98
REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT

REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally

  • Upload
    others

  • View
    0

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally

REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT

Page 2: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally

ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS FOR

GREATER DOWNTOWN OKLAHOMA CITY AREA

Alternatives Analysis (AA) Revised Draft Report

November 2011

Prepared for:

CENTRAL OKLAHOMA TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING AUTHORITY

Prepared by:

Page 3: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally

Draft Alternatives Analysis Report Alternatives Analysis for Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Area

1

Table of Contents CHAPTER 1 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................3 CHAPTER 2 - PURPOSE AND NEED........................................................................................12 2.1  Limited Transit Connectivity among Downtown Activity Centers..................................12 2.2  Limited Multimodal and Intermodal Connectivity ..........................................................13 2.3  Lack of Mobility for Downtown Residents, Workers and Visitors..................................14 2.4  Desire for More Transit-Oriented Development, Sustainable Growth and Livability.....17 CHAPTER 3 - ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED.........................................................................19 3.1  Definition of Alternatives...............................................................................................19 3.2  Description of Locally Preferred Alternative Improvements..........................................21 

3.2.1  Roadway Modifications.................................................................................................22 3.2.2  Traffic Operations .........................................................................................................24 3.2.3  Right-of-Way.................................................................................................................24 3.2.4  Enhanced Transit Stations ...........................................................................................26 3.2.5  Power and electrification ..............................................................................................28 3.2.6  Vehicle Storage, Maintenance and Operations ............................................................29 

CHAPTER 4 - MODE TECHNOLOGY AND ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION ........30 4.1  Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes .......................................................................30 

4.1.1  Ridership ......................................................................................................................30 4.1.2  Capital Cost ..................................................................................................................31 4.1.3  Land Use and Economic Development ........................................................................31 4.1.4  Air Quality .....................................................................................................................32 4.1.5  Public Acceptability.......................................................................................................32 

4.2  Tier I Evaluation............................................................................................................34 4.2.1  Tier I Basic Alignments.................................................................................................34 4.2.2  Tier I Basic Alignments Evaluation ...............................................................................37 

4.3  Tier I Combined Alignments .........................................................................................41 4.3.1  Tier I Combined Alignments Evaluation .......................................................................43 

4.4  Tier I Alignment Evaluation Results..............................................................................46 4.5  Tier II Evaluation...........................................................................................................50 

4.5.1  Tier II Refined Alignments ............................................................................................50 4.5.2  Tier II Evaluation Criteria ..............................................................................................53 4.5.3  Tier 2 Evaluation Summary ..........................................................................................54 

CHAPTER 5 - CAPITAL, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COSTS ...................................57 5.1  Capital Cost Estimating Results ...................................................................................57 

5.1.1  Risk & Uncertainty ........................................................................................................58 5.2  O&M Cost Estimating Results ......................................................................................60 CHAPTER 6 - LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE............................................................61 CHAPTER 7 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ..............................................................................65 7.1  Potential Affected Environment ....................................................................................65 CHAPTER 8 - LOCAL FINANCIAL COMMITMENT ...................................................................70 8.1  FTA Guidance ..............................................................................................................70 8.2  Oklahoma City Financial Commitment .........................................................................72 CHAPTER 9 - NEXT STEPS .....................................................................................................74 

Page 4: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally

Draft Alternatives Analysis Report Alternatives Analysis for Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Area

2

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1: Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Circulator Study Area ..........................................4 Figure 1-2: Refined Downtown Alignment Options .......................................................................6 Figure 1-3: Refined Midtown/St. Anthony Alignment Options.......................................................6 Figure 1-4: Refined Bricktown Alignment Options ........................................................................6 Figure 1-5: Refined Downtown to OHC Alignment Options ..........................................................7 Figure 1-6: Refined OHC Extension Alignment Options ...............................................................7 Figure 1-7: Recommended Locally Preferred Alignment Alternative ..........................................10 Figure 3-1: Preliminary Downtown Circulator Alignment and Stops ...........................................26 Figure 4-1: Basic North-South Alignment Alternatives................................................................35 Figure 4-2: Basic East-West Alignment Alternatives ..................................................................36 Figure 4-3: Combine Alignment Alternatives ..............................................................................42 Figure 4-4: OHC Combine Alignment Alternatives .....................................................................43 Figure 4-5: Downtown Refined Alignments, Eastside Option 1 ..................................................47 Figure 4-6: Downtown Refined Alignments, Eastside Option 2 ..................................................47 Figure 4-7: Downtown Refined Alignments, Westside Option ....................................................48 Figure 4-8: Downtown Refined Alignments, Core Cross-Over Option........................................48 Figure 4-9: Downtown Refined Alignments, OHC Option ...........................................................49 Figure 4-10: Tier II Downtown Options .......................................................................................51 Figure 4-11: Tier II St. Anthony/Midtown Options .......................................................................51 Figure 4-12: Tier II Bricktown Options ........................................................................................52 Figure 4-13: Refined Downtown to OHC Alignment Options ......................................................52 Figure 4-14: Refined OHC Extension Alignment Options ...........................................................52 Figure 5-1: Existing BNSF Railroad (RR) Bridge Underpasses..................................................59 Figure 6-1: Recommended Locally Preferred Alignment Alternative ..........................................63  LIST OF TABLES Table 1-1: Summary Results of Tier 2 Alternative Alignment Evaluation......................................8 Table 2-1: METRO Transit - Existing Fleet Operating Parameters.............................................16 Table 4-1: Summary Results of Transit Mode Alternatives Evaluation.......................................33 Table 4-2: North-South Alignment Evaluation† ...........................................................................39 Table 4-3: East-West Alignment Evaluation† ..............................................................................40 Table 4-4: Combined Alignment Evaluation - Downtown Options† .............................................44 Table 4-5: Combined Alignment Evaluation - Oklahoma Health Center (OHC) Options† ...........45 Table 4-6: Tier II Evaluation Summary Matrix.............................................................................55 Table 5-1: Baseline/TSM Alternative Capital Cost¹.....................................................................57 Table 5-2: Build Alternative Capital Cost¹ ...................................................................................58 Table 5-3: Operations and Maintenance Cost Projections1 (FY 2018) .......................................60 Table 8-1: Financial Measure Weightings Used to Develop Summary Rating ...........................70 Table 8-2: Downtown Circulator Proposed Capital Funding Sources.........................................71 Table 8-3: Ratings for Non-Section 5309 New Starts Funding Shares.......................................71  LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A: Conceptual Locally Preferred Alternative Alignment Plan Sheets Appendix B: Conceptual Build Alternative Typical Stations & Vehicle Specifications Appendix C: FTA SCC LPA and Minimum Operating Segment (MOS) Capital Cost Estimates Appendix D: Existing METRO Transit Fixed Route Service Map Error! No table of contents entries found.

Page 5: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally

Draft Alternatives Analysis Report Alternatives Analysis for Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Area

3

CHAPTER 1 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Central Oklahoma Transportation and Parking Authority (COTPA), a regional transit authority which operates METRO Transit primarily in Oklahoma City, is planning to implement new and improved transit circulator services to link activity centers within Greater Downtown Oklahoma City. To make an informed decision, COTPA conducted an Alternatives Analysis (AA) to determine the most cost-efficient transit mode and alignments for a downtown transit circulator. This was done in conjunction with a 23 person Steering Committee chaired by Mayor Cornett. Three of the 23 were members of the COTPA Board of Trustees, and the Committee began meeting in spring 2010. The AA process, including: AA baseline research, work with the MPO on the travel demand model, and other AA tasks were all initiated by COTPA staff and consultants by late 2008. The primary goals of the proposed downtown circulator considered throughout the alternative screening process were to:

• Improve mobility within Greater Downtown Oklahoma City; • Maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of transit investments; • Support local and regional land use and development goals and enhance the use of

transit-supportive land use, planning, and design strategies; • Provide a sustainable transit investment that is compatible with the built environment

and promotes livability; • Provide a transit investment that can be implemented within budget constraints for

capital and operating expenses. This report summarizes the entire AA process and results, including selection of a locally preferred alternative (LPA) for implementation. On October 5, 2010 the Oklahoma City Council identified nine Major Issues facing the City over the coming five years, and established Strategic Priorities and Key Results. Public Transportation was one of the Major Issues and the completion of the AA was listed as a key result to be pursued. Many of the other eight issues cannot be addressed alone by City government or its trusts like COTPA Those eight are: Citizen Confidence, Sustainable Financial Model, Infrastructure, Economic Development, Quality of Life, Public Education, Government Efficiency, and Public Safety. STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION Oklahoma City is the capital and the largest city in the State of Oklahoma. Oklahoma City has an estimated 2009 population of 560,333 according to the U.S. Census Bureau, and is part of a metropolitan area population estimated at 1,227,278. Downtown Oklahoma City is located at the geographic center of the Oklahoma City metropolitan area and is the principal business and employment district of the city. Downtown Oklahoma City is also the economic, financial, and entertainment center of the metropolitan area. The Alternatives Analysis study area for the Greater Downtown Oklahoma City consists of approximately 4.7 square miles and is transected by IH-235 and the BNSF railroad, which pass north-south along the east side of downtown Oklahoma City. The study area east of IH-235 is generally bounded by NE 23rd Street, Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally described as being between Classen Boulevard, NW 13th Street and the Oklahoma River. The study area is shown in Figure 1-1. Greater Downtown Oklahoma City is

Page 6: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally

Draft Alternatives Analysis Report Alternatives Analysis for Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Area

4

made up of several unique, recognizable, and defined districts adjoining the central downtown core. The districts identified for the study area include:

Business District (BD) Arts District Automobile Alley Bricktown Deep Deuce

Presbyterian Health Foundation Research Park

Core to Shore Midtown and St. Anthony Hospital State Capitol Complex Oklahoma Health Center

PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT The purpose of the Alternatives Analysis (AA) study is to evaluate and determine a cost-effective transit mode and alignment that significantly improves downtown connectivity and circulation between major activity centers within the Greater Downtown Oklahoma City study area. The need for improved transit services is supported by the following four problems: (1) limited transit connectivity between downtown activity centers; (2) limited multimodal accessibility; (3) lack of mobility for downtown workers, residents, and visitors; and (4) desire for more transit oriented development (TOD), sustainable growth and livability. A more complete description of the Purpose and Need may be found in a separate report, Purpose and Need Statement for the Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Alternatives Analysis (April 2011), available through COTPA.

Figure 1-1: Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Circulator Study Area

Source: Jacobs Engineering

Page 7: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally

Draft Alternatives Analysis Report Alternatives Analysis for Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Area

3

TRANSIT MODE ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION COTPA considered transit mode alternatives based on current conditions, previous studies, regional transportation needs, and stakeholder and public input. The transit mode alternatives evaluated during the AA process included: No-Build Alternative, Rapid Bus Circulator (Baseline / Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternative), and Modern Streetcar (Build Alternative). No-Build Alternative The No-Build Alternative consists of existing transit service and committed transportation improvements within the study area to be implemented by 2015, as identified by COTPA and the City of Oklahoma City and included in the fiscally constrained regional Long Range Transportation Encompass Plan adopted by the Association of Central Oklahoma Governments (ACOG). The No-Build Alternative provided a base condition from which the Baseline Alternative and the Build Alternative were developed and evaluated. Vintage-look rubber tire trolley buses currently used to operate the Spirit Trolley will be replaced by 30-foot buses. Hours of operation and service patterns will continue as currently operated. Rapid Bus Circulator (Baseline Alternative) The Baseline Alternative is defined as the best that can be done to improve transit service without a major capital investment in new infrastructure. The Baseline Alternative is established so that the additional costs and benefits of the Build Alternative can be better understood. The Baseline includes all reasonable cost-effective transit improvements short of major capital investment. The Baseline Alternative consists of a Rapid Bus Circulator, as well as all transit improvements contained within the No-Build Alternative. This alternative would utilize new low floor, 30-foot or 40-foot buses operating in mixed traffic on existing streets. The Rapid Bus Circulator would maintain consistent 8-12 minute headways throughout the hours of operation, providing downtown circulator service to the Business District and surrounding districts of the study area. New transit stops would include automated passenger counting and real-time scheduling technologies, as well as pedestrian crossing improvements. The vehicles and stations would be branded to distinguish the service from existing fixed route transit in the study area. Peripheral improvements to existing fixed route local bus service would be made to interface with the Rapid Bus Circulator and support overall mobility within Greater Downtown Oklahoma City.

Page 8: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally

Draft Alternatives Analysis Report Alternatives Analysis for Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Area

4

Modern Streetcar (Build Alternative) The Build Alternative is defined as a major capital improvement for transit services. The Build Alternative consists of Modern Streetcar, as well as all transit service improvements identified within the No-Build Alternative. The Modern Streetcar would maintain consistent 8-12 minute headways throughout the hours of operation, providing downtown circulator service to the Business District and surrounding districts of the study area. New transit stops would include automated passenger counting and, real-time scheduling technologies, as well as pedestrian crossing improvements. The vehicles and stations would be branded to distinguish the service from existing fixed route transit in the study area. The Modern Streetcar Alternative would utilize an embedded track, fixed guideway system to operate articulated vehicles along the outside travel lane or in the median of existing streets. The system would likely be powered by overhead catenary contact wire installed above the guideway along all or most of the route. Peripheral improvements to existing fixed route local bus service would be made to interface with the Modern Streetcar and support overall mobility within Greater Downtown Oklahoma City. Alternatives Evaluation COTPA developed and defined local criteria to be used for the evaluation of these transit alternatives. The transit alternatives evaluation used both qualitative and quantitative measures to assess the potential impacts and benefits of the No-Build, the Rapid Bus Circulator (Baseline), and the Modern Streetcar (Build) Alternatives. Chapter 4 of this report provides more details on the evaluation process. Based on technology mode evaluation results, input from the AA Steering Committee, and input from general public meetings, Modern Streetcar was the recommended mode for the COTPA’s Board of Trustees consideration of the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA). ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION Through the AA process, COTPA developed and evaluated a range of reasonable transit alignments for the Greater Downtown Oklahoma City study area. Both the Rapid Bus (Baseline) and Modern Streetcar (Build) Alternatives were assumed to operate along the same alignments. COTPA used a two-step process for evaluating the alternatives: Tier 1 conceptual screening and Tier 2 detailed screening. The Tier 1 evaluation screened out alignment options that have fatal flaws, do not meet project goals, or do not have public and stakeholder support. The Tier 2 evaluation screened the refined alignments from Tier 1 using a set of qualitative and quantitative criteria. Results of both the Tier 1 and Tier 2 evaluations were presented to the AA Steering Committee, MAPS 3 Transit/Modern Streetcar Subcommittee, public stakeholders and to the COTPA Board of Trustees. Input received at these meetings was used to identify the most appropriate alignment options for further study and development. A recommended alignment was selected by the COTPA Board on July 1, 2011 based on the Tier 2 evaluation and input from the AA Steering Committee

Page 9: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally

Draft Alternatives Analysis Report Alternatives Analysis for Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Area

5

(May 25, 2011) and endorsements received from the MAPS 3 Transit/Modern Streetcar Subcommittee (June 15, 2011) and public meetings (June 23, 2011). Tier 1 Alternatives Evaluation Potential alignments were formed from fourteen (14) basic north-south and east-west segments connecting various activity centers and districts of the Greater Downtown Oklahoma City study area. Through evaluation by the COTPA consultant team and the AA Steering Committee, basic alignment segments were integrated to create nine (9) combined alignment alternatives for further evaluation: five (5) “downtown options” and (4) four “OHC options.” Based on the feedback from COTPA and the AA Steering Committee, the five combined downtown alignment alternatives were refined to focus on two primary questions: (1) what alignment is preferred in the core of downtown?; and, (2) what extensions of the core alignment are preferred for Bricktown and Midtown? As a result, the combined alignment alternatives were refined to allow for comparative evaluation for each segment of the overall proposed system. On December 8, 2010, the refined alignment alternatives were presented to the AA Steering Committee, which was polled for their preferred alignment and extensions. In a separate but interrelated process, the MAPS 3 Streetcar/Modern Transit Subcommittee met on November 17, December 15, January 26, 2011 and February 23, 2011 to consider the findings of the AA Steering Committee and the numerous alignment alternatives that were evaluated through the AA process to date. The AA Steering Committee met on February 17, 2011 to further evaluate the data and input. The results of Tier 1 evaluation of refined alignment alternatives and input from the public on March 31, the AA Steering Committee, and MAPS Subcommittee was the grouping of alignments according to the primary district served: Downtown (Business), Midtown/St. Anthony, Bricktown, and OHC. The alignments were presented to the COTPA Board of Trustees on April 8 and the Tier One Report was sent to the FTA in early May. The following alignment alternatives were recommended for the Tier 2 evaluation: Downtown Options (Figure 1-2)

• Broadway/Robinson Couplet • Broadway/Robinson/Hudson

Crossover Midtown/St. Anthony Options (Figure 1-3)

• 10th Street (double track) • 10th/13th Street Loop • 11th Street (single track) • 11th/13th Street Couplet

Bricktown Options (Figure 1-4) • Sheridan Avenue (single track) • Sheridan Avenue (double track) • Sheridan/Reno Couplet • Sheridan/Boulevard Loop

Downtown to OHC Options (Figure 1-5)

• 2nd/4th Street Couplet • 4th Street (double track)

OHC Extension Options (Figure 1-6)

• Lincoln/8th/Phillips (single track) • Lincoln/8th/Phillips Loop

Page 10: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally

Draft Alternatives Analysis Report Alternatives Analysis for Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Area

6

Figure 1-2: Refined Downtown Alignment Options

Figure 1-3: Refined Midtown/St. Anthony Alignment Options

Figure 1-4: Refined Bricktown Alignment Options

Page 11: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally

Draft Alternatives Analysis Report Alternatives Analysis for Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Area

7

Figure 1-5: Refined Downtown to OHC Alignment Options

Figure 1-6: Refined OHC Extension Alignment Options

Tier 2 Alternatives Evaluation The Tier 2 alignment alternatives were evaluated using qualitative and quantitative measures for the following criteria: land use and economic development; operational feasibility; ridership; and, public acceptance. These criteria produced “scores” for each alignment and capital costs were developed as a final deciding factor. Table 1-2 summarizes the Tier 2 evaluation results of the alignment alternatives, while Chapter 4 of this report provides more details on the evaluation process.

Page 12: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally

Draft Alternatives Analysis Report Alternatives Analysis for Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Area

8

Table 1-1: Summary Results of Tier 2 Alternative Alignment Evaluation

Land Use & Economic

Development

Operational Feasibility Ridership Public

Acceptance Total Score

Capital Cost Direct (2011);

(YOE) Downtown (Business) District 

Downtown Couplet  17  16  4  3  40  $40.4 M; ($54.9 M) 

Downtown Crossover  18  12  5  3  38  $46.5 M; ($63.3M) 

Midtown/St. Anthony District 

10th St Double Track  10  14  1  1  26  $12.9 M; ($17.4 M) 

11th St Single Track   10  13  2  1  26  $14.1 M; ($19.1 M) 

10th/13th Loop  14  11  3  1  29  $23.7 M; ($32 M) 

11th/13th Couplet  14  15  5  4  38  $25.8 M; ($34.9 M) 

Bricktown District 

Sheridan Single Track  12  14  2  1  29  $15.7 M; ($21 M) 

Sheridan Double Track  12  13  2  1  28  $22.5 M; ($30.3 M) 

Sheridan/Reno Couplet  17  14  5  3  39  $25.7 M; ($34.7 M) 

Sheridan/Blvd Loop  17  15  4  3  39  $30.7 M; ($41.7 M) 

Downtown (Business) District to OHC 

4th St Double Track   12  18  3  3  36  $31.4 M; ($42.6 M) 

4th / 2nd St Couplet  12  16  3  1  32  $38.2 M; ($51.6 M) 

OHC Extension Lincoln / 8th / Phillips Single Track  15  13  3  3  34  $24 M;

($32.3 M) 8th / Phillips / 13th / Lincoln Loop  16  15  3  1  35  $33 M;

($44.8 M) Source: Jacobs Engineering The outcome of the Tier 2 evaluation was presented at the May 25th meeting of the AA Steering Committee, the June 15th meeting of MAPS 3 Streetcar/Modern Transit Subcommittee, and at two public meetings held on June 23, 2011. The past and projected economic development pace in greater downtown Oklahoma City is probably unparalleled by any other medium-sized downtown in America. The quantitative details of the land use and economic development assessment for the Tier Two evaluation may be reviewed in the Tier Two Alternatives Evaluation (June 2011). The source materials for that evaluation were also used to generate the AA’s “Transit Supportive Land Use and Economic Development Assessment” (August 2011).

Page 13: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally

Draft Alternatives Analysis Report Alternatives Analysis for Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Area

9

That report, also called the “AA Economic Development Report” was supplemented in October, 2011 by a COTPA response to the FTA. In essence, the study area has experienced investments of approximately $2.5-3 billion over the last 15 years. The growth rate has been more rapid during more recent years. Compared to 2005, study employment is likely to grow by nearly 50% by 2030 and residents by more than 200%. By 2035, the study area is projected to grow to a residential population of 40,000 near the LPA, a tremendous change in a city of Oklahoma City’s size. Compared to 2009, the OHC area alone is anticipated to add $660 million in new hospital and other investments. The new Devon Tower will open in 2012 and the SandRidge Tower is also well underway. Nonetheless, based on the Tier 2 evaluation results and input from COTPA, AA Steering Committee, MAPS 3 Streetcar/Modern Transit Subcommittee, and general public, the following alignment recommendations were made: Broadway/Robinson Couplet, 11th/13th Couplet, and Sheridan/Reno Couplet for the “Core Alignment”; and, 4th Street Double Track and Lincoln/8th/Phillips Single Track for the “OHC Extension”. The recommended alignments for consideration in choosing a locally preferred alternative (LPA) are shown in Figure 1-7. LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE (LPA) SELECTION The locally preferred alternative (LPA) is the formal selection of the preferred transit mode and alignment alternatives. COTPA took under advisement the conclusions and recommendations resulting from the AA process, as well as feedback from the AA Steering Committee, MAPS 3 Streetcar/Modern Transit Subcommittee, and general public meetings. The Tier 2 evaluation results and recommended preferred alternative were presented to the COTPA Board on July 1, 2011. On July 1, the COTPA Board commented that it needs to be understood that the LPA alignment can eventually be extended in another phase. The LPA is not the ultimate system, but is the foundation toward something more like the AA Steering Committee’s Long Term System Plan Concept. On July 1, 2011, the COTPA Board selected the Modern Streetcar Build Alternative to operate on the Core Alignment and OHC Alignment (Figure 1-7) as the LPA for implementation. Also, the Core Alignment, with a direct connection to the Fourth Street transit center, was selected as a Minimum Operating Segment (MOS) due to potential funding constraints. COTPA is committed to moving forward with the MOS based on the approved funding of the MAPS 3 program, but will also pursue $75 million in federal funding through the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) Small Starts program in order to fund the LPA. The MOS might also be a project submitted in a future application for a federal grant of under $25 million should a future, special smaller grant program be announced. Such a smaller grant might not be under Small Starts, but be similar to the FTA’s 2010 Urban Circulator grants or resemble the 2010 FTA TIGER II grant program. The City Council concurred unanimously with COTPA’s LPA selection on July 19. The LPA has also been approved for incorporation in the MPO Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) by the MPO (ACOG) Intermodal Transportation Technical Committee (ITTC), Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) and the MPO Intermodal Transportation Policy Committee (ITPC).

Page 14: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally

Draft Alternatives Analysis Report Alternatives Analysis for Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Area

10

Figure 1-7: Recommended Locally Preferred Alignment Alternative

LPA Description and Costs The LPA is the Modern Streetcar Build Alternative connecting Midtown-Downtown-Bricktown (Core Alignment) and Downtown-OHC (OHC Alignment). The LPA alignment segments include:

• Downtown – Broadway/Robinson Couplet • Bricktown – Sheridan/Reno Couplet • Midtown – 11th/13th Couplet • OHC – 4th St Double Track and • Lincoln/8th/Phillips Single Track

Page 15: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally

Draft Alternatives Analysis Report Alternatives Analysis for Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Area

11

Both LPA alignments also offer direct connection to the Downtown Transit Center on NW 4th Street. The current year (2011) direct capital cost, including contingency, for the LPA is estimated at $174.0 million and at $199.4 million in year of expenditure (YOE) dollars. Due to potential funding constraints, a Minimum Operating Segment (MOS) may be recommended to connect (at a minimum) the Midtown-Downtown-Bricktown districts and the Fourth Street Transit Center as the first of a multi-phase downtown circulator system implementation strategy. The adopted MOS alignments include:

• Downtown – Broadway/Robinson Couplet • Bricktown – Sheridan single track • Midtown – 11th Street single track

Any such determination will be made after additional analysis is conducted to identify potential constructability or operational conflicts, mitigation strategies and cost implications. The estimated base year (2011) direct capital costs, including contingency, for the MOS is approximately $84.3 million and a total year of expenditure (YOE) cost of $96.7 million. Historic fiscal year (FY) 2005 thru 2010 O&M costs per revenue mile and revenue hour of service of peer systems were aggregated and escalated to FY 2018 in order to estimate the increased cost of operations in the first full year of revenue service. The estimated additional cost of providing Modern Streetcar transit to the Greater Downtown Oklahoma City area in the first full year of service (FY 2018) is approximately $5.7 M annually. As the adopted LPA consists of two independent circulator lines, the annual projected costs were calculated independently. Due to similar route distances and identical operating parameters, each is estimated to cost approximately $2.8 M. Refer to Chapter 5 for further information on potential LPA capital and operating costs. Funding Recommendation Oklahoma City’s MAPS 3 Program was voter-approved in December 2009 to provide $120 million for Modern Streetcar. Based on the AA process, the overall funding recommendation is to pursue $75 million in federal funding through the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Small Starts program to implement the LPA. The City Council has pledged to bridge the $5 million gap in LPA funding through surplus General Obligation (G.O.) bond funds, the City’s General Fund, and other local public funds.

Page 16: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally

Draft Alternatives Analysis Report Alternatives Analysis for Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Area

12

CHAPTER 2 - PURPOSE AND NEED Introduction Experiencing growth in both population and employment, Greater Downtown Oklahoma City has become a major employment and recreational destination for residents of the metropolitan area. Existing transit service, provided by METRO Transit, covers approximately 450 linear miles of roadway throughout the metropolitan area and is designed primarily to bring people in and out of the downtown core via the existing Downtown Transit Center. Greater Downtown Oklahoma City lacks an efficient circulator system for moving people within downtown. As stated in Chapter 1, the primary goals of the proposed downtown circulator considered throughout the Alternatives Analysis (AA) screening process were:

• Improve mobility within Greater Downtown Oklahoma City; • Maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of transit investments; • Support local and regional land use and development goals and enhance the use of

transit-supportive land use, planning, and design strategies; • Provide a sustainable transit investment that is compatible with the built environment

and promotes livability; • Provide a transit investment that can be implemented within budget constraints for

capital and operating expenses.

Providing the basis and rationale for major transportation improvements in the Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Area, the Purpose and Need Statement guides the entire development of the AA Study. Identification and evaluation of transit alternatives were considered based on the degree to which alternatives address the Purpose and Need. The purpose of the Alternatives Analysis (AA) study is to evaluate and determine a cost-efficient transit mode and alignment that significantly improves downtown connectivity and circulation between major activity centers within the Greater Downtown Oklahoma City study area. The need for improved transit services is reinforced by the following four problems:

(1) Limited Transit Connectivity among Downtown Activity Centers (2) Limited Multimodal Accessibility (3) Lack of Mobility for Downtown Workers, Residents, and Visitors (4) Desire for More Transit Oriented Development (TOD), Sustainable Growth and Livability

2.1 Limited Transit Connectivity among Downtown Activity Centers

Limit Transit Connectivity Transit connectivity is limited among Downtown Oklahoma activity centers based on the current METRO Transit Network and existing travel demand patterns. The operation of METRO Transit’s “hub-and-spoke” transit system is more effective at bringing transit users from outlying areas to a central collecting point rather than distributing transit riders to multiple destinations within the downtown area. The majority of METRO Transit passengers traveling in and out of the downtown area are transferring to other bus routes via the Downtown Transit Center. A few routes provide limited connection between downtown districts. Existing METRO Transit services focuses on longer, work-based commuter transit trips to and from the Business, Arts and Midtown Districts. As the Arts District surrounds the Business District to the north, west and south, and the Midtown District

Page 17: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally

Draft Alternatives Analysis Report Alternatives Analysis for Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Area

13

shares many destinations north and west of the Business District, many destinations within these districts are able to be reached with relative efficiency due to the high overlap of transit coming into the Downtown Transit Center.

Existing Centers of Employment and Emerging Downtown Activity Centers Within Greater Downtown Oklahoma City there are converging centers of activity, such as within the central business district (CBD) where employment and hospitality centers are intermingled. Transit connectivity to recreational and entertainment districts such as Bricktown and the Midtown restaurant area are serviced by few bus routes, with extended frequencies of up to an hour. One-seat ride connectivity between the CBD and various surrounding districts does exist, but one-seat connectivity among trip generators and newly emerging activity centers such as Bricktown, Automobile Alley, Midtown and Deep Deuce has not been established within the existing transit system. The State Capitol Complex and OHC areas are substantial employment areas and destinations located to the North and East of downtown Oklahoma City which are served by existing METRO Transit service which connects the CBD/Arts District with the OHC and State Capitol districts. 2.2 Limited Multimodal and Intermodal Connectivity Downtown Oklahoma City is a heavily auto-oriented area with limited pedestrian, bicycle and mass transit connectivity. The study area contains limited multimodal facilities, as well as limited pedestrian and streetscape elements to promote multimodal travel. While most existing transit service is oriented toward traditional employment centers such as the Central Business District, limited intermodal facilities exist to collect potential users traveling to emerging activity centers, business districts and neighborhoods.

Multimodal Connectivity The Oklahoma City Downtown Transit Center is the hub for fixed-route bus service in Central Oklahoma. Located at NW 4th St and Hudson Ave, the transit center provides safe and convenient covered access for passengers. The physical location is a high density area with pedestrian access to shops, ample housing, restaurants, nearby employment and community services. Localized transit transfer facilities allow for more efficient routing of fixed route services and interface with pedestrian and bicycle modes of transportation. The existence of only a single “hub” and the infrequency of fixed route service do not allow for transit users to efficiently complete surface transfers and travel from one activity center to another. Transferring at the Downtown Transit Center is the only reliable multimodal connectivity offered for travel around the Business/Arts Districts.

Intermodal Connectivity The most common transportation mode interface in greater Downtown Oklahoma City is motorists parking and becoming pedestrians to their final destination. As is typical in urban areas, surface or structured parking facilities are provided at collecting points around the downtown area. Improvements associated with the Project 180 Downtown Streetscape Improvement project are providing a foundation for increased pedestrian activity in the greater Downtown area, including sidewalk widening, added curb parking spaces, bike lanes and lighting improvements. Oklahoma City residents indicated in a survey that they are willing to walk only approximately one-fourth (¼) mile to their final destination. Transfers between bus routes occur primarily at the Downtown Transfer Center, or by walking several blocks between stops for different routes. A rapid and/or

Page 18: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally

Draft Alternatives Analysis Report Alternatives Analysis for Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Area

14

fixed guideway transit circulator can be used to create more convenient surface transfers to alternative modes of travel to disperse users around the various emerging activity centers of the downtown Oklahoma City. 2.3 Lack of Mobility for Downtown Residents, Workers and Visitors The predominant mode of transportation in Oklahoma City and its various districts is the automobile. Whether people are shopping, residing, working, or playing, the mode selection for travel between areas of the city indicates that the existing public transportation system does not offer competitive convenience or efficiency to that of the automobile. The limited amount of transit service prevents attraction of residents, workers and visitors to use transit and minimizes livability. Existing transit service provided by COTPA METRO Transit does not include the range of services necessary to support emerging development activities in greater downtown Oklahoma City. METRO Transit bus service is currently provided Monday to Saturday from approximately 5:30 am – 7:30 pm, with no service on Sunday and no service on holidays. Many businesses are open at night and serve local residents and visitors. Frequencies range from 15 to 80 minutes during the peak and 30 to 80 minutes service during the off-peak. Table 2-1 depicts a matrix of all fixed-route service through the greater downtown study area and lists service operating parameters for all routes. A map of the fixed route service is provided in Appendix D. The limited hours of operation and long headways between buses make it difficult for transit riders to travel to multiple destinations within greater downtown. Potential riders whose work or recreational transportation needs are beyond the local service area are deterred from using transit service. Many of the METRO Transit routes operating in the study area do not provide a frequency necessary to accommodate the rapid transportation needs and desires of downtown residents, employees and visitors. See Table 2-1 for further information.

Limited Mobility for Downtown Residents The existing transit service is currently designed to bring people in and out of the downtown core and is not designed for circulation to distribute workers to emerging activity centers, business districts, and neighborhoods within the greater downtown area. As a result, potential passengers compelled to use transit for employment trips are often forced to inefficiently transfer at the Downtown Transfer Center, far from their ultimate destination, or transfer at bus stops where they may subject to substantial wait times due to the infrequent transit service. The residents of downtown Oklahoma City include a modest transit dependent population who rely on METRO Transit for their transportation needs. The ACOG On-Board Transit Survey conducted in 2009 found that 48% of METRO transit riders do not have a car available in their home and 50% of riders do not possess a valid driver’s license.

Limited Mobility for Downtown Workers The City of Oklahoma City has seen steady employment growth in the past several decades and aspires to attract more major commercial/retail employers to the downtown area as well as promote non-auto mobility of the daily workforce. In recent years the City has reinvested in its downtown and surrounding districts to transform them into livable and sustainable centers for business, commercial entertainment and health care. Out of 29 major employers in Oklahoma City, nine are located within the greater downtown Oklahoma City area, three of which are located within the campus of the OHC.

Page 19: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally

Draft Alternatives Analysis Report Alternatives Analysis for Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Area

15

Transit service is provided on the Oklahoma University Health Science Center campus, which interlines with METRO transit service to circulate users within the employment center. The (OUHSC) Parking & Transportation Services Department provides a series of bus circulators around the campus to transport staff and visitors from designated parking areas to the various health service facilities around the 300-acre campus every 20 minutes. That system provides 800-1,000 passenger trips per day in 2011, and averaged 850 per day for the five month period of May through September, 2011. The METRO Transit Spirit Trolley vintage bus circulator service is primarily offered for tourism and entertainment based trips in a small area of Downtown. It does not serve the peak period work-based trips or the employment destinations and is not frequent. That system provided an average of 300 trips per weekday for the five month period of May through September, 2011, and Saturdays averaged 500.

Limited Mobility for Downtown Visitors One of the goals of the various redevelopment programs being implemented in the City of Oklahoma City is to attract more tourism and conventions. Today, downtown Oklahoma City hosts over 10 million visitors annually. Many of those visitors visit the Oklahoma City National Memorial, the Cox Convention Center, the Chesapeake Arena, and the Bricktown Ballpark and entertainment district. Due to the lack of a circulator service within downtown, tourists and conventioneers must use a taxi or personal vehicle to travel between parking garages, the convention center, or downtown hotels to tourist attractions within the study area. The implementation of a downtown circulator will encourage visitors to use the park-once principle or relieve them of needing a vehicle at all while they are visiting Greater Downtown Oklahoma City. While the majority of downtown visitors today and in the future will likely be business oriented, with the potential development of a major park and recreational facilities within the Core to Shore and Oklahoma River areas, the city is anticipating an increase in recreational trips to the study area. Planning for the future expansion of downtown transit circulator service to these areas will contribute to the success and growth of the tourism industry of Oklahoma City.

Page 20: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally

Draft Alternatives Analysis Report Alternatives Analysis for Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Area

16

Table 2-1: METRO Transit - Existing Fleet Operating Parameters

Route Name Frequency

Peak/Off-Peak (minutes)

Hours of Service Avg Daily Ridership†

1 Garden Day 30/60 5:40 am – 6:30 pm 160 2 Miramar 30/30 5:35 am – 7:15 pm 742 3 Park Estates 30/30 5:50 am – 7:30 pm 359 4 Belle Isle/NW 23rd & Walker 60/60 6:05 am – 6:25 pm 241 5 Quail Springs/NW 63rd & Western 30/45 6:20 am – 7:30 pm 824 7 NW 63rd & Independence 30/45 6:20 am – 7:35 pm 680 8 NW 63rd & Meridian 30/60 6:25 am – 7:10 pm 609 9 Reno Crosstown 60/60 5:45 am – 7:00 pm 327

10 North Portland 30/45 6:00 am – 7:45 pm 325 11 SW 44th & Independence/S. Meridian 75/90 5:45 am – 7:45 pm 165 12 SW 29th & May/OKCCC 30/30 5:45 am – 7:25 pm 638 13 Capitol Hill/South Western 40/40 5:45 am – 7:40 pm 427 14 SE 59th & Sunnylane 45/45 5:20 am – 7:50 pm 503 15 Midwest City 70/80 5:25 am – 7:50 pm 239 16 Exchange/SW 89th & Penn 30/60 6:10 am – 7:05 pm 351 18 State Capitol/Musgrave 60/60 6:05 am – 6:35 pm 268 19 Green Pastures/NE OK County 80/80 6:10 am – 7:20 pm 114 20 Crossroads Mall 60/60 6:15 am – 7:30 pm 250 22 ML King/Zoo 30/30 5:55 am – 7:30 pm 357 23 23rd Street Crosstown 25/25 4:55 am – 8:10 pm 1,082 24 Sooner Express 9 trips 6:15 am – 6:20 pm 59 38 Fairgrounds/NW 10th & Macarthur 30/45 5:45 am – 7:25 pm 544 40 South Walker 25/60 6:05 am – 7:30 pm 299

Oklahoma Spirit Trolley (Monday – Wednesday) 30/30 10:00 am – 8:00 pm 245 Oklahoma Spirit Trolley (Thursday – Saturday) 15/30 10:00 am – 11:00 pm

TOTAL 9,808 Source: METRO Transit, Central Oklahoma Transportation and Parking Authority, February 2010; CityLink Transit - Edmond, OK

† - Revenue year 2010 / 2011. Assumes 250 weekdays per year

Page 21: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally

Draft Alternatives Analysis Report Alternatives Analysis for Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Area

17

2.4 Desire for More Transit-Oriented Development, Sustainable Growth and Livability Oklahoma City was originally developed as a pedestrian-oriented, walkable city and expanded to grow outward along streetcar lines like most cities in the early 20th century. As a result, Downtown Oklahoma City inherently contains components of what is now known as transit-oriented development—a dense mixed-use central business district, mixed-use activity centers, and a pedestrian-friendly sidewalk pattern. Although the last half of the 20th century brought new investment downtown, it has also left many vacant and underutilized properties in the area. The local emphasis on improved public health and active living also contributes to the emerging local desire for improved livability. The transit planning process in Oklahoma City embraces the livability guiding principles of the partnership between the FTA, HUD, and EPA. Many of these principles are mutually supportive of TOD and sustainability such as promoting equitable and affordable housing, leveraging investment, supporting and valuing communities, providing more transportation choices, and enhancing economic competitiveness. Over last several decades, Greater Downtown Oklahoma City, has experienced a growing resurgence in greater downtown investment, development and planning for additional growth. Therefore, the City believes there is a need to serve existing transit-oriented development within downtown and to spur future transit-oriented development and livable communities within targeted growth areas.

Existing Transit-Oriented Development The following downtown districts as shown in Figure 1-1 are serviced by the Oklahoma Spirit Trolley, a rubber tire trolley circulator and could be characterized as existing TOD: Central Business District, Arts District, and Bricktown.

Business District The downtown business district, a dense concentration of public and private office buildings and parking garages, consists of a limited mix of shops, services, restaurants, and hotels. The Business District has a sidewalk network, pedestrian amenities, pocket parks and plazas that create a pleasant walking environment within the “heart” of Downtown Oklahoma City. Due to the density and mix of uses, this is a vibrant district during weekday business hours.

Bricktown

Oklahoma City’s primary entertainment destination is located in a former industrial area, the Bricktown district. Many warehouse buildings have been converted and re-used as restaurants, bars, and offices. New infill development produced restaurants, bars, hotels, apartments, movie theatre, and a minor league baseball stadium, as well as a riverwalk open space area. Due to the density and mix of uses, this district becomes a vibrant pedestrian environment during much of the day, particularly dining hours, late evenings, and weekends.

Arts District Oklahoma City’s “Arts District” contains a mix of destinations along the north, south and west sides of the Central Business District. The Cox Convention Center, Chesapeake Arena, and Myriad Gardens are located to the south. The City Hall, Museum of Art, and Civic Center Music Hall are located to the west. The Oklahoma City National Memorial and METRO Transit’s transit center are located immediately north of the Central Business District. There are a number of parking garages,

Page 22: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally

Draft Alternatives Analysis Report Alternatives Analysis for Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Area

18

as well as several hundred housing units, limited shops, offices and restaurants. Due to the specialized nature of these destinations, use and street activity are limited to peak periods.

Future Transit-Oriented Development Oklahoma City is positioned for future transit-oriented development (TOD) through recent district plans and special business district designations, as well as a comprehensive plan update that is currently underway. The union of the City’s plans, policies, and incentives could be influential in directing future growth into a sustainable transit-oriented development pattern. Based on the City’s plans and public/private investments, the following districts and activity centers as shown in Figure 1-1 are evident targets for future TOD due to the potential for additional reinvestment and redevelopment of underutilized buildings, parking lots, and vacant properties.

Automobile Alley Many historic automobile showrooms and warehouses have been converted to mixed-use office and limited retail and restaurants. Parking lots and underutilized buildings provide opportunities for future growth, particularly if a circulator runs along Broadway.

Deep Deuce This residential neighborhood contains a mix of a few neighborhood restaurants and new townhomes and condominium buildings, including additional residential development currently under construction or planned. This residential neighborhood also contains vacant properties and room for future growth.

“Core to Shore” The City is developing a large, Central Park, to serve as a catalyst for new development and neighborhood planning efforts to promote pedestrian-oriented residential communities with sustainable commercial and retail development. The district is also often suggested to be anchored by a new, MAPS funded convention center.

Midtown (St. Anthony Hospital) St. Anthony Hospital, an institutional destination located within the Midtown District, has invested in its campus and purchased vacant properties for future expansion. A vibrant restaurant area is located near the hospital, and has become a downtown dining destination. The surrounding neighborhood contains a mix of office and residential uses, as well as vacant and underutilized properties that offer opportunities for future growth.

Oklahoma Health Center The University of Oklahoma Health Center (OUHC), one of the largest employment destinations within the city, is a large medical campus with specialized hospitals, higher education facilities, and research facilities. Although this medical campus contains many surface parking lots, the primary streets (13th, 10th, Stanton L. Young, Stonewall) have sidewalks, street trees, and primary building entrances abutting the sidewalk.

State Capitol The Oklahoma State Capitol complex is the governmental center of the state and an employment destination for state employees and elected officials but also draws representatives with business interests in the state. The area also includes other destinations such as the State’s history museum and the City-County Health Department.

Page 23: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally

Draft Alternatives Analysis Report Alternatives Analysis for Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Area

19

CHAPTER 3 - ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

Introduction The Central Oklahoma Transit and Parking Authority (COTPA) have developed several mode technology, alignment alternatives and transit facility improvements to existing transit service provided to the Greater Downtown Oklahoma City residents, workers and visitors. These alternatives shall be referred to as the No-Build, TSM/Baseline and Build Alternatives. All No Build Alternative improvements are assumed to be in operation by the year 2013, while the TSM and Build Alternatives area assumed to be deployed and operating by 2017. What follows is a summary description of each alternative and its components. A detailed description of each alternative is also available in the Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Definition of Alternatives and Operating Strategies Report (July 2011). These Alternatives are subject to revision during the Design and Engineering process as additional information and constraints are identified. 3.1 Definition of Alternatives COTPA, with input from the public as well as local supporting and advisory committees, considered alternative service modes based on current conditions, previous studies, regional transportation needs, and development potential. The preliminary service alternatives evaluated for the Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Circulator included: a No-Build Alternative, a Rapid Bus Circulator Baseline/TSM Alternative and a Modern Streetcar Build Alternative. Conceptual program schedules developed to guide the financial planning of the Greater Oklahoma City Downtown Circulator assume that the TSM or Build circulator system will be in operation by 2017. No-Build Alternative The No-Build Alternative consists of existing METRO Transit service provided within the study area as well as committed transportation improvements identified by COTPA and officially adopted into the fiscally constrained regional Long Range Transportation Plan. The No-Build Alternative establishes a foundation from which the TSM/Baseline and Build Alternatives are developed and evaluated through the AA process. TSM/Baseline Alternative The TSM/Baseline Alternative is defined as the “best that can be done” to improve transit service in the study area without a major capital investment in new infrastructure. For the Greater Downtown Oklahoma City study area, the Baseline Alternative will consist of all transit improvements contained within the No-Build Alternative along with an investment in new bus circulator service operating at consistent 8-12 minute headways connecting study area origins, destinations and activity centers. This alternative will utilize low floor, 30 foot, clean diesel buses operating in mixed use traffic within the existing right-of-way (ROW) of major arterials within the study area. Additional features of the TSM/Baseline Alternative include:

Extended hours of revenue service operations Increased service frequency to an average of ten minutes Branded bus stops with enhancements such as improved shelters and amenities, real time

vehicle arrival displays and public art Branded, low-floor, clean diesel buses with automated passenger counters and voice

enunciation of stops Pedestrian improvements around transit stops to improve circulation and safety

Page 24: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally

Draft Alternatives Analysis Report Alternatives Analysis for Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Area

20

The Baseline/TSM Alternative includes improved frequency and span of service. Weekday streetcar circulator service in downtown Oklahoma City would operate from approximately:

• 6:00 am to 9:00 pm Monday - Wednesday; • 6:00 am to 12:00 am on Thursday and Friday; • 9:00 am to 12:00 am Saturday; and • 9:00 am to 6:00 pm Sunday.

Build Alternative The Build Alternative is a major capital investment for improvements to transit service in the study area. This alternative consists of all transit improvements identified within the No-Build and TSM/Baseline Alternatives, but utilizes an alternative mode of transportation to that identified in the TSM/Baseline Alternative. This alternative will maintain consistent 8-12 minute headways throughout the hours of operation, providing connecting downtown circulator service for districts within Greater Downtown Oklahoma City. Additional features of the Build Alternative will include:

Extended hours of revenue service operations Increased service frequency to an average of ten minutes Branded stations with enhancements such as improved shelters and amenities, real time

vehicle arrival displays and public art Branded, low-floor, electric-powered modern streetcars with automated passenger counters

and voice enunciation of stops Traffic signal modifications for protection during vehicle turning movements Pedestrian improvements around station areas to improve circulation and safety

The Build Alternative includes improved frequency and span of service. Weekday streetcar circulator service in downtown Oklahoma City would operate from approximately:

• 6:00 am to 9:00 pm Monday - Wednesday; • 6:00 am to 12:00 am on Thursday and Friday; • 9:00 am to 12:00 am Saturday; and • 9:00 am to 6:00 pm Sunday.

As both alternatives are assumed to operate in mixed use travel lanes with stop frequency every 2 to 3 blocks on a fare free circulator, only minor variations in station to station operations have been identified. The potential impact to transit vehicle travel time from these variations (listed below) is assumed to be negligible.

• “Transit Only” traffic signal phase at select, Build Alternative turning movements • Multiple door boarding/alighting of Modern Streetcar vehicles versus front door

boarding/alighting only for bus circulator vehicles • Differences in vehicle acceleration and deceleration curves. • Changes to automobile driver behavior to avoid travel lanes with embedded rail used for

streetcar Traffic Signal Priority (TSP) technology was not employed as part of the TSM or Build Alternatives during this Alternatives Analysis. Due to the low levels of traffic congestion in downtown Oklahoma City as well as the frequency of circulator stops (approximately every 2-3 blocks), it was perceived that minimal improvements to travel time may be achieved by implementing this technology and no adverse mobility impacts of non-inclusion were identified.

Page 25: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally

Draft Alternatives Analysis Report Alternatives Analysis for Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Area

21

Motorists may also change driving habits from traveling in the outer travel lanes as they become accustomed to regular, more frequent transit trips and streetcar operations in the downtown area. COTPA also had concerns of potential negative impacts to the existing traffic patterns and intersection performance with implementation of TSP without proper integration into a downtown signal master plan. As Oklahoma City does not currently (or plan to) utilize a signal timing plan for its downtown arterials, the breadth and cost of implementing such a plan must be considered out of the scope of this project. For comparative analysis and evaluation purposes, the TSM and Build Alternative improvements are differentiated by measures associated with the transit supportive infrastructure improvements required by each transit mode. 3.2 Description of Locally Preferred Alternative Improvements The Build Alternative includes fixed guideway improvements for the deployment of modern streetcar technology. This alternative will utilize an embedded track, fixed guideway system to operate articulated modern streetcar vehicles along the curbside lane of the existing right-of-way (ROW) of roadways within the study area. The system will be powered by overhead catenary lines installed above the guideway along the alignment. Existing conditions such as vertical clearance constraints and potential aesthetic impacts have also promoted the potential use of wireless streetcar vehicles. Such vehicles may feature compressed natural gas (CNG) combustion motor or hybrid battery / fuel cell technology, each partially powering the streetcar via an electric motor. Modern Streetcar technology has passenger capacity and operating characteristics approaching those of light rail systems with predominately on-street, at-grade operation. Vehicles and power systems are generally lower in cost than higher speed, higher capacity light rail systems. 3.2.1 LPA Alignment The locally preferred downtown circulator alignment developed by COTPA and METRO Transit staff proposes to implement a 7.7 track-mile modern streetcar improvement project within Greater Downtown Oklahoma City and is illustrated in Figure 1-7. These conceptual circulator system plans are proposed to operate as two independent segments. While both segments will allow for direct connectivity with the Downtown Transit Center on NW 4th Street, one segment will provide direct connectivity among the Midtown, Business (Downtown) and Bricktown Districts, while the other segment will connect the Business District with the Oklahoma Health Center (OHC). Midtown – Downtown – Bricktown Districts Beginning in the far Southwest corner of the LPA alignment (Figure 2-1) at Robinson Avenue and Reno Avenue, the alignment travels north along Robinson Avenue to NW 11th Street, connecting the Downtown Business and Midtown Districts. The circulator will travel west along 11th Street and north along Dewey Avenue, turning east along NW 13th Street. Southbound operations will be conducted along Broadway Avenue to Sheridan Avenue. Continuing south to connect the Downtown and Bricktown Districts, the southbound alignment turns east along Sheridan Avenue. Transit service in the Bricktown area is provided via a roadway couplet of Sheridan and Reno Avenues. Vehicles are envisioned to travel east along Sheridan Avenue, south along Stiles Avenue, west on Reno Avenue to reach Robinson and return northbound.

Page 26: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally

Draft Alternatives Analysis Report Alternatives Analysis for Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Area

22

This alignment may directly interface with the downtown transit center, via turnouts at Robinson Avenue and NW 4th Street, during northbound trips along Robinson. Downtown District to OHC The DTC is the western terminal point of this circulator line of service, with double track extending east along NW 4th Street to Lincoln Boulevard immediately east of IH-235. This alignment will travel north/south with double track along Lincoln Avenue, east/west with double track along NE 8th Street and north/south with single track on Phillips Avenue to reach the other terminus at Phillips Avenue and NE 13th Street on the campus of the Oklahoma Health Center. See Figure 3-1 and Appendix Afor further information. 3.2.2 Roadway Modifications The placement of a fixed guideway transit solution will require significant investment to improve the existing roadway facilities which will be used as the alignment for streetcar service. Structures and facilities needed to support streetcar constructed within the existing street ROW may require changes to traffic patterns, roadway geometry or existing elements. Potential conflicts, impacts and mitigation strategies to existing roadway conditions are described within this section. Embedded track In order to install embedded track along the proposed Build alignment, a roughly 10 foot width section of the existing roadway will be excavated approximately 12 to 14 inches. Depth of excavation will vary depending upon the existing roadway sub-structure. It may be necessary to remove and replace additional pavement so as not to create an excessive transition slope between the existing pavement and the new pavement. Intersections with valley gutters may require significant reconstruction along with additional drainage improvements to accommodate the straight grade of the rail. Track will be placed 4’-81/2” feet apart and centered within the existing travel lanes so that streetcar vehicles’ dynamic envelope will not encroach upon adjacent lanes when traveling in mixed traffic. Where planned streetcar routes coincide with streets programmed to be rebuilt in Project 180, significant costs could be saved if the new street design is prepared to accommodate the streetcar. As the streetcar circulator will be operating in the outer (right) travel lane, it must perform all turning movements from this lane as well to avoid traversing multiple lanes of traffic to reach a designated turn lane. A special signal phase is required to allow for left turns by Modern Streetcar vehicles at intersections where these movements will occur. The traffic signals will be programmed to include a “transit only” phase to allow left turns from the right hand lane of the circulator route when triggered by approaching streetcar vehicles. This phase may be actuated by embedded loops or wireless “remote” technology. Locations where “transit only” signal phases were found to be required for streetcar operations are:

• SB Broadway Avenue to EB Sheridan Avenue • NB Robinson Avenue to WB NW 11th Street • EB NE 4th Avenue to NB Lincoln Boulevard • WB NE 8th Street to SB Lincoln Boulevard

Page 27: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally

Draft Alternatives Analysis Report Alternatives Analysis for Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Area

23

A rail turnout, or switch, is a short segment or rail enabling trains to be guided from one track to another at a junction point. The Greater Downtown OKC Circulator is envisioned to operate as two independent lines; one circulating around the DT Core and the other connecting the OHC to the DT Core via its end-of-line stop at Downtown Transit Center. As the LPA is envisioned as the initial phase of a larger future fixed-guideway system, intermodal and multimodal connectivity will be maintained for all existing transit riders and facilities. Final transit and traffic operations into and surrounding the Downtown Transit Center will be determined during further Environmental Scoping and Project Development. With the proposed locations of the vehicle storage and maintenance facility locate in the Bricktown District, streetcar vehicles destined to operate along the DT – OHC line must utilize the DT Core line to get to and from the end of line at the beginning and end of service. Transit only signal phases will be required at these locations to allow Modern Streetcar vehicles to safely cross travel lanes and complete turning movements. Fixed guideway turnouts will be constructed at the following points of intersection of the DT Core and DT – OHC circulator lines to allow for vehicles to interchange between the independent lines for beginning and ending revenue service:

• Robinson Avenue and NW 4th Street • Broadway Avenue and NW 4th Street

Pinched track situations occur when multiple fixed rail lines are operating bi-directionally along a single roadway and converge to a single track configuration. The rail alignment may be configured in one of two ways in order to merge the two parallel tracks to a single track alignment. As both fixed guideways will be positioned in the outer most travel lanes, one line of track must cross all lanes of traffic to merge with the other or both lines may converge in the roadway median to continue without interrupting traffic operations or causing a contraflow situation. Transit-only signal phases will be required at these locations to allow Modern Streetcar vehicles to safely cross travel lanes and merge. Two locations have been identified within the LPA alignment where this occurs:

• NW 4th Street, West of Hudson Avenue The convergence at the Downtown Transit Center at 4th and Hudson will also require a small portion of the outermost Westbound travel lane (West of Hudson Avenue) to be precluded from automobile traffic. Approximately 100’ – 200’ of the outermost curbside westbound travel lanes must be vacated for implementing an exclusive, dedicated guideway for bi-directional streetcar operations servicing the Transit Center.

• NE 8th Street and Phillips Avenue The OHC – DT LPA alignment was selected to be a dual track guideway along 4th & 8th Streets, as well as Lincoln Boulevard. The alignment along Phillips Avenue, however, was selected to remain a single track guideway. As such, it may operate in the median of Phillips Avenue or required the transition of an existing travel lane to a transit only lane to allow for potential future expansion to points beyond. The bi-directional fixed guideways converge at the intersection of NE 8th Street and Phillips Avenue as the alignment makes the turn north and continues along Phillips Avenue.

The plan view of the preliminary track layout based on the Locally Preferred Alignment can be found in Appendix A. These conceptual sheets present a detailed fixed guideway alignment and will be refined and augmented during the environmental phase to reflect details not yet identified. These details include the special trackwork needed so the LPA Core Alignment can reach the DTC, the tracks to the maintenance facility, crossover and short cut tracks, and so forth.

Page 28: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally

Draft Alternatives Analysis Report Alternatives Analysis for Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Area

24

Impacts to Existing Utilities Underground utilities under the downtown roadways may be disturbed by construction of the embedded track fixed guideway. Complete reconstruction of one curbside travel lane, per direction of travel, will be performed to install the embedded rail and duct banks as well as relocating existing utilities, and stray current protection for metallic structures. Coordination with current Project 180 street reconstruction is being conducted to determine potential impacts of installing streetcar along the curb lane of major downtown streets. Analysis of the existing conditions showed that those utilities located within a 4 – 10 feet radius of embedded track centerline may be at risk of electromagnetic interference or stray current corrosion. Certain utilities may require relocation to avoid being placed under the concrete track slab for either stray current or access reasons. Return current is direct current (DC) traveling through the embedded steel rail in order to travel back to the nearest substation and complete the circuit. While traveling along the rail or conduit, some of the return current can “stray” and be dissipated through the surrounding subsurface. Stray current in proximity to underground metallic utilities can be harmful to nearby conductors, as it can cause deterioration to utility pipes and corrosion of metallic structures though electrolysis. The potential effects of stray current will be mitigated through solutions such as neoprene encasement for steel rail and closely spaced substations. Additional vibration caused by streetcar on embedded tracks may impact nearby utilities or structures. Vibratory insulation measures may be incorporated during the construction of the fixed guideway to mitigate potential impacts of additional vibrations. 3.2.3 Traffic Operations Through future identification of engineering design and environmental constraints, the preferred alignment alternative may recommend utilizing a single-track segment to provide two-way streetcar service. If so, provisions must be made to ensure that each streetcar vehicle can make a successful trip to the end of the single track section and return to the dual-track configuration prior to the arrival of the next vehicle. It will be imperative to maintain temporal separation between successive vehicles passing though the pinch point where dual track operations transition to the single-track segment. Bi-directional operations on a single track segment will be limited to a single-track distance which allows for a successful round trip within the prescribed Build Alternative headways of 8 – 12 minutes. For example, the preferred alternative alignment shown Figure 3-1 in illustrates a single track alignment segment along NE 8th Street and Phillips Avenue. The streetcar is envisioned to operate within a dedicated transit lane in the existing median along NE 8th Street and along one of the curbside travel lanes of Phillips Avenue. Additional analysis will have to be conducted to mitigate impacts to roadway capacity and level of service. COTPA will coordinate any such analysis with the City of Oklahoma City Public Works Department. 3.2.4 Right-of-Way Modern Streetcar Build Alternative vehicles are envisioned to operate within existing streets and right-of-way (ROW), running in mixed-use traffic in the outermost travel lane. The LPA will not require the expansion of the roadway and significant acquisition of additional ROW.

Page 29: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally

Draft Alternatives Analysis Report Alternatives Analysis for Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Area

25

The turning radius required for the preferred Modern Streetcar vehicles (approximately 82 feet desired; 60 feet minimum) may result in “corner clips” at intersections where the alignment makes right turns from the outer travel lanes. Preliminary LPA alignment plans (Appendix A) have identified locations where potential ROW impacts (public or private) have been identified due to turning movements:

• NE corner of Robinson Avenue and Reno Avenue • SE corner of Dewey Avenue and NW 13th Street • SW corner of Broadway Avenue and NW 13th Street • SW corner of Sheridan Avenue and Styles (Joe Carter) Avenue • NW corner of Reno Avenue and Styles (Joe Carter) Avenue • NW corner of Lincoln Boulevard and NE 4th Street • SE corner of Lincoln Boulevard and NE 8th Street • NW corner of Phillips Avenue and NE 8th Street

Conceptual LPA alignment plans include turnouts proposed to connect the DT Core alignment with the DT – OHC Alignment at their junction points of Broadway Avenue at 4th Street and Robinson Avenue at 4th Street (sheets 18-19 of Appendix A). These turnouts are to be utilized during the beginning and end of service, for vehicles to travel to-and-from positions along the DT – OHC Alignment and the proposed storage and maintenance facility site in Bricktown; as well as for direct service to the Downtown Transit Center as needed. The minimum Modern Streetcar turning radius requirements may result in similar “corner clip” impacts to public or private property owners. Other ROW acquisition may be necessary for electrical substations and for the maintenance facility. Existing publicly owned property may be used as sites for the substations and maintenance facility. Substations may be located in COTPA parking garages or other city-owned property in close proximity to the alignment. A new site for construction of a Modern Streetcar operations, vehicle storage and maintenance facility has not yet been selected. Multiple locations have tentatively been proposed for consideration as additional environmental analysis and design information are developed. The parcel(s) identified for construction of the new facility may be City-owned or require acquisition from a third party owner. Proposed facility locations are shown in Figure 1-7. The three candidate sites identified for the maintenance facility include two sites that are already in public ownership. Potential sites of the storage, maintenance and operations facility are:

1) City owned parking lot northeast of the corner of Oklahoma Avenue and E Main Street. 2) Vacant parcel adjacent to the new Bricktown Fire Station at Sheridan Avenue and Byers

Avenue 3) Vacant parcel adjacent to IH-235, northeast of the intersection of Reno Avenue and Lincoln

Boulevard Any impacts to privately owned properties will be identified during the Environmental Scoping phase of the NEPA process. Potential impacts and mitigating measures will be developed in further detail during this analysis phase in accordance with all local, state and Federal regulations.

Page 30: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally

Draft Alternatives Analysis Report Alternatives Analysis for Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Area

26

3.2.5 Enhanced Transit Stations Transit stops built to accommodate modern streetcar vehicles will be constructed at designated locations along the locally preferred alignment. Streetcar stop improvements within the study area will make pedestrian access and stop amenities a priority component of the transit circulator system. Desired station spacing is approximately every 2 to 3 blocks, with typical block lengths ranging from 300 to 450 feet in the Downtown Oklahoma City study area. (See Figure 3-1 and Appendix A for preliminary circulator stop locations) Streetcar stops will be shared with fixed route bus service where possible. In order to promote intermodal connectivity, existing bus stops may be relocated to be coincident with streetcar stops. Development of modifications to fixed route bus stops will be performed during the Preliminary Engineering phase of project development.

Figure 3-1: Preliminary Downtown Circulator Alignment and Stops

Each of the stops will include, but are not limited to, the following improvements:

Branded shelters and signage, with bicycle racks, enhanced lighting, security and seating Expanded ITS deployment including: “Next Vehicle” type arrival system for the streetcar

circulator and improved transit system mapping Pedestrian crossing protection and crosswalk restriping improvements at stop areas

Page 31: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally

Draft Alternatives Analysis Report Alternatives Analysis for Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Area

27

Table 3-1 identifies the proposed LPA circulator stops, beginning in the far Southwest corner of each alignment, proceeding in a clockwise direction. Although the LPA adopted by the COTPA Board contains alignment variations (identified during the AA as the “Downtown Crossover” and “Boulevard Loop”) for further consideration prior to entry into Project Development, the METRO Transit preferred operating scenario are illustrated in Figure 3-1 and Table 3-1.

Table 3-1: Proposed Build Alternative Stop Locations Stop # Mainline Cross-Street

DT Core: Midtown-Downtown (Business)-Bricktown 1 Robinson Ave Sheridan Ave 2 Robinson Ave Park Ave 3 Robinson Ave NW 3rd St (Dean McGee) 4 NW 4th St Hudson Ave (Transit Center) 5 Robinson Ave NW 4th / 5th St (midblock) 6 Robinson Ave NW 6th St 7 Robinson Ave NW 9th St 8 Robinson Ave N. Broadway Circle / NW 11th St 9 NW 11th St Hudson Ave 10 NW 11th St Claussen / Dewey Ave 11 NW 13th St Harvey Ave 12 NW 13th St Walker Ave 13 Broadway Ave NW 11th St 14 Broadway Ave NW 9th / 10th St (midblock) 15 Broadway Ave NW 6th St 16 Broadway Ave NW 4th St 17 Broadway Ave Park Ave 18 Sheridan Ave EK Gaylord Blvd (Santa Fe station) 19 Sheridan Ave EK Gaylord Blvd (E of BNSF line) 20 Sheridan Ave Mickey Mantle Dr / N. Central Ave (midblock 21 Reno Ave Stiles (Joe Carter) Ave 22 Reno Ave Mickey Mantle Dr 23 Reno Ave E Gaylord Blvd 24 Reno Ave Robinson Ave

Downtown (Business)-Oklahoma Health Center (OHC) 1 NW 4th St Hudson Ave (Transit Center) 2 NW 4th St Robinson Ave 3 NE 4th St Walnut Ave 4 NE 8th St Lincoln Blvd 5 Phillips Ave NE 10th St 6 Phillips Ave NE 13th St (end of line) 7 Lincoln Blvd NE 8th St 8 NE 4th St Oklahoma Ave 9 NW 4th St Broadway Ave

Enhanced stop and shelter improvements will provide more comfortable waiting areas for transit users as well as enhanced visibility, security and pedestrian accessibility. The addition of real-time transit arrival updates for the circulator and the route system maps/scheduling will improve user

Page 32: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally

Draft Alternatives Analysis Report Alternatives Analysis for Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Area

28

confidence by allowing users to make more informed travel decisions and removing uncertainty for timeliness and transfers. Pedestrian enhancement at intersection approaches provides corridor beautification and improves pedestrian/bicycle crossing protection by increasing driver awareness. The pedestrian improvements at stop areas are planned to complement the Project 180 upgrades and consistent with all City of Oklahoma City urban design criteria. As Project 180 construction may potentially be ongoing concurrent with Build Alternative design development, allowances for some improvements within the Project 180 area may be coordinated to be implemented within the scope of the urban enhancement project. 3.2.6 Power and electrification As modern streetcar vehicles are powered by electricity, the power supply for the system is brought from the local electric utility’s distribution network. Electricity is then supplied through localized electric substations and to the overhead wires or other sources, which drive the vehicles’ electrical motors. Substations Electricity is distributed from the utility source in the form of alternating current (AC), but must be converted to direct current (DC) in order to be used by the streetcar vehicles. To accomplish this, traction electrification system (TES) substations must be installed along the preferred alignment to maintain a sufficient, usable voltage supply to the system. Since voltage is a function of resistance, the size of conducting material, distance separating proposed substations and number of vehicles operating within the section will determine the voltage distribution needs of each substation. The size of a TES substation depends on the number of transformers required to supply the voltage needs of the system and the distance between other substations. Typical substation spacing assumed for Alternatives Analysis is approximately 0.5 miles. Anticipated power demand for each substation in this configuration is approximately 250 KW – 300 KW, yielding a required footprint of 375 – 400 ft2. Design of substations and their footprints will be developed so as to minimize ROW requirements and simplify integration into the existing electrical grid. In many cases these can be located in a parking garage or on other existing city-owned or other public property. Overhead Contact Systems (OCS) Overhead electrification may be provided by one of two common configurations: trolley wire or a catenary. A simple, trolley wire configuration is a single wire hung from pole to pole adjacent to the streetcar alignment providing a contact surface for the pole or pantograph. If sufficient current cannot be supplied to the system via OCS, additional conduit may be buried parallel to the alignment and connect the substations to the overhead wires at regular intervals. These feeder cables can also be used as the “ground” of the electrical circuit by returning current to the substations instead of dissipating though the subsurface surrounding the rail. Typical minimum contact wire height above mixed-traffic roadways under worst case conditions is 16 – 18 feet, with a usual design height of 19 feet above the guideway. This dimension is regulated by the National Electrical Safety Code. An absolute minimum height of approximately 14 feet may be attainable at roadway infrastructure underpasses, with the installation of an exclusive, transit-only dedicated lane through the bridge underpass. As such, restrictions on truck and other private

Page 33: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally

Draft Alternatives Analysis Report Alternatives Analysis for Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Area

29

traffic at those locations may need to be implemented and enforced. Such a solution is only viable for the Build Alternative Modern Streetcar, as circulator buses of the TSM Alternative are not impacted by the existing vertical clearance at these locations. Existing facility impacts of structures for OH contact lines adjacent to the selected alignment as well as the minimum horizontal and vertical clearances required for safety will be important factors in determining the optimal service alignment and minimizing additional risks of construction. Placement of overhead electrification equipment depends upon the operational design of the streetcar system. When the alignment travels down the median of a divided roadway the OCS hardware may be oriented to serve vehicles traveling in both directions within the median. This may require reduction of adjacent travel lane widths or removal of a travel lane in order to prevent encroachment upon adjacent properties. If vehicles are intended to travel within the curbside lane of traffic, the OCS is generally constructed along the sidewalk adjacent to the alignment. OCS poles are placed behind the back of curb. Horizontal clearance for pedestrian and bicyclists can be easily achieved through used of longer hanger arms or placing the pole closer to the back of curb in situations where sidewalk width is already at a minimum. ADA requirements need to be considered when placing poles to allow for adequate sidewalk width. 3.2.7 Vehicle Storage, Maintenance and Operations A new streetcar operating and maintenance facility will be needed to accommodate the streetcar service. METRO Transit’s current bus operating and maintenance facility at 2000 South May Avenue is not able to be expanded to accommodate Modern /streetcar maintenance facility needs and is too far from the proposed streetcar alignment to construct additional guideway for non-revenue operations. A centrally located site for a new, Modern Streetcar operating and maintenance facility will be located during Project Development. A specific site for the streetcar maintenance facility has not yet been identified. Ideally, the location of the yard will be near the end of the line to reduce unnecessary deadhead time and to help maintain the reliability of the service. The facility will include storage track, maintenance bays with pit and overhead crane, a vehicle wash facility, spare parts storage, and shop space. In addition, the site would need to be large enough to store spare streetcar vehicles, vehicle and wayside materials and equipment (including fare-collection / passenger Information and communications equip), with administrative office space to accommodate streetcar system operations & dispatch staff. Although the initial phase of the Build Alternative will require approximately 11 vehicles, provisions must be made in the facility trackwork, storage and maintenance spaces to allow for future expansion. Peer city review of storage, maintenance and operational needs dictated by the introduction of fixed guideway streetcar services shows suggests that approximately 10,000 to 15,000 SF of indoor facility space is need. The site location selected for construction of the operations, storage and maintenance shall have a minimum of one acre available for immediate development and should have another acre to accommodate system expansion.

Page 34: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally

Draft Alternatives Analysis Report Alternatives Analysis for Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Area

30

CHAPTER 4 - MODE TECHNOLOGY AND ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes The FTA provides technical guidance documents to assist communities in evaluating alternatives. The FTA guidance states that there are several approaches to consider in the evaluation of major transit alternatives. Based on a review of previous AA studies, the FTA found that evaluation methods range from a free-form discussion of options to a very structured and elaborate analysis. As a result, the FTA recommends a combination of informed local judgment and structured analysis. COTPA developed and defined local criteria to be used for the evaluation of the technology mode alternatives for providing transit circulator service within the greater downtown area. The technology mode alternative evaluation utilized both qualitative and quantitative measures to assess the potential benefits of implementation of No Build, TSM/Baseline and Build Alternative technologies. 4.1.1 Ridership The No Build Alternative does not provide any improved downtown circulator service to increase current ridership levels. The TSM / Baseline and Build Alternatives introduce rapid transit circulators operating daily at average headways of 10 minutes and are assumed to generate new riders. Both alternatives were also envisioned operating in mixed traffic and under the same assumed average travel speed of approximately 8 mph throughout the study area. 2017 travel demand and transit ridership forecasts were completed for a No Build scenario and eight (8) potential alignment alternatives representing the TSM and Build Alternatives. Underlying simulation methods and results are found in the Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Ridership Forecasting Methods and Results Report (July 2011). Background bus assumptions stem from the Greater Downtown OKC Definition of Alternatives and Operating Plan (July 2011). It is worth noting that the scenarios all projected from 900 to about 1,300 passenger trips per day if the Downtown Core and OHC were connected by the circulator service. DT Core alignments which directly access the existing Transit Center at NW 4th and Hudson also perform project approximately 200 – 300 additional riders over scenarios relying on a transfer between the DT Core and OHC lines to reach the DTC. Within these reports, it is suggested that no appreciable change in travel time is expected between the Baseline/TSM and Build Alternatives, as both alternatives incorporate the same mobility improvements (outside of the mode difference of bus versus modern streetcar) and operate at the same proposed average speed. As such, ridership forecasts were conducted to identify potential ridership differences between alignment alternatives only. The forecast results for the alignment alternative which most closely follows the LPA alignment (scenario 7) are discussed within this evaluation. Evaluation Criteria:

• Good (+1): significant ridership generated by alternative (≥ 2000 per day) • Fair/Neutral (0): moderate ridership generated by alternative (500 ≤ x < 2000 per day) • Poor (-1): minimal ridership generated by alternative (< 500 per day)

Page 35: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally

Draft Alternatives Analysis Report Alternatives Analysis for Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Area

31

MEASURE NO BUILD TSM / BASELINE BUILD

Circulator Ridership 0 964 964 Scoring -1 0 0 Since there is no clear distinction between transit mode or its ability to generate new ridership and each alternative provides the same new service operating parameters, both the TSM and Build Alternative were rated neutral. 4.1.2 Capital Cost Capital cost evaluation of technology mode alternatives was conducted based on projected cost per vehicle and supporting infrastructure needs. The No Build Alternative improvements currently adopted by the City of Oklahoma City continued operations of transit at current levels with new bus replacement phased according to their adopted vehicle replacement plan. The TSM Alternative requires purchase of additional clean fuel buses, valued at approximately $450 K per vehicle, while the approximate cost per modern streetcar vehicle is $3.5 M to $4.5 M, dependent upon the type of vehicle and propulsion system selected. Evaluation Criteria:

• Good (+1): No additional capital expenditure required • Fair/Neutral (0): Moderate additional capital expenditure required (< $ 1 M per vehicle) • Poor (-1): Significant additional capital expenditure required (> $1 M per vehicle)

MEASURE NO BUILD TSM / BASELINE BUILD

Capital Cost (per vehicle) $0 $450 K $4.5 M Scoring +1 0 -1 Based on conceptual capital cost estimates, the potential cost difference per vehicle between technology modes is approximately a full order of magnitude (10x). Significant infrastructure improvements are also needed to deploy modern streetcar technology, including, but not limited to: embedded rail, electrification support structures and substations Implementation of the modern streetcar Build alternative will also require construction of a new vehicle maintenance and storage facility to support the new rail vehicles. 4.1.3 Land Use and Economic Development According to current guidelines, the FTA does not take into account any difference between transit mode alternatives (bus versus rail transit) on existing land use and economic development. Therefore, the transit mode alternatives were qualitatively ranked according to whether they provide increased accessibility and frequency of service, which could provide opportunities for more transit supportive development adjacent to stations along the alignment.

Page 36: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally

Draft Alternatives Analysis Report Alternatives Analysis for Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Area

32

Evaluation Criteria:

• Good (+1): The alternative provides increased accessibility and frequency of service, and thereby helps improve opportunities for more transit supportive land uses.

• Fair/Neutral (0): The alternative does not provide increased accessibility and frequency of service, and thereby does not improve opportunities for more transit supportive land uses.

• Poor (-1): The alternative diminishes accessibility and frequency of service, and thereby reduces opportunities for more transit supportive land uses

MEASURE NO BUILD TSM / BASELINE BUILD

Land Use & Economic Development 0 +1 +1 The TSM and the Build Alternatives would provide increased accessibility and frequency of service and serve the study area better than the No-Build. As a result, these transit mode alternatives would help improve opportunities for more transit supportive land uses and were rated positively 4.1.4 Air Quality As the City of Oklahoma City continues to strive to maintain compliance with Federal air quality standards, the deployment of new transit services must be environmentally sustainable. The air quality evaluation was performed based on potential addition of vehicle emissions to the levels currently produced by transit service operations. Evaluation Criteria:

• Good (+1): Alternative technology directly reduces emissions generated by transit service • Fair/Neutral (0): Alternative technology has little to no impact on current emissions

generated by transit service • Poor (-1): Alternative technology directly increases emissions generated by transit service

MEASURE NO BUILD TSM / BASELINE BUILD

Air Quality 0 +1 +1 The No Build Alternative is assumed to maintain the existing level of emissions generated by transit services. The TSM Alternative, rapid bus circulator vehicles, is envisioned to use clean diesel fuel technology and will produce fewer emissions than COTPA’s standard diesel buses. Modern streetcar vehicles that will be deployed as part of the Build Alternative will be purely electrified or, possibly, hybrid-technology propelled, and will produce fewer emissions than COTPA’s standard diesel buses. 4.1.5 Public Acceptability The evaluation of public acceptance was based on input received from the AA Steering Committee, MAPS 3 Streetcar/Modern Transit Subcommittee, and citizens and stakeholders during public meetings Evaluation Criteria:

• Good (+1): More favorable preference toward alternative among public and stakeholders

Page 37: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally

Draft Alternatives Analysis Report Alternatives Analysis for Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Area

33

• Fair/Neutral (0): Minor preference toward alternative among public and stakeholders • Poor (-1): Negative reaction toward alternative among public and stakeholders

MEASURE NO BUILD TSM / BASELINE BUILD

Public Acceptability -1 0 +1 In a public meeting held on August 26, 2010, meeting attendees were asked to complete a comment card indicating their preferred technology mode alternative. Of the approximately thirty-five (35) comment cards completed, twenty three (23) participants preferred the Modern Streetcar vehicles, while twelve (12) identified the baseline bus circulator technology as their preferred mode. Zero participants elected the No Build Alternative. Following the presentation of the Tier I Alternatives Evaluation results at a public meeting held on March 31, 2011, attendees were again asked to express their preference on transit mode technologies; and responded with twenty one (21) out of twenty seven (27) attendees choosing Modern Streetcar and the remaining six (6) opting for bus. AA Steering Committee members were presented with the results of the Tier II Alternatives Evaluation on May 25, 2011 (Table 4-6). When asked to vote on their preferred technology mode alternative via secret ballot, sixteen (16) out of seventeen (17) committee members preferred Modern Streetcar and one (1) chose bus improvements. 4.1.6 Transit Mode Alternatives Evaluation Summary Table 4-1 summarizes the evaluation results of the transit mode alternatives from the preceding sections. Based on technology mode evaluation results, the rapid bus and modern streetcar alternatives were rated equally suitable meet the needs of mobility, connectivity and development needs of the study area. The strong favoritism expressed by the public and AA Steering Committee, however, led to the recommendation for the Modern Streetcar Build Alternative despite the significant capital cost increases associated.

Table 4-1: Summary Results of Transit Mode Alternatives Evaluation

No-Build Rapid Bus (Baseline)

Streetcar (Build)

Costs +1 0 -1

Ridership -1 0 0

Land Use/Economic Development 0 +1 +1

Air Quality 0 +1 +1

Public Acceptability -1 0 +1

TOTAL SCORE -1 +2 +2 Source: Jacobs Engineering

Page 38: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally

Draft Alternatives Analysis Report Alternatives Analysis for Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Area

34

4.2 Tier I Evaluation Utilizing a two-step process for evaluating the alternatives, the Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Alternatives Analysis encompassed both a qualitative, conceptual screening (Tier I) and detailed screening (Tier II). The Tier I evaluation is qualitative and quantitative in nature and seeks to eliminate alignment options that demonstrate fatal flaws, do not meet project goals, or do not exhibit public and stakeholder support. The Tier I Evaluation included a three-step refinement and evaluation process of alternatives. The first set of alternatives, or “basic alignments,” were developed from citizen input from the Let’s Talk Transit initiative. Let’s Talk Transit, initiated by COTPA, was initiated to Spring 2010 to engage public opinion and stakeholders on current public transportation topics in Greater Downtown Oklahoma City. The second set of alternatives, or “combined alignments,” represented combinations of the basic north-south and east-west alignments and were developed based on feedback from COTPA and the AA Steering Committee. The third set of alternatives, or “refined alignments,” were developed to simplify the decision-making process and focus on three major components: 1) the core of downtown; 2) the extensions for the Bricktown and Midtown/St. Anthony districts; and 3) the connection between downtown and the OHC. 4.2.1 Tier I Basic Alignments The first set of alternatives, or “basic alignments,” were developed from citizen input from the Let’s Talk Transit initiative. The series of meetings resulted in the development of seven north-south and seven east-west alignment alternatives. These 14 basic alignment alternatives were the basis for the alignment evaluation. Basic alignments alternatives, delineated into basic north/south and east/west alignment configurations, are listed below and depicted in Figures 4-1 and 4-2.

Basic Downtown Circulator Alignment Alternatives

North/South Alignment Alternatives

• NS-1 Walker/Hudson • NS-2 Hudson/Robinson • NS-3 Robinson/Broadway • NS-4 Broadway/E.K. Gaylord • NS-5 Mickey Mantle/Perry • NS-6 Walker/Broadway • NS-7 Lincoln

East/West Alignment Alternatives

• EW-1 Reno/Boulevard • EW-2 Sheridan/Reno • EW-3 Sheridan • EW-4 Park-Main/Sheridan • EW-5 4th/Kerr-2nd • EW-6 4th-Harrison • EW-7 10th/13th

Page 39: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally

Draft Alternatives Analysis Report Alternatives Analysis for Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Area

35

Figure 4-1: Basic North-South Alignment Alternatives

 

Page 40: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally

Draft Alternatives Analysis Report Alternatives Analysis for Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Area

36

Figure 4-2: Basic East-West Alignment Alternatives

 

Page 41: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally

Draft Alternatives Analysis Report Alternatives Analysis for Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Area

37

4.2.2 Tier I Basic Alignments Evaluation The local criteria, developed and defined by COTPA as a component of the AA study process, were designed to reflect the goals, objectives and the purpose and need of the AA study. The criteria were utilized for the Tier I evaluation of the alignment alternatives. The Tier I evaluation process provided the planning-level framework to analyze basic alignment alternatives. The application of criteria and measures was intended to isolate the major differences between the alternatives. As a result, the evaluation process helped facilitate the selection of alternatives that best met the study’s identified goals and needs to be further analyzed, and to dismiss less desirable alternatives from further consideration. The Tier I evaluation criteria include:

• Serving Key Destinations • Connectivity • Economic Development • Implementation • Operations and Service

During the Tier I screening process, these criteria were used to qualitatively and quantitatively evaluate the degree to which a transit alignment meets the study’s identified goals and needs. The Tier I screening criteria and ranking measures are described below.

Serving key destinations This quantitative measure assessed the ability of the proposed alignment alternatives address the increasing demand for transit, which is based on how the alignment serves major employers, residential development, parking garages, community and cultural facilities, and hotels within the study area.

Connectivity This quantitative measure evaluated the capability of the proposed alignment alternative to address the connectivity to the Downtown Transit Center, mixed-use areas, and integrates with inner-city/regional transit initiatives.

Economic Development This quantitative criterion measures the degree in which the proposed alignment alternatives serve population and employment densities.

Implementation These quantitative and qualitative measures assess the potential of the proposed alignment alternatives to avoid physical constraints and to enable future system expansion opportunities.

Operations and Service This quantitative measure considers system accessibility and ease of use of the proposed alignment alternatives. This criterion is evaluated based on whether the alignment is located within one street or separated by one or more blocks.

The evaluation criteria were applied to the basic alignments determine how each alignment alternative addressed the AA study’s identified goals and needs. Each of these measures was assigned a numerical value, ranging from 1 to 5, in order to score the overall evaluations and to

Page 42: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally

Draft Alternatives Analysis Report Alternatives Analysis for Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Area

38

identify the degree to which an alternative satisfies the criteria. A score of 5 is the most preferable and a score of 1 is the least preferable. Thus, the higher cumulative evaluation scores are shown in the highest ranking segments. The results of the Tier 1 evaluation are shown in Tables 4-2 and 4-3. A summary of the overall Tier 1 ratings highlights the alignment alternatives that were considered to be the most favored and least favored for the Alternatives Analysis. The top five north-south and top five east-west alignments were considered for further analysis and refinement. The two lowest scoring options for both the north-south and east-west alignments were dismissed from further consideration.

Page 43: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally

Draft Alternatives Analysis Report Alternatives Analysis for Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Area

39

Table 4-2: North-South Alignment Evaluation†

Evaluation Criteria 

NS‐1 

Walker/Hud

son 

NS‐2 

Hud

son/Ro

binson

 

NS‐3 

Robinson

/Broad

way 

NS‐4 

Broa

dway/E.K. 

Gaylord 

NS‐5 

Mickey Man

tle/Pe

rry 

NS‐6 

Lincoln/S.L. You

ng 

NS‐7 

Walker/Broa

dway 

Length (track miles)  1.89  1.97  1.83  1.74  1.66  2.66  2.45 Buffer Area (sq. mi. within 1,250’ buffer)  0.72  0.79  0.70  0.61  0.65  0.76  0.97 2005 Population  1,808  1,525  916  554  867  885  1,876 2005 Population Density (per sq. mi.)  2,511  1,930  1,309  908  1,334  1,164  1,934 2005 Dwelling Units  1,005  889  584  353  302  405  1,076 2005 Employment  21,296  24,959  22,314  19,376  4,569  11,681  28,164 

Data 

2005 Employment Density (per  sq. mi.)  29,578  31,594  31,877  31,764  7,029  15,370  29,035 Serves Major Employers  5  5  5  4  1  3  5 Serves Residential Development  5  5  3  2  2  3  5 Serves Parking Garages  3  5  5  5  1  4  5 Serves Community & Cultural Facilities  3  3  4  2  1  1  4 Se

rve Ke

y Destina

tion

Serves Hotels  1  2  3  3  2  1  3 

Connects to Downtown Transit Center  5  5  2  1  1  1  4 

Connects to Mixed‐Use Areas  4  4  4  4  3  1  4 

Conn

ectivity 

Integrates  Inter‐City/Regional  Transit System 

1  2  4  5  2  1  4 

Serves Higher Population Density  5  4  3  2  3  3  4 

Econ

omic 

Develop

men

Serves Higher Employment Density  4  5  5  5  1  2  4 

Encounters Fewer Physical Constraints  2  2  5  5  4  5  5 

Implem

entation

 

Enables  Future  System  Expansion Opportunities 

4  4  4  4  3  5  4 

Ope

ration

 & Service 

System Accessibility & Ease of Use  4  3  4  5  3  5  1 

Total Scoring of Alternatives  46  49  51  47  27  35  52 

Ranking of Alternatives  5  3  2  4  7  6  1 

† - Rating for each evaluation criterion ranges from 1 to 5, with 5 being the most preferable and 1 being the least preferable. Ranking identifies the relative order of preference for the North/South alternatives.

Page 44: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally

Draft Alternatives Analysis Report Alternatives Analysis for Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Area

40

Table 4-3: East-West Alignment Evaluation†

Evaluation Criteria 

EW‐1 

Reno

/Bou

levard 

EW‐2 

Sheridan

/Ren

EW‐3 

Sheridan

 

EW‐4 

Park/M

ain/Sheridan

 

EW‐5 

4th  S

t./Kerr‐2n

d  St. 

EW‐6 

4th /Harrison 

EW‐7 

10th St./13t

h  St. 

Length (track miles)  2.48  2.52  2.18  2.46  2.21  2.26  2.60 Buffer Area (sq. mi within 1,250’ buffer)  0.90  0.91  0.69  0.82  0.86  0.71  1.09 2005 Population  359  935  881  1,078  2,066  1,328  2,102 2005 Population Density (per sq. mi.)  399  1,027  1,277  1,315  2,402  1,870  1,928 2005 Dwelling Units  76  175  159  226  1,008  760  1,171 2005 Employment  10,994  19,642  18,865  22,511  23,376  14,887  12,154 

Data 

2005 Employment Density (per sq. mi.)  12,216  21,585  27,341  27,452  27,181  20,968  11,150 Serves Major Employers  2  4  4  5  5  3  3 Serves Residential Development  1  1  1  2  5  4  5 Serves Parking Garages  3  5  5  5  5  2  1 Serves Community & Cultural Facilities  3  4  4  4  2  2  1 Se

rve Ke

y Destina

tion

Serves Hotels  4  5  5  5  3  1  1 

Connects to Downtown Transit Center  1  1  1  2  5  5  1 

Connects to Mixed‐Use Areas  3  3  4  4  3  2  2 

Conn

ectivity 

Integrates  Inter‐City/Regional  Transit System 

5  5  5  5  1  1  1 

Serves Higher Population Density  1  2  3  3  5  4  4 

Econ

omic 

Develop

men

Serves Higher Employment Density  2  3  4  4  4  3  2 

Encounters Fewer Physical Constraints  3  3  3  3  3  3  1 

Implem

entation

 

Enables  Future  System  Expansion Opportunities 

4  4  4  4  5  5  1 

Ope

ration

 & Service 

System Accessibility & Ease of Use  3  3  5  3  3  5  1 

Total Scoring of Alternatives  35  43  48  49  49  40  24 

Ranking of Alternatives  6  4  3  1  1  5  7 

† - Rating for each evaluation criterion ranges from 1 to 5, with 5 being the most preferable and 1 being the least preferable. Ranking identifies the relative order of preference for the East/West alternatives.

Page 45: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally

Draft Alternatives Analysis Report Alternatives Analysis for Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Area

41

4.3 Tier I Combined Alignments In response to feedback received from COTPA and the AA Steering Committee, the basic north-south and east-west alignments were combined to create nine alternative “combined alignment” combinations to serve the Greater Downtown study area as a transit circulator. Since the majority of workers, residents, and visitors are located west of IH-235, there are five “downtown options” identified for further evaluation. Appropriate to the level of importance of the Oklahoma Health Center (OHC) for employment and education, four “OHC options” east of IH-235 were identified for further alignment evaluation. These combined alignment alternatives are shown in Figures 4-3 and 4-4 and listed below:

Combined Alignments

Downtown Options

• Core Option - Hudson/Robinson and Sheridan • Eastside Option 1 – Robison/Broadway and Sheridan and 11th/13th • Eastside Option 2 – Robinson/Broadway and Sheridan • Eastside Option 3 – Robinson/Broadway and 4th/2nd (Kerr) and Reno/New Boulevard • Westside Option – Walker/Hudson and Sheridan/Reno

Oklahoma Health Center (OHC) Options

• OHC 1 – Lincoln/S.L. Young with Mickey Mantle/Perry, 4th and Harrison • OHC 2 – Lincoln/S.L. Young and 4th/Harrison • OHC 3 – Lincoln/S.L. Young and 4th/Kerr-2nd • OHC 4 – Lincoln/S.L. Young and Mickey Mantle

Each of the Downtown Options illustrates three potential alternatives at the north and south ends of the route including: single tracking a dedicated lane along an east-west street like Sheridan or 10th Street; double tracking an east-west street like Sheridan or 10th Street; or forming a collector loop route like Sheridan and the New Boulevard or 10th and 13th Streets. The OHC Options illustrate potential alternatives for connecting an east-west route serving the OHC campus with either the downtown core area via 4th and Kerr, or the Bricktown and Deep Deuce districts via Mickey Mantle/Walnut and Joe Carter.

Page 46: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally

Draft Alternatives Analysis Report Alternatives Analysis for Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Area

42

Figure 4-3: Combine Alignment Alternatives

Page 47: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally

Draft Alternatives Analysis Report Alternatives Analysis for Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Area

43

Figure 4-4: OHC Combine Alignment Alternatives

4.3.1 Tier I Combined Alignments Evaluation The combined alignment alternatives were evaluated using the same Tier I evaluation criteria which include: serving key destinations; connectivity; economic development; implementation; and, operations and service. The results of the evaluation are shown in Tables 4-4 and 4-5.

Page 48: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally

Draft Alternatives Analysis Report Alternatives Analysis for Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Area

44

Table 4-4: Combined Alignment Evaluation - Downtown Options†

Evaluation Criteria 

Core Option 

Eastside

 Option 1 

Eastside

 Option 2 

Eastside

 Option 3 

Westside Option 

Length (track miles)  2.95  4.49  2.83  4.12  3.31 Buffer Area (sq. mi within 1,250’ buffer)  1.00  1.53  0.93  1.26  1.14 2005 Population  1,951  2,290  1,630  1,893  2,189 2005 Population Density (per sq. mi.)  1,951  1,497  1,753  1,502  1,920 2005 Dwelling Units  1,029  1,241  887  944  1,124 2005 Employment  29,031  29,404  27,006  28,105  28,904 

Data 

2005 Employment Density (per sq. mi.)  29,031  19,218  29,039  22,306  25,354 Serves Major Employers  4  4  4  4  4 Serves Residential Development  4  5  3  4  4 Serves Parking Garages  3  3  2  2  3 Serves Community & Cultural Facilities  4  4  4  4  5 Se

rve Ke

y Destina

tion

Serves Hotels  4  5  4  5  5 

Connects to Downtown Transit Center  5  2  2  2  5 

Connects to Mixed‐Use Areas  4  3  4  4  4 

Conn

ectivity 

Integrates  Inter‐City/Regional  Transit System 

5  5  5  5  5 

Serves Higher Population Density  4  3  4  4  4 

Econ

omic 

Develop

men

Serves Higher Employment Density  4  2  4  3  4 

Encounters Fewer Physical Constraints  2  3  3  3  3 

Implem

entation

 

Enables  Future  System  Expansion Opportunities 

5  5  5  5  5 

Ope

ration

 & Service 

System Accessibility & Ease of Use  3  3  4  3  4 

Total Scoring of Alternatives  51  47  48  48  55 

Ranking of Alternatives  2  5  3  3  1 

† - Note: Rating for each evaluation criterion ranges from 1 to 5, with 5 being the most preferable and 1 being the least preferable. Ranking identifies the relative order of preference for the Downtown alternatives.

Page 49: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally

Draft Alternatives Analysis Report Alternatives Analysis for Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Area

45

Table 4-5: Combined Alignment Evaluation - Oklahoma Health Center (OHC) Options†

Evaluation Criteria 

OHC‐1 

OHC‐2 

OHC‐3 

OHC‐4 

Length (track miles)  2.84  3.09  3.11  2.73 Buffer Area (sq. mi within 1,250’ buffer)  1.06  1.04  1.21  0.89 2005 Population  1,410  1,621  2,168  1,259 2005 Population Density (per sq. mi.)  1,330  1,559  1,792  1,415 2005 Dwelling Units  586  854  1,007  488 2005 Employment  15,229  24,271  33,265  14,889 

Data 

2005 Employment Density (per sq. mi.)  14,367  23,338  27,492  16,729 Serves Major Employers  2  3  5  1 Serves Residential Development  2  3  4  3 Serves Parking Garages  1  3  5  1 Serves Community & Cultural Facilities  1  1  2  1 Se

rve Ke

y Destina

tion

Serves Hotels  2  1  4  2 

Connects to Downtown Transit Center  1  5  5  1 

Connects to Mixed‐Use Areas  2  2  2  2 

Conn

ectivity 

Integrates  Inter‐City/Regional  Transit System 

2  1  2  2 

Serves Higher Population Density  3  4  4  3 

Econ

omic 

Develop

men

Serves Higher Employment Density  2  3  4  2 

Encounters Fewer Physical Constraints  3  3  3  4 

Implem

entation

 

Enables  Future  System  Expansion Opportunities 

3  3  3  3 

Ope

ration

 & Service 

System Accessibility & Ease of Use  3  3  3  5 

Total Scoring of Alternatives  27  35  46  30 

Ranking of Alternatives  4  2  1  3 

† - Note: Rating for each evaluation criterion ranges from 1 to 5, with 5 being the most preferable and 1 being the least preferable. Ranking identifies the relative order of preference for the OHC alternatives.

Page 50: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally

Draft Alternatives Analysis Report Alternatives Analysis for Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Area

46

As a result of the “combined alignment” evaluation, low scoring alignments were dismissed and the high scoring alignments were advanced for further consideration. The following combined alignment alternatives received the top scores from the evaluation matrix and were further evaluated to serve the study area:

• Westside Option • Core Option • Eastside Option 1 • Eastside Option 3 • OHC-3

4.4 Tier I Alignment Evaluation Results The last set of Tier I alternatives, or “refined alignments,” were developed to simplify the decision-making process and focus on two major components, the core of downtown and extensions for the Bricktown and Midtown/St. Anthony districts. The five combined alignment alternatives were segmented into primary alignments in the downtown core, Bricktown and Midtown/St. Anthony areas. Refined Alignments Downtown Options

• Eastside Option 1 - Robinson/Broadway Couplet o Extension 1a - 10th/13th Loop or 11th/13th Loop o Extension 1b - 10th Double Track o Extension 1c - Sheridan Double Track o Extension 1d – Sheridan/Reno Couplet o Extension 1e - Sheridan/New Boulevard Loop

• Eastside Option 2 - Robinson/Broadway Couplet, Double Track Broadway o Extension 2a - 10th/13th Loop or 11th/13th Loop o Extension 2b - 10th Double Track o Extension 2c - Sheridan Double Track o Extension 2d - Sheridan/Reno Couplet o Extension 2e - Sheridan/New Boulevard Loop

• Westside Option 3 – Walker/Hudson Couplet o Extension 3a - Sheridan Double Track o Extension 3b – Sheridan/Reno Couplet o Extension 3c - Sheridan/New Boulevard Loop

• Core Cross-Over Option 4 - Hudson/Robinson/Broadway Couplet o Extension 4a - 10th/13th Loop or 11th/13th Loop o Extension 4b - 10th Double Track o Extension 4c - Sheridan Double Track o Extension 4d – Sheridan/Reno Couplet o Extension 4e - Sheridan/New Boulevard Loop

Oklahoma Health Center (OHC) Option • OHC 3 – 4th and 2nd/Kerr Couplet

o Extension 5a – Lincoln/8th/Phillips Single Track o Extension 5b – 8th/Phillips/13th/Lincoln Loop

.

Page 51: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally

Draft Alternatives Analysis Report Alternatives Analysis for Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Area

47

Figure 4-5: Downtown Refined Alignments, Eastside Option 1

Figure 4-6: Downtown Refined Alignments, Eastside Option 2

Page 52: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally

Draft Alternatives Analysis Report Alternatives Analysis for Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Area

48

Figure 4-7: Downtown Refined Alignments, Westside Option

Figure 4-8: Downtown Refined Alignments, Core Cross-Over Option

Page 53: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally

Draft Alternatives Analysis Report Alternatives Analysis for Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Area

49

Figure 4-9: Downtown Refined Alignments, OHC Option

Page 54: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally

Draft Alternatives Analysis Report Alternatives Analysis for Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Area

50

4.5 Tier II Evaluation The Tier II Alignment Alternatives Evaluation provided a final set of alternatives in order to acquire a recommended alternative for selection by the COTPA Board of Trustees and the City of Oklahoma City to adopt as the locally preferred alternative (LPA). The Tier II evaluation assessed alignment alternatives based on both qualitative and quantitative criteria, using the preferred alignments from the Tier I Alignment Alternative Evaluation in association with pertinent supplemental information, to determine the most significant differences among each alternative. Evaluation of each alternative included an established set of evaluation criteria designed to reflect the goals and objectives of this AA study, as well as its purpose and need. 4.5.1 Tier II Refined Alignments Alignment alternatives assessed as part of the Tier II Alignment Alternative Evaluation were the results of the Tier I Alignment Alternative Evaluation, or the “refined alignment alternatives.” In response to committee oversight and public stakeholder input, the refined alternatives were grouped into study area districts: Downtown (Business), Midtown/St. Anthony, Bricktown and OHC. Tier II alignment alternatives include:  Downtown (Business) District Options (Figure 4-10) 

• Broadway / Robinson Couplet • Broadway / Robinson / Hudson Crossover

Midtown/St. Anthony District Options (Figure 4-11)

• 10th Street (double track) • 10th/13th Street Loop • 11th Street (single track) • 11th/13th Street Couplet

Bricktown District Options (Figure 4-12)

• Sheridan Avenue (single track) • Sheridan Avenue (double track) • Sheridan / Reno Couplet • Sheridan / Boulevard Loop

Downtown to OHC Options (Figure 4-13)

• 2nd/4th Street Couplet • 4th Street (double track)

OHC District Extension Options (Figure 4-14)

• Lincoln/8th/Phillips (single track) • Lincoln/8th/Phillips Loop

Page 55: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally

Draft Alternatives Analysis Report Alternatives Analysis for Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Area

51

 Figure 4-10: Tier II Downtown Options

Figure 4-11: Tier II St. Anthony/Midtown Options

Page 56: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally

Draft Alternatives Analysis Report Alternatives Analysis for Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Area

52

Figure 4-12: Tier II Bricktown Options

Figure 4-13: Refined Downtown to OHC Alignment Options

Figure 4-14: Refined OHC Extension Alignment Options

Page 57: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally

Draft Alternatives Analysis Report Alternatives Analysis for Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Area

53

4.5.2 Tier II Evaluation Criteria Evaluation criteria applied to the Tier II alignment alternatives included technical components as well as components developed to respond to the local context of the Greater Downtown Oklahoma City area. Criteria included both qualitative and quantitative measures. The Tier II qualitative and quantitative evaluation criteria include:

• Transit Supportive Land Use • Operational Feasibility • Ridership Forecasts • Capital Costs • Public/Stakeholder Acceptance

The criteria were designed to identify the degree to which an alternative satisfies each measure. Each of these criteria was assigned a numerical value, ranging from 1 to 5, in order to score the overall evaluations. A score of 5 is the most preferable and a score of 1 is the least preferable. Transit Supportive Land Use The transit supportive assessment measures were generally based on FTA’s Small Starts guidelines and refined to reflect the local environment. Alignment alternatives were evaluated and ranked based on criteria evaluating existing land use patterns, transit supportive plans and policies, recent and proposed projects, and potential available land for development. Compared to the Greater Downtown, the recent and projected economic development pace in Oklahoma City is probably unmatched by any other medium-sized downtown in America. The quantitative details of the land use and economic development assessment for the Tier Two evaluation are contained in the Tier Two Alternatives Evaluation (June 2011). The source materials for that evaluation were used to generate the AA’s “Transit Supportive Land Use and Economic Development Assessment” (August 2011). That report, also called the “AA Economic Development Report” was supplemented in October, 2011 by a COTPA response to the FTA. In essence, the study area has experienced investments of approximately $2.5-3 billion over the last 15 years. The growth rate has been more rapid-paced in more recent years. Compared to 2005, the AA study area’s employment is likely to grow by nearly 50% by 2030 and residents by more than 200%. By 2035, the study area is projected to grow to a residential population of 40,000 near the LPA. Compared to 2009, the OHC area alone is anticipated to add $660 million in new hospital and other improvements. The new Devon Tower will open in 2012 and the SandRidge Tower is also well underway. Operational Feasibility Operational feasibility was measured utilizing quantitative data related to perceived passenger utility, potential constructability issues or conflicts, as well as modifications to existing or planned traffic patterns in the study area. The assessment considered turning movements, end-of-line operations, known utilities and physical constraints of the built environment. Alignment alternatives were evaluated and ranked relative to each other according to modifications to existing traffic patterns, potential utility impacts, ease of use, and future expansion potential.

Page 58: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally

Draft Alternatives Analysis Report Alternatives Analysis for Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Area

54

Ridership Forecasts This measure, used to evaluate ridership potential, assessed the amount of ridership generated by proposed alignments by utilizing forecasting methodology to model each alignment incorporated into an overall circulator system. Several conceptual circulator system plans were developed to simulate the possible variations in ridership generated between configurations. Scenarios were modeled using the approved ACOG regional travel demand model using a base year of 2005 and a forecast year of 2017. Simulated alignment extensions were selected based on fundamental operating differences such as the use of couplets or loop alignments versus single or double track configuration on a single roadway. Capital Costs Conceptual detailed capital cost estimates were developed to project potential base year and year of expenditure (YOE) capital costs of construction of TSM/Baseline and Build Alternative Modern Streetcar systems. Capital cost estimates were structured to be functions of several key driving cost elements including, but not limited to; length of alignment, number and magnitude of stop improvements, number of vehicles and propulsion technology, major infrastructure improvements and contingencies and escalation. Due to the fixed cost of implementation for the preferred Modern Streetcar technology, alignment options were not ranked based upon capital cost. Instead, costs were used to assist as a decision making tool for the public stakeholder and advisory committee selection of a Locally Preferred Alternative. Public Acceptance The qualtitative assessment of public acceptability included guidance received from the AA Steering Committee. The committee members provided alignment alternatives preferences based on background knowledge of the local area, goals of the community and technical findings of the AA process. Input by multiple stakeholders, committees and the general public provided the technical process and the COTPA Board with valuable insight and information which resulted in inclusion of additional alignments into the Tier I and Tier II Alignment Alternative Evaluation processes. 4.5.3 Tier 2 Evaluation Summary The Tier II evaluation process provided a technical framework to analyze the refined alternatives. The application of criteria and measures demonstrated major differences between the alternatives. Potential alignment alternatives were grouped, evaluated and ranked by each study area district which include Downtown, Midtown/St. Anthony, Bricktown, and the OHC districts. The evaluation score of each alignment alternative helped determine the recommended alignment segment alternatives for the locally preferred alternative (LPA) circulator system. Summaries of the overall ratings resulting from Tier II analysis are shown in Table 4-6.

Page 59: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally

Draft Alternatives Analysis Report Alternatives Analysis for Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Area

55

Table 4-6: Tier II Evaluation Summary Matrix

 Land Use & Economic 

Development 

Operational Feasibility 

Ridership Public 

Acceptance Total Score 

Capital Cost Direct (2011); 

(YOE) Downtown (Business) District 

Downtown Couplet  17  16  4  3  40  $40.4 M; ($54.9 M) 

Downtown Crossover  18  12  5  3  38  $46.5 M; ($63.3M) 

Midtown/St. Anthony District 

10th St Double Track  10  14  1  1  26  $12.9 M; ($17.4 M) 

11th St Single Track   10  13  2  1  26  $14.1 M; ($19.1 M) 

10th/13th Loop  14  11  3  1  29  $23.7 M; ($32 M) 

11th/13th Couplet  14  15  5  4  38  $25.8 M; ($34.9 M) 

Bricktown District 

Sheridan Single Track  12  14  2  1  29  $15.7 M; ($21 M) 

Sheridan Double Track  12  13  2  1  28  $22.5 M; ($30.3 M) 

Sheridan/Reno Couplet  17  14  5  3  39  $25.7 M; ($34.7 M) 

Sheridan/Blvd Loop  17  15  4  3  39  $30.7 M; ($41.7 M) 

Downtown (Business) District to OHC 

4th St Double Track   12  18  3  3  36  $31.4 M; ($42.6 M) 

4th / 2nd St Couplet  12  16  3  1  32  $38.2 M; ($51.6 M) 

OHC Extension Lincoln / 8th / Phillips Single Track  15  13  3  3  34  $24 M;

($32.3 M) 8th / Phillips / 13th / Lincoln Loop  16  15  3  1  35  $33 M;

($44.8 M)  As a result of the Tier II Alternatives Evaluation process, the following alignment recommendations were made for consideration by the City of Oklahoma City in choosing a locally preferred alternative (LPA): Downtown (Business) District The Downtown Couplet and Downtown Crossover alternatives performed similarly in all evaluation measures, resulting in a one point differential in cumulative score. Voting preference by the AA Steering Committee also found the two alignments similarly rated. As a result, both alignment alternatives are recommended for consideration in LPA adoption. It should also be noted that both alignment alternatives are also similar enough in nature that they may continue to be analyzed during the next phase of the corridor development process.

Page 60: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally

Draft Alternatives Analysis Report Alternatives Analysis for Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Area

56

Midtown / St. Anthony District The results of Tier II Alternatives Evaluation suggest that the 11th/13th Street Couplet will provide superior redevelopment opportunities, operating efficiency and passenger accessibility. This alternative also received the overwhelming endorsement of the AA Steering Committee when presented with the evaluation results at the May 25th meeting. This analysis concludes that the 11th/13th Street Couplet is the recommended alignment alternative for LPA adoption. Bricktown District The Sheridan / Reno Couplet and Sheridan / Boulevard Loop alternatives performed similarly in all evaluation measures, resulting in a one point differential in cumulative score. Voting preference by the AA Steering Committee also found the two alignments similarly rated. As a result, both alignment alternatives are recommended for further study and consideration for LPA adoption. It should also be noted that both alignment alternatives are also similar enough in nature that they are suitable to continue to be analyzed during the next phase of the corridor development process, the environmental review specified under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Core to OHC Extension All alignment alternatives connecting the downtown core with the OHC rated similarly based on the qualitative and quantitative evaluation criteria developed. However, the potential cost savings achieved by utilizing the 4th Street double track / 8th / Phillips single track alignment without detracting from potential ridership, offered significant incentive to the AA Steering Committee to garner their preference at the May 25th meeting and is recommended for LPA adoption.

Page 61: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally

Draft Alternatives Analysis Report Alternatives Analysis for Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Area

57

CHAPTER 5 - CAPITAL, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COSTS Introduction

As part of the Alternatives Analysis (AA) process, COTPA commissioned services to estimate the capital investment required for construction, implementation and sustained operation of the proposed TSM and Build Alternative transit improvements. This chapter presents the preliminary results of the capital as well as operations and maintenance (O&M) cost estimates for the proposed transit improvements for the Greater Downtown Oklahoma City study area. 5.1 Capital Cost Estimating Results As per FTA’s Updated Interim Guidance and Instructions for Small Starts (July 2007), alternatives qualifying as Small Starts are given acceptable ratings for each of the criteria FTA uses to assess alternatives for funding recommendations. “Small Starts projects are defined as projects requesting under $75 million in Section 5309 Capital Investment Grant funding with a total cost of less than $250 million, both in year of expenditure dollars.” Conceptual level capital cost estimates developed for the Baseline/TSM and Build Alternatives projected year-of-expenditure (YOE) capital cost of approximately $18.5 M and $199.4 M, respectively. For detailed information regarding the development of capital cost estimates, refer to the Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Circulator Capital Cost Estimate Report (November 2011). As illustrated in Tables 5-1 and 5-2, both the Baseline/TSM and Build Alternative circulator systems are below the $250 M Small Starts threshold.

Table 5-1: Baseline/TSM Alternative Capital Cost¹ FTA SCC Item Description Direct Cost Applied

Contingency Base Year

Cost YOE Cost

10 Guideway & Track Elements $579 $87 $666 $804

20 Stations, Stops, Terminals $3,040 $456 $3,496 $4,189

30 Support Facilities $0 $0 $0 $0

40 Sitework & Special Conditions $1,426 $248 $1,674 $1,975

50 Systems $822 $123 $945 $1,144 60 ROW $155 $39 $194 $224 70 Vehicles $5,198 $260 $5,458 $6,628 80 Professional Services $2,053 $308 $2,361 $2,786

90 Unallocated Contingency $0 $664 $664 $789

100 Finance Charges N/A N/A N/A N/A Project Total $13,273 $2,185 $15,458 $18,537

¹ all costs expressed in nearest thousand ($x000)

Page 62: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally

Draft Alternatives Analysis Report Alternatives Analysis for Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Area

58

Table 5-2: Build Alternative Capital Cost¹

FTA SCC Item Description Direct Cost Applied

Contingency Base Year

Cost YOE Cost

10 Guideway & Track Elements $23,074 $3,678 $26,752 $30,835

20 Stations, Stops, Terminals $3,822 $764 $4,586 $5,255

30 Support Facilities $4,000 $800 $4,800 $5,508

40 Sitework & Special Conditions $20,888 $4,178 $25,066 $28,387

50 Systems $26,475 $4,790 $31,265 $36,091 60 ROW $1,170 $293 $1,463 $1,629 70 Vehicles $39,270 $1,964 $41,234 $47,735 80 Professional Services $27,390 $4,109 $31,499 $35,668

90 Unallocated Contingency $0 $7,304 $7,304 $8,322

100 Finance Charges N/A N/A N/A N/A Project Total $146,089 $27,879 $173,968 $199,430

¹ all costs expressed in nearest thousand ($x000) 5.1.1 Risk & Uncertainty General Planning and evaluation efforts completed during the Alternatives Analysis process, while addressing the priority transportation goals within the study corridors, have not been developed to a point where all design, engineering and policy issues can be resolved. Capital cost estimates developed during this planning phase are conceptual in nature and include unallocated and allocated (design and construction) contingencies to account for potential unknowns existing within the Greater Downtown Oklahoma City project area which may require additional resources to mitigate impacts of the proposed LPA. Allocated Contingency is gradually phased out of capital cost during the Preliminary engineering and Final Design phases as uncertainties in design decrease. Components of transit alternatives requiring additional consideration during the continuing engineering design and environmental coordination activities include, but are not limited to:

• Constructability or operating impacts to/conflicts with existing utilities, property and resources

• Vertical and horizontal clearance envelopes meeting safety and construction standards • Alternative fuel or hybrid-propulsion vehicles

Coordination of potential ROW impacts will be carried out in compliance with the Uniform Relocation and Acquisition Act and compliance with local, state and Federal requirements. Agreements between COTPA, Oklahoma City and any Third (3rd) Party stakeholders will be documented in accordance with NEPA and the Uniform Relocation and Acquisition Act. All proposed utility relocation/installation within City ROW will be coordinated via the Oklahoma City Utility Department in compliance with Utility Accommodation Rules (UAR).

Page 63: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally

Draft Alternatives Analysis Report Alternatives Analysis for Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Area

59

Railroad Bridge Underpasses It was noted in the projected Build Alternative capital costs that potential vertical clearance issues exist in crossing under the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad alignment which travels north-south through downtown Oklahoma City. The LPA downtown circulator system scenarios must operate beneath this railroad overpasses at Fourth Street, Sheridan Avenue, and potentially at Reno Avenue to access the Bricktown and OHC districts.

Figure 5-1: Existing BNSF Railroad (RR) Bridge Underpasses

Several coordination meetings have been held with representatives from BNSF and Oklahoma City to discuss the interface of modern streetcar vehicles. Resolutions guiding future coordinatin were established during these meetings including:

• Union Pacific (UP)/Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Join Guidelines – contains protocols for coordination

• A “Division of Maintenance Agreement” should be considered to establish allocatin of maintenance responsibilities.

• BNSF would prefer that existing railroad bridges over the roadway not be altered and no grade changes to the rail should take place.

• Points of contact were established for project coordination and as-build plan requests Potential mitigating strategies include, but are not limited to the following:

• BNSF bridge crossing reconstruction • Hybrid propulsion vehicles that can travel ‘off-wire’ (at an additional capital cost per vehicle

over standard vehicles) • Dedicated transit only lane under bridge crossings (vertical clearance requirements are less

if no auto traffic will be using lane) • Alternate alignment routing to utilize the planned New Boulevard bridge underpasses(s)

Preliminary assessments of bridge support structure reconstruction placed an approximate cost of $10M per crossing. The City of Oklahoma City and COTPA have identified these bridge underpass locations as critical elements in the development of a constructible LPA and committed to address any potential railroad bridge reconstruction outside of the scope of the Greater Downtown Circulator project. As such, capital costs for potential bridge crossing reconstruction were removed from capital cost estimates.

Fourth St at BNSF RR Bridge Sheridan Ave at BNSF RR Bridge

Page 64: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally

Draft Alternatives Analysis Report Alternatives Analysis for Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Area

60

A detailed engineering (cost-benefit) evaluation of potential solutions to the vertical clearance issues with Modern Streetcar service through these points will be conducted during the NEPA Scoping phase. Results of this analysis will aid in the determination of the preferred mitigating strategy and impacts to the project capital cost. MAPS 3 funds were approved for use by COTPA on November 4, 2011 and these funds may be used to offset the cost of bridge overpass investigations. 5.2 O&M Cost Estimating Results FTA guidance states that “System-wide operations and maintenance costs are an input into the calculation of cost effectiveness and a key component of the project financial plan.” This cost effectiveness metric is developed and reported for the first full year of service (Fiscal Year 2018) to forecast incremental increases to sponsor transit agencies annual operating budgets. The No-Build Alternative will not result in an increase to the existing fleet size or hours of operation, as improvements include regularly scheduled fleet replacement service optimization. Transit improvements proposed within the Baseline/TSM and Build Alternatives are assumed to be deployed in addition to the existing transit service provided to the Greater Downtown Oklahoma City area. The incremental annual costs of providing the proposed transit circulator improvements were calculated based on circulator vehicles operating daily as described in Chapter 3. The locally preferred circulator system alignments are proposed to operate as two independent segments. One segment will provide direct connectivity among the Midtown, Business (Downtown) and Bricktown Districts, while the other segment will connect the Business District with the Deep Deuce residential district and the Oklahoma Health Center (OHC). The assumed alignment, fleet size and service operating parameters remain consistent between both alternatives. A full description of the O&M cost analysis is included within the Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Circulator Operations and maintenance Cost Estimate Report (November 2011), which is available from COTPA as a supporting document. The historic costs of bus operations for METRO Transit (FY 2010) were used to forecast Baseline/TSM Alternative O&M costs. Historic costs (FY 2007 thru 2009) reported to the National Transit Database (NTD) by the peer cities of Little Rock, AR; Memphis, TN; and Portland, OR were used as a baseline to project Build Alternative O&M costs in the opening year of operation. Historic O&M costs per revenue mile and revenue hour of service were aggregated and escalated to FY 2018 in order to estimate the increased cost of operations at the beginning of revenue service. The estimated additional cost of providing rapid downtown circulator transit to the Greater Downtown Oklahoma City area is approximately $4.8 M for the Baseline/TSM Alternative or $5.7 M for the Build Alternative. The operating costs will exceed 5% of the forecast system wide operating costs, accounting for approximately 21% of the projected operating budget in FY 2018.

Table 5-3: Operations and Maintenance Cost Projections1 (FY 2018) Alternative Downtown Core Downtown – OHC System Total

(FY 2011) (FY 2018) (FY 2011) (FY 2018) (FY 2011) (FY 2018) Baseline / TSM

Alternative $2,022 $2,414 $2,021 $2,413 $4,043 $4,827

Build Alternative $2,376 $2,837 $2,373 $2,834 $4,749 $5,671 ¹ all costs rounded to nearest thousand (x000)

Page 65: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally

Draft Alternatives Analysis Report Alternatives Analysis for Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Area

61

CHAPTER 6 - LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE As stated in the Chapter One Executive Summary, the locally preferred alternative (LPA) is the formal selection of the preferred transit mode and alignment alternatives. COTPA took under advisement the conclusions and recommendations resulting from the AA process, as well as feedback from the AA Steering Committee, MAPS 3 Streetcar/Modern Transit Subcommittee, and general public meetings. The Tier 2 evaluation results and recommended preferred alternative were presented to the COTPA Board on July 1, 2011. Following the presentation, the COTPA Board selected and approved the Modern Streetcar Build Alternative to operate on the Core Alignment and OHC Alignment (Figure 5-1) as the LPA for implementation. Also, the Core Alignment, with a direct connection to the Fourth Street transit center, was selected as a Minimum Operating Segment (MOS) due to potential funding constraints. COTPA is committed to moving forward with the MOS based on approved funding of the MAPS 3 program, but will also pursue $75 million in federal funding through the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) Small Starts program in order to fund the LPA. The City Council concurred unanimously with COTPA’s LPA selection on July 19. The LPA has also been approved for incorporation in the MPO Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) by the ACOG ITTC, CAC and the MPO Policy Committee. On September 29, 2011 the MPO’s Board of Directors amended the LRTP to include the LPA in the 2035 Plan, a plan also known as Encompass 2035. LPA Description and Costs The LPA is the Modern Streetcar Build Alternative connecting Midtown-Downtown-Bricktown (Core Alignment) and Downtown-OHC (OHC Alignment). The LPA alignments include:

• Downtown – Broadway/Robinson Couplet • Bricktown – Sheridan/Reno Couplet • Midtown – 11th/13th Couplet • OHC – 4th St Double Track and • Lincoln/8th/Phillips Single Track

The current year (2011) direct capital cost for the LPA is estimated at $174.0 million and at $199.4 million in year of expenditure (YOE) dollars. Due to potential funding constraints, a Minimum Operating Segment (MOS) may be recommended to connect the Midtown-Downtown-Bricktown districts and the Fourth Street Transit Center as the first of a multi-phase downtown circulator system implementation strategy. The adopted MOS alignments include:

• Downtown – Broadway/Robinson Couplet • Bricktown – Sheridan single track • Midtown – 11th Street single track

Any such determination will be made after additional analysis is conducted to identify potential constructability or operational conflicts, mitigation strategies and cost implications. The estimated base year (2011) direct capital costs for the MOS is approximately $84.3 million and a total year of expenditure (YOE) cost of $96.7 million. See Chapter 5 and Appendix D for further information on potential LPA capital and operating costs and MOS capital cost. Historic fiscal year (FY) 2005 thru 2010 O&M costs per revenue mile and revenue hour of service of peer systems were aggregated and escalated to FY 2018 in order to estimate the increased cost of operations in the first full year of revenue service. The estimated additional cost of providing Modern Streetcar transit to the Greater Downtown Oklahoma City area in the first full year of service

Page 66: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally

Draft Alternatives Analysis Report Alternatives Analysis for Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Area

62

(FY 2018) is approximately $5.7 M annually. As the adopted LPA consists of two independent circulator lines, the annual projected costs were calculated independently. Due to similar route distances and identical operating parameters, each is estimated to cost approximately $2.8 M. Refer to Chapter 5 for further information on potential LPA capital and operating costs.

Page 67: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally

Draft Alternatives Analysis Report Alternatives Analysis for Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Area

63

A new site for construction of a Modern Streetcar operations, vehicle storage and maintenance facility has not yet been selected. Multiple locations have tentatively been proposed for consideration as further environmental analysis and design information are developed. Potential sites of the storage, maintenance and operations facility are:

1) City owned parking lot northeast of the corner of Oklahoma Avenue and E Main Street. 2) Vacant parcel adjacent to the new Bricktown Fire Station at Sheridan Avenue and Byers

Avenue 3) Adjacent to IH-235, northeast of the intersection of Reno Avenue and Lincoln Boulevard

Figure 6-1: Recommended Locally Preferred Alignment Alternative

Page 68: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally

Draft Alternatives Analysis Report Alternatives Analysis for Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Area

64

Funding Recommendation This Alternative Analysis study was conducted in accordance with FTA guidance for application for entry into the Small Starts program. According to FTAs Updated Interim Guidance and Instructions for Small Starts (June 2007). The maximum allowable Section 5309 Federal grant amount under the Small Starts program is $75 million, leaving the remaining funding sources to be composed of local, state and other federal monies. The City has pledged to bridge the $4.4 million gap in LPA funding through surplus General Obligation (G.O.) bond funds, the City’s General Fund, and other local public funds. Oklahoma City’s MAPS 3 Program was voter-approved in December 2009 to provide $120 million for Modern Streetcar. Based on the AA process, the overall funding recommendation is to pursue $75 million in federal funding through the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Small Starts program to implement the LPA. In a letter of commitment provided by the Oklahoma City Manager’s Office, any local funds contributed to construction beyond the $120 M approved through the MAPS 3 program may come from several potential sources such as, but not limited to: City’s General Fund, matches by local developers, or surplus General Obligation Bonds. Funding strategies are discussed further in Chapter 8 of this document as well as the Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Circulator Financial Management Plan (November 2011).

Page 69: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally

Draft Alternatives Analysis Report Alternatives Analysis for Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Area

65

CHAPTER 7 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requires that the environmental impacts of proposed projects be described and evaluated as part of the decision-making process prior to the use of federal funding. NEPA established a nationwide policy of maintenance and enhancement of the environment, as well as a process for project development and environmental protection that all federally funded transportation projects must complete. Since COTPA is planning to “Request Entry into Project Development” for FTA’s Small Starts Program, a qualitative analysis of potential environmental impacts was conducted to establish a framework for project scoping and determination of the appropriate environmental process: Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). NEPA Scoping, as appropriate to the NEPA Class of Action (EA or EIS), needs to be completed prior to COPTA’s submittal of a request to enter project development. This chapter highlights the potential environmental constraints that will require further investigation and determination of impacts as part of the project development phase. 7.1 Potential Affected Environment Coinciding with the completion of the AA, COTPA will seek approval from FTA to initiate the NEPA process. The first step of this process is Project Scoping, which helps establish the major parameters of the environmental document. During Project Scoping, COTPA will conduct Agency and Public Scoping Meetings to highlight the major findings of the AA and the environmental resources that will be evaluated as part of the NEPA process. More importantly, the general public and local, state, and federal agencies will have the opportunity to express concerns with the proposed project and what issues they have concerns about and also what issues they believe are not of concern. The following descriptions highlight the potential environmental constraints for the proposed LPA that will be fully evaluated during the NEPA process.

Land Use The existing land uses, plans and policies, and performance of policies for the study area were assessed as part of the AA. This qualitative assessment shows that the City has transit supportive land uses, plans, and policies in most areas along the proposed LPA alignment. As part of the NEPA process, the proposed LPA will be further assessed to determine future land use impacts due to potential transit supportive development trends. Based on the study area’s current policies and development trends, it is expected that there would be positive impacts on existing land uses and land use planning.

Socio-Economics As part of the NEPA process, the existing socio-economic conditions within the study area will be assessed to determine potential effects in the following categories: population, employment, public health and housing; and, low-income and minority populations. It is expected that there would be positive impacts on the study area’s current socio-economic conditions due to improved transit access to employment and community facilities and services.

Right-of-Way The proposed LPA is expected to operate within the City’s existing street right-of-way; however, the final alignment, stops and substation locations may require minor acquisitions or easements. The construction of substations and the maintenance facility may also require minor acquisitions or easements if available public property is not used for these facilities. Conceptual engineering completed as part of the AA indicates that added ROW is needed for “corner clips” at approximately 5 to 6 locations. Other ROW acquisition may be necessary for electrical substations (approximately 3 locations) and for the maintenance facility. Existing publicly owned property may be used as sites

Page 70: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally

Draft Alternatives Analysis Report Alternatives Analysis for Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Area

66

for the substations and maintenance facility. Substations may be located in COTPA parking garages or other city-owned property in close proximity to the alignment. Three candidate sites have been identified for the maintenance facility, including two sites that are already in public ownership. The potential right-of-way impacts will be assessed as part of the NEPA process; including the number of affected parcels, quantity needed for acquisition or easements, characteristics of any buildings displaced, and estimated value of property needed. All substations, maintenance facilities and stop locations will be placed to avoid environmental impacts. As project planning continues, all coordination with local resource agencies and stakeholders will be conducted in conformance with applicable local, state and Federal laws.

Air Quality According to the FTA New Starts Criteria, a proposed transit project is assumed to have positive air quality effects. Proposed projects in non-attainment areas for any transportation-related pollutant receive high ratings, while all other projects receive a medium rating from the FTA. Therefore, it is expected that there would be positive impacts on the study area’s air quality, which will be verified as part of the NEPA process.

Noise and Vibration During the AA study, key stakeholders in the downtown business community expressed concerns about the potential noise and vibration impacts to sensitive historic and cultural resources, such as the Colcord Hotel and the OKC National Memorial. As part of the NEPA process, specific noise and vibration impacts will be evaluated and mitigation measures will be determined. Modern transit vehicles are generally much quieter than those in the past and technological solutions exist to dampen noise and vibration. In addition, since the alignment runs within an existing street corridor, the transit vehicles would not be located closer to a sensitive receptor than the existing traffic in the street including trucks and buses. As such, it is expected that there would not be severe noise impacts, according to FTA criteria.

Underground Utilities During the AA study, key stakeholders in the downtown business community also expressed concerns about the potential impact of electric stray current on underground utilities. COTPA is coordinating with the City’s MAPS Program Office as it oversees the Project 180 Streetscape Improvement Program. As a result, the location of underground utilities has been documented for the Central Business District and reviewed during the AA study to ascertain the extent of potential impact. Robinson Avenue contains many underground utilities within the right-of-way’s centerline and west of centerline; therefore, the proposed alignment alternative was proposed east of centerline. As part of the NEPA phase, the potential impacts to underground utilities will be fully evaluated and mitigation measures determined, such as stray current protection (rubber polymer rail boot) and cathodic protection for sensitive metallic pipelines.

Water Resources As part of the NEPA process, the location of any wetlands, floodplains, and waters of the U.S. will be documented as well as any potential impacts and mitigation. Since the alignment does not cross any water resources nor are there obvious wetland areas, no impacts are expected to water resources or wetlands. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) administers the National Flood Insurance Program, which establishes basic floodplain management requirements and provides flood insurance for participating communities. For the purpose of evaluating the floodplain impacts for the proposed LPA, regulatory floodplains within the corridor will be identified

Page 71: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally

Draft Alternatives Analysis Report Alternatives Analysis for Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Area

67

using FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps. Any potential impacts to floodplains due to stop locations, substations, or maintenance facility would be avoided or mitigated.

Biological Resources As part of the NEPA process, the location of any biological resources will be documented as well as any potential impacts and mitigation. Due to the urbanized nature of the study area, it is expected that there would be no resources of concern and therefore no noticeable impacts to biological resources.

Cultural Resources Although intact archeological sites are not likely present in the heavily disturbed urbanized study area, research will be conducted at the Oklahoma Archeological Survey and the Oklahoma Historical Society as part of the NEPA process to verify that no known prehistoric sites are within the area of potential effect (APE). Construction of the LPA would be confined within the width and depth of the existing roadway sub-grade. It is expected that there will be no affect to archeological resources. Over 50 individual historic properties are currently listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and more than 40 additional sites have been determined to be eligible for NRHP listing, as well as 22 historic districts within Greater Downtown Oklahoma City. In addition, there are 54 individual cultural resources located at various sites in and around the central business district and neighborhoods, including NRHP listed churches, schools, transportation facilities and commercial buildings. Also, the Oklahoma City National Memorial is an exception to the 50 years consideration for NRHP listing. As part of the NEPA process, all of these historic and cultural resources will be documented and evaluated according to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. Any potential direct impacts from construction, as well as indirect impacts from visual or audible elements, will be evaluated and mitigation measures will be developed to obtain concurrence from the State Historic Preservation Office and the FTA. Due to the number of historic and cultural resources within the study area, it is expected that a number of resources will be affected; however, the City’s historic streetcar system passed by many of these sites and the proposed LPA would travel along the same streets. Adverse effects according to Section 106 criteria are unlikely. Nevertheless, the final alignment, stop locations and maintenance facility will be developed to avoid potential adverse impacts.

Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) These two categories relate to properties and public parks protected by specific federal regulations. Section 4(f) protected properties include significant publicly-owned public parks, recreation areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, or significant historic sites. Section 6(f) properties include parklands acquired or improved with funding from the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Act of 1965. As part of the NEPA process, existing and planned parks, trails, and historic properties in the study will be assessed to determine whether they may be protected by Section 4(f) and whether the LPA would cause any potential impacts. If direct impacts occur, any prudent and feasible alternatives would be developed to mitigate the impact such as moving the alignment and station locations to avoid potential adverse impacts. Joint planning is possible in the vicinity of future parks to avoid a Section 4(f) use.

Visual Quality During the AA, key stakeholders in the downtown business community expressed concerns about the potential visual impacts of overhead catenary systems (OCS) on the newly-constructed Project 180 streetscape improvements. As part of the NEPA process, the potential visual impacts from

Page 72: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally

Draft Alternatives Analysis Report Alternatives Analysis for Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Area

68

OCS will be evaluated for potential adverse impacts on historic viewsheds and downtown streetscape aesthetics. Potential mitigation measures are currently being considered by the City, including use of minimally obtrusive support structures, screening by trees, and/or new hybrid vehicles that can be powered by on-board batteries for up to five miles. Due to this technological solution, it is expected that there would be limited impacts to the visual quality of the study area.

Hazardous Materials As part of the NEPA process, the potential impact of the proposed LPA on known hazardous waste sites will be investigated, documented, and mitigated. Hazardous materials could include former industrial properties, Leaking Petroleum Storage Tank (LPST), and reported incidents of spills or violations in state permits. Direct impacts could be possible from station locations, substations, or maintenance yard. Since mitigation would involve avoidance or site remediation, it is expected that there would be no impact or positive impacts for hazardous materials.

Traffic and Transportation During the AA, a preliminary evaluation of potential transportation impacts was conducted relative to estimated transit ridership and found positive transportation impacts from the proposed LPA. As part of the NEPA process, a more detailed traffic engineering assessment of traffic impacts will be performed, and overall ridership projections and boardings per stop will be assessed. In addition, potential impacts of the proposed LPA on existing and future traffic operations, travel time, and vehicle miles traveled and vehicle hours traveled will be assessed. In addition, the potential impact on existing railroad bridges will be assessed and mitigation measures will be determined, including avoidance or reconstruction. Since the City desires a pedestrian-friendly downtown environment, it is expected that there would be positive impacts on the study area’s transportation network. However, due to low clearance railroad underpasses, it is expected that there could be limited reconstruction of roadway underpasses or roadway approaches.

Public Safety and Security As part of the NEPA process, the potential impact of the proposed LPA on public safety and security will be assessed. Streetscape signage, stop location amenities, and pedestrian and traffic signals would be developed to maximize public safety and security along the proposed LPA alignment. Due to increasing national experience with advanced transit technologies, traffic signals, and streetscape amenities, it is expected that there would be limited or no impacts to public safety and security.

Energy As part of the NEPA process, the potential impact on existing and future energy use will be assessed from the perspective of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) versus the proposed LPA. The assessment will also calculate energy use during construction and operation. Since transit vehicles offer the opportunity for multiple occupants versus single occupant vehicles, it is expected that there would be positive impacts on energy use.

Cumulative and Indirect Impacts As part of the NEPA process, the cumulative and indirect impacts of all the assessed environmental issues will be evaluated to determine whether there is a net positive or negative effect on the study area. Conclusion The environmental resources documented in this chapter will be fully investigated, documented, and mitigated during the NEPA process. The qualitative assessment of potentially affected

Page 73: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally

Draft Alternatives Analysis Report Alternatives Analysis for Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Area

69

environmental resources identified several areas of concern, including historic resource impacts, noise and vibration impacts, visual impacts, and transportation impacts. However, due to the City’s previous streetcar network that crisscrossed the downtown street network and through design and engineering, modern vehicle technologies, and meaningful public involvement and agency coordination, it is expected that the City could avoid or mitigate any potential adverse impact from the proposed LPA.

Page 74: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally

Draft Alternatives Analysis Report Alternatives Analysis for Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Area

70

CHAPTER 8 - LOCAL FINANCIAL COMMITMENT

Introduction All sponsoring agencies must submit to FTA a financial plan to demonstrate their ability to secure funding for the local share of the Locally Preferred Alternative’s capital cost as well as fund the operation and maintenance of the entire transit system after deployment of new services. Further information on the development of the Local Financial Commitment justification may be found in the Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Circulator Financial Management Plan (November 2011). This document contains a detailed account of the projected capital and operational funding sources for the Locally Preferred Alternative. 8.1 FTA Guidance The demonstration of the City of Oklahoma City’s financial commitment to fund and operate the Locally Preferred Alternative was developed based on the FTA Guidelines and Standards for Assessing Local Financial Commitment (June 2007). The FTA assigns a rating of high, medium-high, medium, medium-low, or low to each of the following financial measures:

1) Non-Section 5309 New Starts share, 2) Stability and reliability of capital plan, and 3) Stability and reliability of operating plan.

The weight of each of these measures on the overall Financial Commitment rating is shown in Table 8-1. Under FTA Small Starts Programs, fifty percent (50%) of the preferred alternative’s capital cost is eligible for federal funding. A sponsor agency must be able to finance a minimum of twenty percent (20%) of the preferred alternative’s capital cost through local capital sources, while the remaining thirty percent (30%) of capital funding may come from State or other Federal capital funding sources outside of the New Starts/Small Starts Programs.

Table 8-1: Financial Measure Weightings Used to Develop Summary Rating Financial Factor Contribution to Summary RatingNon-Section 5309 New Starts Share of Project Costs 20% Stability and Reliability of Capital Plan 50% Stability and Reliability of Operating Plan 30% Total 100% FTA rates proposed projects’ Non-Section 5309 New Starts Share according to the percentage of project funding from sources listed in Table 8-2. The proposed LPA year of expenditure (YOE) capital cost is projected to cost $199.4 M. Oklahoma City has issued the MAPS 3 program for local investment in major capital projects. This fund has allotted approximately $120 M of local funds to support the implementation of Modern Streetcar. Under the FTA Small Starts program, the maximum federal portion share of capital funding is $75 M. In a letter of commitment provided by the Oklahoma City Manager’s Office, any local funds contributed to construction beyond the $120 M approved through the MAPS 3 program may come from several potential sources such as, but not limited to: City’s General Fund, matches by local developers, or surplus General Obligation Bonds.

Page 75: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally

Draft Alternatives Analysis Report Alternatives Analysis for Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Area

71

Table 8-2: Downtown Circulator Proposed Capital Funding Sources

Capital Funding Source Type of Funds $ Amount (YOE)

% of Capital Cost

Local (City of Oklahoma City) MAPS 3 $120,000,000 60.2% Other Local G.O. bonds, other local revenue $4,430,000 2.2% TOTAL NON-SECTION 5309 FUNDING $124,430,000 62.4% Federal Section 5309 – Small Starts $75,000,000 37.6% TOTAL FUNDING $199,430,000 100% As shown in Table 8-3, the local contribution of approximately 62.4% of the total estimated project cost rates Medium-High under the FTA New Starts/Small Starts evaluation guidelines.

Table 8-3: Ratings for Non-Section 5309 New Starts Funding Shares Rating New Starts Share Non-New Starts Share High <35% >65% Medium-High 35% - 49% 51% - 65% Medium 50% - 60% 40% - 50% Low >60% <40% The stability and reliability of the capital plan is a key element in evaluating the financial capability of the project sponsor to construct the proposed project and initiate revenue service. The FTA will assign a high, medium-high, medium, medium-low, or low rating to the following sub-factors that contribute to the capital finance plan rating:

1. Current capital financial condition of the sponsoring agency and funding partners;- based on the audited financial statements, condition of the agency’s capital assets (age of vehicles and facilities) and the agency’s bond ratings

2. Degree of commitment and availability of Non-Section 5309 New Starts funds; 3. Reasonability of capital planning assumptions and cost estimates and financial capacity to

cover capital cost increases or funding shortfalls. The ability of the sponsor agency to sustain operations of the new transit services without degradation or removal of the current transit services is critical. The FTA shall assign a high, medium-high, medium, medium-low, or low rating to the following sub-factors that contribute to the capital finance plan rating:

1. Current operating financial condition of the sponsoring agency - based on the audited financial statements and available cash balances and/or reserve funds

2. Commitment of O&M funds needed to fund the project’s subsidy – based on identification and commitment of new revenues to cover the additional subsidy requirement

3. Operating planning assumptions and O&M cost estimates – evaluates the sensitivity of the financial health of the agency with respect to the assumptions about ridership, revenue forecasts, socio-economic conditions, cost inflation and the reasonability of the operating cost estimates.

4. Financial capacity to operate and maintain all proposed, existing and planned transit services – based on the agency-wide operating plans ability to project adequate revenues to operate and maintain the proposed project while continuing to fund the O&M program for the existing transit system.

Page 76: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally

Draft Alternatives Analysis Report Alternatives Analysis for Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Area

72

8.2 Oklahoma City Financial Commitment Oklahoma City’s MAPS 3 is a seven-year, nine month one-cent sales tax initiative that began on April 1, 2010 to improve the quality of life in Oklahoma City. Oklahoma City voters passed the initiative by 54% on December 8, 2009. The initiative funds eight projects and is estimated to raise $777 million, including $17 million in contingency funds. A citizen oversight board has been appointed to review financing and make recommendations to City Council. Capital improvement financing by the sponsor agency is based upon the year of expenditure (YOE) projected capital cost of the Locally Preferred Alternative and contingencies. This is the estimated price of construction after factoring in escalation factors to account for issues such as inflation and changes in market value of materials and/or equipment. The base year (2011) estimated direct capital cost of the Modern Streetcar Build Alternative is approximately $174.0 million, while the YOE cost is estimated to be $199.4 million. For additional information on development of capital costs, refer to the Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Circulator Capital Cost Estimate Report (November 2011); available from COTPA as a supporting document. The current status and results of recent review of METRO Transit financial standing are included in the Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Circulator Financial Plan (November 2011). O&M cost financing is based on the annual expense required to operate and maintain the new, Modern Streetcar transit service adopted as the LPA (see Figure 6-1). This cost was developed by applying unit cost metrics per mile and per hour of revenue service to account for operations, maintenance and administrative staff as well as additional support materials and equipment. For additional information on development of capital costs, refer to the Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Circulator Operations and Maintenance Cost Estimate Report (November 2011); available from COTPA as a supporting document. COTPA and the City of Oklahoma City have identified funds out of the City’s General Fund and additional alternative sources to support operations of new transit services within the Greater Downtown area while a dedicated circulator funding source is being pursued. Refer to Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Circulator Financial Management Plan (November 2011) for further information.

Table 8-4: Downtown Circulator Proposed Operating Funding O&M Funding Source Type of Funds Dollar Amount

Local (City of Oklahoma City) Special district fees or taxes, parking fees and/or lodging tax

$5,671,000

TOTAL OPERATING FUNDS $5,671,000 The City of Oklahoma City has withstood recent downward economic trends nationally and was able to maintain its public transportation services. COTPA’s METRO Transit, with the assistance of the City, as well as the City of Oklahoma City have been in sound financial condition. METRO Transit has not experienced any significant reductions in services, staff or resources to cover budgetary shortfalls or cost overruns. Recent Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (CAFR) confirm the financial stability of METRO Transit, including: audited financial statements of governmental activities and subsidies, business-type activities, major funds and aggregate remaining fund information for the past several years

Page 77: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally

Draft Alternatives Analysis Report Alternatives Analysis for Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Area

73

were reviewed. As COTPA is responsible for municipal parking in Oklahoma City, they receive revenues collected from management of these facilities. These revenues are not intended or permitted for the use of transit improvements or investments, but this may change in 2011 once the debt on all COTPA garages has been retired after the sale of the Broadway-Kerr Garage.

Page 78: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally

Draft Alternatives Analysis Report Alternatives Analysis for Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Area

74

CHAPTER 9 - NEXT STEPS On July 1, 2011, the COTPA Board approved Modern Streetcar Build Alternative to operate on the Core Alignment and OHC Alignment as the LPA for implementation. Also, the Core Alignment, with a direct connection to the Fourth Street transit center, was selected as a Minimum Operating Segment (MOS) due to potential funding constraints. COTPA is committed to moving forward with the MOS based on the approved funding of the MAPS 3 program, but will also pursue $75 million in federal funding through the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) Small Starts program in order to fund the LPA. The City Council concurred unanimously with COTPA’s LPA selection on July 19. The LPA has also been approved for incorporation in the MPO Long Range Plan by the ACOG Transportation Technical Committee, Citizen Advisory Committee, and the MPO Policy Committee. With the adoption of a Locally Preferred Alternative, COTPA and METRO Transit have set about the tasks of documenting the capacity of the COTPA and Oklahoma City to finance and manage the design, construction, implementation and sustained operation of the Modern Streetcar downtown circulator. As part of concluding the AA process, a Financial Plan, Project Management Plan and Before & After Study (BAS) methodology report and a series of detailed block-by-block alignment plan sheets (Appendix A) have been prepared to identify the ability of the project sponsors to meet FTA Small Starts requirements to meet “readiness” to enter into NEPA Scoping and Project Development. These were all completed subsequent to COTPA’s July 1 selection of the LPA. Financial Plan The demonstration of the City of Oklahoma City’s financial commitment to fund and operate the Locally Preferred Alternative is one of the most important elements of a request to enter Project Development. The one for Oklahoma City was developed based on the FTA Guidelines and Standards for Assessing Local Financial Commitment (June 2007). The ability of METRO Transit to demonstrate the ability to meet the FTA Small Starts project evaluation criteria for financial commitment is discussed in Chapter 8 of this document. The detailed identification and allocation of local financial resources in support of the development and deployment of the LPA circulator is found in the Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Circulator Financial Plan (November 2011) and is available from COTPA upon request. Project Management Plan Part of the FTA evaluation of a proposed project’s readiness to enter into project development and eligibility for Small Starts funding is the development of a Project Management Plan (PMP) to demonstrate the technical and management capacity of a sponsor agency to develop, design, procure, implement and operate the proposed project. COTPA, together with partnering local agencies have developed a project administration framework and approach for managing the environmental and design phases of the proposed project’s implementation. The Greater Oklahoma City Circulator Project Management Plan (November 2011) has been developed to address management and administrative responsibilities through the design phase. The PMP shall be periodically updated throughout project development to incorporate provisions for mitigating potential issues that may impact the scope, schedule and budget as well as address potential constructability issues. The PMP also lists and addresses Third Party agreements likely to be needed.

Page 79: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally

Draft Alternatives Analysis Report Alternatives Analysis for Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Area

75

NEPA Scoping The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requires that the environmental impacts of proposed projects be described and evaluated as part of the decision-making process prior to the use of federal funding. NEPA established a nationwide policy of maintenance and enhancement of the environment, as well as a process for project development and environmental protection that all federally funded transportation projects must complete. Since COTPA is planning to “Request Entry into Project Development” for FTA’s Small Starts Program, a qualitative analysis of potential environmental impacts was conducted as part of the AA process to establish a framework for project scoping and determination of the appropriate environmental class of action: Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). NEPA Scoping, as appropriate to the NEPA Class of Action (EA or EIS), needs to be completed prior to COPTA’s submittal of a request to enter FTA Small Starts Project Development. Request to Enter Project Development Once “Early” NEPA Scoping is completed, COTPA will submit to the FTA a “Request to Enter Project Development” in early 2012. This submittal will include the following reporting items:

• Evidence of Basic Project Readiness • Project Background • Project Maps • Capital Costs • O&M Costs • Travel Forecasts • Project Justification • Transit Supportive Existing Land Use and Future Patterns • Local Financial Commitment

COTPA will follow FTA’s Reporting Instructions for the Section 5309 Small Starts Criteria (August 2011) in preparing its request to enter project development. Construction On July 5, 2011, the Oklahoma City Council passed the MAPS 3 project order that was recommended by the MAPS 3 Citizens Advisory Board. Planning for all eight MAPS 3 projects began earlier this year. Construction is projected to begin on one of the eight, the Modern Streetcar circulator, in 2014 according to the MAPS 3 project order list.

Page 80: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally

Draft Alternatives Analysis Report Alternatives Analysis for Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Area

APPENDIX A

Appendix A

Conceptual Locally Preferred Alternative

Alignment Plan Sheets

Page 81: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally

Draft Alternatives Analysis Report Alternatives Analysis for Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Area

APPENDIX B

Appendix B

Conceptual Build Alternative

Typical Stations & Vehicle Specifications

Page 82: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally
Page 83: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally
Page 84: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally
Page 85: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally

Draft Alternatives Analysis Report Alternatives Analysis for Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Area

APPENDIX C

Appendix C

FTA Standard Cost Category (SCC) Worksheets

Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) &

Minimum Operating Segment (MOS)

Capital Cost Estimates

Page 86: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally

P R O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N - B U I L D A L T E R N A T I V E (Rev.14, August 5, 2011)

Central Oklahoma Transportation and Parking Authority (COTPA) 11/22/11

Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Circulator

Alternatives Analysis (AA); Application for Project Development

10 GUIDEWAY & TRACK ELEMENTS (route miles)10.01 Guideway: At-grade exclusive right-of-way10.02 Guideway: At-grade semi-exclusive (allows cross-traffic)

10.03 Guideway: At-grade in mixed traffic10.04 Guideway: Aerial structure10.05 Guideway: Built-up fill10.06 Guideway: Underground cut & cover10.07 Guideway: Underground tunnel10.08 Guideway: Retained cut or fill10.09 Track: Direct fixation10.10 Track: Embedded10.11 Track: Ballasted10.12 Track: Special (switches, turnouts)10.13 Track: Vibration and noise dampening

20 STATIONS, STOPS, TERMINALS, INTERMODAL (number)20.01 At-grade station, stop, shelter, mall, terminal, platform20.02 Aerial station, stop, shelter, mall, terminal, platform20.03 Underground station, stop, shelter, mall, terminal, platform 20.04 Other stations, landings, terminals: Intermodal, ferry, trolley, etc. 20.05 Joint development 20.06 Automobile parking multi-story structure20.07 Elevators, escalators

30 SUPPORT FACILITIES: YARDS, SHOPS, ADMIN. BLDGS30.01 Administration Building: Office, sales, storage, revenue counting30.02 Light Maintenance Facility 30.03 Heavy Maintenance Facility30.04 Storage or Maintenance of Way Building30.05 Yard and Yard Track

40 SITEWORK & SPECIAL CONDITIONS40.01 Demolition, Clearing, Earthwork40.02 Site Utilities, Utility Relocation40.03 Haz. mat'l, contam'd soil removal/mitigation, ground water treatments40.04 Environmental mitigation, e.g. wetlands, historic/archeologic, parks40.05 Site structures including retaining walls, sound walls40.06 Pedestrian / bike access and accommodation, landscaping40.07 Automobile, bus, van accessways including roads, parking lots40.08 Temporary Facilities and other indirect costs during construction

50 SYSTEMS50.01 Train control and signals50.02 Traffic signals and crossing protection50.03 Traction power supply: substations 50.04 Traction power distribution: catenary and third rail50.05 Communications50.06 Fare collection system and equipment50.07 Central Control

60 ROW, LAND, EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS60.01 Purchase or lease of real estate 60.02 Relocation of existing households and businesses

70 VEHICLES (number)70.01 Light Rail70.02 Heavy Rail70.03 Commuter Rail70.04 Bus70.05 Other70.06 Non-revenue vehicles70.07 Spare parts

80 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (applies to Cats. 10-50)80.01 Preliminary Engineering80.02 Final Design80.03 Project Management for Design and Construction80.04 Construction Administration & Management 80.05 Professional Liability and other Non-Construction Insurance 80.06 Legal; Permits; Review Fees by other agencies, cities, etc.80.07 Surveys, Testing, Investigation, Inspection80.08 Start up

Subtotal (10 - 80)90 UNALLOCATED CONTINGENCYSubtotal (10 - 90)100 FINANCE CHARGESTotal Project Cost (10 - 100)

Construction Subtotal (10 - 50)

Today's Date

rail boots for stray current and vibration protection; add'l mitigation measures as neededembedded track turnouts required as needed for fixed guideway operations1/2 mile ballast track assumed at maintenance yard and storage facilityModern Streetcar vehicles operate along embedded rail

Modern Streetcar vehicles on fixed guideway; operating in mixed traffic

Describe the project elements to explain the unit costs shown on the Main Worksheet. Example: A 20-mile new light rail project has its guideway entirely on grade except for a one-eighth mile bridge over a river. The bridge or aerial structure may have a relatively high unit cost because there is little economy of scale.

Mention precedents and reference points used in the development of costs for this project. Mention other aspects of this project that were important considerations in estimating costs. These could include the physical context, site constraints; design parameters; institutional, contracting and procurement conditions; project schedule, etc.

Branded Modern Streetcar stops with eleveated platforms for level boarding

overhead catenary electrification assumedsubstations spaced approximately 1 mile of track

removal of existing roadway striping; roadway excavation for fixed guideway installation and removal of existing

new pedestrian signals at station area intersections and signal phases for Modern Streetcar turning movements

miscellaneous allowance for temporary traffic control and construction staging

train control signals to govern fixed guideway operations

Light maintenance facility for Modern Streetcar vehicle storage, cleaning, maintenance and dispatch operations;

variable message signs for real time arrival information at stations;

utility relocation allowance for fixed guideway installation

miscellaneous allowance for environmental mitigation

landscaping and sidewalk improvements around station areas

5% of construction base cost

5% allowance of capital cost for vehicles

7% of construction base cost

passenger counting equipment only lump sum for ITS hardware and software setup at Ops/Maintenance facility

allowance for minor ROW easements and acquisition of parcel for construction of Ops/Maintenance facility

Modern Streetcar vehicles

5% of total project cost

N/A

1% of construction base cost2% of construction base cost4% of construction base cost3.5% of construction base cost

6.5% of construction base cost6% of construction base cost

Page 87: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally

M A I N W O R K S H E E T - B U I L D A L T E R N A T I V E (Rev.14, August 5, 2011)

Central Oklahoma Transportation and Parking Authority (COTPA) 11/22/11

Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Circulator 2011

Alternatives Analysis (AA); Application for Project Development 2017

Quantity Base YearDollars w/o

Contingency(X000)

Base Year Dollars

Allocated Contingency

(X000)

Base YearDollarsTOTAL(X000)

Base YearDollars Unit

Cost(X000)

Base Year Dollars

Percentageof

ConstructionCost

Base YearDollars

Percentageof

TotalProject Cost

YOE Dollars Total

(X000)

10 GUIDEWAY & TRACK ELEMENTS (route miles) 7.68 23,074 3,678 26,752 $3,482 29% 15% 30,83510.01 Guideway: At-grade exclusive right-of-way 0 010.02 Guideway: At-grade semi-exclusive (allows cross-traffic) 0 0

10.03 Guideway: At-grade in mixed traffic 7.68 2,067 413 2,480 $323 2,85910.04 Guideway: Aerial structure 0 010.05 Guideway: Built-up fill 0 010.06 Guideway: Underground cut & cover 0 010.07 Guideway: Underground tunnel 0 010.08 Guideway: Retained cut or fill 0 010.09 Track: Direct fixation 0 010.10 Track: Embedded 18,148 2,722 20,870 24,05610.11 Track: Ballasted 581 87 668 77010.12 Track: Special (switches, turnouts) 1,200 240 1,440 1,66010.13 Track: Vibration and noise dampening 1,078 216 1,293 1,491

20 STATIONS, STOPS, TERMINALS, INTERMODAL (number) 31 3,822 764 4,586 $148 5% 3% 5,25520.01 At-grade station, stop, shelter, mall, terminal, platform 31 3,822 764 4,586 $148 5,25520.02 Aerial station, stop, shelter, mall, terminal, platform 0 020.03 Underground station, stop, shelter, mall, terminal, platform 0 020.04 Other stations, landings, terminals: Intermodal, ferry, trolley, etc. 0 020.05 Joint development 0 020.06 Automobile parking multi-story structure 0 020.07 Elevators, escalators 0 0

30 SUPPORT FACILITIES: YARDS, SHOPS, ADMIN. BLDGS 7.68 4,000 800 4,800 $625 5% 3% 5,50830.01 Administration Building: Office, sales, storage, revenue counting 0 030.02 Light Maintenance Facility 4,000 800 4,800 5,50830.03 Heavy Maintenance Facility 0 030.04 Storage or Maintenance of Way Building 0 030.05 Yard and Yard Track 0 0

40 SITEWORK & SPECIAL CONDITIONS 7.68 20,888 4,178 25,066 $3,262 27% 14% 28,38740.01 Demolition, Clearing, Earthwork 861 172 1,033 1,17040.02 Site Utilities, Utility Relocation 14,152 2,830 16,982 19,23240.03 Haz. mat'l, contam'd soil removal/mitigation, ground water treatments 0 040.04 Environmental mitigation, e.g. wetlands, historic/archeologic, parks 960 192 1,153 1,30540.05 Site structures including retaining walls, sound walls 0 040.06 Pedestrian / bike access and accommodation, landscaping 2,449 490 2,939 3,32940.07 Automobile, bus, van accessways including roads, parking lots 0 040.08 Temporary Facilities and other indirect costs during construction 2,466 493 2,959 3,351

50 SYSTEMS 7.68 26,475 4,790 31,265 $4,069 34% 18% 36,09150.01 Train control and signals 3,073 615 3,688 4,25750.02 Traffic signals and crossing protection 2,388 358 2,746 3,17050.03 Traction power supply: substations 7,000 1,050 8,050 9,29350.04 Traction power distribution: catenary and third rail 12,171 2,434 14,605 16,86050.05 Communications 642 96 738 85250.06 Fare collection system and equipment 76 11 87 10150.07 Central Control 1,125 225 1,350 1,558

7.68 78,258 14,210 92,468 $12,034 100% 53% 106,07660 ROW, LAND, EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS 7.68 1,170 293 1,463 $190 1% 1,629

60.01 Purchase or lease of real estate 1,170 293 1,463 1,62960.02 Relocation of existing households and businesses 0 0

70 VEHICLES (number) 11 39,270 1,964 41,234 $3,749 24% 47,73570.01 Light Rail 11 37,400 1,870 39,270 $3,570 45,46270.02 Heavy Rail 0 070.03 Commuter Rail 0 070.04 Bus 0 070.05 Other 0 070.06 Non-revenue vehicles 0 070.07 Spare parts 1,870 94 1,964 2,273

80 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (applies to Cats. 10-50) 7.68 27,390 4,109 31,499 $4,099 34% 18% 35,66880.01 Preliminary Engineering 5,478 822 6,300 7,13480.02 Final Design 5,087 763 5,850 6,62480.03 Project Management for Design and Construction 4,696 704 5,400 6,11580.04 Construction Administration & Management 3,913 587 4,500 5,09580.05 Professional Liability and other Non-Construction Insurance 783 117 900 1,01980.06 Legal; Permits; Review Fees by other agencies, cities, etc. 1,565 235 1,800 2,03880.07 Surveys, Testing, Investigation, Inspection 3,130 470 3,600 4,07680.08 Start up 2,739 411 3,150 3,567

Subtotal (10 - 80) 7.68 146,089 20,575 166,664 $21,690 96% 191,10990 UNALLOCATED CONTINGENCY 7,304 4% 8,322Subtotal (10 - 90) 7.68 173,968 $22,641 100% 199,430100 FINANCE CHARGES 0 0% 0Total Project Cost (10 - 100) 7.68 173,968 $22,641 100% 199,430Allocated Contingency as % of Base Yr Dollars w/o Contingency 14.08%Unallocated Contingency as % of Base Yr Dollars w/o Contingency 5.00%Total Contingency as % of Base Yr Dollars w/o Contingency 19.08%Unallocated Contingency as % of Subtotal (10 - 80) 4.38%YOE Construction Cost per Mile (X000) $13,805YOE Total Project Cost per Mile Not Including Vehicles (X000) $19,742YOE Total Project Cost per Mile (X000) $25,955

Construction Subtotal (10 - 50)

Today's Date

Yr of Base Year $

Yr of Revenue Ops

Page 88: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally

I N F L A T I O N W O R K S H E E TCentral Oklahoma Transportation and Parking Authority (COTPA)

Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Circulator

Alternatives Analysis (AA); Application for Project Development

BASE YEAR DOLLARS (X$000) Base Yr Dollars

Double-Check Total 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

26,752 26,752 0 0 0 0 0 8,026 16,051 2,675 0 0 04,586 4,586 0 0 0 0 0 2,064 2,293 229 0 0 04,800 4,800 0 0 0 0 0 2,160 2,160 480 0 0 0

25,066 25,066 0 0 0 0 5,013 11,280 7,520 1,253 0 0 031,265 31,265 0 0 0 0 0 9,379 17,196 4,690 0 0 01,463 1,463 0 0 0 0 585 804 73 0 0 0 0

41,234 41,234 0 0 0 0 0 6,185 30,925 4,123 0 0 031,499 31,499 0 0 0 0 11,025 9,450 6,457 3,937 0 630 07,304 7,304 0 0 0 0 1,096 2,922 2,557 730 0 0 0

100 FINANCE CHARGES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0173,968 173,968 0 0 0 0 17,718 52,269 85,232 18,119 0 630 0

0.000 0.000 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030Compounded Inflation Factor 1.000 1.000 1.030 1.061 1.093 1.126 1.159 1.194 1.230 1.267 1.305

YEAR OF EXPENDITURE DOLLARS (X$000) YOE Dollars 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 202030,835 0 0 0 0 0 9,033 18,608 3,194 0 0 05,255 0 0 0 0 0 2,323 2,658 274 0 0 05,508 0 0 0 0 0 2,431 2,504 573 0 0 0

28,387 0 0 0 0 5,478 12,695 8,717 1,496 0 0 036,091 0 0 0 0 0 10,557 19,935 5,600 0 0 01,629 0 0 0 0 639 905 85 0 0 0 0

47,735 0 0 0 0 0 6,961 35,851 4,923 0 0 035,668 0 0 0 0 12,047 10,636 7,486 4,701 0 798 08,322 0 0 0 0 1,197 3,288 2,964 872 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0199,430 0 0 0 0 19,361 58,829 98,807 21,635 0 798 0Total Project Cost (10 - 100)

90 UNALLOCATED CONTINGENCY80 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (applies to Cats. 10-50)

60 ROW, LAND, EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS

100 FINANCE CHARGES

Total Project Cost (10 - 100)

60 ROW, LAND, EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS

Inflation Rate

50 SYSTEMS

70 VEHICLES (number)

70 VEHICLES (number)

30 SUPPORT FACILITIES: YARDS, SHOPS, ADMIN. BLDGS20 STATIONS, STOPS, TERMINALS, INTERMODAL (number)10 GUIDEWAY & TRACK ELEMENTS (route miles)

80 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (applies to Cats. 10-50)

50 SYSTEMS40 SITEWORK & SPECIAL CONDITIONS

90 UNALLOCATED CONTINGENCY

Begin NEPA Scoping (December 2011); Submit application for entry into PD / Admittance into PD (June/July 2012)

40 SITEWORK & SPECIAL CONDITIONS30 SUPPORT FACILITIES: YARDS, SHOPS, ADMIN. BLDGS20 STATIONS, STOPS, TERMINALS, INTERMODAL (number)10 GUIDEWAY & TRACK ELEMENTS (route miles)

Page 89: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally

S C H E D U L E (Rev.14, August 5, 2011)

Central Oklahoma Transportation and Parking Authorit 11/22/11

Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Circulator 2011

Alternatives Analysis (AA); Application for Project Deve 2017

Start Date End Date

Preliminary Engineering (0% - 60%) 10/01/12 09/01/13

Design

Develop cost estimate, schedule, ridership forecast

Conduct reviews

Develop Environmental Assessment, receive NEPA clearance

Submit request / receive FTA approval to enter Final Design

Final Design (60% - 95%) 09/01/13 02/01/14

Design

Develop the contract documents for the Build Alternative

Develop cost estimate, schedule

Acquire real estate; relocate households and businesses

Conduct reviews

Submit request / receive FTA approval for FFGA

Issue requests for bids, make awards of construction contracts

Construction 06/01/14 03/31/17

Construct fixed infrastructure 02/01/15 03/01/17

Utility Relocation; Sitework 05/01/14 02/01/16

Fixed Guideway, Traction Power 04/01/15 05/01/16

Stations 07/01/15 08/01/16

Communications/Systems 09/01/15 08/01/16

Finalize real estate acquisitions and relocations 06/01/14 12/01/14

Acquire and test vehicles 01/01/15 03/31/17

Revenue Ops / Closeout of Project 04/01/17 10/01/19

Revenue Operations

Before and After Study: Two years post Rev Ops

Fulfillment of the New Starts funding commitment

Completion of project close-out, resolution of claims

Today's Date

Yr of Base Year $

Yr of Revenue Ops

20162010 2011

Begin NEPA Scoping (December 2011); Submit application for entry into PD / Admittance into PD (June/July 2012)

2012 2013 2014 2015 2017 2018 2019 2020

Page 90: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally

A N N U A L I Z E D C O S T - B U I L D A L T E R N A T I V E (Rev.14, August 5, 2011)

Central Oklahoma Transportation and Parking Authority (COTPA) 11/22/11

Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Circulator 2011

Alternatives Analysis (AA); Application for Project Development 2017

Quantity Total Base Year Dollars

(X000)

Cat. 80Prof. Svc.

spread proportionally

overCats. 10 - 50

(X000)

SpreadCat. 90 Unalloc.

Cont. according to perceived

risks(X000)

Revised Total Base

Year Dollars(X000)

Years of Useful Life

Annualization Factor

(based on 7% rate)

[.07/1 - (1.07)^-no. yrs]

Annualized Cost

(X000)

10 GUIDEWAY & TRACK ELEMENTS (route miles) 7.68 26,752 9,113 1,972 37,837 3,49810.01 Guideway: At-grade exclusive right-of-way 0.00 0 0 0 125 0.0700 010.02 Guideway: At-grade semi-exclusive (allows cross-traffic) 0.00 0 0 0 30 0.0806 0

10.03 Guideway: At-grade in mixed traffic 7.68 2,480 845 584 3,910 20 0.0944 36910.04 Guideway: Aerial structure 0.00 0 0 0 80 0.0703 010.05 Guideway: Built-up fill 0.00 0 0 0 80 0.0703 010.06 Guideway: Underground cut & cover 0.00 0 0 0 125 0.0700 010.07 Guideway: Underground tunnel 0.00 0 0 0 125 0.0700 010.08 Guideway: Retained cut or fill 0.00 0 0 0 125 0.0700 010.09 Track: Direct fixation 0 0 0 30 0.0806 010.10 Track: Embedded 20,870 7,109 877 28,856 20 0.0944 2,72410.11 Track: Ballasted 668 228 146 1,042 35 0.0772 8010.12 Track: Special (switches, turnouts) 1,440 491 146 2,077 30 0.0806 16710.13 Track: Vibration and noise dampening 1,293 441 219 1,953 30 0.0806 157

20 STATIONS, STOPS, TERMINALS, INTERMODAL (number) 31 4,586 1,562 365 6,513 46020.01 At-grade station, stop, shelter, mall, terminal, platform 31 4,586 1,562 365 6,513 70 0.0706 46020.02 Aerial station, stop, shelter, mall, terminal, platform 0 0 0 0 70 0.0706 020.03 Underground station, stop, shelter, mall, terminal, platform 0 0 0 0 125 0.0700 020.04 Other stations, landings, terminals: Intermodal, ferry, trolley, etc. 0 0 0 0 70 0.0706 020.05 Joint development 0 0 0 70 0.0706 020.06 Automobile parking multi-story structure 0 0 0 50 0.0725 020.07 Elevators, escalators 0 0 0 30 0.0806 0

30 SUPPORT FACILITIES: YARDS, SHOPS, ADMIN. BLDGS 4,800 1,635 365 6,800 49330.01 Administration Building: Office, sales, storage, revenue counting 0 0 0 50 0.0725 030.02 Light Maintenance Facility 4,800 1,635 365 6,800 50 0.0725 49330.03 Heavy Maintenance Facility 0 0 0 50 0.0725 030.04 Storage or Maintenance of Way Building 0 0 0 50 0.0725 030.05 Yard and Yard Track 0 0 0 80 0.0703 0

40 SITEWORK & SPECIAL CONDITIONS 25,066 8,539 2,118 35,723 2,59940.01 Demolition, Clearing, Earthwork 1,033 352 584 1,969 125 0.0700 13840.02 Site Utilities, Utility Relocation 16,982 5,785 877 23,643 125 0.0700 1,65540.03 Haz. mat'l, contam'd soil removal/mitigation, ground water treatments 0 0 0 125 0.0700 040.04 Environmental mitigation, e.g. wetlands, historic/archeologic, parks 1,153 393 219 1,764 125 0.0700 12440.05 Site structures including retaining walls, sound walls 0 0 0 80 0.0703 040.06 Pedestrian / bike access and accommodation, landscaping 2,939 1,001 73 4,013 20 0.0944 37940.07 Automobile, bus, van accessways including roads, parking lots 0 0 0 20 0.0944 040.08 Temporary Facilities and other indirect costs during construction 2,959 1,008 365 4,332 100 0.0701 304

50 SYSTEMS 31,265 10,650 1,242 43,157 3,40250.01 Train control and signals 3,688 1,256 146 5,091 30 0.0806 41050.02 Traffic signals and crossing protection 2,746 935 73 3,755 30 0.0806 30350.03 Traction power supply: substations 8,050 2,742 365 11,157 50 0.0725 80850.04 Traction power distribution: catenary and third rail 14,605 4,975 365 19,946 30 0.0806 1,60750.05 Communications 738 251 0 989 20 0.0944 9350.06 Fare collection system and equipment 87 30 73 190 25 0.0858 1650.07 Central Control 1,350 460 219 2,029 30 0.0806 164

92,468 31,499 6,063 130,030 10,45260 ROW, LAND, EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS 1,463 365 1,828 128

60.01 Purchase or lease of real estate 1,463 365 1,828 125 0.0700 12860.02 Relocation of existing households and businesses 0 0 125 0.0700 0

70 VEHICLES (number) 11 41,234 877 42,110 3,69270.01 Light Rail 11 39,270 877 40,147 25 0.0858 3,44570.02 Heavy Rail 0 0 0 25 0.0858 070.03 Commuter Rail 0 0 0 25 0.0858 070.04 Bus 0 0 0 12 0.1259 070.05 Other 0 0 0 12 0.1259 070.06 Non-revenue vehicles 0 0 0 12 0.1259 070.07 Spare parts 0 1,964 0 1,964 12 0.1259 247

80 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (applies to Cats. 10-50) 31,49980.01 Preliminary Engineering 6,30080.02 Final Design 5,85080.03 Project Management for Design and Construction 5,40080.04 Construction Administration & Management 4,50080.05 Professional Liability and other Non-Construction Insurance 90080.06 Legal; Permits; Review Fees by other agencies, cities, etc. 1,80080.07 Surveys, Testing, Investigation, Inspection 3,60080.08 Start up 3,150

166,66490 UNALLOCATED CONTINGENCY 7,304

173,968 31,499 7,304 173,968 14,272XX.XX Insert here other components req'd in Annualized Cost 0 0 0 125 0.0700 0XX.XX Insert here other components req'd in Annualized Cost 0 0 0 125 0.0700 0XX.XX Insert here other components req'd in Annualized Cost 0 0 0 125 0.0700 0XX.XX Insert here other components req'd in Annualized Cost 0 0 0 125 0.0700 0

TOTAL 173,968 7,304 173,968 14,272

Yr of Revenue Ops

Construction Subtotal (10 - 50)

Subtotal (10 - 90)

Subtotal (10 - 80)

Today's Date

Yr of Base Year $

Page 91: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally

F U N D I N G S O U R C E S B Y C A T E G O R Y (Rev.14, August 5, 2011)

Central Oklahoma Transportation and Parking Authority (COTPA) 11/22/11

Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Circulator

Alternatives Analysis (AA); Application for Project Development

Federal 5309 New

Starts

Local (MAPS 3)

Federal Other

Local (Other)

Federal Other

Local Federal Other

Local

10 GUIDEWAY & TRACK ELEMENTS (route miles) 30,835 30,835 11,596 0 19,239 11,596 18,554 685

20 STATIONS, STOPS, TERMINALS, INTERMODAL (number) 5,255 5,255 1,976 0 3,279 1,976 3,162 117

30 SUPPORT FACILITIES: YARDS, SHOPS, ADMIN. BLDGS 5,508 5,508 2,072 0 3,437 2,072 3,314 122

40 SITEWORK & SPECIAL CONDITIONS 28,387 28,387 10,676 0 17,712 10,676 17,081 631

50 SYSTEMS 36,091 36,091 13,573 0 22,518 13,573 21,716 802

60 ROW, LAND, EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS 1,629 1,629 613 0 1,017 613 980 36

70 VEHICLES (number) 47,735 47,735 17,952 0 29,784 17,952 28,723 1,060

80 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (applies to Cats. 10-50) 35,668 35,668 13,414 0 22,254 13,414 21,462 792

90 UNALLOCATED CONTINGENCY 8,322 8,322 3,130 0 5,192 3,130 5,007 185

100 FINANCE CHARGES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total Project Cost (10 - 100) 199,430 199,430 75,000 0 124,430 75,000 120,000 0 4,430 0 0 0 0

Percentage of Total Project Cost 100% 37.6% 0.0% 62.4% 37.6% 60.2% 0.0% 2.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%37.6%

Cost 2%

YOECost

(X000)

Double-checkTotal

Federal 5309 New

Starts Funds

Federal Other Funds

60%38%

62.4%100.00%

Local Funds

Funding Summary

Today's Date

Page 92: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally

F U N D I N G S O U R C E S B Y Y E A R (Rev.14, August 5, 2011)

Central Oklahoma Transportation and Parking Authority (COTPA) 11/22/11

Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Circulator

Alternatives Analysis (AA); Application for Project Development

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

199,430 double check 0 0 0 0 19,361 58,829 98,807 21,635 0 798 0

Federal 5309 New Starts 75,000 75,000 0 0 15,489 47,064 12,447 0 0 0

Local 124,430 124,430 0 0 3,872 11,766 86,360 21,635 0 798 0

Federal Other 0 0

199,430 199,430 0 0 0 0 19,361 58,829 98,807 21,635 0 798 0Total Project Cost (10 - 100)

Total Project Cost In YOE DollarsBelow insert funding sources and amounts for each year.

Today's Date

Page 93: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally

M A I N W O R K S H E E T - B U I L D A L T E R N A T I V E (Rev.14, August 5, 2011)

Central Oklahoma Transportation and Parking Authority (COTPA) 11/22/11

Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Circulator - Minimum Operating Segment (MOS) 2011

Alternatives Analysis (AA); Application for Project Development 2017

Quantity Base YearDollars w/o

Contingency(X000)

Base Year Dollars

Allocated Contingency

(X000)

Base YearDollarsTOTAL(X000)

Base YearDollars Unit

Cost(X000)

Base Year Dollars

Percentageof

ConstructionCost

Base YearDollars

Percentageof

TotalProject Cost

YOE Dollars Total

(X000)

10 GUIDEWAY & TRACK ELEMENTS (route miles) 2.95 10,242 2,048 12,291 $4,167 29% 15% 14,16710.01 Guideway: At-grade exclusive right-of-way 0 010.02 Guideway: At-grade semi-exclusive (allows cross-traffic) 0 0

10.03 Guideway: At-grade in mixed traffic 2.95 793 159 952 $323 1,09810.04 Guideway: Aerial structure 0 010.05 Guideway: Built-up fill 0 010.06 Guideway: Underground cut & cover 0 010.07 Guideway: Underground tunnel 0 010.08 Guideway: Retained cut or fill 0 010.09 Track: Direct fixation 0 010.10 Track: Embedded 7,650 1,530 9,180 10,58110.11 Track: Ballasted 581 116 697 80310.12 Track: Special (switches, turnouts) 800 160 960 1,10710.13 Track: Vibration and noise dampening 418 84 501 578

20 STATIONS, STOPS, TERMINALS, INTERMODAL (number) 16 1,989 398 2,386 $149 6% 3% 2,73420.01 At-grade station, stop, shelter, mall, terminal, platform 16 1,989 398 2,386 $149 2,73420.02 Aerial station, stop, shelter, mall, terminal, platform 0 020.03 Underground station, stop, shelter, mall, terminal, platform 0 020.04 Other stations, landings, terminals: Intermodal, ferry, trolley, etc. 0 020.05 Joint development 0 020.06 Automobile parking multi-story structure 0 020.07 Elevators, escalators 0 0

30 SUPPORT FACILITIES: YARDS, SHOPS, ADMIN. BLDGS 2.95 4,000 800 4,800 $1,627 11% 6% 5,50830.01 Administration Building: Office, sales, storage, revenue counting 0 030.02 Light Maintenance Facility 4,000 800 4,800 5,50830.03 Heavy Maintenance Facility 0 030.04 Storage or Maintenance of Way Building 0 030.05 Yard and Yard Track 0 0

40 SITEWORK & SPECIAL CONDITIONS 2.95 8,115 1,623 9,738 $3,301 23% 12% 11,02840.01 Demolition, Clearing, Earthwork 357 71 429 48540.02 Site Utilities, Utility Relocation 5,453 1,091 6,544 7,41140.03 Haz. mat'l, contam'd soil removal/mitigation, ground water treatments 0 040.04 Environmental mitigation, e.g. wetlands, historic/archeologic, parks 369 74 442 50140.05 Site structures including retaining walls, sound walls 0 040.06 Pedestrian / bike access and accommodation, landscaping 776 155 932 1,05540.07 Automobile, bus, van accessways including roads, parking lots 0 040.08 Temporary Facilities and other indirect costs during construction 1,159 232 1,391 1,576

50 SYSTEMS 2.95 11,368 2,258 13,626 $4,619 32% 16% 15,72950.01 Train control and signals 1,180 236 1,416 1,63450.02 Traffic signals and crossing protection 460 76 536 61950.03 Traction power supply: substations 4,000 800 4,800 5,54150.04 Traction power distribution: catenary and third rail 4,673 935 5,607 6,47350.05 Communications 340 68 408 47050.06 Fare collection system and equipment 41 8 50 5750.07 Central Control 675 135 810 935

2.95 35,714 7,127 42,841 $14,523 100% 51% 49,16760 ROW, LAND, EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS 2.95 860 215 1,075 $364 1% 1,198

60.01 Purchase or lease of real estate 860 215 1,075 1,19860.02 Relocation of existing households and businesses 0 0

70 VEHICLES (number) 6 21,420 1,071 22,491 $3,749 27% 26,03870.01 Light Rail 6 20,400 1,020 21,420 $3,570 24,79870.02 Heavy Rail 0 070.03 Commuter Rail 0 070.04 Bus 0 070.05 Other 0 070.06 Non-revenue vehicles 0 070.07 Spare parts 1,020 51 1,071 1,240

80 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (applies to Cats. 10-50) 2.95 12,500 1,875 14,375 $4,873 34% 17% 16,27880.01 Preliminary Engineering 2,500 375 2,875 3,25680.02 Final Design 2,321 348 2,670 3,02380.03 Project Management for Design and Construction 2,143 321 2,464 2,79080.04 Construction Administration & Management 1,786 268 2,054 2,32580.05 Professional Liability and other Non-Construction Insurance 357 54 411 46580.06 Legal; Permits; Review Fees by other agencies, cities, etc. 714 107 821 93080.07 Surveys, Testing, Investigation, Inspection 1,429 214 1,643 1,86080.08 Start up 1,250 188 1,437 1,628

Subtotal (10 - 80) 2.95 70,494 10,288 80,782 $27,386 96% 92,68090 UNALLOCATED CONTINGENCY 3,525 4% 4,016Subtotal (10 - 90) 2.95 84,307 $28,580 100% 96,695100 FINANCE CHARGES 0 0% 0Total Project Cost (10 - 100) 2.95 84,307 $28,580 100% 96,695Allocated Contingency as % of Base Yr Dollars w/o Contingency 14.59%Unallocated Contingency as % of Base Yr Dollars w/o Contingency 5.00%Total Contingency as % of Base Yr Dollars w/o Contingency 19.59%Unallocated Contingency as % of Subtotal (10 - 80) 4.36%YOE Construction Cost per Mile (X000) $16,668YOE Total Project Cost per Mile Not Including Vehicles (X000) $23,953YOE Total Project Cost per Mile (X000) $32,780

Construction Subtotal (10 - 50)

Today's Date

Yr of Base Year $

Yr of Revenue Ops

Page 94: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally

I N F L A T I O N W O R K S H E E TCentral Oklahoma Transportation and Parking Authority (COTPA)

Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Circulator - Minimum Operating Segment (MOS)

Alternatives Analysis (AA); Application for Project Development

BASE YEAR DOLLARS (X$000) Base Yr Dollars

Double-Check Total 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

12,291 12,291 0 0 0 0 0 3,687 7,375 1,229 0 0 02,386 2,386 0 0 0 0 0 1,074 1,193 119 0 0 04,800 4,800 0 0 0 0 0 2,160 2,160 480 0 0 09,738 9,738 0 0 0 0 1,948 4,382 2,921 487 0 0 0

13,626 13,626 0 0 0 0 0 4,088 7,494 2,044 0 0 01,075 1,075 0 0 0 0 430 591 54 0 0 0 0

22,491 22,491 0 0 0 0 0 3,374 16,868 2,249 0 0 014,375 14,375 0 0 0 0 5,031 4,312 2,947 1,797 0 287 03,525 3,525 0 0 0 0 529 1,410 1,234 352 0 0 0

100 FINANCE CHARGES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 084,307 84,307 0 0 0 0 7,937 25,078 42,246 8,758 0 287 0

0.000 0.000 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030Compounded Inflation Factor 1.000 1.000 1.030 1.061 1.093 1.126 1.159 1.194 1.230 1.267 1.305

YEAR OF EXPENDITURE DOLLARS (X$000) YOE Dollars 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 202014,167 0 0 0 0 0 4,150 8,549 1,468 0 0 02,734 0 0 0 0 0 1,209 1,383 142 0 0 05,508 0 0 0 0 0 2,431 2,504 573 0 0 0

11,028 0 0 0 0 2,128 4,932 3,387 581 0 0 015,729 0 0 0 0 0 4,601 8,688 2,441 0 0 01,198 0 0 0 0 470 665 62 0 0 0 0

26,038 0 0 0 0 0 3,797 19,555 2,686 0 0 016,278 0 0 0 0 5,498 4,854 3,416 2,146 0 364 04,016 0 0 0 0 578 1,587 1,430 421 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 096,695 0 0 0 0 8,674 28,226 48,975 10,457 0 364 0Total Project Cost (10 - 100)

90 UNALLOCATED CONTINGENCY80 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (applies to Cats. 10-50)

60 ROW, LAND, EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS

100 FINANCE CHARGES

90 UNALLOCATED CONTINGENCY

Total Project Cost (10 - 100)

60 ROW, LAND, EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS

Inflation Rate

50 SYSTEMS

70 VEHICLES (number)

70 VEHICLES (number)

30 SUPPORT FACILITIES: YARDS, SHOPS, ADMIN. BLDGS20 STATIONS, STOPS, TERMINALS, INTERMODAL (number)10 GUIDEWAY & TRACK ELEMENTS (route miles)

80 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (applies to Cats. 10-50)

50 SYSTEMS40 SITEWORK & SPECIAL CONDITIONS

Begin NEPA Scoping (December 2011); Submit application for entry into PD / Admittance into PD (June/July 2012)

40 SITEWORK & SPECIAL CONDITIONS30 SUPPORT FACILITIES: YARDS, SHOPS, ADMIN. BLDGS20 STATIONS, STOPS, TERMINALS, INTERMODAL (number)10 GUIDEWAY & TRACK ELEMENTS (route miles)

Page 95: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally

Draft Alternatives Analysis Report Alternatives Analysis for Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Area

APPENDIX D

Appendix D

Existing METRO Transit Fixed Route Service Map

Page 96: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally

BluffCreekPark

DoleseYouthPark

WoodsonPark

WillRogers

Park

LakeHefnerPark

EdwardsPark

EarlywinePark

MartinPark

NatureCenter

Trosper ParkGolf Course

Trosper Park

Memorial Park

Lincoln Park Golf Course

James E. Stewart

Golf Course

Stars & Stripes Park

Lake HefnerGolfClub

Lake Hefner

North Canadian River

Oklahoma River

North Canadian River

LIN

CO

LN

SE

RV

ICE

RO

AD

19

19

SW 25TH

9

LY

RE

WO

OD

LA

NE

TU

LS

A

56TH ST

IND

EP

EN

DE

NC

E

VIL

LA

SW 3RD

SW 18TH ST

SW 20TH ST

SW 15TH

SW 17TH ST

ST.

C

LA

IR8

59TH ST59TH ST

66TH ST

8TH ST

HARRISON4TH ST

WA

LN

UT

16TH ST16TH ST 16TH ST

VIN

E

PA

GE

20TH ST

9

SP

EN

CE

R

AD

AIR

42ND ST

2

10

IND

EP

EN

DE

NC

E

LINWOODGENERAL

PERSHING BLVD.

MAIN

VIL

LA

IND

IAN

A

11

11

GR

AN

D

RH

OD

EIS

LA

ND

PR

OS

PE

CT

EV

ER

ES

T

140TH ST

QU

AIL

SP

RIN

GS

PK

WY

ME

RID

IAN

McAULEY BVLD

5

5

5

4

CL

AS

SE

NC

LA

SS

EN

GE

OR

GIA

30TH ST

13TH

BELLE ISLE

46TH ST

39TH ST

KE

LH

AM

HO

OD

FO

NS

HIL

L

26TH ST

21ST ST

PR

OS

PE

CT

MIR

AM

AR

JO

RD

AN

LO

TT

IE

7

8

8

10

1010

10

10

10

10

8

7

7

8

8

7

8

8

8

HIG

H S

T

6TH ST

23RD

21ST

36TH ST

51ST

87TH ST

52ND

56TH

CE

NT

RA

L

HA

RV

EY

SH

AR

TE

L

KE

NT

UC

KY

DO

UG

LA

S

SH

IEL

DS

HIG

H S

T

38

38

38

38

AG

NE

W

GR

AN

D

SW 22NDEXCHANGE

11

11

12

9

8

10

22

11

99

5

5 5

SE 15TH ST

ADAIRBOEING

3

1612

Capitol HillLibrary

IntegrisSouth

4

CO

UN

CIL

MA

C A

RT

HU

R B

LV

D M

AC

AR

TH

UR

BLV

D

PE

NN

SY

LV

AN

IA A

VE

PE

NN

A

VE

PE

NN

SY

LV

AN

IA A

VE

WE

ST

ER

N A

VE

WE

ST

ER

N A

VE

WA

LK

ER

AV

EW

AL

KE

R A

VE

SA

NT

A F

E A

VE

SA

NT

A F

E A

VE

ML

K A

VE

MA

RT

IN L

UT

HE

R K

ING

/E

AS

TE

RN

AV

EM

LK

AV

E

SO

ON

ER

RD

AIR

DE

PO

T B

LV

DA

IR D

EP

OT

BLV

D

MID

WE

ST

BLV

DM

IDW

ES

T B

LV

D

DO

UG

LA

S B

LV

D

HIW

AS

SE

E R

D

BR

YA

NT

AV

EB

RY

AN

T A

VE

DO

UG

LA

S B

LV

D

HIW

AS

SE

E R

D

ME

RID

IAN

ME

RID

IAN

PO

RT

LA

ND

AV

E

RO

CK

WE

LL

CO

UN

CIL

RO

CK

WE

LL

KE

LL

EY

AV

EK

EL

LE

Y A

VE

MA

YM

AY

SU

NN

YL

AN

ES

UN

NY

LA

NE

NW 63RD ST

40

19

22

22

1

2323

23

2323

23

23

23

NW 63RD ST

11

77

108 8 8

20

14

14

1414

13

4040

1311

16

40

38

38

11

HA

RV

AR

D

16

23

20TH

1

16

20

12

TO NORMAN

18

18

18

1515

15

15 15

19

1515

20

20

20

24

24

2

28TH

25TH

13 13

DOWNTOWNSee Reverse

STATE CAPITOL

324

1440

Mercy Health Center

PennSquare Mall

De

aco

ne

ssH

osp

ita

l

Integris BaptistMedical Center

Metro TechSouth BryantCampus

OKCCommunity

College

U.S. GrantHigh School

OklahomaCityUniversity

Quail Springs Mall

Will RogersWorld Airport

Remington Park

OKC Zoo

National Cowboy Museum

TinkerAir ForceBase

Crossroad Mall

Ca

pit

ol

Hil

l H

igh

Sch

oo

l

Classen Schoolof Advanced Studies Mid-High

Bricktown Ballpark

John Marshall Mid-High School

NorthwestClassenHigh School

OklahomaCentennialMid-High School

Southeast High School

Star SpencerHigh School

Science Museum Oklahoma

Rose StateCollege

S 29TH ST

BRITTON RD/NW 93RD ST

NW 122ND ST

HEFNER RD/108TH ST HEFNER RD/108TH ST

WILSHIRE BLVD/NW 78TH ST WILSHIRE BLVD/NW 78TH ST

36TH ST 36TH ST

23RD ST 23RD ST

S 44TH ST S 44TH ST

S 89TH ST

S 104TH ST S 104TH ST

S 89TH ST

63RD ST 63RD ST

50TH ST 50TH ST

MEMORIAL

NW 122ND ST

MEMORIAL

NW EXPRESSWAY

RENO RENO

S 29TH ST

S 44TH ST

10TH ST10TH ST

RENO

10TH ST

WIL

L R

OG

ER

S E

XP

YL

AK

E H

EF

NE

R P

AR

KW

AY

I-40 I-40 I-40/I-35

ST 66 I-44

I-44

I-240

I-2

35

I-2

35

I-3

5

PO

RT

LA

ND

AV

E

I-3

5

I-35

N

OKLAHOMA CITY METRO

OKLAHOMA CITY METRO

Legend

Additional Information

Route Turning

5

Transit Center

Metro Bus Pass

Hospital

Regional Mall

Entertainment

OKC Zoo

Airport

Capitol

Library

Museum

Military Base

School

Community Park

For more information on routes

visit gometro.org, call (405) 235–RIDE (7433)

(Customer Service M–F 7 am–5 pm) or

visit the Transit Center.

Buses do not run on Sundays

Park

Route One-way

5

Route U-turn

Route Both Directions 5

Route Directional Change

Route Time Varies

Weekday Only Route

Weekday & Weekend Route

METRO Transit is central Oklahoma’s

public transportation system operating

throughout the Oklahoma City metro area

to take you wherever you need to go.

Buses, vans and trolleys form a fleet of

transportation with a variety of programs

to serve the needs of the community.

Central Oklahoma Transportation &

Parking Authority

300 S.W. 7th, Oklahoma City, OK 73109

This map is not drawn to scale.

5

24TH ST

26TH ST

30TH ST

36TH ST

WA

LN

UT

21ST ST

18TH ST

15TH ST

10TH ST

13TH ST

23RD ST

ST

ILE

S

LIN

DS

AY

18

24

18

2

23

3

16TH ST

LIN

CO

LN

LA

IRD

PH

ILL

IPS

CityCountyHealth

3

3

OU Childern’sHospital

OK

C V

A

Me

dic

al C

en

ter

OU Medical Center

KE

LL

EY

23

3

24

2324

24

3

18

24

18

18

24

3

23

23

24

19

2

NortheastAcademy Mid-High

24

23

LIN

CO

LN

18

23

323

LIN

CO

LN 18

232324

24

OKLAHOMA STATE CAPITOL

Belle IsleLibrary

VillageLibrary

Wa

rrA

cre

sL

ibra

ry

MidwestCityLibrary

Midwest CityRegional Hospital

Ra

lph

Ellis

on

Lib

rary

NicomaPark

Library

Del CityLibrary

Southern OaksLibrary

WrightLibrary

I-4

0

W 2

4T

H

BE

RR

Y

ROBINSON

MAIN

LINDSEY

24

NormanLibrary

OU CampusSouth Oval

NORMAN

Page 97: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally

If you are not familiar with METRO Transit’s bus system, this map is a good starting point because it allows you to see the entire system. Weekday–Saturday routes are in orange. Weekday only routes are in red. The system map does not show stops or stop times. To get information on stops and stop times you will need to visit gometro.org, call 235-RIDE or visit the Transit Center.

1. Identify your starting point and the route closest to this point.

2. Identify your destination point and the route closest to this point.

3. Look for the bus routes that connect these points.

4. You will need to get the individual route details for these routes (or a schedule), this information is available 24-hours a day at gometro.org. Schedules are also available at the Transit Center. If you need assistance planning your trip, call 235-RIDE to speak with a customer service representative.

Please use exact fare. The driver does not carry change.Children under six are Free with paying passenger.Transfers are Free.

Single Trip • Regular $1.25• Special Patron* $0.60

Single Trip-Express Service • Regular $2.25• Special Patron* $1.10

30-Day Unlimited Pass (Not valid on Express Service) • Regular $40• Special Patron* $20

30-Day Express Pass• Regular $50• Special Patron* $25

* Special Patron–Ages 60+, Disabled (valid ID required), Medicare Cardholders or Children ages 6–17 years

Every METRO Transit bus is equipped with a bike rack that can hold two bikes. Bikes are not allowed inside buses unless they can collapse to the size of a standard piece of luggage.

Getting On The Bus1. Make sure the bus stops completely and the

driver acknowledges you before you step in front of the bus. Never approach a stopped bus from the street side, as you cannot safely determine when a driver is about to leave a stop.

2. Squeeze the handle on the top of the rack and lower it. Place your bike in the rack and place the bar over your front wheel (as close to the frame as possible).

3. Remove any loose items or valuables from your bike, including panniers, then board the bus and pay your fare.

Getting Off The Bus1. Let the driver know that you have a bike to

remove, especially when exiting through the rear door. Never step in front of the bus until you are sure the driver sees you.

2. Remove your bike and fold up the rack if it is empty.

3. Go to the nearest curbside. Remember to never cross in front of the bus, as passing traffic cannot see you.

The MYride program delivers important METRO Transit news to you through email and wireless updates. Sign up for only the topics that interest you at gometro.org, and start receiving your customized rss, e-mail and/or text alerts.

Route Information 235-RIDETDD 297-2602Norman Service/CART 325-CART

Transit Center420 NW 5th Street

Transit Center HoursM–F 5:30 am–6:45 pmSat 8 am–5:30 pm

Garden Day/NE 23rd & Bryant – Weekdays–Saturday OK Department of Health, Douglas High School, Garden Oaks Community Center

Miramar/NE 23rd & Lottie – Weekdays–Saturday OU Medical Center, VA Hospital, McGuire Plaza, Diggs Community Center

Park Estates/NE 10th & Lincoln – Weekdays–Saturday OU Medical Center, Governor’s Mansion,OK Department of Human Services, City-County Health Department, Northeast Academy

Belle Isle/NW 23rd & Walker – Weekdays–Saturday Paseo District, Wal-Mart, North Classen Merchants, St. Anthony Hospital

Quail Springs/NW 63rd & Western – Weekdays–Saturday Nichols Hills, Quail Springs Mall, Oklahoma Heart Hospital, Mercy Hospital, St. Anthony Hospital, McBride Clinic, Platt College

N. May/NW 63rd & Independence – Weekdays–Saturday League for the Blind, Shepherd Mall, NW Classen High School, Mayfair Shopping Center, Lakeview Towers Apts., Marriott Hotel, DHS

French Market/Wilshire & Lyrewood Ln – Weekdays–Saturday Shepherd Mall, Penn Square Mall, Waterford Marriott, French Market Mall, Lakeshore Mall, Springdale Center, Lyrewood Point Apts.

Reno & May – Weekdays–Saturday Furniture District, White Water Bay, Seagate, Indian Health Clinic, Wal-Mart, Platt College

N. Portland/NW 16th & Penn – Weekdays–Saturday 16th Street Merchants, Portland Plaza, Will Rogers Park, Deaconess Hospital, Marriott Hotel, Baptist Hospital, Classen School of Advanced Studies

Oak Grove/SW 44th & Independence/S. Meridian – Weekdays–Saturday Will Rogers World Airport, S. 29th Street Merchants, State Barber College, Jackson Middle School, Rockwood Elementary, Oak Grove Apts., Meridian Ave. Hotels & Restaurants, Roosevelt Middle School

OKC Community College/SW 29th & May – Weekdays–Saturday Stockyards City, Economy Square, Southpark Mall, OKC Community College, State Barber College

Oklahoma City National Memorial

Myriad Botanical Gardens

ARTS DISTRICT

ARTS DISTRICT

AR

TS

DIS

TR

ICT

BUSINESS DISTRICT

AUTOMOBILE ALLEY

BR

ICK

TO

WN

DE

EP

DE

UC

E

I-40

I-40 I-40

N

13

20

24

9

8

3

24

24

2 24

4

24

4

8

20

13

15

24

24

24

40

15

24

15

12

1624

24

22

1

16 18 2218228 18

15 24

14 24

15 15

24

13 20

1416

15

38

22

7

1818

14

24

24

2

3

7

5

9

10

5

4

40

24

5

4

4

5

38 38

8

7 7

11

12

16

12

16

1216

9

1612

13201413

5 4

5

5

8

16

5

5

1

9

8 9

8 9

15 2415 24

15 24

3

24

2

3

20

10 24

10

38

1111

9

11

12 16

32

4

7

32

38

38

2

40

20

14

13

38

14

3

5

121116

14

510

16

1216

132040

23

10

8

16

14

2 3 8 9

2838

39

2 3 8 9

8 12

4

38

13 20 40

1 2 3 9 11 12 40

22

18

15811121640

148111314162040

4131420

51220

11114

91340

1518

148

822

57131420

410

8 22 38

4 8

11 12

2 3 8 9 38

14 40

1 13 20

11 12 14 40

1584

1524

*Route 8 turns right (east) on Colcord Dr when inbound, north on Walker when outbound.

*

24

15

24

24

2

3

3

13 14 20 40

1 11 12 16 40

1 11 12 16 40

8

10

1088

4 5 8 10

4

BR

OA

DW

AY

RO

BIN

SO

N

HA

RV

EY

HU

DS

ON

WA

LK

ER

SH

AR

TE

LS

HA

RT

EL

CL

AS

SE

N D

RW

ES

TE

RN

WE

ST

ER

N

BR

OA

DW

AY

E K

GA

YL

OR

D B

LV

DE

K G

AY

LO

RD

BLV

D

HA

RV

EY

SH

AR

TE

LWE

ST

ER

N

CL

AS

SE

NC

LA

SS

EN

DE

WE

YD

EW

EY

NW 11TH ST NW 11TH ST

NW 10TH ST

NW 9TH ST

NW 8TH ST

NW 7TH ST

NW 5TH ST

NW 6TH ST

NW 5TH ST

NW 9TH ST

NW 8TH ST

NW 7TH ST

NW 4TH ST

NW 3RD ST

NW 2ND ST

SW 4TH ST SW 4TH ST

SW 3RD ST SW 3RD ST

SW 2ND ST

W RENO AVE

W SHERIDAN AVE W SHERIDAN AVE

W MAIN ST W MAIN ST

PARK AVE

COUCH DR

COLCORD DR

NW 1ST ST

NW 13TH ST

NW 12TH ST NW 12TH ST

NW 11TH ST

NW 10TH ST

NW 9TH ST

NW 8TH ST

NW 7TH ST

NW 12TH ST

Cox ConventionCenter

Civic Center Music Hall

FordCenter

St. AnthonyHospital

City Hall

Ronald J. Norick Downtown Library

OklahomaCountyCourthouse

FederalCourthouse

EmersonMid-High

School

Oklahoma CityMuseum of Art

American Indian Cultural Center & Museum

DOWNTOWNOKLAHOMA CITY

Oklahoma City National Memorial

Myriad Botanical Gardens

ARTS DISTRICT

ARTS DISTRICT

AR

TS

DIS

TR

ICT

BUSINESS DISTRICT

AUTOMOBILE ALLEY

BR

ICK

TO

WN

DE

EP

DE

UC

E

I-40

I-40 I-40

N

13

20

24

9

8

3

24

24

2 24

4

24

4

8

20

13

15

24

24

24

40

15

24

15

12

1624

24

22

1

16 18 2218228 18

15 24

14 24

15 15

24

13 20

1416

15

38

22

7

1818

14

24

24

2

3

7

5

9

10

5

4

40

24

5

4

4

5

38 38

8

7 7

11

12

16

12

16

1216

9

1612

13201413

1211

5 4

5

5

8

16

5

5

1

9

8 9

8 9

15 2415 24

15 24

3

24

2

3

20

10 24

10

38

1111

9

11

12 16

32

4

7

32

38

38

2

40

20

14

13

38

14

3

5

16

14

8

510

16

1216

132040

23

10

8

16

14

2 3 8 9

2838

39

2 3 8 9

8 12

4

38

13 20 40

1 2 3 9 11 12 40

22

18

8 22 38

4131420

15811121640

148111314162040

51220

11114

91340

1518

148

822

57131420

410

4 8

11 12

2 3 8 9 38

14 40

1 13 20

11 12 14 40

1584

1524

*Route 8 turns right (east) on Colcord Dr when inbound, north on Walker when outbound.

*

24

15

24

24

2

3

3

13 14 20 40

1 11 12 16 40

1 11 12 16 40

8

10

108

4 5 8 10

4

BR

OA

DW

AY

RO

BIN

SO

N

HA

RV

EY

HU

DS

ON

WA

LK

ER

SH

AR

TE

LS

HA

RT

EL

CL

AS

SE

N D

R

WE

ST

ER

NW

ES

TE

RN

BR

OA

DW

AY

E K

GA

YL

OR

D B

LV

DE

K G

AY

LO

RD

BLV

D

HA

RV

EY

SH

AR

TE

LWE

ST

ER

N

CL

AS

SE

NC

LA

SS

EN

DE

WE

YD

EW

EY

NW 11TH ST NW 11TH ST

NW 10TH ST

NW 9TH ST

NW 8TH ST

NW 7TH ST

NW 5TH ST

NW 6TH ST

NW 5TH ST

NW 9TH ST

NW 8TH ST

NW 7TH ST

NW 4TH ST

NW 3RD ST

NW 2ND ST

SW 4TH ST SW 4TH ST

SW 3RD ST SW 3RD ST

SW 2ND ST

W RENO AVE

W SHERIDAN AVE W SHERIDAN AVE

W MAIN ST W MAIN ST

PARK AVE

COUCH DR

COLCORD DR

NW 1ST ST

NW 13TH ST

NW 12TH ST NW 12TH ST

NW 11TH ST

NW 10TH ST

NW 9TH ST

NW 8TH ST

NW 7TH ST

NW 12TH ST

Cox ConventionCenter

Civic Center Music Hall

FordCenter

St. AnthonyHospital

City Hall

Ronald J. Norick Downtown Library

OklahomaCountyCourthouse

FederalCourthouse

EmersonMid-High

School

Oklahoma CityMuseum of Art

American Indian Cultural Center & Museum

Oklahoma City National Memorial

Myriad Botanical Gardens

DOWNTOWNOKLAHOMA CITY

MYrideContact Information

Bike ‘N’ Ride

Service Overview

How to use METRO’s system map Fare Information

Capitol Hill/SW 74th & Western – Weekdays–Saturday Capitol Hill, Southwest Medical Center, Shartel Towers, I-240 Service Road Merchants, Wright Career College, DHS

SE OKC/SE 59th & Sunnylane – Weekdays–Saturday Goodwill Industries, Andrews Square, (OCHA) Ambassador Courts, SE 44th & High, Metro Tech, DHS

Midwest City/Reno & Douglas – Weekdays Rose State College, Midwest City Library, Crest Foods, Wal-Mart, Heritage Park Mall,Midwest Regional Hospital

Echange/SW 89th & Penn – Weekdays–Saturday Will Rogers Court, US Grant High School, St. Michael Hospital, Wright Career College

State Capitol/NE 13th & Lincoln/Musgrave – Weekdays Library for the Blind & Disabled, State Capitol, Red Rock Mental Health, Musgrave Addition, OPUBCO

Green Pastures/NE Oklahoma County/NE 39th & Hiwassee – Weekdays City-County Health Department, Career Connection Center, OK County Pharmacy, Willow View Hospital, Star Spencer High School, Spencer City Hall, Mary Mahoney Center, Dunjee Properties

SE OKC/Crossroads/SE 74th & Shields –Weekdays–Saturday Capitol Hill Business District, South Shields, Crossroads Mall, DHS

MLK Blvd/OKC Zoo/Remington Park –Weekdays–Saturday Douglas High School, Moon Middle School, Metro Tech, Omniplex, OKC Zoo, Remington Park, National Cowboy & Western Heritage Museum

N 23rd St Crosstown/NW 10th & Council – Weekdays–Saturday OU Medical Center, OCU, Shepard Mall, Windsor Hills Shopping Center, State Capitol Complex, Wal-Mart

Sooner Express/Norman/OKC – Weekdays Homeland (Norman), OU-South Oval, OU Medical Center, State Capitol Complex, Downtown OKC

Fairgrounds/NW 10th & MacArthur –Weekdays–Saturday St. Anthony Hospital, Fairgrounds, Indian Health Clinic, Meridian Ave. Hotels & Restaurants

S. Walker/SW 104th & Santa Fe – Weekdays–Saturday Goodwill Industries, Southern Oaks Library, Wal-Mart, DHS

For more information on routes visit gometro.org, call (405) 235–RIDE (7433) (Customer Service M–F 7 am–5 pm) or visit the Transit Center. Buses do not run on Sundays.

DOWNTOWN OKLAHOMA CITY

Legend

Route Turning

5Route One-way

5

Route Both Directions 5

Route U-turn

Transit Center

Metro Bus Pass

Hospital

Courthouse

Entertainment

City Hall

Library

Museum

School

Community Park Park

Weekday Only Route

Weekday & Weekend Route

Central Oklahoma Transportation &

Parking Authority

300 S.W. 7th, Oklahoma City, OK 73109

Central Oklahoma Transportation &

Parking Authority

300 S.W. 7th, Oklahoma City, OK 73109

This map is not drawn to scale.

5

51

15

16

18

19

20

22

24

38

40

513

14

23

2

53

4

5

7

8

9

10

11

12

gometro.org

Metro transit systeM

Oklahoma City

Metro transit systeM 20

09

Oklahoma City

Page 98: REVISED DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2011_1123_O… · 4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Transit Modes ... Lottie Avenue and NE 4th Street. The study area west of IH-235 is generally