tampa bay transportation management area (tma) …the twelfth workshop of the tampa bay tma...

Tampa Bay Transportation Management Area (TMA) Leadership Group

Representing the MPOs in Pasco, Pinellas, & Hillsborough Counties

Friday, November 6, 2015 9:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m.

Atkins Conference Room 4030 West Boy Scout Blvd, 6th Floor

Tampa, Florida Meeting Objectives:

Review previous studies of regional commuter rail possibilities

Develop next steps to promote commuter rail as a regional priority

Agree on one-page summary of regional transportation priorities and how to use the summary

Begin to identify topics of interest for the Leadership Group’s 2016 workplan

9:00 Welcome and introductions Summary of September 4, 2015 Tampa Bay TMA Leadership Group Workshop 9:30 Commuter Rail -- Background

Review studies to-date on the possibility of regional commuter rail – Beth Alden, Hillsborough MPO

Fixed Rail project development process – Ming Gao, FDOT District 7

Lessons from SunRail – Whit Blanton, Pinellas MPO

Opportunities and questions relating to regional commuter rail – MPO Executive Directors

10:30 Break 10:45 Commuter Rail – Next Steps

What should the TMA and others in the region do to move regional commuter rail forward as a priority? -- discussion

11:15 Regional legislative priorities for transportation

Review one-page summary developed by staff

Revise one-page summary as needed and develop approach to using summary Calendar and topics for 2016

Review calendar and revise as necessary

Identify topics of interest for 2016

Other Next Steps 12:00 Adjourn

Leadership Meeting Location

4030 West Boy

Scout Blvd

Courtney Campbell Cswy

I‐275

Veterans Exwy

Transportation Planning in the Tampa Bay Metro Area

Twelfth Meeting of the Tampa Bay Transportation Management Area (TMA) Leadership Group

Friday, September 4, 2015 9:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.

Atkins Conference Room 4030 West Boy Scout Blvd., Suite 700, Tampa, Florida

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Prepared by Hal Beardall & Rafael Montalvo, Facilitation Team

“Facilitating Consensus Solutions, Supporting Collaborative Action.”

The Florida State University

http://consensus.fsu.edu

http://consensus.fsu.edu/

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The twelfth workshop of the Tampa Bay TMA Leadership Group was held on Friday, September 4, 2015 in Tampa. The principal objectives of the workshop were to:

Review progress toward adoption of TMA Leadership Group 2015 priorities

Review legislative developments affecting the TMA and Tampa Bay area MPOs

Begin review of topics identified by the Leadership Group as of interest for possible Leadership Group action, focusing on the possibility of commuter rail.

Board members and staff from each member Metropolitan Planning Organization (Hillsborough County, Pasco County and Pinellas County MPOs) as well as Florida Department of Transportation District 7 staff and Tampa Bay Regional Transportation Authority staff participated. Each MPO director gave an update on their MPO’s adoption of the regional priorities. All three MPOs had adopted the regional priorities in the interval between the June and September TMA Leadership Group meetings. Jeff Seward, HART and Chair of the TBARTA Transit Management Committee (TMC) summarized the activities of the TMC. He noted that the area transit agencies are coming together on regional projects, such as the regional farebox project, and highlighted the need for region-wide consistency on transit issues, and the recognition of that need by the transit agencies. Mr. Blanton asked the Leadership Group to consider developing a regional Transit Development Program to help advance short-term projects. The group next focused on legislative priority updates from each member MPO, as well as PSTA, HART and TBARTA. The remainder of the meeting was dedicated to discussion of the possibility of commuter rail in the region. Bob O’Malley, Resident Vice President of CSX Florida reviewed existing CSX rail lines that could possibly be used for passenger rail service, and also identified those rail lines the company believes are not appropriate for passenger rail. In each case he highlighted the considerations that led the company to its conclusions. Subsequent member discussion focused on options for proceeding with commuter rail, including whether the line would be purchased or leased. Members also explored the experience of other regions that have pursued commuter rail, and the provisions of an as-yet unsigned MOU between CSX and FDOT dealing with aspects of commuter rail. Key points agreed upon by participants at the meeting included the following:

The organizations represented on the TMA should develop a joint regional statement of legislative priorities in the area of transportation, based on the regional priorities adopted by the three participating MPOs through the TMA.

Members agreed to explore what the TMA and member organizations would need to do promote regional commuter rail as a priority, and specifically what immediate next steps they would need to take. To that end they agreed to call an ad-hoc meeting of the TMA Leadership Group in late September or early October 19, 2015, in order to agree on next steps in time for the early start of the 2016 legislative session in January.

Tampa Bay TMA Leadership Group Meeting of September 4, 2015 1

Highlights of the September 4, 2015 Tampa Bay TMA Leadership Group

Meeting – 9:00 a.m. Atkins Conference Room – 4030 West Boy Scout Blvd, Tampa, FL

Meeting Objectives:

Review progress toward adoption of TMA Leadership Group 2015 priorities

Review legislative developments affecting the TMA and Tampa Bay area MPOs

Begin review of topics identified by the Leadership Group as of interest for possible Leadership Group action

Welcome and Introductions: Rafael welcomed everyone and indicated his role as a facilitator. Everyone in attendance introduced themselves. Rafael then summarized the objectives and agenda topics.

Summary of June 5, 2015 Tampa Bay TMA Leadership Group Workshop Rafael briefly reviewed the Executive Summary from the last meeting noting the majority of the discussion was to group projects together that made sense to the general public, projects that are truly regional in nature, and those that have a regional focus.

Update on adoption of TMA Leadership Group priorities by each MPO Each MPO provided an update, noting their respective MPOs approved the TMA Leadership Group priority lists.

Report on TBARTA Transit Management Committee activities Jeff Seward, HART, Chair TBARTA Transit Management Committee (TMC), summarized the activities of the TBARTA TMC, noting the importance and power of the transit agencies coming together to move forward on regional projects, such as the regional farebox project. The Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority (PSTA) and HART both have real-time technology and the group is working on the feasibility of spreading the technology throughout the TBARTA region. The group’s discussion focused on the following:

1) Robust application – need one application for the region 2) Each transit agency relies on technology – TBARTA is an 8-county region with 8

different technologies – each transit agency’s infrastructure is aging, each is determining the cost for updating the infrastructures, looking at a regional application and technology that can be shared and integrated. They are trying to develop an overall plan that can be submitted for funding

3) The environmental impact of transit – HART is doing a sustainability program and the other transit agencies are doing something similar – need to apply on a regional level – need to start doing carbon emissions baseline for entire TBARTA region, climate changes resiliency and the impacts/impediments on transit during extreme weather events on a regional basis and look at accessing federal funding through transit impediments (funnel money through transit agencies to local governments for improvements, such as storm drainage). The TMC needs to create a list, start working on costing, then submit as a regional package to address items related to transit.

Mr. Blanton asked the TMC to discuss consideration of developing a regional Transit Development Program to help advance short-term projects.


Legislative Update

Report on legislative priorities and issues Rafael indicated the group would receive a report from various individuals on legislative priorities and issues. At the end of the reports, the TMA Leadership Group would be asked whether it makes sense for the group to develop a joint statement of legislative priorities for transportation (similar to MetroPlan Orlando) in the future. Brandon Wagner, Hillsborough County Legislative Affairs Officer, indicated Hillsborough County is in the process of developing legislative priorities that will be taken to the Hillsborough County BCC on September 16. Transportation and economic development are the number 1 priorities, with the intent of securing funds for legislative issues. Their list includes a variety of items that are not necessarily regional in nature. There was some discussion that a transit priority list would help advocate for FDOT funding and the support of regional projects to the Legislative Delegation. It was suggested this discussion should occur at the next TMA Leadership Group meeting. Commissioner Seel, Pinellas MPO, indicated the Pinellas BCC will be adopting their state and federal legislative program at their upcoming meeting on Tuesday. They are continuing to pursue the indexing of the local option fuel tax to allow it to grow in some manner. They are also looking at allowing the use of the Penny for Pinellas one cent tax for operations and maintenance projects; however, she feels it should be limited to projects that were built with the penny sales tax. Their federal legislative package includes advocating for a longer term of funding for MAP-21. Mr. Edwards indicated the Pasco BCC sends their local legislative package each year to their Legislative Delegation. They are moving forward with the top ten priorities on the Pasco MPO list. Bill Jonson, PSTA, noted that HART and PSTA had a joint executive committee meeting on Monday where they reviewed both transit agencies’ priority lists, discussed upcoming items such as HART’s first mile/last mile exploration. He indicated PSTA’s top priority is the regional farebox technology. The Transportation Disadvantaged (TD) Program receives funding from the Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged (CTD). He noted PSTA has experienced an increase in TD usage but has not received an increase in funding and they are exploring the regional impacts but this requires more discussion. Marco Sandusky, HART, indicated HART has identified a draft of its top priorities and is trying to be proactive. HART’s priorities include regional farebox and first mile/last mile. Commissioner Murman, Hillsborough MPO, asked that ridesharing services (Uber and Lyft) be on the TMA Group’s radar. Commissioner Starkey (Pasco MPO) suggested that representatives of the TMA Leadership Group go to Washington for a regional approach. Ray Chiaramonte, TBARTA Executive Director, noted its priorities include the incorporation of the Chairs Coordinating Committee (CCC) into TBARTA, noting legislative changes are necessary to complete the process. He stated there is a Florida Transportation Commission (FTC) meeting in St. Petersburg on October 28 and 29 and suggested having representatives of the TMA Leadership Group give a presentation on the TMA Leadership Group activities and what they are dealing with as a regional entity. They could ask that this


be placed as an agenda item or it could be brought up under public comment. Mr. Blanton noted that Jim Sebesta will be attending the Pinellas MPO meeting on September 9 and he would ask Mr. Sebesta if he could place this item on the agenda.

Consider creation of a joint legislative priorities statement Upon query by Rafael as to whether the TMA Leadership Group thought there was value in having a joint statement of Hillsborough, Pasco and Pinellas legislative priorities in the area of transportation (such as the one used by MetroPlan Orlando), or whether the the three MPOs should just continue to coordinate their separate efforts, it was the consensus of the TMA Group to develop a joint regional statement of legislative transportation priorities. Mr. Wagner asked that there be a caveat that there be communication back to the three MPOs to make sure that the joint statement reflects the regional priorities already adopted by all three organizations and doesn’t assume a direction of its own. Rafael asked the Staff Directors to begin developing the joint statement.

CSX Transportation in the Tampa Bay area Bob O’Malley, Resident Vice President of CSX Florida, reviewed a PowerPoint presentation that covered who they are as a company, what they do, and the value they bring as a freight company. He showed existing rail lines that could possibly be used for passenger rail service and those lines that definitely cannot be used. The group asked that they receive a copy of Mr. O’Malley’s PowerPoint (staff will email the PowerPoint). There was discussion regarding the nonbinding Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the FDOT and CSX that is currently a draft and not signed. There was also discussion as to the possible corridors that could be used for passenger rail and the benefits of purchasing the corridor, as well as who would pay for the corridors. There was the suggestion that CSX as an option negotiate a price and that CSX could work out a payment plan where it would receive a portion of the agreed upon price for purchasing the corridor(s) and that CSX continue to use the corridor(s) for freight without the additional cost of leasing the corridor(s) since this would be part of the negotiated cost. There was discussion that conversations need to begin to create a regional plan for rail and to put this on the priority list, as well as the other agencies that need to be included in the discussions. The TMA Leadership Group expressed a desire to have another meeting soon to begin discussions. There was also discussion that each MPO would have to agree on a regional priority for rail as opposed to their individual plans. It was also discussed there could be different technologies as long as they were complementary and the connections were smooth. Upon query by Rafael, it was the consensus of the group to ask the Staff Directors to determine the next meeting date for the TMA Leadership Group in late September or early October. As to the other agencies that need to be involved in that meeting, Debbie Hunt would let the Staff Directors know who else needs to be involved. Regarding discussion of a regional MPO for the Tampa Bay region, Rafael responded this was a discussion for another time. FTP/SIS Update and Discussion Due to the time, this item was deferred but Rafael asked if there were any questions about the process. Brian Beaty, FDOT, distributed a handout with information. Trail and Trail Funding Update

Coast-to-Coast Trail Alan Howell, Pasco MPO, reviewed a PowerPoint presentation that provided an update on the Coast-to-Coast Trail.

SUNTrail


Mr. Howell’s presentation included information on the Shared Use Nonmotorized (SUNTrail) Trail. Mr. Howell informed the group that there will be a joint meeting of Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Pasco Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committees on September 22 at 5:30 p.m. and they will be discussing electric bikes as one of the items. During discussion, it was indicated that FDOT will maintain and mow a trail that is six feet or wider in the state’s right-of-way but the local government will have to provide amenities or maintain to standards more than FDOT’s.

Member updates roundtable There were no member updates. Next Steps: Rafael summarized the conclusions of today’s meeting:

1) Representatives attend FTC meeting on October 29 2) Development of a joint legislative priority sheet 3) Schedule a meeting to discuss a push for CSX purchase agreement

Review remaining topics for potential TMA Leadership Group action

Review potential topics for TMA 2016 cycle Rafael reviewed the November 6 agenda noting it might be modified based on the ad hoc meeting to be scheduled for late September or early October. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 11:39 a.m. H:\users\cendocs\MPO\TMA highlights September 4 2015


Attendees: Members: Commissioner John Tornga Pinellas MPO Commissioner Karen Seel Pinellas MPO Councilman Jim Kennedy Pinellas MPO Commissioner Jack Mariano Pasco MPO Councilmember Kathryn Starkey Pasco MPO Councilmember Lisa Montelione Hillsborough MPO Councilman Harry Cohen Hillsborough MPO Commissioner Sandra Murman Hillsborough MPO Others: Rafael Montalvo Facilitator Ray Chiaramonte TBARTA Debbie Hunt FDOT Rich Clarendon Hillsborough MPO Whit Blanton Pinellas MPO Jim Edwards Pasco MPO Bill Jonson PSTA Sarah Ward Pinellas MPO Carolyn Kuntz Pinellas MPO Brian Beaty FDOT Marco Sandusky HART Jeff Seward HART Tom Whalen City of St. Petersburg Gena Torres Hillsborough MPO Brandon Wagner Hillsborough County Mike Williams Hillsborough County Bev Moerj City of Tampa Eric Costello USF Chris Weber Westshore Alliance Heather Sobush PSTA Bob Lasher PSTA Ali Atefi Pasco MPO Allen Howell Pasco MPO Jill Gurak Atkins Bill Ball Tindale-Oliver Bob O’Malley CSX

MAKING TRACKS

MAKING TRACKS

A Primer for Implementing Transit Fixed

Guideway Projects

3A Primer for Implementing Transit Fixed Guideway Projects | 2 | A Primer for Implementing Transit Fixed Guideway Projects

Demand for new fixed guideway projects is strong nationwide. Each year hundreds of new fixed guideway projects across the country are proposed for implementation by local communities. Approximately one third of these projects are located in areas where no fixed guideway currently exist. Although beneficial to the accessibility of other modes such as airports and seaports

and enhancing economic development within a community, the task of steering these major transit projects from beginning planning stages to a fully operational system can be lengthy, typically ranging from 8 to 12 years. Additionally, securing funding and navigating the way through various state and federal requirements, including community and private sector commitments, requires continued and constant support from the community leaders and implementing agencies to see the project through to completion.

The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) has developed this primer to assist local communities through the planning and project development phase, which involves the first three steps in developing a major fixed guideway project.

Introduction Steps in Developing a Major Fixed Guideway Project

Planning and Project Development Phase

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

Step 4

Step 5

Planning and Community Support

Concept Development and Feasibility Analysis

Project Development and Environmental

Operational System

Design and Construction


Concept Development and Feasibility AnalysisOnce the project concept receives initial approval in the regional and MPO planning processes, a more detailed corridor analysis is required. At this point, transportation strategies and alternatives are analyzed within the local land use framework and compared to determine the most appropriate solution for connecting regions, neighborhoods, or destinations. Stakeholders are engaged to make critical decisions such as alignments, transit technologies, right-of-way needs, connecting modes and routes, capital and operational needs, order of magnitude costs, implementation schedule, and how each scenario will be funded. Station locations and surrounding transit oriented land use plans should also be considered at this point to enhance the viability of the system. At its conclusion, a detailed corridor and feasibility study should provide enough information to advance to the next phase of project development and assist in determining whether to pursue public or private sector funding or a combination of both in building and maintaining the project.

Choosing a Transit TechnologyThe type of transit system selected is based on the unique character and needs of the community, and is dependent on a variety of factors including size of service area, commute patterns, cost, available resources and the surrounding land uses. Types of rail fixed guideway technologies for consideration include cable car, commuter rail, heavy rail, hybrid rail, inclined plane, light rail, monorail, automated guideway, and streetcar rail. Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), which operates in exclusive rights-of-way, is also considered a fixed guideway project. Commuter rail, heavy rail, and light rail technologies are often selected to address regional commuting needs that span several cities or large urban areas. These rail technologies typically connect a central city with outlying suburbs and communities.

The following pages illustrate operating characteristics of the various technologies.

Step 1 – Planning and Community Support

Creating a VisionFixed guideway transit systems are typically focused on a regional scale. Thus, regional transportation plans that identify commuter travel patterns are the first step in the planning process. These plans can illustrate the need for regional transit projects connecting high ridership and low income housing areas to employment centers and major destinations. The regional plans feed into the Metropolitan Planning Organization’s Long Range Transportation Plans (LRTPs) which prioritize and solidify the transportation funding priorities in large urban areas. Once the regional plans are made consistent with the goals and objectives of the LRTP, the project can move forward to the next step.

Making the ConnectionsLRTP’s define a purpose and need for large scale projects and garner support from the public in further pursuit of these projects. In some areas, it may be necessary for two or more MPOs to join forces, making a connection for a regional system, coordinating local resources and bridging funding gaps. Other local government and economic development agencies can be enlisted to assist in planning and promoting the project. The local transit agency will be a key player in assessing the impacts of the project as part of the overall transit system, from including the project in their transit development plan to ultimately operating the major fixed guideway system. Strong local leadership is essential at all levels to foster public support and create momentum in ensuring the projects are implemented.

Step 2 – Concept Development and Feasibility Analysis


“Workable” Transit Solutions

Automated People Mover or automated guideway transit is a fully automatic form of transit usually elevated with rubber-tire vehicles powered by an electrified third rail. The most common application in the U.S. is at airports, such as Tampa International. Another emerging transit technology is Personal Rapid Transit which is a People Mover that uses small automated vehicles carrying 4 to 6 passengers.

Type of Service Provided:

Local to medium length trips

Type of Station:

Elevated platform

Spacing Between Stations:

Varies, generally less then one mile

Examples:

Skyway, Jacksonville, FL (above); Metromover, Miami, FL; Yurikamome, Tokyo Waterfront

Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is a bus-based mass transit system with specialized design, services and infrastructure to improve quality of service and reduce delay. BRT along the regional spine would operate primarily within a fully dedicated right-of-way (busway) in order to avoid traffic congestion.


Local, medium, and long distance trips

Type of Station:

On-street, shelter, or platform


1/4 mile to 5 miles

Examples (Fixed-Guideway BRT):

LYMMO Orlando, FL (above); Eugene, OR; Cleveland, OH; Boston, MA; Las Vegas,

Modern/Historic Street Cars typically operate as single-car trains powered by overhead catenaries. The vehicles can operate in dedicated-guideways, but they predominantly operate in mixed-traffic and are rarely given signal priority. Often their size, aesthetics, and in some cases vehicle design are similar to light rail transit with the difference being a slower, more localized service.


Local trips

Type of Station:

On-street, shelter, or platform


1/4 mile to 1/2 mile

Examples:

TECO, Tampa, FL (above); Portland, OR; Seattle, WA; Toronto, Canada

Light Rail Transit (LRT) is a public transport using steel-tracked fixed guideways and electric-powered trains. LRT operates primarily in exclusive right of way with vehicles capable of operating as a single train or as multiple units coupled together. The term “light rail” was coined to convey the vehicle’s design, “..for light loads and fast movement.”



Type of Station:

Platform


Approximately 1 mile

Examples:

Phoenix, AZ (above); Charlotte, NC; Portland, OR.; Salt Lake City, UT

A self-propelled diesel transit also known as Hybrid Rail Transit or Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) is a train powered by on-board diesel engines. DMU vehicles can use a chassis similar to light rail for quicker movement or one similar to commuter rail for safety when operating on freight rail corridors.



Type of Station:

Platform


Approximately 1 mile

Examples:

Austin, TX (above); Trenton, NJ; Portland, OR; Oceanside, CA

Commuter Rail Transit consists of a traditional locomotive pulling several passenger rail cars. Commuter rail is a regional passenger rail service that primarily operates between a city center, the suburbs, and commuter towns or other locations that draw large numbers of commuters.

Optimal Operations:

Medium to long distance trips

Type of Station:

Platform


2 miles to 5 miles or more

Examples:

SunRail, Orlando, FL (above); Tri-Rail, Miami, FL; Chicago, IL; Long Island, NY; Denver, CO

Heavy Rail Transit is an electric railway with six to eight cars or more that operates in a fully-dedicated right-of-way. In distinction from light rail transit, heavy rail is characterized by heavy and high-speed trains with the capacity for high volume of traffic.

Optimal Operations:


Type of Station:

Platform


Less than 1 mile within a city, 1 to 5 miles or more in the immediate suburbs

Examples:

MetroRail, Miami, FL (above); PATCO Speedline, Philadelphia, PA to Camden, NJ; RTA Red Line, Cleveland, OH

Automated People MoverBus Rapid Transit

Modern/Historic Street Car Tr

ansit

Light Rail Transit

Self-Propelled Diesel Transit Commuter Rail TransitHeavy Rail


Specifications

People Mover

Bus Rapid Transit

Streetcar

Light Rail Transit Light Rail Transit

Self-Propelled Diesel Self-Propelled Diesel

Heavy Rail

Commuter Rail Commuter Rail

Average speed information is based on project examples and provided by the American Public Transit Association. Vehicle seated capacity is based on manufacturer specifications, references available upon request. Corridor width is based on project examples as provided by the Federal Transit Administration and manufacturer specifications, references available upon request.

Operating SpeedsAverage operating speeds (miles per hour) are significantly affected by the number of stations, weight of the vehicle, incline, and number and degree of turns.

Corridor WidthAverage width of the corridor (feet) does not include space for stations and may be wider at turns, especially in the case of commuter rail.

Passenger Capacity per HourOptimal capacity (passengers per hour) assumes a bus or train arrives at a station every 10 minutes, except for commuter rail which is every 15 minutes.

Operate on Freight TracksThe Federal Rail Administration restricts the operation of certain passenger rail vehicles on active freight lines. This is in part due to safety in the event of a crash.

People Mover

Bus Rapid Transit

Heavy RailStreetcar


Cost and Benefits

Operating costs per unlinked trip are provided by the National Transit Database. Generalized cost per mile does not include right-of-way costs or professional services. These costs are loosely based on existing system information as provided by the Federal Transit Administration and the National Transit Database and designed for sketch-level planning and comparison purposes only. Reference available upon request.

The American Public Transit Association annually publishes ,”The Public Transportation Fact Book,” which contains national aggregate statistical data covering all aspects of the transit industry in the United States and Canada. The number of jobs created and return on investment in business sales were developed using the ratios suggested by this fact book, such that every $1 billion invested in public transportation supports and creates 36,000 jobs and every $10 million in invested yields $30 million in increased business sales.

Cost per TripAverage cost per trip ($ dollars) is the operating cost per passenger not fare, based on national averages and data. The use of fossil fuels greatly increases the cost per passenger.

Jobs Created per MileInvesting in fixed-guideway transit has been associated with job creation. This metric uses the generalized cost per mile by technology as previously described.

Cost per MileAverage cost per mile ($ millions of dollars) includes estimates from completed projects and does not include significant right-of-way which has a major impact on cost.

Increased Business Sales per MileThe return on investment in business sales in the local economy ($ millions of dollars). Return on investment uses generalized cost per mile described previously.

Bus Rapid Transit Light Rail Transit Light Rail Transit

Self-Propelled Diesel Self-Propelled Diesel

Heavy Rail

Commuter Rail Commuter RailBus Rapid Transit

Heavy RailPeople Mover Streetcar People Mover Streetcar


Public or Private FundingLarge scale rail projects can typically run from $40 million per mile for light rail to $250 million per mile and greater for heavy rail, depending on the selected technology and infrastructure. Due to the significant capital costs, many communities choose to pursue federal funding through the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) New Starts or Small Starts programs. The Capital Investment Program: New Starts, Small Starts, and Core Capacity Improvements is the federal government’s primary financial resource for supporting locally-planned, implemented, and operated transit guideway capital investments.

New Starts projects are categorized as capital projects greater than $250 million, while the Small Starts projects have a total capital cost of less than $250 million and seek a federal share of less than $75 million. The maximum federal share for funding New Starts projects is 80% of the project cost, though 50% is a more common funding level. A local match is required for the remainder of the project cost.1

To be eligible, project sponsors must request entry into the New Starts program. Once approval is received, all projects seeking funding from the program must be evaluated and rated based on project justification and local financial commitment criteria. This project development and evaluation process is a multi-year, multi-phased process that has a significant impact on the overall implementation schedule for the project. Florida has a State New Starts program for those projects that receive federal New Starts approval. It may potentially provide state funds to match up to 50% of the non-federal share of the capital cost of the project.

Another option for funding major fixed guideway systems is a public-private sector partnership where the private railroads own and/or operate the rail, as in the case of the planned All Aboard Florida rail project. In this scenario, the private rail company owns the tracks and will design, construct, and operate high speed rail with limited or no assistance from FDOT. These types of partnerships can be beneficial in that project timeframes can be compressed due to lack of federal financial requirements and commitments. Choosing a funding strategy at this point in the planning process is critical, as it will drastically change the course for project implementation. Project sponsors should closely assess and weigh the long-term benefits of any funding strategy.


Local Funding CommitmentSecuring a long-term source of local funds for the capital match and continued operation and maintenance of the transit system is one of the most challenging aspects in implementing a locally-driven fixed guideway project. As operations and maintenance are typically funded by local government sources, discussions regarding community referendums and sales tax measures will often begin during this stage of the planning process.

Agency Roles and ResponsibilitiesIt is important to define the roles and responsibilities of each agency and stakeholder involved in ensuring the implementation of the project. A well-defined project management plan, identifying the overall project sponsor agency and the supporting agency roles and responsibilities, sets clear expectations during the life of the project and allows for a seamless transfer between project phases. In many cases, the FDOT or planning agency may conduct the concept and feasibility, project development, and environmental studies in cooperation with the transit agency and local governments. However, as the project advances into design and construction, the operating agency, whether it is the transit agency or authority or local government, will likely assume the role of project sponsor.


1 For more information on the New Starts program, visit http://www.fta.dot.gov/12347_5221.html.


To showcase the demand for new fixed guideway projects in Florida, the table below includes projects in Steps 3-5 of development which are further along in the development phases.

Florida’s Fixed Guideway Transit ProjectsStep 3 – Project Development and Environmental Study

After the project has received approval to enter into the federal New Starts process or a public-private partnership has been forged, more detailed technical analyses are required to assess the actual costs and to document the mobility and economic benefits of the project. These studies should address the final alignment, technological specifications, operational needs, station locations and designs, land use, environmental and economic benefits, and provide detailed capital and operations costs. An environmental study is also conducted during this phase, along with an environmental class of action. Most importantly, the project development process should demonstrate local community support and a strong financial commitment. The culmination of this phase results in a locally preferred alternative that is adopted by the region’s municipal policy boards. The project sponsor can then request entry into the FTA’s engineering phase of the New Starts process. At the conclusion of engineering, negotiations may commence with FTA on a full funding grant agreement for New Starts, or a project construction grant agreement for a Small Starts project.

Conceptualizing, developing and building a fixed guideway transit system is a long-term process. Successful projects are those that are based on sound planning principles, have continuous and committed leadership, community support, and a realistic funding plan. A keen understanding of the process, decision points, and issues will assist communities in realizing their vision for a regional transit fixed guideway system.

Project No. Project Name Agency Technology Status

1 I-595 Express Bus in Managed Lanes Broward County Transit Bus Rapid Transit Step 5

2 I-95 Express Bus in Managed Lanes Broward County Transit Bus Rapid Transit Step 5

3 SunRail Phase I FDOT Commuter Rail Transit Step 5

4 JTA Skyway Jacksonville Transportation Authority Automated People Mover Step 5

5 LYNX LYMMO LYNX Bus Rapid Transit Step 5

6 Orlando LYMMO Expansion LYNX Bus Rapid Transit Step 5

7 Parramore BRT LYNX Bus Rapid Transit Step 5

8 Metromover Miami-Dade Transit Automated People Mover Step 5

9 MetroRail Miami-Dade Transit Heavy Rail Step 5

10 MIA MetroRail Station and Orange Line Miami-Dade Transit Heavy Rail Step 5

11 South Miami-Dade Busway Miami-Dade Transit Bus Rapid Transit Step 5

12 Tri-Rail South Florida Regional Transportation Authority Commuter Rail Transit Step 5

13 TECO Line Streetcar Tampa Historic Streetcar, Inc. Modern Street Car Transit Step 5

14 SunRail Phase II FDOT Commuter Rail Transit Step 4

15 BRT Downtown Phase I Jacksonville Transportation Authority Bus Rapid Transit Step 4

16 BRT North Corridor Study Jacksonville Transportation Authority Bus Rapid Transit Step 4

17 BRT South Corridor Study Jacksonville Transportation Authority Bus Rapid Transit Step 4

18 SunRail Phase III FDOT Commuter Rail Transit Step 3

19 All Aboard Florida Florida East Coast Industries Intercity Passenger Rail Step 3

20 Tri-Rail Coastal Link South Florida Regional Transportation Authority Commuter Rail Transit Step 3

21 Wave Streetcar South Florida Regional Transportation Authority Modern Street Car Transit Step 3

MAKING TRACKS

MAKING TRACKS

A Primer for Implementing Transit Fixed

Guideway Projects

Brooksville SubBrooksville Sub

7

Clearwater SubClearwater Sub

8

6

The Brooksville and Clearwater subdivisions are the only CSX lines that could potentially accommodate passenger rail.

As with Tri-Rail and SunRail, FDOT must be involved. This is especially crucial with single-county MPOs and transit agencies in the Tampa Bay region.

As with SunRail and Tri-Rail, FDOT or lead local agency must own, maintain and dispatch the corridors used for local passenger rail.

Only complete line segments will be sold, so planning and implementation of the system must be done regionally.

As with Tri-Rail and SunRail, CSX must retain exclusive and perpetual freight rights to serve freight customers on the lines.

The passenger system must be compatible with CSX freight operation. Light rail cannot operate on or adjacent to CSX rail lines.

Any LRT or new streetcar crossings of freight rail lines must be grade separated.

Additional GuidelinesAdditional Guidelines

.....…

Tampa Bay Transportation Management Leadership Group 2015 Legislative Platform

2015 Top 5 Priorities

1. Tampa Bay Express Phase 1 New express toll lanes with dynamic pricing and express bus service on I-275, I-4, and I-75. Project Development and Environmental (PD&E) is underway on the interstates with PD&E completed for I-75. Preliminary engineering and construction funds are being requested as well as funding for two transit centers, one in the Gateway area and one in the USF area. Construction funding for two interchange modifications is requested at I-275 & SR 60 and I-275 & I-4. Construction is already funded for the Howard Frankland Bridge replacement which will include express lanes and transit. 2. Westshore Multimodal Center & Connections to Downtown & TIA An intermodal center, people mover connection to Tampa International Airport and extension of the modern streetcar. Site selection is underway for the intermodal center. Funding is requested for preliminary engineering, right of way, and construction of the intermodal center. PD&E is funded for the extension of the street car to the Marion Street Transit Center (MTC). Funding request is for preliminary engineering of that extension to MTC. 3. US 41 CSX Rail Corridor Regional commuter transit route. Two possible CSX lines could potentially accommodate passenger rail, Brooksville (US 41) and Clearwater (Linebaugh-SR 590-Clearwater-St. Petersburg). A corridor study and PD&E needed. 4. Regional Farebox System A standard fare payment media across the counties in Tampa Bay will allow passengers more seamless regional transportation trips. Total construction cost is $12 million, $5 million of which is funded. 5. Duke Energy Trail The trail is partially funded with two gaps needing design and construction funds. The north gap: John Chesnut Park to Brighthouse Networks Field and the south gap: Belleair Road to San Martin Bridge. Once completed, the Duke Energy trail will link with the Pinellas Trail to create a 70-mile loop which includes a future connection to

Hillsborough County via the Courtney Campbell Trail, West Tampa Greenway, and north on Upper Tampa Bay Trail to Pasco and Hernando counties via the Suncoast Trail. Accommodations for the Transportation Disadvantaged Like the TMA Leadership Group, the Tri-County Subcommittee of Transportation Disadvantaged Local Coordinating Boards focuses on regional transportation issues. The Tri-County Subcommittee emphasizes on the needs of older adults, persons with disabilities, and individuals with lower incomes traveling across Pasco, Pinellas and Hillsborough counties. At their October 22, 2015 meeting, the Tri-County Subcommittee discussed and confirmed their top priority issues. One of the three is to incorporate regional transportation needs into the FTA Section 5310 application criteria and evaluations. They have asked staff to develop a set of talking points about the regional needs for paratransit service in the Tri-County area to share with State legislators at the annual Transportation Disadvantaged Day in Tallahassee- January 20, 2016. The intent is to ask for more funding from the State, for programs such as the Jobs Access and Reverse Commute Program, that no longer exists.

Tampa Bay Transportation Management Area (TMA)

Leadership Group

2016 Meeting Calendar

Staff Support Group Meetings TMA Leadership Meetings

January 8th

February 5th**

February 12th, March 11th

April 8th*

April 8th, May 13th

June 3rd**

June 10th, August 12th

September 2nd*

September 9th, October 14th

OPTIONAL: November 4th**

3:30 pm 9:00 am

(Immediately following * Meridian Two Conference Room

CCC Staff Directors Meeting) 4300 W Cypress St, Suite 775, Tampa

TBARTA Office ** PSTA Board Room

4350 W Cypress St, Ste 700, Tampa 3201 Scherer Dr, St Petersburg

tampa bay transportation management area (tma) …the twelfth workshop of the tampa bay tma...

Documents