Transit NEW STARTS PROJECTSremlinedigital.com/mdqi/images/stories/mdqi_documents/2011_conf… · in the 2002 Baltimore Region Rail System Plan • Purpose and need is to improve transit

Transit

NEW STARTS PROJECTS

Maryland Transit Administration

February 2011

What is “New Starts”?

• Federal program to fund new transit projects

• FTA requires project sponsors to follow a rigorous evaluation process that results in an overall project rating

• Primarily focused on– Project benefits

– Project readiness

– Ability of the project sponsor to carry out the project

• Typically matched at <50%

• Funding decisions made by Congress – national competition

2

3

Alternatives Analysis

Final Design

Pro

ject M

an

age

men

t O

ve

rsig

ht

Construction

Preliminary Engineering

Locally Preferred

Alternative

FTA Decision

On Entry

into PE

FTA Decision

On Entry

into Final Design

Full Funding

Grant Agreement

FTA Decision Point

Major Development

Stage

Systems Planning

Project Development Process

4

Project Funding

• Federal Share – 50%

• State Share – 50%– Transportation Trust Fund

• Local Governments– Coordination to take costs out of projects

• Georgetown Branch trail

• Edmondson Avenue bridge

• CCT right of way

• Others– Public-Private Partnerships

– Value Capture

Finance Plan

• Required by FTA

• Provides framework for project funding appropriate for phase of the project

– Current finance plan addresses funding for preliminary engineering and final design

– Revised finance plan will be submitted with entry into final design and must include construction funding approach

– Concludes that projects are affordable

5


• What is included in PE?– Project Definition, Cost, and Schedule

– Financing Plan

– Completion of NEPA Process (FEIS)

– Development of Project Management Plan for Final Design and Construction

• PE Evaluations include:– Three Alternatives:

• LPA, No Build, and Baseline

– Phasing and Staging of Alternatives

– Land Use and Policy Alternatives

– Implementation Strategies

– Financial Plan Alternatives

6

New Starts Package

• LPA Description

• Risk Assessment– Risk Report

– Risk Register

• Capital Costs

• Design Guidelines

• Conceptual Plans

• Project Capital Cost/Schedule/Cash Flow

• Financial Plan

• Project Management Plan (PMP)

• New Starts Templates– Land Use

– Financial

– Project Justification

7

8

9

Red Line Project Overview

• Identified as one of the region’s highest priority projects in the 2002 Baltimore Region Rail System Plan

• Purpose and need is to improve transit mobility, help relieve congestion, and support economic development

• Serves an east-west corridor– Woodlawn employment and commercial centers

– Social Security Administration and CMS

– West Baltimore residents and jobs

– Baltimore CBD, including tourist attractions

– Harbor East

– Fells Point and Canton

– Highlandtown

– Johns Hopkins Bayview campus

10

Baltimore

Region Rail

System Plan

Study History

• Alternatives Analysis/Draft Environmental Impact Statement released October 2008

• Alternatives included light rail and bus rapid transit with varying amounts of surface and tunnel.

• Public hearings completed November 2008

• Public comment period closed January 2009

• Locally Preferred Alternative selected in 2009

• Currently working with Federal Transit Administration to enter next phase – FEIS/PE

11

Locally Preferred Alternative

• Mode – Light Rail

• 14.5 miles total length• Surface: 9.8 miles; Tunnel: 3.9 miles; Aerial: 0.8 miles

• Stations - 20• 15 Surface – 6 with parking; 5 Underground

• Capital Cost – $1.81 Billion (2010 dollars)

• Annual Operating & Maintenance Cost - $21 million increase over the No Build Alternative (2010 dollars)

• Average Daily Ridership - 54,000

• FTA cost-effectiveness rating – Meets FTA Medium rating needed to proceed into FEIS/PE phase

• One-way travel time from Woodlawn to Bayview - 44 minutes

• Maintenance facility at Calverton Road

• No residential displacements

• Non-residential displacements – Calverton yard and shop site only

• Frequency of Service: 7 minutes peak, 10 minute off-peak

12

13


14


Red Line Video

15

16

17

Public Involvement

• Speaker Bureau Meetings

• Community, Civic Group, and Stakeholder Meetings

• Citizens Advisory Council

• Station Area Advisory Committees

• Community Resource Hubs

• Newsletters

• Website – www.baltimoreredline.com

Coordination Needed

• Continued coordination with adjacent property owners to address:– Specific Alignment on Hopkins Bayview Campus

– Specific alignment and location for station at Security Square Mall

– Alignment at Social Security Administration

– Specific location for alignment near railroads and future developments at Canton Crossing and Brewer’s Hill

• Tunneling/construction impacts

• Traffic and parking mitigation / local circulation

• Floodplain impacts on Boston Street

• Noise and vibration impacts

18

19

Project Schedule

• Request Permission to Enter Spring 2011 Preliminary Engineering

• PE and Final Environmental Spring 2011Impact Statement Begin

• PE and Final Environmental Spring 2013Impact Statement Completed

• Begin Final Design Summer 2013

• Begin Construction 2014

20

Purple Line Project Overview

• 16-mile east-west rapid transit line

• Parallel to and inside the Capital Beltway

• Extends from Bethesda in Montgomery County to New Carrollton in Prince George’s County

• Provides access to key activity centers in the corridor– Bethesda, Silver Spring, Takoma/Langley,

College Park, New Carrollton

• Will operate largely at street level

21

22

Purple Line Project Overview

• Direct connections– To Metrorail at Bethesda, Silver Spring, College Park, and New

Carrollton

– To Amtrak at New Carrollton

– To MARC at Silver Spring, College Park and New Carrollton

Project Goals

• Provide faster and more reliable transit service in the corridor to serve growing east-west travel markets

• Improve access to and connectivity to Metrorail, MARC, Amtrak, and bus services

• Serve transit-dependent populations

• Support local, regional and state policies and adopted Master Plans

• Strengthen and revitalize communities in the corridor

• Increase potential for Transit Oriented Development at existing and proposed stations in the corridor

• Improve access to existing activity centers including and planned commercial, office, and residential development in Bethesda, Silver Spring, Takoma/Langley, University of Maryland/College Park, and New Carrollton

23

24


25


• Light Rail: mainly in dedicated or exclusive lanes

• 55 minutes from Bethesda to New Carrollton

• Ridership: 60,000 daily riders

– includes 5,000 University of Maryland student trips

• Cars off the road: 20,000 daily

• Greatest ridership is between Bethesda and Silver

Spring

• 30% will use Metro for part of their trip

• Capital Cost: $1.563 billion (2010 dollars)


Guideway investment provides improved travel times for:

• Travel within the corridor • Major activity centers: Bethesda, Silver Spring, College Park,

New Carrollton

• Adjacent communities

• Travel from corridor to areas outside • Feeding to and distributing passengers from radial corridors

via Metrorail/MARC

• Especially to DC

• Travel to corridor from areas outside • Especially north and east of corridor

• Along Metrorail lines and major arterials

27


• Georgetown Branch right-of-way with a direct elevator connection to the Metrorail Red Line Bethesda Station

28


• Transitway on south side of CSX, trail crosses to north side just east of Talbot Street Bridge

• Station at SSTC one level above Metro and MARC trains

29


• At grade on Bonifant Street, station integrated into the new Silver Spring Library

30


• Wayne Avenue: at grade, in shared lanes with added left-turn lanes

• Piney Branch Road and University Boulevard: dedicated center lanes, connection to Takoma/Langley Transit Center

• UM Campus:Campus Drive

31


• Paint Branch Parkway: shared lanes

• Integrated into the new development at the College Park Metrorail Station

32


• River Road: dedicated lanes on south side

• Kenilworth Avenue: elevated aerial structure, crossing over the MD 410 intersection

• Aerial station in Riverdale Park

• MD 410: returns to grade, dedicated lanes on south side

• Veterans Parkway: dedicated lanes on south side

• South side of Ellin Road into New Carrollton Station

Special Studies

• Trail and mitigation features in Chevy Chase

• ROW shift at Columbia Country Club

• Integration with Long Branch redevelopment at Flower Avenue

• Surface Campus Drive vs. tunnel at UM

• Displacement avoidance options at Kenilworth Avenue

• Aerial Structure in Riverdale Park

• Yard & Shop configuration in Glendale

33

Coordination

• Ongoing and Pending– Capital Crescent Trail Width

– Columbia Country Club

– Falklands Redevelopment

– Silver Spring Library

– University of Maryland• EMI and Pedestrian Interface

34

Public Involvement

• Open Houses

• Community Focus Groups

• Small Group Workshops

• Community and Civic Group Meetings

• General community outreach events

– Libraries, grocery stores, shopping centers

• Website – www.purplelinemd.com

• Newsletter

35

http://www.purplelinemd.com/

Upcoming Coordination

• Resource Agencies (NPS, MHT, USACOE, NCPC)

• Development Proposals to Preserve the Right-of-Way

• Prince George’s County (MD 410, East Campus, River Road, Takoma/Langley Sector Plan)

• Montgomery County (Bethesda Station, Capital Crescent Trail, Takoma/Langley Sector Plan, Takoma/Langley Transit Center)

• CSX and Utilities

36

37

Project Schedule

• Request Permission to Enter Spring 2011


• PE and Final Environmental Spring 2011Impact Statement Begin

• PE and Final Environmental Spring 2013 Impact Statement Completed

• Begin Final Design Summer 2013

• Begin Construction 2013/2014

38

39

CCT Project Overview

• Part of the I-270/US 15 Multi-Modal Corridor Study

• Joint effort between the Maryland Transit Administration and the State Highway Administration

• Planning Studies ongoing since 1990s

• Completed Environmental Documents and held Public Hearings– 2002 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

– 2009 Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment

– 2010 Supplemental Environmental Analysis (SEA)

• Highway Improvements - 30 miles in length

• Transit project approximately 13-15 miles in length

40

CCT Alignment

Key Features

• 14 stations (four additional post 2030 or as development/redevelopment warrants)

• Transit transfers at Metropolitan Grove (MARC), Shady Grove (Red Line), and local bus

• Access from local streets, I-270 interchanges, and direct access ramps

• Light Rail Transit (LRT) or Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)

41

42

One Transitway; Two Options

LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT

BUS RAPID TRANSIT

43

Right-of-Way Preservation

• Alignment follows the corridor established by Montgomery County

• Alignment incorporated into area master plans in the 1990s

• Allowed the County to gain control of right-of-way as development projects were approved

• Right-of-Way Status– Approximately 35% lies within publicly controlled land (i.e. –

within existing street right-of-way or on land dedicated to the transitway)

– Additional 25% has right-of-way protection through reservation or easement

– Remaining 40% has no protections at this time

44

Alternatives Evaluation

• Alternative 1: No-Build

• Alternative 2: TSM

• Alternatives 3A/B, 4A/B, 5A/B/C, 6A/B and 7A/B– Various highway lanes configurations, including general purpose

lanes and managed lanes (HOV or ETL)

– Transit options• “A” – light rail transit on original Master Plan alignment

• “B” – bus rapid transit on Original Master Plan alignment

• “C” – premium bus service on managed lanes

• Additional Transit Alternatives were evaluated as part of the 2010 SEA– Crown Farm

– Life Sciences Center

– Kentlands

45

Study Results

Master Plan Alignment

LRT BRT

Ridership (daily boardings – thousands) 24-30 21-26

Capital Cost (2007 $ - millions) $875.65 $461.24

Crown Farm, Life Sciences and Kentlands

LRT BRT

Ridership (daily boardings – thousands) 34-42 29-37

Capital Cost (2007 $ - millions) $999.01 $532.63

Ridership and Capital Costs

King Farm Boulevard

• King Farm Residents expressed concerns

about the CCT operating on King Farm

Boulevard

• City of Rockville submitted a letter requesting

a study of alternative alignments

• MTA evaluating various options to the original

King Farm Boulevard median plan

• Preliminary results should be available by

February 2011

46

Next Step –Transit Only

• Full proposed highway improvements by 2030 not feasible

• Highway and transit on separate schedules– Highway: Additional studies, Tiered FEIS

approach, break-out projects

– Transit: Evaluation of Alternative Alignments, Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) selection, Federal Transit Administration (FTA) New Starts Program

• Close coordination between highway and transit studies to continue

47

48


• Transit LPA only – Highway studies to continue

• Transit Mode Selection – Bus Rapid Transit or Light Rail Transit

• Consider project phasing – tool for managing costs

• Consider Alternative Alignments and Environmental Impacts

• Public Hearing / Document Review – evaluate concerns: – Citizen/community groups

– Montgomery County Government

– FTA/FHWA

– Environmental agencies

• Cost Effectiveness

• Funding/Affordability

49

Public Outreach

• Ongoing meetings with area community

associations, business groups, and local

officials

• Specific coordination with the City of

Rockville and King Farm residents

• Website – www.mta.maryland.gov/cct

50

Project Schedule

• Public Outreach Ongoing

• AA/EA Completion May 2009

• Public Hearings SEA Dec 2010 – Feb 1 2011

• Selection of Preferred Alternative Spring 2011

• Request permission to enter PE/ Fall 2011

• New Starts submission

• PE/FEIS Completion Fall 2013

• Initiate Final Design Winter 2013/14

• Start Construction 2014/15