles to those procured in the near-term phase. The total estimated rolling stock cost is $18.3 million and is a $5.5 million incremental increase over the near-term rolling stock costs.

vii

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Figure ES.5 Long-term Transit Concept

viii

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Transit Alternative Summary

The transit alternatives presented in this section have been developed with the screening process used in Section 6 of the study, and reflect the study’s identified goals and objectives with discussion and feedback from the Study Management team. Table ES.1 displays the comparative operations and capital costs, with estimated ridership of the near-term and long-term phases.

Table ES.1 Near and Long-term Comparison

Comparative Costs

Near-term Long-term BRT BRT (Mixed Traffic) (Fixed Guidew ay)

Estimated Annual Ridership 342,000 1,315,350 Annual Operating Cost $2,025,000 $2,924,075 Capital Costs Rolling Stock* $12,802,500 $18,321,250 Infrastructure $8,172,765 $219,800,000 Capital Total: $20,975,265 $238,121,250

*Calculations are based on estimates for highly distinctive vehicles.

Capital Funding Sources

A variety of potential sources are available to fund the near-term and long-term phases. Each funding source has distinct qualifications, requirements, and application procedures. While not all-inclusive, the following list of programs and mechanisms are typically used to fund transit capital or operation costs.

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)

The ARRA provides funding through the Federal Transit Administration for transit capital projects. Two new discretionary programs were created – an energy program with $100 million in funding and a multi-modal program with $1.5 billion in funding. One or both of these programs could be utilized to provide funding that could be used for capital expenditures related to the development of BRT service in the corridor. This funding requires no local funding match.

Federal Transit Administration Section 5307 Urban Area Formula Funding

This program provides funding to urban areas for transit capital and for transportation related planning. Planning, engineering design, capital investments such as bus replacement, bus overhaul, construction or maintenance of passenger facilities, and capital investments in new and existing fixed guideway systems, including rolling stock, vehicle overhaul, or rebuilding, track, signals, and communications, are all eligible for urban area formula funding.

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

The formula for urban areas of 200,000 or more 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 density. Funds are apportioned and flow directly to a locally selected recipient. In the Kansas City metropolitan area the Kansas City Area Transportation Authority is the designated recipient. Johnson County receives a sub-allocation of these funds which currently equals approximately 11% of the region’s total annual formula allocation. The actual amount totals approximately $1.3 million annually. The federal share will pay for up to 80% of the net project.

Johnson County’s sub-allocation of Urban Area Formula Funding could be used for capital expenditures related to the development of BRT in the Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway corridor. This would include vehicle acquisition, station development, traffic signal priority and other technology infrastructure, and Park & Ride facilities. However, these funds are currently used for operating/capital expenses for JCT Services. Use of these funds will constitute a re-allocation of existing funding, and not a new funding stream.

Federal Transit Administration Section 5309 Capital Investment Grant Program

Bus and Bus Facilities

The Bus and Bus Related Equipment and Facilities program provides capital assistance for new and replacement buses, related equipment, and facilities. Eligible capital projects include the purchasing of buses for fleet and service expansion, bus maintenance and administrative facilities, transfer facilities, bus malls, transportation centers, intermodal terminals, Park & Ride stations, acquisition of replacement vehicles, bus rebuilds, bus preventive maintenance, passenger amenities such as passenger shelters and bus stop signs, accessory and miscellaneous equipment such as mobile radio units, supervisory vehicles, fare boxes, computers, and shop and garage equipment.

These funds are generally earmarked by congress and could be used for capital expenditures related to the development of BRT in the Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway corridor. This would include vehicle acquisition, station development, traffic signal priority and other technology infrastructure, and Park & Ride facilities.

New Starts Project Category

New Starts is the federal government’s primary financial resource for supporting locally planned major transit capital investments including commuter rail, light rail, heavy rail, BRT, streetcars, and ferries. New Starts projects must emerge from a regional, multimodal transportation planning process. This process is based upon an alternatives analysis, preliminary engineering, and final design. The FTA evaluates the project and the local financial commitment according to the following:

Mobility improvements as measured by: • Travel time benefits • Served low-income households • Employment near stations

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Environmental benefits as measured by: • Change in regional pollutant emissions • Change in regional energy consumption • EPA air quality designation

Cost effectiveness as measured by: • Cost per hour of travel time saved • Operating effectiveness as measured by the system operating cost per passenger mile

Transit supportive land use and future patterns as measured by: • Existing land use • Transit supportive plans • Policies • Performance • Impacts of policies

Optional factors such as the projected economic impact of the project can also influence a project’s rating.

New Starts funding could be used for capital expenditures related to the development of a fixed guideway system in the Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway corridor where total project capital costs would exceed $250 million. The federal share for New Starts projects is typically less than 60% of total project costs.

Small Starts Category

Small Starts projects are low cost projects that qualify for a highly simplified project evaluation and rating process by the FTA. In order to qualify as a Small Start, the total project cost must be less than $250 million, with no greater than $75 million in requested Section 5309 Capital Investment Grant funding, and the additional operating and maintenance expenses are less than 5% of the agency’s operating budget. In addition, a project must meet one of the following guideway criteria:

1. Be a fixed guideway for at least 50% of the project length in the peak period –and/or

2. Be a corridor-based bus project with the following minimum elements:

. Substantial transit stations . Signal priority/pre-emption (for Bus/LRT) . Low floor/level boarding vehicles . Special branding of service . Frequent service - 10 minute peak/15 minute off peak • Service offered at least 14 hours per day

Small Starts funding could be used for capital expenditures related to the development of a fixed-guideway BRT system in the Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway corridor, as defined in the long-term phase of the project where project capital costs total would not exceed $250 million. Total federal funding would be capped at $75 million.

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Very Small Starts Category

Very Small Starts projects are simple, low-risk projects that qualify for a highly simplified project evaluation and rating process by the FTA. In order to qualify for the streamlined Very Small Starts evaluation and rating process, a project must be a bus, rail, or ferry project and contain the following features: . Transit stations . Signal priority/pre-emption (for Bus/LRT) . Low floor/level boarding vehicles . Special branding of service . Frequent service - 10 minute peak/15 minute off peak . Service offered at least 14 hours per day . Existing corridor ridership exceeding 3,000/day . Less than $50 million total cost . Less than $3 million per mile (excluding vehicles)

Very Small Starts funding could be used for capital expenditures related to the development of a mixed-traffic BRT system in the Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway corridor where total project capital costs would not exceed $50 million. To be eligible, existing transit usage in the corridor must be greater than 3,000 rides per day. Currently, total ridership in the corridor is less than 200 per day. Ridership increases realized from the enhanced level of transit service defined in the near-term BRT phase, coupled with route alignments that would allow the capture of existing ridership in the urban core between the Country Club Plaza and downtown Kansas City, Missouri could result in the 3,000 rides per day threshold being met, thus making the project eligible for Very Small Starts funding for the near-term phase of development. The federal share for Very Small Starts projects is 80% of total project costs.

The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Program

The primary purpose of the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) is to fund projects and programs in air quality nonattainment and maintenance areas for ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), and small particulate matter (PM-10) which reduce transportation related emissions.

CMAQ funds may be used to establish new or expanded transportation projects or programs that reduce emissions, including capital investments in transportation infrastructure, congestion relief efforts, diesel engine retrofits, or other capital projects. These funds can be used for capital expenditures related to the development of BRT service in the corridor, and they would be applicable as match to any Federal capital funding awarded to the project.

xii

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

State of Kansas Comprehensive Transportation Program –Transit Funding

The Kansas Urban Public Transit component of the State Comprehensive Transportation Program (CTP) provides annual funding support for transit to Johnson County. FY2010 funding will total $1,282,715. These funds can be used for capital expenditures related to the development of BRT service in the corridor and they would be applicable as match to any Federal capital funding awarded to the project. However, these funds are currently used for operating/capital expenses for JCT Services. Use of these funds will constitute a re-allocation of existing funding, and not a new funding stream.

Transportation Development Districts (TDD)

A Transportation Development District (TDD) or Transportation Utility District is a special taxing district whereby a petitioner of 100% of the landowners in an area request either the levy of special assessments or the imposition of a sales tax of up to 1% on goods and services sold within a given area. Upon creation of a TDD by a municipality, the revenue generated by TDD special assessments or sales tax under Kansas law may pay the costs of transportation infrastructure improvements in and around the new development.

The City of Mission created a Transportation Utility District. Retailers within the district will collect an additional 1-cent sales tax for 20 years to assist in the payments for transportation improvements associated with the Gateway Project. These funds could assist in paying for specific transit projects within the designated Transportation Development District.

TDD’s could be established along the corridor to generate funding for the various capital improvements associated with any and/or all phases of the BRT project. Funds generated from the TDD would be applicable as match to any Federal capital funding awarded to the project.

Community Improvement Districts (CID)

A Community Improvement District (CID) enables financing of certain projects through special assessments or a CID sales tax. Eligible projects include the acquisition, construction, refurbishing and equipping of transportation facilities, streetscaping, and landscaping. Projects can be funded with general or special obligation bonds, or on a pay-as-you-go basis

CID districts can be created in one of two ways. A city or county can create a CID without notice or a public hearing upon receiving a petition signed by all landowners in the proposed district, if financing only by assessments is requested and no general obligation bonds are to be issued.

A second petition method allows financing through special assessments and a CID sales tax, as well as general obligation bonds of the municipality. Such a petition would need to be signed by owners of more than 55% by area of land and owners collectively owning more than 55% by assessed value of the land within the proposed district.

xiii

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Other

Other potential sources of Federal capital funding might include funding from various highway works administration funding programs, Housing and Urban Development programs, including Community Development Block Grants, and other Federal community investment programs. In addition, local funding from the County Assistance Road System (C.A.R.S.) program could be used.

Operating Funding Sources

The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Program

As mentioned earlier regarding capital funding, the CMAQ program funds projects and programs that reduce transportation related emissions in air quality and nonattainment and maintenance areas. CMAQ funds may be used for new or expanded transportation projects and can be used towards the operating costs of a BRT or other high capacity mode for a maximum of three years.

Federal Transit Administration Section 5316 Job Access Reverse Commute (JARC)

JARC funding is designed to help address the unique transportation issues of low- income workers that are attracted to an increasing number of jobs located in suburban areas and away from the inner city, urban, or rural areas where low-income workers may live. These jobs often offer low-income workers non-traditional hours when transit service may be limited or non-existent. Sixty percent (60%) of JARC funding is appropriated to designated recipients in areas with populations over 200,000, and the designated recipient must select grantees competitively. In the Kansas City metropolitan area the Kansas City Area Transportation Authority is the designated recipient. Projects programmed with JARC funding must be included in a locally-developed coordinated public transit human services transportation plan. 10% of the funds may be used for planning, administration, and technical assistance.

State of Kansas Comprehensive Transportation Program -Transit Funding

The Kansas Urban Public Transit Component of the State Comprehensive Transportation Program (CTP) provides annual funding support for transit to Johnson County. These funds can be used for either capital expenditures or operational costs related to a BRT service. However, these funds are currently used for operating/capital expenses for JCT Services. Use of these funds will constitute a re-allocation of existing funding, and not a new funding stream.

Transportation Development Districts (TDD)

As mentioned earlier, a Transportation Development District is a special taxing district where 100% of the landowners request either a special assessment levy or a designated sales tax of up to 1% on goods and services sold within a specific area. The revenue generated by the special assessments or sales tax may pay the costs of transportation improvements within a given area.

xiv

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

TDD’s similar to the one already established by the City of Mission for the Gateway Project could be established along the corridor to generate funding for the operational costs associated with any and/or all phases of the BRT project.

Farebox Revenue

Collected farebox revenue is often applied towards operational costs. The actual farebox revenue collected, when including transfers, discount riders, and bus pass sales, is typically 50% of the designated fare for local and BRT service. This percentage is lower than the farebox revenue collected for a commuter service such as the one Johnson County Transit currently primarily operates. Commuter passengers typically pay a premium for commuter service and have fewer transfers and discounted rates. A BRT system typically has higher amounts of transfers and discounted rates resulting in lower farebox revenue. Based on the forecasted ridership numbers presented in Section 7, approximately $342,000 would be collected in the near-term phase at build-out and $1,315,350 in the long-term phase. Table ES.2 displays each phase’s forecasted annual ridership and estimated annual farebox revenue.

Table ES.2 Forecasted Daily Ridership and Estimated Farebox Revenue

Annual Farebox Revenue (at 50% of Fare) Near-term initial $259,000 Near-term build-out $342,000 Long-term $1,315,350

Next Steps

Vision Metcalf, the West Gateway Vision Plan, and the East Gateway Redevelopment Plan all call for increased transit investment along this corridor to support the increased densities called for in the future, and in many cases, cite BRT as a key factor in the development process. The Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study is the first step towards implementing what was previously only envisioned. Implementing increases in transit level of service through additional frequencies in BRT service will increase transit demand and set the stage for future BRT fixed guideway expansion. These transit improvements will turn Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway into a major transit thoroughfare for the region

The Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study analyzed alternatives and determined the feasibility of implementing corridor length BRT and BRT extended service for the near-term phase. The next step is to create a project development plan that will determine the specific alignments, exact stop location, detail specific costs, specify operating characteristics, and identify funding requirements and mechanisms for the near-term phase implementation. The project development plan determines the specific service span, schedule characteristics, and vehicle assignments.

The project development plan is followed by a submittal to the FTA requesting funding approval. Design and construction is the succeeding step where any necessary right-of-

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

way is purchased, stations are designed and built, queue jumps are constructed, and enhancements to existing park-and-ride lots are designed and constructed. Vehicles are also procured during this step. The conclusion of these activities will be to provide improved transit service in the Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway corridors.

xvi

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Section 1 - Background

Introduction

In 2004, Johnson County Transit (JCT), in partnership with the Kansas City Area Transportation Authority (KCATA), completed an initial review of potential Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) corridors throughout the metropolitan area. Two of the corridors that were studied were Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway. The purpose of this study is to provide a more detailed assessment of potential strategies that would improve transit services specifically within these two corridors.

Transit is seen by community leaders as an important component for the success of planned major redevelopment projects. These redevelopment projects include Vision Metcalf in Overland Park, Kansas and the East and West Gateway Projects in Mission, Kansas. These plans call for higher population densities and employment concentrations than what currently exist in each corridor. There is a concern that the densities envisioned in each plan will not be able to be achieved without a substantial increase in transit service, ridesharing, and walking.

The study intent is to provide an initial review of different transit options, including improved local and express bus service, BRT, Light Rail Transit (LRT), development of new transit centers, and potential locations for Park & Ride lots. Based upon this initial review, the more promising transit options will be defined in greater detail. The study is being conducted in a manner that is consistent with Federal Transit Administration (FTA) study procedures.

Communities located in Johnson County, Kansas continue to experience population and employment growth. Areas along College Boulevard, Metcalf Avenue, and Shawnee Mission Parkway still attract strong employment and retail opportunities that contribute to the County and municipal tax base. Such growth, however, increases pressure on the transportation infrastructure as more residents and employees circulate through and among this corridor to access homes, employment, entertainment, and shopping.

A synergy exists within the study corridor between activity centers located along Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway and the population concentrations and activity centers located in Kansas City, Missouri and in Kansas City, Kansas. On the north and east end of the combined corridor is the County Club Plaza, midtown Kansas City, Missouri, the Kansas City, Missouri Central Business District, and the Kansas City, Kansas Central Business District. For the purpose of this study, the Metcalf Corridor, the Shawnee Mission Parkway Corridor, and the extension to downtown Kansas City, Missouri have been defined as a combined study corridor and area. The study area is shown in Figure 1-1.

Within the south end of the study area is the Corporate Woods office park, the Sprint Nextel Headquarters and campus, Overland Park Convention Center and International Trade Center. Shawnee Mission Parkway, located in the middle of the study area, serves as a major thoroughfare. It also provides access to several employment and retail centers including the Johnson County Northeast Government Offices. The location of these and other major activity centers and travel destinations are shown in Figure 1-2.

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Figure 1-1 Study Area

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Figure 1-2 Major Activity Centers

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Previous Studies

This Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study builds upon the emphasis of BRT and traditional transit set forth in earlier plans and studies that took place within the Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Corridor. These earlier plans, including Overland Park’s Vision Metcalf, the City of Mission’s West Gateway Vision Plan, the joint East Gateway Redevelopment Plan sponsored by the cities of Mission, Fairway, and Roeland Park, the Johnson County Transit Five-Year Strategic Plan, the Mid-America Regional Council’s (MARC) Transportation Outlook 2030 Update, and the Kansas City area’s Smart Moves, all focus on elements of the corridor and emphasize the potential future role of transit.

Vision Metcalf Figure 1-3 Vision Metcalf Transportation Goals and Vision Metcalf is a long range Objectives corridor study that examines land use, transportation, urban design and streetscape elements. The overall Vision Metcalf transportation goal is to “Develop a balanced transportation system that provides multimodal travel options within the Corridor.” Objective five has three points with specific visions for Bus Rapid Transit (Shown in Figure 1-3). BRT appears as a significant option in Vision Metcalf’s transportation component. Source: Vision Metcalf, page 47.

Vision Metcalf describes a high capacity transit route that would operate in the Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway corridors. This higher capacity transit route was shown in Vision Metcalf to use a median arterial bus way that would physically separate bus lanes from vehicular traffic. The proposed transit route in Vision Metcalf would tie into east-west feeder bus lines running on major cross streets like College Boulevard, 103rd Street, 95th Street, 75th Street, and Shawnee Mission Parkway, as well as future regional rapid transit and regional BRT running respectively along I-435 and I-35. The Indian Creek subarea identified in Vision Metcalf centers on I-435 and Metcalf Avenue. It is envisioned as a major transit hub for regional rapid transit running on I-435 and local transit serving attractions on Metcalf Avenue. Figure 1.4 displays the transit connections in Vision Metcalf.

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Figure 1-4 Vision Metcalf Connections Map

Source: Vision Metcalf page 81

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

West Gateway Vision Plan

The focus on improved transit is further emphasized in the Figure 1-5 West Gateway City of Mission’s West Gateway Vision Plan, which Vision Transit Plan encompasses the vision for the northeast corner of Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway. BRT is one of the five key elements of the redevelopment concept, along with pedestrian-friendly streets, innovative parking strategies, a wide building-type range, and signature parks. The plan’s executive summary states: “Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) will serve as a backbone of the transportation network, and it will connect the West Gateway to Downtown and the East Gateway.” It is further envisioned in the West Gateway Vision Plan that this transportation system will tie into a proposed BRT system and existing transit systems connecting Mission to the greater Kansas City area. Figure 1-5 displays the West Gateway Vision transit plan, framed by Metcalf Avenue to the west and Shawnee Mission Parkway to the south.

In the planning public participation process, 71% of respondents either agreed or highly agreed with the statement “We should plan for a transit system that will move people easily between the East and West Gateways along Johnson Drive and would also connect to a future BRT connecting to adjacent regional centers”.

The plan states that the West Gateway area will incorporate passenger amenities such as benches, shelters, landscaping, and a pedestrian scale that will make people comfortable waiting for transit service. The specific transit components mentioned in the plan include two local circulator routes that would connect to a BRT system.

East Gateway Redevelopment Plan

The City of Mission, Fairway, and Roeland Park created an East Gateway Redevelopment Plan concentrating on redeveloping the north-east corner of Nall Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway. This plan makes provisions for redeveloping Martway from a street flanked by two large, surface parking lots to a parkway equipped with a roundabout designed to allow bus circulation, and which would accommodate a future transit center for a BRT stop located between Johnson Drive, Shawnee Mission Parkway, Roe Boulevard, and Nall Avenue. While the plan doesn’t focus on BRT to the same extent as the West Gateway Vision Plan or Vision Metcalf, the East Gateway Redevelopment Plan recommends having an “easily assembled and designed site in an appropriate place” if and when the rapid transit system is constructed. The geographical focus of this plan is on Shawnee Mission Parkway and Nall Avenue. Improved transit in the Metcalf Avenue and

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Shawnee Mission Parkway Corridor would likely also access this area and would be supported by elements in the East Gateway Redevelopment Plan.

Johnson County Transit Five Year Strategic Plan

Johnson County Transit completed a Five Year Strategic Plan in 2007. The Strategic Plan included the goal of promoting economic development by providing reverse commute transit services to support Johnson County employment. The Strategic Plan also discussed supporting the convention and visitors business through improved transit and providing effective seamless connections to the larger regional transit system. The Strategic Plan examines expanding transit service in Johnson County to meet intra- county needs as well as regional service such as an I-35 commuter route. The Plan also discussed a BRT route from College Boulevard and Metcalf Avenue to the Plaza via Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway. This study of the Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Corridors is a direct result of the public input and planning that was completed in the Five-Year Strategic Plan.

Smart Moves

Smart Moves is metropolitan Kansas City’s vision for expanded regional transit services, and was jointly developed between area residents, cities, Mid-America Regional Council (MARC), KCATA, Unified Government Transit, and JCT to coordinate the planning and development of regional transit. The Smart Moves Conceptual System Map identifies the corridor portions of Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway as an urban corridor. The Urban Corridor element of Smart Moves details transit service in dedicated lanes with 10 minute peak frequency, 20 minute midday frequency, and 30 minute late night / early morning frequency. The Urban Corridors operation modes specify BRT or light rail.

Study Management

This Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study is being completed by Olsson Associates under contract with Johnson County Transit, the City of Mission, and the City of Overland Park. A project Steering Committee was formed to guide the completion of the study and includes JCT, KCATA, City of Mission, City of Overland Park, Kansas Department of Transportation, and MARC.

Study Organization

The remainder of the Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study is organized as follows:

Section 2 – Corridor Characteristics – This section provides an overview of current socio-economic conditions and travel characteristics in the study area.

Section 3 – Existing Conditions – This section provides an overview of existing transit services, transit amenities, and traffic conditions in the study area.

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Section 4 – Transit Issues and Project Purpose & Need – This section provides a discussion of transit issues in the corridor and includes a statement summarizing transit service needs and the purpose of the project to address these needs.

Section 5 – Project Goals and Objectives – This section provides an identification of the goals and objectives for transit in the study area.

Section 6 – Potential Transit Concepts – This section identifies and evaluates a range of transit concepts for the Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Corridors and describes the general characteristics of each.

Section 7 – Recommended Service Plan – The resulting concepts from Section 6 are developed into a defined service plan. The phasing and timing of a number of transit improvements that will lead to improved transit service within the corridors are described. The analysis includes information on potential ridership, operating costs, and capital costs.

Section 8 – Financial Overview and Next Steps – This section provides an overview of the process and transit concepts, while detailing possible financial resources that could be used for capital and operational costs. The next necessary steps for project implementation are also discussed in this section.

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Section 2 - Corridor Characteristics

Introduction

This section provides a review of socio-economic characteristics of the households and businesses located within the study corridor as well as identifying environmental justice attributes. The socio-economic data is based on the 2000 Census. Current employment information is also based upon data obtained from MARC and Johnson County Government. Year 2010, 2020, and 2030 forecasts developed by the Mid-America Regional Council have also been used to describe anticipated future conditions.

The corridor has been divided into four segments, delineated in Figure 1.1: • Segment 1 from 95th Street to the southern edge of the study area. • Segment 2 from 95th Street to Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway. • Segment 3 from Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway to the Plaza. • Segment 4 from the Plaza to the northern edge of the study area.

Population Characteristics

The population characteristics of the Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Corridor are shown in Table 2.1 and in Figure 2.1. The population figures indicate a less dense population in the southern corridor segments, and becoming a denser population in the northern portion of the corridor.

Population/Population Density

As displayed in Table 2.1 and Figure 2.1, the overall population density of the corridor at 5.8 persons per acre is higher than that of Johnson County with 1.5 persons per acre and of the Kansas City Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) with 0.7 persons per acre. Population density varies significantly between the four corridor segments. Segment 1 exhibits 4.2 persons per acre, which reflects its neo-suburban density. Segments 2 and 3 are more reflective of the typical inner-ring suburban environment with respective densities of 6.0 and 5.5 persons per acre. Segment 4 exhibits 7.5 persons per acre, which reflects its urban nature.

Table 2.1 Population and Population Density Population Corridor Segment Area (Acres) 2000 Number Pop./Acre 1 4,842 20,164 4.2 2 5,343 31,822 6.0 3 6,146 33,990 5.5 4 4,921 36,890 7.5 Corridor Total 21,252 122,866 5.8

Johnson County 307,274 451,086 1.5 Kansas City MSA 2,419,200 1,776,062 0.7

Source: US Census, 2000

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Figure 2-1 Population Density

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Household Characteristics

The household characteristics of the Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Corridor are show in Tables 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, and 2.6 and in Figures 2-2, 2-3, 2-4, 2-5 and 2-6. There are notable differences in the corridor from south to north, similar to the population characteristics. Household density and rates of households with access to one or no vehicles become lower in the southern portion than in the northern portion, while owner-occupied housing rates and household incomes are higher in the southern portion than in the northern portion.

Household Density

Household densities in the corridor are shown in Table 2.2 and Figure 2-2, and are consistent with population densities exhibited in the corridor. Densities in Segment 1 are reflective of neo-suburban development characteristics at 1.8 households per acre Segments 2 and 3 are reflective of the segments’ inner-ring suburban nature and are around 2.6 housing units per acre. Segment 4 household density of 4.1 is consistent with the segment’s location in the urban core.

Table 2.2 Household Density Household Corridor Segment Area (Acres) Households Density 1 4,842 8,606 1.8 2 5,343 14,337 2.7 3 6,146 16,269 2.6 4 4,921 20,385 4.1 Corridor Total 21,252 59,597 2.8

Johnson County 307,274 174,570 0.6 Kansas City MSA 2,419,200 694,971 0.3

Source: US Census, 2000

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Figure 2-2 Household Density

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Owner-Occupied Housing

Owner occupancy rate is another factor used to describe corridor characteristics. Owner occupancy rates for the corridor are shown in Table 2.3 and Figure 2-3. The corridor as a whole has slightly higher than a 50% owner-occupancy rate. This is lower than the owner-occupancy percentages in both Johnson County with a rate of 72.3% and the Kansas City metropolitan area owner occupancy rate of 67.9%. Segments 1, 2, and 3 exhibit ownership rates of around 67% and are consistent with the Kansas City MSA’s owner-occupancy rates as a whole, and slightly lower than Johnson County’s average of 72.3%. Segment 4 has the lowest owner-occupancy rate of 24.1%.

Table 2.3 Owner Occupancy Owner-Occupied Owner Corridor Segment Households Households Occupancy 1 8,606 5,707 66.3% 2 14,337 9,783 68.2% 3 16,269 10,961 67.4% 4 20,385 4,909 24.1% Corridor Total 59,597 31,360 52.6%

Johnson County 174,570 126,190 72.3% Kansas City MSA 694,971 471,886 67.9%

Source: US Census 2000

Vehicles/Household

The number of vehicles per household is another indicator of transit dependence. Persons living in households with fewer than two vehicles are more likely to rely on public transit for their transportation needs than those in households with two or more vehicles. Vehicles available per household rates are shown in Table 2.4 and Figure 2-4. In the study corridor, every segment’s percentage of households with one or no vehicle available to the household is higher than the county as a whole, and comparable or higher than the region as a whole. An examination of the corridor reveals that vehicle availability characteristics follow a pattern similar to other attributes studied here. Household rates of access to 0 or 1 vehicles increase respectively in Segments 1, 2, and 3, and is significantly higher in Segment 4. Table 2.4 Vehicles per Household Vehicles Per Household % with 0 or 1 Corridor Segment Households 0 1 2 or More Vehicle(s)/HH 1 8,606 489 2,987 5,242 40.4% 2 14,337 716 5,494 8,178 43.3% 3 16,269 851 6,355 8,457 44.3% 4 20,385 4,347 11,073 5,455 75.6% Corridor Total 59,597 6,403 25,909 27,332 54.2%

Johnson County 174,570 5,593 50,788 118,189 32.3% Kansas City MSA 694,971 50,455 232,951 411,565 40.8%

Source: US Census, 2000

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Figure 2-3 Owner Occupied Housing

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Figure 2-4 Vehicles Per Household

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Environmental Justice

In 1994, President Clinton passed Executive Order on Environmental Justice 12898. This Executive Order requires all federal agencies to address the impact of their programs with respect to environmental justice. The Executive Order states that to the extent practicable and permitted by law, neither minority nor low-income populations may receive disproportionately high or adverse impacts as a result of a proposed project. The following information provides minority and income characteristics of the population within the study corridor.

Racial Characteristics

Racial characteristics for the study corridor are shown in Table 2.5 and Figure 2-5. The total percentage of Black, Asian, American Indian, and Other/Multiracial population varies within the corridor between 7.9 percent and 32.2 percent.

Table 2.5 Racial Characteristics Population Minority American Other / Corridor Segment Caucasian Black Asian* Total Total Indian Multiracial Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent 1 20,164 89.4% 10.6% 2.1% 5.3% 0.2% 2.9% 2 31,822 92.1% 7.9% 1.8% 2.5% 0.4% 3.2% 3 33,990 91.3% 8.7% 2.5% 2.6% 0.3% 3.4% 4 36,890 67.8% 32.2% 20.7% 1.9% 0.7% 8.9% Corridor Total 122,866 84.1% 15.9% 7.7% 2.8% 0.4% 4.9%

Johnson County 451,086 91.1% 8.9% 2.6% 2.9% 0.3% 3.1% Kansas City MSA 1,776,062 80.8% 19.2% 12.8% 1.7% 0.5% 4.2% * Includes census designated groups of Asian, Pacific Islander, and Native Hawaiian. Source: US Census, 2000

Household Income and Poverty Status

Median household income and poverty rates for the study corridor for 2000 are shown in Table 2.6, and median household income rates are exhibited in Figure 2-6. Within the four study corridor segments, median household income ranges from $28,213 to $73,299. Median household income of $52,217 in the Corridor is higher than the Kansas City MSA median household income of $46,193. Below poverty level percentage of households within the study corridor ranges from 3.4% to 17.3%.

Table 2.6 Household Income and Poverty Status Median Households % Below Corridor Segment Households Household Below Poverty Poverty Level Income Level 1 8,606 $ 73,299 294 3.4% 2 14,337 $ 51,232 635 4.4% 3 16,269 $ 56,124 1,046 6.4% 4 20,385 $ 28,213 3,528 17.3% Corridor Total 59,597 $ 52,217 5,503 9.2%

Johnson County 174,570 $ 67,102 6,257 3.6% Kansas City MSA 694,971 $ 46,193 58,234 8.4% Source: US Census, 2000

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Figure 2-5 Racial Characteristics

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Figure 2-6 Median Household Income

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Employment Characteristics

Major Employer Concentration

Because many transit trips are work related, employment density is important in indicating potential transit use. Employment characteristics in the Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Corridor are shown in Table 2.7, 2.8 and Figure 2-7. The corridor study area represents a concentration of major employers in Johnson County. Of the top 20 employers in Johnson County ranked by persons employed, 11 employers are within the Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Corridor and represent 24,290 employees, or 71% of the employees of the Top 20 Johnson County employers.

Table 2.7 Johnson County Major Employers within the Corridor

Employer NAICS Description Segment

Sprint Wireless Telecommunications Carriers 1 Shawnee Mission School District Elementary and Secondary Schools 2 Black & Veatch Engineering Services 1 City of Overland Park Executive Offices 2 Prescription Solutions Drugs and Druggist`s Merchant Whols 1 Waddell & Reed Financial Inc Misc Intermediation 3 Zurich Direct Property & Casualty Ins. Carriers 1 Swiss Re Reinsurance Carriers 3 Quintiles R & D in (Physical, Engineering & Life Sciences) 1 ScriptPro Other Comm and Service Machinery Mfg 3 Physicians Reference Lab Medical Laboratories 1 Total Employees: 24,290 Employee Percentage of Top 20 JoCo Employers 71%

Source: Johnson County

Employment Density

Employment densities in the entire corridor are higher than Johnson County or the region as a whole, and reflect the corridor’s employment emphasis.. Employment density in Segment 4 is significantly higher than employment density in Johnson County and the region. Nearly 280,500 people were employed in the corridor in 2000. In Segments 1, 2 and 3; 110,000 were employed. In Segment 4, which encompasses the Kansas City, Missouri Central Business District and the County Club Plaza, 170,000 were employed. These figures compare with 364,721 total employment in Johnson County, and 1.2 million employed in the Kansas City MSA. Table 2.8 and Figure 2.7 display the employment density throughout the corridor, but do not include approximately 10,000 employees on 300 acres at the Corporate Woods Office Park near Segment 1.

Table 2.8 Employment Density Employment 2000 Corridor Segment Area (Acres) Number Employees/Acre 1 4,842 55,584 11.5 2 5,344 21,462 4.0 3 6,146 33,207 5.4 4 4,921 170,216 34.6 Corridor Total 21,253 280,469 13.2

Johnson County 307,274 364,721 1.2 Kansas City MSA 2,419,200 1,166,709 0.5 Source: MARC

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

FigureFigure 2 -28-27- 9Employment Employment Density Density

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Demographic and Socio-economic Forecasts

Corridor socio-economic forecasts use the MARC long range projections completed in 2004. Forecasts of population and households are shown in Table 2.9, Table 2.10, Table 2.11 and Figure 2-8, Figure 2-9, and Figure 2-10. These forecasts are based on continually updated development inventories. In the Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Corridor overall population is projected to increase from 123,944 to 134,389 between 2000 and 2030. This change will not occur uniformly in all of the segments. Segments 1 and 3 will see fairly flat population growth from 2010 to 2030, while Segment 4 will see a steeper population rise. Other socioeconomic forecasts in the segments closely track the population forecasts, with the exception of Segment 2 which is projected to lose 6.5% in population between 2000 and 2030, but will increase slightly in the number of households overall and low-income households.

Table 2.9 Population Forecast

Population Corridor Segment Year 2000 2010 2020 2030 1 21,546 24,241 24,402 24,635 2 31,781 30,944 30,265 29,723 3 33,250 32,596 33,250 34,011 4 37,367 38,900 42,665 46,020 Corridor Total 123,944 126,681 130,582 134,389

Johnson County 451,086 560,098 654,774 744,059 Kansas City MSA 1,776,062 1,905,522 2,083,776 2,248,933

Source: MARC

Figure 2-8 Population Forecast

Source: MARC

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Table 2.10 Household Forecast

Households Year 2000 2010 2020 2030 1 8,786 10,334 10,831 11,330 2 14,358 14,622 14,859 15,097 3 15,601 15,781 16,638 17,573 4 20,940 23,047 26,106 29,156 Corridor Total 59,685 63,784 68,434 73,156

Johnson County 174,570 220,609 262,729 304,713 Kansas City MSA 664,378 764,481 857,355 948,954

Source: MARC

Figure 2-9 Household Forecast

Source: MARC

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Table 2.11 Low Income Household Forecast

Low Income Households Corridor Segment Year 2000 2010 2020 2030 1 924 1,215 1,455 1,505 2 2,826 3,229 3,891 3,960 3 2,738 2,939 3,422 3,556 4 8,602 8,844 9,706 10,844 Corridor Total 15,090 16,227 18,474 19,865

Johnson County 22,480 30,961 42,103 47,960 Kansas City MSA 158,861 183,848 212,511 226,870

Source: MARC

Figure 2-10 Low Income Household Forecast

Source: MARC

Employment Forecasts

Employment forecasts are shown in Table 2.12 and Figure 2-11. Consistent with the population characteristics forecasts, employment growth in the corridor will increase from 280,469 in 2000 to 363,522 in 2030. All of the segments will see employment growth, with Segments 1 and 4 seeing over 31,000 and 35,000 new employees respectively between the years 2000 and 2030. Segments 2 and 3 will see 8,600 and 8,100 new employees respectively in the same time period.

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Table 2.12 Employment Forecast

Employment Corridor Segment Year Annual Growth 2000 2010 2020 2030 Rate (30 year) 1 55,584 70,329 81,832 86,784 1.87% 2 21,462 26,023 28,682 30,052 1.33% 3 33,207 37,087 40,034 41,346 0.82% 4 170,216 184,999 198,592 205,340 0.69% Corridor Total 280,469 318,438 349,140 363,522 0.32%

Johnson County 364,721 487,210 590,731 642,695 2.54% Kansas City MSA 1,166,709 1,426,048 1,659,343 1,773,819 1.73%

Source: MARC

Figure 2-11 Employment Forecast

Source: MARC

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Land Use and Activity Centers

Corridor Segment 1-127th & Metcalf to 95th & Metcalf

Segment 1 is comprised of several large office commercial areas, the Overland Park Convention Center, numerous retail commercial centers, and three hospitals. It is characterized by commercial development that yields employment densities that range from moderate to high. Residential uses have predominately moderate density. The northern end of this segment is relatively mature while the southern end of the segment is younger and still exhibits infill development opportunities.

Activity centers include: • Commercial development at 103rd & Metcalf (Indian Creek) • Corporate Woods • Overland Park Convention Center • Overland Park International Trade Center • The Sprint Campus • Rosana Square • Menorah Medical Center • St. Luke’s Medical Center South • Children’s Mercy South • Metcalf South Shopping Center

Corridor Segment 2-95th & Metcalf Avenue to Shawnee Mission Parkway & Metcalf Avenue

Segment 2 is comprised of several retail commercial areas. It is characterized by a mix of suburban style commercial and residential uses. The corridor is relatively mature in this segment with development opportunities limited primarily to adaptive re-uses and redevelopment.

Activity centers include: • Shawnee Mission Medical Center • Commercial development at 75th Street & Metcalf Avenue • Downtown Overland Park • 95th Street between Antioch and Nall Avenue

Corridor Segment 3-Shawnee Mission Parkway & Metcalf Avenue to Country Club Plaza

Segment 3 is comprised of an older retail commercial shopping district. It is characterized by a mix of low to moderate density commercial and residential uses. It was the site of a regional shopping center that has been razed to make way for a mixed- use development.

Activity centers include: • KU Medical Center offices at Rainbow Boulevard & Shawnee Mission Parkway • East Gateway Redevelopment (Future) • Johnson County Northeast Government Offices – 6000 Lamar • West Gateway Redevelopment (Future) • Downtown Mission

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Corridor Segment 4-Country Club Plaza to Downtown Kansas City, Missouri

Segment 4 is comprised of the Central Business District of Kansas City, Missouri, Crown Center, Mid-town Kansas City, Missouri, and the Country Club Plaza. Land uses within the segment are characterized by a mix of high-rise and mid-rise office buildings, restaurants and urban residences in the Central Business District and Crown Center area, and a mix of moderate to high density commercial and residential uses in the remainder. The Kansas City, Missouri Central Business District is currently the metropolitan area’s largest office center, is the center of City and County government, and is home to the City’s convention center and many of the metropolitan area’s important existing cultural institutions including the future Performing Arts Center. Segment 4 is the location of a major retail and entertainment district; and is home to a growing residential community. Crown Center is comprised of high density office uses, two major hotels, and various dining and entertainment venues. Mid-town Kansas City, Missouri is comprised of a mix of moderate density commercial and residential uses. The Country Club Plaza is a major retail commercial/entertainment district made up of moderate density retail and office commercial, dining/entertainment venues, and moderate to high density residential.

Activity Centers include: • Downtown Kansas City, Missouri • Crown Center • Children’s Mercy Hospital • Truman Medical Center • The University of Kansas Medical Center • St. Luke’s Medical Center • Westport • The Country Club Plaza

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Section 3 - Existing Conditions

Introduction

This chapter documents existing transit services in the study area. Each transit route is described in terms of service span, frequency, route length, travel time, and ridership. Also described in this chapter are the existing transit facilities that are available to current riders in the study area. Lastly, an overview is presented of the traffic conditions in which the transit vehicles operate.

Existing Transit Service

The Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Corridor Study Area is primarily served by routes operated by Johnson County Transit (JCT), with some routes in the study area operated by the Kansas City Area Transportation Authority (KCATA). The following are routes that primarily serve the corridor study area or intersect the corridor study area to a meaningful extent. Not included are routes that only pass through the corridor study area or travel only a short distance within the study corridor.

Johnson County Transit Route C – Metcalf - Downtown

Description

Route C – Metcalf – Downtown operates in the Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Corridor between 119th Street and I-35, before circulating through downtown Kansas City, Missouri. The route is shown in Figure 3-1. The route originates at 135th Street and Mur-Len and heads east on 135th Street before turning north at Antioch. The route enters the study corridor as it follows 119th Street east to Metcalf Avenue and follows Metcalf Avenue north before exiting the corridor at I-35. The route takes I-35 into downtown Kansas City, Missouri via 14th Street, and circulates through downtown using 10th Street, Oak Street, Main Street, Grand Boulevard, Pershing Road, and Pennway Street. The route is a commuter service and operates northbound in the morning and southbound in the afternoon.

Service Span and Service Frequency

Route C – Metcalf – Downtown operates Monday through Friday excluding specified holidays, with three morning runs on fifteen and twenty minute headways starting at 6:00 a.m. heading northbound and three runs on thirty minute headways starting at 4:15 p.m. heading southbound. There is no weekend service. The route functions as a commuter route, offering only peak morning and afternoon service with no off-peak, mid-day, or evening service.

Route Length and Travel Time

The total length of the route is approximately 27 miles. Morning run time is 1 hour and 17 minutes in the northbound direction, and p.m. run time is 1 hour and 20 minutes in the southbound direction.

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Ridership

Average daily ridership from October 2007 to September 2008 – 107

Figure 3-1 Route C – Metcalf – Downtown

Route H – Metcalf – Plaza

Description

Route H – Metcalf – Plaza operates on the length of the Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Corridor. The route begins at the Strang Line Park & Ride, and follows 119th Street to Metcalf Avenue where it makes a short loop around the Sprint Headquarters Campus before continuing northbound on Metcalf Avenue. The route turns east on Martway Street and continues on Johnson Drive and Shawnee Mission Parkway before circulating around the Country Club Plaza using Roanoke Parkway, 47th Street, Cleaver Boulevard, Troost Avenue, and Volker Boulevard.

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Service Span and Service Frequency

Route H – Metcalf – Plaza operates Monday through Friday, excluding specified holidays. Southbound routes operate mostly in the mornings between 5:48 a.m. to 9:45 a.m., with one afternoon run starting at 4:58 p.m. The morning headways vary from 25 minutes to 1 hour. Northbound service has one run starting at 6:30 a.m., but most northbound runs are in the afternoon with the first run starting at 3:45 p.m., with headways ranging from 25 minutes to 2 hours.

Route Length and Travel Time

The total length of Route H – Metcalf – Plaza is approximately 24 miles. Within the corridor, transit travel time between the Sprint Campus, Troost Avenue, and Emanuel Cleaver II Boulevard, varies from 55 minutes to 1 hour 5 minutes for northbound trips, and 1 hour 9 minutes to 1 hour 17 minutes for southbound trips. The automobile travel time between the two destinations is approximately 25 to 30 minutes. Automobile travel time from 95th Street and Metcalf Avenue to Troost Avenue and Emanuel Cleaver II Boulevard is approximately 22 to 25 minutes, versus a transit travel time of 40 minutes.

Ridership

Average daily ridership from October 2007 to September 2008 - 106

FigureFigure 3 3--323 -Route4 Route H –H MetcalfMetcalf –-Plaza Plaza

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

KCATA Route #51 – Ward Parkway

Description

Route #51 – Ward Parkway circulates around downtown Kansas City, Missouri using Baltimore and Main and then proceeds south by first going west on Pershing Road and then turning on Broadway to Westport around the Country Club Plaza Area. The route follows Ward Parkway south from the Country Club Plaza and terminates at the Ward Parkway Shopping Center at 89th Street and State Line Road. The route is operated by KCATA.

Service Span and Service Frequency Figure 3-3 Route #51 – Ward Parkway Route #51 – Ward Parkway operates Monday through Friday with a 7-19 minute service frequency during peak hours and a half hour frequency during midday non-peak hours. Evening service operates from 6:42 p.m. to 12:24 a.m. at a 60 minute frequency. On Saturday the route provides a 50 minute frequency between 7:03 a.m. and 7:44 p.m., and 60 minute frequency starting at 7:11 p.m. continuing until 12:06 a.m. Sunday service is a 60 minute frequency from 7:03 a.m. to 9:03 a.m. in the morning and 6:11 p.m. to 12:05 a.m. in the evening, with a 90 minute frequency midday service.

Route Length and Travel Time

The total length of the route is approximately 11 miles. Weekday travel time between the two route termini is 37-42 minutes. Saturday travel time is 36 minutes, while Sunday service is a 39 minute travel time.

Ridership

Average daily ridership from October 2007 to September 2008 – 1,565

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Route #39 - 39th Street

Description

Route #39- 39th Street operates east-west along 39th Street from 39th Street and Adams past the KU Medical Center, west to 39th Street and Topping via the Leeds Trafficway.

Service Span and Service Frequency

The 39th Street route operates on 10 to 14 minute headways between 5:22 a.m. and 6:57 p.m. Monday through Friday. Evening service operates on 30 minute headways from 6:58 p.m. to 12:18 a.m. Saturday service frequency is on 14 to 20 minute headways from 5:09 a.m. to 12:18 a.m. Sunday service begins at 5:14 a.m., and 30 minute frequency begins at 6:53 a.m. and continues until 12:18 a.m.

Route Length and Travel Time

The total route length is approximately 6 miles. Travel time between the two termini is 21 to 29 minutes depending on the specific run.

Ridership

Average daily ridership from October 2007 to September 2008 – 3,685

Figure 3-4 Route #39 39th Street

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Main Street MAX BRT

Description

Main Street MAX BRT operates north-south primarily along Main Street from 3rd and Grand Avenue to Waldo. It operates as a BRT route from 3rd and Grand Avenue until Main Street and 49th Street where it continues as local service to Waldo.

Service Span and Service Frequency

Main Street MAX BRT operates at approximately 10 to 20 minute headways between approximately 4:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., and 30 minute headways from approximately 7:00 p.m. to 12:50 a.m.

Route Length and Travel Time

The total route length is approximately 7.75 miles. Travel time between the two termini is 34 to 50 minutes depending on the specific run.

Ridership

Average daily ridership from October 2007 to September 2008 – 4,105

Figure 3-5 Main Street MAX BRT

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Existing Transit Facilities and Infrastructure

Existing transit facilities and infrastructure supporting transit services in the corridor study area include transit centers, park & rides, sheltered stops and fixed-guideway elements (i.e. bus only lanes).

Segment 1 - 127th & Metcalf to 95th & Metcalf Transit Facilities and Infrastructure

Park & Ride Lots

Rosana Square Park & Ride

The Rosana Square Park & Ride is located at the former IRS Processing Center adjacent to the Rosana Square Shopping Center. It can accommodate approximately 50 automobiles (see Figure 3-6). One bus route is currently accessible from this facility.

Figure 3-6 Rosana Square Park & Ride

Nall Hills Park & Ride

The Nall Hills Park & Ride is located on the northwest portion of the Nall Hills Shopping Center parking lot at 95th Street & Nall Avenue. It can accommodate approximately 30 automobiles (see Figure 3-7). One bus route is currently accessible from this facility.

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Figure 3-7 Nall Hills Park & Ride

Segment 2 - 95th & Metcalf Avenue to Shawnee Mission Parkway & Metcalf Avenue Transit Facilities and Infrastructure

Park & Ride Lots

Metcalf South Park & Ride

The Metcalf South Park & Ride is located on the south end of the Metcalf South Shopping Center. It can accommodate approximately 40 automobiles (see Figure 3-8). Three bus routes are currently accessible from this facility.

Other Park & Ride Lots include: • Hillcrest Church at 88th Street & Nall Avenue • Nall Avenue Baptist Church at 67th Street and Nall Avenue

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Figure 3-8 Metcalf South Park & Ride

Sheltered Stops

95th Street and Antioch Road

Figure 3-9 Sheltered Stop at 95th Street and Antioch Road

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Segment 3 - Shawnee Mission Parkway & Metcalf Avenue to Country Club Plaza Transit Facilities and Infrastructure

Transit Centers

6000 Lamar Transit Center

The 6000 Lamar Transit Center is owned and operated by Johnson County. It is located at the Johnson County Northeast Government offices at 6000 Lamar Avenue in Mission, Kansas (see Figure 3-10). It is the primary hub of the Johnson County transit system and serves as a transfer point between a number of routes and provides connection with KCATA.

Figure 3-10 6000 Lamar Transit Center

Park & Ride Lots

A parking lot is provided at 6000 Lamar to serve Park & Ride transit access. However, the lot is often well utilized for persons accessing county services limiting spaces available for transit Park & Ride use.

Sheltered Stops

Bus shelters are provided at 6000 Lamar.

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Segment 4 - Country Club Plaza to Downtown Kansas City, Missouri Transit Facilities and Infrastructure

Transit Centers

10th & Main Transit Center

The 10th & Main Transit Center is owned and operated by KCATA. It is located in the heart of the Kansas City, Missouri Central Business District (see Figure 3-11). It is the primary hub of the regional transit system and serves as a northern terminus for Route #51 – Ward Parkway (described above). Linkages between the study area and other parts of the region occur at this location. JCT routes stop adjacent to 10th & Main.

The facility encompasses an area of approximately 22,500 square feet. It provides sheltered waiting areas for transit patrons in an attractively landscaped environment. The facility can accommodate up to five transit coaches at off-street boarding sites and five at boarding sites on its perimeter. Amenities provided include informational kiosks, lighting, trash receptacles, public art displays, restroom facilities for transit employees, and inter-city bus connections.

Figure 3-11 10th & Main Transit Center

Park & Ride Lots

There is one Park & Ride lot located at 3rd and Grand in the River Market area north of the Kansas City, Missouri Central Business District.

Sheltered Stops

There are numerous sheltered bus stops located in Segment 4 of the study area. Figure 3-12 illustrates a typical sheltered stop in Segment 4.

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Figure 3-12 Typical Sheltered Stop

Fixed-Guideway Elements

There are bus only lanes located in Segment 4 on Main Street and Walnut Street between 9th Street and 14th Street in the Kansas City, Missouri Central Business District. These are the only fixed guideway elements within the Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Corridor.

Existing Roadway Conditions

Roadway Characteristics

The primary roadway characteristics and traffic characteristics in the Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Corridors are described below.

Metcalf Avenue

Metcalf Avenue is an arterial route that is located in the center of the corridors. It is a primary north-south route that provides for vehicle movement through Overland Park. Metcalf Avenue is six lanes wide from 89th Street to the south. Metcalf Avenue is four lanes wide from 89th Street to the north. Between 87th Street and Shawnee Mission Parkway, this four lane section is undivided and left turn lanes are provided only at major intersections. North of Shawnee Mission Parkway, Metcalf Avenue is an expressway type facility.

Martway Street

Martway Street is a two lane street. Martway Street’s profile within the corridor varies between a simple two lane roadway with no center lane to including center lanes and both right turn and left turn lanes.

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Johnson Drive

Within the corridor, Johnson Drive is a four lane arterial street. From Metcalf Avenue to Lamar Avenue, Johnson Drive is configured as a five lane roadway with a median. From Lamar Avenue to the east, left turn lanes are provided only at major intersections. Angle street parking is provided for some of the length of Johnson Drive through downtown Mission.

Shawnee Mission Parkway

This route is a divided highway from Metcalf Avenue to east of Roe Boulevard (55th Street) where it then transitions into an undivided four lane roadway from this point east. A center turn lane is provided between 55th Street and State Line Road.

Ward Parkway

Shawnee Mission Parkway connects directly into Ward Parkway just to the east of State Line Road. For the segment between Shawnee Mission Parkway and Southwest Trafficway, Ward Parkway is a divided arterial route with four lanes in each direction.

Southwest Trafficway

This route is an arterial located on the west side of the Country Club Plaza. Southwest Trafficway utilizes a one-way street pair of Madison Avenue and Belleview Avenue between 43rd Street and Ward Parkway. North of 43rd Street, it is an arterial route with six lanes in each direction separated by a median. Southwest Trafficway connects directly into I-35 south of the Kansas City, Missouri Central Business District.

Broadway Boulevard

This route is located on the east side of the Country Club Plaza. Broadway Boulevard is a four lane arterial street. A center left turn lane is provided between 43rd Street and 31st Street. On-street parking is provided for much of the length of Broadway Boulevard.

Traffic Operation

Intersection traffic operation is often described in terms of a grade or Level of Service (LOS) based on thresholds of driver acceptance. A letter grade between A and F is assigned, where LOS A represents the best operation and LOS F as the worst operation. Typically if an intersection in an urban area operates between LOS A and LOS D that is considered acceptable. A LOS E or LOS F typically means that vehicles may not be able to move through an intersection without having to wait through an entire signal cycle or possibly longer. Table 3.1 provides the definition in terms of seconds of delay for each level of service.

Annual average daily traffic (AADT) counts for a number of locations along the major routes in the Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Corridor are shown in Figure 3-13. Current levels of service for many of the major intersections in the corridor are also shown in Figure 3-13.

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Table 3.1 Level of Service Criteria Level-of-Service Criteria Signal Stop Control Control Level of Service (LOS) Control Delay Approach Delay sec/veh sec/veh A ≤ 10 ≤ 10 B >10 and ≤ 15 >10 and ≤ 20 C >15 and ≤ 25 >20 and ≤ 35 D >25 and ≤ 35 >35and ≤ 55 E >35 and ≤ 50 >55 and ≤ 80 F >50 >80

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Figure 3-13 Existing Traffic Conditions

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Section 4 - Transit Issues and Project Purpose & Need

Introduction

Based upon the information presented in Sections 2 and 3, from the review of previous studies described in Section 1, and from discussions with the Project Steering Committee, a list of transit issues was prepared.

Transit Issues

Following is a summary of the transit issues:

Auto Ownership – Auto ownership rates in the corridor correlate with income. There are concentrations of relatively high transit dependent populations in Segment 4 only.

Congestion – Traffic data indicates levels of congestion in the corridor with little excess capacity during peak travel hours.

Connectivity to Regional Transit System – Connections to the regional transit system are made at the JCT Transit Center at 6000 Lamar, the Plaza, or in Downtown Kansas City, Missouri. The travel times for transit trips outside the corridor are typically over an hour long and a number of destinations, (such as destinations in Wyandotte County, Platte County, Clay County, or suburban Jackson County), take well over an hour or cannot be reached at all.

Current Transit Service – Current transit within the length of the study corridor consists of three fixed routes (Route C, Route H, and Route #51). Transit service on Route C and Route H are oriented to the peak hour, with very limited off-peak service. Transit travel times for the length of the corridor from the Plaza to 119th and Lamar Avenue is approximately 47 minutes while auto travel time is approximately 25 minutes for the same trip. Most services operate only during peak periods and transit connectivity between activity centers is limited or non-existent.

Employment – Generally strong employment growth in retail and office sectors with some variance between study area segments. Office growth is primarily in Segments 1 and 4 of the study area, and retail growth is primarily in Segments 1, 2, and 3 of the study area. Two strong anchors are located on each end of the study area, with Corporate Woods/Overland Park Convention Center/Sprint Campus and adjacent development located at the southern end of the study area, and the Kansas City, Missouri Central Business District located at the northern end of the study area. Both the Vision Metcalf and the Mission Gateway Studies show future, higher density employment surrounding the major nodes of Metcalf Avenue and along Johnson Drive.

Environmental Sensitivity – Environmental goals such as the reduction of greenhouse gases can be supported by reduced reliance on single person vehicle travel.

Land-use Density – Land use is less dense and more suburban in the southern portion of the study area, and becomes denser and more urban-like as it moves into the northern portion of the study area.

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Low Income – Higher concentrations of low income households are located within Segment 4.

Major Destinations – A number of major activity centers can be found within the study area, including the Sprint Nextel Headquarters and campus, Corporate Woods, the Overland Park Convention Center, commercial nodes at 119th Street, 103rd Street, 95th Street, and 75th Street, Downtown Overland Park, the East Gateway redevelopment, the Plaza, and the Kansas City, Missouri Central Business District.

Population – Shows moderate and steady growth.

Transit Amenities – Transit funding constraints have resulted in a minimal level of transit amenities at bus stops, which, in some cases, lack the supportive pedestrian features such as sidewalks that would allow improved access to transit. Transit amenities such as shelters, information kiosks, benches, etc. can only be found at the 6000 Lamar Transit Center, 95th Street and Antioch Road, or within Segment 4 of the study area.

Project Purpose and Need

A purpose and need statement summarizes the need for the study and identifies problems to be addressed by transportation improvements considered as part of the study process. The purpose and need statement reflects project goals and objectives and provides the initial background information for developing evaluation measures.

Purpose of the Project

The purpose of the study is to increase transit capacity and ridership by providing safe and effective transit service options that are competitive with automobile travel for residents, workers, and visitors traveling within the corridor. This increased transit service will improve access, support the environment, and promote economic investment in the community.

Summary of Transit Needs

The transit issues already summarized in this section are reflective of the Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway corridor being a regional job center with predominantly suburban characteristics and access to a basic level of generally peak- hour transit service. The project purpose was also identified in this section and reflects a desire to increase transit options from their current state while also responding to environmental, safety, and access concerns. This examination of existing conditions and project purpose identification allow the articulation of the following transit needs:

Expanded Transit Service – Existing span of service is limited to peak hour operation with some mid-day service and does not meet all of the needs of County residents, businesses, and employers. Opportunities to increase the times of operation for transit operation within the study area should be explored.

Expanded Reverse Commute Opportunities – The ability of those living outside of the study area to access jobs by transit within the study area is often limited and requires long travel times when service is provided. In addition, the lack of evening or weekend

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study service limits reverse commute travel options. Employers in the corridor cannot fully benefit from transit services currently provided.

Improved Transit Amenities – Transit amenities, such as shelters, benches, information kiosks, etc., are limited with the exception of the 6000 Lamar Transit Center, 95th Street and Antioch Road, and the part of the study area that encompasses the urban core. Amenities are vital to providing a base level of transit service to attract choice transit riders. They also provide a comfortable environment for all passengers waiting to board transit vehicles.

Better Connectivity to the Regional Transit System – While coordination and connections between the three transit providers – Johnson County Transit, Unified Government Transit, and KCATA – exist, the ability to travel throughout the region can be difficult due to indirect routing, lack of transfer opportunity, limits to service frequency and service span, and because of limitations to coordination and connectivity.

Improve Air Quality – Auto exhaust emissions must be reduced in order to meet air quality standards.

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Section 5 - Project Goals and Objectives

Introduction

Goals and objectives were developed to provide direction for the outcomes of the study by providing a means to evaluate and prioritize each transit option along the corridor. They are intended to support the existing documents and encourage further transportation infrastructure. There is no particular order to the goals.

Goal 1: Improve Transit Effectiveness

Reinforce the significance of the corridor as a major spine of the Johnson County Transit system by providing effective connections from neighborhoods and to activity centers in the corridor.

Objectives • Improve transit travel times for major trip movements. • Increase the frequency of service. • Increase the service span to include evenings and weekends.

Goal 2: Improve Transit Service Quality

Provide transit facilities in the corridor that will attract additional transit users and reinforce the significance of the corridor as the major spine of the Johnson County Transit system.

Objectives • Provide convenient stops. • Accommodate bicycle users. • Maximize the potential for bus transfer access. • Provide vehicles which are reliable, comfortable, safe, and attractive. • Accommodate persons with disabilities. • Develop transit services that are scalable and adaptable to current and future conditions. • Improve route information (provide real-time information).

Goal 3: Support Planned Land Use Patterns

Support transit service in the corridor with land use policies by implementing recommendations from Vision Metcalf and other studies, with recognition that certain elements in Vision Metcalf, the West Gateway Vision Plan, and the East Gateway Redevelopment Plan cannot be achieved without strong transit components.

Objectives • Develop transit services that will support and promote higher density development. • Provide opportunities for transit oriented development. • Maximize the potential for pedestrian access.

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

• Provide service consistent with both Overland Park’s and Mission’s respective master plans and the Vision Metcalf and the East-West Gateway Plans.

Goal 4: Improve Travel Connectivity

Improve connections from the corridor to other regional transit systems.

Objectives • Provide a system that is well-integrated with other transit systems serving the Kansas City region. • Provide opportunities for transit system access for persons located outside the corridor by providing Park & Ride lots or other strategies. • Develop transit center facilities that provide safe and convenient locations for connections between various transit and other transportation modes.

Goal 5: Improve Access to Major Employers and Destinations

Provide transit services in the corridor that enable all persons regardless of vehicle availability to be able to access services.

Objectives • Connect current and future neighborhoods with employment centers, medical facilities, and other services. • Provide reverse-commute access to study area employers.

Goal 6: Support Growth

Provide transit infrastructure in the corridor to support long-term sustainable growth in Johnson County.

Objectives • Promote business and job creation by providing transportation options to existing and planned major job and activity centers. • Locate transit service in a way as to enhance the vitality of business districts and activity centers. • Enhance Johnson County’s place in the regional economy by connecting major activity centers. • Promote residential growth and development by providing transit access to existing and planned neighborhoods in the corridor.

Goal 7: Contribute to Improving the Environment

Support a healthy environment within the corridor.

Objectives • Develop a transit alternative that will improve or maintain noise standards and air quality standards in accordance with the Kansas City Clean Air Action Plan. • Develop transit alternatives that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. • Minimize the impacts from construction and operations.

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

• Evaluate options for utilizing alternative fuels and green technology in transit facilities.

Goal 8: Provide Cost-Effective Transit Solutions

Demonstrate responsible stewardship of public funding for transit in the corridor.

Objectives • Identify a system that includes transit elements that have the potential to be funded with a mix of local, federal, and state funding. • Develop a system for which the capital and operating costs are reasonable, based on the benefits provided.

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Section 6 - Potential Transit Concepts

Introduction

This section describes a range of conceptual strategies that were initially considered to improve transit service in the Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway corridors. A comparative evaluation was completed to examine how each of the transit concepts best supports project goals and is described in this chapter. Based on this evaluation, the more promising concepts were further evaluated and defined in greater detail to determine the locally preferred alternative.

Transit Concepts

The following range of potential transit actions were considered for application in the Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Corridor:

The transit concepts are described below:

Baseline (No-build)

This represents current service as described in Section 3 of this report. Existing transit service that operates within the length of the study corridor is listed below. Johnson County Transit Route C – Metcalf-Downtown and Route H – Metcalf-Plaza primarily operate during the morning and afternoon peak periods while KCATA Route #51 – Ward Parkway and the Main Street MAX BRT route provide service throughout the day.

• Route C – Metcalf – Downtown (three, a.m. northbound runs, four, p.m. southbound runs) • Route H – Metcalf – Plaza (one, a.m. northbound run, five, a.m. southbound runs, five, p.m. northbound runs, one, p.m. southbound run) • Route #51 – Ward Parkway (15-30 minute peak & 60 minute non-peak headways) • Main Street MAX BRT (10 minute peak & 15 minute non-peak headways)

Enhanced Bus

This option would include:

• Increasing the service frequency and service span to include mid-day, evening, and weekend service.

Page 48

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

• Route modification to reduce travel time length, and increase the level of transit amenities in the study area. This would include creating a single route that would extend from the south end of the corridor to a major destination in the north end of the corridor such as the Plaza or the Central Business District in Kansas City, Missouri.

The enhanced bus service would link the existing stops that are currently serviced by existing routes. Headways to be initially considered would be approximately 15 minutes at peak and 20-25 minutes during off-peak periods. The peak headways would reflect forecasted demand while the off-peak headways would likely be established through a policy standard.

Express Bus

Express bus typically involves providing a transit route with limited stops and use of higher speed roadway facilities. The express bus service emphasizes speed and often uses freeways where passenger boarding is not possible. This type of service primarily operates during the peak period serving commuter travel, although off-peak service can also be provided. An example of express bus in Johnson County is listed below and shown in Figure 6-1.

Route B – Olathe Express (six, a.m. northbound runs, six, p.m. southbound runs)

Figure 6-1 Route B – Olathe Express

Source: Olsson Associates

Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)

BRT can be defined as a flexible, rubber-tired rapid-transit model that combines stations, vehicles, services, guideways, and Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) elements into an integrated transit system with a strong positive identity that evokes a unique image. A typical profile for BRT exclusive lane is shown in Figure 6-2.

Page 49

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Figure 6-2 BRT Exclusive Lane Typical Street Profile

BRT service can include a wide range of features. In general, BRT systems can be described in two categories – BRT systems with dedicated guideways and BRT systems that operate predominately on regular travel lanes in mixed traffic. In some instances, the mixed traffic travel lanes are restricted for BRT use only for certain portions of the day. In other instances, BRT vehicles use queue jumps. Queue jumps are limited portions of travel lanes that are restricted to BRT use near signalized intersections. A queue jump allows BRT vehicles to jump ahead of stopped vehicles and move to the front of traffic. A typical profile for BRT mixed traffic is shown in Figure 6-3.

Figure 6-3 BRT Mixed Traffic Typical Street Profile

Other BRT features can include exclusive ITS treatments, simplified fare payment methods, special branded vehicles, and passenger stations with increased amenities. This alternative, through the use of Transit Signal Priority (TSP) strategies, would include modifying existing signals with extended green time and queue jumps to

Page 50

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

optimize and reduce transit travel time, improve transit system reliability, and increase services to transit markets.

Many BRT projects are developed through the FTA Small Starts or New Start program. The FTA considers a minimum of 3,000 existing daily transit riders as a threshold for considering a Small Start or Very Small Start project. Industry standards have generally indicated that BRT (mixed traffic) can have a capital cost of $1 million per mile for mixed traffic or bus on shoulder lanes. Arterial median busways and separate busways, such as those used for BRT Exclusive lanes, can cost in the $6.6 million to $7.5 million per mile range1.

Streetcar

A streetcar is a rail vehicle of lighter weight and construction than a train, designed for transporting passengers within cities on tracks running primarily on streets. Street railways were common throughout the industrialized world in the early 20th century, but disappeared from many U.S. cities in the mid-20th century. In recent years, they have made a comeback in many U.S. cities. Many newer light rail systems share features with streetcars, including obtaining operating energy from overhead catenary contact wires. A distinction can be made between the two modes because most light rail systems operate off-street.

Light Rail Transit (LRT)

Light rail or Light Rail Transit (LRT) is a form of urban rail public transportation that generally has a lower capacity and lower speed than heavy rail and metro systems. The term is typically used to refer to modern streetcar/tram systems with rapid transit-style features that usually use electric rail cars operating mostly in private rights-of-way separated from other traffic but sometimes, if necessary, mixed with other traffic in city streets. An example of LRT is shown in Figure 6-4. LRT is operated by electrically powered vehicles propelled by either overhead catenary contact wire providing current to the electric motors or with self-propelled diesel-generator propulsion systems. The average cost of light rail is approaching $40 to $65 million per mile. A typical profile for LRT is shown in Figure 6-5 and in Figure 6-6.

LRT projects are often developed through the FTA New Starts program. The New Starts project development process is extensive and includes a rating process for financial and project justification. New Starts funding is very competitive and requires substantial efforts in developing technical traffic models and demonstration of financial commitment.

1 TCRP Report 90, Volume 1, “Bus Rapid Transit: Case Studies in Bus Rapid Transit”, 2003

Page 51

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Figure 6-4 Light Rail Transit, Sacramento, California

Source: Sacramento Regional Transit District

Figure 6-5 Light Rail Typical Street Profile A

Figure 6-6 Light Rail Typical Street Profile B

Page 52

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Features of Transit Concepts

A number of specific transit features mentioned in the previous section are more fully described in this section of the report. The features associated with the transit concepts are shown in Table 6.1. The hollow circles signify that a particular amenity is usually not associated with a transit concept. The half-filled circles signify that a particular amenity may or may not be associated with a transit concept. A fully-filled circle signifies that a particular amenity is usually associated with a transit concept. These features are discussed below and include illustrations from existing transit systems.

Table 6.1 – Transit Features Guideway Type

Mixed Traffic Lanes

Mixed traffic lanes are the most basic form of running way for transit bus, BRT, streetcar, and certain forms of light rail. Most rubber tired urban transit service operates in mixed traffic lanes. In this case, transit vehicles face delays due to conflicts with other vehicles, which also operate within the street. Mixed traffic lanes used for the MAX system in Kansas City are shown in Figure 6-7.

Dedicated Arterial Lanes

In corridors where the alignment of the BRT or a LRT route follows an existing arterial roadway, designated lanes can be dedicated to provide BRT vehicles with a fast, reliable alternative to mixed traffic lanes. This has been done in certain locations with the Main Street MAX service in Kansas City, Missouri. Dedicated lanes used for the MAX system in Kansas City are shown in Figure 6-8.

Page 53

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Figure 6-7 Example of Mixed-Traffic BRT

Source: KCATA

Figure 6-8 Dedicated BRT Lane

Source: Olsson Associates

With a designated arterial lane, a traffic lane within an arterial roadway is set aside for the operation of BRT vehicles. Other vehicles are restricted from using the lane by a physical barrier or through police enforcement. BRT vehicles thus face minimal congestion delay between intersections and are not delayed in the approach to a station or signalized intersection by a queue of other vehicles. Consequently, designated lanes reduce travel times and improve reliability. In some cases, right turning vehicles are permitted to use the dedicated arterial lane.

Page 54

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Separate Guideway

Another approach is the construction of infrastructure for exclusive use of transit vehicles. Exclusive facilities offer significant potential for speed, reliability, and safety improvements since they physically separate BRT or LRT vehicles from the general stream of traffic, eliminating the potential for general traffic to encroach on the BRT lanes. Because other traffic cannot interfere with BRT vehicles, service can be operated safely at much higher speeds between BRT stations. At-grade exclusive lanes do, however, interact with other traffic at cross streets. An example of a separate bus guideway is shown in Figure 6-9.

Figure 6-9 Separated Transit Guideway

Source: Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit, FTA

Stations/Shelters

Transit stations can be used for all of the transit concepts, but they are often associated with BRT or LRT concepts. Station design is an integral part of a BRT system. BRT routes often have fewer stops than a local bus service resulting in higher concentrations of passengers at each stop. BRT systems often desire to distinguish their service from the accompanying local or feeder bus service. The stations are used as a way to increase the brand awareness and appeal of the BRT service. Station types can vary from an enhanced bus stop, a designated station, or an intermodal transit center. While presented here in a BRT context, many bus stop and station elements are applicable to other transit modes including enhanced bus and express bus.

Enhanced bus stops include distinct shelters to help differentiate the system from a conventional bus service and can provide additional features on top of the simple shelter, including lighting, benches, trash cans, high quality material finishes, and walls made of transparent materials such as glass. Costs, excluding land acquisition and engineering costs, range from a minimum of $25,000 to $35,000 per shelter but can be higher. Individual KCATA MAX stations, for example, with independent lighting, large

Page 55

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

concrete pads, and electronic kiosks displaying real-time bus information, cost approximately $105,000 each using public right-of-way.

Designated stations can include such features as raised platforms for seamless boarding and alighting, grade-separate connections from one platform to another, and a full range of passenger amenities such as retail service and passenger information kiosks. Costs can range from $150,000 for a basic multi-bus pull out with sheltered waiting area to as much as $2.5 million or more for a climate controlled facility with multi-bus staging area and associated parking for Park & Ride activity.

Intermodal transit centers are the most advanced type of BRT stations. They often feature level boarding, advanced passenger amenities including retail and passenger information, and can provide transfers to other public transit modes. Totals can range from $5 million to $20 million per center or higher. Figure 6-10 shows a typical bus shelter in Johnson County, while Figure 6-11 shows an enhanced stop for transit service in Los Angeles. Figure 6-12 shows an enhanced stop for the MAX route in Kansas City.

Figure 6-10 Bus Shelter, Overland Park, Kansas

Source: Johnson County Transit

Figure 6-11 Metro Rapid Station, Los Angeles, California

Source: TCRP Report 90

Page 56

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Figure 6-12 MAX Shelter, Kansas City, Missouri

Source: Olsson Associates

Bus Stops

Some transit systems utilize a “flag system” policy that allows riders wanting to board a bus to signal a stop request to the bus operator who will stop the bus at a safe location. Other transit agencies allow bus riders to board and alight only at designated bus stops marked either on a map or by a bus stop sign. Bus stops located on the far side of a signalized intersection cause less service delay than stops located at the near side, because the bus is less likely to be delayed by a traffic signal. A typical bus stop including a bus stop sign is shown in Figure 6-13.

Figure 6-13 Bus Stop, Kansas City, Kansas

Source: Olsson Associates

Walkability, safety, and location play an important role in placement of bus stops. Sidewalks at bus stops should be between 10 feet and 15 feet wide to allow for safe interaction between the bus, multiple riders, and passing pedestrians. Sidewalks should

Page 57

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

exist between bus stop locations and also between the bus stop and the nearby rider trip origins and destinations. Sufficient lighting of the bus stop allows bus operators to see waiting riders and adds to the sense of safety at the stop. Bus stop location and frequency depends on residential and employment densities and also the transit mode servicing the bus stop. Local bus service in high density areas can have bus stops every block, medium density areas have a bus stop every two or three blocks, while less dense areas have bus stops as needed. Express bus and BRT would have fewer bus stops to maintain high service speeds, with stops typically one-half mile to one mile apart in the city center and one to three miles apart on busways.

Use of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)

Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) includes a variety of advanced technologies to collect, process, and disseminate real-time data from vehicle and roadway sensors. The data is transmitted via a dedicated communications network and computing intelligence is used to transform these data into useful information for the operating agency, driver, and ultimately the customer. Different combinations of technologies combine to form different types of ITS systems. For example, Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) in combination with Automated Scheduling and Dispatch (ASD) and Transit Signal Priority (TSP) can improve schedule adherence and hence reliability as well as operating speed.

ITS-intensive systems are usually associated with BRT mixed traffic routes, but various component combinations can be selected and used to improve any of the transit modes presented here. The MAX system in Kansas City, Missouri utilizes AVL and ASD.

Capital costs for TSP vary depending if existing equipment can be reused. Upgrading existing controller equipment and software costs approximately $5,000 per intersection. Costs can increase to approximately $20,000 to $30,000 per intersection if the controller equipment and software needs to be replaced2.

Technology systems utilizing AVL technology paired with displays at transit stop locations relaying the location and real time estimated arrival of the next bus increase ridership confidence and the overall appeal of the transit system. Examples of AVL are shown in Figure 6-14 and Figure 6-15.

Figure 6-14 Real Time Information, Los Angeles, California

Source: Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit, FTA

2 TCRP Report 118. Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide, TRB 2007

Page 58

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Figure 6-15 Kiosk with Real Time Information, Kansas City, Missouri

Source: KCATA

Specialized Vehicles

Conventional buses are often used for regular transit service and in some cases for BRT operation. However, there is a trend toward innovation in vehicle design for regular transit service, but in particular for BRT operation. These innovations include:

• Use of clean vehicles (e.g. low-sulfur diesel fuel, diesel-electric hybrids, compressed natural gas, and possibly fuel cells in the future); • Low floor buses; and • Distinctive vehicles.

Clean vehicles typically have higher initial costs than conventional transit buses and may require modified maintenance procedures and fueling facilities. The International Energy Agency (IEA) found compressed natural gas buses cost $25,000 to $50,0003 more in initial acquisition than a comparable diesel bus based on data from transit agencies worldwide. Infrastructure costs may be significant, depending on existing natural gas facilities in the area. Diesel buses with advanced emission controls that use low-sulfur diesel cost only $5,000 to $10,000 more than a standard diesel bus. The IEA also found that hybrid electric buses cost an additional $100,000 to $150,000. Hybrid diesel-electric buses are currently being used on a wide scale in Seattle, San Francisco, and New York

3 Sustainable Transport: New Insights from the IEA’s Worldwide Transit Study, Lew Fulton, 2001

Page 59

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

and can achieve up to 35 percent better fuel economy over standard diesel buses and cut emissions by up to 90 percent4.

Low-floor buses have a lower platform than conventional buses and do not require passengers to climb multiple stairs to board or alight. This feature enables quicker boarding and alighting times for both ambulatory and non-ambulatory passengers than conventional bus with step-up floors.5 Low–floor buses can utilize a relatively quick ramp to board non-ambulatory passengers, as opposed to a hydraulic lift required in conventional buses that allows non-ambulatory passengers to transverse the stairs. There is no significant cost difference between low-floor buses and conventional buses.

Distinctive vehicles are used to differentiate BRT transit service from regular bus transit service. Methods used to distinguish vehicles can range from unique paint schemes and vinyl wrapping and screening, to different vehicle models and lengths, to specially modified vehicles built to suit. In some locations, buses bear more resemblance to light rail vehicles with a highly sloped design and covered wheels. With only different paint schemes, distinctive vehicles cost only minimally more than vehicles used by most transit agencies. A distinctly painted transit vehicle is shown in Figure 6-16.

Figure 6-16 Distinctively Painted Metro Rapid Vehicle, Los Angeles, CA

Source: Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit, FTA

Choosing new bus models or new vehicle types can cost substantially more than the current vehicles utilized by The JO. The JO’s current 40 foot vehicles cost an average of $340,000. 2010 model year 40’ Gillig’s would cost approximately $360,000 for low-floor buses with fare boxes and cloth-seats. BRT-style buses cost approximately $380,000 and include one-piece windshield, modified headlights, flush side windows, and front and rear roof flarings.6 KCATA’s MAX buses by contrast cost $400,000 each in 2005. Vehicles currently being used in Las Vegas as shown in Figure 6-17 include a highly sloped profile and articulate sections cost $1.1 million each.

4 http://news.cnet.com/The-greening-of-the-city-bus/2100-11389_3-6079090.html, accessed 12/15/2008 5 TCRP Synthesis 2 “Low floor transit buses, a synthesis of transit practices.10 6 Joe Saldana, Gillig Regional Sales Manager, Phone call 2/16/2009

Page 60

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study Figure 6-17 Wright Group “StreetCar”

Unique Branding

Specialized logos are often used to create a unique identity by establishing a brand and a theme that patrons recognize and associate with the positive attributes of a BRT system. Unique branding can exhibit itself across a transit system’s facilities, including shelters, signage, maps, schedules, and rolling stock. Use of such features to differentiate BRT systems from other services requires a dedicated fleet. KCATA’s MAX logo is shown on the side of a transit vehicle in Figure 6-18.

Figure 6-18 BRT Branding, Kansas City, Missouri

Source: Olsson Associates

Traffic-transit Integration and Transit Signal Priority (TSP)

Optimization of traffic signals along a corridor extends the green time of traffic signals along a BRT route and in the direction of the BRT flow. This can involve simulation modeling and analysis using traffic vehicle and person flow data but does not require additional components for the vehicle or infrastructure. A traffic information center operated by the Missouri Department of Transportation and used to manage traffic signalization is shown in Figure 6-19.

Page 61

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Figure 6-19 Traffic Information Center

Source: Missouri DOT

Transit Signal Priority (TSP) uses specialized equipment on transit vehicles to communicate with traffic signals along the transit route for purpose of maintaining transit schedules. TSP infrastructure, using equipment on transit vehicles and on traffic signals, communicate to modify a single cycle in a traffic signal to extend the green traffic signal time or shorten the red traffic signal time when transit vehicles are behind schedule and approaching the signalized intersection. Modifying traffic signals to prioritize late-running transit vehicles increases schedule reliability by allowing transit vehicles to effectively increase their route speed when they are behind schedule. After the transit vehicle exits the intersection, the traffic signal resumes its regular cycling. Unlike traffic signal preemption with emergency vehicles which changes the signals to favor approaching emergency vehicles, transit signal priority only extends or delays a traffic signal phase. TSP does not engage when transit vehicles are on-time.

Initial Screening of Transit Concepts

The following evaluation was used to screen the conceptual alternatives to determine their transportation system benefits and financial feasibility in the Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Corridor. The purpose of the initial screening is to narrow the range of potential transit alternatives to those that have the most promise to meet the initial and long-range travel needs of corridor residents and businesses.

Screening Criteria

Each of the seven transit alternatives was rated according to the following eight previously established goals.

• Goal 1: Improve Transit Effectiveness • Goal 2: Improve Transit Service Quality • Goal 3: Support Planned Land-Use Patterns • Goal 4: Improve Travel Connectivity • Goal 5: Improve Access to Major Employers and Destinations • Goal 6: Support Economic Development • Goal 7: Contribute to Improving the Environment • Goal 8: Provide Cost-Effective Transit Solutions

Page 62

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

This initial evaluation was completed by comparing a mix of qualitative and quantitative information to provide a general rating. The differences between alternatives/modes/service were sometimes minor, and reflect continuums of options rather than discrete, uniformly grouped characteristics.

Rating Methodology

For each of the evaluation criteria, levels of “ratings” were developed as follows:

Most adverse impacts or least appropriate Moderate impacts or appropriateness Minimal adverse impacts or most appropriate U Characteristic making mode currently unfeasible

The ratings defined for each criterion are listed below.

Goal 1: Improve Transit Effectiveness (Level of Service)

Fails in a significant way to meet one or more study purpose/goals Partially addresses one or more study purpose/goals Meets study purpose/goals in a broad sense

Goal 2: Improve Transit Service Quality Very limited or small incremental potential improvement due to existing congestion Moderate level of improvement with similar implementation within the U.S. High potential for similar results when compared to similar implementation within the U.S.

Goal 3: Support Planned Land-Use Patterns

Alternative not compatible with planned densities and surrounding land uses Alternative moderately compatible with planned densities and surrounding land uses Alternative compatible with planned densities and surrounding land uses

Page 63

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Goal 4: Improve Travel Connectivity

Alternative not able to make direct connections with corridor destinations or has substantial out of direction routing Alternative moderately able to make direct connections with corridor destinations Alternative able to make direct connections with corridor destinations

Goal 5: Improve Access to Major Employers and Destinations

Alternative does not improve either level of service or direct connections to major employers and destinations compared to existing transit service Alternative moderately improves either level of service or direct connection access to major employers and destinations Alternative significantly improves the level of service and direct connections available to major employers and destinations over the existing level of service

Goal 6: Support Economic Development

Low potential for economic development, Transit Orientated Development Moderate potential for economic development, Transit Orientated Development High potential for economic development, Transit Orientated Development

Goal 7: Contribute to Improving the Environment

Alternative does not improve noise and air quality standards, including green house gas emissions, over current transit mode Alternative offers moderate greenhouse gas emissions reductions while maintaining options to utilize alternative fuels and green technology Alternative offers significant improvements over current transit mode in greenhouse gas emission reductions and currently utilizes alternative fuels and green technology

Goal 8: Provide Cost-Effective Transit Solutions (Typical Capital Costs in 2007 $)

Greater than $25 million/mile

$5 - $25 million/mile Less than $5 million/mile

Comparison of Transit Concepts

Table 6.2 is the final results summary of the rating methodology as applied to the seven transit concepts. The table, complete with the rating of each alternatives against the full

Page 64

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study objectives, is attached as Appendix A. A description of the score given to each mode and goal follows in Appendix B.

Table 6.2 Concept Transit Mode Evaluation Matrix

Summary of Findings

A total of seven (7) concepts were evaluated in the initial screening process:

(1) No Build (maintain current service levels), (2) Enhanced Bus, (3) Express Bus, (4) BRT (mixed traffic), (5) BRT (exclusive lanes), (6) Streetcar, and (7) Light Rail. The following summarizes the evaluation of each transit concept:

• No Build – the current level of transit service meets some of the travel needs within the corridor but it does not meet or address many of the project’s goals or objectives. Keeping current transit service levels constant would not improve transit effectiveness over current levels, nor would the No Build be able to support the higher land use densities foreseen in Vision Metcalf, the West Gateway Vision Plan, and the East Gateway Redevelopment Plan. This transit concept would provide the least level of additional transit support for economic development due to, among other characteristics, the lack of unique branding,

Page 65

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

enhanced stops, or permanence of alignment that would appeal to developers. These same attributes would also be less likely to enhance Johnson County’s place in the regional economy.

• Enhanced Bus – this transit concept performs well against many screening criteria. Enhanced bus is scalable and has the potential to be incrementally improved to approximate many of the service features of BRT but without the frequency of service provided by BRT and the service branding. Enhanced bus would improve service during the peak hours and would provide service in the off-peak. However, this concept would provide a service level that would not likely influence land use and minimally support economic development and redevelopment.

• Express Bus Transit – this service is a peak period service which is primarily oriented toward trips to-and-from the Kansas City Central Business District. This is an important service for many Johnson County commuters. Expanding this service would improve commuting options for potential transit users. The impacts of expanding express bus service would be limited to the commuter market and would not have an effect in supporting planned-land use patterns, economic development, or address the issue of connectivity. By itself, the express bus characteristics of limited stations and little direct connections to work destinations along the corridor limit the potential for economic development, TOD, and additional land use compatibility or integration.

• BRT (mixed traffic) – this mode performs very well against most screening criteria. BRT mixed traffic is a step up from the enhanced bus concept adding greater frequency, specialized vehicles, improved transit amenities, and service branding. This combination of features can induce and support a minimal level of TOD around regular bus stops and provide a service that will accommodate both transit dependent and choice riders.

• BRT (exclusive lane) – the exclusive lane provides for improved capacity and travel time savings, particularly in congested corridors. This mode receives high ratings for transit effectiveness and service quality. It also performs well in supporting land use patterns as envisioned in Vision Metcalf. However, the concern is related to the availability of converting an existing traffic lane for exclusive transit use given the high traffic volumes on Metcalf Avenue. For Johnson Drive, there are also limited opportunities to reserve an existing lane for transit use. BRT (exclusive lane) has good potential for economic development of the type seen in Vision Metcalf due to the preservation of and investment in a dedicated guideway when compared to BRT in mixed traffic and enhanced bus. For federal funding, this project would be classified as a Small Start or a Very Small Start. Current transit ridership levels in the Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Corridor are unlikely to meet the FTA required level of 3,000 riders per day necessary to qualify for Very Small Starts funding. This concept may have potential for future implementation, but at this time this concept received a low rating for cost-effectiveness.

• Streetcar – this mode performs well against most screening criteria. Streetcars would also operate in mixed traffic with in-grade trolley tracks and would be

Page 66

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

subject to the same congestion that BRT in mixed traffic would experience, albeit at higher cost due to the necessity of laying rails. Due to the perceived permanence of streetcar tracks, this mode would benefit TOD and the planned land use. This concept may also have potential for future implementation but given costs and existing ridership in the corridor, combined with operating characteristics that made it unsuitable for long transit trips, the cost effectiveness is currently unfeasible.

• Light rail – high capital costs severely limits the current financial feasibility of this mode (capital cost in the $40 million - $65 million per mile range). This mode does not satisfy current project goals with respect to costs thereby making this issue presently unfeasible in the mode analysis. This mode will be more compatible with the land use densities envisioned in Vision Metcalf than with those that currently exist. The low densities along the Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Corridor are not currently conducive to light rail.

There is a recognition that the level of transit service will need to be consistent with the land use density and potential transit demand. Both the Cities of Mission and Overland Park have developed plans that seek to increase density and transit demand. These plans are anticipated to develop incrementally over the next 10 to 20 years, or perhaps over an even longer time frame.

The general project phasing is described below. Additional detail defining future transit service will be provided in the next chapter.

Near-term

A BRT (mixed traffic) route will be examined for implementation in the Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway corridors. Medium capacity options such as BRT (mixed traffic) with headways consistent with Very Small Starts criteria (10 minute peak, 20 minute off-peak) will be implemented as transit demand increases. The frequency and level of amenities will be determined and phased in to match service with anticipated demand. As service is provided, the corridors continue to re-develop and transit ridership increases, it is anticipated that service frequency will also increase.

Long-term

The higher capacity mode of BRT (exclusive lane) appears to be the most viable transit option, which also acts as a possible precursor to LRT or street car when land use supports the additional ridership required.

Page 67

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Section 7 - Recommended Service Plan Introduction

The goal of this study was to develop a service concept that will both improve existing transit service and will serve and sustain corridor redevelopment as it occurs over time. As documented in this study, current ridership and development density characteristics do not support the level of transit service ultimately envisioned for the Metcalf and Shawnee Mission Parkway Corridors. However, the current ridership and density characteristics would support an increased level of transit service. Given this situation, the study team determined that the best approach would be to build transit demand over time by increasing transit service in increments.

Very Small Starts is a program from the Federal Transit Administration which is oriented to developing BRT transit projects. It has less rigorous requirements for funding eligibility than does the Small Starts or New Starts programs that are typically oriented to LRT projects. Even with the Very Small Starts program, a transit corridor must demonstrate benefit to 3,000 existing daily transit riders. Since this level of transit ridership is not present in the Metcalf and Shawnee Mission corridors, the purpose of the phased approach is to build up to this level of transit ridership by incrementally increasing transit service.

The recommended service concept for transit service from the Plaza to Rosana Square is presented in two phases to reflect changing land uses and potential increases in transit ridership. These two phases are:

• A near-term phase, and • A long-term phase.

General characteristics of each phase, physical improvements needed, service enhancements, preliminary costing, and timing are described. The service characteristics presented in this section only describe service from the Plaza to the Rosana Square area at approximately 119th and Metcalf Avenue. Service and cost characteristics for an extension from Rosana Square to 135th Street and Metcalf Avenue are included as Appendix D.

Near-term Phase

The near-term phase represents the service that would be implemented as soon as local resources could be made available and transition to higher frequency service once federal funding is obtained. This phase has been developed to meet initial transit needs and provide sufficient service to develop strong transit ridership in both the Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway corridors.

Service Characteristics

In this phase, the level of transit service in peak periods will increase over current levels and off-peak transit service will be introduced. The service concept includes retaining the current Route C – Metcalf - Downtown express service route and replacing Route H – Metcalf - Plaza with peak/all-day service configured to operate in a BRT (mixed traffic) mode. Figure 7-1 displays the conceptual near-term alignment. The BRT route will

Page 68

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

connect the Sprint Campus/College Boulevard area to the Plaza and will operate in higher frequency between downtown Overland Park and the Plaza. Due to lower land use densities and transit demand, the BRT route will continue south at lower frequencies from downtown Overland Park to the Rosana Square Park & Ride, allowing an easy connection from south Metcalf Avenue to the Plaza. Build-out of the near-term phase will increase frequency to both sections of the alignment and include queue jumps.

Downtown Overland Park was chosen as a major transit point for the near-term phases because the current land use features a high degree of walkability, affordable housing, and mixed housing. These same aspects are emphasized and enhanced in Vision Metcalf which also specifically mentions a BRT stop along Metcalf Avenue two blocks from Downtown Overland Park. The individual components of the near-term BRT service are described in the following sections.

BRT (mixed traffic) from the Plaza to downtown Overland Park

The BRT (mixed traffic) route will operate on Shawnee Mission Parkway, Johnson Drive, and Metcalf Avenue from the Plaza to downtown Overland Park. Increased frequency will provide riders more flexibility and mobility options in traveling along the corridor throughout the day with weekday service from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Peak frequency in the initial start-up of the near-term phase would be 20 minutes, with 30 minute frequency in the midday and 60 minute frequency in the evening. Saturday would also have the same 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. service span with 30 minute daytime frequency and 60 minute evening (after 6:00 p.m.) frequency. The Sunday service span would be from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. with 60 minute headways. This route extends south at a lower frequency from downtown Overland Park to approximately Rosana Square.

The near-term phase build-out will maintain the same service span, but will increase service frequency to 15 minute peak and 20 minute off-peak between the Country Club Plaza and downtown Overland Park. Saturdays will see 20 minute service frequency during the day and 60 minute evening service frequency. Sunday service will maintain a 60 minute frequency. The single route concept will continue to connect the Plaza to downtown Overland Park on the increased headways, and will proceed as a lower frequency route to south Metcalf Avenue.

Physical improvements will coincide with service increases between the Plaza and downtown Overland Park. Enhanced bus stops complete with shelters and benches will be installed at the major transit points. The stops will be spaced at a distance of ¼ mile or more to increase travel speed between the two end points of the service. AVL technology in the transit vehicles will be linked with displays at the enhanced bus stops to give waiting passengers real time vehicle location information and arrival estimates. The AVL technology will also be paired with Transit Signal Priority (TSP) technology through the route corridor to increase service reliability.

Page 69

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Figure 7-1 Near-term Phase Alignment

Page 70

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

BRT (mixed traffic) south from downtown Overland Park

BRT extended transit service will connect downtown Overland Park to south Metcalf Avenue at approximately Rosana Square Park & Ride. This will be an interlined route using the same vehicle as the BRT (mixed traffic) service connecting the Country Club Plaza and downtown Overland Park and with the same service span. Specific runs from the Country Club Plaza to downtown Overland Park on the BRT (mixed traffic) service will continue on to south Metcalf Avenue. This will give riders a “one seat ride” from south Metcalf Avenue to the Plaza, and the service will share many of the same features as the BRT (mixed traffic) service. Frequency will initially be 40 minute peak headways and 60 minute off-peak headways. Saturday’s daytime and evening hours, along with Sunday, will have a 60 minute frequency.

When built-out, the BRT (mixed traffic) from downtown Overland Park to Rosana Square Park & Ride will have slightly lower frequencies than the service from the Plaza to downtown Overland Park. This frequency connecting downtown Overland Park to south Metcalf Avenue will be 30 minute peak and 40 minute off-peak. Saturdays will have 40 minute daytime frequency with 60 minute evening frequency. Sundays will have 60 minute frequency.

The BRT (mixed traffic) route will continue to utilize AVL and TSP technology. This, along with limited stops, will increase travel speed between destinations. Enhanced stops will continue to offer high grade finishes, shelters, and real-time passenger kiosks to inform passengers of the real-time location of their buses.

Table 7.1 summarizes the near-term service phase operational characteristics.

Table 7.1 Near-term Service Phase Operational Characteristics Express Bus BRT (mixed traffic) BRT (mixed traffic) End Point 119th St. Area Downtown OP Downtown OP End Point KCMO Downtown Plaza / Troost 119th St. Area Service Span 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. 6:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m. 6:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m. 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. Sunday N/A 6:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. 6:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. Headways Initial Build-out Initial Build-out Peak: 30 minutes 20 minutes 15 minutes 40 minutes 30 minutes Weekday Mid-day: N/A 30 minutes 20 minutes 60 minutes 40 minutes Weekday Evening: N/A 60 minutes 60 minutes 60 minutes 60 minutes Saturday Day: N/A 30 minutes 20 minutes 60 minutes 40 minutes Saturday Evening: N/A 60 minutes 60 minutes 60 minutes 60 minutes Sunday: N/A 60 minutes 60 minutes 60 minutes 60 minutes

Near-term Service Phase Costing

Operating Costs

Operating costs are determined by annual platform miles, hours of each service, and include direct and indirect labor costs, fuel, tires, maintenance, and overhead costs. Total estimated annual operating costs for the near-term phase are shown in Table 7.2. The BRT mixed traffic initial and build-out operating costs of $1,250,000 and $1,550,000,

Page 71

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

respectively, reflect weekday, Saturday, and Sunday/holiday service, while the express bus annual operating cost of $475,000 reflects weekday service only. It should be clarified that the incremental operating costs from initial to build-out are approximately $300,000.

Table 7.2 Near-term Service Phase Operating Costs Operating Costs

Item Description Annual Platform Miles Annual Platform Hours Operating Cost Initial Build-out Initial Build-out Initial Build-out 1 Express Bus 122,400 122,400 6,120 6,120 $475,000 $475,000 BRT (Mixed 2 Traffic) 256,134 321,625 17,195 21,946 $1,250,000 $1,550,000

Total Estimate $1,725,000 $2,025,000

Capital Costs

The near-term phase will add vehicles, operating hours, and passenger amenities to the current system. Rolling stock estimates at the near-term phase build-out include four, 40’ standard low-floor coaches for the express bus service, ten, low floor, distinctive vehicles for BRT service, pre-delivery inspections and TSP equipment installation on each vehicle. Depending on the specific vehicle type used, the initial rolling stock estimated costs are $6.6 million to $10.7 million, with a build-out cost of $7.8 million to $12.8 million. This represents a $1.2 million to $2.1 million incremental cost within the near-term phase from initial start-up to build-out. Total vehicle requirements and other associated costs are detailed in Table 7.3.

Initial start-up pavement and site improvements are assumed to be modest, and mostly limited to additional signage, pavement markings, and curb and pavement improvements adjacent to or near the proposed stations. Substantial roadway repaving unrelated to existing traffic wear-and-tear is not expected to be initially required. The near-term build-out recommends a prioritized construction of 24 queue jumps at 12 key intersections to increase schedule reliability throughout the corridor. This prioritization is displayed on Figure 7-2. Queue jumps minimize transit travel time between destinations and make transit more competitive with single occupied vehicle travel. Figure 7-3 shows a queue jump overlaid on the intersection of 87th Street and Metcalf Avenue. The queue jump cost estimate includes excavation, concrete and materials, striping, and utility movement, and is estimated to be $478,400 for the 24 queue jumps.

The total cost for pavement and site improvements, including queue jumps, but not including right-of-way costs, is estimated to be $2,496,315. These costs include 10” concrete pads at stations to support vehicle weight, concrete curb repair and rehabilitation for smoother vehicle rides as vehicles pull into and away from stations, moving fire hydrants for station installation, pavement markings and lane signs for BRT operations, and associated queue jump items. Queue jump costs are based on reconfiguring existing traffic lanes and do not include acquiring additional right-of-way or constructing new traffic lanes. Table 7.4 displays specific costs.

Page 72

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Table 7.3 Near-term Rolling Stock Capital Costs ROLLING STOCK

Estimating Item Description Assumptions Quantity (total) Units Unit Price Total Initial Build-out Initial Build-out 40 ' BUS LOW 3 vehicles 1 FLOOR peak plus 1 STANDARD spare 4 4 EA $400,000 $1,600,000 $1,600,000 6-8 vehicles 2 LOW FLOOR peak plus 2 $600,000 - $4,800,000 - $6,000,000- DISTINCTIV E BRT spares 8 10 EA $1,100,000 $8,800,000 $11,000,000 PRE-DELIVERY 3 INSPECTIONS 1 1 LS $50,000 $50,000 $50,000

4 ASSOCIATED BUS CAPITAL ITEMS 1 1 LS $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 TSP 5 INSTALLATIONS 12 14 EA $3,750 $45,000 $52,500

$6,595,000 - $7,802,500- Total Estimate (Range of Costs) $10,595,000 $12,802,500

Near-term station construction or improvements include 24 stations that would be located along the route. These stations could include shelters with distinctive materials and designs specific to the BRT route, transparent material such as glass, benches, lighting, trash receptacles, markers, and real time signage. Figure 7-4 shows an enhanced BRT station. The total cost for these improvements is estimated to be $3,914,000. Table 7.5 displays all station improvement costs.

Table 7.5 also includes improvements that will be made to the Rosana Square Park & Ride, and the Park & Ride at 95th Street & Metcalf Avenue. These improvements will provide enhanced stops with monument signs, shelters, benches, and real-time information kiosks installed at each location. Estimated costs for these improvements are $250,000 per Park & Ride.

A Transit Signal Priority (TSP) system will be implemented in the near-term along the entire corridor from the Plaza, through Downtown Overland Park, to Rosana Square. This TSP system will allow transit vehicles greater schedule adherence by either extending green signals or shortening red signals when transit vehicles are behind schedule. Advanced intersection signal equipment is already being used throughout this corridor allowing a relatively low-cost TSP installation. Upgrading the corridor intersections, along with the required software installation and maintenance, will cost approximately $265,450. Table 7.6 and Table 7.7 provide component costs.

Page 73

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Table 7.4 Pavement/Site Improvements and Queue Jumps/Pull-Outs PAVEMENT/SITE IMPROVEMENTS AND QUEUE JUMPS / PULL-OUTS

Estimating Item Description Assumptions Quantity Units Unit Price Total Initial

1 10" CONCRETE BUS PAD 50 pads 12' x 55' 3,700 SY $175.00 $647,500 INTERSECTION 2 MODIFICATIONS 5 intersections 5 LS $40,000.00 $200,000 10 % of 14 mile 3 CONCRETE CURB R&R length 7,400 LF $55.00 $407,000 4 TYPE 1 CURB INLETS 24 EA $7,500.00 $180,000 50 % of length at 5 BRT LANE SIGNS 500' spacing 75 EA $263.00 $19,725 BRT PAV EM ENT 6 M ARKINGS 50 Stations 100 EA $225.00 $22,500 THERM O CROSSWALK 50 intersections - 7 L INES 66' ea. 4 lines per 13,200 LF $2.15 $28,380 THERM O STOP BAR 50 intersections - 8 L INES 66' ea. 2 lines per 6,600 LF $4.85 $32,010 THERM O HATCHING 9 L INES - LF $5.40 $ - 10 THERM O LANE LINES - LF $0.48 $ - THERMO YELLOW 11 CENTER LINE - LF $0.48 $ - 12 THERM O ARROWS - EA $70.00 $ - THERM O COM BO 13 ARROWS - EA $140.00 $ - 25 intersections 2 14 6X30 LOOPS sides 25 EA $1,200.00 $28,800 15 6X6 LOOPS - EA $1,000.00 $ - 16 PET ROM AT - SY $6.00 $ - 17 4" SIDEWAL K 1250 lf x 5' 6,000 SF $8.50 $51,000 FIRE HYDRANT 18 ADJUSTM ENTS 10 EA $10,000.00 $100,000 DETECTABLE 25 intersections 2 19 600 WARNINGS sides - 12 sf ea. SF $85.00 $51,000 20 MISC 1 LS $250,000.00 $250,000 Build-out: Queue Jumps and Pull-outs

21 Demo. & Excavation 24 Queue Jumps 24 EA $2,000.00 $48,000.00 22 Subgrade Preparation 24 EA $1,000.00 $24,000.00 Concrete (10" thick - 23 one lane) 24 EA $4,500.00 $108,000.00 Concrete Curb and 24 Gutter 24 EA $1,200.00 $28,000.00 25 Saw cut 24 EA $1,200.00 $28,000.00 26 Pavement Striping 24 EA $100.00 $2,400.00 27 Crosswalk restriping 24 EA $1,000.00 $24,000.00 Storm Drain 28 Structures 24 EA $4,000.00 $96,000.00 Utility/signal 29 adjustments 24 EA $5,000.00 $120,000.00

Total Estimate (not $2,017,915 - including right-of-way) (Range of Costs) $2,496,315

Page 74

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Figure 7-2 Near-term Alignment with Build-out Queue Jump Locations

Page 75

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Figure 7-3 Queue Jump at 87th Street and Metcalf Avenue (Right-turning cars utilize queue jump lane)

Page 76

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Figure 7-4 Enhanced Station with real time signage

Source: Olsson Associates

Table 7.5 Station Improvement Capital Cost STATION IMPROVEMENTS

Estimating Item Description Assumptions Quantity Units Unit Price Total STATION 1 IMPROVEMENTS 24 Stations 24 EA $45,000 $1,080,000 2 SHEL T ERS 30 EA $45,000 $1,350,000 3 M ARKERS 24 EA $30,000 $720,000 PARK & RIDE 4 LOTS 2 EA $250,000 $500,000 5 REAL T IM E SIGNS 48 EA $5,500 $264,000

Total $3,914,000

Page 77

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Table 7.6 TSP Aggregate Costs TSP Aggregate Costs

Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Total Each 1 10 $ 10,825 $ 108,250 Full Installation Intersection Partial Each 2 18 $ 5,400 $ 97,200 Installation Intersection

< 75 3 Software 1 $ 60,000 $ 60,000 Intersections

Total $ 265,450

Table 7.8 displays the incremental cost that will be incurred during the near-term phase. The additional capital cost range to reach build-out in the near-term phase is $2.6 million to $3.7 million and includes additional rolling stock and queue jumps/pull outs.

To take advantage of the TSP infrastructure, the vehicles used for express bus and BRT (mixed traffic) will need to be equipped with AVL technology. This will cost approximately $3,750 per vehicle, for a total cost of $52,500 at build-out. This cost is included in the Near-term Capital and Operating Cost Summary in Table 7.9. As the table displays, the incremental costs from initial start-up to build-out within the near-term phase is an estimated $1.5 million to $2.5 million assuming that the same vehicle types are used throughout the phase.

Table 7.7 TSP Costs TSP Costs

Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Total OPTICOM EQUIPMENT 1 721 Detector 2 Each $ 950.00 $ 1,900 752 Phase 2 1 Each $ 2,400.00 $ 2,400 Selector Detector 3 500 Linear Foot $ 2.25 $ 1,125 Cable 758 Auxiliary 4 1 Each $ 400.00 $ 400 Panel COM M UNICATION EQUIPM ENT 4-Port 5 Terminal 1 Each $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000 Server CONTROLLER Upgrade to 6 2070 1 Each $ 4,000.00 $ 4,000 Controller

Approximate Total Cost per Intersection for New Installation $ 10,825

Approximate Cost per Typical Intersection on Route $ 5,400

GTT OPTICOM CENTRAL SOFTWARE

Software < 75 7 1 $30,000 $ 30,000 Cost Intersections

Installation / < 75 8 1 $15,000 $ 15,000 Training Intersections

3 year < 75 9 1 $15,000 $ 15,000 Maintenance Intersections

Page 78

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Table 7.8 Capital Costs (during near-term) Incremental Capital Costs (initial start-up to build-out)

Item Description Cost

$1,100,000- 1 Rolling Stock $2,200,000

2 Stations / Park & Rides $0 Pavement / Site Improvements / 3 $478,400 Queue Jumps 4 Miscellaneous $1,000,000

$2,578,400- Total Estimate $3,678,400

Table 7.9 Near-term Capital and Operating Costs Summary Cost Summary (near-term)

Item Description Cost Capital Costs (Total) Initial Build-Out $4,800,000- $6,000,000- 1 Rolling Stock $8,800,000 $11,000,000 2 Stations / Park & Rides $3,914,000 $3,914,000 Pavement / Site 3 $2,017,915 $2,496,315 Improvements / Queue Jumps Traffic Signal Priority 4 $262,450 $262,450 Infrastructure 5 Miscellaneous $500,000 $1,500,000

$11,494,365- $12,672,765- Capital Cost Total $15,494,365 $17,672,765

Annual Operating Costs 1 Express Bus $475,000 $475,000 2 BRT (Mixed Traffic) $1,250,000 $1,550,000

Operating Cost Total $1,725,000 $2,025,000

Page 79

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Long-term Phase

Service Characteristics

The long-term phase will bring significant infrastructure investment to implement a higher capacity mode such as BRT (exclusive lane). The service plan will still function on a Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway axis and connect the 119th Street area to the Plaza, with round trip express service continuing to be provided between Rosana Square and downtown Kansas City, Missouri. The individual components of the long- term phase BRT service are described in the following sections.

Express Bus A round trip express bus will continue to provide a “one seat ride” between Rosana Square and downtown Kansas City, Missouri, during peak periods at 30 minute frequencies and will utilize the length of Metcalf Avenue in the corridor and I-35.

Transitway

A transitway connecting Rosana Square to the Plaza along Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway is envisioned for the long-term phase. This transitway will make Metcalf Avenue a central spine for transit movement in Johnson County and into Kansas City’s urban core, and will utilize a fixed guideway transit mode. Utilizing Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway as central transit spines through a transitway that ensures highly reliable and frequent transit connections will allow outlying buses to feed into and travel along both of these major arterials. Service frequency will increase from the near-term phase providing 10 minute peak headways and 15 minute off-peak headways. Stations and stops will continue to be widely spaced to maintain transit speeds throughout the length and all stops will have real-time vehicle arrival displays.

The near-term service phase placed BRT (mixed traffic) transit service on portions of Johnson Drive and Shawnee Mission Parkway. The long-term phase shifts the high- capacity transit mode to a transitway that accesses a transit station in Mission. Due to lower right-of-way conflicts and parking concerns, this transitway is envisioned to be on Martway Street. Johnson Drive will still be served by feeder transit service coming in from Shawnee. This feeder service will make connections with the transitway and fixed guideway transit mode at the transit station envisioned in the East Gateway Redevelopment Plan at Martway Street and Roeland Drive.

Several transitway types could be constructed in these corridors and are indicated in Figure 7-10. A center running side loading two-way fixed guideway could be used in the southern portion and north-eastern portions of the corridor. This guideway type is displayed in Figure 7-5. In this configuration transit vehicles would operate in a two-way direction and board and alight passengers from one of the two center medians separating the service from adjacent traffic. The right of way requirements for this street configuration is approximately 126’ for just street lanes and the transitway.

One of the concerns of a center running transit way is the impediment on left turning vehicles. Figure 7-6 shows a left turn lane configuration with a transitway.

Page 80

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Figure 7-5 Center Running Side Loading Transitway on Metcalf Avenue

Page 81

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Figure 7-6 Left Turn Lane with Transitway at 95th Street and Metcalf Avenue

Page 82

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

The transitway from approximately 83rd Street to Martway Street could be suitable for a center loading, two-way transitway. Transit vehicles would operate in a two-way direction and board and alight passengers at a center median. This would require doors on both sides of the transit vehicles or reverse-direction running vehicles. The right of way requirement for this lane configuration is approximately 80’ for the adjacent street lanes and transitway, not including sidewalks or bike paths. The lane configuration is displayed in Figure 7-7 on page 102.

The transitway along Martway Street from approximately Metcalf Avenue to Roe Boulevard or Roeland Drive would be suitable for one of two possible transitway types. A one-way side running, side loading transitway would operate as a contra-flow operation according to peak travel directions with the opposite traveling transit vehicle operating in mixed-traffic, or a 2-way side running side loading transitway. The one-way side running side loading transitway would minimize right of way requirements. Figure 7-8 and 7-9 on pages 103-104 display both lane configurations.

The transitways discussed in this section refer to BRT operations, but could be transitioned to light rail operations with additional right of way requirements. Implementing this transitway would solidify the Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway corridor as a major transit spine in the Kansas City area. Fixed guideway transit would also fulfill a major element of Vision Metcalf while also supporting elements in the Gateway plans. Figure 7-10 on page 105 displays the fixed guideway alignment and types.

Page 83

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Figure 7-7 Center Running Center Loading Transitway between 83rd Street and Martway Street on Metcalf Avenue

Page 84

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Figure 7-8 Side Loading Side Running One-way Transitway on Martway Street

Page 85

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Figure 7-9 Side Loading Side Running Two-way Transitway on Martway Street

Page 86

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Figure 7-10 Long-term Fixed Guideway Types

Page 87

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Table 7.10 displays the operational characteristics of the long-term phase. Round trip express bus service would continue during peak hours from the 119th Street area to downtown Kansas City, Missouri. BRT would operate from Rosana Square to the Plaza or Troost Boulevard at 10 minute peak headways.

Table 7.10 Long-term Service Phase Express Bus High Capacity Mode High Capactiy Mode End Point 119th St. Area Downtown OP Downtown OP End Point KCMO Downtown Plaza / Troost 119th St. Area Service Span 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. 6:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m. 6:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m. 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. Sunday N/A 6:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. 6:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. Headways Peak: 30 minutes 10 minutes 20 minutes Weekday Mid-day: N/A 15 minutes 30 minutes Weekday Evening: N/A 30 minutes 30 minutes Saturday Day: N/A 15 minutes 30 minutes Saturday Evening: N/A 30 minutes 30 minutes Sunday: N/A 30 minutes 30 minutes

Long-term Service Phase Costing

Operating Costs

Round trip Express Bus and BRT (Fixed Guideway) operating costs are determined by annual platform miles and hours of each service. All costs include direct and indirect labor costs, fuel, tires, maintenance, and overhead costs. Table 7.11 displays a long- term service BRT (fixed guideway) annual operating cost of $2.9 million with concurrent express bus operation. This is an approximate $900,000 incremental increase in operating costs from the near-term phase.

Table 7.11 Long-term Service Phase Operating Costs Operating Costs

Annual Annual Annual Platform Platform Revenue Item Description Miles Hours Hours Operating Cost

1 Express Bus 122,400 6,120 -- $475,000 BRT (Fixed 2 Guideway) 512,268 34,390 -- $2,449,075

Total Estimate $2,924,075

Page 88

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Capital Costs

The long-term phase establishes a BRT frequency of 10 minutes along the entire corridor length and will require additional vehicles. Estimates for the long-term phase rolling stock costs include 4, 40’ standard low-floor coaches for the express bus service, 15 low floor, distinctive BRT vehicles, along with pre-delivery inspections, and TSP equipment installation on each vehicle. The total estimated BRT rolling stock cost is $10.8 million to $18.3 million and is a $5.5 million incremental increase over the near- term rolling stock costs. Table 7.12 displays long-term phase rolling stock capital costs.

Table 7.12 Long-term Phase Rolling Stock Capital Costs ROLLING STOCK

Estimating Item Description Assumptions Quantity Units Unit Price Total 40 ' BUS LOW 3 vehicles 1 FLOOR peak plus 1 STANDARD spare 4 EA $400,000 $1,600,000 12 vehicles 2 LOW FLOOR peak plus 3 $600,000 - $9,000,000 - DISTINCTIV E BRT spares 15 EA $1,100,000 $16,500,000 PRE-DELIVERY 3 INSPECTIONS 1 LS $50,000 $50,000

4 ASSOCIATED BUS CAPITAL ITEMS 1 LS $100,000 $100,000 TSP 5 INSTALLATIONS 19 EA $3,750 $71,250

$10,821,250- Total Estimate (Range of Costs) $18,321,250

Long-term costs for BRT (fixed guideway) costs are summarized in Table 7.13. The BRT fixed guideway infrastructure cost estimate is $219.8 million. Fixed guideway infrastructure costs are based on a per-mile basis and are not itemized in this study.

Table 7.13 Long-term Capital and Operating Costs Summary Cost Summary (Long-term)

Item Description Total Capital Costs (Total) $10,821,250 - 1 Rolling Stock $18,321,250 Fixed Guideway 2 $219,800,000 Infrastructure

$230,621,250 - Capital Cost Total $238,121,250

Annual Operating Cost 1 Ex pre ss Bus $475,000 2 BRT (Fixed Guideway) $2,449,075

Operating Cost Total $2,924,075

Page 89

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Transit Alternative Summary

Table 7.14 displays the comparative operations and capital costs, with estimated annual ridership, of the near-term and long-term BRT phases.

Table 7.14 Near-term and Long-term Comparative Figures Comparative Costs

Near-term Long-term BRT BRT (Mixed Traffic) (Fixed Guidew ay)

*Calculations are based on estimates for highly distinctive vehicles.

The transit alternatives presented in this section have been developed with the screening process used in Section 6 and reflect the study’s identified goals and objectives with discussion and feedback from the Study Management team. The alternatives signify a transition from the basic transit service currently available to a high capacity BRT fixed guideway transit system that can compete with single occupied vehicle travel time from the Plaza to Rosana Square. Throughout this process of reaching a locally preferred alternative, the increasing levels of transit service in this corridor will help the areas along Metcalf Avenue, Shawnee Mission Parkway, and Johnson Drive achieve the land use density, forms, and functions set forth in Vision Metcalf, the West Gateway Vision Plan, and the East Gateway Redevelopment Plan by providing transportation options available for both residents and employees.

Transit Ridership

Transit ridership for the Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Corridor was estimated using an elasticity model. The methodology followed the current practice of determining how changes in travel time, service frequency, and cost would impact ridership. Efforts to estimate new transit trips are supported through the use of ridership growth factors based on past BRT experience. Experience has also shown that the attractiveness of BRT systems has tended to be greater than would be expected based upon reductions of travel times alone.

Elasticity is defined as the ratio change in ridership corresponding to a change in fare, travel time, or service frequency. A number of studies have been completed over the years in an effort to define specific elasticity values. These values are summarized in Table 7.15.

Page 90

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Table 7.15 Transit Ridership Elasticity Category NTIS TCRP Othe r

Far e -0.35 -0.4 Headw ay -0.47 -0.58 Service hours/miles 0.63 0.35 In-vehicle time -0.29 Out of vehicle time -0.59 Fuel Price 0.12 Sources: NTIS - Route-Level Demand Models: A Review, NTIS 1982 TCRP- Report 97 Chapter 9 Transit Scheduling and Frequency Other - Understand Links Between Ridership and Automobile Gas Prices, TRB Annual Meeting 2007, paper #08-0153

The anticipated annual ridership for both the near-term and long-term phases is listed in Table 7.16. These ridership estimates are based upon service changes to BRT service and the express bus service. The long-term includes the growth from service changes plus additional transit riders from development of Vision Metcalf and the Gateway projects in Mission. Transit ridership may exceed these long-term estimates if additional growth occurs or with the implementation of additional transit routes as envisioned in the Johnson County Transit Five-Year Strategic Plan. Specific ridership projection techniques are detailed in Appendix C.

Table 7.16 Annual Transit Ridership Estimates by Phase Annual BRT and Express Ridership Near-term initial 259,000 Near-term build-out 342,000 Long term 1,315,350

Page 91

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Section 8 - Financial Overview and Next Steps

Introduction

This section describes sources of funding for the capital and operating costs associated with improved transit service in the Metcalf and Shawnee Mission Parkway Corridors. The section includes discussion of federal, state, and local government sources of funding.

Capital Funding Sources

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)

Federal Transit Administration Section 5307 Urban Area Formula Funding

Page 92

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

JCT Services. Use of these funds will constitute a re-allocation of existing funding, and not a new funding stream.

Federal Transit Administration Section 5309 Capital Investment Grant Program

Bus and Bus Facilities

New Starts Project Category

Mobility improvements as measured by: • Travel time benefits • Served low-income households • Employment near stations

Environmental benefits as measured by: • Change in regional pollutant emissions • Change in regional energy consumption • EPA air quality designation

Cost effectiveness as measured by: • Cost per hour of travel time saved • Operating effectiveness as measured by the system operating cost per passenger mile

Transit supportive land use and future patterns as measured by: • Existing land use • Transit supportive plans • Policies

Page 93

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

• Performance • Impacts of policies

Optional factors such as the projected economic impact of the project can also influence a project’s rating.

Small Starts Category

1. Be a fixed guideway for at least 50% of the project length in the peak period –and/or

2. Be a corridor-based bus project with the following minimum elements:

Very Small Starts Category

Page 94

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

. Less than $3 million per mile (excluding vehicles)

The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Program

State of Kansas Comprehensive Transportation Program –Transit Funding

Transportation Development Districts (TDD)

A Transportation Development District (TDD), also known as Transportation Utility District (TUD), is a special taxing district whereby a petitioner of 100% of the landowners in an area request either the levy of special assessments or the imposition of a sales tax of up to 1% on goods and services sold within a given area. Upon creation of a TDD by a municipality, the revenue generated by TDD special assessments or sales tax under Kansas law may pay the costs of transportation infrastructure improvements in and around the new development.

The City of Mission created a Transportation Utility District. Retailers within the district will collect an additional 1-cent sales tax for 20 years to assist in the payments for transportation

Page 95

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

improvements associated with the Gateway Project. These funds could assist in paying for specific transit projects within the designated Transportation Utility District.

Community Improvement Districts (CID)

Other

Operating Funding Sources

The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Program

Federal Transit Administration Section 5316 Job Access Reverse Commute (JARC)

Page 96

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study appropriated to designated recipients in areas with populations over 200,000, and the designated recipient must select grantees competitively. In the Kansas City metropolitan area the Kansas City Area Transportation Authority is the designated recipient. Projects programmed with JARC funding must be included in a locally-developed coordinated public transit human services transportation plan. 10% of the funds may be used for planning, administration, and technical assistance.

State of Kansas Comprehensive Transportation Program -Transit Funding

Transportation Development Districts (TDD)

Farebox Revenue

Collected farebox revenue is often applied towards operational costs. The actual farebox revenue collected, when including transfers, discount riders, and bus pass sales, is typically 50% of the designated fare for local and BRT service. This percentage is lower than the farebox revenue collected for a commuter service such as the one Johnson County Transit currently primarily operates. Commuter passengers typically pay a premium for commuter service and have fewer transfers and discounted rates. A BRT system typically has higher amounts of transfers and discounted rates resulting in lower farebox revenue. Based on the forecasted ridership numbers presented in Section 7, approximately $342,000 would be collected in the near-term phase at build-out and $1,315,350 in the long-term phase. Table 8.1 displays each phase’s forecasted annual ridership and estimated annual farebox revenue.

Table 8.1 Forecasted Daily Ridership and Estimated Farebox Revenue Annual Farebox Revenue (at 50% of Fare) Near-term initial $259,000 Near-term build-out $342,000 Long-term $1,315,350

Page 97

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Financial Summary

Table 8.2 and 8.6 summarize the potential operational and capital funding sources for each phase of the project.

Table 8.2 Potential Capital Funding Sources Potential Capital Funding

Near-term Long-term Initial Start-Up Build-Out BRT Funding Option BRT (Mixed Traffic) BRT (Mixed Traffic) (Fixed Guideway)

5307 Urban Area Formula X X X 5309 (Bus and Bus Facilities) X X X 5309 (Small Starts) X 5309 (Very Small Starts) X CMAQ X X State of Kansas Transit Program X X X Transportation Development District X X X Community Improvement X X X District

Table 8.3 Potential Operation Funding Potential Operational Funding

Near-term Long-term Initial Start-Up Build-Out BRT Funding Option BRT (Mixed Traffic) BRT (Mixed Traffic) (Fixed Guideway) CMAQ X State of Kansas Transit Program X X X Transportation Development District X X X 5309 Job Access Reverse Commute X X Farebox Revenue X X X

Next steps

Page 98

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

will increase transit demand and set the stage for future fixed guideway BRT service. These transit improvements will turn Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway into a major transit thoroughfare for the region.

This study has analyzed alternatives and determined the feasibility of implementing corridor length BRT (mixed traffic) in the near-term phase. The next step will be to create a project development plan that will determine the specific alignments, exact stop locations, detail specific costs, specify operating characteristics and examine fixed guideway elements. The project development plan will determine the specific service span, schedule characteristics, and vehicle assignments. The project development plan will also identify funding requirements and mechanisms for the near-term phase initial start-up implementation.

If applicable, the project development plan will be followed by a submittal to the FTA requesting funding approval. If FTA funding is not applicable, design and construction will directly follow the project development plan. At that time, necessary right-of-way would be purchased, stations designed and built, and enhancements to existing Park & Ride locations implemented. Vehicles would also be procured during this step. The conclusion of these activities will be to provide improved transit service in the Metcalf and Shawnee Mission Parkway corridors.

Page 99

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Appendix A - Concept Transit Mode Evaluation Matrix

Page 100

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Page 101

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Appendix B – Description of Goal Ratings

For each of the evaluation criteria, levels of “ratings” were developed as follows:

Most adverse impacts or least appropriate Moderate impacts or appropriateness Minimal adverse impacts or most appropriate U Characteristic making mode currently unfeasible

The reasons stated are the significant reasons, and are not meant to be an exhaustive list.

No Build Goal 1: Improve Transit Effectiveness Score: Reason: Not creating any additional service, capacity, or amenities would not improve transit effectiveness.

Goal 2: Provide Quality Transit Service Score: Reason: While providing safe and convenient stops, the current transit service does not provide sufficient frequency to accommodate seamless transfers or be a ready resource for bicyclists to use for their major trip movements.

Goal 3: Support Planned Land-Use Patterns Score: Reason: The current transit service exists only in peak periods and very limited portions of the mid-day and is not sufficient to support the planned land-use patterns described in Vision Metcalf, the West Gateway Vision Plan, and the East Gateway Redevelopment Plan. The limited service span and current level of rider amenities at bus stops also limits its appeal to pedestrians.

Goal 4: Improve Travel Connectivity Score: Reason: Maintaining the current transit service levels would not improve travel connectivity.

Goal 5: Improve Access to Major Employers and Destinations Score: Reason: Maintaining the current transit service levels would not improve access to major employers and destinations.

Page 102

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Goal 6: Support Economic Development Score: Reason: The current transit service exists only in peak periods and very limited portions of the mid-day and is not sufficient to stimulate economic development or transit-oriented development.

Goal 7: Contribute to Improving the Environment Score: Reason: Maintaining the current transit service would likely not attract additional riders to utilize transit rather than single occupancy vehicles.

Goal 8: Provide Cost-Effective Transit Solutions Score: Reason: The existing transit service does currently provide some cost-effective solutions such as limited connectivity along Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway and access between employment and residential.

Enhanced Bus Goal 1: Improve Transit Effectiveness Score: Reason: Enhanced bus would not decrease the travel time for major trip movements, would offer limited increased frequency, and increase the service span to include evenings and weekends.

Goal 2: Provide Quality Transit Service Score: Reason: Enhanced bus would increase some passenger amenities. Appeal to bicyclists would still be limited due to reletively low frequencies combined with low bike carrying capacity of buses.

Goal 3: Support Planned Land-Use Patterns Score: Reason: Enhanced bus, while being an improvement over no build, would still be unable to support the densities by itself foreseen in Vision Metcalf and the East and West Gateway plans. Lack of bus pull-outs would not improve traffic flow.

Goal 4: Improve Travel Connectivity Score: Reason: Limited increased frequency would limit the system’s ability to be well- integrated with other transit systems serving the region. Park & Ride lots would appeal to persons located outside the corridor.

Goal 5: Improve Access to Major Employers and Destinations Score: Reason: Enhanced bus, providing service throughout the day, would provide access to major employers and destinations across a greater span of the day than current transit service levels and allow for mid-day round trips.

Page 103

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Goal 6: Support Economic Development Score: Reason: Developers could use a bus stop served by enhanced bus as an appeal to potential customers, but a bus stop served by enhanced bus service is unlikely to be a primary factor in stimulating development.

Goal 7: Contribute to Improving the Environment Score: Reason: Enhanced bus service would attract more riders and place fewer cars on the road than current transit service. Clean-fuel buses could be used to minimize direct environmental impacts.

Goal 8: Provide Cost-Effective Transit Solutions Score: Reason: Enhanced bus service is an alternative that can provide improved transit service levels with a lower immediate capital cost.

Express Bus Goal 1: Improve Transit Effectiveness Score: Reason: The ability of express bus to improve transit time for major trip movements is a stronger influence on this goal than the mode’s lack of increased frequency of transit service or lack of increased service span to include weekends and evenings.

Goal 2: Provide Quality Transit Service Score: Reason: Express bus service would provide a quick, one-seat transit trip from along Metcalf Avenue to either the Plaza or downtown Kansas City, Missouri. The limited frequency and service span to transfer over to other transit service, and lack of distinct vehicles limits this mode’s ability to address this goal.

Goal 3: Support Planned Land-Use Patterns Score: Reason: Express bus service would run on expressways for the majority of the route and would not provide an effective connection to adjacent land use.

Goal 4: Improve Travel Connectivity Score: Reason: Additional express bus service would provide additional connections between Metcalf Avenue, Shawnee Mission Parkway, and the Plaza and downtown Kansas City, Missouri, over current service. Due to being operated mostly on expressways with very limited boarding options, express bus would not have the same travel connectivity levels as BRT.

Page 104

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Goal 5: Improve Access to Major Employers and Destinations Score: Reason: Express bus does a poor job of connecting existing employers and neighborhoods and does not provide reverse-commute access to study area employers.

Goal 6: Support Economic Development Score: Reason: Express bus’s lack of direct access to adjacent land use means that the mode has limited impact on supporting economic development.

Goal 7: Contribute to Improving the Environment Score: Reason: Additional express bus service would attract more riders and place fewer cars on the road than current transit service. Clean-fuel buses could be used to minimize direct environmental impacts.

Goal 8: Provide Cost-Effective Transit Solutions Score: Reason: Additional express bus service is an alternative that can provide improved transit service levels with a lower immediate capital cost.

BRT (Mixed Traffic) Goal 1: Improve Transit Effectiveness Score: Reason: BRT (mixed traffic) would increase transit effectiveness by increasing the service span to evenings and weekends, and increasing service frequency.

Goal 2: Provide Quality Transit Service Score: Reason: BRT (mixed traffic) would provide relatively fast, comfortable, and distinctive service between Metcalf Avenue, Shawnee Mission Parkway, and downtown Kansas City, Missouri or the Plaza.

Goal 3: Support Planned Land-Use Patterns Score: Reason: BRT (mixed traffic) would promote higher density development and allow good pedestrian access. The amount that traffic flow is affected by BRT (mixed traffic) depends on specific capital improvements. There are opportunities for transit oriented development, but not the same extent as modes utilizing fixed guideway elements such as BRT (fixed guideway) or LRT.

Goal 4: Improve Travel Connectivity Score: Reason: BRT (mixed traffic) could be well integrated with other transit systems while still allowing easy access to people from outside the area via Park & Ride lots.

Page 105

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Goal 5: Improve Access to Major Employers and Destinations Score: Reason: BRT (mixed traffic) does a better job than express bus at connecting current neighborhoods and employers, and it does an excellent job of providing reverse-commute options to study area employers due to the mode’s land-use integration.

Goal 6: Support Economic Development Score: Reason: BRT (mixed traffic) would connect Johnson County to the rest of the region and the moderate amounts of capital investment needed for a BRT corridor could influence developers and business location decisions.

Goal 7: Contribute to Improving the Environment Score: Reason: BRT (mixed traffic) would increase attractive transit choices that would appeal to people currently driving, while having minimal impact through construction and operations.

Goal 8: Provide Cost-Effective Transit Solutions Score: Reason: BRT (mixed traffic) has a strong potential to be fully funded by local, federal, and state funding, while being adaptable and scalable to future land use changes.

BRT (Reserved Lane/Fixed Guideway) Goal 1: Improve Transit Effectiveness Score: Reason: BRT (fixed guideway) scores well on improving transit effectiveness by decreasing travel times for major trip movements and increasing service frequency and span.

Goal 2: Provide Quality Transit Service Score: Reason: BRT (fixed guideway) scores very well in improving transit service quality by maximizing bus transfer potential and providing real-time route information.

Goal 3: Support Planned Land-Use Patterns Score: Reason: BRT (fixed guideway), due to the permanence of the guideway infrastructure, would promote transit oriented development and higher densities. A fixed guideway would be separate from traffic and would not affect traffic flow.

Goal 4: Improve Travel Connectivity Score: Reason: BRT (fixed guideway) scores very well on improving travel connectivity. It scores better than BRT (mixed traffic).

Page 106

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Goal 5: Improve Access to Major Employers and Destinations Score: Reason: BRT (fixed guideway) can operate at higher speeds than the no build option, enhanced bus, or streetcar, yet still be able to have better accessibility to major employers than express bus.

Goal 6: Support Economic Development Score: Reason: The physical investment in the fixed guideway elements of a BRT system, compatibility with adjacent land use, along with the service’s positive branding, and the attractive speed offered to riders will support economic development better than the no build option, enhanced bus, express bus, or even BRT (mixed traffic).

Goal 7: Contribute to Improving the Environment Score: Reason: BRT (fixed guideway) will make transit a more attractive choice to potential users who are currently using automobiles. This decrease in automobile travel will decrease both greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption. Fixed guideway elements will have some adverse impacts due to initial construction and operations.

Goal 8: Provide Cost-Effective Transit Solutions Score: Reason: BRT (fixed guideway) will have a higher capital cost per mile to implement than enhanced bus, express bus, or BRT (mixed traffic), but it currently has a higher potential to be funded through local, state and federal funding than street car or light rail.

Streetcar Goal 1: Improve Transit Effectiveness Score: Reason: Streetcar would not improve transit travel time for major trip movements but could increase transit service frequency and the service span for evenings and weekends.

Goal 2: Provide Quality Transit Service Score: Reason: Streetcar would provide distincitive vehicles. Streetcar tracks in mixed- traffic lanes can interfere with bicycle tires.

Goal 3: Support Planned Land-Use Patterns Score: Reason: Streetcar would promote higher density development. The tracks in mixed-traffic lanes would adversely affect traffic flow.

Page 107

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Goal 4: Improve Travel Connectivity Score: Reason: Due to capital costs and limited speed and being in mixed traffic conditions, a streetcar route would likely be limited to a smaller geographical coverage than other modes.

Goal 5: Improve Access to Major Employers and Destinations Score: Reason: Due to capital costs and limited speed due to being in mixed traffic conditions, a street car route would likely be limited to a smaller geographical coverage than other modes and would not provide as much reverse commute access options as other alternatives.

Goal 6: Support Economic Development Score: Reason: Investment in streetcar infrastructure and the perceived permanence of streetcar tracks, along with the positive branding, would be a significant factor in development opportunities along a streetcar route.

Goal 7: Contribute to Improving the Environment Score: Reason: Most streetcar vehicles are electric-driven and would not contribute to point source pollution. The likely limited range of a streetcar system would likely not attract significant commuter riders in the corridor.

Goal 8: Provide Cost-Effective Transit Solutions Score: U Reason: Streetcar infrastructure costs would be less than light rail but significantly more than BRT (mixed traffic), enhanced bus, or express bus. Unlike BRT (fixed guideway) or light rail, streetcars operation characteristics make it unsuitable for corridor-length transit trips. Additionally, other alternatives are more likely to be successfully funded by a combination of local, state, and federal funding.

Light Rail Goal 1: Improve Transit Effectiveness Score: Reason: Light rail would improve transit times for major trip movements, increase transit service frequency, and include evening and weekend service.

Goal 2: Provide Quality Transit Service Score: Reason: Light rail would provide both a postive image and improve route information. The potential to maximize bus transfer access would be lower in light rail than BRT (mixed traffic) or BRT (fixed guideway).

Page 108

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Goal 3: Support Planned Land-Use Patterns Score: Reason: Light rail does support higher density development in the corridor and provides opportunities for transit oriented development. Pedestrian access would be more limited than all other modes except express bus. Light rail would not affect the existing traffic flow since it is off street.

Goal 4: Improve Travel Connectivity Score: Reason: Light rail would be able to be well integrated with other transit systems in the area, along with being used by riders from outside the area via Park & Rides.

Goal 5: Improve Access to Major Employers and Destinations Score: Reason: Light rail would penetrate employment and destination concentrations better than express bus and at a greater speed than enhanced bus.

Goal 6: Support Economic Development Score: Reason: The permanence of light rail infrastructure and very positive image of the mode would support economic development adjacent to the light rail route, as well as being a positive attribute to Johnson County in general.

Goal 7: Contribute to Improving the Environment Score: Reason: Light rail has the potential to attract numerous commuters away from single occupied vehicles to use light rail and consequently improve or maintain noise and air quality standards. Construction and operations will impact existing traffic flow.

Goal 8: Provide Cost-Effective Transit Solutions Score: U Reason: Currently, light rail in the corridor is unlikely to have the potential to be funded by a combination of local, state, and federal dollars.

Page 109

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Appendix C – Ridership Forecasting

The purpose of this section is to describe the methods used to predict transit ridership on the proposed BRT route and for the expanded express bus route. Estimating transit ridership on a particular route is not an exact science. A number of methods have been used across the transit industry. One method is to use the regional travel demand model with a mode split component to estimate transit ridership. This method has been found to provide satisfactory results for major capital projects. At times, however, it can be cumbersome in providing the detail for individual bus routes.

The approach used in this study was using an elasticity model. Elasticity models provide a measure of the potential impacts to ridership on a route, given changes in various service characteristics. Specifically, elasticity is defined as the ratio change in ridership corresponding to a change in fare, travel time or service frequency. A number of studies have been completed over the years in an effort to define specific elasticity values. These values are summarized in Table C.1.

Table C.1: Transit Ridership Elasticity Transit Ridership Elasticity

Category NTIS TCRP Other Fare -0.35 -0.4

Headway -0.47 -0.58

.35 (MAX) Service hours/miles 0.63 0.35 .80 (North Oak)

In-vehicle time -0.29

Out of vehicle time -0.59

Fuel Price 0.12

Sources: NTIS – “Route-Level Demand Models: A Review”, NTIS 1982 TCRP – Report 97 Chapter 9 “Transit Scheduling and Frequency” Other –“Understanding Links Between Ridership and Automobile Gas Prices,” TRB Annual Meeting 2007, paper # 08-0153 MAX – MAX in Kansas City North Oak – North Oak in Kansas City

Elasticity models can be used for smaller scale BRT projects or for the analysis of individual fixed routes.7 Current practice often includes use of travel time, service frequency and cost elasticities to estimate how changes in these variables would impact

7 “Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide”, TCRP Report 118. by Kittelson & Associates, Inc., Herbert S. Levinson Transportation Consultants and DMJM+Harris. 2007.

Page 110

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

ridership. Demographic information and forecasts can be used to reflect how growth may impact ridership.

A ridership elasticities approach was tested on two transit routes in the Kansas City area where service changes were recently made. These locations were the Route 56/57 routes converted to the MAX route and the second was the service changes to the North Oak route. The results for the MAX route were very close to the national elasticity values. The ridership change for the North Oak route was greater than that shown in the MAX or national average. The MAX value was considered to reflect a very mature transit corridor and as such did not achieve as high of ridership change as the North Oak corridor which had a latent demand but less service. For the Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Corridor, a service elasticity value was used that was the average of the MAX value and the North Oak experience.

Additional Rapid Transit Impacts

Ridership on BRT systems has exceeded what would be expected to occur from savings in travel time or in reduced headways. Research suggested that a BRT system which includes a separate running way and other features could increase the base ridership up to 25% more than estimated from elasticity calculations. The information shown in Table C.2 is taken directly from TCRP 118 which provides an estimation of how the various BRT components could impact ridership. It provides information for two types of BRT lines. The “high-level” system is a grade separated busway. A second “minimal” level system is one without a grade separated busway. The MAX system is a combination of these two examples. The size of the factor or percentages that can be applied to ridership forecasts on BRT routes will typically depend on the features of the BRT service. A system like the MAX has the features that enable a 14% increase in ridership. Table C.2 below provides an example of these factors.

Table C.2: Impacts of BRT Service Characteristics on Ridership Impacts of BRT Service Characteristics on Ridership

Component Higher Level BRT Basic Level BRT Running Ways Grade-separated busway 20% All-day bus lanes 5% Stations Unique, attractively designed 2% Unique, attractively designed 2% Ilumination 2% Ilumination 2% Telephones/security phones 3% Telephones/security phones 0% Passenger amenities 3% Passenger amenities 0% Vehicles Uniquely designed vehicles 5% Uniquely designed vehicles 5% Wide multi-door access 5% Wide multi-door access 0% Low-floor vehicles 5% Low-floor vehicles 0% Service All-day service span 4% All-day service span 4% Pattern High-frequency service 4% High-frequency service 4% Clean, simple service pattern 4% Clean, simple service pattern 4% Off-vehicle fare collection 3% Off-vehicle fare collection 0% ITS Passenger information at stops 7% Passenger information at stops 7% Applications Passenger information on vehicles 3% Passenger information on vehicles 0% BRT Vehicles and stations 7% Vehicles and stations 7% Branding Brochures and schedules 3% Brochures and schedules 3% Subtotal 80% 43% Synergy 15% 0% Total 95% 43% Elasticity increment (0.25 x Total) 0.24 0.11 Source: TCRP 118 Exhibits 3-23

Page 111

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Future Growth

The long-term forecasts reflect the potential transit market from redevelopment as envisioned in Vision Metcalf completed by the City of Overland Park and the Gateway Studies completed by the City of Mission. The additional level of development identified in these studies is shown in Table C.3.

Table C.3: Summary of Proposed Redevelopment Summary of Proposed Redevelopment

Total Residential Units 14,375 Total Commercial/Retail Area 6,413,493 Sq' Total Office Area Sq' 8,261,056

Source: Vision Metcalf and Gateway Studies

Estimating Ridership Changes

The near-term ridership forecasts reflect the elasticity factors described above. The resulting service increases and increased amenities are predicted to increase ridership in the corridor as shown in Table C.4.

The ridership is based upon increases in transit service as described in the service plan developed in this study. The long-term ridership forecasts include the potential transit impacts of proposed re-development. While development may occur over time, these impacts were not included into transit ridership estimates for near-term. The Long-term shows a range of potential transit use depending on the level of transit use that result from the new developments. If land is redeveloped to follow transit oriented development concepts, it may be possible to reach the higher portion of the ridership range.

Table C.4: Projected Transit Ridership Projected Transit Ridership

Daily Daily Total Metcalf Express BRT Route Annual Ridership Existing 120 105 57,375

Near-term Initial 230 480 259,000

Near-Term Built Out 320 750 342,000

Long Term 600 2,640-3,640 1,315,350

Source: Olsson Associates

Page 112

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Appendix D – Service Extension Costs to 135th Street and Metcalf Avenue

Purpose

This technical memo describes extending BRT (mixed traffic) service from the 119th Street and Metcalf Avenue area to the 135th Street and Metcalf Avenue area. The frequencies and operational characteristics discussed in this section are the same frequencies and operational characteristics as the service from downtown Overland Park to Rosana Square as described in the main report section. This technical memo does not address the extension’s potential transit demand, stop locations, or effects on ridership.

Near-term Phase

The individual components of the near-term BRT service extension to 135th Street are described in the following sections.

Service Characteristics

An extension of the alignment will continue south from Rosana Square to 135th Street & Metcalf Avenue at the same frequencies as downtown Overland Park to Rosana Square. From the Rosana Square Park & Ride the route will traverse down Metcalf Avenue to 135th Street to an undetermined terminus point. Weekday service will span 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and Sunday service will span 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

The frequency connecting Rosana Square Park & Ride to 135th Street & Metcalf Avenue will initially be 40 minute daytime peak and 60 minute off-peak and evenings. The frequency will increase to 30 minute peak and 40 minute off peak in the build-out stage. Saturdays will initially have 60 minute daytime and 60 minute evening frequency, while increasing to 40 minute daytime frequency at build-out. Sundays will have 60 minute frequency. Table D.1 details the near-term service characteristics for a 135th Street extension.

Table D.1: Near-term Service Characteristics BRT (mixed traffic) End Point Rosana Square Park & Ride End Point 135th & Metcalf

Service Span 6:00am-10:00pm

Sunday 6:00am-6:00pm Headways Initial Build-out Peak: 40 minutes 30 minutes Weekday Mid-day: 60 minutes 40 minutes Weekday Evening: 60 minutes 60 minutes Saturday Day: 60 minutes 40 minutes Saturday Evening: 60 minutes 60 minutes Sunday: 60 minutes 60 minutes

Page 113

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Near-term Service Phase Costing

Operating Costs

The Rosana Square Park & Ride to 135th & Metcalf service extension operating cost is detailed in the table below. These costs are determined by annual revenue miles, hours of each service, and include direct and indirect labor costs, fuel, tires, and overhead. While the actual extension is only 2.75 miles long and has a round trip running time of approximately 20 minutes, it was assumed that vehicles would be in operation for the entire service span, without significant layover time.

Table D.2:Near-term Service Operating Costs Operating Costs

Item Description Annual Revenue Miles Annual Revenue Hours Operating Cost Initial Build-out Initial Build-out Initial Build-out Rosana Square to 1 67,104 67,104 5,592 5,592 $360,929 $360,929 135th & Metcalf

Total Estimate $360,929 $360,929

In an effort to save operating time and costs it may be necessary to relocate from the

Rosana Square Park & Ride to a location with more direct access along the route

alignment. These savings in operati onal costs should be discussed in relation to capital

costs in finding an alternate location.

Capital Costs

This service extension in the near-term phase will add a vehicle, operating hours, and passenger amenities to the current system. Estimates assume that 1 additional bus will be required to maintain frequencies and headways. Cost estimations include 1 additional low floor, distinctive vehicle for BRT service, pre-delivery inspections and Transit Signal Priority (TSP) equipment installation on each vehicle. The initial increase in rolling stock estimated costs is approximately $708,750 to $1,208,750 depending on the specific vehicles used.

Table D.3: Near-term Rolling Stock Capital Costs Rolling Stock

Estimating Item Description Quanity(total) Units Unit Price Total Assumptions Initial Build-out Initial Build-out

LOW FLOOR $600,000- $600,000- $600,000- 1 1 Vehicle 1 1 EA DISTINCTIVE BRT $1,100,000 $1,100,000 $1,100,000

2 PRE-DELIVERY INSPECTIONS 1 1 LS $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 3 ASSOCIATED BUS CAPITAL ITEMS 1 1 LS $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 4 TSP INSTALLATIONS 1 1 EA $3,750 $3,750 $3,750

$708,750 - $708,750 - Total Estimate $1,208,750 $1,208,750

Page 114

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Table D.4 displays the pavement/site improvements and queue jumps/pull-out costs.

Table D.4: Pavement/Site Improvements and Queue Jumps/Pull-Outs Costs

PAVEMENT/SITE IMPROVEMENTS AND QUEUE JUMPS / PULL-OUTS

Estimating Item Description Assumptions Quantity Units Unit Price Total

Initial 10" CONCRETE BUS 1 6 pads 12' x 55' 440 SY $175.00 $77,000.00 PAD INTERSECTION 2 1 intersection 1 LS $40,000.00 $40,000.00 MODIFICATIONS CONCRETE CURB 10% of the 2.75 3 1,452 LF $55.00 $79,860.00 R&R mile length TYPE 1 CURB 4 6 EA $7,500.00 $45,000.00 INLETS 50 % of length at 5 BRT LANE SIGNS 15 EA $263.00 $3,945.00 500' spacing BRT PAV EM ENT 6 6 Stations 12 EA $225.00 $2,700.00 M ARKINGS THERM O 6 intersections - 7 13,200 LF $2.15 $28,380.00 CROSSWALK LINES 66' ea. 4 lines per THERM O STOP BAR 6 intersections - 8 792 LF $4.85 $3,841.20 L INES 66' ea. 2 lines per THERM O HATCHING 9 - LF $5.40 - L INES THERM O LANE 10 - LF $0.48 - L INES THERMO YELLOW 11 - LF $0.48 - CENTER LINE 12 THERM O ARROWS - EA $70.00 - THERM O COM BO 13 - EA $140.00 - ARROWS 9 intersections 2 14 6X30 LOOPS 9 EA $1,200.00 $10,800.00 sides 15 6X6 LOOPS - EA $1,000.00 - 16 PET ROM AT - SY $6.00 - 17 4" SIDEWAL K 300 l.f. x 5' 1,500 SF $8.50 $12,750.00 FIRE HYDRANT 18 1 EA $10,000.00 $10,000.00 ADJUSTM ENTS DETECTABLE 9 intersections 2 19 216 SF $85.00 $18,360.00 WARNINGS sides - 12 sf ea. 20 MISC 1 LS $25,000.00 $25,000.00

Build-out: Queue Jumps and Pull-outs

21 Demo. & Excavation 6 Queue Jumps 6 EA $2,000.00 $12,000.00 Subgrade 22 6 EA $1,000.00 $6,000.00 Preparation Concrete (10" thick 23 6 EA $4,500.00 $27,000.00 - one lane) Concrete Curb and 24 6 EA $1,200.00 $7,200.00 Gutter 25 Saw cut 6 EA $1,200.00 $7,200.00 26 Pavement Striping 6 EA $100.00 $600.00 Crosswalk 27 6 EA $1,000.00 $6,000.00 restriping Storm Drain 28 6 EA $4,000.00 $24,000.00 Structures Utility/signal 29 6 EA $5,000.00 $30,000.00 adjustments

$357,636- Total Estimate (Range of Costs) $477,636

Page 115

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

As Table D.4 displays, initial start-up pavement and site improvements are assumed to be modest, and mostly limited to additional signage, pavement markings, and curb and pavement improvements adjacent to or near the proposed stations. Queue jump and bus pull out costs are based on reconfiguring existing traffic lanes and do not include acquiring additional right-of-way or constructing new traffic lanes.

Near-term station construction or improvements include 6 stations that would be located along the route. These stations could include shelters with distinctive materials and designs specific to the BRT route, transparent material such as glass, benches, lighting, trash receptacles, markers, and real time signage. The total cost for these improvements is estimated to be $753,000. Table D.5 displays all station improvement costs.

Table D.5: Station Improvements Capital Cost Station Improvements Estimating Item Description Quanity Units Unit Price Total Assumptions 1 Station Improvements 6 stations 6 EA $ 45,000 $ 270,000 2 Shelters 6 EA $ 45,000 $ 270,000 3 Markers 6 EA $ 30,000 $ 180,000 4 Real Time Signs 6 EA $ 5,500 $ 33,000

Total Estimate $ 753,000

A TSP system will be implemented in the near-term along the entire corridor extension. Upgrading the corridor intersections, along with the required software installation and maintenance, will cost approximately $97,425.

Table D.6: TSP Aggregate Costs TSP Aggregate Costs Item Description Quanity Unit Unit Price Total Each 1 Full Installation 9 $10,825 $97,425 Intersection Total $97,425

Page 116

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Table D.7: Near-term Cost Summary Cost Summary (near-term)

Item Description Cost Capital Costs (Total) Initial Build-Out $708,750 - $708,750 - 1 Rolling Stock (Range of Costs) $1,208,750 $1,208,750 2 Stations / Park & Rides $753,000 $753,000 Pavement / Site Improvements / 3 $357,636 $477,636 Queu Jumps 4 Traffic Signal Priority Infrastructure $97,425 $97,425

5 Miscellaneous $25,000 $25,000

$1,941,811- $2,061,811- Capital Cost Total (Range) $2,441,811 $2,536,811

Annual Operating Costs 1 BRT (Mixed Traffic) $360,930 $360,930

Operating Cost Total $360,930 $360,930

Long-term Phase

Service Characteristics

Extending service to 135th & Metcalf in the long-term phase will bring additional infrastructure investment to implement a higher capacity mode such as BRT (exclusive lane). Connections with the Express Bus service could be made at the Rosana Square Park & Ride.

Transitway

A transitway connecting Rosana Square to 135th Street is envisioned for the long-term phase.

This extension in service area will extend the vision of Metcalf Avenue as a central spine for transit movement in Johnson County. Of the possible transitway types the preferred guideway option from 119th to 135th is a Center Running Center Loading Transitway.

Table D.8 displays the operational characteristics of the long-term phase. BRT would operate from Rosana Square or 135th Street.

Page 117

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Table D.8: Near-term Service Characteristics High Capacity Mode End Point Rosana Square Park & Ride End Point 135th & Metcalf Service Span 6:00am-10:00pm Sunday 6:00am-6:00pm Headways Initial Peak: 20 minutes Weekday Mid-day: 30 minutes Weekday Evening: 30 minutes Saturday Day: 30 minutes Saturday Evening: 30 minutes Sunday: 30 minutes

Long-term Service Phase Costing

Operating Costs

BRT (Fixed Guideway) operating costs are determined by annual revenue miles and hours of each service. All costs include direct and indirect labor costs, fuel, tires, and overhead costs.

Operating costs for BRT (fixed guideway) will remain the same as near-term operating costs and are displayed in Table D.9.

Table D.9: Long-term Operating Costs

Operating Costs

Annual Annual Revenue Revenue Operating Item Description Miles Hours Cost BRT (Fixe d 1 Guidew ay) 61,104 5,592 $360,930

Total Estimate $360,930

Page 118

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Capital Costs

The long-term phase establishes a BRT or light rail frequency of 20 minutes. This frequency can be served by the same number of vehicles serving the extension in the near-term phase. Estimates for the long-term includes: 1 low floor, distinctive BRT vehicle, along with pre-delivery inspections, and TSP equipment installation on each vehicle. The total estimated BRT range of cost for rolling stock is $708,750 to $1,208,750 and consistent with the rolling stock cost for the near-term phase. Table D.10 displays long-term phase rolling stock capital costs.

Table D.10: Long-term Rolling Stock Costs Rolling Stock

Estimating Item Description Quanity Units Unit Price Total Assumptions

LOW FLOOR $600,000- $600,000- 1 1 Vehicle 1 EA DISTINCTIVE BRT $1,100,000 $1,100,000

2 PRE-DELIVERY INSPECTIONS 1 LS $5,000 $5,000 3 ASSOCIATED BUS CAPITAL ITEMS 1 LS $100,000 $100,000 4 TSP INSTALLATIONS 1 EA $3,750 $3,750

$708,750 - Total Estimate (Range of Cost) $1,208,750

Long-term capital costs for BRT (fixed guideway) are summarized in Table D.11. The additional BRT fixed guideway infrastructure cost estimate is $43.2 million. Fixed guideway infrastructure costs are based on a per-mile basis and are not itemized.

Table D.11: Long-term Capital Costs Capital Costs

Rolling Mode Stock Infrastructure Total

BRT (fixed $708,750 - $43,883,750 - $ 43,175,000 Guideway) $1,208,750 $44,383,750

Table D.12 summarizes the long-term capital and operating costs for the extension from 119th Street and Metcalf Avenue to 135th Street and Metcalf Avenue. The estimated annual operating costs for BRT (fixed guideway) are $360,930.

Page 119

Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway Transit Planning Study

Table D.12: Long-term Cost Summary

Cost Summary (Long-term)

Item Description Cost Capital Costs (Total) Initial $708,750 - 1 Rolling Stock $1,208,750 2 Fixed Guidway Infrastructure $43,175,000

$43,883,750- Capital Cost Total $44,383,750

Annual Operating Costs 1 BRT (Fixed Guideway) $360,930

Operating Cost Total $360,930

Page 120