MVRPC: Summary of all the Dayton Aviation heritage Streetcar studies

8/14/2019 MVRPC: Summary of all the Dayton Aviation heritage Streetcar studies

1/20

Summary of Dayton Aviation Heritage Streetcar StudiesPage 1

10/3/2007

Summary of Dayton Aviation Heritage Streetcar Studies

In 1992, Federal Legislation (Public Law 102-419) established the Dayton Aviation HeritageNational Historical Park. Included in this legislation were provisions for an inter-urban railconnection to link the Wright Cycle Shop with the Huffman Prairie Flying Field.

Since that time, a number of transportation studies have recommended various alternatives foreffectively connecting the National Park sites and other tourist locations within the Miami Valleyregion.

The first study was conducted in 1996 by Dr. Richard Henry. The Dayton National Park RailwayStudy was an outgrowth of his work on a select Transportation Subcommittee of the DaytonAviation Heritage National Historic Park Committee that was established in 1995 to examinevarious transportation options for linking the various National Park Sites.

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) earmark funding for a Major Investment Study (MIS) wasmade available in 1998. The Montgomery and Greene Counties Dayton Aviation Heritage

Corridor Study was conducted by Burgess & Niple and recommended further alternativeevaluation for specific rail and bus alternatives.

In 1999, an additional FTA earmark was secured for a second phase MIS for evaluation of thespecific rail and bus alternatives. The Dayton Aviation Corridor Transit Study, performed byParsons Brinckerhoff, recommended a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) which included aheritage rail system linking west Dayton to downtown and a broader bus transportation systemlinking residential and employment centers as well as tourist attractions between west Daytonand Greene County. After reviewing this study, the Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission(MVRPC) Steering Committee chose not make a recommendation as to whether the projectshould be placed on MVRPCs Long Range Plan.

In an effort to reach consensus, MVRPC and the Greater Dayton Regional Transit Authority(GDRTA) agreed to work together in 2004 on a further study and validation of the LocallyPreferred Alternative. This validation effort came in the form of a project with Stone Consultingwho presented alternative downtown routings and cost estimates for the heritage rail system. Inaddition, the MVRPC staff, in cooperation with other entities, conducted a ridership survey.After these initiatives were completed, GEM Puiblic Sector Services performed an economicimpact analysis of the revised heritage rail system proposal.

This report will provide a review of each of the aforementioned studies and provide an outlinefor the steps necessary in order to reach a consensus on a Locally Preferred Alternative for theMiami Valley Region.


2/20


10/3/2007

Dayton National Park Railway Study

The first study conducted was the Dayton National Park Railway Study, performed by Dr.Richard Henry, a member of the Dayton Aviation Heritage National Park Commission. ThisCommission formed a Transportation Sub-committee that was tasked with evaluatingalternatives for connecting the various sites of the National Park in Dayton. Specifically, thisstudy was designed to evaluate an electric inter-urban rail line betweem the Wright CycleShop and the Huffman Prairie Flying Field.

In addition to connecting the National Park sites, the objective of this study was to promoteeconomic development in the Miami Valley region and specifically, in Daytons Central BusinessDistrict.

The full study report is considered a part of this document as Attachment A The DaytonNational Park Railway Study. This report can be found online at:http://docs.mvrpc.org/dahc/Henry_Study.pdf

This study recommended the following routes:

Baseline East Phase: Downtown Dayton to the Air Force MuseumThe Baseline-East phase will provide passenger rail service between the Dayton CBDand the United States Air Force Museum. From the eastern terminus of this phase, therail route would proceed west to the B&O Railroad right-of-way presently owned by theFive Rivers MetroParks, and south along this right-of-way to the junction with the Conrailline, just northeast of the Smithville Road overpass bridge at US Route 35. From there,the line would proceed on the existing Conrail tracks to Dutoit Street, then west to ThirdStreet and terminating at the Arcade.

Baseline West Phase: Wright-Dunbar Neighborhood to Downtown Dayton

The Baseline-West phase will provide service between Downtown Dayton and theWright Dunbar Neighborhood making connections with the Paul Laurence DunbarHouse, the Wright Cycle Shop and the National Park Visitors Center. This would be thesecond phase of the railway network to be constructed. It will utilize Third Street fromDowntown at the Arcade across the Miami River to the CSX railline crossing just east ofthe Conover Street and West Third Street intersection. The route utilizes CSX right-of-way north to Rosedale Avenue.

Huffman Prairie Branch: Air Force Museum to Huffman PrairieThis branch would connect the Huffman Prairie to the US Air Force Museum and otherNational Park and Avaition Heritage sites. This branch would operate in the SpringfieldStreet right-of-way east to a point just east of the Conrail overpass near State Route444. From there, the route would follow Marl Road to the Wright Brothers replica hangarat the Huffman Prairie.

Carillon Park Branch: Wright-Dunbar to Carillon ParkThis branch would provide a connection to Carillon Park from the Wright-DunbarNeighborhood via the Edwin C. Moses right-of-way, south between Third Street andStewart Street. The line would use Stewart Street to Patterson Boulevard and thensouth to Carillon Park.


3/20


4/20


10/3/2007

This financial model is based on qualifying for 80% federal funds and a 20% local match. Thefinancial model is also based on a $5 all day pass for tourists and a $2 one-way fare, mainlyaimed at commuters. Ridership estimates are based on three-quarters capacity, or 36passengers per rail car.

Cost to operate the system would be based on a $65.52/hour rate. Based on the ridership

estimates shown in the study, there could be an operational surplus with passengers equalling75% of train capacity.

BalanceProfit (Subsidy)

Park Service Option(High Ridership level -with transitpassengers)

$1,436,374 $2,096,224 $659,850

Park Service Option(High ridership level -park visitors only)

$1,436,374 $1,789,216 $352,842

Park Service Option(Low ridership level -with transit

$1,436,374 $1,720,992 $284,618

Park Service Option(Low ridership level -Park visitors only)

$1,436,374 $1,496,786 $60,394

Full System (Highridership level - withtransit passengers)

$2,306,658 $2,779,920 $473,262

Full System (Lowridership level - with

transit passengers)

$2,306,658 $2,169,948 ($137,010)

IncomeOperating ExpenseScenario

More details regarding the financial information in this study can be found on pages 4-5 of thefull report in Attachment A.


5/20


10/3/2007

Montgomery and Greene Counties Dayton Aviation Heritage Corridor StudyIn 1998, the Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission selected the consulting firm ofBurgess & Niple to perform a Major Investment Study (MIS) to evaluate transportation options toconnect the various National Park sites. This study was led by an MVRPC-appointed SteeringCommittee representing local, state and federal transportation stakeholders.

The full study report is considered a part of this document as Attachment B The Montgomeryand Greene Counties Dayton Aviation Heritage Corridor Study. This study can be found onlineat:

http://docs.mvrpc.org/dahc/BN_Study.pdf

The study clearly defined the transportation problem to be resolved; dis-connected and separatelocations of the Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historic Park have reduced the parkspotential for new attendence.

The goals and objectives of the Montgomery and Greene Counties Dayton Aviation Heritage

Corridor Study were as follows:

Provide a transportation linkage to all of the National Aviation Heritage Historic Parksites

Maintain the historical and environmental integrity of the park sites Reinforce the role of downtown as the employment, commercial, entertainment and

cultural center of the region Provide a transportation link between Sinclair Community College and Wright State

University Improve workforce development and access

The defined study area for this effort included the Wright Cycle Shop and the Dunbar House

State Memorial, just west of Downtown Dayton, as well as the Huffman Prairie Flying Field andthe United States Air Force Museum.

This study was the first to examine a full range of transportation needs between all of the theaviation heritage and park sites. This included an examination of various transportation modeoptions such as, the No-Build option, Transportation System Management (TSM), Heritage RailTrolley and Electric Trolley Bus options.

The alternatives were evaluated using specific evaluation criteria that included:

Attractiveness of mode to park visitors Service to Historic Park Sites

Financial Feasibility Environmental Impacts Transportation Linkages Land Use Operating Efficiencies Cost Effectiveness


6/20


10/3/2007

Ridership projections were also generated for each of the individual passenger modes based ona specified fee structure. For buses, an estimated annual ridership of 130,000 trips wereprojected at a $2/day fee. This number was 70,000 at a $5/day fee. For an electric trolley bus,these numbers increased to an estimated 200,000 annual trips at $2/day and 110,000 at$5/day. The Heritage Rail mode had the highest estimated ridership with 280,000 annual tripsat $2/day and 155,000 at $5/day.

Three main routes were studied, all would utilize the Wright Dunbar connection route optionsthrough the Central Business District as indicated below:

Wright Dunbar to Downtown ConnectionThe western terminus of this route is located at the First Avenue railroad crossing and ThirdStreet, in the Wright-Dunbar neighborhood. This line would either share the CSX rail right-of-way or a new parallel track would be constructed. Through the downtown area, the route couldeither utilize Third Street or follow one-way pairs on Fourth and Fifth Streets. A re-connection toThird Street would be made via Jefferson Street. A connection to Fifth Third Field would bemade by turning north on Sears Avenue and then following the former Erie Railroad right-of-waybetween Monument Avenue and First Street.

East of Downtown, three alternative rail routes were considered:

The Eastwood AlternativeTo the east, this route would traverse Eastwood Park mainly utilizing existing railroadrights-of-way to Harshman Road, and then connecting to the US Air Force Museum via astructure parallel to Harshman or along the Conrail right-of-way and crossing SpringfieldPike at the museum entrance.

The Springfield AlternativeThis alternative would follow the most direct route to the US Air Force Museum operatingalong First Street and Springfield Pike, almost exclusively within street rights-of-way.

The Conrail AlternativeThese rail rights-of-way have recently been acquired by the Norfolk Southern Railroad.The connection to Downtown routes would be made in the vicinity of Third and Keowee,very near Dutoit Street. From this location, the route would follow Conrail/NorfolkSouthern rail rights-of-way to a point east of Smithville Road. From there, the routewould follow a rail right-of-way abandoned by the B&O railroad. This property ispresently owned by Five Rivers MetroParks and includes a recently constructed bicycleand pedestrian path.

North of Airway Blvd., the route would leave rail rights-of-way and skirt along the edge of WrightPatterson Air Force Base to the US Air Force Museum entrance.

Huffman Prairie ShuttleA US Air Force Museum to Huffman Prairie alignment would connect with any of the threeexisting alignments and utilize abandoned railroad rights-of-way along with that of State Route444 and Marl Road to reach the Huffman Prairie.

Alternatives Map


7/20


10/3/2007


8/20


10/3/2007

A conceptual level cost estimate was developed for each alternative. Capital costs rangedbetween $125 million and $141 million for each of the rail alternatives. Annual Operating Costestimates were also projected for each in the range of $8-9 million.

Alternatives Evaluation Matrix

Electric Bus Conrail RailSpringfield

Rail

Ridership (Year 2025)

Annual Increase In Transit trips .56 M 1.10 M 1.22 M 1.05 M .93 M 1.06 M 1.22 M 1.01 MDaily Rail Trips 5,200 4,100 3,000 5,000 3,600

Service to Park Sites

48 min. 35 min. 33 min 38 min. 32 min. 35 min. 33 min. 38 min.

Transportation Linkages

Zero Car Household Accesibility 441 447 448 453 446 445 446 451Index

Land Use Impacts None Supports Supports Supports Supports Supports Supports Supports

Cost EfficiencyOperating Cost per Passenger Mile $0.79 $0.84 $0.97 $0.99 $0.96 $0.85 $0.91 $0.93

Attractiveness of Mode

Annual Tourism Ridership .13 M .20 M .28 M .28 M .28 M .20 M .28 M .28 M

Environmental ImpactsAir Pollution reduction (Tons/year) 0.4 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7

Financial

Total Capital Costs $4.2 M $24.0 M $135.4 M $125.5 M $140.7 M $14.8 M $79.4 M $60.8 MAnnual Operating Cost Increase $3.0 M $6.0 M $8.8 M $8.3 M $8.6 M $5.4 M $7.5 M $6.9 MCost Effectivness

Capital Costs per New Trip $1.03 $2.20 $9.11 $9.78 $12.33 $1.50 $5.36 $4.99Operaing Costs per New Trip $5.82 $5.43 $7.22 $7.89 $9.23 $5.09 $6.15 $6.77

Short (Dunbar House to AFM)Eastwood

Rail

Springfield

Rail

Conrail

Rail

Travel Time Dunbar House to Air Force

Museum (Wait + Ride)

Electric

Bus (ETB)Criteria

Bus

(TSM)

The MVRPC Steering Committee considered all of these alternatives, but did not arrive atconsensus on a specific alternative to pursue. In absence of a clear-cut preference for analternative, a consensus statement was developed and presented to MVRPCs TransportationCommittee as follows:

A. The Steering Committee agrees to pursue a Heritage Rail Trolley system to link the parksites, promote and serve tourism, and enhance local transportation service.

B. The Steering Committee agrees to pursue detailed study of the rail system for thepurpose of making a decision to proceed with seeking planning, engineering andconstruction funding.

C. The Steering Committee recommends creation of a Heritage Rail Trolley SystemProgram Committee(s) to monitor the study and make final recommendations for

implementation.

In Fiscal Year 2000 Transportation Appropriations Act, the Dayton Aviation Heritage Corridorreceived an additional federal earmark in the amount of $981,000. The study recognized theneed for the Steering Committee to use these funds to support the work identified in theconsensus statement. This led to a further study being commissioned by GDRTA.


9/20


10/3/2007

The Dayton Aviation Corridor Transit Study

This study, performed by Parsons Brinckerhoff, was commissioned by the Greater DaytonRegional Transit Authority (GDRTA) in 2003. This effort began with a re-affirmation of the goalsoutlined in the most previous study (Montgomery and Greene Counties Dayton AviationHeritage Corridor Study).

The full study report is considered a part of this document as Attachment C The DaytonAviation Corridor Transit Study. This study can be found online at:

http://docs.mvrpc.org/dahc/PB_Study.pdf

The complete goals and objectives of this study are as follows:

Provide a transportation linkage to all of the National Aviation Heritage Historic Parksites

Maintain the historical and environmental integrity of the park sites

Reinforce the role of downtown as the employment, commercial, entertainment andcultural center of the region Provide a transportation link between Sinclair Community College and Wright State

University Improve workforce development and access Develop regional consensus and make a recommendation Identify what the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) defines as a Locally Preferred

Alternative (LPA). Conceptualize an expanded streetcar system for the benefit of the overall Central

Business District. Identify peer agency capital, operating costs and funding sources

The Dayton Aviation Corridor Transit Study examined three distinct modes and variousalignments for the alternatives. The Study went through three distinct screening levels with thefollowing criteria:

Consistency with Goals and Objectives Economic Development Environmental Impacts System Performance Cost Public Involvement

With each of the three screening levels, the criteria grew more speific. Level I Screening

evaluated eight different alignments with various modes. From this screening, five of the eightalternatives advanced to Level II Screening, where capital and operating costs wereincorporated. Level III incorporated more detailed ridership and cost forecasting as well as theeconomic development potential of each alternative.

More detail relative to the alternatives studied are shown in Chapters 5, 6 and 7 of Attachment3. Each of the alignments described utilize Third Street from Williams Avenue in the Wright-Dunbar Neighborhood through the Central Business District area.


10/20


10/3/2007

Third Street AlignmentThis alignment would use the Third Street and Airway Boulevard rights-of-way east ofdowntown. At Harshman Road the alignment turns north to Springfield Avenue and turns eastto connect with the US Air Force Musem.

A seperate alignment aimed at commuters would continue east of Harshman onto Colonel

Glenn Highway, connecting with Wright State University and Wright-Patterson Air Force Base.

Springfield AlignmentThis alignment follows Third Street east out of downtown and continues east on AirwayBoulevard. The alignment turns north on Harshman Road and then east on Springfield Avenue.A shuttle bus to the Huffman Prairie utilizing Marl Road, State Route 444, Kauffman Avenue andMemorial Drive is also a part of this alternative.A commuter route alternative continues east on Colonel Glenn highway from Airway Boulevardto connect with Wright Patterson Air Force Base. The commuter route also includes a westernextension on Third Street.

Norfolk Southern/Xenia Branch Alignment

This alignment connects with the existing Norfolk Southern railroad right-of-way near theintersection of Third Street and Keowee Street at Dutiot Street. From there, the route followsthe rail right-of-way to a point east of Smithville Road and then north on the B&O rail right-of-way. The alignment would then continue north with new right-of-way along Glendean Avenue toSpringfield Avenue, connecting with the US Air Force Museum just to the east.

Carillon Park ExtensionA seasonal bus extension was considered to provide service to Carillon Park. This routeconnected with the base service route at the intersection of Edwin C. Moses Boulevard andThird Street. The route followed Edwin C. Moses Boulevard south to Stewart Avenue andutilizes Stewart east to Patterson Boulevard and then south to Carillon Park.

Downtown Heritage Rail AlternativeThis route was studied to provide an attractive alternative for connections between the Wright-Dunbar neighborhood and Downtown. The western terminus of the route is at the ConoverStreet Park-and-Ride lot in the Wright-Dunbar neighborhood continuing south to Third Streetand then east to St. Clair Street and then south to Fifth Street with a turn-around loop at thewestern edge of the Oregon Historical District.

This study concluded by recommending an alternative that included the Heritage Railcomponent between the Wright-Dunbar neighborhood and the Oregon District, as well as busservice on the Third Street alignment, extending beyond the Huffman Prairie to Wright StateUniversity and Wright-Patterson Air Force Base.


11/20


10/3/2007

The recommended alternative also included a downtown circulator bus/tram route, similar innature to existing GDRTA service for special events and a short service extension on east ThirdStreet into the Huffman Historic District. The circulator route would utilize Patterson Boulevard,Monument Avenue and Main Street to travel north and cross the river. From there, the routetravels west and south via Riverview Avenue and Edwin C. Moses Boulevard, again crossingthe river back into downtown at Fifth Street and continuing east to Patterson Boulevard.

An estimate for construction of this system is $37 million. Operating costs were estimated atnearly $2.5 million/year, with about $500,000 yearly in fare box receipts. The report also notedseveral potential Federal , State and local funding sources including the FTA New Startsprogram, CM/AQ, ODOT TRAC, National Parks Systems programs as well as potentialpublic/private opportunites with joint development of stations and the sale of naming andsponsorship rights.


12/20


10/3/2007

Operating Costs

Service Days Year Round May-SeptWeekdays 255 69

Monday- Thursday 204

Friday 51

Saturday50 15

Sunday 60 17

Total 365 101

Annual Service LevelsRevenue-

Miles

Revenue-

Hours

Peak

Vehicles

Estimated

Annual Cost

Enhanced Bus with Heritage Rail DowntownEnhanced Bus - Long Peak Route 185,326 14,183 9 1,180,615$

Enhanced Bus - Short Off-Peak Route 193,778 14,906 0 745,775$

Heritage Rail Downtown 80,923 9,634 2 584,256$Sub-Total 460,027 38,723 11 2,510,646$

Existing Related Bus Route Modifications

Elimination of Route 13 (87,675) (5,490) -2 (396,666)$Route 1E: Eliminate Existing Route (90,280) (8,134) -2 (494,727)$Route 1E: Extend 60-min Service to WSU 50,057 4,118 1 254,488$Sub-Total (177,955) (13,623) -4 (636,905)$

Total 282,072 25,100 NA 1,873,741$

Unit CostsRevenue-

Miles

Revenue-

Hours

Peak

Vehicles

Peer Agency Unit Costs$ 5.12 $ 73.11 $ 175,862

21.0% 49.3% 29.7%

$ 1.08 $ 36.03 $ 52,221

Heritage Rail 3-Factor Model (c) $ 1.08 $ 36.03 $ 75,000

b -- The "% of Variable Costs" represents the portion of sampled peer agencies' O&M costs that are attributable to each of these three

variables. For example, 49.3% of peer agencies' O&M costs are attributable to revenue-hours, in the form of operator wages and benefits.

c -- The three-factor model integrates all three variables into a single model, by taking their weighted average. Weighting is proportional to

the percent of unit costs attributable to each service variable.

1-Factor Unit Costs (a)

% of Variable Costs (b)

Enhanced Bus 3-Factor Model (c)

a -- One factor costs represent the peer agencies' costs divided by a single service variable -- either revenue hours, revenue miles or peak

vehicles.


13/20


10/3/2007

Construction Costs Bus Mode

Aug. 2003

Improvement Qty. Improvement Cost

Streetscaping from Perry Street to rail overpass at Webster Street (lump sum) 0 -$

Resurfacing of Roadway on Wright State Campus (per lane foot) 9500 1,235,000$

Traffic signal priority installation (per intersection) 8 720,000$Busway Improvement Subtotal 1,955,000$

Transit FacilitiesImprovement Qty. Improvement Cost

New Vehicle Maintenance Facility (lump sum) 0 -$

Type A Station 5 750,000$

Type B Station 0 -$

Type C Station 2 500,000$

Type D Station 0 -$Park-and-Ride surface parking (per parking space) 0 -$

Transit Facilties Subtotal 1,250,000$

Rolling StockImprovement Qty. Improvement Cost

Diesel Vehicles for Carillon Shuttle 0 -$Heritage Diesel Bus for Tourist/Commuter Route w/2 spares 11 3,850,000$

Rolling Stock Subtotal 3,850,000 $

ESTIMATED SUBTOTAL IMPROVEMENT COST 7,055,000$

Contingencies

Arts-in-Transit 1% 70,550$

Construction 30% 2,116,500$

Utility Relocation 0% -$Desing and Engineering Fee 8% 564,400$

Program Management Fee 3% 211,650$

Construction Engineering and Inspectioin Fee 7% 493,850$

Contingencies Subtotal 3,456,950 $

TOTAL ESTIMATED IMPROVEMENT COST (Second Quarter 2003) 10,511,950$


14/20


10/3/2007

Construction Costs Heritage Rail Mode

Aug. 2003

Unit Total

DESCRIPTION Unit Qty Cost CostGeneral Requirements 0% $14,905,013 $0Guideways RF

Street Running Track - Paved RF 0 $0At - Grade Ballasted Trackbed RF 0 $0 $0

Aerial Structure/Bridges RF 0 $0

Drainage SF 0 $0Retained Cut and Fill RF 0 $0Bridges RF 0 $0

Trackwork LS ` $8,251,900 $8,251,900

Street Modifications/Restoration LS ` $643,113 $643,113Utility Modifications LS 12800 $100 $1,280,000Stations

All EA 8 Variable $1,150,000

NA Station EA 0 $0 $0Station Parking STL 0 $0

Storage Yard and Maintenance Shop LS ` $1,030,000 $1,030,000Vehicles EA 3 $850,000 $2,550,000

Right of WayAlignment LS 0 $0Stations (rot used) LS 0 $0Bike and Fence LS 0 $0

Maintenance Yard and other LS 0 $0

Special ConditionsSubtotal Construction Cost (Civil) $14,905,013

Civil Contingency 30% $4,471,504NA 0%

Subtotal Civil $0$19,376,517

General Requirements 0% $2,739,000 $0Signals and Train Control RF 3 $850,000 $2,250,000

Traffic Signals LS ` $50,000 $50,000Communications RF 3 $10,000 $30,000Traction Power

Substations FA ` $300,000 $300,000Single Track Catenary System RF 5500 $238 $1,309,000

Double Track Catenary System STA 0 NA $0Fare Collection STA 0 $0

Subtotal Construction Cost (Systems) $2,739,000Systems Contingency

NA 15% $410,850

Subtotal Systems $3,149,850Total Construction Cost Seond Quarter 2003 0.00 $22,526,367

Estimated ROW Cost MI 0 $0

Project Implementation $0

Art in Transit LS 1 $250,000 $250,000

Engineering/CM/Admin 17% $3,829,482

Total Construction Cost Second Quarter 2003 6.16 $1,119,615 $26,605,849

More details of this recommended alternative including capital and operating cost estimates aswell as potential project funding sources can be found in Chapter 8 of Attachment C.

An MVRPC Steering Committee was established to consider the recommended alternative andconsider it for advancement into the MVRPC Long Range Plan. After extensive consideration ofthe recommended alternative, the Steering Committee decided to conduct further research intoother active street car systems as well as their associated economic benefits.


15/20


10/3/2007

MVRPC/GDRTA Follow-Up Refinemets to theDayton Aviation Heritage Street Car System

In an effort to reach consensus on the recommended LPA to the Dayton Aviation CorridorTransit Study by Parsons Brinckerhoff, MVRPC and GDRTA agreed to work together on a studyto provide further validation for this recommendations. The full study report is considered a part

of this document as Attachment D. This study can be found online at:http://docs.mvrpc.org/dahc/Economic_Impact_Analysis.pdf

These efforts were conducted in a series of distinct phases. First, Stone Consulting, Inc. wascontracted to offer an analysis of the proposed street car system in downtown Dayton as well asa comparison of other existing and proposed systems in other areas.

As a result of this study, previously identified routes were adjusted to create a downtowncirculator and a connection eastward to the US Air Force Museum. Results from examiningstreetcar systems in other areas are also incorporated into these findings.

The second part of this effort was conducted by Gem Public Sector Services, Inc. This study

considered the economic impacts of one alternative, broken into three phases. The route andconstruction phasing information is shown below.

The third portion of the study was a ridership survey conducted by MVRPC staff at variouslocations throughout the study area.

The objective of these efforts were:

To provide a transportation link to the existing park sites To provide circulation within the Central Business District To encourage local and area residents to use the system for entertainment and social

purposes

An operational analysis of the downtown circulator route and its costs are as follows:

Phase 1-A: US Air Force Museum to DowntownThis 6.28 mile segment would be constructed first. This route begins at the entrance to the AirFoce Museum and crosses Springfield Street to link with an existing Rail right-of-way and turnswestward. The route follows this rail right-of-way west, generally parallelling Springfield Avenueto a point near Stanley Avenue. The route will cross the City of Dayton City Garage facilityproperty and connect with the intersection of North Keowee Street and East Monument Avenue.From there, the route follows Monument Street and terminates at Patterson Boulevard.


16/20


10/3/2007

Phase 1-B: The Northern RouteThis route is 5.23 miles long and begins at the intersection of Monument Avenue and PattersonBoulevard. It follows the Monument Street right-of-way west, across the bridge to RiverviewAvenue. The route will provide service to the Dayton Art Institute via Belmonte Park Drive andthen follow Riverview Avenue south to Third Street, where it will travel west into the Wright-Dunbar neighborhood. This route would use North Broadway, West First Street and North Paul

Laurence Dunbar Street rights-of-way to loop back to Third Street. The Third Street right-of-waywill be utilized to travel eastward, over the river and through downtown to Main Street. Theroute travels south on Main Street, east on Fifth Street and north on Patterson Boulevard.

Phase 2: The Southern RouteThe Southern Route would be constructed last. From Third and Main, it would follow MainStreet south. It would then utilize Washington Street, Jefferson Street, Warren Street andBrown Street rights-of-way south to Stewart Avenue and travel west across the river to Edwin C.Moses Boulevard. From there, it connects northward to Third. This route also includes a branchline connection from the intersection of Patterson Boulevard and Stewart Street south to Carillon

Park.


17/20


10/3/2007

Construction cost estimates for the alternative described in this study are approximately $60million for the entire project. This alternative would cost an estimated $1.7 million annually tooperate.

Capital Construction Expenditures and Line Miles

Street Car Capital Net Capital LineProjectPhases

Year Capital Cost Cost Expenditures(Adjusted)

Expenditure Miles

Phase 1-A 2006 $20,369,114 $2,550,000 $17,819,114 $12,473,380 6.28

Phase 1-B 2008 $21,035,738 $1,500,000 $19,535,738 $13,675,017 5.40

Phase 2 2010 $18,564,181 $1,500,000 $17,064,181 $11,944,927 4.58

Total - $59,969,033 $5,550,000 $54,419,033 $38,093,323 16.26

According to this study, an operational shortfall of $244,000 or less would exist for the first fouryears of service if the system achieve 5,500 riders daily. After the first four years, anoperational surplus could be achieved. This formula is also based on a $1.25/day fare for thefirst year, with annual increases of $0.05/year until reaching a fare of $1.45/day after the fourthyear. More detailed information on the financial forecasting involved in this study can be foundin Section V of Attachment D.

Annual Operating Revenue, Total Cost, and Net Loss ProjectionsPhase 1-A Phase 1-B Phase 2

Year Revenue Cost Cost Cost Total Cost Net Losses

2007 $ 581,719 $801,618 - - $801,618 $(219,899)

2008 $ 581,719 $825,667 - $825,667 $(243,948)

2009 $1,245,563 $842,180 $547,776 - $1,389,956 $(144,393)

2010 $1,245,563 $859,023 $564,209 $1,423,233 $(177,670)

2011 $2,032,594 $876,204 $575,493 $337,863 $1,789,560 $243,033

2012 $2,032,594 $893,728 $587,003 $347,999 $1,828,730 $203,8642013 $2,107,875 $911,603 $598,743 $354,959 $1,865,305 $242,570

2014 $2,107,875 $929,835 $610,718 $362,058 $1,902,611 $205,264

2015 $2,183,156 $948,431 $622,933 $369,299 $1,940,663 $242,493

In addition, this study analyzed a number of other streetcar operations in Kenosha, Wisconsin;Lowell, Massachusetts; New Orleans, Memphis and Tampa. Each of these systems sharedseveral common attributes. They are as follows:

Each had a clear vision of purpose for building the system Each project took a significant amount of time to complete with numerous obstacles and

opponents There was no single owner or funding partner. Several agencies were involved Each system was developed to serve or complement existing development Steetcar became its own attraction, exceeding all original ridership projections New transit riders were attracted to the streetcar service None of the systems were able to cover operating costs strictly with fare revenue

More specific information on each cases study can be found in Section IV of Attachment D.


18/20


10/3/2007

MVRPC Ridership SurveyAs these study efforts were being conducted, MVRPC performed an extensive ridership surveybased on the alternatives identified. This study was conducted at various locations during theFall of 2004. Surveys were distributed at locations such as Fifth Third Field, RiverScape, TheDayton Art Institute, Carillon Park, the University of Dayton, Sinclair Community College, TheWright Cycle Company Building, Huffman Flying Field and the United States Air Force Museum.

MVRPC received more than 1,000 responses.

Results of this survey are as follows:

How did you arrive?78% Drove to the particular venue and parked their car12% Walked or biked4% Were dropped off3% Arrived via RTA3% Were part of a tour group

How often do you use RTA service?

83% Never use RTA12% Ride once monthly or less2% Ride once a week on average3% Ride more than once per week

Have you ever ridden a historical electric street car?53% Yes47% No

Assuming the same service destinations, do you prefer streetcar or bus?86% Preferred Electric Streetcar14% Preferred Bus

If you prefer to ride a streetcar, why?74% Nostalgic reasons12% Convenience and Comfort5% Speed of travel9% Some other reason

What fare are you willing to pay?83% $1-$212% $2-$32% $3-$43% $4-$5

How long would you be willing to wait for a ride on the streetcar?11% 5 minutes or less51% Up to 10 minutes26% Up to 20 minutes6% Up to 30 minutes1% More than 30 minutes5% Would adapt to streetcar schedule


19/20


10/3/2007

Next Steps

Gaining local consensus on a single, defined Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) is the criticalbase upon which the project can be advanced over subsequent years. Before any furtherproject development on the proposed Heritage Rail system, it is essential that it be publiclyendorsed by the Greater Dayton Regional Transit Authority (GDRTA) and added into its ownwork program. This endorsement will be the signal that allows the project to move forward intothe process of gaining consensus from the project Steering Committee and MVRPC TechnicalAdvisory Committee. Both recommendations will be necessary in order to add the project to thecurrent MVRPC Long Range Transportation Plan.

In addition, research from other cities has indicated that chances for project success are higherwhen an individual or organization comes to the forefront and champions the project. Often, thisis an influential and visible person or organization in the community that can bring resourcesand energy to the effort. For most heritage rail projects, a local transit authority is the logicalagency with the resources, expertise and desire to bring the project into reality.

After a public endorsement from GDRTA, the next step in the process is for the SteeringCommittee to review and recommend one clearly defined LPA. Once this is done, at least onepublic meeting is needed so that a proposed LPA can be subject to public view and scrutiny.

If an LPA emerges and is supported through GDRTA and the public involvement process, itthen can be submitted to MVRPCs Technical Advisory Committee for their review andrecommendation. After this is done, the project will ultimately be advanced to the MVRPC Boardof Directors for their endorsement of the LPA. Once the MVRPC Board of Directors endorsesthe LPA, MVRPC can then proceed with a Long Range Transportation Plan Amendment, or ifapporpriate, incorporate the LPA in the next LRTP cycle .

Inclusion of the project in the Long Range Transportation Plan is a pre-requisite to FederalTransit Administration approval that a project is ready to advance to the next stage ofdevelopment, Preliminary Engineering. As the project moves closer to implementation, it will beadded to the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), at which point, specific capital fundingwill need to be identified.

It should be noted that additional environmental, economic and ridership analysis will berequired within the context of performing Preliminary Engineering and Environmental ImpactStatement work. These work items are detailed in FTAs project development guidance andnecessary to satisfy federal program requirements.

The graphic on the following page breaks down the above mentioned processes, step-by-step

and shows which agency is reponsible for completing each step.


20/20


Next Steps to Project Development

Heritage Rail System

Plan publicly endorsed

by GDRTA, by Board

Resolution, with themagreeing to take

ownership of project

(GDRTA Role)

Added to GDRTAs

Work Program and

submitted to MVRPC

(GDRTA Role)

MVRPCs Steering

Committee reviews and

recommends one clearly

defined Locally PreferredAlternative (LPA)

(MVRPC Role)

MVRPC Public Participation Meeting

for the Locally Preferred Alternative

(LPA) including a Citizens Advisory

Committee meeting(MVRPC Role)

MVRPC Technical

Advisory Committee

(TAC) review and

recommendation

(MVRPC Role)

MVRPC Board of Directors LPA

endorsement (MVRPC Role)

Completion of Environmental

Impact Statement and Preliminary

Engineering

(GDRTA Role)

Include into MVRPC

Transportation

Improvement Program

(TIP) as funding is

approved (MVRPC

Role)

FTA New Start

Approval

(GDRTA Role)

Initiate Long Range

Transportation Plan Amendment

process or incorporate in next

LRTP update cycle (MVRPC

Role)

Additional project

development as funding

becomes approved

(GDRTA Role)

Documents

MVRPC: Summary of all the Dayton Aviation heritage Streetcar studies