Tier 1 Evaluation. REVISION # 1 DATE May 24, 2016 MILWAUKEE COUNTY EAST-WEST BUS RAPID TRANSIT

Transcription

1 MILWAUKEE COUNTY EAST-WEST BUS RAPID TRANSIT Tier 1 Evaluation REVISION # 1 DATE May 24, 2016 Prepared for: Milwaukee County W. Watertown Plank Rd. Wauwatosa, WI Prepared by: AECOM with HNTB

2 TIER 1 Evaluation of Alternatives RECORD OF REVISIONS REVISIONS REVISION NO. DATE PREPARED BY 0 May 6, 2016 AECOM Suprock 1 May 24, 2016 AECOM - Suprock page REV-i

3 CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION Project Description Project Purpose and Need Project Goals and Objectives Alternative Development and Evaluation Process OVERVIEW OF TIER MODES Typical Ridership Capacity Screening Methodology Data Sources and References Screening Results Typical Service Characteristics Screening Methodology Data Sources and References Screening Results Environmental Impacts Screening Methodology Data Sources and References Screening Results Demonstrated Ability to Catalyze Economic Development Screening Methodology Data Sources and References Screening Results Consistency with Existing and Planned Corridor Character Screening Methodology Data Sources and References Screening Results page i

4 3.6 Compatibility with Local and Regional Plans Screening Methodology Data Sources and References Screening Results Typical Per-Mile Capital Costs Screening Methodology Data Sources and References Screening Results Summary of Tier 1 Screening: Modes ALIGNMENTS Engineering / Operational Feasibility Screening Methodology Data Sources and References Screening Results Environmental Impacts Screening Methodology Data Sources and References Screening Results Consistency with Existing and Planned Corridor Character Screening Methodology Data Sources and References Screening Results Summary of Tier 1 Screening: Alignments STAKEHOLDER INPUT Public Outreach Elements Stakeholder Advisory Group Stakeholder Coordination Public Information Meetings Project Website page ii

5 6. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Modes Recommended for Detailed Definition and Evaluation Alignments Recommended for Detailed Definition and Evaluation FIGURES Figure 1-1: East-West Study Corridor Figure 4-1: East-West Corridor Segments for Tier 1 Evaluation TABLES Table 1-1: East-West Corridor Goals and Objectives Table 2-1: Project Goals and Tier 1 Evaluation Criteria Table 3-1: Transit Modes under Consideration for the East-West Corridor Table 3-2: Peer Systems Table 3-3: Peer System Ridership Capacity Table 3-4: Screening Results: Typical Ridership Capacity Table 3-5: Peer System Service Characteristics Table 3-6: Screening Results: Typical Service Characteristics Table 3-7: Potential Environmental Impacts for Mode Alternatives Table 3-8: Screening Results: Environmental Impacts Table 3-9: Economic Development Potential Table 3-10: Screening Results: Demonstrated Ability to Catalyze Economic Development3-18 Table 3-11: Modal Consistency with Character of the East-West Corridor Table 3-12: Screening Results: Consistency with Existing and Planned Corridor Character Table 3-13: Modal Compatibility with Local and Regional Plans Table 3-14: Screening Results: Consistency with Existing and Planned Corridor Character Table 3-15: Per-Mile Capital Costs Table 3-16: Screening Results: Typical Per-Mile Capital Costs Table 3-17: Summary of the Tier 1 Mode Evaluation Results Table 3-18: Modes for Detailed Definition and Evaluation Table 4-1: Tier 1 Evaluation Segments page iii

6 Table 4-2: Tier 1 Right of Way Descriptions Table 4-3: Tier 1 Segments Benefits and Challenges Table 4-4: Summary of Right-of-Way Accommodation by Modal Alternative Table 4-5: Characteristics of Alignment Alternatives Table 4-6: Screening Results: Engineering / Operational Feasibility Table 4-7: Likelihood of Environmental Impact Table 4-8: Screening Results: Engineering / Operational Feasibility Table 4-9: Consistency with Existing and Planned Corridor Character Table 4-10: Screening Results: Consistency with Existing and Planned Corridor Character Table 4-11: Summary of the Tier 1 Alignment Evaluation Results Table 4-12: Alignments for Detailed Definition and Evaluation page iv

7 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Description Milwaukee County and its partners have initiated a feasibility study to evaluate transit investment in the seven-mile East-West Corridor connecting major employment and activity centers between downtown Milwaukee, the Milwaukee Regional Medical Center (MRMC), and Milwaukee County Research Park (MCRP). Completing the feasibility study is a first step towards applying for funding through the Federal Transit Administration s (FTA) Small Starts program. Figure 1-1: East-West Study Corridor page 1-1

8 1.2 Project Purpose and Need The purpose of the East-West Corridor Study is to identify and implement the transit investment strategy that will accommodate anticipated growth in travel demand and mitigate congestion within the corridor, support mobility options that match emerging demographic trends and preferences within the corridor, leverage the existing transportation infrastructure to expand network capacity and personal mobility within the corridor, and encourage sustainable development patterns that reduce reliance on single-occupant vehicles. This Purpose and Need Statement identifies several needs in the corridor, which are summarized below. To reduce vehicle traffic volume, alleviate traffic congestion, and provide a reliable travel option unaffected by congestion in the Milwaukee area s most heavily travelled and congested travel corridor. To reduce transportation energy consumption and air pollutant emissions. To mitigate and operate as a viable alternative to the extreme traffic congestion which may be expected for multiple years during the reconstruction of the East-West Freeway (IH 94) between S. 70 th and S. 16 th Streets. To provide those without an automobile real access to jobs, healthcare, education, and other elements of daily life. To provide a transit alternative that will be an attractive choice for those who own an automobile and currently choose to travel by automobile in the East-West corridor. To efficiently service the substantial travel demand of the Milwaukee Regional Medical Center, and to accommodate and encourage its planned aggressive growth. To efficiently serve the substantial travel demand of the Milwaukee central business district, and to accommodate and encourage its planned aggressive growth. To encourage new, denser, mixed-use development and redevelopment which results in more efficient public infrastructure and services and lower energy use per household. To provide the transit element of the identified multi-modal improvements needed to address the existing and forecast long-range future travel demand in the East-West Corridor as recommended in the current and previous regional transportation plans. page 1-2

9 1.3 Project Goals and Objectives The following four goals and related objectives have been established for the East-West Corridor. These will be utilized for the development of evaluation criteria used in comparing the alternative transit investment options for the corridor. Table 1-1: East-West Corridor Goals and Objectives Goal Increase the efficiency, attractiveness and utilization of transit for all users Efficiently manage the forecasted increase in corridor travel demand Contribute to a socially-, economically-, and environmentallysustainable transportation network Objectives Provide reliable, frequent service that improves the experience of existing customers and attracts choice riders Provide capacity for future growth in transit ridership Provide enhanced passenger amenities and infrastructure Provide frequent, high-capacity, one-seat transit connections between key East-West Corridor activity generators Manage increasing corridor travel demand through more efficient use of the existing transportation network Contribute to acceptable levels of traffic operations and parking supply in the corridor Improve pedestrian and bicycle connections to East-West Corridor transit Coordinate with existing and planned transit services Promote a more efficient and sustainable transportation system that reduces energy usage, emissions, and costs of living Increase mobility and accessibility for transit-dependent populations Support regional planning efforts for a more balanced, multi-modal transportation network in the region Support local and regional goals for compact, mixed-use development along the corridor Support institutional and key stakeholder planning efforts page 1-3

10 Goal Develop and select an implementable and community-supported project Objectives Define and select transit improvements with strong public, stakeholder and agency support Define and select transit improvements that are cost-effective and financially feasible, both in the short- and long-term Define and select transit improvements that are competitive for Federal Transit Administration funding 1.4 Alternative Development and Evaluation Process In order to evaluate the initial group of transit modes and alignment options and identify the appropriate mode-alignment pairings that will comprise the detailed alternatives, the East- West Corridor Study will follow a three-step method. The first step ( Tier 1 Evaluation ) will entail the assessment of each mode and alignment relative to overall implementation viability. The second step ( Tier 2 Evaluation ) will assess the mode/alignment pairings that passed the Tier 1 Evaluation and compare the benefits and impacts of each. The alternative(s) that fare(s) best against the detailed criteria in this second step will be identified as Preferred Alternative(s) and further refined in the third step ( Tier 3 ). The Locally Preferred Alternative will be identified at the conclusion of the third step. The evaluation criteria associated with each step are a combination of quantitative and qualitative performance measures. The Tier 1 Evaluation will apply fewer and broader measures, including information from previous corridor/area studies. The analysis will largely rely on order-of-magnitude estimates and the outcomes of similar transit projects from around the country. The Tier 2 Evaluation will apply more detailed and alternative-specific evaluation results. Tier 2 Evaluation Tier 1 Evaluation Tier 3 Refinement Select the LPA page 1-4

11 The Tier 3 Evaluation will evaluate the Preferred Alternative(s) against federal criteria to identify and refine the Locally Preferred Alternative. This three-step process will result in the identification of an LPA that not only meets locallyidentified project purpose and needs, but is also competitive for federal funding. 2. OVERVIEW OF TIER 1 The Tier 1 Evaluation was structured to efficiently identify the alternatives that do not meet the project purpose and need or goals and objectives, and to remove them from further consideration in future phases of the project. This initial level of screening focuses on two areas: Transit modes Alignments The analysis followed a two-step process: first, transit modes were subjected to evaluation; second, the alignments were subjected to evaluation. This initial screening is intended to rely on readily available information and focus on highlevel, qualitative assessment of modal and alignment options as a means to evaluate a comparatively large number of alternatives. In cases where there is not sufficient information to dismiss modes or alignments from further consideration, those options were recommended for continuation into the Detailed Definition and Evaluation phase of the project. A series of evaluation criteria were developed to assess each alternative s ability to meet the stated project purpose and need, and its ability to ultimately be competitive for federal funding. Each of the modal and alignment options were evaluated against the criteria and rated as pass or fail. The performance of the alternatives against each evaluation criteria was then aggregated, and an overall assessment of pass or fail was assigned to each alternative. An alternative that received one or more fail rankings was assigned an overall assessment of fail. An overall assessment of fail means that the mode or alignment does not meet the stated page 2-5

12 purpose and need for the East-West Corridor Study and will not be carried forwarded into more detailed definition and evaluation project phases, but may meet the needs of future studies conducted in the area and region. The evaluation criteria for the Tier 1 Evaluation and their relationship with the goals of the project are shown in Table 2-1. page 2-6

13 Table 2-1: Project Goals and Tier 1 Evaluation Criteria Project Goals Tier 1 Evaluation Criteria Increase the efficiency, attractiveness and utilization of transit for all users Efficiently manage the forecasted increase in corridor travel demand Contribute to a socially-, economically-, and environmentallysustainable transportation network Develop and select an implementable and communitysupported project Typical ridership capacity X X Typical service characteristics X X X Environmental impacts X X Modes Demonstrated ability to catalyze economic development X X Consistency with existing and planned corridor character X X Compatibility with local and regional plans X X Typical per-mile capital costs X Alignments Engineering / operational feasibility X X X Environmental impacts X X Consistency with existing and planned corridor character X X page 2-7

14 3. MODES There are a variety of modes that provide transit service, however, there are many external factors and trade-offs that influence how modes are selected for specific environments. The first step of the Tier 1 Evaluation was to identify the modes that are appropriate for the East- West Corridor and to screen out those that are not. Table 3-1 shows the modes under consideration for this study. Table 3-1: Transit Modes under Consideration for the East-West Corridor Mode Typical Characteristics Example Services No Build Standard bus in mixed traffic operations Varied service depending on route; on-time performance over 90% on weekdays. Headway average (#30 Wisconsin Avenue Service) 1 Weekday AM/PM 7-19 minutes Saturday/Sunday AM/PM minutes Single (40-foot) low-floor, diesel buses Stops spacing generally varies between every other block and ¼-mileStations (over 5,500 total) vary between sheltered bus stops and basic bus stops Vehicle carries approximately riders Cost: $400,000 to $700,000 per vehicle Milwaukee, WI MCTS Average Headways for Regular Routes, page 3-8

15 Mode Typical Characteristics Example Services BRT Modern Streetcar Mixed traffic with transit signal priority or exclusive bus lanes Level boarding at high-quality stations 40- to 60-foot buses that have multiple doors, sleek styling, and onboard visual/automated next stop announcements Wide stop spacing (typically half to one mile) and frequent, seven-day-a-week service Branded service through use of a distinct name, logo, color scheme, bus wrap, and set of visual identifiers Off-board fare payment Transit signal priority Real time bus arrival information available at stations and through web/mobile apps on desktop computer or smartphone Typical corridor length of five to 20 miles Vehicle carries approximately riders (depending on length of bus) o Cost: $5 $30 million per mile; $500,000 to $1,200,000 per vehicle Rail tracks embedded within mixed traffic lanes o Dedicated lane options Powered by overhead electrical system or battery o Battery powered technology currently being used Level boarding at high-quality stations Single car trains Stops spaced ¼ - 1/2 mile apart Frequent service (10-15 mins) Off-board fare payment Signal priority Real time bus arrival information available at stations and through web/mobile apps on desktop computer or smartphone Typical corridor length of two to five miles Vehicle carries approximately riders Cost: $25 $50 million per mile (including vehicles); Vehicles: approximately $4-$6 million Kansas City, MO MAX Dallas, TX Streetcar page 3-9

16 Mode Typical Characteristics Example Services Light Rail Exclusive rail corridor or tracks embedded within lane of roadway (except in downtowns) Overhead electrical system Level boarding at high-quality stations One to four car trains Stops spaced one mile apart (except in downtowns) Frequent service (10 minutes or less) Off-board fare payment Real time bus arrival information available at stations and through web/mobile apps on desktop computer or smartphone Typical corridor length of 10 to 20 miles Trains carry approximately riders per train car Cost: $50 $150 million per mile (including vehicles) Minneapolis, MN Green Line Commuter Rail Rail corridor (separate from roadway) required; shared with intercity or freight trains Electric or diesel trains Every 30 minutes to one hour (sometimes only during peak commuter periods) 2 Typical corridor length of miles Train carries approximately rider per train car o Typically more seating and less standing room than other modes Cost: $3-$25 million per mile 3 ; Vehicle costs vary based on type of vehicle and number of cars in train. Austin, TX MetroRail 3.1 Typical Ridership Capacity Screening Methodology The introduction of new, high-quality transit service in the East-West Corridor has the potential to generate new transit trips, attract existing transit riders from other routes, and attract more choice riders. Moreover, there is potential to increase transit mode share should the service offer a competitive edge to the automobile for certain trips. In advance of a more detailed ridership forecasting that will happen in the Tier 2 Evaluation of Alternatives, the Tier 2 Austin, TX MetroRail service characteristics, 3 Transit technologies worksheet, page 3-10

17 1 Evaluation uses the typical average weekday ridership for the four modes under consideration as the basis of evaluation. The ridership capacity screening is done for two reasons. First, it is important that a mode is capable of accommodating both existing and future transit demand in the corridor. Next, it is also important that ridership is aligned with the capacity of each of the four modes under consideration. Modes that meet estimated ridership demand without a significant excess capacity (which results in higher operating and maintenance costs) are most desirable Data Sources and References A summary of peer agencies, by mode, was compiled as part of this analysis and is shown in Table 3-2. Peer agencies include transit agencies with a similar population as the Cities of Wauwatosa and Milwaukee, and and/or service area as the MCTS, or development characteristics as the study area. Ridership across the four modes under consideration in the East-West Corridor was sourced from MCTS. These data, shown in Table 3-3, reflect the average typical weekday ridership (unlinked passenger trips) of peer agencies across the country. Table 3-2: Peer Systems Bus Rapid Transit Streetcar Light Rail Commuter Rail MAX Kansas City, KC/MO HealthLine, Cleveland, OH Portland Streetcar Portland, Oregon Seattle Streetcar Seattle, Washington Light Rail Baltimore, Maryland Washington METRO Minneapolis, MN Northstar Commuter Rail Minneapolis, MN Rail Runner Express Albuquerque, NM Table 3-3: Peer System Ridership Capacity Mode / Alternative No Build (average of the average daily ridership of Routes 30, 30X, 31, and Gold Line) Ridership / Range per Average Weekday 2,500 page 3-11

18 Mode / Alternative Ridership / Range per Average Weekday Bus Rapid Transit 5,000 to 17,000 Streetcar 2,000 to 13,000 Light Rail 25,000 to 45,000 Commuter Rail 2,000 to 4, Screening Results The results of the ridership capacity analysis are shown in Table 3-4. Light rail failed when evaluated against this criterion because the typical ridership capacity associated with this mode exceeds the demand that is anticipated for the East-West Corridor. Commuter rail failed because it will not provide sufficient capacity to meet demand in the corridor. Table 3-4: Screening Results: Typical Ridership Capacity Mode / Alternative Bus Rapid Transit Streetcar Light Rail Commuter Rail Assessment Fail Fail 3.2 Typical Service Characteristics Screening Methodology There are a number of operating characteristics associated with high-quality transit service, including frequent service that operates from early morning to late at night, seven days a week. For the purposes of the Tier 1 Evaluation of Alternatives, the most relevant operating characteristics to the corridor include frequency and span of service. To meet the needs of page 3-12

19 the corridor travel market (commuters, students, residents, visitors), the transit investment should serve short and longer-distance trips consistently throughout the day and evening Data Sources and References Table 3-5 outlines the salient operating characteristics necessary to support high-quality transit service in the corridor. This analysis is based on the typical system characteristics of the modal systems that are in operation at peer agencies across the country and which are being evaluated as part of the Tier 1 Evaluation. Table 3-5: Peer System Service Characteristics Mode / Alternative Operating Characteristic Operating Characteristic Detail Bus Rapid Transit Streetcar Light Rail Frequency of Service Span of Service (hours per day, days per week) Service Time Periods Frequency of Service Span of Service (hours per day, days per week) Service Time Periods Frequency of Service Span of Service (hours per day, days per week) Service Time Periods High Long AM Peak Midday High Long AM Peak Midday High Long AM Peak Midday PM Peak Weekend PM Peak Weekend PM Peak Weekend page 3-13

20 Mode / Alternative Operating Characteristic Operating Characteristic Detail Frequency of Service Low Commuter Rail Span of Service (hours per day, days per week) Service Time Periods Long AM Peak None or Limited Midday PM Peak Screening Results The screening results of the typical service characteristics criterion is shown in Table 3-6. Commuter rail failed when evaluated against this criterion because the service is not frequent enough and does not operate during the time periods that would be necessary to meet the anticipated demand of this corridor. Table 3-6: Screening Results: Typical Service Characteristics Mode / Alternative Frequency of Service Span of Service Service Time Periods Overall Assessment Bus Rapid Transit Streetcar Light Rail Commuter Rail Fail Fail Fail 3.3 Environmental Impacts Screening Methodology This criterion is intended to understand, at a high-level, how the modes under consideration may affect the people, businesses and natural resources that are co-located within the corridor. As a potential corridor transit investment advances through future project phases, it page 3-14

21 will be more closely examined to determine its impacts and whether it creates adverse effects or generates benefits. This analysis is based on how the surrounding communities and existing transit customers would be impacted by the construction and operation of the various modes under consideration. While there are a host of impacts associated with new transportation investments, potential impacts considered for this analysis are focused on impacts stemming from construction, such as delay and congestion, as well as transit system noise 4, vibration, and visual impacts. While not every mode alternative will have the same level of impact on the natural and built environment, it is important to note sensitive areas and potential conflicts so that appropriate measures can be taken to avoid, mitigate, and minimize the impact Data Sources and References Table 3-7 details the potential environmental impacts analysis is based on the typical environmental characteristics of the modes under consideration. Table 3-7: Potential Environmental Impacts for Mode Alternatives Mode / Alternative Bus Rapid Transit Streetcar Potential Environmental Impacts BRT would operate in similar environment to existing bus service in the East-West Corridor; as such, it is not anticipated that this level of BRT service would create adverse environmental impacts. BRT operating in a dedicated right-of-way would create environmental impacts during the construction phase and may temporarily negatively impact the surrounding communities. After construction is complete, adverse environmental impacts to noise, vibration, and visual blight are not anticipated. Similar to BRT, streetcar systems can operate within mixed traffic or a separate rightof-way. Regardless of the configuration, construction activities would be necessary to embed the tracks within the right-of-way. As a result, construction activities may negatively impact the surrounding communities during the construction phase. In addition, streetcars have the potential to produce noise and vibration beyond what a bus or BRT system produces. Electric power is necessary to electrify a streetcar system, which could be located overhead (direct suspension/single contact or catenary wire) or underground. Electric power via an overhead contact system may be visually displeasing to area residents, businesses, and transit riders. Underground power can be used in visually sensitive areas. 4 It should be noted that the urban land uses at the eastern and western portions of the East-West Corridor mean that current noise impacts are dominated by existing roadway traffic. page 3-15

22 Mode / Alternative Light Rail Commuter Rail Potential Environmental Impacts A LRT system operates in a dedicated right-of-way. Construction will be necessary for the separated travel lanes, track and facilities. As a result, construction activities may negatively impact the surrounding communities during the construction phase. LRT can produce noise and vibration above what a bus or BRT system produces. Additionally, safety features, such as flashing light signals, bells/horns, and automatic gates, would likely be necessary with a LRT system. Since many of the noise-sensitive sites in the East-West Corridor are residential, it is anticipated that there would be a particularly heightened sensitivity to the intermittent nighttime noise resulting from a LRT system. Additionally, wire to supply electric power is necessary to electrify the LRT system, which is located overhead. Electric power via an overhead contact system (direct suspension/single contact or catenary wire) may be visually displeasing to area residents, businesses, and transit riders. Commuter rail typically operates within an existing rail right-of-way, but would still require construction to upgrade/replace tracks, and build stations and facilities. As a result, construction activities may negatively impact the surrounding communities during the construction phase. Commuter Rail can produce substantial noise and vibration above what a bus or BRT system produces. Additionally, safety features, such as flashing light signals, bells/horns, and automatic gates, would likely be necessary with a Commuter Rail system. Since many of the noise-sensitive sites in the East-West Corridor are residential, it is anticipated that there would be a particularly heightened sensitivity to the intermittent nighttime noise resulting from a Commuter Rail System. Visual blight is anticipated given the size and length of Commuter Rail cars Screening Results The screening results of the environmental impacts criterion are shown in Table 3-8. The visual scale, noise, and vibration associated with the light rail and commuter rail options would likely result in significant negative environmental impacts; these modes fail against this criterion. Table 3-8: Screening Results: Environmental Impacts Mode / Alternative Bus Rapid Transit Streetcar Light Rail Commuter Rail Assessment Fail Fail page 3-16

23 3.4 Demonstrated Ability to Catalyze Economic Development Screening Methodology When analyzing the benefits and costs of public transportation investments, there are many elements to consider. Transit expands mobility, it can help to shape land use and development patterns and generate jobs and support economic growth. The development context for each of these modes is important to consider. Some of the modes under consideration are more successful in dense, urban areas; others can work well in rural areas. Case studies reviewed for this analysis include the HealthLine BRT in Cleveland, the MAX mixed-traffic BRT in Kansas City, the Portland Streetcar, Dallas Light Rail System and the Northstar Commuter Rail. These example systems have been successful in generating economic development activity because the transit mode and its service characteristics match the land use and development market it serves (e.g., implementing a streetcar in a rural area will not result in development outcomes that rival Portland s Pearl District). Table 3-9 illustrates each mode s typical development context with the existing and projected development context of the East-West Corridor Data Sources and References This analysis relied on case study research of each mode s demonstrated ability to support economic development, and is summarized in Table 3-9. Table 3-9: Economic Development Potential Mode / Alternative Demonstrated Modal Impacts on Development Typical Development Context Bus Rapid Transit Medium High Suburban, urban Streetcar High Densest urban Light Rail High Suburban, urban page 3-17

24 Mode / Alternative Demonstrated Modal Impacts on Development Typical Development Context Commuter Rail Low-Medium Suburban Screening Results The screening results of the demonstrated ability to catalyze economic development criterion are shown in Table Streetcar and commuter rail failed when evaluated against this criterion because they have not demonstrated the ability catalyze developed in the multiple development contexts (urban and suburban) in the East-West Corridor. Table 3-10: Screening Results: Demonstrated Ability to Catalyze Economic Development Mode / Alternative Bus Rapid Transit Streetcar Light Rail Commuter Rail Assessment Fail Fail 3.5 Consistency with Existing and Planned Corridor Character Screening Methodology The type of new transit service should fit the community character and serve local needs. In general, the corridor has a transit-supportive development pattern, including concentrations of density and/or mixed-use development, with some areas offering a highly walkable environment. The four modes under consideration offer different degrees of flexibility with respect to how they can fit with the existing and planned development in the corridor. page 3-18

25 3.5.2 Data Sources and References This analysis relied on a qualitative evaluation, applying professional judgment, local knowledge, and a review of the vision, goals, and objectives of local and regional planning documents. Specifically these include the City of Milwaukee s Downtown Plan, Near West Side Area Plan, the City of Wauwatosa s comprehensive plan, and the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission s (SEWRPC) draft Vision 2050 plan. Table 3-11 illustrates each mode s relative consistency with the existing and projected development character of the East-West Corridor. Table 3-11: Modal Consistency with Character of the East-West Corridor Mode / Alternative Bus Rapid Transit Streetcar Light Rail Commuter Rail Consistency Rating High Medium Low Low Screening Results The screening results of the consistency with existing and planned corridor character criterion are shown in Table Light rail and commuter rail failed when evaluated against this criterion because their operating characteristics and infrastructure requirements do not match the corridor s character, particularly in Wauwatosa, along State Street, and along Bluemound Street. Table 3-12: Screening Results: Consistency with Existing and Planned Corridor Character Mode / Alternative Bus Rapid Transit Streetcar Light Rail Commuter Rail Assessment Fail Fail page 3-19

26 3.6 Compatibility with Local and Regional Plans Screening Methodology A qualitative evaluation of each mode s compatibility with local and regional plans was conducted. These plans were selected because they guide the region s long-term transportation goals and/or their land use goals. Each of these plans was reviewed to determine if the proposed modes for the East-West Corridor are consistent with their objectives Data Sources and References References to the need for a high-capacity transit investment within the East-West Corridor have been included in planning documents for more than 40 years. The following plans were included in the review of local and regional plans. The County of Milwaukee, Expressway and Transportation Commission, Milwaukee Area Transit Plan: A Mass Transit Technical Planning Study, June 1971 Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, The Milwaukee Northwest Corridor Rapid Transit Study: Environmental Assessment of Alternatives, January 1988 Wisconsin Department of Transportation, East-West Corridor Alternative Analysis / Draft Environmental Impact Statement, April 1994 Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, Review and Update of the Year 2035 Regional Transportation Plan, June 2014 Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, Milwaukee County Transit System Development Plan, October 2010 Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, 2035 Regional Transportation Plan which was last reviewed and updated in 2014 Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, 2014 Update to the 2035 Regional Transportation Plan Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, Vision 2050 Each mode was assessed for consistency with these planning documents as shown in Table page 3-20

27 Table 3-13: Modal Compatibility with Local and Regional Plans Mode / Alternative Bus Rapid Transit Streetcar Light Rail Commuter Rail Consistency Rating High Low Low Low Screening Results The screening results of the compatibility with local and regional plans criterion are shown in Table Streetcar, light rail, and commuter rail failed when evaluated against this criterion because they do not meet the vision for growth contained in the local and regional plans, and have not been recommended for study or implementation by any of those plans. Table 3-14: Screening Results: Consistency with Existing and Planned Corridor Character Mode / Alternative Bus Rapid Transit Streetcar Light Rail Commuter Rail Assessment Fail Fail Fail 3.7 Typical Per-Mile Capital Costs Screening Methodology The typical capital costs of the modes under evaluation vary significantly. A qualitative assessment of the financial viability of implementing each of the transit modes was based on typical per-mile capital costs. page 3-21

28 3.7.2 Data Sources and References Typical capital costs per mile were sourced from the transit capital projects that are included in the Federal Transit Administration s (FTA) Fiscal Year 2017 Annual Report of Funding Recommendations for the Capital Investment Grant Program (CIG). The CIG includes New Starts, Small Starts, and Core Capacity. The range and average capital costs shown in Table 3-15 reflect the costs reported by all of the projects by mode. The broad range of costs demonstrates the variability that can result from design, engineering and construction decisions. This range does, however, still enable a high-level qualitative analysis of which modes are not considered to be financially viable. Table 3-15: Per-Mile Capital Costs Mode / Alternative Per Mile Cost Average Per Mile Cost Bus Rapid Transit $2,000,000 $14,000,000 $7,000,000 Streetcar $35,000,000 $100,000,000 $66,000,000 Light Rail $150, $275,000,000 $187,000,000 Commuter Rail $36,000,000 $6,000, Screening Results The screening results of the capital costs criterion are shown in Table The per-mile capital costs associated with streetcar and light rail likely exceed the local and regional ability to fund and implement those transit investments. Table 3-16: Screening Results: Typical Per-Mile Capital Costs Mode / Alternative Bus Rapid Transit Streetcar Light Rail Commuter Rail Assessment Fail Fail page 3-22

29 3.8 Summary of Tier 1 Screening: Modes The results of the Tier 1 mode evaluation are shown in Tables 3-17 and Modes with one or more fail rating will be removed from further definition and evaluation in subsequent phases of the study. BRT passed when evaluated against all criteria and will be carried forward into the Tier 2 Evaluation. Streetcar, LRT, and commuter rail failed against one or more criteria and will be removed from further consideration in the study; this does not preclude them from being considered during future corridor transit studies. Table 3-17: Summary of the Tier 1 Mode Evaluation Results Tier 1 Mode Evaluation Criteria Mode / Alternative Typical Ridership Capacity Typical Service Characteristics Environmental Impacts Demonstrated Ability to Catalyze Economic Development Consistency with Existing and Planned Corridor Character Compatibility with Local and Regional Plans Typical Per- Mile Capital Costs Bus Rapid Transit Streetcar Fail Fail Fail Light Rail Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Commuter Rail Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail page 3-23

30 Table 3-18: Modes for Detailed Definition and Evaluation Mode / Alternative Bus Rapid Transit Streetcar Light Rail Commuter Rail Assessment Fail Fail Fail page 3-24

31 4. ALIGNMENTS The East-West Corridor spans approximately seven miles from downtown Milwaukee to MRMC and MCRP. For purposes of the Tier 1 Evaluation, the corridor has been divided into seven segments to facilitate the comparison of alignment alternatives along the length of the corridor. The segment boundaries are identified in Table 4-1 and are shown in Figure 4-1 below. Table 4-1: Tier 1 Evaluation Segments Segment Number Segment Boundaries Potential Alignments 1 Downtown Wisconsin Avenue Michigan Street Wells Street 2 10th Street to 45th Street Wisconsin Avenue 3 State Street State Street 4 45th Street to Hawley Road Wisconsin Avenue Bluemound Road 5 Hawley Road to 89th Street Bluemound Road 6 89th Street to Highway 100 / Mayfair Road Wisconsin Avenue Bluemound Road 7 MRMC / MCRP / Swan Boulevard / Mayfair Rd -- page 4-25

32 Figure 4-1: East-West Corridor Segments for Tier 1 Evaluation page 4-26

33 The universe of alignment alternatives is characterized by a range of right-of-way segments and potential configurations for the accommodation of higher-capacity transit service. Table 4-2 provides generalized descriptions of right of way for the alignment alternatives. Table 4-2: Tier 1 Right of Way Descriptions ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVE Section 1 - Downtown Downtown Milwaukee Circulator Michigan Street Wisconsin Avenue Wells Street RIGHT OF WAY DESCRIPTION Existing -Two to four travel lanes -Two parking lanes (depending on specific location) Potential BRT Service -Current right of way and roadway configuration would require a split route pair, southbound on Cass Street and northbound on Van Buren Street -Requires multiple turning movements, which may cause delays in travel times -Could require changes to current traffic patterns Existing -Four travel lanes and two parking lanes west of the Milwaukee River -Milwaukee Streetcar s Lakefront Line is considering a dedicated center running streetcar lane east of the Milwaukee River with a dedicated lane for Streetcar down the center. Potential BRT Service - Wide cross section with multiple connections to existing transit service -BRT operations with Milwaukee Streetcar s Lakefront Line could slow down one mode or the other while boarding/alighting Existing -Four lanes east of the Milwaukee River; two lanes west of the Milwaukee River -Portions with two parking lanes; other areas with no parking lanes -Current right of way and use west of Milwaukee River produces congestion at peak hours Potential BRT Service -Congestion during peak hours could present a challenge -Would require coordination with existing bus routes along Wisconsin Avenue Existing -Four lanes east of the Milwaukee River; two lanes west of the Milwaukee River -Portions with two parking lanes; other areas with no parking lanes Potential BRT Service -Section west of Milwaukee Street has wide cross section -Requires multiple turn movements to get back to Wisconsin Avenue -Could require changes to current traffic patterns Section 2 - Between 10 th Street and 45th Street Existing -Four travels lanes -Portions with two parking lanes; other areas with no parking lanes Wisconsin Avenue -Median present Potential BRT Service -Dedicated lane and median platform options available through this section -Potential to remove areas of on-street parking or travel lane through this section page 4-27

34 Section 3 - State Street between 35th Street and MRMC Existing -Two to four travel lanes (primarily two travel lanes with portions of four travel lanes on 35 th Street and on State Street between Wisconsin Highway 175 and Hawley Road) -Portions with two parking lanes; other areas with no parking lanes State Street Potential BRT Service -Limited right-of-way for dedicated bus lane -Would require multiple turning movements -Would require integration of BRT services with retail and commercial uses Section 4 - Between 45th Street and Hawley Road Wisconsin Avenue Bluemound Road Existing -Four travel lanes and two parking lanes -Median present Potential BRT Service -Wide cross section could allow for dedicated bus lane Existing -Four travel lanes -Two parking lanes -Portions with bike lane Potential BRT Service -Potential removal of on-street parking/bike lane to accommodate dedicated lane through this section Section 5 - Between Hawley Road and 89 th Street Bluemound Road Existing -Four travel lanes and two parking lanes Potential BRT Service -Wide cross section available -Potential removal of on-street parking or travel lane through this section to accommodate dedicated lane Section 6 - Between 89 th Street and Mayfair Road (Highway 100) Wisconsin Avenue (from 89 th Street to Mayfair Road) Bluemound Road Existing -Two travel lanes; two parking lane Potential BRT Service -Narrow cross section could make dedicated lanes more challenging; potential to remove on-street parking Existing -Four travel lanes; two parking lanes for portions -Portions with bike lanes -Median present Potential BRT Service -Dedicated lane and median platform options available through this section; could require removal of onstreet parking or travel lane through this section for dedicated lane Section 7 MRMC/MCRP/Swan Boulevard Road Network MRMC / MCRP / Swan Blvd Road Network Existing -Two to eight travel lanes (primarily 2 lanes through the MRMC/MCRP campus, 4 lanes along Swan Boulevard, and eight lanes on Mayfair Road) -No on-street parking lanes -Bike lanes along portions Potential BRT Service -Range of roadway types could create challenges for dedicated service in this area page 4-28

35 Table 4-3 provides additional detail regarding the segments and the potential alignments within each segment. This table provides potential benefits and challenges for incorporating dedicated lane operations along these alignments. Table 4-3: Tier 1 Segments Benefits and Challenges ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVE Section 1 - Downtown Downtown Milwaukee Circulator Michigan Street Wisconsin Avenue BENEFITS -Located near existing and new, high density developments -Provides turn around for vehicle -Four travel lanes and two parking lanes provides a wider cross section -Leads directly to Milwaukee Transit Center (future site of Couture development) -Direct route to MRMC -Connections to multiple existing transit services -Most centrally located option Wells Street -Section west of Milwaukee has wide cross section Section 2 - Between 10 th and 45th Street -Direct route between MRMC and downtown Milwaukee -Median platform options available through Wisconsin Avenue this section -Serves Marquette University and local businesses CHALLENGES -Requires a split route pair, southbound on Cass Street and northbound on Van Buren Street. -Requires multiple turning movements, which may cause delays in travel times. -Turning movements required to get to/from Wisconsin Avenue -Mostly serves southern portion of downtown Milwaukee -Congestion can occur through the narrowed section of W. Wisconsin Avenue, west of Milwaukee River. -Multiple existing bus routes may have to be adjusted as a result of an alignment along Wisconsin Avenue in downtown Milwaukee -Requires multiple turn movements to get back to Wisconsin Avenue on the east and west ends of downtown Milwaukee -Could require changes to current traffic patterns -High volumes of pedestrians may cause slower transit travel times -If a dedicated lane is provided, it may require removal of on-street parking or travel lane through this section Section 3 - State Street between 35th Street and MRMC -Serves major commercial districts in -Less direct route to MRMC/downtown Milwaukee Wauwatosa and the Village -Limited right-of-way for dedicated lane State Street -Better serves MillerCoors, Harley- Davidson and new multi-family mixed-use areas in Wauwatosa Section 4 - Between 45th Street and Hawley Road -Direct route between MRMC and downtown Milwaukee -Median platform options available through Wisconsin Avenue this section -Wide cross section would allow for dedicated lane -Serves commercial/retail opportunities Bluemound Road -Route travels through business districts along Bluemound Road Section 5 - Between Hawley Road and 89 th Street -Four travel lanes and two parking lanes provides wider cross section Bluemound Road -If a dedicated lane is provided for the BRT, it may require removal of on-street parking or travel lane through this section -Fewer opportunities for economic development -Bike lanes and on-street parking may need to be removed if BRT has a dedicated lane through this section. -Less direct route to MRMC -Less direct route to MRMC -If a dedicated lane is provided for the BRT, it may require removal of on-street parking or travel lane through this section page 4-29

36 ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVE Wisconsin Avenue (from 89 th Street to Mayfair Road) BENEFITS Section 6 - Between 89 th Street and Mayfair Road (Highway 100) -Direct route to MRMC/downtown Milwaukee -Median platform options available through this section Bluemound Road -Provides a potential direct connection to the Milwaukee County Zoo Section 7 MRMC/MCRP/Swan Boulevard Road Network MRMC / MCRP / Swan Blvd Road Network -Opportunities to connect with major destinations and attractions, such as: Milwaukee County Zoo, MRMC, MCRP, UWM Innovation Campus an Park & Ride lots CHALLENGES -Narrow cross section could make dedicated lanes more challenging. -If a dedicated lane is provided for the BRT, it may require removal of on-street parking/travel lane through this section -Less direct route to MRMC -If a dedicated lane is provided for the BRT, it may require removal of on-street parking or travel lane through this section -Serving the major destinations and attractions on the west end of the proposed BRT alignment can be a challenge. Balancing travel times, serving destinations and providing an I-94 mitigation route will all be evaluated to determine the preferred alignment option 4.1 Engineering / Operational Feasibility Screening Methodology As there are currently no dedicated transit lanes on the proposed alignments from which to readily draw detailed information, desktop planning tools help to assess, qualitatively, the potential engineering and/or operational constraints that would significantly affect the feasibility of implementing transit in the East-West Corridor. The intent of this exercise is to eliminate those alignments that preclude dedicated lane transit operations Data Sources and References Much of the information to evaluate these criteria is drawn from the Existing Conditions Report. Each alignment was evaluated based on its existing level of congestion and rated as: Good: relatively free flowing traffic with few restrictions; Moderate: Some restrictions to free flowing traffic with occasional congestion; Poor: Many restrictions to free flowing traffic with recurrent congestion. The typical lane configuration of each segment was inventoried, also. The potential right-ofway impacts of each of the modes under consideration are summarized in Table 4-4. These are based on engineering requirements and professional judgement from the experience of communities elsewhere that have designed and constructed the four modes under page 4-30

37 consideration. The right-of-way characteristics of specific points within each segment are presented in Table 4-5. Table 4-4: Summary of Right-of-Way Accommodation by Modal Alternative Mode / Alternative Bus Rapid Transit Streetcar Light Rail Commuter Rail Dedicated Transit Lanes: Potential Right-of-Way Impact Require two transit-dedicated travel lanes, which would reduce the number of general traffic/turn lanes. Where less than 80 feet of right-of-way is available, existing general traffic lanes and/or on-street parking may need to be removed. Dedicated right-of-way: Typically operates in existing freight rail corridor. Critical intersections are also identified using engineering judgment, where consistently there is higher congestion and/or delays for drivers on the proposed alignments. The operation at these intersections would be sensitive to change in geometry, lane assignments, or traffic signal operations. Significant operational impacts may occur at these intersections if any of the roadway width is rededicated to exclusive transit use or if traffic signal operations change. An important element of transit design includes balancing access (providing service to the greatest number of potential riders) with travel time (by efficiently connecting riders with their destinations). A qualitative assessment was made of which segments are likely to contribute to a balance between access and travel time. For the Tier 1 Evaluation, these characteristics were extrapolated to determine the operational appropriateness of dedicated transit lanes for each of the four modal alternatives under consideration. A qualitative assessment rating of good, fair and poor was assigned based on professional judgement and experience of systems operating in similar contexts across the country. The qualitative assessment is summarized in Table 4-5. page 4-31