evaluating transit sustainability principles for houston-galveston … · o other injury (severe)...

Evaluating Transit Sustainability

Principles For Houston-Galveston

Corridor Alternatives Analysis

Prepared for

The Texas APA 2013 Annual Conference

Presented by Carl Sharp, AICP

Robert McHaney, Planning Technical Services Manager, The Goodman Corporation

Agenda

• Purpose

• Background

• Transit Alternatives Evaluated

• Alternatives Analysis

• Partnership for Sustainable Communities (PSC)

• Transit Study Areas

• PSC Principles

• PSC Summary of Analysis

• Conclusion

Purpose

Present methodologies and tools used to evaluate public

transportation alternatives within the context of different

sustainability principles.

Background

Since 1980, The Goodman Corporation

(TGC) has assisted private and public

entities plan, finance and implement

various land use and mobility projects

throughout the nation.

On behalf of its Houston-Galveston area

based clients, TGC analyzed transit

improvement options to determine

which would more effectively maximize

mobility efforts and reduce congestion

along the Galveston-Houston Corridor.

Transit Alternatives Evaluated

Transportation System

Management (TSM)

The TSM alternative would involve

expanding existing park & ride bus

service operating on IH 45 to SH 3

and Galveston Island.


Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)

IH 45

The BRT IH 45 alternative would

include installing a two-way transitway

on IH 45 right-of-way (ROW) from

Dowling to the Galveston Causeway

Bridge.


Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)

SH 3

BRT on SH 3 would operate primarily

using an HOV/diamond lane on SH 3 to

provide a two-way exclusive transit

facility from Galveston to Houston

operating on portions of SH 3, Old

Galveston Road, and IH 45 depending

on which portion of the corridor.


Commuter Rail Transit (CRT)

The CRT alternative would link

downtown Galveston with downtown

Houston. The alignment would operate

on the existing Galveston Houston and

Henderson (GH&H) railroad ROW,

which is parallel to SH 3/Old Galveston

Road.

Alternatives Analysis

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Alternatives Analysis (AA)

• FTA required the completion of an AA for New or Small Starts funding.

• AA is the first step to determine the best solution to the problem.

• MAP-21 repealed the AA process and simplified the evaluation criteria.

Galveston-Houston Mobility Corridor AA

• Evaluation of effectiveness, environmental impacts, financial feasibility, ROW,

operating and capital and many other evaluation criteria AA is the first step to

determine the best solution to the problem.

• Significant public and stakeholder involvement.

Alternatives Analysis

Transit Sustainability Principle

• The Galveston-Houston Mobility Corridor Sustainability Principle Evaluation

supplements the AA by using the Partnership for Sustainability Communities

framework to focus on sustainability of a transit alternative’s interim stop and

station locations (study areas).

• The outcome will be used to support a recommendation for a Locally Preferred

Alternative (LPA) for the AA.

Partnership for Sustainable Communities

Overview

• The Partnership for Sustainable Communities (PSC) brings together the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Department of Housing and Urban

Development (HUD), and Department of Transportation (DOT) to plan for

communities that are efficient consumers of housing, transportation, and energy

use.

• The PSC focuses on the ways each department can better coordinate its services

to improve the overall sustainability and livability of the communities they serve.

• The PSC has adopted six principles to guide its mission:

o Provide more transportation choices;

o Promote equitable and affordable housing;

o Enhance economic competitiveness;

o Target resources to existing communities;

o Coordinate and leverage federal policies and investments; and

o Value unique characteristics of communities, no matter their size.

Partnership for Sustainable Communities

• Provide More Transportation Choices

o Decrease household transportation cost

o Reduce fuel consumption

o Improve air quality/reduce green house gas

o Promote public health

• Promote Equitable, Affordable Housing

o Expand mixed-income and affordable housing choices

o Preserve existing affordable housing

o Develop a more comprehensive approach to address household

expenditures on housing and transportation

• Enhance Economic Competitiveness

o Time Saving – Auto vs. Transit

o Improved access to jobs, secondary education, shopping centers and health

facilities

Partnership for Sustainable Communities Components

• Support Existing Communities

o Enhance Mixed-Use Development

o Increase Property Tax Valuation

• Coordinate and Leverage Federal Policies and Investment

o System Connectivity

o Leverage Local, State, and Federal Funding

o Emissions of Rolling Stock

• Value Communities and Neighborhoods

o Enhance the safety and walkability in neighborhoods, whether rural,

urban or suburban

Partnership for Sustainable Communities Components

Transit Study Areas

Each alternative, interim stop and station locations were selected by using

the AA travel demand forecast modeling, public input and other related data.

ALTERNATIVE STUDY AREAS

TSM BRT IH 45 BRT SH 3 CRT

Galveston Galveston Galveston Galveston

Texas City / La Marque Texas City / La Marque Texas City / La Marque Texas City / La Marque

League City / Dickinson League City / Dickinson League City / Dickinson League City / Dickinson

- Webster Webster Bay Area / Clear Lake

- Ellington Ellington Ellington

- - - Winkler/Richey

- 610 / Lawndale 610 / Lawndale 610 / Lawndale

- Eastwood Transit Center

(EWTC)

Eastwood Transit Center

(EWTC) Congress Yard

- Houston CBD Houston CBD Hardy Yard

Transit Study Areas

DISTANCE AND TIME

Origin Distance To CBD

(Miles)

Auto Time to CBD (Peak)

(Minutes)

Galveston 53 91

La/Marque/Texas City 42 72

Dickinson 31 62

League City 31 62

Webster 25 57

Ellington 18 48

Lawndale 7 19

Transit Study Areas Base Data

MODELED DAILY BOARDINGS

STUDY AREA

(Destination CBD) TSM BRT IH 45 BRT SH 3 CRT

Galveston 350 800 900 1,300

Texas City/La Marque 300 1,200 1,300 900

League City/Dickinson 200 1,500 1,800 2,000

Webster/Clear Lake - 1,600 2,000 2,300

Ellington - 1,200 1,400 1,600

Winkler/Richey - 600 700 700

610/Lawndale - 1,100 1,300 1,400

Total 850 8,000 9,400 10,200


MODELED DAILY VEHICLES REDUCED

STUDY AREA


Galveston 140 200 200 350

Texas City/La Marque 120 385 410 425

League City/Dickinson 140 1,000 1,250 700

Webster/Clear Lake - 450 550 800

Ellington - 275 325 700

Winkler/Richey - - - 350

610/Lawndale - 200 300 300

Total 400 2,510 3,035 3,625


Provide More Transportation Choices Decrease Household Transportation Cost

Transportation costs include:

• $0.43 per mile (assumes that commuter will own a vehicle)

• Value of Time (differs for study areas) - This is the median wage from

2010 U.S. Census.

• Parking - $150 per month

• Transit Fares – Fares are round trip to the CBD, distance determines fare.

Example Calculation

Round trip from Galveston to CBD

• Galveston to CBD Auto Cost - $113

• Galveston to CBD CRT Cost - $68

• Savings Per Round Trip - $45


ANNUAL SAVINGS IN TRANSPORTATION - COST PER COMMUTER

STUDY AREA (Destination CBD) TSM BRT IH 45 BRT SH 3 CRT

Galveston $7,800 $10,300 $9,300 $11,430

Texas City/La Marque $4,400 $7,700 $6,400 $9,600

League City/Dickinson $2,400 $5,300 $4,600 $8,700

Webster/Clear Lake - $5,300 $4,600 $8,200

Ellington - $4,000 $3,800 $7,400

Winkler/Richey - - - $4,600

610/Lawndale - $1,400 $700 $1,700

Average $4,900 $6,000 $5,100 $7,400


What Does Your Commute Cost?

Example Calculation

• Auto - ~$45.50 daily or $11,550 annually (254 days)

o 36 miles round trip (36 miles * $0.43 per mile) = $15.50 daily

o 1 hour round trip ($30 per hour) = $30 daily (must leave at 6:30

am)

o No parking cost

(vs.)

• Transit - ~$69.35 daily or $17,600 annually (254 days)

o Auto to train 9 miles round-trip = $3.85 daily

o 2 hour round-trip ($30 per hour) = $60 daily

o Train fare = $5.50


ANNUAL SAVINGS IN GALLONS OF FUEL

STUDY AREA

(Destination CBD)

Fu

el G

all

on

s U

sed

Per

Veh

icle

– D

ail

y

TSM BRT IH 45 BRT SH 3 CRT

An

nu

al F

uel

Sav

ed

An

nu

al F

uel

Sav

ed

An

nu

al F

uel

Sav

ed

An

nu

al F

uel

Sav

ed

Galveston 4.51 160,000 228,600 228,600 401,300

Texas City/La Marque 3.57 109,200 350,500 373,400 375,900

League City/Dickinson 2.64 94,000 670,600 838,200 454,700

Webster/Clear Lake 2.64 - 233,700 284,500 449,600

Ellington 2.13 - 94,000 111,800 287,000

Winkler/Richey 0.77 - - - 68,600

610/Lawndale 0.60 - 30,500 45,700 38,100

League City (SB) 2.64 12,700 27,900 27,900 -

CBD (SB) 4.51 91,400 - - -

Total - 467,300 1,635,800 1,910,100 2,075,200

Provide More Transportation Choices Reduce Fuel/Oil Consumption

ANNUAL SAVINGS IN GALLONS OF OIL – (5 QUARTS OF OIL PER 4,000 VMT)

STUDY AREA (Destination CBD) TSM BRT IH 45 BRT SH 3 CRT

Galveston 1,180 1,680 1,680 2,940

Texas City/La Marque 800 2,570 2,730 2,770

League City/Dickinson 690 4,920 6,150 3,330

Webster/Clear Lake - 1,710 2,100 3,300

Ellington - 700 830 2,110


610/Lawndale - 220 330 290

League City (SB) 100 200 200 -

CBD (SB) 670 - - -

Total 3,440 12,000 14,020 15,240

Provide More Transportation Choices Reduce Fuel/Oil Consumption

• The EPA has classified the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria region as severe

nonattainment for the eight-hour ozone standard.

• The reduction of VMT traffic congestion, and thus air pollutants is an important

factor to the region’s quality of life and future growth.

EMISSION FACTORS FOR MODES OF TRAVEL

MODE UNIT OF

MEASURE VOC CO NOx

Auto(1) Grams per Mile 0.09 2.82 0.16

Bus(2) Grams per Mile 0.19 0.33 0.65

Commuter Rail(3) Grams per Mile 0.19 7.20 8.92

1- Auto - HDR Inc.

2- Bus - H-GAC/EPA air quality modeling factors for Transit Bus in Year 2035

3- CR - EPA. Office of Transportation and Air Quality. EPA-420-F-09-025. Emission Factors for Locomotives. April 2009

Provide More Transportation Choices Improve Air Quality/Reduce Green House Gas

ANNUAL NET SAVINGS IN EMISSIONS (DESTINATION CBD) – ANNUAL TONS

MODE VOC CO NOx

TSM 0.6 22.8 0.7

BRT IH 45 4.2 140.0 6.6

BRT SH 3 4.9 159.4 7.7

CRT 5.5 165.1 5.8

Provide More Transportation Choices Improve Air Quality/Reduce Green House Gas

• Public health focuses on improving a population’s physical, mental, and

social well-being.

• TGC examined how each alternative could promote the following public

health objectives:

o Improve Traffic Safety

o Improve Physical and Mental Health

Provide More Transportation Choices Promote Public Health

• Total Texas VMT per Auto Related Injury

o Fatality – 1 in 78,143,000 miles

o Serious Injury – 1 in 2,961,000 miles

o Other Injury (Severe) – 1 in 1,793,000 miles

• Methodology

o Total VMT reduced by mode/total VMT per injury or fatality

ANNUAL REDUCTION IN AUTO RELATED INJURIES (DESTINATION CBD)

MODE Fatalities Serious Injury Other Injuries

TSM 0.095 2.5 4.1

BRT IH 45 0.578 15.2 25.2

BRT SH 3 0.658 17.3 28.6

CRT 0.691 18.238 30.1

NOT ALL

ROADS

CREATED THE

SAME

Provide More Transportation Choices Promote Public Health – Traffic Safety

• The Center for Disease Control (CDC) reports that physical activity is a

major contributor to better health.

• Methodology

o The average transit user will walk an additional 20 minutes per day,

or the equivalent of one mile.(1)

o Reported health benefit in 2007 U.S. Dollars is $0.48 per mile

walked.(2)

1 - Litman, Todd. Evaluating Public Transportation Health Benefits. Victory Transport Policy Institute. June 2010

2 - Land Transport New Zealand’s Economic Evaluation Manual. Economic Evaluation Manual. 2006

Provide More Transportation Choices Promote Public Health – Health

MONETIZED HEALTH BENEFITS

STUDY AREA


Galveston $92,600 $211,700 $238,100 $344,000


League City/Dickinson $92,600 $820,200 $1,005,400 $529,200


Ellington - $158,800 $185,200 $423,300

Winkler/Richey - - - $185,200

610/Lawndale - $291,000 $344,000 $370,400

Average $66,100 $306,200 $359,100 $385,500

Provide More Transportation Choices Promote Public Health – Health

• Sustainable Communities Initiative encourages a mix of affordable and

market-rate housing to be developed near public transportation.

• HUD and FTA reported to Congress the following shared challenges:

o Expand mixed-income and affordable housing choices in the immediate

proximity of new and existing transit stations;

o Preserve existing affordable housing; and

o Develop a more comprehensive approach to address household

expenditures on housing and transportation.

Promote Equitable, Affordable Housing

• Challenge #1: Expand mixed-income and affordable housing choices in the

immediate proximity of new and existing transit stations.

• Methodology

o Identify vacant land within one-half mile of each study area.

o Identify HUD designated Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC)

Qualified Census Tracts (QCT) located within one-half mile of the study

area.

o Identify the HUD Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) target

area designation by census block group.

Promote Equitable, Affordable Housing Expand Mixed-Income and Affordable Housing Choices

Example – Galveston

Few vacant parcels are located in a targeted area.

Promote Equitable, Affordable Housing Expand Mixed-Income and Affordable Housing Choices

• Challenge #2: Preserve existing affordable housing.

• Methodology

o Identify existing affordable housing within one-half mile of each study

area and along the travel corridor.

o Review LIHTC, Multifamily Assistance and Section 8 contracts to

identify inventory of affordable housing in target areas within/near the

study area.

Promote Equitable, Affordable Housing Preserve Existing Affordable Housing


GALVESTON HUD FUNDED HOUSING

PROJECT NAME NEAR STUDY AREAS TYPE OF HUD

PROJECT LOW INCOME UNITS

Gregory Place TSM, BRT IH 45, BRT IH 3, CRT LIHTC 13

University Gardens TSM, BRT IH 45, BRT IH 3, CRT LIHTC 14

UTMB Gardens TSM, BRT IH 45, BRT IH 3, CRT LIHTC 13

1402 Winnie Apartments No LIHTC 2

1910 Avenue N No LIHTC 5

3418 Sealy No LIHTC 4

Campeche Island Apartments No LIHTC 208

Champion Homes at Bay Walk No LIHTC 192

Champion Homes at Marina Landing No LIHTC 256

Justine Apartments No LIHTC 20

L & M Apartments No LIHTC 38

Old Catholic Diocese Building No LIHTC 5

Rosenberg Townflats No LIHTC 20

San Jacinto Apartments No LIHTC 10

Sandpiper Cove No LIHTC 192

Sealy Apartments No LIHTC 12

Waldorf Apartments No LIHTC 23

Sandpiper Cove No Multi-Family 192

Magnolia Homes No Public Housing 303

Gulf Breeze No Public Housing 377

Total Units 1,899

Promote Equitable, Affordable Housing Preserve Existing Affordable Housing

• Challenge #3: Develop a more comprehensive approach to address

household expenditures on housing and transportation.

• Methodology

• Compare the average annual cost for housing and transportation at the

community and study area level.

• Estimate the change in costs that may be generated by the implementation

of each alternative.

Promote Equitable, Affordable Housing Develop a More Comprehensive Approach to Address Household Expenditures on

Housing and Transportation

Example – Galveston to CBD

• The average income 38,400.

• Housing cost represents 18% - $6,900

• Auto commute represents 25% - $14,000

• Transit commute represents 10% - $4,000

• Reduction in transportation costs – $10,000

• Reduction in household costs - $0

Promote Equitable, Affordable Housing Develop a More Comprehensive Approach to Address Household Expenditures on

Housing and Transportation

The DOT encourages major transit investment projects to enhance the economic

competitiveness of a community through timely access to employment centers,

educational opportunities, services and other basic needs and expanded business

access to markets – largely through increased accessibility and mobility choices.

In order to compare the four alternatives, the following categories were

examined:

• Time Savings – Auto vs. Transit

• Improved access to jobs, secondary education, shopping centers and

health facilities

Enhance Economic Competitiveness

Travel Time Source - Houston TransStar

Methodology

• Trip Direction: All trips are made from the study area to the CBD

• In-Vehicle Time: Total in vehicle time is from door to door and includes the

15 minute average round-trip time for ingress and egress to and from IH 45.

• Out-of-Vehicle Time: Total out of vehicle time includes the average 6

minutes per day spent walking to and from vehicle and the average 15

minutes per day walking to and from a transit stop.

• Transit Wait Time: Total transit wait time per day includes the average 10

minutes per day waiting for transit service.

• Transfers: Total transfers per day include the average 10 minutes per day

transferring between services (CRT only).

• Value of Time (VOT): VOT is based on each study area’s median wage

from 2010 U.S. Census Bureau ACS.

Enhance Economic Competitiveness Time Saving – Auto vs. Transit

TRAVEL TIME SAVINGS AND MONETIZED VALUE OF TIME PER DAY

MODE SOV TT (Min.) Transit TT (Min.) TT Savings Annual

Monetized Value

TSM 181 201 -20 -$1,470

BRT IH 45 181 168 13 $990

BRT SH 3 181 181 0 $0

CRT 181 141 40 $2,970


Enhance Economic Competitiveness Time Saving – Auto vs. Transit

Methodology

• Examine the density of employment near secondary education,

shopping centers and health facilities(1).

Enhance Economic Competitiveness Improved Access to Jobs, Secondary Education, Shopping Centers and Health

Facilities

1- 2010 U.S. Census Longitudinal Employment/Household Dynamics (LED) dataset records number and location of jobs using census

blocks.


All four options are close to a library, museum, hospitals, schools, and public parks

and would provide equal access to Galveston public services.

Enhance Economic Competitiveness Improved Access to Jobs, Secondary Education, Shopping Centers and Health

Facilities

The U.S. DOT encourages major transit investment projects to target

development toward such strategies as transit oriented, mixed-use development

and land recycling – to increase community revitalization, improve the efficiency

of public works investments, and safeguard rural landscapes.


examined:

• Enhance Mixed-Use Development

• Property Tax Evaluation

Support Existing Communities

Methodology #1: Measuring Jobs to Housing Ratio

Ratio Calculation:

Ranking Scale:

• Between 0 and 0.25 = Poor

• Between 0.26 and 0.5 = Fair

• Between 0.51 and 0.75 = Good

• Between 0.76 and 1.25 = Excellent

• Between 1.26 and 1.50 = Good

• Between 1.51 and 1.75 = Fair

• Between 1.76 and 2.00 = Poor

1 – ABS (Regional population/Regional employment * Study area population) – Study area employment

(Regional population/Regional employment * Study area population) + Study area employment

Support Existing Communities Enhance Mixed-Use Development

Sources:

• Guide to Sustainable Transportation Performance Measures

• H-GAC 2035 Socioeconomic Regional Growth Model (Traffic Analysis Zone)

Methodology #2 – Activity Density Threshold

Ratio Calculation:

Ranking Scale:

• Between 0 and 5.99 = Poor

• Between 6 and 15 = Fair (H-GAC Great Streets Center)

• Between 15.1 and 17 = Good (H-GAC Town Center)

• Between 17.1 and 44 = Excellent (H-GAC Regional Center)

• Over 44.1 = Excellent (H-GAC Urban Core)

Study Area Population + Study Area Jobs

Study Area Acres

Source: H-GAC Livable Centers Criteria



Methodology #1

• 1 - (2,975/16,961) = 0.82

• Excellent jobs to housing ratio

1 – ABS (8,686,752/4,069,4032 * 6,858) – 4,608 = 2,975

(8,686,752/4,069,4032* 4,608) + 6,858 = 16,961

1 – ABS (Regional population/Regional employment * Study area population) – Study area employment

(Regional population/Regional employment * Study area population) + Study area employment

Methodology #2

• 11,466/502 = 22.8

• H-GAC Regional Center

Study Area Population + Study Area Jobs

Study Area Acres

4,608 + 6,858 = 11,466

502 = 502


Methodology

• The cumulative property values of each alternative study area were

examined to estimate additional annual property tax potential

Assumptions

• Appraised values are from the Harris and Galveston County tax appraisal

databases (2011 values)

• The average property tax rate is 2% for Galveston County and 2.4% for

Harris County

• Property values increases 20% after mode is implemented

• EWTC and CBD study areas were not analyzed due to low re-development

potential

Support Existing Communities Increase Property Tax Valuation

NET ANNUAL INCREASE IN PROPERTY TAX REVENUE POST TRANSIT INVESTMENT

STUDY AREA TSM BRT IH 45 BRT SH 3 CRT

Galveston $623,000 $623,000 $623,000 $525,000


League City/Dickinson $116,000 $392,000 $116,000 $90,000


Ellington - $178,000 $178,000 $178,000

Winkler - - - $556,000

610/Lawndale - $509,000 $509,000 $509,000

Total $1,108,000 $2,720,000 $2,009,000 $2,177,000

Support Existing Communities Increase Property Tax Valuation

Coordinate & Leverage Federal Policies & Investment

The U.S. DOT encourages an alignment of federal policies and funding to

remove barriers to collaboration, leverage funding, and increase the

accountability and effectiveness of all levels of government to plan for future

growth, including making smart energy choices such as locally generated

renewable energy.


examined:

• System Connectivity

• Leverage Local, State, and Federal Funding

• Emissions of Rolling Stock

Methodology

• The number and types of connecting routes were given a valued and summed

Assumptions

• Number of Routes:

o 0 = Poor (0 points)

o 1 = Fair (1 point)

o 2 = Good (2 points)

o 3 or more = Excellent (3 points)

• Type of Route:

o Local = 1 point

o Park & Ride = 2 points

o Light Rail = 3 points

• Park & ride routes in the CBD and EWTC are destination-based and were not

counted as an origin connection.

• METRO existing and planned light rail routes were included as an eligible

transit connection.

Coordinate & Leverage Federal Policies & Investment System Connectivity


NUMBER OF CONNECTING ROUTES

MODE Local Routes P&R Routes Light Rail/Trolley

TSM 3 2 1

BRT IH 45 3 2 1

BRT SH 3 3 2 1

CRT 2 2


Summary

TRANSIT CONNECTIVITY RANKING

STUDY AREA TSM BRT IH 45 BRT SH 3 CRT

Galveston 10 10 10 9

Texas City/La Marque 4 4 4 1

League City/Dickinson 1 3 1 0

Webster/Clear Lake - 0 0 0

Ellington - 0 0 0


610/Lawndale - 1 1 1

EWTC - 8 8 -

CBD – Congress Yard - - - 21

CBD – Hardy Yard - - - 10

CBD 55 55 55 -

Total 70 81 79 42

Average 17.50 10.13 9.88 4.78


Methodology

• Quantify and rank the ability to leverage and coordinate local, state, and

federal funds

• Yes = 1 point and No = 0 points

Input Questions

• Over 50% of the study area is in a municipality taxing jurisdiction.

• Over 50% of the study area is in Low-Income Housing Tax Credit target

area.

• Over 50% of the study area is in HUD CDBG target area.

• A known Brownfield or Superfund site exists within the study area.

• The study area is located on a rail line.

• Over 50% of the study area is in an Urban Area as designated by the U.S.

Census.

• A Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone (TIRZ) is located in the study area.

Coordinate & Leverage Federal Policies & Investment Leverage Local, State, and Federal Funding

Summary

LEVERAGE LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL FUNDING EVALUATION – SUMMARY

EVALUATION CRITERIA TSM BRT IH 45 BRT SH 3 CRT

Municipal Tax Jurisdiction 4 8 8 9

LIHTC Area 3 6 5 5

CDBG Target Area 4 7 6 6

Brownfield and/or Superfund Site 1 1 1 0

Located on Rail Line 0 0 0 9

Urban Area 2 5 7 8

TIRZ 1 2 1 2

Total 15 29 28 39

Coordinate & Leverage Federal Policies & Investment Leverage Local, State, and Federal Funding

An investment in smart energy equipment will enhance the ability to reduce

emissions.

Methodology

• Use 2035 emission factors to determine the average emissions per

passenger per mile by travel mode.

Results

• A bus would need to have 10 passengers before the bus emits less

pollutants than an automobile.

• A commuter rail would need 130 passengers before the rail emits less

pollutants than an automobile.

EMISSION FACTORS BY PASSENGER PER MILE FOR MODES OF TRAVEL – 2035

MODE UNIT OF MEASURE MAX. CAPACITY VOC CO NOX

Auto Grams per Passenger/Mile 4 0.037 0.748 0.022

Bus Grams per Passenger/Mile 50 0.003 0.004 0.013

Commuter Rail Grams per Passenger/Mile 900 0.000 0.008 0.010

Coordinate & Leverage Federal Policies & Investment Emission of Rolling Stock

The U.S. DOT encourages major transit investment projects to invest in

healthy, safe and walkable neighborhoods, whether rural, urban or suburban.


examined:

• Walkability in Study Area Zones

• Walkability Along Study Area Major Corridors

Value Communities and Neighborhoods Enhance the Safety and Walkability in Neighborhoods, Whether Rural, Urban or

Suburban

Methodology

• Each study area was divided into four quadrants, or zones, and evaluated for

general walkability and/or the presence of barriers that would prevent good

pedestrian connections

Excellent Condition Good Condition

Fair Condition

Poor Condition

Value Communities and Neighborhoods Walkability in Study Area Zones

Methodology

• Corridors were evaluated based on the following:

o Sidewalks for length, continuity, cracks, holes and/or missing

segments

o Curbs for length, continuity, cracks, holes and/or missing segments

o ADA-compliant ramps at street crossings, driveways, and alleys

counted and conditions were examined. Each block should have a

minimum of four ramps, or two at each intersection

o Crosswalks and stop bars counted and conditions were examined.

Each block should have a minimum of four crosswalks, or two at

each intersection

o Planting strips and landscaping, between sidewalks and the

roadway were examined for current conditions

Value Communities and Neighborhoods Walkability Along Study Area Major Corridors

Value Communities and Neighborhoods


GALVESTON STUDY AREAS – MAJOR CONNECTING CORRIDORS

CORRIDOR ALTERNATIV

E

WALKABILITY GENERAL NOTES

Harborside Drive All Fair Busy industrial corridor, limited

contiguous sidewalks

6th Street All Fair Lacks ADA ramps

4th Street (N) All Fair Sidewalks is good condition on west

side of street

4th Street (S) All Poor – NI No pedestrian infrastructure present

Market Street (W) All Good Sidewalks are contiguous and

pedestrian friendly

Market Street (E) All Poor Broken or missing sidewalks


Value Communities and Neighborhoods

Partnership for Sustainable Communities Summary of Analysis

The Partnership for Sustainable Communities has adopted six principles to

guide its mission:

• Provide more transportation choices

• Promote equitable and affordable housing

• Enhance economic competitiveness

• Target resources to existing communities

• Coordinate and leverage federal policies and investments

• Value unique characteristics of communities, no matter their size

Principle 1 - Provide More Transportation Choices Summary of Analysis

System wide, the CRT alternative will have the greatest annual impact on

Principle 1.

Decrease Household Transportation Cost

• $38.6 million

Reduce Fuel Consumption

• 2.08 million gallons of gas

• 15,000 gallons of oil

Improve Air Quality/Reduce Green House Gas

• 176 tons of air pollutants removed from the environment

Promote Public Health

• 49 fewer traffic accidents

• $2.7 million in health benefits

Principle 2 - Promote Equitable, Affordable Housing Summary of Analysis

System wide, the CRT alternative will have the greatest annual impact on Principle

2.

Expand mixed-income and affordable housing choices

• CRT alternative has the greatest potential to stimulate the development of

affordable housing because its stops are located close to vacant,

developable parcels in the LIHTC and CDBG priority funding areas

Preserve existing affordable housing

• The CRT alternative has the greatest potential to preserve affordable

housing because it has the most HUD funded housing units near its study

areas

Develop a more comprehensive approach to address household

expenditures on housing and transportation

• The residents living near the CRT study area will have the best opportunity

through transit to reduce their household and transportation cost

Principle 3 - Enhance Economic Competitiveness Summary of Analysis

System wide, the CRT and BRT 45 alternative will have the greatest annual

impact on Principle 3.

Time Saving – Auto vs. Transit

• Up to 40 minute travel time savings from Galveston

Improved access to jobs, secondary education, shopping centers and health

facilities

• The BRT IH 45 alternative provides the greatest direct access to

employment and other services

Principle 4 - Support Existing Communities Summary of Analysis

System wide, the BRT 45 alternative will have the greatest annual impact on

Principle 4.

Enhance Mixed-Use Development

• Strong average jobs to housing ratio

• Great Streets, Town Center, Regional Centers and Urban Core areas

along route

Increase Property Tax Valuation

• 2.7 million annual increase in property taxes

Principle 5 - Coordinate & Leverage Federal Policies & Investment Summary of Analysis

System wide, the CRT and BRT 45 alternative will have the greatest annual


System Connectivity

• BRT 45 has greatest potential to connect to existing services

Leverage Local, State, and Federal Funding

• CRT will have the greatest ability to leverage state and local funds

Emissions of Rolling Stock

• CRT vehicle also is the lowest emitting rolling stock option per passenger

Principle 6 - Value Communities and Neighborhoods Summary of Analysis

System wide, the CRT and BRT SH 3 alternative will have the greatest annual


Enhance the safety and walkability in neighborhoods, whether rural, urban

or suburban

• Sidewalks are absent or in poor condition throughout most study area

corridors

• CRT and BRT SH 3 are located away from freeways, which is more

favorable to an improved pedestrian environment

Conclusion

Sustainably is more than quantifiable data.

Examining four alternatives in the context of sustainably will

provide stakeholders with an in-depth analysis.

Planners need to consider sustainability principles when

developing transit or other related plans.

Questions/Comments

Robert McHaney

The Goodman Corporation

(512) 236-8002 ext. 304

[email protected]

www.thegoodmancorp.com

Evaluating Transit Sustainability

Principles For Houston-Galveston

Corridor Alternatives Analysis

Prepared for

The Texas APA 2013 Annual Conference

Presented by Carl Sharp, AICP

John Carrara, Senior Vice President, The Goodman Corporation

Robert McHaney, Planning Technical Services Manager, The Goodman Corporation

evaluating transit sustainability principles for houston-galveston … · o other injury (severe)...

Documents