COTA’s Cleveland Ave. / Northeast Corridor Alternatives Analysis (NECAA) Project aims to provide faster, more convenient and more comfortable transit service, and improve bus stop amenities in the Cleveland Avenue corridor. Come to one of our public meetings to learn about alternatives being considered and give us your input!

1. Northeast Corridor
Alternatives Analysis
Public Involvement–Round 2
Input on Alternatives for Further Study
Feb. 7-9, 2012

2. Agenda
 Review project background
 Progress summary
 Recommended alternatives for further evaluation
 Get your input!
2

3. Housekeeping Items
 Silence all cell phones.
 Be considerate of all meeting attendees and COTA staff.
 When it is your turn to make a comment or ask a question, remain at
your seat and we will call upon you.
 Comments and questions are limited to two minutes per person.
 Ask one question at a time so the appropriate staff member may
address your comment.
3

4. The Northeast Corridor
 Existing transit facilities in
corridor
 Transit Centers—Linden
and Easton
 P&R—Northern
Lights, Westerville
 Cleveland Avenue
 Second busiest route—
5,000 daily riders
 Often has standing loads
 COTA awarded federal grant
to study transit improvements
November 2010
 Study began September 2011
4

5. Northeast Corridor Project
 COTA is seeking to:
 Identify improved transit alternatives in the corridor.
 Address transportation needs in the corridor.
• On-time performance/service reliability
• Connections to jobs
• Streetscape improvements
Terminal
Mode Alignment Alternative
Station
5

6. FTA New Start Program
 Very Small Starts Criteria:
 Stations (more amenities than a
typical bus stop)
 Signal priority/pre-emption
 low-floor vehicles
 Special branding of service
 Frequent service (10 minute
peak, 15 minute off peak)
 Service at least 14 hours per day
 Existing ridership is over 3,000
trips per day
 Less than $50 million total cost Kansas City Max Line
 Less than $3 million per mile
 Cleveland Avenue meets these funding
requirements
6

7. What is Very Small Starts Process?
 Analysis is first step in the federal process to get project funding
 Existing conditions/project need
 Develop, screen, evaluate alternatives
 Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA)
FTA approval
required:
Project Construction
FTA approval
Grant Agreement
required
(PCGA)
Alternatives Project
Construction Operation
Analysis Development
1 Year 1-2 Years 1-2 Years
3-5 Years
7

8. Purpose and Need, Project Goals
The project’s purpose and vision are:
 To expand and improve mass transit’s role and contribution to
the overall livability, sustainability and economic vitality of the
Northeast corridor and the central Ohio region through faster and
more-convenient transit service and improved amenities for
mass transit users.
Project goals:
 Goal 1: Transit level of service improvements
 Goal 2: Sustain and enhance economic vitality
 Goal 3: Promote livability principles
 Goal 4: Develop a financially feasible project
8

9. Project Outreach
 Working group
 Stakeholder/community leader group
 Area leader interviews
 Public meetings
 Other
 Stakeholder presentations
 On-line survey (survey also available in
Spanish, Somali)
 Comment cards
 Social media
 First round of public outreach: November 2011
 Current round of public outreach: February 2012
9

10. Northeast Corridor AA Progress
 Round 1 Public Involvement meetings
 Introduced project
 Presented existing conditions
 Defined goals, purpose and need
 Completed Purpose and Need/Existing Conditions report
 Initiated environmental documentation
 Initiated preliminary screening of alternatives
 Continued coordination with City, County and other agencies
10

11. Existing Conditions Analysis
 Need to connect population to
jobs
 Major destinations
 Downtown
 Columbus State
 Easton
 St. Ann’s—Westerville
 Population
 West of Cleveland
Avenue, north and south
of Morse Road
11

12. Development of Alternatives
Mode Terminal
Alignment Alternative
Station
12

13. Potential Transit Modes
Heavy Rail Transit HOV Bus BRT—Separated Guideway
Limited Stop Bus Commuter Rail BRT—Mixed Traffic
LRT/Streetcar—Mixed Traffic Automated Guideway Transit LRT—Separated Guideway
13

14. Evaluation of Transit Modes
 Potential transit modes were evaluated based on suitability for study
area, as determined by:
 Number of passengers to be carried
 Passengers making short or long trips
 Travel speed
 Space between stops/stations
 Typical cost per mile to build and operate
 Lane use and right-of-way considerations
14

15. Screening of Transit Modes
Heavy Rail Transit HOV Bus BRT—Separated Guideway
Limited Stop Bus Commuter Rail BRT—Mixed Traffic
LRT/Streetcar—Mixed Traffic Automated Guideway Transit LRT—Separated Guideway
15

16. Mode Evaluation Summary
Mode Evaluation
HOV Bus Freeway service would not serve key corridor trip purposes; Columbus
area has no HOV lanes
BRT—Guideway Insufficient right-of-way in key corridor alignments; excessive capital cost
per mile
Limited Stop Bus No real-time arrival information, traffic signal priority, street, sidewalk or
other capital improvements, lack of passenger amenities and little time
savings
LRT/Streetcar—Mixed Anticipated ridership does not match high capital cost per mile; can
Traffic complicate traffic patterns
LRT—Guideway Insufficient right-of-way in key corridor alignments; excessive capital cost
per mile
Heavy Rail Transit Higher capacity than warranted given corridor characteristics; excessive
capital cost per mile
Commuter Rail Typical station spacing is inappropriate for corridor service needs; high
costs and right-of-way requirements
Automatic Guideway Higher capacity than warranted given corridor characteristics; excessive
16
Transit capital cost per mile

17. Recommendation: Mode to Evaluate
Bus Rapid Transit—
Mixed Traffic
Terminal
Mode Alignment Alternative
Station
17

18. What is Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)?
 A mix of characteristics:
 Special branding
• Unique name and identity
 Faster service
• Fewer stops
• Signal priority
• Dedicated lane during peaks
 Frequent service Kansas City Max Line
• 10 min peak/15 min off peak
 Service offered most of the day
 Enhanced passenger amenities
• Real-time information
• Enhanced stations
• Off-board fare collection
18

19. Example Benefits of BRT—Kansas City MAX BRT
Before MAX BRT (Troost Line, October 2010):
 Weekday average—7,600 boardings
After MAX BRT:
 Service hours increased approximately 5-6 percent
 Weekday average—8,400 boardings (Up 10.3 percent)
 MAX quality rated 15 percent higher than regular bus service
 23 percent of MAX riders new to transit
 55 percent rated MAX excellent
 69 percent ―definitely recommend‖ MAX (55 percent for regular
service)
19

20. Evaluation of Terminal Locations
 Many potential
terminal stations
considered
Mode Alignment Terminal
Station Alternative
20

21. Evaluation of Alignments/Terminal Locations
 Potential alignment/termini combinations were evaluated
 Goal 1: Transit level of service improvements
• Ridership on existing COTA routes
• Connections to other COTA routes
 Goal 2: Sustain and enhance economic vitality
• Development strength of northern terminal
• Alignment of job and population density
• Potential for TOD/redevelopment
 Goal 3: Promote livability principles
• Serve low-income/minority communities
• Neighborhood livability
• Environmental impact
• Bicycle connections
 Goal 4: Develop a financially feasible project
• Overall alignment length
21

22. Evaluation of Alignments
 Many alignments considered
and screened
 Alignments connecting to
Easton
Cleveland
Avenue south of
Fifth Avenue—
same for all
alternatives
Terminal
Mode Alignment
Station Alternative
22

23. Evaluation of Alignments
 Many alignments considered
and screened
 Alignments connecting to
Easton
 Karl Road
Cleveland
Avenue south of
Fifth Avenue—
same for all
alternatives
Terminal
Mode Alignment
Station Alternative
23

24. Evaluation of Alignments
 Many alignments considered
and screened
 Alignments connecting to
Easton
 Karl Road
 Cleveland Avenue South
of I-270
Cleveland
Avenue south of
Fifth Avenue—
same for all
alternatives
Terminal
Mode Alignment
Station Alternative
24

25. Evaluation of Alignments
 Many alignments considered
and screened
 Alignments connecting to
Easton
 Karl Road
 Cleveland Avenue South
of I-270
 Cleveland Avenue North
of I-270
Cleveland
Avenue south of
Fifth Avenue—
same for all
alternatives
Terminal
Mode Alignment
Station Alternative
25

26. Recommendation: Alternatives for Further Screening
 Bus Rapid Transit in Mixed
Traffic
 Cleveland Avenue from
Downtown to:
• Easton via Morse
• SR 161 via Morse/Karl
• SR 161
• Westerville Park and Ride
Cleveland
Avenue south of
Morse Road—
same for all
alternatives
Terminal
Mode Alignment
Station Alternative
26

27. Next Steps
 Alternatives Analysis remaining schedule
Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Public Outreach
Evaluate Alternatives
Recommended Alternative
Board Consideration of LPA
Public Meeting
 Project development/construction—2013-2016
27

28. Contact Information
 Mike McCann
Bus Rapid Transit Project Manager
MccannMJ@cota.com
 Tim Rosenberger
Project Manager
Rosenberger@pbworld.com
 COTA Customer Service: (614) 228-1776
 For more information and to provide feedback, go to www.cota.com.
28

29. Thank You
Comments and questions?
29