Downtown Glendale Community Working Group

July 22, 2015Meeting #3

Reminders

Purpose of the group and intended outcome Participate in a deliberative process to evaluate

the downtown alternatives Make advisory recommendation to City Council

on a preferred route alignment and type of transit (light rail or bus rapid transit)

Roles and expectations for CWG members and observers

2

Federal Funding CriteriaJennifer Pyne, Project Manager

Valley Metro

3

Anticipated Project Capital Funding

Regional sales tax – Prop 400 (2004) Local sales taxes Glendale GO Transportation Tax (2001) Phoenix Transit Tax (2000)Federal funding – distributed by the

Federal Transit Administration (FTA)

4

Federal Transportation FundingMAP-21 Federal transportation funding legislation

enacted in 2012FTA Evaluates transit construction projects and

awards grants Most major transit projects include FTA fundsNew Starts Program The federal “pot” of money for fixed guideway

projects with capital costs over $250M5

Federal Funding: FTA New Starts

Federal discretionary funding program Major fixed guideway/corridor transit capital

investments Pays up to 80% of project cost, but 50% is

more typical to be competitiveNationwide competition for limited fundsRigorous project evaluation process

6

FTA New Starts Process

Can take 10 or more years from start to finish Requires 4 approvals by FTA (shown in green) 7

West Phoenix/Central Glendale Timeline

Conclude Planning phase (preferred route and transit type decided) – 2016Enter Project Development phase – 2017 Enter Design phase – 2019 Receive grant agreement for federal

funding – 2022

8

New Starts Ratings Under MAP-21

9

Mobility

Total trips on the project Trips by transit dependent persons are given

double weight Important considerations: Maximize convenience for riders, e.g., easy

connections, good travel time Connect places where people need/want to go Provide good access to transit dependent

populations10

Cost Effectiveness

Annual capital, operating and maintenance cost per trip on the project Important considerations: Maximize ridership Streamline capital and operating costs to the

extent possible “Enrichments” do not count against project cost

11

Land Use

Existing population density, total employment, parking costs/supply, and affordable housing supply in corridor vs. region Important considerations: Higher population and employment density are

more favorable Concern about displacing affordable housing units Reducing downtown parking requirements and

promoting development of shared parking facilities may be viewed favorably

12

Economic Development

The project’s ability to attract future transit-supportive development Important considerations: Existing local plans, policies, and tools Overlay zones and zoning ordinances Cities have direct influence in how a project

rates in this area

13

Congestion Relief

The number of daily new transit trips that result from the project, as proxy for cars removed from the roads Important considerations: Provide competitive travel times This measure is still in draft form; may be

revised

14

Environmental Benefits

Benefits to human health, safety, energy, and air quality environment Important considerations: Ability of the project to attract riders, which is

dependent on:• Convenience• Connections to important destination• Travel time

15

WPCG Corridor Evaluation Criteria

16

Evaluation Criteria for this Study

17

Goals for the WPCG Project Evaluation Criteria

Provide cost-effective and affordable project

Preliminary capital cost estimateEstimate of rider benefit per unit of cost

Serve major employment and activity centers

Population density servedAverage daily riders on the projectRiders per mile

Provide mobility options and improve connectivity

Transit-dependent populations servedBike and pedestrian accessLinked trips – change in ridership on the systemHours of service

Improve travel reliability Distance and time between downtown Phoenix and downtown Glendale

Minimize adverse community impacts

Potential for right-of-way impacts

Potential for traffic impacts

Evaluation Criteria for this Study (cont.)

18

Goals for the WPCG Project Evaluation Criteria

Minimize community impacts Impacts on sensitive land uses (historic properties, parks)

Support local plans Potential station impacts and opportunities, compared with local plans and policies

Support local economic development objectives and opportunities

Potential development and job creation impacts

Facilitate extension of HCT farther west in the future Potential for future extension

Maximize engineering feasibility/constructability

Potential engineering constraints Known utility conflicts

Obtain stakeholder/public consensus Input from briefings, presentations, and public events

Potential Evaluation Criteria for Downtown Glendale Options Compatibility with existing land use, area plans

and special events Economic development potential Potential for future extension Environmental justice Historic property impacts Pedestrian access Public input Right-of-way requirements Traffic considerations (parking and circulation) 19

Questions/Discussion

Drafting Evaluation Criteria

Small Group Exercise Identify criteria to evaluate downtown options Discuss how to measure criteriaProject Team Consolidate input on evaluation criteria from

working groups Homework Review consolidated criteria Prioritize criteria developed by CWG

21

Announcements

Homework #3 will be emailed to CWG members on Monday, July 27Return Homework #3 on Wednesday,

August 5Return to Megan Casey Online: valleymetro.org/cwg Email: mcasey@valleymetro.org Fax: 602.523.6095

22

Results from Homework #2

Josh Matthews, Valley MetroVJ Rajvanshi, Valley Metro

23

Option 1 Take a tour of downtown Glendale to consider

the opportunities and constraints for light rail or bus rapid transit. Please provide observations, comments or

questions. You may also mark comments and questions on

the map handout or take photos of areas of interest.

24

Feedback Received – Option 1 General observations: Opportunity for economic development and

redevelopment Concern about disruption to local businesses and

property owners Downtown streets are too narrow; one-way streets or

transit mall better options Scale of LRT too big for downtown/Glendale Avenue LRT will change the small town feel/downtown identity LRT more likely to make downtown a destination Congestion and Parking in downtown are an issue

25

Feedback Received – Option 1 General observations - continued: Downtown offers a good mix of activities Concern about downtown utilities Repurpose park-and-ride to accommodate LRT station Grand Avenue acts as a barrier Underground station could be an option Adaptive reuse of historic and other buildings Utilize existing parking garage as park-and-ride Need to protect downtown churches and social

gathering places Future extension to ASU West Campus 26

Feedback Received – Option 1 Observations on Glenn Drive alternative: Closest to Glendale Avenue and less congested Avoids schools and churches Relatively few homes along the route Least construction impacts Connects to major downtown destinations Supports vision for redevelopment of vacant parcels Could impact historic properties Loop option should be for LRT only Need to preserve/relocate special needs children’s school Cost effective option for purchasing properties 27

Feedback Received – Option 1 Observations on Lamar Avenue alternative: Will help in stimulating redevelopment Walkable from downtown Least negative impacts to downtown or neighborhoods Easier extension to the west Not the most vibrant part of downtown Connect north side and south side of downtown North side of street preferred for LRT Potential impacts to Police Department building

28

Feedback Received – Option 1 Observations on Myrtle/Palmaire Ave alternatives: Potential impacts on historic neighborhoods Need to protect Grace Lutheran Church Worried about houses on Myrtle Avenue (Catlin Court) Too many schools, churches and residential areas Palmaire Avenue is less congested

29

Feedback Received – Option 1 Observations on BRT as an option: Workable, but does not have the “redevelopment” push More viable since downtown streets not wide enough for

LRT

30

Option 2 – Take a ride on LRT system

Using the transit pass included in your packet, take a ride on the light rail system and note any observations, comments or questions. You may also take photos.

31

Option 2 – Feedback from LRT RideWhat I liked about LRT: Beautiful landscaping along tracks (Tempe) Comfortable, air-conditioned train cars Accommodation for bicycles Good option to travel to airport Modern, faster, and cleaner than other transit options Good seating for disabled Opportunities for development of housing and

employment ASU and downtown Phoenix sports arenas are huge

draws32

Option 2 – Feedback from LRT RideWhat I am concerned about: Passengers not following posted rules (loud, no tickets,

smoking, drinking, fighting) Safety and security on trains Ticket enforcement Travel time longer than expected (end to end) Bicycles/strollers not in designated areas Construction impacts and recovery time Increase in homeless and transient populations Cleanliness and maintenance of stations and LRT

vehicles33

Option 2 – Feedback from LRT Ride

Other observations: LRT extension in Mesa is almost complete Downtown Glendale is not a major draw (lacks

university, major employment, shopping) compared to east valley Good drop-off locations for current LRT system Need more room for bikes on trains

34