The document summarizes presentations from a panel discussion on corridor projects at the Rail~Volution conference in Dallas, TX from October 25-28, 2015. It provides an overview of three corridor projects: the Powell-Division BRT project in Portland, OR, the Primo BRT corridors in San Antonio, TX, and the Better Market Street project in San Francisco, CA. Key lessons from the Portland project include the importance of building partnerships, understanding ridership patterns, and identifying design requirements. The San Antonio project overview discusses implementing BRT in mixed traffic and challenges around dedicated lanes. The document provides context and objectives for discussions of multi-modal corridor projects.

1. October 27, 2015
October 25 – 28, 2015
Dallas, TX
Learn, Ask, Do
The Corridor Game : Take 2

2. PANELISTS
¨ Kelly Betteridge, Planning Manager
TriMet, Portland, OR
¨ Arturo Herrera, Senior Service Planner
VIA Metropolitan Transit Authority, San Antonio, TX
¨ Aaron Carter, Manger
ICF International, San Francisco, CA
¨ Elizabeth Mros-O’Hara, Investment Areas Proj. Mngr.
Metro, Portland, OR
¨ James Hencke, Sr. Urban Designer
David Evans and Associates, Portland, OR

3. Objectives
¨ Learn about US Corridor Projects
¤ Multiple Modes
¤ Different Locales
¤ Trade Offs / Priorities
¨ Ask Questions
¨ Do : Apply Your Knowledge

4. Agenda
¨ Powell-Division BRT, TriMet, Portland OR
¤ Partnerships & Planning
¨ Primo BRT Corridors, VIA, San Antonio TX
¤ BRT Implementation, Lessons Learned, Path Forward
¨ Better Market Street, City of San Francisco CA
¤ Multiple Modes, Complete Streets

5. The Powell-Division Corridor
New Mode, New Team, New Tools
Rail~Volution
October 27, 2015
Kelly Betteridge, TriMet

6. The Powell-Division Corridor
§ Project Overview
§ Team
§ Steering committee
§ Community
§ Agency/Jurisdictional Partners
§ Toolbox
§ Ridership data
§ Top sources of delay
§ Design requirements

8. Build Your Team
§ Twenty-two member Steering Committee with
broad representation of agency, community
and jurisdictional partners
§ Strong partnership between agency partners
including “the even-handed convener” (Metro)
“the operator” (TriMet) and “the facility
owners” (ODOT, Cities)
§ Award winning outreach strategies to
communities in the corridor

9. • Briefings
• Culturally specific,
multilingual engagement
• Youth engagement
• Local business
engagement
• Community and related
projects’ events
• Talk with staff sessions

10. "Building trust is building
relationships," Boisen said.
"We're trying to build
relationships with key
community members who will
help us connect with other
people in the community."…
"There's a tremendous
opportunity for us to
implement transit-oriented
development in this area that
will be really beneficial."
– Lori Boisen, Division-
Midway Alliance for
Community Development

11. Steering Committee Advanced this
Alignment with Options

12. Build Your Toolbox
§ Analysis of existing trips on the system (stop
spacing)
§ Top intersections for congestion (design
treatment bang for the buck)
§ Clearly communicated “design requirements”
by jurisdiction/owner (agency deal breakers)

13. Analysis of existing trips
§ Methodology and sample size
§ 25-29% of bus trips in both directions sampled for
each line on Monday-Friday.
§ Sample is for trips between 6am and 10pm.
§ About 3,600 usable on-off pairs analyzed

14. Methodology (con’t)
§ Surveyors scan card and
hand to every rider upon
boarding.
§ Cards collected and
immediately scanned
again when rider
departs.
§ Surveyors report at least
90% of riders
participated.

15. What We Learned
§ About 5% of riders travel less than 0.5 miles.
§ About 18% of riders travel 5+ miles.
§ Average distance traveled is 3.2 miles.
§ No substantial difference in distance traveled
by time of day, geography, or route.

17. Top intersections for congestion
§ A few key intersections govern the entire
corridor
§ Investment in key intersections has greatest
“bang for the buck” in terms of travel time.

18. Design Requirements by
Jurisdiction
§ Upfront conversation about “deal breakers”
versus points of discussion/negotiation in
design
Agency Comment Priority
1= fyi
5= design exception
10= fatal flaw
Schedule Priority
Before LPA, by 10%
By 30%
All proposed new
signals will need to
obtain region and state
traffic engineer
approval
5 10% design

19. Key Take Aways
§ Build Your Team
§ Really get to know the communities you will serve
and engage them in the process.
§ Work with project partners to identify clear project
goals and what each agency/jurisdiction feels is a
“deal breaker”
§ Build Your Toolbox
§ Decisions are data driven
§ Find innovative ways to get the data you need

20. Primo Corridors: San Antonio’s BRT Case Study
Learn,
Ask,
and
Do:
The
Corridor
Game
Take
2
20
Arturo Herrera, Jr.
VIA Metropolitan Transit Authority

21. Overview
• 1,220
square
miles
• 13
Member
Ci3es
• 92
Routes
• 450
Buses
• 7,200
bus
stops
• 5
Transit
Centers
• 8
Park
and
Rides
• 44M
passenger
trips
per
year
VIA Metro Transit: It’s A Fine Agency
21

22. VIA Primo: San Antonio’s BRT
22
Overview
of
the
Primo
Network
• 10
–
12
minute
service
from
6:00
a.m.
to
6:00
p.m.
• Use
of
Transit
Signal
Priority
• Branded
Sta3ons/Stops
• Branded
BRT
Vehicles
(60’
and
40’
Fleet)
• Stop
Spacing:
¾
to
1
mile
apart
• Operates
in
Mixed
Traffic
and/or
Dedicated
Bus
Lanes
• 1
line
in
opera3on
today
• 2
lines
in
planning
stage
• 3
addi3onal
lines
iden3fied
for
future
implementa3on

23. Here’s the “then”
23
120’
ROW

24. Here’s the “wish we could”
24

25. Pedestrian
push
for
dedicated
lanes:
• Reconstruc3on
of
Fredericksburg
would
have
included
the
addi3on
of
6’
sidewalks
on
either
side
(get
rid
of
the
wild
west
of
driveways)
• U3lity
adjustments
(get
them
out
of
the
sidewalk!)
• ADA
ramps
and
accessible
facili3es
What
about
[fill
in
the
blank]?
• Elderly
(and
those
with
mobility
issues):
enter
pedestrian
refuge
• Economic
Development:
a
greater
sense
of
permanence
• Patrons:
decreased
travel
3mes
and
greater
reliability
• Access
Management:
limi3ng
lea
turning
movements
Reality
Strikes
Again!
• Economic
downturn
put
funding
into
ques3on
• Concerns
regarding
SOV
capacity
during
peak
hours
• “Who’s
ROW
is
it?”
problems…
Pedestrian
push
for
dedicated
lanes:
• Reconstruc3on
of
Fredericksburg
would
have
included
the
addi3on
of
6’
sidewalks
on
either
side
(get
rid
of
the
wild
west
of
driveways)
• U3lity
adjustments
(get
them
out
of
the
sidewalk!)
• ADA
ramps
and
accessible
facili3es
What
about
[fill
in
the
blank]?
• Elderly
(and
those
with
mobility
issues):
enter
pedestrian
refuge
• Economic
Development:
a
greater
sense
of
permanence
• Patrons:
decreased
travel
3mes
and
greater
reliability
• Access
Management:
limi3ng
lea
turning
movements
Benefits of dedicated lanes …
25
Pedestrian
push
for
dedicated
lanes:
• Reconstruc3on
of
Fredericksburg
would
have
included
the
addi3on
of
6’
sidewalks
on
either
side
(get
rid
of
the
wild
west
of
driveways)
• U3lity
adjustments
(get
them
out
of
the
sidewalk!)
• ADA
ramps
and
accessible
facili3es

26. And here’s the “what we got”
26

27. The future is so bright… Right?
27

28. What other challenges do we face?
28
12’
BUS
LANE
9’
SIDEWALK
12’6”
SIDEWALK
11’
LANE
BUS
STOP
11’
LANE

29. What other challenges do we face?
29
View
of
the
parking
garage
8’
PLATFORM
/
PARKING
12’6”
SIDEWALK
9’
SIDEWALK
14’
TRAVEL
AND
BIKE
LANE
12’
HCT
/
TRAVEL
LANE

30. A diverse cross section of cross-sections
30

31. • Stakeholder/Community
Mee3ngs
o Priori3zing
modes
§ Pedestrian
ameni3es
must
always
be
included
o Find
“local”
Champions
o Investment
in
the
community
• Branding
and
Designing
needs
to
fit
with
surrounding
communi3es
and
land
uses
• Are
all
modes
always
appropriate
in
all
corridors/condi3ons?
31
Lessons Learned & Take Aways

32. Lessons Learned & Take Aways
32
• “One
Network,
One
Solu3on”
is
not
prac3cal
o Neither
is
“One
Corridor,
One
Solu3on”
• Your
most
vocal
opponents
should
be
the
some
of
the
first
individuals
you
meet;
encourage
their
par3cipa3on
• Access
Management
will
save
travel
3me
and
reduce
accidents
• How
to
“sell”
dedicated
transit
lanes?

33. City
of
San
Francisco
BeOer
Market
Street
Project
Rail~VoluKon
October
27,
2015
Google
Maps
2015
Google
Maps
2015
Google
Maps
2015

34. San
Francisco:
BeOer
Market
Street
Heart
of
the
San
Francisco
Market
Street
Mission
Street
Google
Maps
2015

35. San
Francisco:
BeOer
Market
Street
Typical
Current
Roadway
Configura]on
Google
Streetview
2015

36. San
Francisco:
BeOer
Market
Street
Compe]ng
Travel
Modes
Google
Streetview
2015

37. San
Francisco:
BeOer
Market
Street
Over-­‐Capacity
Google
Streetview
2015

38. San
Francisco:
BeOer
Market
Street
Visioning
Process
• Extensive
series
of
workshops
conducted
from
2011
through
2013
• Design
priori]es
and
design
drivers
iden]fied
during
this
process
include:
• Improving
transit
speed,
reliability
and
capacity
• Improving
pedestrian
and
bicyclist
mobility
and
safety
• Enhancing
the
public
experience

39. • Private
vehicular
traffic
restric]ons
for
greater
transit
reliability
• Signal
]ming
modifica]ons
• Extension
of
transit-­‐only
lanes
• Modified
stop
spacing
and
new
stop
loca]ons
for
rapid
service
• New,
relocated
and
consolidated
transit
boarding
stops
and
islands
San
Francisco:
BeOer
Market
Street
Proposed
Transit
Improvements
San
Francisco
Public
Works
2014

40. • Increase
width
of
sidewalks
• Implement
intersec]on
improvements
• Add
pedestrian
ameni]es
and
streetscape
enhancements
San
Francisco:
BeOer
Market
Street
Proposed
Pedestrian
Improvements
San
Francisco
Public
Works
2014

41. Shared
vehicular/bike
lanes
or
separated
cycletrack
for
safety
and
increased
capacity
San
Francisco:
BeOer
Market
Street
Proposed
Bicycle
Facility
Improvements
San
Francisco
Public
Works
2014

42. San
Francisco:
BeOer
Market
Street
Environmental
Evalua]on
Market
Street
Mission
Street
Alterna]ve
1:
Market
Street
transit-­‐only
center
lane,
shared
outside
lanes,
pedestrian
ameni]es,
private
vehicular
restric]ons
Alterna]ve
2:
Same
as
Alterna]ve
1
but
with
fewer
vehicular
and
loading
restric]ons
Alterna]ve
3:
Dedicated
bicycle
facili]es
on
Mission
Street.
Bus
transit
moves
to
Market
Street.
Pedestrian
ameni]es
on
both
Market
and
Mission
Streets.
Google
Maps
2015

43. • Improve
Transit
Efficiency
and
Reliability
• Support
City’s
planned
growth
and
economic
development
• Improve
pedestrian
safety,
comfort
and
mobility,
and
maintain
capacity
• Improve
bicyclist
safety,
comfort
and
mobility
and
increase
capacity
• Maintain
access
for
taxis
and
paratransit
and
accommodate
commercial
deliveries
San
Francisco:
BeOer
Market
Street
Primary
Objec]ves

44. San
Francisco:
BeOer
Market
Street
Tradeoffs
Amongst
Transporta]on
Modes
• Alloca]ng
more
space
to
pedestrian
uses
restricts
space
available
for
other
transporta]on
uses
• Enhanced
transit
service
influences
design
of
pedestrian,
bicycle,
and
vehicular
facili]es
and
vice-­‐versa
• Private
vehicular
use,
businesses
loading
needs
and
access
to
residences
on
Market
Street
requires
compromise
to
transit,
pedestrian
and
cycletrack
improvements
Not
enough
space
for
all
needs!

45. San
Francisco:
BeOer
Market
Street
Alterna]ves
1
and
2
(Op]on
A)
-­‐Tradeoffs
• Improvements
to
exis]ng
transit
facili]es,
pedestrian
safety
and
ameni]es
• Improvements
to
exis]ng
bicycle
facili]es
(new
painted
sharrows)
• Widespread
private
vehicular/loading
restric]ons
on
Market
Street
(restric]ons
under
Alterna]ve
2
less
than
Alterna]ve
1)
* Alternative 1: shared lane would include transit, taxis, commercial vehicles, paratransit vehicles and vehicles with ADA placards or plates.
Alternative 2: shared lane would also allow all other private vehicles.
San
Francisco
Public
Works
2014

46. San
Francisco:
BeOer
Market
Street
Alterna]ves
1
and
2
(Op]on
B)
-­‐
Tradeoffs
• Improvements
to
exis]ng
transit
facili]es,
pedestrian
safety
and
ameni]es
• Improvements
to
exis]ng
bicycle
facili]es
(new
dedicated
cycletrack,
except
where
conflicts
with
BART
portals
exist)
• Widespread
private
vehicular/loading
restric]ons
on
Market
Street
(restric]ons
under
Alterna]ve
2
less
than
Alterna]ve
1)
* Alternative 1: shared lane would include transit, taxis, commercial vehicles, paratransit vehicles and vehicles with ADA placards or plates.
Alternative 2: shared lane would also allow all other private vehicles.
San
Francisco
Public
Works
2014

47. San
Francisco:
BeOer
Market
Street
Alterna]ve
3
-­‐
Tradeoffs
• Improvements
to
exis]ng
transit
facili]es
on
Market
Street
(transit
shijed
from
Mission
Street
to
Market
Street)
• Improvements
to
pedestrian
safety
and
ameni]es
on
Market
and
Mission
Streets
• Pedestrian
travel
distance
to
access
transit
increases
• Transit
on
Market
Street
becomes
at
risk
for
conges]on
** Alternative 3 includes the same improvements to Market Street as Alternative 1, Design Option A.
San
Francisco
Public
Works
2014

48. San
Francisco:
BeOer
Market
Street
Design
and
Access
Considera]ons
Con]nuous
dedicated
bicycle
facility
design
may
not
be
feasible
due
to
right-­‐of-­‐way
conflicts
BART
San
Francisco
Public
Works
2014

49. San
Francisco:
BeOer
Market
Street
Design
and
Access
Considera]ons
Loading/private
vehicle
restric]ons
under
Alterna]ves
1
and
2
may
preclude
access
to
some
businesses
and
residents
7th
Street
8th
Street
Market
Street
What
if
your
business
is
here?
Google
Maps
2015

50. San
Francisco:
BeOer
Market
Street
Strategies
to
get
to
Construc]on
• Extensive
stakeholder
engagement
and
visioning
• Robust
environmental
evalua]on
to
ensure
that
environmental
factors
are
considered
• Con]nued
outreach
to
stakeholders
as
design
progresses
through
construc]on
• Con]nued
outreach
to
other
local,
State
and
Federal
agencies
to
ensure
proper
buy-­‐in

51. QUESTIONS
¨ Kelly Betteridge betterik@trimet.org
¨ Arturo Herrera arturo.herrera@viainfo.net
¨ Aaron Carter acarter@icfi.com

52. Game of Corridors

53. GAME TIME
¨ Break into groups (3 minutes)
¨ Open your game pieces
- Marvel at the array of choices! (5 minutes)
¨ Design your ideal multimodal corridor with transit
(10 minutes)

54. GAME TIME - RULES
¨ Ideal Multimodal Corridor
¤ Think of a corridor you are familiar with. Suppose you
are working to fix it.
¤ Must accommodate trains or buses
¤ Stealing other people’s ideas is encouraged
¤ Be ready to defend your design

55. GAME PIECES
¨ Light Rail: Two-Way
Corridor
¨ BRT: Two-Way Corridor
¨ Transit Station/Platform
¨ Two Travel Lanes
¨ Single Travel Lanes
¨ Angled Parking
¨ Parallel Parking
¨ Landscaped Median
(Center of Street)
¨ Green Strip (btwn.
Curb & Sidewalk)
¨ Cycle Track
¨ Bike Lane
¨ Sidewalk

56. GAME TIME - RULES
¨ Constrained Multimodal Corridor (70 feet)
¤ Must accommodate bus or train
¨ How did you accommodate all your modes?
¨ What are the tradeoffs you made? Why?

57. GAME TIME - RULES
¨ Constrained Multimodal Corridor (70 feet)
¤ Must accommodate trains or buses
¤ Stealing other people’s ideas is encouraged
¤ Be ready to defend your design
¨ How did you accommodate all your modes?
¨ What are the tradeoffs you made? Why?

58. October 27, 2015
October 25-28, 2015
Dallas TX
THANK YOU