Waxahachie Corridor Strategy Meeting

Waxahachie CorridorStrategy Meeting

June 24, 2010

http://www.nctcog.org/trans/spd/transitrail/sdallas/index.asp

Agenda2

Welcome & introductions

Vehicle development update

Conceptual Engineering & Funding Study

Stakeholder meetings

Project summary

Next steps for corridor implementation

Vehicle Development

Previous presentation on December 17

Will meet DART Board commitments

Compliant with FRA safety regulations

EPA Tier 4 non-road engine standards

“Off-the-shelf” technology when possible

Light Rail New Technology (LRNT)

3

Current Activity & Next Steps

Engineering consultant – Interfleet Technology Drafting vehicle performance specifications Accurate & current ridership projections critical Key design and performance issues

Low floor boarding Vehicle height and width Tier 4 engine availability Width of seats

4

Current Activity & Next Steps (cont.)

Continue meetings with Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)

Develop technology solutions Complete paperwork requirements

Commuter rail community Gauge industry interest in vehicle

Vehicle manufacturers Gauge interest in producing vehicle

Update local community as needed

5

FRA Engineering Task Force

Task Force Reports to Rail Safety Advisory Committee’s Passenger Rail Safety Working Group Mission: Produce technical evaluation criteria and

procedures for passenger rail equipment Four major meetings – September, November, January

and March DART is APTA lead voting member on task force

Final task force report due by late September Report will benefit project

Defined and agreed upon standards for waivers

6

Projected Schedule

June 2010 – Task force issues draft report Industry currently reviewing document

October 2010 – FRA Alternative Compliance Evaluation Criteria and Procedures to be published

Aug.-Oct. – Industry reviews vehicle specifications Nov.-Dec. 2010 – Issue RFP for regional vehicle Nov.-Dec. 2011 – Award contract & NTP June 2013 – Vehicle delivery begins

Delivery at 2-4 cars per month

7

Questions or Comments

8

Stakeholder Meetings

City of Dallas

Ellis County

City of Lancaster

City of Red Oak

City of Waxahachie

9

Stakeholder Comments

Resolve conflicts with freight Vehicle technology not critical Service implementation is critical Service to employment centers Accurate demographics Funding initiatives Glenn Heights park-n-ride usage Possibly form a corridor advocacy group Transit oriented development (TOD) Update cost estimates to 2010 dollars Corridor leadership changes

10

City of Waxahachie11

City of Red Oak 12

City of Lancaster13

City of Dallas14

Five alternatives identified Various station locations All alternatives include Light Rail New Technology (LRNT)

and Commuter Rail Technology (CRT)

Alt. 1 – LRNT/CRT (Union Station – Selected Stations) Alt. 2 – LRNT/CRT (Union Station – All Stations) Alt. 3 – LRNT/CRT (Southport – Selected Stations) Alt. 4 – LRNT/CRT (Southport – All Stations) Alt. 5 – LRNT/CRT (Union Station continuing along TRE – All Stations)

Summary of Findings15

Access

Population

Employment

Ridership projections

Development potential

Local support

Station spacing

Station Location Variables16

Roadway data Transit data Land use and zoning Demographics Community resources Air quality Water quality Noise Biological

Corridor Level Variables17

Headways (Train arrival frequency ) LRNT/CRT

20 minutes during peak periods

60 minutes during off-peak periods

Demographics 2030 Demographic Forecast – Year 2030

Published in April 2003

To be updated as part of Mobility 2035 MTP

Ridership Modeling Assumptions18

NCTCOG CE&F StudyPotential Stations

Ledbetter

Illinois

MLK

Corinth

Union Station

Loop 12

Simpson Stuart

Southport

All Potential Stations Options

South Red Oak

Downtown Red Oak

North Red Oak

Lancaster CBD

North Waxahachie

US 287

Waxahachie CBD

Cedar Valley College

Stations Modeled

Simpson Stuart

Illinois/Ledbetter/Loop 12

Corinth/MLK

Union Station


Southport

Downtown Red Oak/South Red Oak

North Red Oak

North Waxahachie

US 287

Waxahachie CBD

Lancaster CBD

19

Alternative 1Waxahachie CBD to Union Station – Selected Stations

Lancaster CBD


Simpson Stuart


Union Station

North Red Oak

Downtown/South Red Oak

US 287

Corinth/MLK

Southport

North Waxahachie

Waxahachie CBD

780

230

1,800

570

190

80

100

180

340

Total Ridership:

4,300

20

Alternative 2Waxahachie CBD to Union Station – All Stations

Lancaster CBD


Simpson Stuart


Union Station

North Red Oak


US 287

Corinth/MLK

Southport

North Waxahachie

Waxahachie CBD

770

1,900

480

200

90

40

160

330

170

60

150

220

Total Ridership:

4,600

21

Alternative 3Waxahachie CBD to Southport – Selected Stations

Lancaster CBD


Simpson Stuart


Union Station

North Red Oak


US 287

Corinth/MLK

Southport

North Waxahachie

Waxahachie CBD

380

360

170

940

40

220

Total Ridership:

2,100

22

Alternative 4Waxahachie CBD to Southport – All Stations

Lancaster CBD


Simpson Stuart


Union Station

North Red Oak


US 287

Corinth/MLK

Southport

North Waxahachie

Waxahachie CBD

370

360

160

940

40

220

Total Ridership:

2,10030

60

23

Lancaster CBD


Simpson Stuart


Union Station

North Red Oak


US 287

Corinth/MLK

Southport

North Waxahachie

Waxahachie CBD

880

2,900

520

210

100

50

160

370

180

60

240

260

Total Ridership:

5,900

Alternative 5Waxahachie CBD to Union Station – Interlining with TRE

24

Lancaster CBD


Simpson Stuart


Union Station

North Red Oak


US 287

Corinth/MLK

Southport

North Waxahachie

Waxahachie CBD

890

2,800

600

270

120

350

270

Total Ridership:

5,300

Alternative 5aWaxahachie CBD to Union Station – Interlining with TRE

25

Lancaster CBD


Simpson Stuart


Union Station

North Red Oak


US 287

Corinth/MLK

Southport

North Waxahachie

Waxahachie CBD

870

2,780

620

460

300

Total Ridership:

5,000

Alternative 5bWaxahachie CBD to Union Station – Interlining with TRE

26

2030 Ridership Estimates

Lancaster CBD


Simpson Stuart


Union Station

North Red Oak


US 287

Corinth/MLK

Southport

North Waxahachie

Waxahachie CBD

Alt 1 – 4,300

780

230

1,800

570

190

80

100

180

340

770

1,900

480

200

90

40

160

330

170

60

150

220

Alt 2 – 4,600

380

360

170

940

40

220

Alt 3 – 2,100

370

360

160

940

40

220

30

60

Alt 3 – 2,100

880

2,900

520

210

100

50

160

370

180

60

240

260

Alt 5 – 5,900

27

2030 Ridership EstimatesAlt 5a – 5,300

890

270

2,800

600

270

120

350

870

2,780

620

460

300

Alt 5b – 5,000

28

Lancaster CBD


Simpson Stuart


Union Station

North Red Oak


US 287

Corinth/MLK

Southport

North Waxahachie

Waxahachie CBD

DRAFT

Conceptual Engineering & Funding StudySummary of Findings

29

Project Measure AlternativeNo-Build 1 2 3 4 5

Length (miles) 0 30.9 30.9 20.7 20.7 64.5

Primary Mode N/A LRNT/CRT LRNT/CRT LRNT/CRT LRNT/CRT LRNT/CRT

Interlining Service N/A None None None None TRE

Interlined Terminus N/A Union Station Union Station Southport Southport Union Station

Number of Stations 0 12 16 6 9 16

TransitEstimated Daily RidershipLinked Regional Transit TripsCorridor Travel Time (minutes)Interlined Ridership

0296,276

N/AN/A

4,300298,805

41.3N/A

4,600298,485

42.1N/A

2,100297,174

26.9N/A

2,100297,264

27.7N/A

5,900298,915

95.91,400

Property Acquisition(ROW Needed for Alignment) None None None None None None

Total Cost (millions, 2009 dollars)LRNTCRT

N/AN/A

$533$475

$578$520

$328$299

$362$341

$701$576

Land UseCompatibility with Local Plans Low High High Medium Medium High

Major Employers 41 60 60 11 11 60

Activity Centers 75 117 122 22 27 122

Community Facilities 87 144 151 35 43 151

Historic and Archeological ResourcesExisting Historical SitesArcheological InvestigationsPotential Historical Structures

258

87

7024

1,785

7226

2,278

4413

881

4613

1,294

7226

2,278

Parks, Trails and Recreational FacilitiesFacilities adjacent to Rail CorridorFacilities near Stations

012

1640

1644

514

517

1644

Hazardous/Regulated MaterialsSites adjacent to Rail CorridorSites near Stations

00

98

913

34

37

913

Air Quality Impact None Minimal Minimal Minimal Minimal Minimal

Noise (linear feet)Potential Sensitive Land Uses 0 35,480 35,480 22,084 22,048 35,480

Vibration (linear feet)Potential Sensitive Land UsesCategory 1Category 2Category 3

000

019,74415,737

019,74415,737

013,4568,592

013,4568,592

019,744715,737

Water ResourcesFloodplain Crossings (in linear feet)Stream Crossings

00

37,38513

37,38513

10,8628

10,8628

37,38513

Ecosystems 0 0 0 0 0 0

Prime Farmlands (acres) 0 1,027.5 1,899.5 1,027.5 1,657.9 1,899.5

Constructability N/A Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium

Capital Cost30

Alt. Service Area DescriptionNew

Length(miles)

Required Vehicles

(LRNT/CRT)

Total Capital Cost

(million 2009 $)(LRNT/CRT)

Cost / Mile(million $)

(LRNT/CRT)

1 Waxahachie CBD to Union StationLRNT/CRT Service to selected Stations 30.9 12/6 $ 533/475 $ 17/15

2 Waxahachie CBD to Union StationLRNT/CRT Service to all Stations 30.9 12/6 $ 578/520 $ 19/17

3 Waxahachie CBD to SouthportLRNT/CRT Service to selected Stations 20.7 7/4 $ 328/299 $ 16/14

4 Waxahachie CBD to SouthportLRNT/CRT Service to all Stations 20.7 7/4 $ 362/341 $ 18/16

5 Waxahachie CBD to T&P StationLRNT/CRT Service interlined with TRE 64.5 26/13 $ 701/576 $ 23/19

Source: NCTCOG, June 2010

Notes: 1. Cost estimates are “rough order-of-magnitude” estimates based on a conceptual level of planning 2. Cost estimates do not include costs for environmental and/or hazardous materials impacts DRAFT

Capital Cost & Ridership31

AlternativeCapital Cost

(million 2009 $)(LRNT/CRT)

2030 Annual Ridership

AnnualizedCost / Rider(LRNT/CRT)

1 $ 533/475 1,204,000 $ 31/28

2 $ 578/520 1,288,000 $ 31/28

3 $ 328/299 588,000 $ 39/36

4 $ 362/341 588,000 $ 43/41

5 $ 701/576 1,652,000 $ 30/24

Source: NCTCOG, June 2010

Notes: 1. Cost estimates are “rough order-of-magnitude” estimates based on a conceptual level of planning 2. Cost estimates do not include costs for environmental and/or hazardous materials impacts

DRAFT

32

Innovative Finance Initiative (IFI)

DART and T requested IFI DART and T providing financial models IFI Goal

Develop innovative financial plan Identify funding sources for 62 mile Cotton Belt

Corridor Construct Operate Maintain

33

Possible Innovative Elements

Vehicle manufacturing facility

New non-member city policies

New fare structure

Cost/revenue linkage

Economies of scale

34

IFI Schedule

Proposals due July 2

Consultant interviews July 16

NCTCOG Executive Board selection July 22

Estimated start date July 26

Contract length Approximately 6 – 9 months

35

RTC Roles

Solicit and contract with Financial Advisory Firm(s)

Investigate candidate funding sources Identify needed local, state, and national

actions Collaborate with DART and The T to identify

cost savings NCTCOG Staff will collaborate on

environmental process

36

Transportation Agency Roles

Initiate & lead environmental process

Develop LRNT vehicle

Collaborate on engineering issues

Construction

General Discussion/Next Steps

Moving forward

Ideas and suggestions

37

Questions & Comments

Tom Shelton, P.E., AICPSenior Program Manager

Streamlined Project [email protected]

(817) 704-5633

Kevin Feldt, AICPProgram Manager


(817) 704-2529

Nathan DrozdTransportation Planner III


(817) 704-5635

http://www.nctcog.org/trans/spd/transitrail/sdallas/index.asp

38

Waxahachie Corridor Strategy Meeting

Documents

Transcript of Waxahachie Corridor Strategy Meeting