Scottsdale Road/Rural Road Alternatives Analysis (AA) Study Arizona ITE/IMSA Spring Conference March 7, 2012
Study Location and Duration Primary Study Corridor (major focus of effort) Rural Road and Scottsdale Road from the Light Rail starter line (near ASU) to Shea Boulevard, slightly over 11 miles Included parallel Goldwater Blvd./Drinkwater Blvd. couplet on either side through downtown Scottsdale Secondary Study Corridor Scottsdale Road from Shea Blvd. to Frank Lloyd Wright Blvd., an additional 4 miles Study began in February of 2010 and concluded one year later 2
Study Location Map Study considered Options for higher-capacity transit along Scottsdale Road/Rural Road Routings using Drinkwater Blvd. to the east and Goldwater Blvd. to the west Guided by Technical Advisory Group: Scottsdale, Tempe, MAG and METRO 3
Study Background Previous studies and the MAG Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) have consistently identified this as a critical corridor for higher-capacity transit. It was the third corridor scheduled for arterial Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service in the RTP. (Originally scheduled for Phase II implementation, 2011-15.) This study coordinated with the Tempe South AA, which recommended a modern streetcar line on Mill Avenue as the primary Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA). 4
Typical Vehicle Capacities Typical Vehicle Capacities of LRT, Modern Streetcar and BRT (Bus) Mode Length No. of Doors No. of Seated plus Standing (feet) (both sides) Seats Capacity LRT Vehicle 93 8 68 164 Modern Streetcar 66 6 35 127 BRT:40-foot bus 40 2-5* 35-44 50-60 BRT:60-foot bus 60 4-7* 31-65 80-90 BRT:80-foot bus 80 7-9* 40-70 110-130 *Number of door channels 5
Study Purpose Objectives of the study: Identify an LPA transit investment and operating plan that could be implemented by 2016. Prepare an implementation and funding plan that can successfully compete for FTA Very Small Starts (VSS) funding. VSS: A simplified process for projects <$250 million with a federal share of $75M or less Assess the corridor as a future high-capacity transit investment. 6
Need for the Project Few other options exist to mitigate north/south transportation deficiencies in Scottsdale and north Tempe. The corridor has demonstrated strong north-south travel demand. Socioeconomic conditions and travel markets are conducive to higher-capacity transit. Recent plans and studies have identified a need for this type of service. Examples: Scottsdale/Tempe North/South Transit Corridor Study and MAG Regional Transit Framework Study. 7
Principal Activity Centers Corridor connects several key activity centers Transit can serve: employees, students, and out-of-town visitors 8
Comparative Population and Employment Densities 9
Community Participation Timeline Project Initiation Bus Tour Resident Focus Groups (2) Business Focus Group Resident Focus Groups (2) Business Focus Group Public Open Houses (2) Agency Planning Workshop Public Open Houses (2) End of Project 10
Possible Transit Modes Mode/Technology Fatal Flaws Description/ Comments Improved Local Service (Route 72 or equivalent) Does not meet Purpose & Need Selected operational improvements could supplement the recommended alternative from this study Limited Stop Service ( Route 72L ) None Some Route 72 trips would make limited stops in study corridor; possible use of couplet Basic BRT (examples: Mesa Main Street LINK) None Makes limited stops, uses shared lanes, has distinctive buses and stops Advanced BRT (example: Los Angeles Orange Line) None, unless capital costs are excessive for VSS funding Largely separates buses from other traffic to significantly raise travel speed Rail Transit (LRT or modern streetcar) Capital cost is prohibitive for VSS funding; local funds insufficient to cover operations Tempe South AA has recommended modern streetcar for Mill Avenue from Downtown Tempe to Southern Avenue 11
Corridor Segments Map illustrates seven segments along the 15-mile corridor 12
Screening of BRT Alignment Concepts at Agency Workshop Segment(s) Description Preliminary Screening at Workshop Fully shared curb lanes Business Access & Transit (BAT) lanes Exclusive bus lanes in median 1 University Dr SR 202 (1 mi) Infeasible due to traffic conditions, special events 2-3 SR 202-Earll Dr (3.25 mi) 4 (Downtown Scottsdale) Scottsdale Rd, Earll Dr Chaparral Rd (1.75 mi) Goldwater/Drinkwater couplet Considered infeasible due to geometric, traffic and land use conditions. NB-Drinkwater SB-Goldwater Considered unnecessary. 5 (Resort Corridor) Chaparral Rd Mountain View Rd (4.5 mi) Considered unnecessary due to favorable traffic conditions 6 (Shea Area) Mountain View Rd Mescal St (0.8 mi) If service continues north to Thunderbird 7 Mescal St Frank Lloyd Wright Blvd (3.7 mi) 13
Alternatives Evaluated 1: Limited stop bus no bus priority, enhanced stops, or upgraded vehicles 2: BRT sharing general traffic lanes. May include signal priority treatments and queue jumpers 3a-c: BRT sharing restricted BAT/HOV lanes with right turning vehicles and high occupancy vehicles In downtown Scottsdale, (a) through (c) represent alignment options using Scottsdale Road or couplet 4: BRT in exclusive median transit lanes where feasible 14
Intersection with Transit Queue Jumper and Signal Priority Buses may bypass queued traffic. Buses share dedicated right turn lane and stop on the near side of the intersection. 15
Intersection with Bus Priority Lane Buses Have a dedicated bus approach lane. Can avoid traffic delays at intersections. Can more quickly reach a far side stop. 16
Proposed Transit Investment Alternatives for Scottsdale Rd/Rural Rd Corridor Segment Downtown Shea business area Alternative University-Earll: Resort Corridor: Notes Scottsdale: and beyond: Segments 1-3 Segment 5 Segment 4 Segments 6 and 7 No-Build N/A No new service 1: Limited Stop bus Shared curb lanes 2: Basic BRT Shared curb lanes Shared curb lanes on Scottsdale Rd Shared curb lanes on Scottsdale Rd Shared curb lanes Shared curb lanes Shared curb lanes Shared curb lanes Less frequent stops than local bus Adds amenities, queue jumpers, signal priority 3a: Basic BRT with BAT lanes BAT lanes Shared curb lanes on Scottsdale Rd Shared curb lanes BAT lanes BAT restriction could be limited to peak periods 3b: Basic BRT with BAT lanes BAT lanes Shared curb lane SB, BAT lane NB on Drinkwater Blvd Shared curb lanes BAT lanes BAT restriction could be limited to peak periods 3c: Basic BRT with BAT lanes BAT lanes Shared curb lane SB on Scottsdale Rd; BAT NB on Drinkwater Blvd Shared curb lanes BAT lanes BAT restriction could be limited to peak periods 4: Exclusive median lanes where appropriate and feasible Median lanes and center stations north of SR 202; shared curb lanes farther south Shared curb lane NB, BAT lane SB on Goldwater Blvd Shared curb lanes Depends on northern terminus could remain in median past Shea Blvd Service extends north of Shea Blvd to Thunderbird Rd park-and-ride 17
Alternatives 1 and 2 Limited stop bus/brt in shared curb lanes Uses ordinary buses and existing bus stops (Alt. 1) More frequent service Distinctly designed buses (Alt. 2) Enhanced bus stops (Alt. 2) See Downtown Alignment Options Possible signal priority (Alt. 2) 18
Alternative 3 Enhanced BRT in BAT/HOV lanes where appropriate See Downtown Alignment Options 19
Alternative 4 Enhanced BRT in median lanes Requires special BRT stations in median Feasible only in limited segments of corridor See Downtown Alignment Options 20
Downtown Scottsdale Alignment 3A: Scottsdale Road 21
Downtown Scottsdale Alignment 3B: Drinkwater Blvd. 22
Downtown Scottsdale Alignment 3C: Split Alignment 23
Summary of Evaluation Criteria TIER 1 Transit service provided Frequency: BRT and local Transit capacity (peak hour seats) Transit travel time Roadway level of service Right of way and business access Financial feasibility TIER 2 Tier 1 criteria plus: Cost effectiveness Community support Land use and economic development Implementation 24
Total Travel Time (minutes) University Drive to Thunderbird Road 25
Forecast Year 2016 (Opening Day) Weekday Ridership 26
Study Recommendations Implement Alternative 2, BRT sharing general traffic lanes, as the LPA. Corridor would be developed as a LINK corridor similar to Main Street and Arizona Avenue/Country Club Drive. In downtown Scottsdale, routing on Scottsdale Road and/or Drinkwater Blvd. should continue to be explored during development of the Design Concept Report. 27
Outstanding Issues at End of Study Local and regional sales tax revenue continues to fall below projections. This has necessitated service reductions and project deferrals. The current funding uncertainty has implications for the Scottsdale/Rural BRT corridor. Regional operating funds are programmed only for the Scottsdale portion of the project. These funds are insufficient to meet VSS service requirements. Local operating funds would be required from Tempe. 28
RPTA Staff Recommendation Accept the study. Defer adoption of LPA and development of the Design Concept Report until operating funds issue has been resolved. Work with Tempe and Scottsdale on interim service improvements, possibly including limited stop bus service, to address travel demand. 29
Study Review Process 30
Questions 31