SEWRPC Staff Memorandum
ROUTE 1 ENHANCEMENTS
January 20, 2021
INTRODUCTION
At the request of the City of Waukesha and Waukesha County, Commission staff have identified potential service changes and infrastructure investments to provide improved transit service between the downtown Waukesha Transit Center and the penultimate western station of the Milwaukee East-West Bus Rapid Transit (E-W BRT) route, on the campus of the Milwaukee Regional Medical Center (MRMC) in Wauwatosa. This memorandum describes two potential approaches to improving service. The first option includes incremental enhancements, including improvements that could be implemented along Waukesha Metro Route 1 to increase frequency and to extend service into Milwaukee County. The second option describes steps to pursue BRT service along the route, including the processes involved with seeking Federal funding through a potential Small Starts grant.
BACKGROUND
This memorandum should be considered within the context of the alternatives analysis for the Waukesha Area Transit Development Plan 2021-2025 (Waukesha TDP). The current timeline for the E-W BRT envisions that revenue service may begin in Fall 2022. Therefore, this potential alternative is being considered prior to the full range of alternatives to prepare the City of Waukesha and Waukesha County for discussions that may occur before the completion of the Waukesha TDP.
On May 29, 2020, the U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary announced that $40.9 million in federal funding will be provided to the Milwaukee East-West Bus Rapid Transit (E-W BRT) route, which would connect downtown Milwaukee to the Milwaukee Regional Medical Center (MRMC).1 Milwaukee County anticipates that construction will begin in 2021 and the E-W BRT could begin revenue service in fall 2022, barring any unforeseen circumstances or delays.2 Milwaukee County plans to replace the current Gold Line service with the E-W BRT. Since the E-W BRT will terminate at the Watertown Plank Road Park & Ride Lot, there could be a potential gap in transit service (when compared to existing Gold Line service) between
1 U.S. Transportation Secretary Elaine L. Chao Announces $891 Million for 12 Transit Infrastructure Projects Across America, May 29, 2020, https://www.transit.dot.gov/about/news/us-transportation-secretary-elaine-l-chao-announces-891- million-12-transit. 2 County of Milwaukee Interoffice Communication, Bus Rapid Transit Project Update, June 17, 2020, https://milwaukeecounty.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=8642786&GUID=C6C00381-8B4C-48DC-BA70- D4A078D90376. Brookfield Square Mall and MRMC. Waukesha County and Milwaukee County initiated discussions to explore options to continue transit service along this segment. In anticipation of revenue service beginning in the fall of 2022, this memo identifies enhancements that could be implemented by the jurisdictions along Route 1 and the Gold Line Extension, including the City of Waukesha, Waukesha County, the City of Brookfield, City of Wauwatosa, the Town of Brookfield, and the Village of Elm Grove.
ROUTE 1 EVALUATION SUMMARY
This section summarizes findings from the performance evaluation for Route 1 conducted as part of the planning process for the Waukesha Area TDP. As shown in Map 1, the current Waukesha Metro Route 1 travels from the downtown Waukesha Transit Center to Brookfield Square Mall, where passengers can transfer to the MCTS Gold Line. Route 1 currently serves local destinations, such as the Westbrook Shopping Center, Woodman’s grocery store, and Goerke’s Corners. It also traverses just north of East Moreland Boulevard, serving Horning Middle School and residential neighborhoods. On weekdays, Route 1 operates approximately every 35 minutes from 5:35 a.m. until 10:40 p.m. On Saturdays and Sundays, Route 1 operates every 30 minutes with service between 8:20 a.m. to 10:15 p.m. and 9:20 a.m. to 7:15 p.m., respectively. The route requires three buses and the current travel time between the downtown Waukesha Transit Center and Brookfield Square Mall is approximately 35 minutes on weekdays and Saturdays, and approximately 40 minutes on evenings and Sunday. Route 1 includes variations to serve multiple destinations, including the following: • Weekdays, trips leaving the downtown Transit Center between 5:35 a.m. and 7:40 a.m. run along East Main Street and Manhattan Drive • Weekdays, trips leaving the downtown Transit Center between 5:35 a.m. and 7:05 a.m. do not enter the Westbrook Shopping Center • Evenings and Sundays, all trips run along East Main Street and serve Woodman’s grocery store • Sundays, all trips traverse along Arcadian Avenue in downtown Waukesha between East Avenue and Hartwell Avenue, serving churches and La Casa Esperanza.
Route 1 Ridership Review The boarding and alighting passenger activity along the daytime weekday routing of each bus route was reviewed to help identify route segments with the highest and lowest utilization as part of the performance evaluation in the Waukesha Area TDP. Commission staff used passenger counts provided by Waukesha Metro for weekdays in 2018 and 2019 that included weekday boardings and alightings by stop for each bus route during every trip. It should be noted that the weekday boardings and alightings data utilized for this analysis was generated from two days’ worth of counts, and therefore, provides a limited perspective into passenger activity. However, patterns do emerge from the analysis that assist in making recommendations for locations where Route 1 could be straightened.
Commission staff conducted the route segment analysis utilizing ridership per scheduled bus trip and ridership by miles traveled. As a first step, Commission staff divided all routes into segments separated by major intersections or time points. Second, the boardings and alightings were calculated for each route segment. Third, the passenger activity by segment was divided by either the total scheduled bus trips operated over the segment or the number of miles per segment. Boarding and alightings by trip provides a measure of the utilization of each route segment relative to the amount of service provided, while boarding and alightings per mile provides insight into the overall utilization of each route segment.
The most productive and least productive segments by bus trip for Route 1 are shown on Map 2. Figure 1 displays these eight route segments, ordered by passenger activity per bus trip. Route segments that ranked in the top one-third in boardings and alightings per trip across the transit system are considered the “most productive” segments, and the route segments that ranked in the bottom third across the transit system are considered the “least productive” segments. 4-2 2
4-3
Source: Waukesha Metro Transit, MCTS, and SEWRPC and MCTS, Transit, Metro Waukesha Source:
ROUTE 1 - SUNDAY ONLY SUNDAY - 1 ROUTE
Miles 2 1.5 1 0.5 0
MAJOR DESTINATION MAJOR ROUTE 1 - EVENING AND SUNDAY ROUTE SUNDAY AND EVENING - 1 ROUTE
OTHER POINTS OF INTEREST OF POINTS OTHER
ROUTE 1 - LIMITED SERVICE LIMITED - 1 ROUTE
GOLDLINE SERVICE LOCAL - 1 ROUTE
MILWAUKEE COUNTY TRANSIT COUNTY MILWAUKEE TRANSIT METRO WAUKESHA
³± *#59
³± 164
New Berlin New *#
/ . / .
18 45
/ .
41 Waukesha
+ West Allis West * 894
³± #*100
# Center Transit
+ *
* ³± 59
³± 41 59
#* Waukesha
*# *# + *
94
+ *
94
Square Mall Square
Shopping Center Shopping
Brookfield Westbrook
/ . and UW-Milwaukee and
18
Corners
To Downtown Milwaukee Downtown To
Goerke's ?
Medical Center Medical
³± Regional Milwaukee 181 + *
Grove
*# 94 Elm
/ .
45
³± 164
/ .
Brookfield Wauwatosa 41 *#
³±
#*16
+ * *#
41
Existing Waukesha Metro Route 1 and Milwaukee County Transit System GoldLine System Transit County Milwaukee and 1 Route Metro Waukesha Existing Map 1 Map Map 2 Productivity per Scheduled Bus Trip Over Segments of Waukesha Metro Transit Route 1
City of City of
Pewaukee Brookfield
* # # *
164 ³ ±
*+94
* # # *
164 ³ ±
" )
)
" JJ 1-7 18
J ./ )
" 1-8
F
)
FT " 1-5
) " 1-6 94 1-4 *+ ./18 Y
1-3
* # # 1-2 *
59 ³ ±
1-1
* # * #
# * # * City of
59 ³ ±
59 ³ ±
New Berlin
* City of # # *
Waukesha 164 ³ ±
) D "
) U "
ROUTE SEGMENTS
MOST PRODUCTIVE ROUTE SEGMENTS
LEAST PRODUCTIVE ROUTE SEGMENTS
OTHER ROUTE SEGMENTS
Note: Route segment numbers correspond to the route segments displayed in Figure 4.10.
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 Miles
Source: Waukesha Metro Transit and SEWRPC
4-4 Figure 1 Average Weekday Boardings and Alightings per Scheduled Bus Trip Over Segments of Waukesha Metro Transit Route 1
14.0
12.0
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0 Average Weekday Boardings and Alightings Weekday Average 2.0
0.0 1-1 1-8 1-7 1-6 1-3 1-4 1-5 1-2 Route 1 Segments
Waukesha Metro Transit and SEWRPC
4-5 Map 3 provides the most and least productive Route 1 segments per mile on and Figure 2 includes each segment, ordered by passenger activity per mile. By dividing the passenger activity by segment mileage, different route segments may be emphasized as requiring review and potential adjustment. In some cases, segments that performed poorly utilizing the per trip method, due to the relatively high amount of service provided, showed improvement when performance is measured independent of the amount of service. On the other hand, route segments which perform similarly under both evaluation methods could be more strongly considered for changes (if they are “least productive”) or preservation (if they are “most productive”).
Given the presence of multiple unproductive route segments, the performance evaluation indicated that changes to Route 1 should be considered, particularly if the unproductive segments include circuitous route alignments that increase travel time and make transit travel less attractive for riders that are boarding before and alighting after the unproductive segments.
POTENTIAL ROUTE 1 IMPROVEMENT APPROACHES
Based on the analysis of route productivity, Commission staff analyzed various routings between the downtown Waukesha Transit Center and MRMC. The route realignment can be considered within the framework of two potential primary courses of action. One course would pursue incremental changes to Route 1 that decrease travel time and increase frequency to approximately every 15 to 20 minutes to connect to the E-W BRT. The second course would go beyond these incremental improvements to make physical infrastructure investments that would implement bus rapid transit (BRT) service along the extended Route 1. The following discussion outlines each of the two options and details potential improvements under each option, steps to implement the improvements, and potential funding sources. Although these approaches are described separately, the City of Waukesha could pursue them in tandem. For example, the incremental improvements identified under option 1, such as routing changes, could be pursued while exploring infrastructure improvements envisioned under option 2.
Option 1: Incrementally improve the existing Route 1 This option focuses on potential near-term incremental changes to the service pattern and levels of Route 1, including a more direct route along E. Moreland Boulevard, increased frequencies, enhanced bus stop amenities, and improvements to the pedestrian environment to provide greater pedestrian access and safety to transit passengers along the route. This process would not require significant upfront funding but would improve service quality and frequency in the near future, while making improvements to physical infrastructure as funding becomes available over the next five or more years.
Route and Frequency Changes Staff utilized the results of the route productivity evaluation to identify where Route 1 could be altered to reduce travel time between downtown Waukesha and Brookfield Square Mall. Changing the route to take a more direct path would reduce travel time, which, along with a potential extension of the service to MRMC, could make the route a more attractive service to potential riders. As noted previously, the current travel time between the downtown Waukesha Transit Center and Brookfield Square Mall is approximately 35 to 40 minutes. The proposed routing would utilize E. Moreland Boulevard and Bluemound Road for the majority of the trip, avoiding local roads with lower speeds, multiple turns, and shopping areas with greater traffic congestion, as shown in Map 4. As a result, it is estimated that the travel time could be reduced by approximately five minutes.
The routing in downtown Waukesha would utilize the existing weekday service route, which runs along a portion of E. Main Street to Cleveland Avenue and Niagara Street, then turning onto White Rock Avenue and E. Moreland Boulevard. Commission staff reviewed various routing options including extending service
3 4-6 Map 3 Productivity per Route Mile Over Segments of Waukesha Metro Route 1
City of City of
Pewaukee Brookfield
* # # *
164 ³ ±
*+94
* # # *
164 ³ ±
" )
)
" JJ 1-7 18
J ./ )
" 1-8
F
)
FT " 1-5
) " 1-6 94 1-4 *+ ./18 Y
1-3
* # # 1-2 *
59 ³ ±
1-1
* # * #
# * # * City of
59 ³ ±
59 ³ ±
New Berlin
* City of # # *
Waukesha 164 ³ ±
) D "
) U "
ROUTE SEGMENTS
MOST PRODUCTIVE ROUTE SEGMENTS
LEAST PRODUCTIVE ROUTE SEGMENTS
OTHER ROUTE SEGMENTS
Note: Route segment numbers correspond to the route segments displayed in Figure 4.10.
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 Miles
Source: Waukesha Metro Transit and SEWRPC
4-7 Figure 2 Average Weekday Boardings and Alightings per Mile Over Segments of Waukesha Metro Transit Route 1
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40 Average Weekday Boardings and Alightings Weekday Average
20
0 1-8 1-1 1-6 1-4 1-7 1-3 1-5 1-2 Route 1 Segments
Waukesha Metro Transit and SEWRPC
4-8 along E. Main Street to Manhattan Drive. However, the proposed route for this option utilizes White Rock Avenue due to the presence of a large number of seniors over age 65, including residents that live in the Saratoga Heights apartments, and the new high density housing currently under construction at the intersection of White Rock Avenue and E. Moreland Boulevard. If the City wishes to focus on travel time between downtown Waukesha and destinations on Bluemound Road more aggressively, E. Main Street could also be pursued under this option (and is discussed further under Option 2).
While straightening Route 1 would create service efficiencies, certain locations would no longer have a bus stop immediately adjacent to their destination, requiring passengers to walk a longer distance to reach the nearest bus stop. For example, locations north of E. Moreland Boulevard, such as Horning Middle School, would require an approximately quarter mile walk to a bus stop on E. Moreland Boulevard. In addition, should the City of Waukesha decide to change Route 1, additional changes to Routes 2 and 15 will likely be needed to continue transit service to areas east and southeast of downtown Waukesha. In some cases, Route 2 could be adjusted to cover previously served portions of the Route 1, such as locations along E. Main Street and Manhattan Drive. However, this could impact Route 15 and service along Arcadian Avenue. As part of the Transit Development Plan, Commission staff will work with the Advisory Committee and the City to consider route realignments by balancing efficiency with prioritizing service to those areas that include populations or households with moderate to high transit needs, including school-age children, seniors, persons in low-income households, people with disabilities, and households with no vehicle available.
Associated Infrastructure Improvements In general, improvements to the physical infrastructure along the revised Route 1 would include incrementally enhancing pedestrian accommodations and adding bus stop amenities along the route where needed. For example, specific infrastructure improvements envisioned under this option include pedestrian improvements such as additional crosswalks, bulb outs at intersections, pedestrian refuge islands, and improved street lighting. In addition, transit signal priority technology could be pursued under this alternative as well, which would lead to further travel time savings along the route. However, given the incremental approach, the enhancements would be conducted when the Wisconsin Department of Transportation or local jurisdictions schedule roadway improvements along the route, rather than through a coordinated BRT project.
Option 2: Pursue Bus Rapid Transit service along the extended Route 1 A second option to enhance Route 1 would include implementing BRT between the downtown Waukesha Transit Center and MRMC. As envisioned, this option would travel from the Transit Center utilizing Main Street, to Manhattan Drive to reach E. Moreland Boulevard, as shown in Map 4. This route would also travel on Bluemound Road, which already has dedicated transit lanes, of which approximately five miles are in Waukesha County between The Corners retail development and 124th Street. BRT is typically characterized by the use of exclusive transit lanes and signal priority or preemption, with stations spaced every one-half to one mile. It is typically considered more reliable, convenient, and faster than regular bus services and can avoid delays that slow regular bus services.
If there is interest in implementing BRT, funding may be pursued through the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) Capital Investment Grant (CIG) Program, which provides funding for fixed guideway investments including BRT. The CIG program includes three categories of eligible projects known as New Starts, Small Starts, and Core Capacity projects. It is likely that a potential BRT service in Waukesha County would be eligible for funding within the Small Starts category given the scope of the anticipated improvements. Specifically, Small Starts projects have a funding threshold of total estimated capital costs less than $300 million and must be seeking less than $100 million in Section 5309 CIG program funds. By comparison, New Starts projects have a total estimated capital cost of $300 million or more or are seeking over $100 million in Section 5309 CIG program funds and Core Capacity projects are substantial corridor- 4-9 4 Map 4 Comparison of Proposed Routing for Option 1 and Option 2
City of City of
Pewaukee Brookfield
* # # *
164 ³ ±
*+94
* # # *
164 ³ ±
)
" Goerke's
) " JJ
18
J Corners ./ ) " Westbrook
F ) " Shopping Brookfield
FT Center Square
) " *+94 Mall ./18 Y
Waukesha
* # # Transit *
Center 59 ³ ±
* #
# * City of
59 ³ ±
New Berlin
* City of # # *
Waukesha 164 ³ ±
) D "
) U "
WAUKESHA METRO TRANSIT OTHER POINTS OF INTEREST
ROUTE 1 - EXISTING MAJOR DESTINATION
ROUTE 1 - OPTION 1
ROUTE 1 - OPTION 2
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 Miles
Source: Waukesha Metro Transit and SEWRPC
4-10 based capital investments in existing fixed guideway systems. The City of Waukesha and Waukesha County also receive approximately $450,000 annually through the FTA Section 5337, State of Good Repair program, which provides financial assistance for the maintenance, replacement, and rehabilitation of capital assets for operators of fixed guideway systems, such as the dedicated lanes along Bluemound Road. Section 5337 funds, as an existing source of revenue received by the County, may be used to fund certain infrastructure improvements along the existing dedicated lanes on Bluemound Road.
Components of a Small Starts Feasibility Study The Small Starts program, 49 U.S.C. Section 5309, is a discretionary program that requires a multi-step and multi-year process that includes an FTA project evaluation and rating process. State and local government agencies can apply for funding for the design and construction of new or extended fixed-guideways or corridor-based bus rapid transit projects operating in mixed traffic. The timeline for conducting the necessary planning, evaluation, and outreach to request entry into the FTA Small Starts process can be lengthy, taking approximately 12 to 18 months depending on the levels of outreach sought by the local entities and stakeholders. Following entry into the process, additional design work, environmental review, and construction still needs to occur.
If the City of Waukesha determines to pursue funding through FTA’s Small Starts Program, there are a number of steps and deliverables that would be required. The first step toward planning for BRT would include conducting a transit corridor feasibility study to identify and analyze potential route alignments to improve transit service between the City of Waukesha and MRMC. The feasibility study would generally include an analysis of existing conditions, the identification of purpose and need, an analysis of service alternatives, and a determination of a locally preferred alternative. The analysis conducted through the feasibility study will provide the necessary documentation to submit to FTA to request entry into the project development phase, which may include board resolutions, adopted budgets, approved Capital Improvement Programs, approved Transportation Improvement Programs, and letters of commitment. A key element of the request to enter into project development is the ability to demonstrate that local funding is available and committed to perform the project development work. The feasibility study scope of work may include the following activities:
• A statement of needs, goals, and principles for the project: This would address the functions, multi- modal and design aspirations, community values, environmental objectives, and context of the area. It is anticipated that this statement would be vetted with the communities along the corridor and will guide the development of the evaluation and screening framework. • An evaluation and screening framework to analyze potential alignments. The framework would be based on the statement of need and goals, to evaluate potential transit alignments. The evaluation framework would encompass a wide range of factors including, but not limited to: estimated travel time; reliability improvements; forecast ridership; integration with the larger transit network; impacts on traffic operations; potential for bicycle and pedestrian accommodations; impacts on automobile parking; neighborhood impacts; capital and operating costs; urban design, streetscape, and placemaking opportunities; advancement of other policy objectives; a screening level review of environmental analysis factors; and construction risk. • The development and analysis of differing alignments to a sufficient degree to recommend a preferred concept for future environmental review and preliminary engineering. This step includes the development of concept alternatives for technical analysis, community consideration, and evaluation through the screening framework. The alternatives will be developed based on existing conditions of the transportation infrastructure, travel patterns, current and potential land use impacts, and impacts from stakeholders and the community. The alternatives could be shown as street cross-sections, including potential station locations; transit-way infrastructure elements including roadway, signal, and transit supportive treatments; streetscape opportunities; urban design and/or public space opportunities; and multi-modal elements including any parallel bicycle
5 4-11 facilities. The technical analysis should include discussion, identification, and quantification of benefits and impacts for each alternative to use as part of implementing the evaluation and screening framework. This step would result in a preferred concept and cost estimate to approximately 15% design level with enough detail to begin environmental review and preliminary engineering. • A public engagement process that allows an informed discussion of transit service concepts for the corridor and supports identification of a preferred alternative. The goal of the public engagement process should be to generate meaningful input throughout the concept design process from a range of stakeholders including residents, businesses, major institutions, agencies, and others. This would likely include briefings with State, County, and Municipal appointed and elected officials. A website may be developed along with associated public materials to communicate key aspects of the study process and technical issues. • The feasibility study process would result in the determination of a locally preferred alternative and submittal of a letter to the FTA requesting entrance into the FTA Section 5309 Project Development Small Starts process.
Rating of a Small Starts Application Small Starts projects are evaluated and rated according to criteria established in the FAST Act, utilizing a five-point scale (high, medium-high, medium, medium-low, or low) based on an evaluation of the benefits of the project as compared to the Federal assistance to be provided and the degree of local financial commitment. These criteria are designed to measure the readiness of a community to accept a new transit investment.
The statutory project justification criteria include: • Mobility improvements. The goal of this criterion is to ensure the mobility of transit dependent individuals is enhanced by the proposed project. The evaluation considers the total number of linked trips generated from the proposed project, with a weighted value given to trips made by transit dependent persons, defined as zero car households. FTA uses a weighted factor of two for the number of trips made by transit dependent persons. • Environmental benefits. This measure compares the environmental benefits to the entire Federal share of the project. The environmental benefits are based on the dollar value of the anticipated direct and indirect benefits to human health, safety, energy, and air quality from reduced vehicle miles traveled (VMT). • Congestion relief. FTA utilizes this criterion as an indirect measure of roadway congestion relief resulting from implementation of a transit project. Specifically, the measure is based on the number of new weekday linked transit trips resulting from the proposed project. To receive a medium rating, the project must generate between 2,500 and 9,999 new weekday transit trips. • Economic development effects associated with the project. FTA evaluates the extent to which the proposed project is likely to induce additional, transit-supportive development based on existing transit-supportive plans and policies. The evaluation also includes a review of the demonstrated performance of plans and policies, and tools in place to preserve or increase the amount of affordable housing in the project corridor. This analysis could include information that demonstrates an increase in regional work force access to transit. • Policies and land use patterns that support public transportation. This measure includes an examination of existing corridor and station area development; existing corridor and station area development character; existing station area pedestrian facilities, including access for persons with disabilities; existing corridor and station area parking supply; and the proportion of existing “legally binding affordability restricted” housing within one-half mile of station areas compared to the proportion of “legally binding affordability restricted” housing in the counties through which the project travels.
4-12 6 • Cost-effectiveness as measured by the federal share per trip. This is measured based on the annualized federal share of the project, including all Federal funding, per linked trip on the project. A project must have a cost effectiveness between $2.00 and $3.99 per trip to receive a medium rating.
The law also requires FTA to evaluate and rate the local financial commitment including the following factors: • The proposed share of total project capital costs capital costs from sources other than Section 5309; • The current financial condition of the project sponsor; • The commitment of funds for capital costs, system operation and maintenance, including whether there is significant private participation; and • The reasonableness of the financial plan, including planning assumptions, cost estimates, and the capacity to withstand funding shortfalls or cost overruns.
Projects that meet the financial commitment and request greater than 50 percent funding from the Small Starts program will receive a local financial commitment rating of Medium. To receive a High rating for local financial commitment, the project must request 50 percent or less in Small Starts funding.
Comparing the Options A comparison of transit improvements envisioned under each option is shown in Table 1. Some improvements could be implemented under either option, such as pedestrian improvements, routing improvements, bus signal priority, and enhanced frequency. Infrastructure improvements included in incrementally improving Route 1 would likely occur piecemeal as other projects occur and funding sources are identified, whereas the improvements under the BRT option would likely occur simultaneously following execution of a grant agreement with FTA. The range of potential enhancements is based on national examples of transit improvement projects, of which three are summarized later in this memorandum.
Table 1 Comparison of Characteristics Between Route 1 Transit Improvement Options
Option 1: Improvements to Option 2: Replace Route 1 Characteristics Existing Route 1 with BRT Pedestrian improvements Improved crosswalks Yes Yes Bulb outs Yes Yes Refuge islands Yes Yes Improved street lighting Yes Yes Route improvements More direct routing Yes Yes Additional dedicated lanes No Yes Center running lane No Maybe Station amenities Level boarding platforms No Yes Enhanced shelters Maybe Yes Real-time arrival information Maybe Yes Off-bus fare payment Maybe Yes Transit priority Bus signal priority Maybe Yes Queue jump lanes Maybe Maybe Vehicles Specially branded vehicles Maybe Yes
4-13 7 Articulated buses No Maybe Operating characteristics Arrival every 15 - 20 minutes Yes Yes Limited stop service Maybe Yes Stop spacing 0.75 miles on average No Yes
Source: SEWRPC
Both options would provide measurable improvements to the usefulness and competitiveness of Route 1. Generally, the benefits of Option 2 would be larger, but that option (especially if it involved pursuing Section 5309 funding) would require a substantial planning and engineering effort. The incremental approach described under Option 1 would result in small scale improvements over a number of years, potentially nearly matching the overall level of improvement for passengers as under Option 2. However, it is important to note that incremental improvements described under Option 1 may be less likely to generate external, development-related economic benefits to the same degree as Option 2, as some of these types of benefits would be more likely to occur due to the momentum that can be generated from a single, larger, coordinated project. The “splash” of such a large project may also encourage non-riders to consider taking transit for the first time.
Funding and Financing Options In addition to the FTA Section 5309 Small Starts Program, there are numerous financing options for BRT enhancements.
• Section 5337 State of Good Repair funds allocated to the Milwaukee Urbanized Area are attributable to the reserved bus lanes operated on W. Bluemound Road in Waukesha County. The State of Good Repair Grants funds can be used for capital projects that maintain the transit system including vehicles, equipment, signals, stations, security systems, and computer hardware and software. The funds require a 20 percent local match. The FTA has allocated approximately $500,000 in Section 5337 funds to the Milwaukee urbanized area in the past two years.
• The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Program is a competitive program that funds transportation projects that result in a reduction in air pollution in accordance with the Clean Air Act. CMAQ funds can be used for new transit service, expansion, and new vehicles. If the CMAQ program funds are used for operating assistance, the operational support can be spread over a total of five years, with the expectation that the last two years’ funding levels will be less than the initial operating costs. The local share for CMAQ is 20 percent. The Federal funding level estimated for the FHWA CMAQ funds is based on the amount of such funding that is made available in the State budget. The last two cycles of funding have averaged approximately $26 million and historically, the Southeastern Wisconsin Region has generally received 90 percent of that funding.
• Value Capture is a general term that refers to the practice of “capturing” a proportion of the increase in property values to pay for the infrastructure. Common tools include special assessments, tax increment financing, impact fees, and joint development agreements. Considerations for pursing value capture in transit development include identifying possible partners; reviewing financing needs; and creating selection criteria for the value capture mechanism. A local example of value capture is the City of Milwaukee, which utilized $59 million in tax increment financing (TIF)
4-14
8 to fund the first phase of the streetcar system.3 National examples include Denver Union Station, Kansas City Streetcar, and the Eagan Transit Station in Minneapolis- St. Paul, Minnesota.4
NATIONAL EXAMPLES OF BUS RAPID TRANSIT AND ENHANCED RAPID BUS
There are numerous examples of BRT both nationally and internationally that can provide lessons for future consideration. The examples provided in this section include transit enhancement in locations that comprise varied development densities similar to those existing along the Main Street/Bluemound Corridor in Waukesha County. Two of the three examples (Pace Pulse and the Waco Rapid Transit Corridor) are not considered full BRT systems but include enhancements that increased frequency and reliability for passengers. The examples also include a range of funding sources, with only the Waco Rapid Transit Corridor utilizing the FTA’s Capital Investment Grant Program. Additional BRT and transit enhancement projects can be studied as specific project elements are identified for any future transit project in Waukesha County. Waco Rapid Transit Corridor The Waco Rapid Transit Corridor is an anticipated 13-mile route that will serve industrial and commercial employment centers, the Central Business District, and major retail centers. The project, which received FTA approval in July 2020, is currently in the project development phase, with a public input process closing on November 3, 2020. The Waco Transit System anticipates receiving a Small Starts Grant Agreement in early 2021. Revenue service for the City of Waco’s first bus rapid transit system would begin in late 2022.5
The project will feature branded buses in mixed traffic operating every 15 minutes all day, 17 branded stations with real time arrival information and elevated platforms for near-level boarding. This BRT service is intended to offer residents enhanced mobility and to provide improved access to jobs, medical and social services, and educational facilities. The project’s current estimated capital cost is between $18.3 million and $19.4 million. In September 2018, the Waco Transit System (WTS) and the Waco MPO selected a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA).6
Pace Pulse Rapid Transit Service – Milwaukee Avenue In August 2019, the Pulse Line along Milwaukee Avenue between a major shopping center in the City of Niles and the Jefferson Park Transit Center in Chicago, began offering rapid service in mixed traffic lanes. The Milwaukee Line provides enhanced express bus service to commuters with limited stops every half- mile, transit signal priority, branded stations that are heated, buses with free Wi-Fi, real time bus tracker information, and raised platforms.7 Service on the Pace Pulse line includes 10 to 20 minute frequencies, seven days a week from approximately 5:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. Cash fares are $2.25 on the Pulse Rapid Line, and $2.00 using the Ventra Transit Card for payment.8 The Pulse Milwaukee Line is funded by a federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) grant as well as Pace operating funds. Total capital construction costs were approximately $9.5 million and new vehicle costs were approximately $4.5 million.
3 Wisconsin Policy Forum, On The Right Track? The Use of TIF for Milwaukee’s Streetcar, September 2019, https://wispolicyforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/OnTheRightTrack_FullReport.pdf 4 TCRP Research Report 190, Guide to Value Capture financing for Public Transportation Projects, 2016, https://www.nap.edu/catalog/23682/guide-to-value-capture-financing-for-public-transportation-projects 5 Waco BRT Virtual Public Open House website, https://www.wacobrtopenhouse.net/current-phase. 6 Federal Transit Administration, Small Starts Project Development Information for Waco Rapid Transit Corridor, July 2019. (https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/funding/grant-programs/capital-investments/133396/tx-waco- rapid-transit-corridor-project-profile.pdf) 7 Mass Transit Magazine, Pace announces launch of Pulse Milwaukee Line, August 8, 2019. (https://www.masstransitmag.com/bus/press-release/21091936/pace-suburban-bus-pace-announces-launch-of-pulse- milwaukee-line) 8 Pace Rapid Transit Service website, https://www.pacebus.com/pulse. 4-15 9 Source: Transit Station in Niles, Illinois. Pace Bus, https://www.pacebus.com/pulse
Red Line, Apple Valley, MN The Red Line BRT travels between the Minnesota suburbs of Bloomington, where the Mall of America is located, and Apple Valley. The service began in 2013 and includes BRT elements such as dedicated bus lanes, enclosed bus shelters at each stop, level boarding, real time arrival information, and off- board fare payment. The Apple Valley and Cedar Grove stations have climate-controlled waiting areas and park-ride lots. The line’s vehicles operate on new bus-only shoulder lanes along Cedar Avenue and State Highway 77. The Red Line operates seven days a week with service every 20 to 30 minutes between 4:00 a.m. and midnight. Cash fares are $2.50 during peak travel times and $2.00 during off peak times, with a discount for passengers using their GoTo Pass. Peak fares apply Monday through Friday (except holidays) from 6:00 to 9:00 a.m. and from 3:00 to 6:30 p.m. The project utilized FTA Section 5309 discretionary grants for early project development, FTA Section 5309 program grants for improvements at the Apple Valley Transit Station, and CMAQ for vehicle purchases. This project did not utilize funding from the New Starts or Small Starts program.9
Source: SRF Consulting, Metro Red Line Station
9 Cedar Avenue Transitway, Implementation Plan Update. December 2015. https://www.co.dakota.mn.us/Transportation/Transit/CederAvenueBRT/Documents/RedLineImplementationPlanUpdateF inalReport.pdf 4-16 10 CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS
In conclusion, this memorandum identifies potential options to pursue transit enhancements to the Waukesha Metro Transit Route 1. The short-term Waukesha Area Transit Development Plan will include potential alternatives related to Route 1 changes, including route updates, pedestrian improvements, and bus stop amenities that can be implemented within a 5-year timeframe. However, some of the transit enhancement options discussed in this memorandum may require work that extends beyond the five-year timeframe of the TDP. Should the City of Waukesha, Waukesha County, the City of Brookfield, and other jurisdictions along the route decide to pursue longer-term transit enhancements, Commission staff can discuss the scope and schedule for a potential BRT feasibility study and additional analyses to assist with the development of a grant documentation to request entry into FTA’s Small Starts Program.
4-17
11