city of phoenix citizens transportation commission · 2018-06-04 · city of phoenix citizens...

CITY OF PHOENIX CITIZENS TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

Pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes, A.R.S. Section 38-431.02, notice is hereby given to the members of the CITY OF PHOENIX CITIZENS TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION and to the general public, that the CITIZENS TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (CTC) will hold a meeting open to the public on April 26, 2018, at 5:00 p.m. located in the 7th Floor Conference Room, Public Transit Building, 302 N. 1st Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona.

One or more commission members may participate via teleconference. Agenda items may be taken out of order.

The agenda for the meeting is as follows:

1. Call to Order Chairperson Pastor

2. Approval of the minutes of the March 29, 2018 meeting

This item is for consent. Commission members

3. Northwest Extension Funding Agreement This report requests the Citizens Transportation Commission recommend City Council approval for an agreement with Valley Metro regarding funding, design and construction for the Northwest Extension Phase II project.

This item is for information, discussion, and action.

Public Transit Department Jesus Sapien

4. South Central Transit Oriented Business Assistance and Land Use Planning Grant This report provides information and requests approval to execute a contract with the selected consultant to implement the South Central Light Rail Extension Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Grant.


Public Transit Department Jesus Sapien

5. Complete Street Design Guidelines This report provides information on the attached Complete Streets Design Guidelines recommended by the Complete Streets Advisory Board (CSAB) for possible action on a recommendation to City Council.


Street Transportation Department Maria Hyatt

6. Bus Rapid Transit Contract Award This report requests the Citizens Transportation Commission recommend City Council approval of the Bus Rapid Transit Contract Awards.


Public Transit Department Mike James

1

7. Bikeshare Update This report provides an update on the GRID bike program and addresses dockless bike programs. This item is for information, and discussion.

Street Transportation Department Gladys Nkeze Briiana Velez

8. T2050 Financial Update This report shows the current fiscal year sales tax revenues collected, life-to-date sales tax revenues collected, and the current year program expenditures. This item is for information only.

Report Only (to be provided at the meeting) No Presentation

9. Upcoming T2050 Related Public Meetings/Events This report provides a list of upcoming T2050 related public meetings/events held by Public Transit and Street Transportation Departments, and Valley Metro. This item is for information only.

Report Only No Presentation

10. Call to the Public Consideration, discussion, and concerns from the public. Those wishing to address the Commission need not request permission in advance. Action taken as a result of the public comment will be limited to directing staff to study the matter or rescheduling the matter for further consideration and decision at a later date.

Chairperson Pastor

11. Request for Future Agenda Items Commission member request for information, follow-up or future agenda items. This item is for information only.

Commission members

12. Adjournment Chairperson Pastor

FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS: Shaded Bus Shelters (May)- Action October Service Changes (May)- Action Additional Investments in Pavement Maintenance (May) - Action IGA with MCDOT for Lower Buckeye Rd Widening: 67th Ave to 71st Ave (May) – Action Osborn Road: 15th Ave – 19th Ave Safety Modification Project (May)- Action T2050 Major and Expanded Streets Update (May)- Action T2050 Technology Update (May)- Action Capitol/I-10 West Downtown Rail Design Reconfiguration (TBD)- Action Circulator Study (TBD)- Info/Discuss

For further information, please call Megan Neal, Management Assistant II, 602-534-6192.

2

Persons paid to lobby on behalf of persons or organizations other than themselves shall register with the City Clerk prior to lobbying or within five business days thereafter, and must register annually to continue lobbying. If you have any questions about registration or whether or not you must register, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at 602-262-6811. To request reasonable accommodations, call Megan Neal at Voice/602-534-6192 or TTY/7-1-1 as early as possible to coordinate needed arrangements.

3

CITY OF PHOENIX

CITIZENS TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

MARCH 29, 2018 DRAFT Public Transit Department 302 N. First Avenue, 7th Floor

Commission Present Public Present City Staff Present Ed Pastor Kelly Haines Markus Coleman David Adame (Left early at 6:16 pm)

Dayna Wasley Mark Melnychenko

Bret Aldieri Dave Taley Leticia Vargas Patrick Brennan (Left by phone at 5:56pm)

Oglonna Abarikum Gladys Nkeze

Gail Knight (Left by phone at 5:56pm)

Laurie Smith

Roy Miller Joe Bowar Rick Naimark (arrived at 5:15pm) Jesus Sapien Phil Pangrazio Ken Kessler Mario Romero Mario Paniagua William “Sparky” Smith Maria Hyatt Quinn Tempest Dan Brown Megan Neal Dora Garcia Roberto Valentine Albert Crespo Kevin Teng Leila Gamiz Kelly Murray Mike James Angel Borrego Toni Duenas Sarah Murrato Cynthia Peiz Monica Hernandez Wendy Miller Ted Mariscal Jacob Brunswick Seth Jahnke Jay Fetherston Chris Mackay Commission Absent Sue Glawe David Martin Jennifer Mellor

4

1. Call to Order Chair Pastor called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. with a quorum present.

2. Approval of the minutes of the February 22, 2018 meeting Chair Pastor asked for a motion to approve the minutes.

Commissioner Miller moved to approve the February 22, 2018 minutes. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Aldieri. The minutes were approved unanimously.

Chairperson Pastor informed the commission of Commissioner Romero leaving the commission after the March meeting.

Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua asked if the commission would be willing to hear agenda item 3 out of order, and present agenda item 4 first. He mentioned the presenters for agenda item 3 were en route. The commission agreed to hear the agenda items out of order.

4.* Regional Fare Collection System Improvements Project This item was presented out of order Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua introduced Deputy Public Transit Director Joe Bowar and Kelly Haines with the consultation firm CH2M. Mr. Bowar gave an overview of the Regional Fare Collection System Improvement Project Request for Proposals (RFP) and mentioned that the current system was 11 years old. Mr. Bowar informed the commission that fare collection systems across the nation have introduced a smart card and other media options that the public has requested for. He mentioned the need for better control of the revenue loss and fraud for the reduce fare program (which is about a $3 to $5 million loss), by implementing a reduce fare identification program. Ms. Haines gave an overview of the project objectives, which include: improved fare payment options for customers; improved date collection and ridership/revenue reconciliation; increased control over media distribution and reduced fare program; and explore long term alternative with phased implementation. Mr. Bowar reviewed timeline, and funding for the project with regional sales tax (Prop. 400) and Federal Transportation Administration (FTA) funds. Mr. Bowar requested the Citizens Transportation Commission (CTC) recommend the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee (T&I) approve the issuance of the RFP for the regional fare collection system improvements.

The commission discussed reduction of fare fraud and marketing branding strategies. Staff indicated that there would be a solution for reduced fraud by the time the system is placed which also requires the Reduced Fare ID Card and proof of age. Mr. Bowar welcomed the commissioners to submit branding ideas for the Smartcards.

Commissioner Aldieri inquired if T2050 funds were being utilized for this project. Mr. Bowar stated T2050 funding would not be used, and explained having a more rider/user friendly fare media option came from the voters. Acting Public Transit

5

Director Ken Kessler clarified the revenue collected through the new system is part of T2050, and confirmed no funds are being expended from T2050.

The commission discussed procedures with the City’s regional partners and benchmarking nationally. The presenters informed the commission the timeline was built through workshops that were held with the regional partners, and they will be using other similar systems to build upon.

Commissioner Adame asked if the return of investment (ROI) would be included in the RFP. Mr. Kessler mentioned part of the RFP criteria is to include evaluation and key performance indicators (KPI).

The commission discussed legitimate rider validation on the Light Rail. Staff stated that both fare checks are being done and the RFP package requests hand held validators to check fares. Light Rail Special Projects Administrator Jesús Sapien mentioned the current percentage of riders on Light Rail not paying is about 6% to 7%. Street Transportation Director Maria Hyatt clarified fare evasion highest levels comes from reduce fare fraud.

Commissioner Adame moved to recommend T&I approval for the issuance of the RFP for the regional fare collection system improvements. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Pangrazio. The motion passed unanimously.

3.* RFP for Lease and Redevelopment of the City-Owned Parcel at 300 N. Central Ave This agenda item was presented out of order. Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua introduced Street Transportation Director Maria Hyatt and Community Economic Development Director Chris Mackay. Ms. Hyatt gave an overview on FTA advantages of joint development and the four primary guidelines (which are: enhancement of economic development or incorporate private investment; enhancement or effectiveness of transit and be physically or functionally related to transit; must provide a fair share of revenue for transit use; and provide facility costs). She explained the FTA assesses eligible joint development using the four primary guidelines in that the development does not degrade the current transit system. Ms. Mackay gave an overview of the Central Station Transit Center location and the past RFP history (which was awarded in 2014, and the developer withdrew due to an unforeseen circumstance). She informed the commission of the location's appraisal that aligns with current rates along Central Avenue (approximately $110 sq ft). Ms. Mackay mentioned City staff has completed extensive community outreach regarding transit-oriented development (TOD) to Central Station. She informed the commission of the current requirements proposed in the RFP that include: Polk Street to be retained for emergency vehicle and bus use; retain current bus routes on the site (“keeping the north south connection”), incorporating a 9,000 square foot transit site at the developer’s costs; provide pedestrian amenities; and seek out an urban dense mixed use project. Ms. Mackay reviewed the proposed evaluation criteria and points system, and included that the property ownership will always remain with the City. She requested Chairperson Pastor to recommend a member

6

from the commission to serve on the evaluation committee, and informed the commission of the timeline for the RFP. Ms. Mackay requested the CTC recommend T&I approval of the proposed RFP to the Downtown, Aviation, Economy and Innovation Subcommittee and City Council for the lease and redevelopment of Central Station Transit Center, Located at 300 N. Central Avenue. The commission discussed a possible site development including high rises and inquired if any work was started by the developer who withdrew. Staff commented there was no work commenced by the previous developer. Vice Chair Naimark expressed interest in creating effective connectivity between Civic Space Park and the Post Office, between Fillmore and Polk Streets. Ms. Hyatt mentioned the importance in efficient transit accessibility, and she stated this would be a great opportunity for the developer to design options for effective public access to the park. Commissioner Adame inquired about how the ROI effects transit. Ms. Hyatt informed the commission that the FTA has an investment to be recovered through revenue. Mr. Kessler added the revenues will be deposited directly to City Transit fund. Commissioner Adame moved to recommend T&I approval of the proposed RFP to the Downtown, Aviation, Economy and Innovation Subcommittee and City Council for the lease and redevelopment of Central Station Transit Center, located at 300 N. Central Avenue; with the stipulation that the evaluation criteria to be used is based on the language contained in the CTC’s backup report and agenda packet materials. The motion was seconded by Vice Chair Naimark. The motion passed unanimously.

5. Bike Plan Update Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua introduced Deputy Street Transportation Director Mark Melnychenko to present on agenda item 5. Mr. Melnychenko gave an overview of the Five-Year Bicycle Program public outreach efforts, and informed the commission the comments will be documented and considered as a key in updating and finalizing the program report, and is set to be returned to CTC in August. He mentioned the bicycle forum Making Connections, will be held on Apr. 28, 2018 at the A.E. England Auditorium Space Park from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. The commission discussed the bike share program and dockless bikes, and 1,080 miles of bike lanes proposed in T2050 and protected/safety bicycle lanes. Staff informed the commission this issue will be addressed at the April meeting and the City is currently working on an agreement that defers costs to the City. Commissioner Tempest asked how the proposed bicycle program and Complete Streets correlate with one another. The commission further discussed Commissioner Tempest inquiry and the Complete Streets Advisory Board. Staff explained the work of the Complete Streets Advisory Board and how that worked with the bicycle program and the Pavement Preservation program to address specific needs for sidewalks, bike lanes and other modes of transportation.

7

Commissioner Tempest expressed the same kind of momentum for pavement preservation is needed for protected and unprotected bike lanes. Commissioner Aldieri requested map breakdown that reflect community and neighborhoods, which highlights the gaps. Mr. Melnychenko affirmed staff used are maps dividing the City in five segments, which could be provided to the commission.

Commissioner Miller expressed his concerns regarding inefficient use of funding and discussion time on light rail and bike lanes considering these are used by a small percentage of the population. He stated bike projects should focus on data gathering to determine costs and usage with bike share, general bike traffic counts, and the beneficiaries of bike lane implementation and complete street renovations (such as Missouri and Osborn). Ms. Hyatt mentioned the grid bike program is on the agenda next month. Mr. Melnychenko mentioned there are 40 areas selected for a study on the before and after count of bike usage. Vice Chair Naimark inquired about the top three pieces of information staff gained from public outreach and other meetings. Mr. Melnychenko mentioned the public’s number one concern is safety, and they would like more connections on streets that are appropriate for bicycle usage without eliminated traffic lanes. Vice Chair commented researching what other cities have done with narrow lanes and street restrictions (such as right-of-ways). Commissioner Smith asked for clarification between the recommendation moved forward by the Complete Streets Advisory Board and that of the Key Corridors Master Plan. Mr. Paniagua clarified the Key Corridors Master Plan was different and moving forward. Commissioner Tempest expressed the importance of “balancing all the needs of the users,” and provide efficient communication.

6. October 2018 Proposed Bus Service and Public Outreach Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua introduced Principal Planner Kevin Teng to present on agenda item 6. Mr. Teng provided a brief overview of the October 2018 proposed bus service changes, which includes restoring weekday service level on five holidays (Martin Luther King Jr. Day, Presidents’ Day, Veterans’ Day, day after Thanksgiving, and Christmas Eve), frequency improvements to Route 41, and routing modification to Routes 8, 56, and 106. He also provided the commission with the next steps for public input which is slated to occur during April and May 2018, and a formal public hearing will also be held. Mr. Teng mentioned the item will return to the CTC with the outreach feedback and for recommendation request of the final bus service changes by July 2018 to be implemented on Oct. 22, 2018.

Vice Chair Naimark expressed his contentment with the holiday service level restoration. He inquired about the changes to Route 56 near the Phoenix Z00. Mr. Teng informed the commission the City of Scottsdale is no longer funding the route extending into the city of Scottsdale.

7. T2050 Mobility Program Update

8

Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua informed that agenda item 7 was for report only and there would be no presentation. There were no comments.

8. T2050 Financial Update Chairperson Pastor informed the commission that agenda item 8 was a report only.

There were no comments. 9. Upcoming T2050 Related Public Meeting/Events

Chairperson Pastor informed the commission that agenda item 9 was a report only. There were no comments.

10. Call to Public

Chairperson Pastor called for public comment. There were no comments.

11. Request for Future Agenda Items Future agenda items agreed upon by the commission included:

1. Bus Rapid Transit Contract Award

2. Complete Street Design Guidelines

3. GRID Bike/Dock-less Bike Update

4. Additional Investments in Pavement Maintenance

Commissioner Tempest inquired about the South Central Light Rail petition and if the issue would be returning to the commission. Chairperson Pastor mentioned the petition is scheduled to go to council. Commissioner Miller expressed his support in reexamining the economic feasibility of the South Central Light Rail extension. Mr. Paniagua confirmed this was scheduled on council’s Wednesday, Apr. 4, 2018 formal meeting.

12. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 7:23 p.m.

March 29, 2018

9

CITIZENS TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION REPORT

TO: Mario Paniagua Deputy City Manager

FROM: Jesus Sapien Light Rail Administrator

SUBJECT: NORTHWEST EXTENSION PHASE II FUNDING, DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT

This report requests the Citizens Transportation Commission recommend City Council approval of an agreement with Valley Metro regarding funding, design and construction for the Northwest Extension Phase II project. THE ISSUE Northwest Light Rail Extension Phase II is a 1.6-mile light rail project extending west on 19th Avenue to 25th Avenue, then northward to Mountain View Road, then to a terminus west of Interstate 17 adjacent to the Metrocenter Mall. The project will include three new stations, two park-and-ride lots (one end-of-line, one co-located with Rose Mofford Park), and a relocated and expanded Metrocenter transit center. The project will include an elevated structure over Interstate 17 and will terminate just west of the freeway. In January 2016, the Phoenix City Council approved accelerating segments of the future high capacity/light rail transit system. With this acceleration, Northwest Phase II is scheduled to open in 2023, three years earlier than previously planned. In June 2017, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) approved Valley Metro’s request to enter Project Development phase under the New Starts Capital Investment Grant (CIG) program. An Environmental Assessment and preliminary engineering are currently underway and are expected to be completed by summer 2018. Valley Metro awarded a contract for pre-construction services to Kiewit-McCarthy Joint Venture in September 2017. A systems design contract to support this project was awarded to PGH Wong Engineering in September 2017. Valley Metro also awarded seven public art services contracts in November 2017. A contract for final design services is anticipated to be awarded by summer 2018. Valley Metro intends to begin final design this summer. Prior to initiating this next phase of the project, it is necessary for Valley Metro and Phoenix to formalize a funding, design and construction agreement. This agreement defines the relationship between Phoenix and Valley Metro regarding the management, administration, funding, design, and construction of the project. Funding from the City of Phoenix is needed for Valley Metro to complete professional design and pre-construction services for the project. This would include: final design services; agency project management; preparing legal descriptions of right-of-way, permits, insurance, and other legal documentation as required; community relations support throughout design; and other surveys, testing, and inspections as necessary.

10

Future Council action will be needed to amend the agreement to include additional funding once real estate and construction costs are better defined. The agreement will terminate upon completion of the project.

The estimated total cost to complete the professional design and pre-construction services and all other FTA New Starts Engineering Phase activities is $25,000,000. These activities will be funded with City of Phoenix revenues, which are eligible for federal reimbursement under the pre-award authority granted by FTA.

Table 1 summarizes the estimated funding requirements by fiscal year for the proposed activities identified in the funding agreement.

Table 1: Estimated Funding by Fiscal Year Revenue Source FY 2019 FY 2020* Total

City of Phoenix $19,794,046 $5,205,954 $25,000,000 * Estimated funding needed for FY 2020 represents a partial year and does not include construction orother activities that would be initiated with a New Starts Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA)

Next Steps

Upon receiving City Council approval, the City of Phoenix will provide $25,000,000 to fund the final design and pre-construction activities required as a part of the New Starts Engineering phase as defined by FTA.

PREVIOUS ACTIONS

On February 15, 2005 the City Council approved the staff recommended locally preferred alternative for an alignment and transit mode.

On May 16, 2007 the City Council approved the staff recommendation to implement the Metrocenter extension in two phases.

On November 18, 2014 the City Council approved the staff recommendation to amend the locally preferred alternative for the Northwest Phase II Light Rail extension project.

On January 26, 2016 the City Council approved accelerating Northwest Phase II to open in 2023.

RECOMMENDATION

This report requests the Citizens Transportation Commission’s approval to recommend Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee and City Council approval of a funding, design and construction agreement with Valley Metro for an amount not to exceed $25,000,000 for the Northwest Phase II Light Rail Extension Project.

11

Northwest Phase II Funding, Design and Construction Agreement

Citizens Transportation CommissionApril 26, 2018

12

Phoenix Transportation 2050

13

Northwest Extension Phase II

14

Northwest Extension Phase II

15

Background• June 2017 – FTA approves entry into first phase of New Starts Grant Program• September 2017 – Pre-construction and systems design contracts awarded• November 2017 – Project artists contracts awarded • Summer 2018 – Award of final design contract

16

Valley Metro / Phoenix Agreement

• Agreement defines Phoenix and Valley Metroresponsibilities to mange project

• Phoenix funding needed for:• Professional design and pre-construction services• Real estate and construction costs included in future action

17

Funding• $25,000,000 estimated to complete final design and pre-construction • Activities are eligible for federal reimbursement

Revenue Source FY 2019 FY 2020 * Total

City of Phoenix $19,794,046 $5,205,954 $25,000,000

* Estimated funding needed for FY 2020 represents a partial year and does not include construction or other activities that would be initiated with a New Starts Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA)

18

Recommendation• Requests the Citizens Transportation Commission to

recommend City Council approval of a funding, design and construction agreement with Valley Metro for an amount not to exceed $25,000,000 for the Northwest Phase II Light Rail Extension Project.

19



FROM: Jesús Sapien Light Rail Administrator Alan Stephenson Planning and Development Director

SUBJECT: SOUTH CENTRAL TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT BUSINESS ASSISTANCE AND LAND USE PLANNING SERVICES GRANT

This report provides information on the South Central Light Rail Extension Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Grant and the consultant selection process. Staff requests the Citizens Transportation Commission (CTC) recommend the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee and City Council approval for the City of Phoenix to execute a contract with Promise Arizona/Gould Evans to implement the grant. BACKGROUND In October 2016, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) awarded the City of Phoenix a TOD planning grant to implement an early action business assistance program and to plan for future development along the South Central Light Rail Extension. The City of Phoenix received from the FTA the maximum available funding of $2 million, which is further supported by a $400,000 local match. The grant will fund comprehensive, proactive business assistance that will include a business owner workshop, detailed inventory and needs assessments of the businesses in the corridor, and development and implementation of business assistance plans. The grant also will enable the City of Phoenix to document the business assistance efforts in a program manual that can be replicated and expanded upon in future light rail corridors. In addition, the grant provides the necessary resources to work with the community to understand perspectives on the current and desired conditions of the station areas to generate a long-term vision for the corridor. The visioning work will be captured through interactive design workshops that will yield conceptual urban design plans for the areas surrounding each station. The community engagement, visioning, urban design work, and an action plan will be documented in a TOD policy plan specific to the South Central corridor, which will serve to attract, guide, and prioritize strategic investments in infrastructure, housing, economic development, and other areas to achieve the shared vision for the future.

21

The initial contract will commence in May 2018 and end around April 30, 2020. The City may, at its sole option, extend the period of the contract up to one year in monthly increments to coincide with project completion. In 2017, City Council approved staff’s request to issue a request for proposal (RFP) for TOD planning, business assistance, and urban design services for the South Central Light Rail Extension. The RFP was issued December 19, 2017 with a proposal submission deadline of January 22, 2018. A pre-proposal conference was held on January 3, 2018 to answer questions regarding process, RFP requirements, and scope of work. Once all feedback had been documented, staff issued an addendum to the RFP to clarify and revise wording and to extend the deadline to February 7, 2018. Two proposals were received in response to the RFP. An evaluation panel comprised of City of Phoenix staff, Valley Metro staff, and members of the public reviewed and scored the proposals. Each proposal was evaluated based on offeror and sub-consultants’ qualifications and experience, personnel qualifications and experience, and technical components. After compiling the evaluation panel’s final scores, Promise Arizona/Gould Evans received the highest overall score. As part of their proposal, Promise Arizona/Gould Evans plans on utilizing the following subconsultants as part of their team: Local First, Hustle Phoenix, Friendly House, Center for Neighborhood Technology, J2 Engineering & Environmental Design, and Wilson & Company. The Callison RTKL Inc. proposal included of the following firms: Jacobs Engineering Group, Elliot D. Pollack & Co., PLAN*et Communities LLC, Co Necs NA, and PSM, Squared, Inc. Below is a listing of the highest overall scores based on the evaluation criteria with a maximum of 1,000 points for the two proposers.

Table 1: Response Evaluation Scores Firm Total

Promise Arizona/Gould Evans 897

Callison RTKL Inc. 680 The table below is a breakdown of the grant funding sources.

Table 2: TOD Grant Funding FTA Local Match (T2050) Total

TOD Grant $2,000,000 $400,000 $2,400,000 Next Steps Upon receiving City Council approval, the City of Phoenix will execute a contract with Promise Arizona/Gould Evans to complete the scope of work detailed in the RFP and Promise Arizona/Gould Evans’ proposal.

22

RECOMMENDATION Staff requests the Citizens Transportation Commission (CTC) recommend Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee and City Council approval for the City of Phoenix to execute a contract with Promise Arizona/Gould Evans for an amount not to exceed $2,400,000 to complete business assistance, TOD planning, and urban design services for the South Central Light Rail Extension Project.

23

South Central TOD Business Assistance and Land Use Planning Services Grant –

Consultant SelectionCitizens Transportation Commission

April 26, 2018

24

• Enhance economic development and ridership• Facilitate multimodal connectivity• Increase access to transit hubs• Enable mixed-use development• Identify infrastructure needs• Include private sector participation

Purpose

25

• $2 million FTA grant o Phoenix is 1 of 2 cities to receive maximum amount ($2M)

• $400,000 local match (T2050)• $2.4 million total available funding

Budget

26

Scope• Early action business assistance opportunities• Starting up to 2 years before construction begins• TOD planning & visioning• Partnering opportunities

27

• Request for Proposals (RFP)• 2 proposals received• 6 evaluation panel members

o 3 City of Phoenix Planning, Neighborhood Services, CED

o 2 community memberso 1 Valley Metro

Process

28

Evaluation Scores

Firm Total1000 maximum

Promise Arizona/Gould Evans 897

Callison RTKL 680

29

Recommended Team

• Primeo Promise Arizona/Gould Evans

• Subconsultantso Local First Arizonao Wilson & Companyo J2 Engineering & Environmentalo Center for Neighborhood Technologyo Friendly Houseo Hustle PHX

30

Schedule• Grant Award – July 2017• RFP Issued – December 2017• Pre-proposal Conference – January 2018• Proposals Due – February 2018• Selection Recommendation – April 2018• Contract Start Date – May 2018• Completion of Grant – May 2020

31

• Requests the Citizens Transportation Commission to recommend City Council approval to execute a contract with Promise Arizona/Gould Evans for an amount not to exceed $2,400,000 to complete business assistance, TOD planning, and urban design services for the South Central Light Rail Extension Project.

Recommendation

32

1



FROM: Mike James BRT Administrator

SUBJECT: BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROGRAM This report provides information to the Citizens Transportation Commission (CTC) about the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Program. Staff requests approval to enter into an agreement with HDR Engineering, Inc. to provide transportation planning services in support of the BRT Program, as well as, agreements with the CK Group, AECOM Technical Services, Inc., and the CA Group Arizona, Inc. for preliminary engineering design services. SUMMARY On Aug. 25, 2015, City of Phoenix voters approved passage of Proposition 104, providing a 0.3 percent increase and extension of the transaction privilege and use tax rate to fund Transportation 2050 (T2050). The T2050 plan includes implementing five arterial BRT corridors. BRT is a high capacity transit service using specialized buses with multiple doors for fast entry and exit, off-board fare payment, and level platform boarding making it easier for people of all abilities to efficiently access the system. It includes priority treatment at signalized intersections to increase speed and reliability. It also may include bus lanes in some areas to facilitate faster trips. The objective is to provide fast, frequent and reliable service on arterial streets. Both speed and reliability help reduce operating costs, help people travel faster and more conveniently, and help cities make transit an attractive transportation option, which means more travel options, less cars on the roadway and less congestion. BRT was included in the plan to address the growing population and transportation needs, as the city is projected to add an additional 600,000 people by 2035. Procurement Process On Oct. 4, 2017, based on recommendations from the Citizen's Transportation Commission (CTC) and T&I Subcommittee, the City Council granted approval to issue a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to solicit firms to provide services for planning and preliminary engineering for the BRT program. This approval included a stipulation that the planning RFQ included an assessment of the criteria used for the initial identification of the BRT corridors. On Oct. 24, 2017 the City released the RFQ which included two packages for consultants to bid on. Package A included planning, capital system development, community education and engagement. One consultant team would be selected for

33

2

Package A. Package B is for preliminary engineering services. Three teams would be selected for Package B, with each team working on a corridor. On Nov. 17, 2017 consultant proposals were due to the City. Two consultant teams submitted for Package A and six consultant teams submitted for Package B. After a review and interview process that included staff from the Public Transit Department, the Street Transportation Department, the City Manager's Office, Valley Metro, and an independent contract consultant, HDR Engineering, Inc. was selected for Package A. The following three consultant teams were selected to work on a Package B corridor, the CK Group, Inc., AECOM Technical Services, Inc. and CA Group Arizona, Inc. In total, 33 prime and subconsultant firms are included on the four selected teams. Twenty-nine of the firms have a local office and Arizona presence. Four of the firms are located outside of Arizona but provide strong national BRT expertise in support of local staff. SCOPE OF WORK The scope of work for transportation planning in Package A includes: • Project management • BRT planning and workshops • Capital system development • Community education and engagement • Development of a funding, finance, and delivery strategy • Corridor programming and coordination with the Package B teams Package A is a three-year contract term with HDR Engineering, Inc. The primary deliverable is a BRT Implementation Plan, which will be developed for CTC, Transportation & Infrastructure Subcommittee and City Council approval. This work will also identify up to three initial BRT corridors to advance into preliminary engineering. The contract amount for Package A shall not exceed $3 million. The overall BRT program has identified need for preliminary engineering services to contribute towards the development of the BRT Implementation Plan. This includes the following “early work” scope items for the three Package B consultant teams. • Project coordination meetings • Pre-workshop engineering data collection and analysis • Workshop participation • Developing corridor engineering design alternatives This Package B early work will also be a three-year contract term with CK Group, Inc., AECOM Technical Services, Inc. and CA Group Arizona, Inc. The contract amount for each firm shall not exceed $150,000, with a total for the three contracts not to exceed $450,000. Following completion of the early work tasks by the Package B consultant teams and approval of the BRT Implementation Plan by City Council, staff will negotiate a scope,

34

3

schedule, and cost with the Package B teams for a specific BRT corridor to complete the preliminary engineering to the 15% design level. The approval of the final preliminary engineering scope, schedule and costs will be brought before the CTC, Transportation & Infrastructure Subcommittee, and City Council for approval. RECOMMENDATION Staff requests that the CTC recommend Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee and Council approval to enter into an agreement with HDR Engineering, Inc. to provide transportation planning services in support of the BRT Program, as well as, agreements with the CK Group, AECOM Technical Services, Inc., and the CA Group Arizona, Inc. for preliminary engineering design services. .

35

Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)Program

Citizen’s Transportation Commission

April 26, 2018

36

Objective• Seeking CTC recommendation to initiate work on the BRT

program by initiating agreements for:

Planning, capital system development, & community engagement Preliminary engineering “early work”

37

What is BRT?• A new high-capacity transit service• Fast and reliable • Similar to light rail service, but on rubber tires

38

BRT features• Frequent service & limited stops• Transit signal priority• Peak period or dedicated bus lanes• Enhanced stations• Off-board fare payment• All door boarding• Unique branding of vehicles &

stations

39

Corridor identification• Citizens Committee on the Future

of Phoenix Transportation

• BRT team will review updated data to ensure the BRT network advances optimal corridors

• Corridor alterations may be suggested for City Council approval

40

Contracts

• Planning, capital system development & community engagemento Three-year, $3 million contract to HDR Engineering, Inc.

• Preliminary Engineering “early work” efforto Three, $150,000 contracts for preliminary engineering early work

CK Group AECOM Technical Services, Inc. CA Group Arizona, Inc.

41

Next steps

May 8 – Contract approvals to the T&I Subcommittee

May 16 - Contract approvals to City Council Formal Meeting

June – Consultant notice-to-proceed

September – BRT network workshop

Late 2019 – BRT Implementation Plan for CTC, Council Subcommittee and City Council consideration

42

Recommendation• Recommend approval to initiate work on the BRT program by

initiating agreements for:

Planning, capital system development, & community engagement Preliminary engineering “early work”

43

Thank youMike James, AICPBRT AdministratorCity of Phoenix

[email protected]

44



FROM: Maria Hyatt Street Transportation Director

SUBJECT: STREET PLANNING AND DESIGN GUIDELINES MANUAL REVISION

This report provides the Citizens Transportation Commission (CTC) with the attached Complete Streets Design Guidelines recommended by the Complete Streets Advisory Board (CSAB) for possible action on a recommendation to the Transportation and Infrastructure (T&I) Subcommittee and Council. THE ISSUE The Complete Streets Design Guidelines are intended to support the City’s vision for a more sustainable transportation system that is safe and accessible for everyone. Complete Streets principles, policies, and design guidelines provide infrastructure that encourages active transportation such as walking and bicycling, transportation choices, and increased connectivity. On July 2, 2014, the City Council adopted two Complete Street ordinances, one that established the Complete Streets Guiding Principles (S-41094) and the Complete Street Advisory Board (G-5937). On June 28, 2017 City Council adopted the Complete Streets Policy developed and approved by the CSAB. The policy establishes a vision and goals for Complete Streets within Phoenix. The Complete Streets Design Guidelines are the next step in creating a framework to implement the policy and were prepared at the direction of City Council as outlined by Ordinance G-5937 which states the duties of the CSAB are to prepare and recommend for adopting by Council Complete Streets Design Guidelines to guide the construction, design, maintenance, and operations of streets within the city. The CSAB recommended the proposed Guidelines for City Council approval with a 6-1 vote at the January 2, 2018 CSAB meeting. At this meeting the CSAB also unanimously approved a recommendation for submittal of the guidelines to appropriate Boards and Commissions with the goal of requesting Council approval in May or June of 2018. The proposed Guidelines were presented and recommended for approval on April 12th by the Development Advisory Board Technical Subcommittee. Future presentations are scheduled for the Planning Commission on May 3rd and to the T&I Subcommittee on May 8th. OTHER INFORMATION The Complete Streets Design Guidelines, provides guidance and suggested design insight, not requirements or standards, to inform the development and/or updates of local codes and ordinances. In all conditions or insistences related to these guidelines, the adopted legal requirements of the City of Phoenix will prevail. Staff has conducted a review of the attached CSAB Complete Streets Design Guidelines and recommends the following modifications.

45

• Under the heading 2. Design Principles for Successful Complete Streets, staff

recommends adding the following statement: ‘The document is established as guidelines for Complete Streets and does not prohibit the City in exercising the appropriate engineering and design judgement to ensure that the street transportation network is designed and constructed in the interest of the public good.’

• Under the section Design for Safety, staff recommends removal of Bullet 3: ‘Streets

should be designed for the posted speed limit.’ In many cases, this may result in unintended negative consequences, and the intent of the bullet is already covered and implicit within Bullet 2 under this section: ‘Design streets for slower speeds to reduce the number of serious crashes’.

• Under the section Design for Context, staff recommends modification of Bullet 2 to read: ‘Bicycle Lanes are not required on streets that primarily provide direct access to single-family residential and/or industrial land uses. All other streets will be evaluated for bicycle lanes where practical and feasible in concert with the adopted Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan and Five-Year Bicycle Program.’

• Under the section Design for Context, staff recommends adding a bullet that reads: The Complete Streets Guidelines will inform more specific street and corridor classifications to be developed and adopted by the Key Corridor Master Plan, BRT Program, T2050 Mobility Program and other specific modal plans and updates of right-of-way standards.

• Under the section Design for Connectivity, staff recommends modification of the introduction paragraph to read: ‘Network activity has implications for Complete Streets and is crucial for creating walkable and bikeable places. These concepts apply to both new development and retrofit conditions.’ Staff also recommends removal of Bullet 2 and removal of the Indices for Network Connectivity and Accessibility. Further review and coordination with the CSAB is needed in order to determine appropriate implementation and evaluation.

46

City of Phoenix

Complete Streets Design Guidelines

Adopted March 8, 2018

Contents

1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................................. 1

2. DESIGN PRINCIPLES FOR SUCCESSFUL COMPLETE STREETS ............................................................................................................ 2

DESIGN FOR SAFETY ................................................................................................................................................................................... 2

DESIGN FOR COMFORT AND CONVENIENCE..................................................................................................................................................... 2

DESIGN FOR CONTEXT ................................................................................................................................................................................. 2

DESIGN FOR SUSTAINABILITY ........................................................................................................................................................................ 3

DESIGN FOR COST-EFFECTIVENESS ................................................................................................................................................................ 3

DESIGN FOR CONNECTIVITY ......................................................................................................................................................................... 3

3. NACTO URBAN STREET DESIGN GUIDE .......................................................................................................................................... 4

4. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT & GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE.......................................................................................................... 5

Attachment B

47

1

1. Introduction

Through implementation of complete streets, Phoenix will be a healthier place to live. Complete streets help people to

be more active, reduce chronic diseases, be less isolated, and may help provide equity in access.

The safety and convenience of all users of the transportation system including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users,

freight, and motor vehicle drivers, should be accommodated and balanced in all types of transportation and

development projects and through all phases of a project so that children, elderly, and persons with disabilities can

travel safely and conveniently within the public right-of-way. Achieving this requires community engagement, design

consideration, streetscapes, and neighborhood connectivity.

Complete streets are one component of good urban design. Urban design issues vary in complexity. Decisions that use

these guidelines should be tailored to individual situations and contexts. Moving forward, these guidelines should

inform updates to other relevant city documents, policies, and plans and should be updated as appropriate when new

national best practices are identified.

Exceptions are specified in the Complete Streets Policy (Resolution 21554) attached as Exhibit A to this document.

48

2

2. Design Principles for Successful Complete Streets

Design for Safety

Phoenix’s transportation network has been designed almost exclusively for the vehicle. This principle strives to

return balance to the transportation network for users of all modes of transportation resulting in a safer city.

• Design streets safe for all users, particularly children, the elderly, those with disabilities, transit users and more

vulnerable modes (walking, bicycling, transit).

• Design streets for slower speeds to reduce the number of serious crashes.

• Streets should be designed for the posted speed limit.

• Ensure that streets have sufficient lighting for all users.

• Bike facilities should be evaluated to continue to and through intersections when practicable, feasible, and

supportable.

• Consolidate driveways to minimize modal conflicts and increase opportunities for infrastructure that supports

Complete Streets principles.

• Research, test, and evaluate innovative safety treatments, particularly those successfully adopted in other cities.

Design for Comfort and Convenience

Our street infrastructure has been developed in a way that exacerbates the high temperatures and impedes

the easy movement of active transportation users. Complete Streets are meant to mitigate those effects and

create comfort for all modes.

• Shade should be a primary technique in projects to reduce ambient temperatures and reduce direct sunlight

exposure for pedestrians and cyclists.

• All streets should have pedestrian infrastructure with pedestrian through zones free of impediments.

• Expand the availability of public seating and bicycle racks.

• Minimize the number of bus bays to maintain pedestrian zone and improve reliability of transit schedules.

• The roadway (portion of the street designed, enhanced, or ordinarily used for vehicular travel) should be designed

to the minimum possible width, with the minimum number of lanes that safely allows for the desired operations.

• All roadway corners should be designed for the smallest possible radius that still accommodates the design vehicle

and emergency vehicles.

Design for Context

Streets help define the character of neighborhoods. A street’s design should interact with the surrounding

context, including its history, land uses, and nearby landmarks.

• The unique character of neighborhoods should be considered during the design of street projects.

• Bicycle lanes are not required on streets that primarily provide direct access to single-family residential and/or

industrial land uses. All other streets should have bicycle lanes. On streets with posted speed limits of 30 miles per

hour or higher, the bike lanes will preferably be separated and/or protected. For the purposes of this document,

sharrows are not bicycle lanes.

• Design streets to enhance access to and contribute to the open space network within the city.

49

3

Indices for Network Connectivity and Accessibility

• Links and nodes (index): Roadway (or modal) links divided by the number of nodes (intersections). Ranges from

1.0 (poorest level; all cul-de-sacs) to 2.5 (full grid). Minimum index defining a walkable community is 1.5.

• Intersection ratio: The ratio of intersections divided by intersections and dead ends, expressed on a scale from

zero to 1.0 (US EPA, 2002). An index of more than 0.75 is desirable.

• Average intersection spacing: For walkability, maximum distance of 600 ft; desirable spacing is under 400 ft.

• Intersection density: The number of surface street intersections within a given area, such as a square mile. The

more intersections, the greater the degree of connectivity.

• Blocks per square mile: For walkability this index should be at least 100.

• Directness (index): Actual travel distance divided by direct travel distance. Ideal index is 1.0. For walkability,

index should be 1.5 or less.

Sources: Texas Transportation Institute, Adapted from: Donohue, Nick, “Secondary Street Acceptance Requirements,” Office of the Secretary of

Transportation, Commonwealth of Virginia. Spring 2008. “Smart Growth Index Model,” U.S. EPA 2002.

Design for Sustainability

Streets present an extraordinary opportunity to improve the environmental health of the city. Complete Streets

will help achieve sustainability goals and mitigate the urban heat island effect.

• Minimize impermeable surfaces and maximize vegetation on streets outside of vehicular travel lanes. Street designs

should capture and beneficially use stormwater wherever practicable.

• Reduce streets’ rate of heat absorption by maximizing tree canopy cover, reducing asphalt, and using high

reflectivity materials or lighter colors.

• Collaborate across agencies in testing, evaluating, and standardizing new materials so that streets are constructed in

an environmentally sound way.

Design for Cost-Effectiveness

Reconstruction of city streets can require substantial financial resources. Streets should be designed for long-

term cost effectiveness with public and economic benefit.

• Consider not only up-front capital costs, but also full lifecycle costs and benefits; certain options may cost more up

front, but may have lower ongoing maintenance and operations costs and/or provide long-term benefits.

• Street overlays and private development activity should be designed as complete streets for affected elements.

• When practical, identify opportunities to partner and share resources (e.g., driveways, parking, etc.).

Design for Connectivity

Network activity has implications for Complete Streets and is crucial for creating walkable and bikeable places.

These concepts apply to both new development and retrofit conditions. More detail can be found in Chapter 3

of the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ publication Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares: A Context

Sensitive Approach (2010).

• Design and connect neighborhoods via streets, sidewalks, and trails, and discourage the abandonment of streets,

sidewalks, and alleys that compromise connectivity.

• Rather than the winding hierarchical network, the city should return to a traditional connected grid network,

wherever possible. The collector in a typical hierarchical network channels traffic from local streets to the arterial

street system. However, a system of parallel connectors provides multiple and direct routes between origins and

destinations. Streets should be designed to the standards laid out in the Indices for Network Connectivity and

Accessibility shown below:

50

4

3. NACTO Urban Street Design Guide

Refer to the entirety of NACTO’s Urban Street Design Guide (2013), excepting the Stormwater Management section. For

guidelines related to stormwater management, please see section 4 of this document (Stormwater Management and

Green Infrastructure).

51

5

4. Stormwater Management & Green Infrastructure

Content reproduced and adapted for use here is provided courtesy of Watershed Management Group. Source material,

including more guidance on green infrastructure practices is at www.watershedmg.org.

Purpose Green infrastructure (GI) is an important element of a sustainable complete street, using living, natural systems to

provide environmental services, such as capturing, cleaning, and infiltrating stormwater; creating wildlife habitat; shading

and cooling streets and buildings; and calming traffic. This section provides principles and guidelines for creating and

retrofitting existing neighborhood streets, rights-of-way, and parking lots with GI practices. These guidelines are intended

for City of Phoenix-sponsored projects but are easily translated to private projects. Developers are encouraged to

consider the benefits that incorporating GI practices could provide in their developments.

Green Infrastructure Overview

In the southwest United States, climate can present a challenge to alternative modes of transportation such as bicyclists

and pedestrians. When it rains, these streets generate stormwater runoff that carries non-point source pollution to

waterways, resulting in flooded streets (creating traffic hazards), erosion of soil downstream of paved areas, and

increased maintenance costs.

GI practices can help resolve these concerns. Practices such as traffic chicanes, curb bump-outs, or bioswales reduce

the street width and create pervious planting areas which help calm traffic, reduce flooding, sedimentation and

erosion, capture, clean and infiltrate stormwater, and help irrigate vegetation that shades streets and sidewalks,

creating more desirable places for biking and walking. Four critical principles to consider when implementing GI are

discussed below.

Protect and restore natural areas (e.g., washes, desert scape, relatively undisturbed riparian areas)

Natural areas provide the functions that GI emulates, including air and water filtration, and wildlife habitat. When a

natural area is removed, it is costly and difficult to rebuild the complex web of ecological interactions, and thus the

services, it provides. Therefore, it is an essential GI practice to preserve natural areas wherever possible or restore the

ecological functions and services of degraded natural areas.

Serve multiple functions with GI

Instead of creating infrastructure that only serves one purpose, the best GI practices will serve multiple functions, like,

improving pedestrian/bicycle pathways; cooling and beautifying streets; and reducing and cleaning stormwater runoff.

Such integrated design creates GI practices that are more cost-effective and beneficial for communities.

Include the community

GI approaches are best when implemented using a multi-disciplinary and inclusive planning and design process.

Including local residents, neighborhoods, businesses, and institutions like schools and churches is essential to

creating projects and locations that are successful and supported over the long term.

Use Vegetation

Vegetation is an essential element of GI practices. The benefits of vegetation (particularly trees) are wide-ranging from

human health to wildlife to aesthetic. Selecting drought-tolerant or desert-adapted species, preferably native to the

region, is important. With appropriate site selection and planting density, combining vegetation with GI can reduce the

irrigation requirements by maximizing utilization of rainfall runoff with the potential to eliminate supplemental irrigation

after plant establishment.

52

6

Green Infrastructure Common Practices This section briefly describes common GI practices that may be appropriate, singly or in combination, for use on City of

Phoenix projects; more information on these practices can be found at www.watershedmg.org. This is not intended to be

an exhaustive list; nothing in this document should be construed to restrict implementation of GI on City of Phoenix or

private developments to only the practices listed. Future innovation and technological advances are also expected and

encouraged to contribute to an increased body of potential GI practices appropriate for our region.

Streetside Practices — GI within the right-of-way adjacent to streets should consider these design features:

• Non-vehicular curb cuts are openings created in the curb to allow stormwater from an impervious surface (e.g.,

street or parking lot) to flow into a depressed infiltration and planting area. This is an effective and simple GI practice

for new or retrofit projects.

• Bioretention basin with rock-lined edges collect and infiltrates stormwater from curb cuts; bioretention basins must

be excavated in the right-of-way to a depth below street level. Rocks are used to prevent erosion along the sides of

the basin. This can be an effective choice in relatively narrow right-of-way.

• Bioretention basin with shallow slope collects and infiltrates stormwater from curb cuts in a wider, shallow sloped

area with no rock-lined edges. These basins are similar in structure and function to basins with rock-lined edges. This

only works in relatively wider right-of-way that allows space for gently sloped sides.

• Sediment traps capture and collect sediment at the entrance to bioretention areas, facilitating periodic sediment

removal, extending functional life of the basin.

• Swale with non-vehicular curb cuts is a bioretention feature with gently sloping sides that is long and linear. It may

capture and infiltrate stormwater in place or transport water downhill to a drain or other detention feature.

• Basin or swale without non-vehicular curb cuts can be used to capture stormwater from adjacent sidewalk and

businesses where right-of-way is too small to create a basin with curb cuts or where stormwater doesn’t flow along

the gutter.

• Pervious pavement treats, detains and infiltrates stormwater runoff in combination with landscape-based

strategies or where landscape-based strategies are restricted or less desired. Streetside applications could include

sidewalks, street furniture zones, parking lanes and gutter strips.

In-street Practices — GI within a street profile:

• Chicanes, (midblock bump outs) - collect and infiltrate stormwater that flows along curbs and should be

designed with a flush curb and depressed bioretention area streetside.

• Medians can collect and infiltrate stormwater that flows along a curb; should be designed with a flush curb and

depressed bioretention area. This is particularly useful on streets with an inverted crown.

Parking Area — Parking area GI are not generally within right-of-way but can be used as tools to retain water on-site:

• Bioretention basins or swales- retain and infiltrate stormwater runoff in landscape buffer areas; opportunities to

replace unneeded asphalt with bioretention should be considered. Speed bump placement can assist in directing

stormwater to basins.

53

RESOLUTION 21554

A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE CITY OF PHOENIX COMPLETE STREETS POLICY.

WHEREAS the City Council adopted Ordinance S-41094 on July 2, 2014

establishing the Complete Streets Guiding Principles and Ordinance G-5937

establishing a Complete Streets Advisory Board (CSAB);

WHEREAS the CSAB adopted the proposed Complete Streets Policy

(Policy) on February 23, 2017;

WHEREAS the Planning Commission approved the Policy on May 4,

2017;and

WHEREAS the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee

recommended City Council approval of the Policy on June 13, 2017;

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX as

follows:

SECTION 1. That the City adopt the Complete Streets Policy, to be

implemented by the Street Transportation and the Planning and Development

Departments for the purpose of achieving a more sustainable, safe and accessible

54

transportation system that promotes active transportation choices and increased

connectivity within the City of Phoenix.

PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 28th day of June,

2017.

ATTEST:

C: ~ City Clerk

ROVED AS TO FORM:

REVIEWED BY:

~ty Attorney

2 Resolution 21554 55

City of Phoenix Complete Streets Policy

1

CITY OF PHOENIX

COMPLETE STREETS POLICY

VISION

The intent of the Complete Streets Policy (“Policy”) is to help the City of Phoenix (“City”);

Become more walkable, bikeable and public transit friendly Foster social engagement

Instill community pride Grow the local economy and property values

Identify projects that will improve equitable transportation access forvulnerable and transit-dependent populations

Improve the livability and long-term sustainability of the region.

With the implementation of the Complete Streets Policy, Phoenix will be a better

place to live, work, and realize long-term savings from improved public health, safety, environmental stewardship, economic development, social mobility, and

transportation equity.

It is the intent of this document to provide context sensitive Complete Streets design guidance for all projects within the public right-of-way and all streets

accepted by the City.

This Policy aligns with the City’s overall vision for transportation and the General Plan.

GOALS

When designing, constructing and improving rights-of-way City staff will incorporate this Policy to ensure the City’s rights-of-way:

Are planned, designed, constructed, operated, and maintained with theultimate goal of serving a variety of transportation modes

Will contribute to active transportation and public health Accommodate transportation users of all ages and abilities

Are economically and environmentally sustainable Are designed to be compatible with the surrounding contexts and

connecting transportation networks Comply with state and federal law and City code and Ordinance S-41094

Follow the Complete Streets Planning and Design Principles which will beintegrated into the Street Transportation Design Guidelines

Provide new or improved connectivity between all transportation modesand adjacent land uses.

Attachment A

56


2

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

(A) While the Street Transportation Department will lead implementation of

Complete Streets for projects, transformation of the Phoenix street environment to be more inclusive of pedestrians, cyclists, and transit-users will require coordination

with and support of many City departments and adjacent landowners. These departments may include, but are not limited to: Public Transit, Planning and

Development, Neighborhood Services, Water Services, Police, Fire, and Community and Economic Development.

(B) The Planning and Development Department will provide guidance for privately

funded projects to implement the Policy, and will encourage coordination and support of private landowners, developers, builders, city departments, and other

stakeholders.

(C) The City will continue efforts to coordinate with adjacent municipalities and

agencies to encourage interjurisdictional connectivity.

(D) The City will work with builders, developers, utilities, and industry trade associations to encourage the use of the Policy for privately funded projects and all

relevant partners for publicly funded projects.

(E) The City staff will propose the inclusion of Complete Streets principles into the General Plan and other relevant plans, manuals, rules, regulations, ordinances and

programs as determined by staff and the Complete Streets Advisory Board.

(F) The City will incorporate Complete Streets improvements into its Capital Improvement Program and pursue other funding sources to accelerate the

implementation of this Policy.

(G) The City will provide training to appropriate City staff on Complete Streets

principles and best practices for implementation and will encourage staff professional development and training on non-motorized transportation issues.

(H) The City will prepare annual reports detailing implementation impacts

including exceptions, obstacles and successes of this Policy. The report will be posted online and shared with the relevant City departments, committees, Council

subcommittees, and the Complete Streets Advisory Board.

57


3

EXCEPTIONS

Any exception to this Policy must be reviewed and documented with supporting

data by the appointed designee of the Street Transportation Department. Exceptions may be considered for approval if:

(A) The activities are maintenance activities (not including street overlays) that

do not change the roadway geometry or operations and are designed to keep assets in serviceable condition; or

(B) The application of Complete Streets principles would be contrary to public

safety; or

(C) The application of Complete Streets principles would have significant adverse

historic, cultural, contextual, or environmental impacts; or

(D) Accommodation is not necessary where non-motorized uses are prohibited by law; or

(E) Cost of accommodations is excessively disproportionate to the cost of the

project.

58




SUBJECT: BIKESHARE PROGRAM UPDATE

This report provides the Citizens Transportation Commission (CTC) with an update about the GRID bikeshare program and information about the proposed dockless bike ordinance. GRID BIKESHARE UPDATE The City entered into a contract with CycleHop, LLC to provide a GRID bikeshare program on Sept. 20, 2013 after conducting a comprehensive request for proposals (RFP) process. The GRID bikeshare system launched on Nov. 25, 2014 with over 100 bikes. Since the launch, the system has grown to include 500 bikes, and racks to accommodate 750 bikes at 50 bikeshare station locations. The program has been popular with a ridership that includes 44,000 city-wide trips and over 62,000 miles ridden in 2017.

Cyclehop is under contract to provide the services and materials necessary to operate, promote and maintain the City’s GRID bikeshare program. The contract was designed to minimize cost to the City. Cyclehop’s required maintenance includes, but is not limited to; inspecting, cleaning and removing graffiti on all bikeshare infrastructure within 48 hours, removing debris in and around stations, preventive maintenance and prompt repairs of the bikeshare bikes. Cyclehop is also responsible for a maintenance plan that consists of:

1. Routine Bike Maintenance Inspections GRID staff is responsible for conducting routine bike maintenance which includes a daily visit to each station. Routine maintenance includes minor adjustments, repairs, inspection and cleaning. In addition, mechanics are required to do a bi-weekly maintenance checklist for each bike.

2. Scheduled Maintenance GRID staff is responsible for tracking the mileage and time between maintenance for each bike, and, using that information, identify, repair and replace the components that require maintenance.

3. Bike Refurbishment and Equipment Renewal During the summer months, GRID staff is responsible for performing a comprehensive inspection and maintenance for each bike and station. This includes systematically rebuilding or replacing bikes and station equipment and replacing worn decals and other aesthetic elements on bikes and stations where necessary.

Per GRID’s maintenance records, in 2017 they made approximately 1,900 repairs. The listing of maintenance activities for the 500 bikes in the system include the following:

59

GRID’s 2017 Bike Maintenance Activities Maintenance

Item Number of

Repairs Flat Tire 401 Shifting/Pedaling 337 Keypad 133 Lock 119 Brakes 80 Seat 78 Frame 59 Lighting 42 Other 649 TOTAL 1,898

Bikes that are out of service are expected to be removed from the system immediately upon notification. Cyclehop is required to have 80% of the fleet operational during the summer when scheduled inspections and maintenance are performed and 90% operational for the remainder of the year. City staff periodically conduct spot checks to ensure compliance with the contract requirements. BIKESHARE FUNDING The contract was designed to minimize costs to the City. To help expand the program, the City applied for and was awarded $777,975 in Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) funds for FY16 to purchase 200 bicycles, 10 kiosks and 300 bicycle racks. The City’s local match will be $47,025 (5.7%). Prior to the availability of CMAQ funds and with Council approval, the City spent $124,680 in Arizona Highway User Revenue (AHUR) Capital Reserve funds to purchase 250 bike racks. This enabled the deployment of 200 bikes that were in storage. Approximately 20% of the parking on these racks is designated to the public for non-Grid bicycles. An additional $4,500 in General Funds was spent to purchase racks for the Library Department. The contract includes a requirement that Cyclehop remit to the City 50% of net income over $350,000 on or before January 31 of each year. To date, the City has not received any funds from Cyclehop as their net income has not exceeded $350,000. PROGRAM EXPANSION The City plans to expand the GRID Bikeshare program with the deployment of additional bikes and stations along the Light Rail extension. As part of this expansion, the City applied for and has been approved $918,426 in CMAQ funds for both 2018 and 2020. The local match will be $55,515 (5.7%) per year. The funds will be used to purchase bikes, racks, kiosks, and signs. DOCKLESS BIKE ORDINANCE AND PILOT PROGRAM Bikesharing is experiencing another breakthrough in the form of dockless systems which are emerging throughout the United States. Cities such as Charlotte, Durham, San Francisco, Seattle and Washington, D.C. have launched programs for this alternative mode of transportation. Dockless bikeshare is a service in which bikes are made available

60

in public right-of-way for shared use on a short-term basis. Users of the dockless bikeshare service typically use a smartphone app to locate and pay to rent a bike. A dockless bike may be located in designated areas, or at an appropriate spot left by the previous user. This bikeshare system is different from the GRID bikeshare system in that there are no stations for docking the bikes, which can instead be left anywhere since they are secured with a wheel locking mechanism that is unlocked via the bikeshare operator’s app. Staff will be recommending to the City Council a 12-month pilot dockless bikeshare program to monitor operator compliance and market demand to better refine permit requirements. The proposed program will require a permit to operate a dockless bikeshare system in the public right of way, identify associated rates and fees and establish parking regulations for bikes in public right of way. The permit will also include requirements that address safety, parking, operations and data sharing. Permits will include standard terms and conditions such as indemnification, insurance and performance bond requirements. The proposed rates and fees are intended to recover costs of administering the program, will be evaluated as part of the pilot, and are shown below:

• Dockless Bikeshare Permit Application Fee - $500 • Bike Permit Fee - $20 per bike annually • Relocation/Re-Parking Fee - $80 per bike relocated/re-parked

To better control the public right-of-way and reduce the number of complaints, the following bike parking regulations are proposed:

• Parked upright and on a hard surface. • Maintain a pedestrian travel space to a width of at least four feet. • Maintain unimpeded access to public and private property entrances. • Maintain unimpeded access to GRID bikeshare stations. • Maintain vehicular travel area for any vehicle.

Staff will evaluate an option of requiring that the dockless bikes only be parked in areas clearly designated by the City Council. The proposed ordinance will prohibit parking a bike at the corners of sidewalks, parklets, transit zones, loading zones, disabled parking zones, street furniture zones, landscaped areas and curb ramps. Bikes parked in violation of these regulations must be relocated within two hours of notification to the permittee. If the permittee does not relocate the bike as required, the City may remove the bike and assess the permittee a relocation fee. The 12-month pilot program will allow dockless bikeshare operators to apply for permits and to deploy 500 bikes in the first month and up to 250 additional bikes per month during the pilot. During this 12-month period staff will evaluate the operations and gather data from the operators that will mold the future of the program. At the conclusion of the 12-month pilot program, staff will provide an update with recommendations to City Council to either modify, terminate or continue the program.

RECOMMENDATION This report is for information only.

61

1

GRID Bike Update andDockless Bike Pilot Program

Citizen’s Transportation CommissionApril 26, 2018

62

2

GRID Bikeshare Program Milestones

63

3

Popular with Riders

44,000 City Wide

Trips*

62,000 MilesRidden*

*2017 Statistics

64

4

CycleHop Contract

• Cyclehop operates, promotes, and maintains program

• Maintenance Includes:– Inspecting– Cleaning– Removing Graffiti within

48 hours– Cleaning Stations

65

5

Routine & Scheduled Maintenance

Routine• Daily visit to each

station• Minor adjustments,

repairs, inspection and cleaning

• Bi-weekly maintenance checklist for each bike

Scheduled• Tracking mileage and

time between maintenance for each bike

• Identify, repair, and replace components needing maintenance

66

6

Refurbishment & Renewal

During the Summer, GRID staff is responsible for:• Comprehensive

inspection of each bike and station

• Replace worn decals and other aesthetic elements on bikes and stations

67

7

2017 Maintenance ActivitiesMaintenance Item Number of RepairsFlat Tire 401Shifting / Pedaling 337Keypad 133Lock 119Brakes 80Seat 78Frame 59Lighting 42Other 649Total 1,898

68

8

BikeShare Funding & Expansion• Contract designed to minimize City Costs

• Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) funds2016: $777,975 / City match $47,025 (5.7%)2018: $918,426 / City match of $55,515 (5.7%)2020: $918,426 / City match of $55,515 (5.7%)

• City Funds$124,680 AHUR Capital Reserve$4,500 General Funds

• Income – City to receive 50% of net income over $350,000

69

9

Dockless Bike Share – What Is It?

• Bike share without a dock

• Riders locate and unlock bikes using mobile phones

• Customers pay per ride• Bikes have kickstands

and lock themselves

70

10

Proposed Ordinance• Require Permit• Rates and Fees• Parking regulations within the

right-of-way

71

11

Bikeshare Permit

• Safety• Parking• Operations• Data sharing• Insurance• Indemnification• Performance bond

72

12

Proposed Rates and Fees

• Permit Applications Fee: $500• Bike Permit Fee: $20 per bike annually• Relocation/Re-Parking Fee: $80 per bike

73

13

Proposed Parking Regulations

• Bikes upright and on hard surface• Minimum pedestrian travel space of 4 feet• Unimpeded access properties• Unimpeded access to GRID stations• Maintain vehicular travel area for any vehicle

74

14

Parking Prohibitions• Ordinance would prohibit

parking a bike:– At the corners of sidewalks– Parklets– Transit Zones– Loading Zones– Disabled Parking Zones– Street Furniture Zones– Landscaped Areas and Curb

Ramps

75

15

Pilot Program• 12-month pilot program• Monitor operator compliance and market

demand• Refine permit requirements

76

16

Pilot Stipulations• 500 bikes deployed in first

month• 250 additional bikes/month

during pilot• Staff will evaluate operations

and gather data from operator for future recommendations

• Evaluation and recommendation

77

17

Questions

78




Ken Kessler Acting Public Transit Director

SUBJECT: UPCOMING T2050 RELATED PUBLIC MEETINGS/EVENTS This report provides the Citizens Transportation Commission (CTC) with a list of upcoming T2050 related public meetings by Public Transit Department, Streets Transportation and Valley Metro. This item is for information only.

Upcoming T2050 Related Public Meetings/Events

Meeting Date and

Time

Location Topic Department/ Agency

Community Workshop: SEC Design Elements Workshop

Apr. 4, 2018

5:30 PM – 7 PM

South Mountain Community Center

212 E. Alta Vista Road Phoenix, AZ

South Central – Lincoln to Broadway

Community workshop to seek input on landscape, track treatments and light poles.

Public Transit/Valley Metro

Community Workshop: SEC Design Elements Workshop

Apr. 18, 2018

5:30 PM – 7 PM

South Mountain Community Center

212 E. Alta Vista Road Phoenix, AZ

South Central – Lincoln to Broadway

Community workshop to seek input on landscape, track treatments and light poles.


79

Public Meeting – Initial Design (downtown area)

Apr. 26, 2018

5:30 PM – 7:30 PM

424 N. Central Ave. Phoenix, AZ

South Central LR – Downtown to Lincoln Downtown 30% Design Public Meeting


October Service Changes: Public Comment Period Apr. 30 thru Jun. 1, 2018

October Service Changes Public comment period for proposed October service changes


October Service Changes: Public Hearing

May 22, 2018

5:00 PM – 7 PM

Valley Metro 101 N. First Ave. Suite 1400

October Service Changes Provide update on proposed October Service Changes


Public Meeting: Project Update

Jun. 4, 2018

10 AM – 11 AM

5025 W. Washington St., Confr. Rm 1 Phoenix, AZ

Light Rail: 50th St. Station Provide project update.


80

city of phoenix citizens transportation commission · 2018-06-04 · city of phoenix citizens...

Documents