metro high capacity transit system plan

High Capacity Transit

System PlanA Performance Based Approach

to Sustainable Regional Transitto Sustainable Regional Transit

Making the Greatest Place

90 miles of rail built by 2016

High Capacity Transit ModesCurrent Future

2,000,000,000

2,500,000,000

3,000,000,000

3,500,000,000LRT VMT

Person -

CAPACITY

AnnualLIFT VMT

Person -

CAPACITY

Annual

Annual Rides Per Resident

Service Capacity Increase by 2014

0

500,000,000

1,000,000,000

1,500,000,000

2,000,000,000

2005

2007

2009

2011

2013

2015

2017

2019

2021

2023

2025

2027

2029

2031

2033

2035

AnnualCom Rail VMT

Person -

CAPACITY

AnnualStreetcar VMT

Person -

CAPACITY

AnnualFreq Bus VMT

Person -

CAPACITY

Annual

Annual Rides Per Resident

Planning for a sustainable regionVehicle Miles Traveled

HCT System Plan Highlights

� Determining what

matters

� Process for prioritization

� Creating a dynamic

process for project

advancement

What Matters?

HCT Think TankHCT Think Tank

What Matters?

HCT Think TankHCT Think Tank

What Matters?

Public Engagement

What Matters?

What Matters?

What Matters?

What Matters?

Local Aspirations

What Matters?

Local Aspirations – Criterion Index Tool

What Matters?

Local Aspirations – Digital Charrettes

What Matters?

Evaluating

Opportunities

Possibilities…

Round I Screening

• Current and future ridership potential

• Connectivity & system benefit

• Cost &corridor availability

• Environment constraints• Environment constraints

• Equity

• Congestion

• Alignment with 2040 Growth Concept

• Transit origins and destinations

Planning for a sustainable region

Corridor map

Multiple Account Evaluation (MAE)

• Adopted from United Kingdom

• New Approach To Transport Appraisal (NATA)

• Multiple “benefit accounts” considered• Multiple “benefit accounts” considered

• Criteria selected based on local conditions/values

Applying the MAE

• Organized into three “accounts” that

correspond to the outcomes-based RTP

evaluation approach:

25 Evaluation CriteriaCommunity Environment Economy Deliverability

C1: Supportiveness of Existing Land Uses

C2: Local Aspirations

C3: Placemaking and Urban Form

C4: Ridership Generators

C5: Support of regional 2040 Growth Concept

C6: Integration with Regional Transit System (Addressed in White Paper)

EN1: Reduction in Emissions and Disturbance

EN2: Risk of Natural Resource Disturbance

EN3: Risk of 4(f) Resource Disturbance (Addressed in White

EC1: Transportation Efficiency (Operator –cost per rider)

EC2: Transportation Efficiency (System annualized capital & operating cost per rider)

D1: Total Project Capital Cost (Exclusive & Non-Exclusive ROW Options)

D2: Capital Cost Per Mile (Exclusive & Non-Exclusive ROW Options) (Addressed in White Paper)

C7: Integration with Other Road Uses

C8: Congestion Avoidance Benefit

C9: Equity Benefit

C10: Health (Promotion of Physical Activity)

C11: Safety and Security (Addressed in

White Paper)

C12: Housing + Transportation Affordability Benefit

C13: Transportation Efficiency (User Travel Time Savings)

(Addressed in White

Paper) EC3: Economic Competitiveness (Change in employment served)

EC4: Rebuilding/ Redevelopment Opportunity (vacant and redevelopableland)

Options)

D3: Operating & Maintenance Cost

D4: Total Corridor Ridership

D5: Funding Potential

MAE Matrix

Priority Tiers• Near Term Regional Priorities

Priority Tiers• Next Phase Regional Priorities

Priority Tiers• Developing Regional Priorities

Priority Tiers• Vision Corridors

Selecting the Next 30 Year Priorities

• Identifies which near-term regional priority corridor(s) should advance toward implementation

• Delineates a process by which potential HCT corridors can move closer to implementation,

System Expansion Policy

corridors can move closer to implementation, advancing from one tier to the next through a set of coordinated Metro and local jurisdiction actions.

MAE Evaluation

Rewarding Performance

• Supportive Land Use

• Station Context

• Urban Form

• Leadership

• Connectivity• Connectivity

• Housing Needs

• Financial Capacity

• Mobility Corridors

• RTP triple bottom line approach guides MAE evaluation

• MAE outcomes captured in SEP target areas

Target Score Target

Score

Minimum

Score

Meets

Minimum

Transit Supportive Land Use X 22 11 Y/N

Station Context & Urban Form X 28 17 Y/N

Community Support X 8 4 Y/N

Political Leadership/Partnerships X 16 8 Y/N

Scorecard Approach

Political Leadership/Partnerships X 16 8 Y/N

Regional Transit Network

Connectivity

X 6 3 Y/N

Housing Needs Supportiveness X 14 7 Y/N

Financial Capacity X 36 16 Y/N

Integrated Transportation System

Development

X 1 1 Y/N

Conceptual: Still under development

• Local jurisdictions required to form Corridor Working Group to advance project

• Requires determination of corridor problem statement, mode selection and concept station areas

Focus on Corridors

• Focus on corridors encourages:

– Development of complementary station types

– Balance of access and destination uses

– Density trades

Station A Station B Station C

Transit Supportive Land Use Criterion

½ mile

buffer of

station area

Potential

alignments

• Examine current and future land uses used to determine

corridor readiness and appropriate mode

• On-the-ground land uses are more critical as a project

approaches implementation phases

Regional Project Priority Tier On-Ground Land

Use

Zoned Land Use

Near Term 80% 20%

Transit Supportive Land Use Criterion

Next Phase 60% 40%

Developing 40% 60%

Vision 20% 80%

Urban Form (Streets)

Sidewalk Coverage: Percent of Streets with Existing or Programmed Sidewalks within ½ Mile of Concept Station Areas

• 75%+ = 6

• 50-74% = 4

• 25-49% = 2

• 0-24% = 0

Example: Urban Form - Streets

Bicycle Facility Coverage: Percent of Arterials and Collectors (entering station area) with Existing or Programmed On-Street Bike Lanes or Parallel Bike Facilities within 2 miles of Concept Station Areas

• 75%+ = 6

• 50-74% = 4

• 25-49% = 2

• 0-24% = 0

Conceptual: Still under development

Financial Capacity

Availability of local funding mechanisms: Credit given for any of the following mechanisms in place in corridor

• Urban renewal area = 2

• Tax increment financing= 2

• Local improvement district (LID) = 2

• Other proven funding mechanism = 2

Example: Financial Capacity

Operating Subsidies Identified: Project specific operating subsidies/revenues beyond traditional local/regional sources identified to support operations

• 20%+ of annual operating cost = 6

• 10 – 19% of annual operating cost = 4

• 1 – 9% of annual operating cost = 2

• 0% of annual operating cost = 0

Conceptual: Still under development

A virtuous cycle….

HCT System Plan Outcomes

• Strategies that support High Capacity Transit investments, ALSO:

– Create vibrant communities

– Encourage active transportation

– Reduce air/water pollution and reduce GHGs

Making the Greatest Place Values

– Reduce air/water pollution and reduce GHGs

– Support economic prosperity

– Provide safe and reliable transportation

– Enable equity of resource distribution and access

Local ProsperityEconomy &

Financial Sustainability

• Portland residents are 2

times more likely to use times more likely to use

transit; 7 times more

likely to bicycle

- Joe Cortright, Portland’s

Green Dividend

Cost to own and operate a car - $9,000

Transit System FinanceEconomy &

Financial Sustainability

Co

st p

er

bo

ard

ing

Co

st p

er

bo

ard

ing

Boarding rides per hour

Transit System UseEconomy &

Financial Sustainability

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

• For the same amount

of operating funds:

LRTFreq

Bus Mix

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

Additional AWD Boardings

of operating funds:

– 26 miles of LRT

– Or 148 miles of

Frequent Bus

– Or 15 miles of LRT & 75

miles of Frequent Bus

Vibrant NeighborhoodsCommunity Form and

Vitality

NW 23rdNW 23rd

HillsboroSellwood

Trips Not TakenCommunity Form and

Vitality

Environment & Climate

Change

Team Effort

Metro Lead Council: Carlotta Collette

Metro Project Manager: Tony Mendoza

Nelson\Nygaard Team Partners:

• Stear Davies Gleave

• HNTB• HNTB

• John Parker Consulting

• Criterion Planners

Public Involvement Team:

• CH2M Hill

• Jeanne Lawson Associates

Thank You

Thomas Brennan

Principal

Nelson\Nygaard

tbrennan@nelsonnygaard.com

503.228.2152503.228.2152

N\N is hosting a Cocktail Party

Thursday 5th 5:30- 7:30

RIGHT NEXT DOOR