Mayagüez Transit Study

Transcription

Mayagüez Transit Study
FINAL REPORT
Prepared for
Municipality of Mayagüez
Economic Development Office
Prepared by
archUD-AECOM
September 2015
Acknowledgements
archUD-AECOM Team:
archUD, PSC | Project Management / Land Use Planning
AECOM | Project Management / Lead Transportation Consultant
Barrett Hale Alamo, LLC | Civil Engineering
Vagtec Transportation Engineering Consultants, PSC | Traffic Analysis
Ecostahlia | Environmental Analysis
Pantel Del Cueto | Cultural Resources Analysis
Consultec | Socioeconomic Analysis
The Big Think Group | Public Outreach
Gabriel A. Rodríguez Fernández, PPL | Transportation Planning Advisor
Table of Contents
1.
Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1
1.1
1.2
2.
Purpose and Need Statement ....................................................................................... 2
2.1
2.2
2.3
3.
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
5.3
5.4
5.5
Assumptions................................................................................................................. 33
Physical Alternatives..................................................................................................... 33
5.2.1 North-South Corridor ........................................................................................ 34
5.2.2 East-West Corridor........................................................................................... 40
Service Alternatives ...................................................................................................... 43
BRT Stops .................................................................................................................... 43
Summary of Initial Alternatives...................................................................................... 46
Screening Methodology .............................................................................................. 47
6.1
7.
Land Use ........................................................................................................................ 7
4.1.1 North-South Corridor .......................................................................................... 8
4.1.3 Mayagüez Master Plan 2032 (MMP 2032) ........................................................ 10
Zoning .......................................................................................................................... 11
Historic and Cultural Resources .................................................................................... 13
Demographics, Socioeconomics, and Employment ....................................................... 15
4.4.1 Demographic Trends........................................................................................ 15
4.4.2 Socioeconomic Trends ..................................................................................... 16
4.4.3 Employment Trends ......................................................................................... 16
4.4.4 Labor Mobility .................................................................................................. 17
Natural Environment ..................................................................................................... 18
4.5.1 Topography and Soils ...................................................................................... 18
4.5.2 Flora and Fauna............................................................................................... 19
4.5.3 Water Resources ............................................................................................. 19
4.5.4 Visual and Aesthetic Resources ....................................................................... 22
Transportation .............................................................................................................. 22
4.6.1 Existing Roadways ........................................................................................... 22
4.6.2 Future Infrastructure Improvements.................................................................. 23
4.6.3 Traffic .............................................................................................................. 23
4.6.4 Transit Services ............................................................................................... 28
Development of Conceptual Alternatives (Long List) ............................................... 33
5.1
5.2
6.
Screening and Evaluation Process ................................................................................. 6
Public Involvement ......................................................................................................... 7
Existing and Future Conditions .................................................................................... 7
4.1
5.
Project Setting ................................................................................................................ 4
Problem Identification ..................................................................................................... 4
Goals and Objectives...................................................................................................... 5
Alternatives Analysis Process...................................................................................... 6
3.1
3.2
4.
Study Overview .............................................................................................................. 1
Study Corridors .............................................................................................................. 2
Screening Criteria ......................................................................................................... 48
6.1.1 Menu of Criteria (FTA Framework) ................................................................... 48
6.1.2 Selection of Screening Criteria ......................................................................... 49
Screening of Initial Alternatives ................................................................................. 50
7.1
7.2
Initial Screening Criteria................................................................................................ 50
Screening Results ........................................................................................................ 50
7.2.1 Initial Ridership Projections .............................................................................. 52
7.2.2 Remaining Alternatives .................................................................................... 53
i
8.
Remaining Alternatives (Short List) ........................................................................... 54
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.5
8.6
8.7
8.8
8.9
9.
Final Screening............................................................................................................ 88
9.1
9.2
10.
Description of Alternatives ............................................................................................ 54
8.1.1 Build Alternatives ............................................................................................. 54
8.1.2 TSM Alternative ............................................................................................... 59
Design Refinements ..................................................................................................... 59
Conceptual Design ....................................................................................................... 60
8.3.1 Basis of Design ................................................................................................ 60
8.3.2 Program Elements ........................................................................................... 61
8.3.3 Operations ....................................................................................................... 62
Operating Plan ............................................................................................................. 64
8.4.1 Transit Operations ........................................................................................... 64
8.4.2 Potential Interaction with Existing Transit Service ............................................. 65
8.4.3 TSM Alternative ............................................................................................... 68
Evaluation of Community and Environmental Issues ..................................................... 71
8.5.1 Definition of Resources .................................................................................... 71
8.5.2 Methodology .................................................................................................... 71
8.5.3 Impact Evaluation – Environmental Resources ................................................. 72
8.5.4 Impact Evaluation – Parking ............................................................................. 72
8.5.5 Community and Environmental Issue Conclusions ........................................... 74
Operations and Maintenance Costs .............................................................................. 75
8.6.1 Methodology .................................................................................................... 75
8.6.2 Estimates ......................................................................................................... 76
Capital Costs ................................................................................................................ 77
8.7.1 Methodology .................................................................................................... 77
8.7.2 Estimate........................................................................................................... 78
8.7.3 FTA Guidance.................................................................................................. 78
Ridership Projections .................................................................................................... 79
Sensitivity Analysis ....................................................................................................... 80
8.9.1 Travel Speed and Service Reliability ................................................................ 80
8.9.2 Passenger Loading and Unloading (Dwell Times)............................................. 83
8.9.3 Number of Stops .............................................................................................. 86
8.9.4 Ridership Sensitivity ......................................................................................... 87
8.9.5 Sensitivity Analysis Conclusions....................................................................... 88
Final Screening Criteria ................................................................................................ 88
Screening Results ........................................................................................................ 89
9.2.1 Mobility ............................................................................................................ 89
9.2.2 Transfers ......................................................................................................... 90
9.2.3 Cost Effectiveness ........................................................................................... 91
Recommendation of a Locally Preferred Alternative ................................................ 92
10.1
10.2
Appendix A:
Appendix B:
Appendix C:
Appendix D:
Appendix E:
Locally Preferred Alternative ......................................................................................... 92
Federal Funding Plan ................................................................................................... 93
Individual Topic Area Reports ........................................................... A-1
Public Involvement Summary ............................................................ B-1
Maps of Preliminary Service Alternatives ......................................... C-1
Conceptual Design Drawings ............................................................ D-1
Capital Cost Scoping Drawings......................................................... E-1
ii
List of Tables
Table 1: Average Daily Traffic and Heavy Vehicle Percent, PR-2 ........................................................... 24
Table 2: Average Daily Traffic and Heavy Vehicle Percent, PR-2R......................................................... 26
Table 3: Average Daily Traffic and Heavy Vehicle Percent, East-West Corridor...................................... 27
Table 4: Initial List of Physical Alternatives (North-South Corridor) ......................................................... 36
Table 5: Initial List of Physical Alternatives (East-West Corridor) ............................................................ 40
Table 6: Service Options........................................................................................................................ 43
Table 7: Long List of Alternatives Summary ........................................................................................... 47
Table 8: Menu of Screening Criteria ....................................................................................................... 49
Table 9: Selected Initial Evaluation Criteria ............................................................................................ 50
Table 10: Long List Evaluation Matrix .................................................................................................... 51
Table 11: Total Boardings by Preliminary Corridor Alternative ................................................................ 53
Table 12: Evaluation Results of Remaining Alternatives ......................................................................... 53
Table 13: Build Alternative Details ......................................................................................................... 55
Table 14: Delay at Study Intersections (Year 2018)................................................................................ 63
Table 15: 2018 Build LOS Summary by Alternative ................................................................................ 64
Table 16: Potential North-South Corridor Parking Impacts...................................................................... 73
Table 17: TSM and Alternative IA Potential East-West Corridor On-Street Parking Impacts.................... 73
Table 18: Alternatives IB, II, and III Potential East-West Corridor On-Street Parking Impacts ................. 74
Table 19: Total Fleet Requirements by Build Alternative ........................................................................ 76
Table 20: Annual O&M Cost Estimates for TSM Alternative ................................................................... 76
Table 21: Annual O&M Cost Estimates by Build Alternative ................................................................... 77
Table 22: Summary Capital Cost Estimate ............................................................................................. 78
Table 23: Total Boardings by Alternative ................................................................................................ 79
Table 24: Speed Sensitivity - Effect on BRT Fleet Size .......................................................................... 81
Table 25: Speed Sensitivity - Capital Cost Variations ............................................................................. 82
Table 26: Speed Sensitivity - O&M Cost Variations ................................................................................ 83
Table 27: Dwell Time Sensitivity - Effect on BRT Fleet Size ................................................................... 84
Table 28: Dwell Time Sensitivity - Capital Cost Variations ...................................................................... 84
Table 29: Dwell Time Sensitivity - O&M Cost Variations ......................................................................... 85
Table 30: Capital Cost per Stop ............................................................................................................. 86
Table 31: Stop Sensitivity - Capital Cost Variation.................................................................................. 86
Table 32: Stop Sensitivity - O&M Cost Variation..................................................................................... 87
Table 33: Ridership Sensitivity ............................................................................................................... 88
Table 34: Sensitivity Analysis Cost Variation Summary .......................................................................... 88
Table 35: Selected Final Evaluation Criteria ........................................................................................... 89
Table 36: Ridership Summary for TSM and Build Alternatives ................................................................ 90
Table 37: Transfers by Alternative ......................................................................................................... 90
Table 38: Annual O&M Cost Estimate by Build Alternative ..................................................................... 91
Table 39: Summary Capital Cost Estimate ............................................................................................. 92
Table 40: MTS Project – Summary of Potential Federal Funding Sources .............................................. 94
iii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Study Area Map ........................................................................................................................ 1
Figure 2: Map of Study Corridors ............................................................................................................. 3
Figure 3: AA Process ............................................................................................................................... 6
Figure 4: Existing Land Use Map ............................................................................................................. 9
Figure 5: Zoning Map............................................................................................................................. 12
Figure 6: National Register and Puerto Rico Planning Board Registered Historic Places ........................ 14
Figure 7: 2012 Population Density by Census Tract ............................................................................... 15
Figure 8: 2012 Median Household Income by Census Tract................................................................... 16
Figure 9: 2000-2012 Labor Force and Employment Trends .................................................................... 17
Figure 10: 2012 Percent of Workers Living and Working in Mayagüez by Census Tract ......................... 18
Figure 11: Rivers ................................................................................................................................... 20
Figure 12: Existing Wetlands ................................................................................................................. 21
Figure 13: Flood Map............................................................................................................................. 22
Figure 14: Existing and Future No-Build LOS for AM and PM Peak Hours, PR-2 .................................... 25
Figure 15: Existing and Future No-Build LOS for AM and PM Peak Hours, PR-2R ................................. 26
Figure 16: Existing and Future No-Build LOS for AM and PM Peak Hours, East-West Corridor .............. 28
Figure 17: TIM Downtown Routes .......................................................................................................... 29
Figure 18: Photo of TIM Vehicle............................................................................................................. 29
Figure 19: Future TIM Routes ................................................................................................................ 30
Figure 20: UPR Mayagüez Trolley Colegial Transit Routes .................................................................... 32
Figure 21: Downtown Mayagüez Alternative Routing ............................................................................. 35
Figure 22: Map of Alternative Alignments NS-1 – NS-4 .......................................................................... 37
Figure 23: Map of Alternative Alignments NS-5 – NS-8 .......................................................................... 38
Figure 24: Map of Alternative Alignments NS-9 – NS-12 ........................................................................ 39
Figure 25: Map of Alternative Alignments EW-1 – EW-3......................................................................... 41
Figure 26: Map of Alternative Alignments EW-4 – EW-6......................................................................... 42
Figure 27: BRT Stations/Stops............................................................................................................... 45
Figure 28: Schematic Depiction of Build Alternatives.............................................................................. 55
Figure 29: Map of Alternatives IA and IB ................................................................................................ 56
Figure 30: Map of Alternative II .............................................................................................................. 57
Figure 31: Map of Alternative III ............................................................................................................. 58
Figure 32: Schematic Depiction of TSM Alternative ................................................................................ 59
Figure 33: Potential TIM Route Modifications ......................................................................................... 67
Figure 34: Potential Público Vehicle....................................................................................................... 68
Figure 35: TSM Alternative Stops in East-West Corridor ........................................................................ 69
Figure 36: Schematic Depictions of TSM and Build Alternatives ............................................................. 89
Figure 37: Screening Matrix ................................................................................................................... 92
Figure 38: Local Financial Commitment Factors..................................................................................... 98
Figure C-1: Service Option 1................................................................................................................ C-1
Figure D-1: Key Map............................................................................................................................ D-2
Figure D-2: North/South Corridor 1 ...................................................................................................... D-3
iv
Figure D-8: East/West Corridor ............................................................................................................ D-9
Figure D-9: Intersection: Western Plaza..............................................................................................D-10
Figure D-10: Intersection: Mar y Sol....................................................................................................D-11
Figure D-11: Intersection: Colegio.......................................................................................................D-12
Figure D-12: Intersection: Centro Judicial ...........................................................................................D-13
Figure D-13: Intersection: Centro Medico ............................................................................................D-14
Figure D-14: Intersection: Mayagüez Mall ...........................................................................................D-15
Figure D-15: Typical Pavement Marking for Continuous Preferential Lanes (N/S Corridor) ..................D-16
Figure D-16: Typical Pavement Marking for Continuous Preferential Lanes (E/W Corridor) .................D-17
Figure D-17: Sections North/South Corridor ........................................................................................D-18
Figure D-18: Sections North/South Corridor (cont.) .............................................................................D-19
Figure D-19: Sections East/West Corridor: Candelaria Street ..............................................................D-20
Figure D-20: Sections East/West Corridor: Mendez Vigo Street ..........................................................D-21
Figure E-1: Capital Cost Key Map ......................................................................................................... E-2
Figure E-2: Capital Cost North/South Corridor 1.................................................................................... E-3
Figure E-8: Capital Cost East/West Corridor ......................................................................................... E-9
Figure E-9: North/South Corridor Edge Rehabilitation Options ............................................................ E-10
Figure E-10: North/South Corridor Roadway Rehabilitation Options .................................................... E-11
Figure E-11: East/West Corridor Roadway Rehabilitation Options ....................................................... E-12
v
1.
Introduction
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and the Municipality of Mayagüez (MAM) have initiated the
preparation of an alternatives analysis (AA), entitled the Mayagüez Transit Study (MTS), to evaluate bus
rapid transit (BRT) service alternatives for two corridors in the Municipality of Mayagüez. Individual topic
area reports developed as part of the MTS are referenced throughout this report. A list of the reports and
their publication dates is included as Appendix A.
1.1
Study Overview
The study area comprises the metropolitan statistical area (MSA) for the Municipality of Mayagüez, which
also includes a portion of Hormigueros, the adjacent Municipality to the south, on which sits the
Mayagüez Mall (see Figure 1). Mayagüez’s geographic area covers 55.9 square miles, excluding the
uninhabited offshore islands of Mona, Monito, and Desecheo. As seen in the figure, the Municipality has a
lengthy north-south coastline with mountainous terrain east of downtown. North of downtown sits the
University of Puerto Rico (UPR) Mayagüez campus, while south of downtown houses a number of
government buildings and other activity centers.
Figure 1: Study Area Map
1
1.2
Study Corridors
The two corridors consist of a North-South Corridor, encompassing both PR-2 (a regional primary
arterial/highway) and PR-2R (a local arterial), the two major north-south routes through the Municipality,
and an East-West Corridor, centering on Candelaria and Méndez Vigo Streets, the pair of one-way roads
providing access to/from the town core (see Figure 2).
The East-West Corridor extends approximately 1.3 miles between the coast and the downtown core of
the Municipality along Méndez Vigo Street running west and Candelaria Street running east. The NorthSouth Corridor is approximately seven miles in length, stretching between Western Plaza to the north and
Mayagüez Mall to the south, lying partially in the Municipality of Hormigueros. The North-South Corridor
exhibits two primary north-south routes through the study area. PR-2, a highway/primary arterial,
elevated in places, transects the study area west of the town core. A second north-south route, PR-2R (a
local arterial), diverges from PR-2 to the north of downtown, travels southeast along the southern side of
the UPR campus, turns due south as part of a one-way pair directly through the town center, then
continues south before returning west to PR-2. Both roadways connect to the East-West Corridor.
These corridors represent the historic access routes in and out of the Municipality for the past century.
The construction of PR-2 in the 1960s followed much of the alignment originally developed for the freight
and passenger railroad that facilitated movement around Puerto Rico (“the island”), between San Juan on
the north coast, Mayagüez on the west coast, and Ponce on the south coast.
2.
Purpose and Need Statement
The Purpose and Need Statement outlines the reasons for proposing this project and the underlying
needs for the project. The Purpose and Need Statement acts as the foundation of the planning process. It
provides the rationale and justification for undertaking an important transportation investment and forms
the basis for the range of alternatives to be studied. This Purpose and Need Statement also includes
Goals and Objectives, which focus on related issues reflecting environmental, community, and
transportation values.
The Purpose and Need Statement embodies observable and data-supported transportation conditions, as
well as problems, opportunities, and needs articulated by the public, stakeholders, and the MAM. Public
and stakeholder input regarding problems, opportunities, and needs were considered as an integral part
of the public involvement process for this AA. This Purpose and Need Statement presents the purpose of
the proposed project, documents the deficiencies in the existing transportation system, and the
foreseeable long-term consequences of those deficiencies, and describes the needs arising from those
deficiencies that support the project purpose. The Purpose and Need Statement serves as a cornerstone
for the development and evaluation of alternatives proposed as potential solutions to identified
deficiencies. The basis of this Purpose and Need Statement is:
The 2005 Plan de Ordenacion Territiorial
The 2005 Existing Conditions Report by the Purerto Rico Highway and Transportation Authority
The 2010 Central American Games held in Mayagüez
The MAM, as elucidated in its 2005 Plan de Ordenación Territorial (POT), desires to “transform
Mayagüez into an accessible, livable city.” In support of this goal, the POT promotes the development of
an efficient, dependable multi-modal transportation system, providing new facilities for pedestrian and
bicycle activity and transit, with a particular focus on the aging population and population of students.
In February 2005, a document entitled Existing Conditions Report was published by the Puerto Rico
Highway and Transportation Authority (PRHTA), at the behest of the MAM. As a result of this report, a
planning and feasibility study for a transit corridor in the Mayagüez Central District was then completed.
The results of this study, entitled Alternatives Evaluation Report, were finalized in July 2007.
2
In 2010, the Central American Games were held in Mayagüez. A bus transit system was implemented
during the two weeks of sports competition in order to mitigate projected traffic congestion, primarily as a
result of spectators attending from all over Central America and the Caribbean. This system was deemed
highly effective at mitigating traffic impacts.
Figure 2: Map of Study Corridors
3
The success of the bus system during the Central American Games increased the awareness of and
support for transit in the Municipality. This, in turn, led to the reorganization and improvement over the
last five years of the existing municipal bus system. This AA process furthers the development of the
municipal transit system, building on the past studies and more recent operational experience.
The purpose of the MTS is to improve the travel speed, reliability, safety, and convenience of transit
service in the metropolitan area, linking existing and emerging activity centers in the downtown area with
established and emerging activity centers along the PR-2 corridor. The project will better serve existing
transit riders, attract new transit patrons, improve connections between different services, and support
redevelopment and other economic development opportunities. Importantly, it will also serve to improve
livability by increasing mobility and accessibility for all residents in communities throughout the study
area.
2.1
Project Setting
Over the past three years, the MAM has been dramatically improving its bus/van system (Transporte
Integrado de Mayagüez), primarily in response to latent demand. The system currently consists of four
routes (three loop routes operating in proximity to downtown and a fourth along the coast to the
northwest). Plans for the near future include the implementation of five additional routes (four routes up
into the mountainous rural areas east of the downtown and a fifth along the coast to the southwest). UPR
Mayagüez also runs five shuttle routes, some of which extend beyond the campus to the downtown and
other nearby areas. UPR shuttle service is not consistently available, since the vehicles used for this
service also have other responsibilities.
In addition to these two services, a number of público routes operate in and around the Municipality.
Público service operates under permit, issued by the Department of Transportation and Public Works
(DTPW). Two routes extend between downtown Mayagüez to the barrios (large neighborhoods) to the
east and southeast. However, the most well used público service operates without a fixed schedule, in a
partially on-demand/curb-to-curb fashion within certain zones/subareas of the downtown and its
surroundings. Additionally, long-distance público routes provide service to San Juan, Ponce, and other
destinations outside the Municipality.
2.2
Problem Identification
The need for improved transit service has four main components:
1) to serve actual and latent demand, including transit-dependent population segments;
2) to provide service between key activity centers in the study area;
3) to improve connectivity between existing transit services and between existing and planned
services; and
4) to serve local government policies and initiatives for a more accessible, livable city.
Key transportation problems in the study area include:
Substantial transit dependent population – Demographic analysis of the study area indicates that
a substantial amount of the existing population remains highly transit dependent, related
particularly to low income levels and high unemployment.
Demand for work- and service-related travel outside the town center – There is significant workrelated travel to areas outside the Mayagüez town center, including the UPR campus and other
important employment and service centers.
Extensive use of existing UPR shuttle service – Anecdotal evidence indicates that UPR-operated
shuttle service carries large numbers of students both within campus, as well as to/from
downtown.
Lack of integration among existing and proposed services – UPR and municipal transit services
are somewhat duplicative and could provide better service with improved coordination. Improved
4
coordination with the público system could also enhance overall transit service for system
patrons.
Coordination of east-west and north-south transit service – With the development/enhancement
of north-south transit service, the need for coordination with east-west service to and from
downtown will increase.
Slow and unreliable transit travel times – Traffic congestion along PR-2, particularly during
morning and evening peak hours, presently obviates any benefit that might accrue from using
PR-2 for existing transit service. Along the spine of the East-West Corridor, traffic congestion
occurs randomly throughout the day, which negatively impacts current transit operations.
Limited mobility options for older people, a rapidly growing segment of the population that makes
heavy use of medical and social services in the town center and the Medical Center area.
Inability to support redevelopment efforts in a struggling economy – While current transit service
provides a mobility option for patrons, it has not yet achieved the efficiency level necessary to
support municipal redevelopment goals.
Inability to reinforce existing Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) regulations – While current
zoning regulations incorporate a variety of TOD principles, the lack of an existing transit system in
the North-South Corridor, in particular, results in continuing reinforcement of a dispersed
development pattern.
2.3
Goals and Objectives
The goals and objectives of the MTS complement the Purpose and Need Statement and focus on related
transportation, economic, and environmental issues.
Goal 1: Enhance mobility options for travel by developing alternatives responsive to corridor
needs
Objectives:
a. Provide an attractive, competitive, and reliable transit alternative in comparison with the private
automobile.
b. Coordinate existing and proposed transit service with proposed north-south service.
c. Increase transit speeds.
d. Coordinate with municipal efforts to improve pedestrian and bicycle mobility and access.
e. Seek cost-effective solutions that attract new riders and better serve current riders.
f. Improve access to the transit system.
g. Better connect the UPR Mayagüez campus with important destinations in the Municipality.
h. Provide improved access to jobs and other opportunities for transit dependent travelers.
i. Increase accessibility to major activity centers for all users (residents, employees, students,
visitors, and shoppers).
j. Mitigate the rate of growth in traffic congestion by increasing transit ridership.
k. Make accommodations for transit improvements in proposed roadway projects.
Goal 2: Minimize environmental impacts
Objectives:
a. Focus on improved transit operations using existing roadway corridors.
b. Improve regional air quality.
c. Reduce energy consumption.
d. Avoid or minimize adverse impacts to farmland, historic, archaeological, and other sensitive
resources.
e. Avoid or minimize adverse impacts to neighborhoods and communities.
f. Avoid or minimize adverse impacts to businesses.
5
Goal 3: Stimulate and support economic growth
Objectives:
a. Support municipal growth initiatives and policies.
b. Encourage sustainable development and land use patterns, including TOD.
c. Plan development and redevelopment in concert with transportation investments.
d. Help meet the municipal goals and measures contained in the Mayagüez Vision 2032 plan.
e. Improve livability by providing increased access to facilities, such as medical and other
governmental services, food shopping, retail shopping, entertainment, etc.
3.
Alternatives Analysis Process
The methodology for the MTS relies on FTA guidelines regarding the AA process: “Guiding Principles of
Alternatives Analysis,” the FTA guidelines and requirements relating to “Linking the Transportation
Planning and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Process,” and the Section 5309 New Starts
evaluation and rating process.
Based on the FTA guidance, an AA should employ a comprehensive, cooperative, and continuous public
involvement and interagency consultation process and incorporate the intent of NEPA through the
consideration of natural, physical, and social effects. Therefore, it is important to involve environmental,
regulatory, and resource agencies, to thoroughly document the transportation planning process,
information, analyses, and decisions, and to vet the planning results through the applicable public
involvement processes. See Figure 3 for a diagram of the AA process.
Figure 3: AA Process
3.1
Screening and Evaluation Process
The screening of conceptual alternatives is the first step in identifying a set of transportation
improvements for implementation in a particular corridor. At this early stage, “alternatives are defined
only to the level of detail necessary to support a sufficiently reliable analysis of costs and level of detail
necessary to support the selection of mode and alignment and a financing plan.”1 Therefore, the
conceptual alternatives evaluation presented here relies mainly on available data and use of the criteria
facilitating more qualitative assessment.
1
US DOT, Federal Transit Administration, http://www.fta.dot.gov/planning/newstarts/planning_environment_9717.html
6
Following the completion of the conceptual screening of alternatives, and further refinement of
alternatives, the ultimate aims of this screening process are: 1) to foster the development of a set of
alternatives responsive to the transportation problems in each corridor; 2) to screen alternatives to identify
those most responsive; 3) to optimize the performance of the most responsive alternatives within the
limits of their technology and operating characteristics; and, 4) to analyze, evaluate, and refine the detail
in those alternatives. The expected result of this process will be the identification of a Locally Preferred
Alternative (LPA).
3.2
Public Involvement
Both Steering and Stakeholder Committees were established for the MTS. The Steering Committee
included technical advisory members in addition to other members involved in the process. Meetings with
both of these committees occurred on:
December 11, 2014
February 6, 2015
February 24, 2015
March 17, 2015
April 23, 2015
September 21, 2015
The first of two public workshops also occurred on December 11, 2014. The workshop concentrated on
the process for conducting the MTS and detailed the public involvement process and means for
submitting input. The second public workshop took place on March 19, 2015 and focused on initial
alternatives and the screening process. A meeting with the business community occurred on December
9, 2014.
Useful feedback was received through each of these forums and additional input was solicited at
attendees’ leisure via email. A study webpage, linked to the Transporte Integrado de Mayagüez (TIM)
System website, was also created to solicit input. A number of Commonwealth and local agencies and
civic organizations were also linked to the study webpage. Input received from the committee meetings,
the public workshops and other forums were used to develop a draft report recommending a LPA. A
summary of the public outreach conducted as part of the MTS is included as Appendix B.
4.
Existing and Future Conditions
The following subsections describe the existing and expected future land use patterns, projected
population and employment conditions, traffic conditions, existing transit services, and the state of transit
system connectivity, which provide the context for the project need.
4.1
Land Use
The MAM experienced strong development activity in the second half of the 20th century, following the
replacement of the long-distance railroad (north-south) and local trolley system (east-west) by the private
vehicle. New suburban development presented an alternative to traditional urban settings, in many
instances related to the availability of industrial job opportunities and commercial developments along
primary highways and in the port zone. While the North-South and East-West Corridors overlap near the
downtown core, outside this overlap area the two corridors generally present quite different land use
patterns. Figure 4 presents a map of the existing land use within the study area.
7
4.1.1
North-South Corridor
Centered along PR-2, the North-South Corridor is seven miles (11.3 kilometers) long, more than five
times the length of the East-West Corridor. The corridor is essentially a suburban, auto-oriented area,
evolving since the mid-1950s with an ambiguous, dual role: accommodating regional traffic through and
into Mayagüez and providing access to the city’s suburbs beyond its traditional town limits. The corridor
contains new subdivisions (urbanizaciones), as well as new satellite government centers and commercial
developments, colonized agricultural land, and environmentally sensitive areas in a loose, fragmented
pattern.
PR-2 through the North-South Corridor can be divided into three segments, each with similar land uses:
1. North (Western Plaza to UPR): This segment, in which PR-2 operates as a limited access
highway, lies primarily in the barrios of Sabaneta, Algarrobos, and Miradero. It is characterized by
an incomplete grid of streets, compared to the central and south segments. Commercial uses are
sparsely distributed along fragmented frontage roads, with residential uses mostly sitting
substantially back from PR-2. The fragmentation is due to existing topography, large forested
areas, and historical development. In general, the eastern side of the segment is occupied by
newer middle-class subdivisions, while the western side is generally older, working class or lowincome communities.
2. Central (UPR to Nenadich Street): This central segment encompasses the UPR campus and the
town center. The primary government, institutional, and cultural uses of Mayagüez are also
concentrated in this segment of the corridor.
3. South (Nenadich Street to Mayagüez Mall): The main activity generators in the south segment
are the Mayagüez Judicial Center, the Dr. Ramón Emeterio Betances Hospital (Mayagüez
Medical Center), and, at the southern end of the corridor, the Mayagüez Mall. Due in part to the
presence of creeks, wetlands, and other sensitive environmental resources, this segment is
characterized by a fragmented land use pattern, with limited north-south connections other than
those provided by PR-2 itself and its incomplete frontage roads. Compared to the north PR-2
segment, the south segment has a more dense suburban fabric.
PR-2R also traverses the North-South Corridor, east of PR-2. This route diverges from PR-2 north of
downtown at the San Juan Street intersection. South of PR-2R, opposite the UPR Mayagüez campus,
land uses include the brewery, the northern part of the Barcelona district, and the Ensanche Vivaldi
neighborhood. After passing the UPR campus, the route turns south across the Yagüez River into the
downtown core.
PR-2R runs north-south across the town center, intersecting Méndez Vigo/Candelaria (the spine of the
East-West Corridor), De Diego, Nenadich, and other east-west streets, encompassing most of the central
historic district’s commercial, institutional, cultural, medical, and mixed-use destinations. South of
Nenadich Street to the PR-2R/Cabassa Avenue intersection, land uses fronting PR-2R are mostly
commercial and light industrial, with some institutional uses set out in uneven distribution and density,
including the Municipal Asylum, churches, and the historic municipal cemetery. The local street network
offers only limited connectivity. On the east side of PR-2R are the Santurce neighborhood, the
Urbanización Alemany subdivision, and Yagüez Public Housing; all are densely populated, transitdependent communities. Parts of this area, along the Majagual Creek, reflect great structural
deterioration, due to poor soils and drainage conditions.
PR-2R turns west on Cabassa Avenue, returning to PR-2 in the vicinity of the Medical Center. Along
Cabassa Avenue, where PR-2R turns west, the main activity generator is the Mayagüez Judicial Center.
The undeveloped property north of Cabassa Avenue is a protected wetland resource. Of particular
importance is the Mayagüez Medical Center/Betances Hospital, on the west side of PR-2 at the first
intersection south of Cabassa Avenue.
8
PR-64/PR-102 also runs through the North-South Corridor along the coastal edge of the Municipality.
This route passes a few key regional destinations, such as the Mayagüez Port Zone, Litoral Park, and the
Centroamerican Sports Complex (Isidoro García and José A. Figueroa Freyre Stadiums).
Figure 4: Existing Land Use Map
9
4.1.2
East-West Corridor
The East-West Corridor includes the area surrounding the two arterial streets, Méndez Vigo and
Candelaria, which run east-west across the traditional town center of Mayagüez (the central zone of
Barrio Pueblo). Bisected by the PR-2 viaduct near the middle of the corridor, Oriente Street (PR-105) lies
at the eastern end of the corridor and PR-102 and Litoral Park sit at the western limit. The area east of
the viaduct comprises the historic core of the town: Plaza Colón, governmental/institutional buildings, and
a series of traditional neighborhoods with varying combinations of uses (commercial, institutional,
residential, and cultural). The area west of the viaduct remains predominantly a commercial/warehouse
district. This area was the center of port and mercantile activities until 1932, when the Port of Mayagüez
was relocated north of the Yagüez River.
The street grid layout reflects a relationship with key geographical features, starting perpendicular to the
coast in the former port zone, gradually shifting angles in response to the alignment of the river, as well
as to the topographical narrowing of the valley created by the mountains. Consistent with the port’s
historic commercial activities, block sizes are significantly larger west of the viaduct, and even east of the
viaduct blocks retain long east-west dimensions compared to the traditional town center and its
extensions. Presently, seven bridges (one limited to pedestrian use) connect the traditional town center to
areas north of the river.
The East-West Corridor is characterized in general by a commercial/mixed use zone along Candelaria
and Méndez Vigo Streets, with residential neighborhoods and developments distributed north and south
of this spine. The central spine lies at a higher elevation than the adjoining north and south areas and the
waterfront. The East-West Corridor can be divided into three geographic segments, each with similar land
use patterns:
1. East (Oriente Street to Martínez Nadal Street): This area contains several dense neighborhoods
with a mix of residential and service-related uses (community support, workshops, recreation).
2. Central (Martínez Nadal Street to the PR-2 viaduct): The primary government, institutional, and
cultural uses of Mayagüez are concentrated in this area.
3. West (the PR-2 viaduct to PR-102): Land uses along the spine of both Candelaria and Méndez
Vigo Streets are mainly commercial and warehousing. Some of the structures are of historic
significance, such as the US Customs House on Comercio Street. New uses, especially west of
San Juan Street towards the former La Playa/La Marina warehouse district, are tourism-oriented,
with a recent expansion of restaurant activity.
West of PR-2, many formerly active commercial and/or industrial buildings remain vacant with small-scale
commercial developments randomly sited in the area. As the East-West Corridor reaches the coast,
more activity is present, mostly of a commercial nature. As of 2010, recreational uses were introduced, reactivating the coastline, attracting more regular use of the area. The only residential component present
west of PR-2, along the edge of the East-West Corridor, is the medium-density, low-income community of
Dulces Labios.
4.1.3
Mayagüez Master Plan 2032 (MMP 2032)
The Municipality, as part of the process of completing a comprehensive revision of the Mayagüez POT by
the end of 2015, recently completed a Master Plan with a long term vision for year 2032 (Mayagüez
Master Plan 2032 or “MMP 2032”). The final draft document, prepared by the ACP Group (Caguas, PR),
was submitted to the Municipality on July 30, 2014. The plan focuses on strategic projects in selected
areas of the Municipality.
MMP 2032 is more of a vision plan rather than a typical master plan. Final draft reports provide a lengthy
illustrative summary of the proposed vision, reflecting, in part, the planning approach commonly known as
“Landscape Urbanism,” which incorporates ecological values in the planning of urban redevelopment
10
areas. Key concepts for the implementation strategy of the plan, expected to be developed as part of the
Mayagüez POT revision, are summarized as follows:
Short-term projects include initiatives to improve public space and the street network, as well as
revitalization of the frontages of existing structures, among others.
Mid-term projects include mixed-use development interventions to be undertaken mainly by the
private sector.
Long-term projects are more visionary projects at large-scale requiring substantial planning and
investment by both the private and public sectors.
Additional reference material on MMP 2032 can be found in the Existing and Future No-Build
Transportation Facilities Report (January 2015).
4.2
Zoning
Zoning classifications along the existing and proposed transit corridors were developed with TOD
principles interwoven. However, basic TOD principles incorporated in the latest municipal planning
regulations cannot quickly overturn the momentum that the private vehicle has sustained since the mid20th century. Figure 5 presents a map of existing zoning classifications in the study area.
4.2.1
Along the North-South Corridor, residential districts predominate in the areas set back from the main
roadway, while commercial districts are concentrated around principal intersections. The zoning map
does not reflect formal or informal conversions from residential to commercial uses along PR-2 frontage
roads. Areas zoned for Public Uses include the Mayagüez Airport, the Medical and Judicial Centers, and
cemeteries, while the lands occupied by the Port of Mayagüez and several existing or proposed industrial
parks are zoned Industrial.
4.2.2
East-West Corridor
For the East-West Corridor, the predominant zoning is commercial, as well as medium- and high-density
residential. The commercial districts, with few exceptions, allow for combined residential uses, making
them, effectively, mixed-use districts, concentrated along the main streets including Candelaria, Méndez
Vigo, PR-102, PR-2R, Martínez Nadal, and Balboa. In the Ensanche Martínez area, the Public Use
category is predominant, which mostly relates to the concentration of medical facilities, schools, and
related support services. To the south, there are also Public Use districts comprising the Government
Center, schools and parks, while along the Bay, Litoral Park and its associated sports facilities fall into the
Public Use district. North of the town center, the extensive UPR campus and the Mayagüez Zoo are also
zoned Public Use. Since Mayagüez is a university town, the amount of land zoned for education facilities
(Public Use) is substantially more than in a typical Puerto Rican Municipality.
11
Figure 5: Zoning Map
12
4.3
Historic and Cultural Resources
The historic and cultural resources analysis was designed to provide an overview on the existing
resources within the study corridors. Although detail has been included to provide depth of
understanding, in no way should this analysis be construed as all-inclusive or definitive (with the
exception of the legislative data). Additional reference material can be found in the Existing and Future
No-Build Transportation Facilities Report (January 2015).
The historic and cultural resources analysis addressed the following concerns:
Potential for procedural issues at both the federal and state levels;
Listing and discussion of the rules and regulations related to compliance at any subsequent
stages of the project’s development;
Insights into specific potential cultural resources issues related to the present study corridor;
Discussion of resolutions for any foreseen issues;
Reliability of known cultural resources inventories for the present study corridor;
Recommended levels of survey which may be required for subsequent stages of project
development.
The only area with an immediate potential for cultural resources compliance issues would be the area
within and possibly around the UPR Mayagüez campus (see Figure 6 for maps of National Register of
Historic Places and Puerto Rico Planning Board listed historic resources in the study area). Any potential
issue would be concerning above ground cultural resources (i.e., buildings and structures), although
historic culverts, roadway elements and/or other infrastructure elements may come into play.2
2
Regarding data reliability, most of the architectural and archaeological surveys for Mayagüez have not been the result of intense
focused studies comprehensively covering broad areas (as is the case for many of the municipalities on the island). Furthermore, it
should be kept in mind that chronological criteria, as well as historical relevance of sites and properties, changes through time. The
fact that a structure, element, or site, was not considered historically significant 10 or 20 years ago, does not necessarily mean that
the same baseline criteria will still exist when an LPA resulting from the MTS is implemented.
13
Figure 6: National Register and Puerto Rico Planning Board Registered Historic Places
14
4.4
Demographics, Socioeconomics, and Employment
This section examines current conditions and historic trends in demographic, socioeconomic, and
employment characteristics in the study area primarily using information from the US Census Bureau
Five-Year American Community Survey (ACS) 2008-2012.
4.4.1
Demographic Trends
The MAM has exhibited a mixed pattern in its population dynamics over time. Except for small reductions
in the 1920s and 1960s, up to the 1990s Mayagüez showed impressive growth rates in its population.
However, starting in 2000, the population has trended downward. This trend is consistent with that
observed for the entire population of Puerto Rico, resulting from lower birth rates and growing
emigration.3 While extended projections to 2020 and 2040 indicate that population will continue to
decline, the rate will decrease largely as a result of diminished emigration. The 2040 Long Range
Transportation Plan (August 2013) projects that the population of Mayagüez will reach 82,051 in 2040.
Based on the 2010 Census, the Municipality exhibits a population density of 1,664 persons per square
mile, substantially higher than for Puerto Rico as a whole (1,088 persons per square mile). When looking
at population density at a lower geographic level (census tract), it can be seen that a group of high
density census tracts is clustered around the central core/intersection of the North-South and East-West
Corridors (see Figure 7).
Figure 7: 2012 Population Density by Census Tract
Source: US Census; 2008-2012 Five - Year ACS.
3
Raúl Figueroa Rodríguez and Judith Rodríguez Figueroa, ACP Group, Estudio Demográfico y Poblacional, Municipio
Autónomo de Mayagüez, February 2014.
15
4.4.2
Socioeconomic Trends
Figure 8 presents median household income at the census tract level. In the study area core median
household income ranges between $2,800 and $12,200 annually. This concentration of lower income
households is also reflected and reinforced by the distribution of population living below the poverty level
by census tract and the distribution of zero-vehicle households.
Figure 8: 2012 Median Household Income by Census Tract
4.4.3
Employment Trends
Labor market dynamics in the MAM do not differ substantially from those observed for Puerto Rico as a
whole during the last decade. The labor market in Mayagüez, as well as for Puerto Rico, has been
characterized by both declining participation and declining numbers of jobs over the last 13 years. As a
result of the declining participation, unemployment rates have remained relatively stable, even dropping,
during the last few years. While total employment has dropped from 29,700 jobs in 2000 to 21,500 in
2013, a reduction of 27.6%, the unemployment rate has also lowered from a peak of 18.4% in 2011 to
16.6% in 2013.
This reduction in the active labor force is the result of two factors interacting – limited employment
opportunities and a reduction in the working population. The lack of existing employment opportunities
discourages segments of the population from participating in the labor market. Therefore, the overall
participation rate and the absolute number of persons comprising the local labor force drop. Figure 9
depicts the behavior of labor participation, employment, and unemployment rates in the MAM for the
years 2000 to 2012. As observed with the labor participation rate, as well as the employment rate, a
descending trend started in the 2005-2007 reporting period. This negative growth trend for both variables,
illustrated by the lighter colored trend lines, remains unchanged through reporting years 2010-2012.
16
Figure 9: 2000-2012 Labor Force and Employment Trends
50.0%
45.0%
Participation Rate
40.0%
35.0%
Employment Rate
30.0%
Unemployment Rate
25.0%
2 per. Mov. Avg.
(Participation Rate)
20.0%
2 per. Mov. Avg.
(Employment Rate)
2 per. Mov. Avg.
(Unemployment Rate)
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
Source: US Census; 2000-2012.
In addition to declining labor participation, a second factor influencing these dynamics is the change in the
age structure of the local and island-wide population during the last two decades. Puerto Rico’s
population is undergoing an aging process that progressively subtracts resources from the stream that
feeds its labor market. This trend is aggravated by the significant emigration observed during the last few
years, composed in substantial proportion of the younger working population in their most productive
years.
4.4.4
Labor Mobility
The US Census ACS included data indicating Municipality of residence and work (see Figure 10). Of the
total 22,209 work force participants 16 years and older in the MAM, 17,524 (78.9 percent) both live and
work in Mayagüez.
17
Figure 10: 2012 Percent of Workers Living and Working in Mayagüez by Census Tract
4.5
Natural Environment
The corridors under consideration in the MTS have been extremely impacted by decades of urban,
commercial, and industrial development. In fact, very few characteristics remain of the original natural
conditions in the region. Most of the streets and corridors are now covered by impervious surfaces and
few green areas exist. Details on the characteristics of the natural environment in the study corridors is
found in the MTS Existing and Future No-Build Transportation Facilities Report (January 2015).
However, many bodies of water cross the proposed corridors. Except for the Majagüal wetland, most of
these water bodies have gone through years of extensive hydraulic and hydrologic modification. Water
resources comprise the majority of the discussion on the existing natural environment below.
4.5.1
Topography and Soils
The topography of the region ranges from rolling hills to extensive coastal and alluvial plains, many of
which have been altered by urban development. These hills turn more rugged and steep moving in an
easterly direction. Topographical elevations vary between zero and 1,150 feet (350 meters) above sea
level (Cerro Las Mesas).
Soils in the study area consist mostly of transported material from elsewhere, to the extent that in some
cases, the original composition of the area cannot be defined. Note that these soils have been
significantly altered by urban development in the North-South and East-West Corridors. Given that these
corridors presently exhibit paved roads and other built infrastructure, existing soil characteristics would
not be expected to limit development of any proposed transit alternative. During the investigation, no
sites of significant or important commercial value for mineral concentrations were discovered within the
study area.
18
4.5.2
Flora and Fauna
A flora and fauna survey assessment required by state and federal government agencies was completed
as part of the process for the MTS. The objectives of this survey were to:
1.
2.
3.
Identify the local fauna and flora;
Describe the existing ecosystems;
Determine the occurrence of protected species within the study corridors.
This survey documented 63 species of terrestrial animals in the study area, including vertebrates (83
percent) and invertebrates (17 percent). Data showed that bird species were the richest group of animals
(61 percent) with significant numbers of wetland and urban adapted species. The overall number of
endemic fauna species was low.
The flora survey documented 57 species of plants representing 25 taxonomic families of vascular plants
in the study area. Flora consists mostly of species typical of early secondary succession and wetlands.
Exotic species and ornamental trees were widespread and abundant.
Four types of habitats were documented in the study area – grasslands, secondary succession forest,
herbaceous wetlands, and urban habitat. These habitats varied in structure, species composition, and
use by local wildlife. The following measures were recommended to maintain local biodiversity:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Preserve all fragments of existing secondary forest and wetlands;
Minimize impacts to existing wetlands during the construction phase of the project;
Conserve and preserve wetland fragments between PR-2 and Hiram D. Cabassa Avenue;
Perform follow-up visits to confirm the presence of the Puerto Rican Slider.
The survey found no protected or endangered species of fauna or flora in the study area.
4.5.3
Water Resources
The Río Yagüez and the Pulido, Sábalos, and Merle Creeks cross the study area, along with around 60
tributaries. See Figure 11 for a map of rivers in the study area. Several of these water bodies cross PR-2
and PR-2R within the North-South Corridor. During site visits, it was confirmed that all of these surface
bodies of water have been disturbed and/or modified during construction and expansion of PR-2 and PR2R. Modifications to the natural stream channels include reinforced concrete walls and floors and
concrete or steel pipes under PR-2 and PR-2R. For example, modifications made to the Yagüez River
were part of a flood control project completed more than 35 years ago.
The presence of pollutants from point and non-point sources was observed in many of the water bodies
within the study area. Despite this, two surface water bodies in the vicinity of PR-2R were observed to
sustain both waterfowl and fish populations.
19
Figure 11: Rivers
River
The Yagüez River, the Pulidos, Merle, and Sábalos streams, as well as the Majagüal wetland, run eastwest across PR-2 (see Figure 12). During site visits, several wetland areas were observed within the
study area, including one approximately 328 feet (100 meters) from the intersection of PR-2, PR-64, and
PR-342. This wetland area lies approximately 165 feet (50 meters) from the existing travel lanes. A
second wetland area was observed at the intersection of PR-2 and PR-3108 in Mayagüez Terrace. A
third, and the largest patch of wetlands, known as the Majagüal, was observed between PR-2R and PR2. This area, although located between two urban roadways, was observed to be in very good condition
and sustaining healthy flora and fauna populations. The Majagüal wetland is dominated by species like
papyrus (Cyperus articulates) and Bull-tongue arrowhead (Sagittaria lancifolia) that may be temporarily or
seasonally flooded. Areas of this wetland close to the main channel maintain water elevations sufficient
to allow the development of fish stocks. In addition, these wetlands are important for bird and amphibian
species found in the region. There is also an existing wetland mitigation area at the PR-2/Hiram D.
4
Cabassa Avenue intersection. Some species use these wetlands for feeding, breeding, and/or resting.
4
Department of Natural and Environmental Resources, et al, 200.
20
Figure 12: Existing Wetlands
With the exception of Río Yagüez, which crosses parts of the city and a segment of the proposed project
area, Caño Majagüal, and two sections of Ramón E. Betances Street, the study area lies outside flood
prone areas (see Figure 13).
Much of the study area is classified as Zone X. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
describes Flood Zone X as an area outside the 500-year flood, which means it has less than a 0.2
percent chance of flooding annually. Zone X could also be protected by levee from a 100-year flood,
which is a 1 percent chance of annual flooding. Part of the study area is identified as being in a Special
Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). A SFHA is defined as the area that will be inundated by the flood event
having a 1 percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year (Zones A, AE, AO, and VE in
Figure 13).
Two unnamed creeks, 0.08 and 0.21 miles north of the intersection between Hiram D. Cabassa Avenue
and Ramón E. Betances Street, cross PR-2. These creeks are both very shallow and prone to flooding
during major rain events greater than four inches.
The climate in the Mayagüez region is predominantly wet. The rainy season in the archipelago starts in
the month of May and lasts until the month of November. Heavy rainfall is usually reported every other
day in the western region during this period of the year. The months with the highest chance of rain and
the regular occurrence of heavy rain are August through November (hurricane season). Heavy rainfall
(high rainfall over a short period) affects coastal ecosystems. Usually, runoff from storm water is fast, not
allowing the soil enough time to absorb humidity and causing large amounts of sediment to reach salt
flats, mangroves, sea grass beds, and coral reefs.
Alternatives proposed as part of the MTS will not have impacts on the coastal zone, nor the maritimeterrestrial zone.
21
Figure 13: Flood Map
4.5.4
Visual and Aesthetic Resources
The Municipality of Mayagüez is highly developed, particularly along the two project corridors. The most
significant scenic resources are the coastline, with views of Mayagüez Bay and outlying islands, and the
mountains to the east of downtown. Plaza Colón and its surrounding historical structures, at the physical
and cultural center of the downtown core, contribute substantially to the aesthetics of the area, as does
the UPR Mayagüez campus on the north side of the river. In addition, the Municipality has multiple
recreational and sporting venues including athletic parks, stadiums, courts, gymnasiums, and arenas.
4.6
Transportation
This section describes the existing roadway and transit networks as well as current and future traffic
conditions in the study area.
4.6.1
Existing Roadways
PR-2, a typically four-lane regional highway/primary arterial, traverses Mayagüez north-south between
the coast and the downtown core. PR-2 was built in the early 1960s, superseding PR-2R, historically the
primary north-south road through the Municipality.
PR-2R diverges from PR-2 north of the Mayagüez town core, near the UPR Mayagüez campus, and
reconnects with it a few miles south of the town core. North of the PR-2/PR-2R intersection, the NorthSouth Corridor considered in this AA centers on PR-2. South of the PR-2/PR-2R intersection, the NorthSouth Corridor comprises what was originally the railroad corridor, modified to account for local
topography. Typically, the railroad stayed away from the hills as much as possible, remaining near the
coastline.
22
Other roads link Mayagüez to smaller towns in the area. PR-102 passes through Mayagüez along the
coast providing a particularly scenic view of Mayagüez Bay, the city itself, and coastal towns such as
Rincón. In anticipation of the Centro-American Games held in Mayagüez during 2010, a portion of PR102 adjacent to the Isodoro Garcia stadium was upgraded from a two-lane road into an urban boulevard.
In addition to this upgrade, an elevated by-pass was constructed from the site of a coastal park over
the Yagüez River ending at the Concordia Housing Project. A number of other routes (PR-105, PR-106,
PR-108, and PR-348) leave Mayagüez to the east, up into the more rural, mountainous eastern portion of
the Municipality and beyond.
In downtown Mayagüez, the city street system roughly follows a grid pattern. The main thoroughfares of
the grid are Candelaria Street, running from west to east, and Méndez Vigo Street, running parallel in the
opposite direction (from east to west). Slightly west of the city center, the Ramón Emeterio Betances
Avenue traverses the city north to south. Towards the north, Betances Avenue makes a sharp turn
towards the northwest, and becomes the Alfonso Valdés Cobián Boulevard, which borders the southern
edge of the UPR Mayagüez campus.
4.6.2
Future Infrastructure Improvements
In terms of roadway infrastructure improvements, the Puerto Rico Long-Range Multimodal Transportation
Plan 2040 (approved in November 2013) includes a list of projects from the PRHTA. Most of these relate
to the PR-2 expressway conversion plan, elements of the inter-related Dunscombe Avenue and East
Connector plans, and the West Bypass, a project consisting of improvements to PR-102 and PR-64,
largely implemented in conjunction with the 2010 Centro-American Games. A list of the projects is
provided in the MTS Existing and Future No-Build Transportation Facilities Report (January 2015).
4.6.3
Traffic
This section discusses traffic analyses for Existing and Future (defined as Year 2018) No-Build conditions
for the North-South (PR-2 and PR-2R) and East-West (Méndez Vigo/Candelaria Streets) Corridors. A
traffic model was developed for assessing existing intersection delay, vehicle queuing, and level of
service (LOS). This model was then modified to calculate delay queuing and LOS for 2018 Future NoBuild Conditions. Future No-Build conditions are an approximation of what traffic conditions would be like
when proposed BRT service resulting from the MTS might begin operating. Additional approach and
methodology information and detailed tables of results can be found in the MTS Existing and Future NoBuild Transportation Facilities Report (January 2015).
Larger increases in delay are experienced where intersections are at or over capacity. Vehicle delay at
most of the study intersections would increase between Existing and Future No-Build conditions as a
result of traffic volume increases. LOS at most study intersections would remain in the same range for
Existing and Future No-Build conditions: LOS A-D (acceptable conditions); LOS E or F (deficient
conditions).
In concert with the level of service analysis, the length of the backup of vehicles (queue length) on
approaches to the study intersections was also analyzed. Larger increases in queue length are
experienced where intersections are at capacity or over capacity. Vehicle queue lengths at study
intersection approaches would increase between Existing and Future No-Build conditions as a result of
traffic volume increases. At study intersections below capacity, queue lengths would generally increase
by 200 feet or less between Existing and Future No-Build conditions. Queue lengths at intersections over
capacity would generally increase in the range of 200 to 300 feet. Intersections where queue lengths
would extend back to the adjacent intersection in the Future No-Build condition were also identified.
23
4.6.3.1
North-South Corridor (PR-2)
PR-2 in the North-South Corridor includes 20 signalized intersections over its seven mile (11.3 kilometers)
length. Two additional signalized intersections, Intersections 10 and 11, are part of the North-South
corridor, but are at-grade, level with the East-West Corridor below the viaduct. Based on the available
2010 data provided by PRHTA, the AM peak hour occurs between 7:15-8:15 AM with an average traffic
volume of 5,303 vehicles per hour (vph) through each of the twenty intersections in the corridor. The PM
peak hour of traffic occurs between 4:00-5:00 PM with an average traffic volume of 5,404 vph per
intersection.
Table 1 shows the Existing average daily traffic (ADT) at the study corridor PR-2 intersections, divided
into four segments. The ADT of the secondary roads is also provided in the same table. Percent of
heavy vehicles (HV%) on PR-2 in different areas of the North-South Corridor was computed, which was
then averaged for use in the traffic network model. The average HV% was four percent during the AM
peak hour of traffic and three percent for the PM peak hour. Overall, PR-2 in the North-South Corridor
carries an ADT of 45,946 vehicles per day (vpd), while the section of PR-2 between Dunscombe Avenue
and PR-114 exhibited the highest ADT of 57,329 vpd.
Table 1: Average Daily Traffic and Heavy Vehicle Percent, PR-2
Primary Road
Intersection
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Average
ADT
Segment
ADT
(vpd)
Secondary Road
HV%
Southbound
Northbound
(%)
(%)
AM
PM
AM
PM
PR-2
37,709
3.39
2.98
6.00
2.96
PR-2
42,006
3.12
3.49
4.29
3.03
PR-2
57,329
3.89
2.45
2.61
2.78
PR-2
46,740
4.20
2.60
2.71
2.81
PR-2
45,946
3.65
3.02
3.84
2.89
Segment
ADT (vpd)
PR-64
Western Plaza
Algarrobo Avenue
Los Maestros
PR-102
PR-3108
Chardon Street
PR-2R
San Juan Street
Nenadich Street
Dunscombe Avenue
Cabassa Street
Opalo Street
Centro Medico
Carolina Street
PR-114
Los Velez Street
Mayagüez Mall North
Mayagüez Mall
South
PR-343
5,908
7,763
6,598
1,913
10,630
5,038
3,526
6,013
24,274
10,182
16,184
2,234
2,624
7,415
7,267
15,315
6,788
12,232
-----
-----
4,922
12,137
Under Existing conditions during the AM peak period, eight of the 22 intersections (36% of the
intersections), operate at LOS F (breakdown conditions). In addition, four intersections (18%) operate at
capacity with LOS E. In terms of overall delay, results show that motorists would have to wait between 55
and 265 seconds/vehicle at each of 12 of the 22 intersections (55%) on PR-2 in the North-South Corridor
during the AM peak hour.
24
Under Existing conditions during the PM peak period, 10 of the 22 intersections (45%) operate at LOS F
and two operate at LOS E. Under Future No-Build conditions, the number of LOS F and LOS E
intersections both increase. Figure 14 shows the change in LOS between Existing conditions and Future
No-Build conditions for the AM and PM peak hours.
Figure 14: Existing and Future No-Build LOS for AM and PM Peak Hours, PR-2
Number of Intersections
12
10
Existing AM Peak Hour
8
6
2018 No-Build AM Peak
Hour
4
Existing PM Peak Hour
2
2018 No-Build PM Peak
Hour
0
A
B
C
D
E
F
Level of Service
For Future No-Build conditions, 11 intersections would have queue lengths extending back to the next
adjacent intersection in both the AM and PM peak periods along PR-2 in the North-South Corridor.
4.6.3.2
North-South Corridor (PR-2R)
PR-2R in the North-South Corridor is approximately 2.3 miles (3.7 kilometers) in length. Traffic counts
were collected at 12 intersections along this route. Table 2 shows the ADT at the intersections evaluated
along PR-2R. Overall, this corridor carries an ADT of 10,016 vpd. However, there are segments of the
corridor that may experience higher traffic volume than others based on local traffic behavior. For
example, Intersections 56 and 57 are located in a segment of PR-2R that functions as a major arterial,
with an average ADT of 17,290 vpd. Meanwhile, Intersections 58, 32 and 46, in the Mayagüez downtown
core area, exhibit a much lower average ADT of 5,947 vpd. A third segment of PR-2R, between
Intersections 59, 61, 62, and 63, presents an average ADT of 9,268 vpd. These variations in ADT result
from particular characteristics of each segment and local traffic behavior, such as the location of
important trip generators.
25
Table 2: Average Daily Traffic and Heavy Vehicle Percent, PR-2R
Primary Road
Intersection
Number
56
57
58
32
46
59
61
62
63
31
47
60
Average ADT
Segment
PR-2R
PR-65
Betances Street (PR-2R)
Méndez Vigo Street
Candelaria Street
Muñoz Rivera Street
ADT
(vpd)
19,290
15,940
4,675
6,485
6,680
7,405
6,940
9,290
13,435
3,505
4,335
2,910
7,844
PR-2R ADT
Cluster
Average (vpd)
17,615
5,947
9,268
-----
Secondary Road
Segment
San Juan Street
PR-2R
De Diego Street
Méndez Vigo Street
Candelaria Street
Muñoz Rivera Street
San Vicente Street
Nenadich Street
Cabassa Street
Basora Street
Basora Street
Basora Street
10,016
ADT
(vpd)
15,280
9,480
2,475
1,784
4,360
2,415
1,170
3,875
8,170
1,340
940
1,035
1,105
Under Existing conditions during the AM peak hour, three intersections operate near capacity (LOS D) or
worse (LOS E and F). Under Existing conditions during the PM peak hour, one intersection operates at
LOS D and one at LOS F.
The LOS would worsen slightly in the Future No-Build condition. Figure 15 shows the change in LOS
between Existing conditions and Future No-Build conditions for the AM and PM peak hours.
No study intersections would have vehicle queue lengths that extend back to the next adjacent
intersection during the AM and PM peak hours in the Future No-Build condition.
Figure 15: Existing and Future No-Build LOS for AM and PM Peak Hours, PR-2R
5.0
4.0
3.0
Hour
2.0
1.0
0.0
A
B
C
D
E
F
Hour
Level of Service
4.6.3.3
East-West Corridor
The East-West Corridor, centered on Méndez Vigo Street (PR-106) and Candelaria Street (PR-105),
contains 35 intersections along its length of approximately 1.3 miles (2.1 kilometers). Nine of these
intersections were evaluated based on data from on-site traffic counts. Of these nine intersections, four
are controlled by traffic signals, while five are controlled by typical two-way stop control.
26
Table 3 shows the ADT at the intersections evaluated along the one-way pair in the East-West Corridor.
Overall, the East-West Corridor carries an ADT of about 3,380 vpd through Méndez Vigo Street
(westbound) and 4,001 vpd through Candelaria Street (eastbound). However, certain segments of the
corridor experience higher traffic volumes than others, based on local traffic behavior.
Table 3: Average Daily Traffic and Heavy Vehicle Percent, East-West Corridor
Intersection
Number
31
32
37
370
380
38
11 & 111
46
47
Average ADT
Primary Road
Segment
Méndez Vigo Street
Betances Street
Comercio Street
PR-102
PR-102
Comercio Street
Candelaria Street
Betances Street
Candelaria Street
Secondary Road
ADT (vpd)
Segment
ADT (vpd)
3,505
6,485
8,145
14,585
15,075
10,140
7,473
6,680
4,335
3,380
Basora Street
Méndez Vigo Street
Méndez Vigo Street
Aduana Street
Candelaria Street
Candelaria Street
Frontage PR-2 SB & NB
Candelaria Street
Basora Street
1,340
1,784
4,850
2,805
2,090
1,745
6,503
4,360
940
4,001
Under Existing conditions during both the AM and PM peak hours, the performance of the entire corridor
fluctuates between LOS A and LOS B, except for Intersection 11, which operates at LOS E. Intersections
11 and 111 represent one compound intersection under the PR-2 viaduct, which has the highest traffic
interaction of the East-West Corridor. Consequently, significant control delays occur at this location during
both AM and PM peak hours.
While analysis of Existing LOS shows reasonable operations at intersections in the East-West Corridor,
overall operating speed along the corridor is quite slow, in particular at Intersections 32 and 46 in the
downtown core. The slow operating speeds result from a number of issues, including two adjacent
schools with substantial drop-off/pick-up activity, large amounts of illegal parking, and trucks loading and
unloading. While overall LOS remains acceptable for these two intersections, there are times within the
peak hours (and off-peak times) when delay, and consequently LOS, can be much worse due to
congestion related to these issues.
Under Future No-Build conditions, two intersections would degrade to LOS D in the AM peak hour and
one intersection would degrade to LOS C in the PM peak hour. Figure 16 shows the change in LOS
between Existing conditions and Future No-Build conditions for the AM and PM peak hours. Due to
increased vehicular volumes under Future No-Build conditions, travel speed would be expected to
diminish further.
In the Future No-Build condition, the backup for the eastbound approach at Intersection 38 would extend
back to the next upstream intersection during the AM peak hour. No study intersections would have
queues that extend back to adjacent intersections for the Future No-Build PM peak hour.
27
Figure 16: Existing and Future No-Build LOS for AM and PM Peak Hours, East-West Corridor
7
6
5
4
3
Hour
2
1
0
A
B
C
D
E
F
Hour
Level of Service
4.6.4
Transit Services
There are currently three distinct transit services operated in the Mayagüez area: the TIM public bus
service, the “Trolley Colegial” services connecting the UPR Mayagüez campus with surrounding areas,
and the various público services connecting Mayagüez with parts of the surrounding area.
4.6.4.1
Transporte Integrado de Mayagüez System
The TIM system is a fare-free public bus service operating four routes (see Figure 17), using rubber-tired
trolley vehicles (see Figure 18), centered on downtown Mayagüez:
Route 1 – Downtown- UPR loop service
Route 2 – Downtown-Government office center loop service
Route 3 – Downtown-PR-2 connector (via Méndez Vigo/Candelaria one-way pair) loop service
Route 4 – Downtown-PR-102 northern waterfront corridor service (via the Méndez
Vigo/Candelaria one-way pair)
Span of Service – The span of service for three of the TIM bus routes – Route 1, Route 2, and Route 3 –
is 7:00 AM to 6:30 PM Monday through Friday. Span of service on Route 4 (El Maní) is Monday through
Friday 7:00 AM to 10:30 AM and 2:30 PM to 6 PM. There is currently no TIM service on Saturday or
Sunday.
Frequency of Service – Frequency of service for the TIM routes is:
Route 1 – Approximately every 20 to 34 minutes
Route 2 – Approximately every 25 minutes
Ridership – Daily boardings have been estimated for three TIM bus routes:
Route 1 – Approximately 1,076 daily boardings
Route 2 – Approximately 710 daily boardings
Route 3 – Approximately 328 daily boardings
Route 4 – No data available
28
Boarding and alighting information at the stop level was not available.
Figure 17: TIM Downtown Routes
Figure 18: Photo of TIM Vehicle
Future Plans – Proposed service additions/modifications to the TIM system include (see Figure 19):
A new southern waterfront route operating between downtown, using Méndez Vigo/Candelaria,
and PR-102 to the south as far as the Guanajibo Homes neighborhood.
Four rural routes (RR) into the mountainous areas east of the town center:
o RR-108 as far as the PR-108 intersection with PR-352/PR-354
29
o
o
o
RR-106 as far as the municipal border with Las Marías
RR-105 to Montoso
RR-348 to the vicinity of PR-3349
Figure 19: Future TIM Routes
4.6.4.2
University Trolley System
UPR Mayagüez operates the Trolley Colegial system within the UPR campus and into surrounding areas.
Service, using passenger vans of different sizes, is fare-free and available to the UPR community.
Interviews with staff indicated that UPR started to provide the trolley service several years ago in order to
reduce the need to provide parking on campus and to reduce congestion. Students who own cars while
living in surrounding neighborhoods are encouraged to use the Trolley Colegial system and leave their
cars at home.
Service is provided on five trolley routes (see Figure 20):
Route 1 (Palacio) – Operates between a park-and-ride facility at the nearby sports stadium and
the campus library
Route 2 (Zoológico) – Operates between the parking facility at the Mayagüez Zoo and the UPR
campus
Route 3 (Interno) – Operates on a loop essentially within the UPR campus
Route 4 (Terrace) – Connects the UPR campus with the Mayagüez Terrace residential area
Route 5 (Darlington) – Connects the UPR campus with the Darlington residential area of
Mayagüez
30
Span of Service – The span of service for all Trolley Colegial routes is 7:00 AM to 9:30 PM Monday to
Friday. There is no Trolley Colegial service on Saturday or Sunday.
Frequency of Service and Ridership – No data were available regarding either frequency of service or
ridership on any Trolley Colegial transit routes, although interviews with staff indicated that approximately
1,000 to 1,200 UPR students use the Trolley Colegial system on a regular basis. However, it should be
noted that due to budgetary restrictions, Trolley Colegial vehicles are not used exclusively for this service,
but also have other transportation responsibilities. As a result, reliability of Trolley Colegial service is
reduced.
Future Plans – Interviews with staff indicated that there were no documented plans to modify the Trolley
Colegial system in the near future.
4.6.4.3
Local and Long-Distance Público Service
In addition to these two services, a number of público routes also operate in and around the Municipality.
Two routes extend between downtown Mayagüez to the barrios (large neighborhoods) to the east and
southeast. However, the most well used público service operates without a fixed schedule, in a partially
on-demand/curb-to-curb fashion within certain zones/subareas of the downtown and its surroundings.
Additionally, long-distance público routes provide service to San Juan, Ponce, and other destinations
outside the Municipality. Público service operates under permit issued by the PRHTA. Typically, this
service is provided using passenger vans of different sizes, although automobiles are sometimes used as
well. There was very limited information available regarding span of service, frequency, and ridership of
these services.
31
Figure 20: UPR Mayagüez Trolley Colegial Transit Routes
32
5.
Development of Conceptual Alternatives (Long List)
This section describes the development of conceptual alternatives based on the Goals and Objectives
and Purpose and Need Statement of the MTS.
5.1
Assumptions
Physical alternatives are presented separately for the North-South and East-West Corridors. Where the
corridors cross, special attention has been paid to facilities required for smooth transfer of passengers
between corridors. Operations alternatives are presented in a subsequent section. A number of
assumptions have been made in order to facilitate the initial conceptualization of alternatives in both
corridors:
In general, BRT stops at signalized intersections would occur on the “far-side” (after the traffic
signal), in order to minimize route-running time for BRT service, unless some specific physical
constraint precludes that option at a particular location. Stop locations not at signalized
intersections would vary depending on specific conditions in the vicinity of each stop.
Queue jumps, also referred to as queue bypass lanes, would be used to facilitate the efficient and
speedy movement of transit vehicles. A queue jump is a separate lane, usually dedicated for use
by transit vehicles, to bypass the general traffic vehicle queue at a signalized intersection, thereby
increasing average travel speed for transit service. A typical design would allow the use of the
shoulder lane as it approaches a traffic signal by transit vehicles only. In certain instances, where
this lane is already used for right-turning general traffic vehicles, this use would continue, under
the assumption that these vehicles would quickly vacate the lane without significantly delaying
transit service.
Specific conditions affect individual locations along each corridor. For instance, in the NorthSouth Corridor, a right-hand shoulder lane does not presently exist on northbound PR-2 just
south of Nenadich Street. However, the FDR School, sited immediately adjacent to the east side
of PR-2, would preclude the creation of a shoulder lane in this area. As a result, an exclusive
lane for transit would not be available at this location.
As presented in the Purpose and Need Statement, an important purpose of the MTS is to improve the link
between “established and emerging activity centers along the north-south PR-2 corridor with existing and
emerging activity centers in the downtown area.” PR-2R alternatives accomplish this purpose inherently,
by traversing directly through the downtown core of the Municipality. Any passenger transfers between
corridors would occur in the vicinity of the Plaza Colón, where transfers occur today.
With PR-2 alternatives, achieving this purpose requires the development of an efficient, effective transfer
between north-south BRT service and all transit service along the East-West Corridor. The most
advantageous and logical location for this transfer to occur is in the immediate vicinity of the viaduct at the
intersections of Méndez Vigo and Candelaria Streets and the at-grade north-south PR-2 frontage roads.
All PR-2 alternatives are assumed to exit the highway section at the viaduct over Méndez Vigo and
Candelaria Streets, operate along the frontage roads at grade and then return to the PR-2 mainline.
Dedicated BRT running ways would be created in this at-grade section, by using either the outside lanes
or inside lanes of the frontage roads in both directions, depending on the specific location and design of
the transfer facility.
5.2
Physical Alternatives
Physical alternatives are described by corridor in this section.
33
5.2.1
In general, descriptions of alternatives presented proceed from north to south. The northern end of the
corridor is assumed to be in the vicinity of the Western Plaza shopping center. While Mayagüez Airport
could be considered a possible northern terminus of BRT service, at present, the level of activity at the
airport does not justify the extension of service that far. The southern end of the corridor is assumed to
be in the vicinity of Mayagüez Mall.
Park-and-ride facilities would be accommodated near both the northern and southern ends of the planned
BRT service. While specific locations of park-and-ride lots have not been finalized at this point, potential
locations proximate to the northern and southern termini have been identified. Ideally, these facilities
would be incorporated into terminal station design both to bolster system ridership and to maximize the
effectiveness of the BRT system in reducing vehicular travel further into the downtown core of the
Municipality.
The existing PR-2/PR-2R (La Vita) intersection north of downtown does not currently include shoulder
lanes. For all North-South Corridor alternatives, it is assumed that the future reconstruction of this
intersection would incorporate outside shoulder/dedicated transit lanes. Because the main entrance to
the UPR Mayagüez campus is adjacent to this intersection, it would be important to maintain stops in both
directions at this location. Therefore, assuming the redesign of this intersection includes gradeseparation, it would be preferable to include at-grade frontage roads to facilitate transit service in this
area, similar to the situation at the existing viaduct over Méndez Vigo and Candelaria Streets. However,
based on input from PRHTA, it appears that this intersection will not be reconstructed prior to 2018.
Therefore, all alternatives for the North-South Corridor have been developed based on the assumption
that existing conditions will remain at this intersection.
For all alternatives using PR-2R, it is assumed necessary to create a one-way pair using a parallel
roadway east of PR-2R to facilitate northbound BRT service, for at least a portion of this alignment. In
certain areas, for instance in the vicinity of the Plaza downtown, the northbound roadway would function
as a transit-only running way (see Figure 21). Creation of this one-way pair would necessitate loss of
curbside parking on one or both sides of the roadway, depending on location.
34
Figure 21: Downtown Mayagüez Alternative Routing
35
Table 4 lists alternatives beginning with four that use PR-2 exclusively, the entire length of the NorthSouth Corridor (NS-1 to NS-4; see Figure 22). The next four alternatives use PR-2 for the northern and
southern sections and PR-2R in the central section (NS-5 to NS-8; see Figure 23). The final four use
both PR-2 and PR-2R for the central section and PR-2 for the northern and southern sections (NS-9 to
NS-12; see Figure 24).
Table 4: Initial List of Physical Alternatives (North-South Corridor)
Alternative
Alignment
NS-1
PR-2
NS-2
PR-2
NS-3
PR-2
NS-4
NS-5
NS-6
NS-7
NS-8
PR-2
PR-2 to PR-2R
PR-2
PR-2 to PR-2R
PR-2
PR-2 to PR-2R
PR-2
PR-2 to PR-2R
PR-2
to
to
to
to
NS-9
PR-2 and PR-2R
NS-10
PR-2 and PR-2R
NS-11
PR-2 and PR-2R
NS-12
PR-2 and PR-2R
Details
Use of right shoulder as preferential treatment/dedicated lane only at queue jumps and at approaches to
stops.
Use of right shoulder as preferential treatment/dedicated lane to the extent possible; may require
construction of new shoulder lane for breakdowns.
Temporal use of right shoulder as preferential treatment/dedicated lane to the extent possible.
Construction of new running way along outside of PR-2 roadway; on surface (not on viaduct) at junction
with East-West Corridor.
Use of right shoulder (on PR-2)/right curb-lane (on PR-2R) as preferential treatment/dedicated lane only
at queue jumps and at approaches to stops.
Use of right shoulder (on PR-2)/right curb-lane (on PR-2R) as preferential treatment/dedicated lane to
the extent possible; may require construction of new shoulder lane on PR-2 for breakdowns.
Temporal use of right shoulder (on PR-2)/right curb-lane (on PR-2R) as preferential treatment/dedicated
lane to the extent possible.
Construction of new running way along outside of PR-2 roadway and use of right curb-lane as dedicated
lane on PR-2R.
Use of right shoulder (on PR-2)/right curb-lane (on PR-2R) as preferential treatment/dedicated lane only
at queue jumps and at approaches to stops.
Use of right shoulder (on PR-2)/right curb-lane (on PR-2R) to the extent possible; may require
construction of new shoulder lane on PR-2 for breakdowns.
Temporal use of right shoulder (on PR-2)/right curb-lane (on PR-2R) to the extent possible.
Construction of new running way along outside of PR-2 roadway; on surface (not on viaduct) at junction
with East-West Corridor and use of right curb-lane as dedicated lane on PR-2R.
36
Figure 22: Map of Alternative Alignments NS-1 – NS-4
37
38
39
5.2.2
East-West Corridor
In general, descriptions of alternatives presented will proceed from west to east (see Figures 25 and 26).
The western end of the corridor lies in the vicinity of the Marina District and Litoral Park. The eastern end
of the corridor is at Oriente Street, close to the Balboa Bridge over the Yagüez River. Candelaria Street
runs one-way west to east through the corridor. Méndez Vigo Street runs one-way east to west.
While far-side stops are generally preferred, in order to improve transit travel speeds, stop locations along
the East-West Corridor would vary depending on specific conditions in the vicinity of each stop, given the
typically more dense urban setting along this corridor than along the North-South Corridor.
Given the existing development and roadway configuration in the vicinity of Litoral Park, the specific
routing at the western end of the East-West Corridor was not specified. Each of these route options
affects the specific location of the Litoral Park stop.
Méndez Vigo and Candelaria Streets both cross at grade underneath the PR-2 viaduct structure. All PR2 alternatives are assumed to exit the highway section at this viaduct, run along the frontage roads at
grade and then return to the PR-2 mainline. While a specific site has not been selected for the required
transfer facility, potential locations have been identified in this immediate vicinity.
Curbside parking along the right side of the road would have to be eliminated the entire length of both
Candelaria and Méndez Vigo Streets. Depending on the width of the roadway, curbside parking could be
permanently affected on both sides of the roadway in certain locations including transit stops.
Table 5 lists six potential physical alternatives for the East-West Corridor. In each case, it is assumed
that all types of transit service in this corridor would be allowed to use these alternatives.
Table 5: Initial List of Physical Alternatives (East-West Corridor)
Alternative
EW-1
Details
Use of right curb-lane as dedicated lane in both directions.
EW-2
Temporal use of right curb lane as dedicated lane in both directions.
EW-3
Use of queue jumps at certain locations in both directions.
EW-4
From PR-2 east to Oriente Street, use of right curb lane as dedicated lane in both directions.
EW-5
From PR-2 east to Oriente Street, temporal use of right curb lane as dedicated lane in both directions.
EW-6
From PR-2 east to Oriente Street, use of queue jumps at certain locations in both directions.
40
Figure 25: Map of Alternative Alignments EW-1 – EW-3
41
Figure 26: Map of Alternative Alignments EW-4 – EW-6
42
5.3
Service Alternatives
Proposed service alternatives shown in Table 6 are consistent with the physical alternatives presented in
Section 5.2 of this report (see Appendix C for maps showing each service option). Depending on the BRT
service option(s) ultimately selected, potential modifications to the existing underlying local bus services
must be considered. For example, should Option 8 be implemented, it would likely replace TIM Route 3.
Table 6: Service Options
Service
Option
Number
Service Route(s)
1
PR-2 Service
2
3
4
5
Service Characteristics
Service every 12 minutes during weekday peak periods and every 15 minutes at other times.
PR-2 to PR-2R to PR- Service every 12 minutes during weekday peak periods and every 15 minutes at other times.
2 Service
Mixture of Options 1
or 2
Options 1 and 2
Combined
Options 1 and 2
Combined
Off-peak service every 15 minutes solely via PR-2 for a 12 hour span of service (9:00 AM to 3:30 PM
and 6:30 PM to 10:00 PM) on weekdays. During weekday peak periods (6:00 AM to 9:00 AM and
3:30 PM to 6:30 PM), service every 12 minutes via PR-2R.**
On weekends, service every 15 minutes solely via PR-2.
Service every 12 minutes via PR-2 during weekday peak periods and every 15 minutes at other
times. Service every 12 minutes via PR-2R** during weekday peak periods and every 15 minutes at
other times.
As a result, along PR-2 segments of this alternative, service would be every six minutes during
weekday peak hours and every 7.5 minutes at other times.
Service every 24 minutes via PR-2 during weekday peak periods and every 30 minutes at other
times. Service every 24 minutes via PR-2R** during weekday peak periods and 30 minutes at other
times.
As a result, along PR-2 segments of this alternative, service would be every 12 minutes during
weekday peak hours and every 15 minutes at other times.
From the northern terminal via PR-2 and then east along the East-West Corridor, service every 12
minutes during weekday peak periods and every 15 minutes at other times.
6
Separate North and
South Services to
Downtown
From the southern terminal via PR-2 and then east along the East-West Corridor, service every 12
minutes during weekday peak periods and every 15 minutes at other times.
As a result, service from PR-2 east along the East-West Corridor would be every six minutes during
weekday peak periods and every 7.5 minutes at other times.
7
Instead of separate services to/from the north and south, “through” service would operate along PRCombined North and 2, then east along the East-West Corridor. Service every 12 minutes during weekday peak periods
South Services to
and every 15 minutes at other times.
Downtown
8
Service the entire length of the East-West Corridor every 12 minutes during weekday peak periods
Stand-Alone Eastand every 15 minutes at other times.
West Corridor Service
** In this table, service via PR-2R always implies service along the entire PR-2 to PR-2R to PR-2
alignment.
5.4
BRT Stops
This section describes an initial list of potential bus stops along the corridors. It has been assumed that
the exact location of proposed stops and associated passenger amenities (shelters, etc.) would be
subject to closer examination of the specific conditions at each location.
43
5.4.1
This initial list of potential bus stops along the North-South Corridor is presented from north to south (see
Figure 27). Potential stations/stops include:
Western Plaza – Serving a large shopping center (service would be coordinated with potential
park-and-ride facilities as well).
Algarrobo Avenue – Serving the Veterans’ Administration facility, as well as a residential area.
Mar y Sol (in the vicinity of the PR-2/PR-102 intersection) – Serving nearby residential areas, as
well as providing connections for employees (and possibly some patrons) of the Mayagüez
Resort and Casino.
Mayagüez Terrace – Serving the adjacent residential community and University Plaza retail
center.
For alternatives remaining on PR-2, additional stations/stops would include:
Colegio – Serving the Mayagüez Town Center retail development, as well as providing access to
the UPR Mayagüez campus and residential areas to the west.
Suau Park (at Méndez Vigo Street/Candelaria Street) – Serving existing residential and
commercial uses, as well as potential transit-oriented development in this area, along with
connections to east-west transit routes.
Nenadich Street (at PR-2) – Serving a substantial residential community and certain civic
facilities.
Dunscombe Avenue (PR-63) – Serving the sports complex, as well as a substantial residential
community.
For alternatives using PR-2R, additional stations/stops would include:
Colegio – Serving the Mayagüez Town Center retail development, as well as providing access to
the UPR Mayagüez campus and residential areas to the west.
Barcelona (PR-2R/PR-65/Basora Street) – Serving the UPR Mayagüez campus, nearby
residential and commercial uses, and connections to Barcelona terminal.
Betances Street/Peral Street (at Méndez Vigo Street/Candelaria Street) – Providing potential
connections to east-west routes and serving central Mayagüez.
Nenadich Street (at Betances Street) – Serving the southern portion of downtown Mayagüez, as
well as the Escuela de Bellas Artes.
Cabassa Avenue (near the old cemetery entrance) – Serving the residential and commercial area
south of downtown Mayagüez.
Judicial Center (Cabassa Avenue near PR-2) – Serving the judicial complex and any planned
development nearby.
44
Figure 27: BRT Stations/Stops
45
Rejoining PR-2, additional stations/stops would include:
Judicial Center (near the Zafiro Street/Opalo Street intersection) – Serving a residential
community, as well as some of the ancillary medical facilities near the Medical Center.
Medical Center – Serving the adjacent Mayagüez Medical Center and nearby office development.
Sabalos (near Carolina Street) – Serving nearby residential communities, as well as commercial
development.
Corazones Avenue – Serving the Department of Motor Vehicles (at PR-114), as well as nearby
commercial development.
Sultana (near Los Velez Street) – Serving nearby residential communities and the Guanajibo
Industrial Park, as well as other adjacent commercial facilities.
Mayagüez Mall – Serving the large regional shopping center (service would be coordinated with
potential park-and-ride facilities as well) and nearby commercial and residential uses.
5.4.2
East-West Corridor
This initial list of potential bus stops along the East-West Corridor is presented from west to east (see
Figure 27). Potential stations/stops for the proposed service along the East-West Corridor include:
Litoral Park (exact location depends on chosen turnaround route) – Serving the waterfront area.
San Juan Street – Serving the Marina District and nearby residential neighborhoods.
Suau Park – Serving as the transfer point with any potential north-south services along PR 2.
Pilar Delfillo Street – Serving nearby commercial and institutional uses, as well as nearby
residential neighborhoods at the west end of downtown.
Betances Street/Peral Street (at Plaza Colón) – Serving downtown Mayagüez and providing for
transfer opportunities with TIM service and any north-south service using PR-2R.
Martínez Nadal Street – Serving nearby commercial and institutional uses, as well as surrounding
residential neighborhoods.
Oriente Street – Serving the eastern portion of central Mayagüez, including Balboa Terminal.
5.5
Summary of Initial Alternatives
In summary, a Long List of 47 alternatives has been identified for the MTS (see Table 7). This list
represents the recommended combination of the physical alternatives and service options described in
Sections 5.2 and 5.3 of this report. While the stations/stops presented in Section 5.4 add detail to the
understanding of alternatives, they are consistent between each group of alternatives and, as a result, do
not assist in differentiating between individual alternatives in the Long List.
46
Table 7: Long List of Alternatives Summary
6.
Screening Methodology
The conceptual alternatives provide a brainstorming opportunity to develop a “universe” of options with
the potential for responding to the goals and objectives established for the project. From this universe,
screening criteria are applied in order to eliminate concepts that either have fatal flaws or that ultimately
do not respond well, or not as well as other concepts, to project goals and objectives.
The MTS goals and objectives were translated into a set of evaluation criteria related to transit planning,
environmental concerns, and economics, specific to the two corridors under consideration in the AA. At
the conceptual stage, a limited number of criteria were used in the evaluation process, while for the
second evaluation, a fuller set of evaluation criteria were used.
47
6.1
Screening Criteria
Criteria serve as measures of effectiveness in assessing the responsiveness of each alternative to the
goals and objectives set forth in the MTS. Most of the criteria were quantitative qualities or attributes of
each alternative that could be measured and then compared. A number of the criteria, however, were
more qualitative in nature, looking at attributes of each alternative that could not easily be measured or for
which specific measurable data were not readily available.
6.1.1
Menu of Criteria (FTA Framework)
The menu of criteria proposed for use in screening of alternatives during this AA process is shown in
Table 8. These criteria were developed collaboratively with the MAM. These criteria incorporate the FTA
framework for evaluating and rating major transit capital investments (FTA Section 5309 New Starts
program). FTA released the report entitled New and Small Starts Evaluation and Rating Process Final
Policy Guidance in August 2013. New Starts projects are evaluated and rated according to criteria set
forth in this report. A discussion of specific FTA requirements in the screening process follows Table 8.
The statutory FTA project justification criteria and their associated measures include:
Mobility Improvements – Total number of linked trips using the project, with extra weight given
to trips made by transit dependent persons (estimated annual trips).
Environmental Benefits – Dollar value of anticipated direct and indirect benefits to human
health, safety, energy, and air quality, scaled by the cost of the project and computed based on
the change in VMT resulting from the implementation of the proposed project (as calculated from
estimates of change in automobile and transit VMT).
Congestion Relief – No measure has been defined yet by FTA; all projects will receive a
medium rating.
Economic Development – The extent to which a proposed project is likely to enhance
additional, transit supportive development in the future, based on a qualitative examination of
local plans and policies to support economic development proximate to the project.
Land Use – An examination of existing corridor and station area development; development
character; existing station area pedestrian facilities; existing corridor and station area parking
supply; and affordable housing in the corridor and station areas.
Cost-effectiveness – Annual capital and operating cost per trip on the project.
The statute also requires FTA to examine the following when evaluating and rating local financial
commitment:
Availability of reasonable contingency amounts.
Availability of stable and dependable capital and operating funding sources.
Availability of local resources to recapitalize, maintain, and operate the overall existing and
proposed public transportation system without requiring a reduction in existing services.
The statute requires FTA to give “comparable, but not necessarily equal” weight to their evaluation
criteria. In the Proposed Guidance issued, FTA proposed to give each of the project justification criteria
equal weight. Because of changes made by MAP-21, the final FTA rule does not address how FTA will
develop overall New Starts project ratings. Instead, FTA has indicated that this will be the subject of
future subsequent rulemaking. As an interim approach until that rulemaking process is complete, FTA
has proposed to give 50 percent weight to the summary project justification rating and 50 percent to the
summary local financial commitment rating to arrive at an overall rating. FTA also has proposed to
continue requiring at least a medium rating on both project justification and local financial commitment to
obtain a medium or better rating overall.
48
Table 8: Menu of Screening Criteria
(Shaded text in the table relates to FTA New Starts justification criteria and measures.)
Topic
First Level Evaluation Criteria
Second Level Evaluation Criteria
Mobility
Ridership estimate
Transit ridership
Access to activity Number of activity centers provided direct
Updated information on activity center access
centers
access
Land Use
Population, households, and employment in
Total and density of population, households,
transportation analysis zones (TAZs) along
and employment within ½ mile of proposed
alternative corridor
stations
Transfers
Estimated number of transfers required
Number of transfers required between
between downtown and important destinations downtown and important destinations
Opportunity to reconfigure existing system
and subsequent increase in system use
Environmental
Order of magnitude impacts for natural
Quantified impacts to natural resources and
benefits/impacts environmental resources, such as floodplain, other regulated resources
wetlands, and parklands (ranked High,
Medium, Low)
Neighborhood
Order of magnitude for neighborhood impacts, Quantified estimate of impacts to
impacts
such as number of houses acquired (ranked
neighborhoods and other community
High, Medium, Low)
resources
Commercial
Order of magnitude for commercial impacts
Quantified estimate of impacts to businesses
impacts
with a possible need to acquire businesses
(ranked High, Medium, Low)
Economic
Consistency with municipal and state plans
Consistency with municipal and state plans
development
Existence of adjacent transit-supportive land
Updated information on adjacent transituse
supportive land use
Potential for transit center development
Potential for transit center development
Order of magnitude estimate of redevelopment Ability to enable TOD
opportunities available (ranked High, Medium, Order of magnitude estimate of
redevelopment opportunities available (ranked
Low)
High, Medium, Low)
Capital investment supportive of
redevelopment in corridor
Right-of-way
Order of magnitude availability of publiclyOrder of magnitude availability of publiclyneeds
owned right-of-way (ranked High, Medium,
owned right-of-way (ranked High, Medium,
Low)
Low)
Estimate of right-of-way needs (square feet)
Engineering
Order of magnitude assessment of
Updated estimate of impact to on-street
feasibility
engineering feasibility, relative to other “long
parking (approximate number of spaces)
list” alternatives (ranked High, Medium, Low)
Order of magnitude impact to on-street parking
(ranked High, Medium, Low)
CostOrder of magnitude capital cost
Capital cost estimate
effectiveness
Operating cost estimate
Cost per rider
Congestion relief Order of magnitude estimate of impacts to
Updated information on vehicular capacity
vehicular capacity, i.e., lane reductions and
Transit VMT
increased wait time at signals
Travel time
Estimate of average operating speed of
Average operating speed of service
service
Average vehicular travel time savings
6.1.2
Selection of Screening Criteria
The criteria shown in Table 8 represent a “menu” of potential criteria for use in the first and second
screening processes. Following the development of the long list of alternatives, a subset of these criteria
was selected from the middle column in Table 8 for use in the first screening process. After the remaining
alternatives were further developed, another subset of criteria, this time from the right-hand column of
Table 8, were selected for the second screening process.
49
In each of the two screening processes, specific criteria were selected from the menu based on the need
for conducting a fair and balanced comparison of all alternatives under consideration at each stage of the
MTS. Specific criteria were selected depending on data availability and shared characteristics of the
corridors under consideration. Enough criteria need to be selected to facilitate the screening process, but
not enough to become overly cumbersome, difficult to implement, or simply redundant.
In general, study corridors with dramatically different characteristics necessitate a different subset of
criteria. However, in the case of the MTS, significant portions of the built environment in both the NorthSouth and East-West Corridors lie within the same range of land uses. Therefore, particularly in the first
screening process, the same subset of criteria (shown in the middle column of Table 8) worked well for
both corridors.
7.
Screening of Initial Alternatives
This section summarizes the first screening process and details the specific reasons for eliminating
particular alternatives from further study.
7.1
Initial Screening Criteria
At the first level of screening, a limited number of criteria were used in the evaluation process, given the
very conceptual level of design for the alternatives under consideration. Table 9 indicates the subset of
criteria selected for use in the first screening process.
Table 9: Selected Initial Evaluation Criteria
Topic
Access to activity centers
Right-of-way needs
Engineering feasibility
Travel time
7.2
Evaluation Criteria
Number of activity centers provided direct access (ranked High [8-10], Medium [4-7],
Low [0-3])
Order of magnitude availability of publicly-owned right-of-way (ranked High, Medium,
Low)
Order of magnitude assessment of engineering feasibility, relative to other “long list”
alternatives (ranked High, Medium, Low)
Estimate of average operating speed of service
Screening Results
Table 10 shows the evaluation matrix completed for the screening of the Long List of alternatives. The
Long List Number, Physical Alternative Number (or Combination), and Service Option Number columns
are consistent with the numbering of alternatives established in the Task 5.0 – Development of Initial
Alternatives (Long List) report and shown in Table 7.
Ratings for each criterion were given in relative terms – high, medium, and low. For alternatives at the
conceptual stage of development, it is generally not possible in any case to assign specific numerical
values for any particular criterion. However, in the case of “access to activity centers,” a count of the
number of activity centers adjacent to each alternative was made, based on the key activity centers
identified in the MTS Existing and Future No-Build Transportation Facilities Report (January 2015). In this
case, access to 0-3 activity centers was considered Low, 4-7 was Medium, and 8-10 was High.
For each of the four criteria used in the screening process, a High rating indicated that the Purpose and
Need was clearly met, while a Medium rating indicated that the Purpose and Need had been met, but
perhaps not as clearly compared to other alternatives. A Low rating indicated essentially that the
Purpose and Need had not been met for that particular criterion. As a result, any alternative receiving a
Low rating for one or more criteria was eliminated from further consideration.
50
Table 10: Long List Evaluation Matrix
Did Not
Access
Physical
Service
Right-ofAverage Meet P&N Eliminate
Long
to
Engineering
Alternative Option
Way
Operating
GoalAlternative
List #
Activity
Feasibility
Number(s) Number
Availability
Speed
Objective
(X)
Centers
Number(s):
1
NS-1
1
High
High
High
Low
1a, 1e
X
2
NS-2
1
High
High
Medium
High
3
NS-3
1
High
High
Medium
Low
X
Low
1a, 1e
1e, 2a, 2d,
2e
1a, 1e
4
NS-4
1
High
Low
Low
High
5
NS-5
2
High
Medium
Low
6
NS-6
2
High
Medium
Low
Medium
2e, 2f
X
7
NS-7
2
High
Medium
Low
Low
X
High
Low
Low
High
3
High
Medium
Low
Low
1e, 2e, 2f
1e, 2a, 2d,
2e
1a, 1e
8
NS-8
2
9
NS-9
10
NS-10
3
High
Medium
Low
Medium
2e, 2f
X
11
NS-11
3
High
Medium
Low
Low
X
12
NS-12
3
High
Low
Low
Medium
1e, 2e, 2f
1e, 2a, 2d,
2e
13
NS-9
4
High
Medium
Low
Low
1a, 1e
X
14
NS-10
4
High
Medium
Low
Medium
2e, 2f
X
15
NS-11
4
High
Medium
Low
Low
X
16
NS-12
4
High
Low
Low
Medium
17
NS-9
5
High
Medium
Low
Low
1e, 2e, 2f
1e, 2a, 2d,
2e
1a, 1e
18
NS-10
5
High
Medium
Low
Medium
2e, 2f
X
19
NS-11
5
High
Medium
Low
Low
X
20
NS-12
5
High
Low
Low
Medium
21
NS-1 + EW-4
6
High
High
High
Low
1e, 2e, 2f
1e, 2a, 2d,
2e
1a, 1e
22
NS-2 + EW-4
6
High
High
High
Medium
23
NS-3 + EW-4
6
High
High
High
Low
X
24
NS-4 + EW-4
6
High
Low
Low
Medium
1a, 1e
1e, 2a, 2d,
2e
51
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Table 10: Long List Evaluation Matrix (cont…)
Access
Did Not Meet
Physical Service
Right-ofAverage
Eliminate
Long
to
Engineering
P&N GoalAlternative Option
Way
Operating
Alternative
List #
Activity
Feasibility
Objective
Number(s) Number
Availability
Speed
(X)
Centers
Number(s):
25
NS-1 + EW-5
6
High
High
High
Low
1a, 1e
X
26
NS-2 + EW-5
6
High
High
High
27
NS-3 + EW-5
6
High
High
High
Low
2e, 2f
X
Low
1a, 1e
X
28
NS-4 + EW-5
6
High
Low
Low
Low
1e, 2a, 2d, 2e
X
29
NS-1 + EW-6
6
High
High
High
Low
1a, 1e
X
30
NS-2 + EW-6
6
High
High
High
Low
2e, 2f
X
31
NS-3 + EW-6
6
High
High
High
Low
1a, 1e
X
32
NS-4 + EW-6
6
High
Low
Low
Low
1e, 2a, 2d, 2e
X
33
NS-1 + EW-4
7
High
High
High
Low
1a, 1e
X
34
NS-2 + EW-4
7
High
High
High
Medium
35
NS-3 + EW-4
7
High
High
High
Low
1a, 1e
X
36
NS-4 + EW-4
7
High
Low
Low
Medium
1e, 2a, 2d, 2e
X
37
NS-1 + EW-5
7
High
High
High
Low
1a, 1e
X
38
NS-2 + EW-5
7
High
High
High
Low
2e, 2f
X
39
NS-3 + EW-5
7
High
High
High
Low
1a, 1e
X
40
NS-4 + EW-5
7
High
Low
Low
Low
1e, 2a, 2d, 2e
X
41
NS-1 + EW-6
7
High
High
High
Low
1a, 1e
X
42
NS-2 + EW-6
7
High
High
High
Low
2e, 2f
X
43
NS-3 + EW-6
7
High
High
High
Low
1a, 1e
X
44
NS-4 + EW-6
7
High
Low
Low
Low
X
45
EW-1
8
Low
High
High
Medium
46
EW-2
8
Low
High
High
Low
47
EW-3
8
Low
High
High
Low
1e, 2a, 2d, 2e
1b, 1e, 1h, 1j,
3e
1b, 1e, 1h, 1j,
3e
1b, 1e, 1h, 1j,
3e
7.2.1
X
X
X
Initial Ridership Projections
This section discusses the ridership modeling methodology adopted for the alternatives analysis. The
alternatives were tested using the forecasting tool developed by FTA, entitled Simplified Trips On Project
Software (STOPS) with inputs from the Puerto Rico Travel Demand Model available for the region.
7.2.1.1
Methodology
For each corridor/alternative, the stations database was developed in STOPS format. The database
development included creating a shapefile with all the station locations, providing station attributes like
station type and association with corresponding General Transit Feed Specification (GTFS) stop IDs.
Among the stations, only Mayagüez Mall and Western Plaza had Park and Ride (PNR) access. These
stations were coded as at-grade stations with PNR access and the others as at-grade stations without
PNR access. Station types were defined so that stations with similar characteristics were grouped
52
together. Downtown stations were combined into one group, UPR stations into another group, and the
rest of the stations were grouped relative to the downtown locations.
7.2.1.2
Forecast Results
For each alternative, two scenarios were tested: Year 2010 (with 2010 land use assumptions) and Year
2040, the forecast year. Table 11 shows the total boardings by each alternative for the Build Years 2010
and 2040. For station-level boarding information, see the Ridership Forecasts and Transportation Impacts
Analysis Report (September 2015).
Table 11: Total Boardings by Preliminary Corridor Alternative
Build Year
2010
2040
Alternative
PR-2 Corridor Alternative
PR-2R Corridor Alternative
East West Corridor
Alternative
Separate North and South
Services to Downtown
Combined North-South
Service to Downtown
7.2.2
5,950
7,540
6,350
8,130
620
630
6,080
6,500
5,990
6,400
Remaining Alternatives
As a result of the screening process, Alternatives 2, 22, and 34 remained for further development. Details
on each of the remaining alternatives are as follows:
Alternative 2: BRT service along PR-2 using right shoulder as preferential treatment/dedicated
lane to the extent possible; 16 hour daily service span; 12 minute peak frequency, 15 minute offpeak frequency.
Alternative 22: Separate north and south BRT service along PR-2 using right shoulder as
preferential treatment/dedicated lane to the extent possible to downtown with east-west
connection using the right curb lane as a dedicated lane in both directions from PR-2 to Oriente
Street; 16 hour daily service span; 12 minute peak frequency, 15 minute off-peak frequency.
Alternative 34: Combined north and south BRT service along PR-2 using right shoulder as
preferential treatment/dedicated lane to the extent possible to downtown with east-west
connection using the right curb lane as a dedicated lane in both directions from PR-2 to Oriente
Street; 16 hour daily service span; 12 minute peak frequency, 15 minute off-peak frequency.
Table 12 summarizes the screening results of the remaining alternatives.
Table 12: Evaluation Results of Remaining Alternatives
Long List
Number
Physical
Alternative
Number(s)
Service
Option
Number
Access to
Activity
Centers
Right-of-Way
Availability
Engineering
Feasibility
Average
Operating
Speed
2
NS-2
1
High
High
Medium
High
22
NS-2 + EW-4
6
High
High
High
Medium
34
NS-2 + EW-4
7
High
High
High
Medium
53
8.
Remaining Alternatives (Short List)
The remaining alternatives are refined in the following section.
8.1
Description of Alternatives
Moving forward, the remaining Build Alternatives from the Long List were re-numbered during the
refinement process for ease of discussion. New Short List numbers were assigned as Alternatives: I (2), II
(22) and III (34). While Alternatives II and III provide BRT service in the North-South and East-West
Corridors, Alternative I relied on the TIM System to provide east-west service between PR-2 and the
downtown core. As a result, it was no longer possible to directly compare system-wide operations and
maintenance (O&M) costs between all three alternatives.
In order to facilitate a direct comparison of system-wide O&M costs, two versions of Alternative I were
created: Alternative IA remained essentially the same as the Alternative I from the Long List and
Alternative IB was modified to incorporate the same capital improvements already included in Alternatives
II and III. The newly defined Alternative IB would support increased service on TIM Route 3 in order to
coordinate with and adequately support BRT service on PR-2, and, therefore, facilitate a direct
comparison of O&M costs.
In addition to the remaining Build Alternatives, a Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Alternative
was also developed in order to facilitate a comparison of proposed service to a potentially upgraded
existing set of transit services.
8.1.1
Build Alternatives
The remaining Build Alternatives included: Alternative IA, IB, II, and III (see Table 13 and Figure 28).
Alternative IA focused capital improvements predominantly on PR-2 in the North-South Corridor, with
minor capital improvements in the East-West Corridor. For this alternative, BRT service would operate in
the North-South Corridor, with East-West Corridor service being provided by TIM Route 3 according to its
current service pattern.
Alternative IB also focused on PR-2 in the North-South Corridor. However, in the East-West Corridor,
capital improvements would be constructed consistent with Build Alternatives II and III. Under Alternative
IB, BRT service would operate in the North-South Corridor, with East-West Corridor service being
provided by TIM Route 3, enhanced to handle the passenger volumes and transfer requirements
associated with the new BRT service. For Alternatives II and III, BRT service would operate in both the
North-South and East-West Corridors. In other words, the only difference between Alternatives IB, II, and
III relate to transit system operations.
54
Table 13: Build Alternative Details
Alternative Alignment
Alignment and Service Details
On PR-2 in both directions, use of right shoulder as dedicated lane to the extent possible.
BRT service provided by one through-route. TIM service on the East-West corridor with
PR-2
limited physical improvements, such as traffic signal optimization and creation of queue
jump lanes at three intersections. See Figure 29.
PR-2
BRT service provided by one through-route. TIM service on the East-West Corridor with
use of right curb lane as a dedicated transit lane in both directions. See Figure 29.
PR-2 to
In the East-West Corridor, from PR-2 east to Oriente Street, use of right curb lane as
East-West
dedicated lane in both directions. BRT service provided by separate north and south
Corridor
routes. See Figure 30.
PR-2 to
In the East-West Corridor, from PR-2 east to Oriente Street, use of right curb lane as
East-West
dedicated lane in both directions. BRT service provided by one through-route. See
Corridor
Figure 31.
IA
IB
II
III
Figure 28: Schematic Depiction of Build Alternatives
T
Alternative IA
T
Alternative II
T
Alternative IB
T
Alternative III
55
Figure 29: Map of Alternatives IA and IB
56
Figure 30: Map of Alternative II
57
Figure 31: Map of Alternative III
58
8.1.2
TSM Alternative
Figure 32: Schematic Depiction of TSM Alternative
2 Público Routes
(mixed traffic)
Given that the MTS is looking at provision of
transit service between the downtown core and
both the vicinity of Western Plaza to the north
and the vicinity of Mayagüez Mall to the south,
the TSM Alternative would focus on provision
of structured, reliable público service in this
same area, as documented in thereport
entitled Task 5.0 – Transportation Systems
Management (TSM) Alternative Final Report
(May 2015). Two separate services would be
provided:
PR-2
Western Plaza
1) North between downtown and the
vicinity of Western Plaza using the
east-west one-way pair of streets and
PR-2.
2) South between downtown and the
vicinity of Mayagüez Mall using the
east-west one-way pair of streets and
PR-2 (see Figure 32).
T
8.2
PR-2
Given the modest nature of the improvements
associated with a TSM Alternative, it was
assumed that these two público services would
operate generally in mixed traffic.5 However, in
the East-West Corridor, limited physical
improvements would include traffic signal
optimization and creation of queue bypass
lanes at three signalized intersections
(Candelaria Street at Betances Street, Méndez
Vigo Street at Betances Street, and Méndez
Vigo Street at Martínez Nadal Street).
North
Candelaria and
Méndez Vigo
South
Mayagüez Mall
Design Refinements
The length of the service day, also called daily span of service, was initially set at 18 hours, typical for
many BRT systems. Based on local knowledge of activity patterns in the Municipality, the proposed daily
span of service was reduced to 14 hours a day (6:00 am to 8:00 pm), for the TSM and remaining four
Build Alternatives.
Initially, the concept design for the Build Alternatives included only single stops at both the northern and
southern ends of the proposed BRT service on PR-2, a southbound stop at the northern end, adjacent to
Western Plaza, and a northbound stop at the southern end, adjacent to Mayagüez Mall. As a result,
passengers riding northbound would be unable to get off on the east side of PR-2. Instead, they would
have to stay on the BRT vehicle while it turned around, and get off on the west side of PR-2. At the
southern end, passengers riding southbound would be unable to get off on the west side of PR-2.
Instead, they would have to stay on while the vehicle turned around, and then get off on the east side of
PR-2.To avoid this inconvenience, two additional stops have been added: a northbound stop at the
northern end of the PR-2 alignment and a southbound stop at the southern end of the PR-2 alignment.
5
It should be noted that, aside from these proposed North and South routes, the TSM Alternative does not include any other
changes to the existing público system in Mayagüez.
59
Other modifications along PR-2 included:
La Vita Intersection
o Given the complexity of the PR-2 intersection with PR-2R and San Juan Street, and
constraints on available right-of-way, a variety of options were investigated for provision
of BRT service and location of stops in this area. The final choice of alignment and stop
locations maintained the use of the northbound and southbound right shoulder lanes.
While this design would impact the triangle shaped island in the middle of the
intersection, the layout of PR-2 would be improved. Despite the existence of a fountain in
this area, the island is not considered a park, having been created without the approval of
the DTPW.
Southbound from Candelaria Street to Nenadich Street
o The proposed BRT lane would exit PR-2 southbound just before the viaduct over Méndez
Vigo and Candelaria Streets, crossing the East-West Corridor at grade, before continuing
south toward Nenadich Street. Due to the presence of an electrical substation
immediately adjacent to the PR-2 southbound right shoulder lane just north of the
Nenadich Street intersection, the initial concept design for the BRT lane in this area
followed the southbound frontage road on the west side of PR-2. In order to simplify the
concept design and ultimately BRT operations, the plan was revised by relocating the
substation, widening the PR-2 southbound on-ramp from the frontage road, and returning
the southbound BRT lane to the right shoulder along PR-2 in this area.
8.3
Conceptual Design
This section presents the remaining TSM and Build Alternatives, and basis of design (BOD) for the MTS.
Detailed Build Alternative conceptual design drawings are included in Appendix D and Appendix E.
8.3.1
Basis of Design
The BOD focuses on addressing the study goals and objectives, while drawing upon national and
international best practices in BRT, adjusted to local conditions in Mayagüez.
The Institute for Transportation and Development Policy6 (ITDP) developed a standard with the goal of
ensuring fast, comfortable, and high-capacity BRT services. Similarly, the American Public Transportation
Association7 (APTA) developed a recommended practice for design of BRT systems. The requirements of
both organizations cover the main elements of BRT:
Dedicated transit lanes separating BRT vehicles from general traffic.
Station stops set back from intersections, including weather protection, lighting, off-board fare
collection, platform level boarding, passenger information systems, comfortable seating, and
sidewalk access.
Transit vehicles with sufficient capacity and multiple doors to facilitate boarding and reduce
station dwell time.
Services high demand areas sufficiently and connects with other transportation modes, including
pedestrian, bicycle, and personal vehicle.
Intersection treatments, such as transit signal priority (TSP), reduce delay time for transit
vehicles.
Unique branding, including colors and a design, to distinguish the system, making it easily
identified by passengers.
6
7
https://www.itdp.org/library/standards-and-guides/the-bus-rapid-transit-standard/
http://www.apta.com/resources/standards/Documents/APTA-BTS-BRT-RP-002-10.pdf
60
While these standards establish “best practice” for BRT system development, it is not always possible or
practical to meet each and every design element. However, in order to qualify for FTA funding, there are
certain minimum design requirements that must be met. The following section describes the program
elements as required by FTA.
8.3.2
Program Elements
MTS program elements include BRT lanes, stations, sidewalks, utilities, parking, bicycles, signage and
pavement markings, and pedestrian crossings.
BRT Lanes
While over 90% of the proposed BRT routes would operate in dedicated lanes running adjacent
to general traffic lanes with no physical barrier, on limited segments of the North-South Corridor
BRT service would share a travel lane with general traffic due to space constraints. All BRT lane
paths account for turning radii of transit vehicles. The width of proposed North-South Corridor
BRT lanes is 12 feet for typical conditions and 11 feet for constrained conditions, as designated
by APTA. However, in retrofit situations, the dimensions are typically limited by existing adjacent
obstructions.8 East-West Corridor BRT lanes would be reduced to 10 feet in certain constrained
locations with lower speeds. Transit lanes would exist at all BRT stations.
The BRT lanes would be constructed to standards suitable for heavy vehicles. On the NorthSouth Corridor, existing shoulders would require cold milling before new sub-base material,
pavement, or retaining wall would be constructed. On the East-West Corridor, existing parking
and bump-outs would be removed to allow for a full transit lane. BRT lanes at stations on PR-2
would be cast in place concrete to minimize pavement deformation from vehicle braking and
accelerating. Similarly, PR-2 intersections would be concrete where BRT vehicles are required to
make turns. On the East-West Corridor, existing streets are concrete and low speeds would be
expected.
Station Stops
Stations on the North-South Corridor would include a 10 feet x 45 feet (10 feet x 90 feet at
terminal stations) raised concrete platform accessible by all pedestrians, following Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) standards. The platform would be raised 14 inches from the roadway,
allowing for platform level boarding. Platforms would include tactile warning panels to increase
the safety of passengers, as recommended by the ADA.
Each North-South station would include a prefabricated shelter, which would be installed on castin-place concrete platforms on-site with passenger amenities and unique branding features
added. A typical shelter size on the North-South Corridor would be approximately 5 feet x 15 feet.
Stations on the East-West Corridor would be approximately 3 feet x 10 feet, due to space
constraints. Some shelters on the East-West Corridor may not be possible due to space
constraints. Larger shelters are being considered at terminal stations. Stations would provide
weather protection for passengers, as well as housing for a bench, trash receptacle, and ticket
vending and validating machines. Shelters would include electrical and communications
connections for Passenger Information Display (PID) systems that show messages and expected
arrival times of vehicles. Shelters would also contain panels for system maps, schedules, and
potential advertising space.
Apart from the station platform and shelter, there would be lighting to increase passenger visibility
and safety, as well as landscaping for aesthetics, as immediate context may allow, particularly
along the East-West Corridor. Station design would reflect the specific system brand, so it is
easily identifiable by passengers and distinguished from other transit service. The brand would
include a system logo, as well as identifiable colors and designs for station areas.
8
http://www.apta.com/resources/standards/Documents/APTA-BTS-BRT-RP-003-10.pdf
61
Sidewalks
In order for stations to be used to their full potential and to encourage pedestrian and other nonmotorized access, sidewalk connections would be provided for access from stations to the
nearest intersection, where not currently available. Sidewalks ensure that all pedestrians are able
to access each station along a clear route in a safe manner. Raised platforms would have
inclined ramps from sidewalk level up to the station level, according to ADA standards. Sidewalks
and wheelchair ramp design would be coordinated with pedestrian markings and signals at
crossings.
The East-West Corridor would not require any additional sidewalks, but some older damaged or
degraded sidewalks at station locations may need upgrading. Sidewalks on this corridor are often
bordered by structures, and a full width of at least 36 inches should be maintained, according to
ADA regulation.
Utilities
Current utilities are typically overhead, on utility poles, except for a section in the historic urban
center where most utilities are underground. BRT lane construction would require relocating
some of these utility poles. Stations require power and communication connections for lighting,
PIDs, and fare vending machines.
Parking
Parking would be available at the terminal stations on both ends of the North-South Corridor,
arranged by negotiation with owners of available parking spaces. There are currently two large
parking lots for the shopping centers at both locations.
Bicycles
Bicycle racks would be provided at terminal stations and at stops along PR-2 to facilitate transfers
between transportation modes. Given restricted conditions along the East-West Corridor, it may
not be possible to provide racks at stops but this issue would be revisited during the preliminary
design phase. The Municipality and its design consultant would coordinate with local bicycle
organizations and universities on the location and capacity of bicycle racks at each BRT station.
Design of bicycle access and racks as part of the MTS system would be coordinated with the
MAM to maximize non-motorized modes of access to all station locations during the next phases
of the project.
Signs and Pavement Markings
Signs and pavement markings clearly mark where the BRT lane is prohibited from nonemergency use by general traffic. At intersections, signs such as “Buses Only” and “No Turns
onto Busway” warn vehicles to avoid the dedicated transit lane. Most signs would be postmounted or mounted on existing mast arms. In some locations, overhead cantilever structures
would be used to emphasize the BRT lane. Additionally, guide finding signs aid unfamiliar
travelers in locating stations. All signs would be posted in Spanish.
Pedestrian Crossings
Pedestrian crossings with clear markings, wheelchair ramps, and pedestrian signals ensure
pedestrians and wheelchair users traveling from each direction have a safe path to every BRT
station. In some locations, these elements already exist. In other locations, markings have faded
and fresh striping would be required, while other locations do not currently have a safe crossing.
8.3.3
Operations
BRT operations would occur during the 14-hour span between 6 AM and 8 PM. Peak service frequency
would be 12 minutes and off-peak frequency would be 15 minutes. Specific operations vary by Build
Alternative, depending on traffic analysis and transit signal priority.
62
8.3.3.1
Traffic Analysis
AM and PM peak period traffic analysis was conducted for each of the alternatives for projected opening
year of operation, 2018 (see Existing and Future No-Build Transportation Facilities Report (January 2015)
for additional information). Key metrics analyzed for traffic performance were delay time and LOS at
intersections.
Table 14 summarizes cumulative BRT route delay at study intersections for the TSM and four Build
Alternatives, compared to No-Build conditions. Transit vehicles in the TSM Alternative would experience
between 12 and 28 percent less delay (three to six minutes per direction) at study intersections,
compared to No-Build conditions during both AM and PM peak hours. This reduction in delay at study
intersections results from optimization of signals as part of the TSM Alternative.
For the four Build alternatives, BRT vehicles would experience a further reduction in intersection delay,
between 70 and 88 percent less (9 to 24 minutes in each direction) at study intersections, compared to
the TSM Alternative. The proposed exclusive busways for the Build Alternatives would allow BRT vehicles
to avoid the long delays and queues experienced by general traffic at intersections and would also
improve service reliability.
Table 14: Delay at Study Intersections (Year 2018)
Alternative
(No-Build conditions)
TSM Alternative
Build Alternatives IA and IB
Build Alternative II
Build Alternative III
Total Average Delay (minutes/BRT vehicle)
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
33.9
17.0
24.6
28.4
27.8
13.4
17.7
25.2
3.8
3.9
4.6
3.1
3.8
4.1
4.1
3.7
3.8
4.1
4.1
3.7
Note: Northbound and southbound also include delay at signalized intersections in the East-West Corridor
for Alternatives II and III.
Table 15 summarizes the LOS for transit vehicle movements through study intersections for the No-Build,
TSM, and Build Alternatives for AM and PM peak hours. For the TSM Alternative, transit vehicles would
operate in general traffic lanes, while for the Build Alternatives, BRT service would operate predominantly
in exclusive BRT lanes. Build Alternatives IA and IB were only analyzed for BRT service on the NorthSouth Corridor.
Under No-Build conditions, traffic would operate at LOS E or F at 19 approaches during the AM peak
hour and at 25 approaches in the PM peak hour. For the TSM Alternative, transit vehicles would operate
at deficient conditions (LOS E or F) at 15 approaches during the AM peak hour and at 19 approaches
during the PM peak hour. For the four Build alternatives (IA, IB, II, and III), BRT vehicles would operate
at acceptable conditions (LOS A-D) at all approaches in both peak hours. This would be a direct result of
operating in exclusive busways.
63
Table 15: 2018 Build LOS Summary by Alternative
Alternative
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Number of Approaches at
LOS Grade:
Number of Approaches at
LOS Grade:
A-D
E-F
A-D
E-F
(No-Build conditions)
10/14*
11/8
8/10
13/12
TSM Alternative
12/16*
9/6
12/12
9/10
Build Alternatives IA and IB
19/20*
0/0
19/20
0/0
Build Alternatives II and III
21/22*
0/0
21/22
0/0
Notes: * Northbound plus Eastbound BRT movements/Southbound plus Westbound BRT movements.
The total number of study intersections receiving transit vehicle/BRT traffic changes by alternative.
8.3.3.1
Transit Signal Priority
Transit signal priority (TSP) is proposed for the TSM and Build Alternatives. TSP is a tool that can greatly
improve transit service and operating efficiency using signal designs that select or elongate green time for
transit vehicle movements, allowing transit vehicles to have green lights more often. TSP has been
successfully implemented in the United States and internationally for many BRT projects, resulting in
significant decreases in travel time for transit vehicles with few or no negative effects on other traffic. TSP
design must consider other users (e.g., pedestrians and cyclists), roadway geometry, lane configuration,
cross street queuing, and impacts on adjacent intersections. Two main approaches exist for providing
TSP – passive and active systems. Passive systems only involve a change in set timing plans, whereas
active systems detect the approach of a transit vehicle and update signal plans in real-time.
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) fiber optic communications were built on PR-2 in 2010 by the
DTPW, but are not equipped for BRT. The East-West Corridor has a limited number of signalized
intersections, which are not equipped with ITS. Therefore, systems costs for the PR-2 portion of the Build
Alternatives assume connecting TSP into the existing ITS cabinets and controllers. System costs for the
East-West Corridor assume costs for TSP and extending ITS coverage, as required.
8.4
Operating Plan
This section describes potential operating plans for the proposed BRT service in Mayagüez under
evaluation for the MTS. In addition, this section describes various potential modifications to the existing
transit systems in Mayagüez (i.e., both the TIM System and the Trolley Colegial System).
8.4.1
Transit Operations
Each of the remaining Build Alternatives (IA, IB, II, and III) would operate between 6:00 AM and 8:00 PM
for a 14-hour daily service span, with BRT service provided at a 12-minute peak frequency and 15-minute
off-peak frequency seven days per week. Peak periods are defined as weekdays from 6:00 AM to 9:00
AM and from 3:30 PM to 6:30 PM.
As presented in the Purpose and Need Statement, an important purpose of the proposed BRT service is
to improve the link between “established and emerging activity centers along the north-south PR-2
corridor with existing and emerging activity centers in the downtown area.” Alternatives II and III
accomplish this purpose inherently, by traversing directly through the downtown core of the Municipality.
With Alternatives IA and IB, however, achieving this purpose requires the development of an efficient,
effective transfer between north-south BRT service and all transit service along the East-West Corridor.
The most advantageous and logical location for this transfer to occur is where the two corridors intersect,
64
at the viaduct over the intersections of Méndez Vigo and Candelaria Streets with the at-grade north-south
PR-2 frontage roads. BRT service on PR-2 for all Build Alternatives would exit PR-2 at the viaduct,
operate along the frontage roads at grade, and then return to the PR-2 mainline, in both directions.
It is assumed – for the purposes of this report – that fares would be coordinated between the proposed
BRT service and existing TIM transit service. In addition, it is also assumed that the fare collection
method would be specified outside of the context of this report at some point in the future.
8.4.2
Potential Interaction with Existing Transit Service
This section describes the potential manner in which the proposed BRT service might interface with the
two existing formal transit systems in the service area, the TIM System and the Trolley Colegial. Given
the somewhat informal nature of existing público services, specific means for their interface with BRT
service are not discussed.
8.4.2.1
TIM System
The TIM system currently consists of four routes that circulate in and around Mayagüez. In addition,
there are plans to operate five new TIM routes in the near future, one to the Guanajibo Homes
neighborhood south along the coast, and four into areas east of the central portion of Mayagüez. The
TIM system uses Plaza Colón as its hub. The existing and proposed TIM System was shown in Figures
17 and 19.
Implementation of Alternative IA – Should Alternative IA be implemented, TIM Route 3 would be most
directly impacted, since this route provides the primary connection between PR-2 and the downtown core
along Candelaria and Méndez Vigo Streets (the East-West Corridor). Route 4 and the proposed Route 5
(Guanajibo Homes route south along PR-102) might also be affected, since these routes also use the
East-West Corridor. However, given the limited capital improvements in the East-West Corridor
associated with Alternative IA and the existing traffic constraints in this corridor, few possibilities exist to
improve the capabilities of these TIM System routes under Alternative IA.
Implementation of Alternative IB – Should Alternative IB be implemented, TIM Route 3 would again be
the most directly impacted since this route provides the primary connection between PR-2 and the
downtown core along Candelaria and Méndez Vigo Streets (the East-West Corridor). Specifically,
Alternative IB calls for significant improvements to TIM Route 3 in terms of service frequencies and span
of service. Route 4 and the proposed Route 5 (Guanajibo Homes route south along PR-102) might also
be affected, since these routes also use the East-West Corridor.
Unlike Alternative IA, Alternative IB provides exclusive transit lanes along the East-West Corridor in both
directions. All TIM System routes – and in particular TIM Route 3, given the proposed improvements –
would be able to operate at a reasonable frequency to provide feeder service between PR-2 and the
downtown core.
Implementation of Alternatives II and/or III – Should either of these alternatives be implemented, thus
providing frequent service along the Méndez Vigo-Candelaria Streets roadway pair between the PR-2
corridor and central Mayagüez, TIM Route 3 would likely be impacted according to one of three potential
scenarios:
“Do Nothing” – In this scenario, Route 3 service would remain as it currently operates. This
scenario may not make effective use of an opportunity as the service level provided along the
Méndez Vigo-Candelaria one-way pair of streets by the BRT route (i.e., every 12 to 15 minutes, if
not more often, depending on the alternative) would already be superior to that provided by TIM
Route 3 (i.e., about every 30 minutes), whose resources could thus be otherwise deployed.
65
Discontinue/Eliminate TIM Route 3 – In this scenario, TIM Route 3 would be discontinued. This
would allow the Municipality to save the resources for providing what would, in essence, be a
duplicative service.
Reassign TIM Route 3 Resources – In this third scenario, the Municipality could use the
resources presently allocated to Route 3 for other TIM services, given that the area between the
viaduct and Plaza Colón would now be very well served by the proposed BRT service. Potential
options include:
o
o
o
Use these resources on another existing TIM route to increase its frequency and/or span of
service.
Create a new north-south TIM route (i.e., non-BRT) along the PR-2R corridor between the
proposed Colegio stop at UPR Mayagüez north of downtown and the Judicial Center BRT
stop on Cabassa Avenue south of downtown, as shown in Figure 33.
Create a new TIM service (i.e., non-BRT) between the Plaza Colón hub and areas east of
central Mayagüez, such as the Balboa or Jmari Ramos neighborhoods. It may be possible to
serve Balboa Street in such a way that it would allow TIM Route 1 to be more directly aligned
between Plaza Colón and the UPR Mayagüez campus via bi-directional service on PR-108,
as shown in Figure 33.
It should also be noted that TIM Route 4 and the proposed TIM Route 5 would most likely not be
impacted – other than by potentially eliminating stops between the viaduct and Plaza Colón – as a
consequence of the implementation of either of these alternatives, as they serve areas farther afield (i.e.,
along the coast).
66
Figure 33: Potential TIM Route Modifications
67
8.4.2.1
Trolley Colegial Service
Trolley Colegial is a service provided by UPR Mayagüez connecting the campus with the surrounding
area. Service is provided on five routes on weekdays, free of charge to the UPR community. Trolley
Colegial service was shown in Figure 20.
Implementation of BRT Service – Given the campus orientation of the Trolley Colegial system, as well
as the fact that it is not a public transportation system (i.e., use is limited to the UPR Mayagüez
community), opportunities for modifying this service are not as significant as they may at first appear,
compared to the TIM System. Nonetheless, there do appear to be a couple of opportunities, as follows:
Route 1 (Palacio) – Should Alternatives II or III be implemented, this route could be realigned so
that service is operated to the Plaza Colón hub instead of the parking lot at the Recreation and
Sports Palace. As a result, Route 1 would intersect with proposed BRT service in central
Mayagüez.
Route 3 (Interno) and Route 5 (Darlington) – Should any of the proposed BRT alternatives be
implemented, either one or both of these two services could be realigned so that they also serve
the proposed Colegio BRT stop at La Vita (the intersection of PR-2, PR-2R, and San Juan
Street).
The potential operating and service impacts on existing transit services in Mayagüez would be significant
and worth careful planning consideration. However, the opportunities afforded by some of the Build
Alternatives to modify both the TIM System and the Trolley Colegial System may allow the MAM and UPR
to leverage investment in the proposed BRT service to improve transit service overall and possibly to
provide even more transit coverage in other areas of the community.
8.4.3
TSM Alternative
8.4.3.1
Operations
Span of service for the North and South routes would be 14 hours – from 6:00 AM to 8:00 PM, six days a
week (consistent with current TIM System operating policy, no service would be provided on Sundays).
Service would operate at a frequency of every 15 minutes during weekday peak periods and every 30
minutes during weekday off-peak periods, as well as on Saturdays. Weekday peak periods are defined as
being from 6:00 AM to 9:00 AM and from 3:30 PM to 6:30 PM.
Figure 34: Potential Público Vehicle
The assumption has been made for the TSM Alternative that
público operators would continue to provide their own vehicles for
the new North and South services. The contractual arrangements
to be developed between the MAM and the público service
operators would provide the financial stability for operators to
obtain loans for purchasing medium-capacity vehicles (see Figure
34 for an example), potentially with specified accessibility
requirements, and vehicle maintenance.
Fare collection for público service associated with the TSM Alternative would be coordinated between
proposed North and South services and all other TIM transit services.
8.4.3.2
Stops
This section describes potential stops along the proposed North and South público routes. The exact
location of proposed stops and shelters would be subject to closer examination of the specific conditions
at each location. The list of proposed stops excludes locations that would require major infrastructure
modifications in order to provide safe operational conditions.
68
Based on the stops proposed for the Build alternatives, the initial TSM Alternative list of stops along PR-2,
for the North and South routes, are presented from north to south (see Figure 35). Small shelters used
for advertising purposes currently exist at many of the proposed stop locations along PR-2. It is proposed
that the TSM Alternative would take advantage of these shelters. If additional shelters are needed, the
assumption has been made that more of these advertising shelters would be installed free of charge to
the Municipality. Station stops would only be located in areas that are safe, both for vehicular traffic and
for pedestrians. Use of PR-2 for the two proposed público services would be subject to approval from
DTPW. For the TSM Alternative, it was assumed that the North and South services would serve existing
TIM stops along the east-west one-way pair of streets.
Figure 35: TSM Alternative Stops in East-West Corridor
8.4.3.3
Improvements
Modest physical improvements for the TSM Alternative would predominantly focus on the east-west oneway pair of roadways, given the use of these streets for TIM System operations.
Candelaria Street (West to East)
Betances Street intersection – Existing flashing traffic signals would be upgraded to
fixed-time operations and signal timing would be optimized. Existing parking on the south
side of the Candelaria Street approach to the intersection with Betances Street would be
eliminated in order to create a queue bypass lane for transit vehicles only. A separate
69
signal phase for transit vehicles would be created, along with a dedicated signal for the
transit bypass lane.
Mendez Vigo Street (East to West)
Martínez Nadal Street intersection – Optimize timing of signals. Parking on the right
side of the Méndez Vigo Street approach near the intersection would be eliminated in
order to create a queue bypass lane for transit vehicles only.
Betances Street intersection – Existing flashing signals would be updated to fixed-time
operations and signal time would be optimized. Existing parking on the north side of the
Méndez Vigo Street approach to the intersection with Betances Street would be
eliminated in order to create a queue bypass lane for transit vehicles only. A separate
signal phase for transit vehicles would be created, along with a dedicated signal for the
transit bypass lane.
PR-2
While stops along PR-2 would generally be located in areas safe for vehicles to stop, it
would likely be necessary to implement limited construction measures to ensure
pedestrian safety and convenience in accessing stops, such as extending sidewalks and
creating crosswalks, in certain areas.
Nenadich Street (northbound stop on PR-2) – To develop a safe stop at this location, it
would be necessary to implement capital improvements, including roadway widening and
relocation of the sidewalk.
Mar y Sol – To develop a safe stop at this location, it would be necessary to signalize the
pedestrian crossing of the truck bypass roadway on the northbound side of PR-2 and
construct other measures, as needed, to improve pedestrian safety on the southbound
side.
The TSM Alternative assumes that all traffic signals would be optimized to provide peak
period, peak direction progression.
TIM Route 3 presently serves the East-West Corridor between PR-2 and Oriente Street. In addition, the
length of the East-West Corridor is served by the TIM route north to El Mani. Beginning in 2015, this
corridor will also be served by the new TIM route south to Guanajibo Homes. Within the East-West
Corridor, this equates to a service frequency of 15 minutes, during service hours. For the TSM
Alternative, service hours on these two routes would be extended from 7:00 AM to 6:30 PM (at present,
service is not provided during the middle of the day). Also, both of these routes would be modified to
include stops at PR-2 and the downtown core, as close as possible to Plaza Colón. As a result of these
changes, it would no longer be necessary for TIM Route 3 to serve this corridor.
Instead, this route could be modified to operate along a route northeast between the downtown and the
Balboa and París neighborhoods, east of the Balboa Bridge, and then southeast between downtown and
the Buena Vista and Cuebas/Ponce de León neighborhoods. Making this change would also necessitate
the modification of TIM Route 1. Instead of traveling along PR-106 and PR-65, Route 1 would travel
north on Martínez Nadal Street, eliminating existing Stops 2 and 3 and relocating Stop 4 to the corner of
Martínez Nadal Street and PR-65. An additional recommended change to this route would be the
elimination of the segment along PR-108, given that there are no stops, in favor of running through the
UPR campus instead.
Appropriate GPS/Radio equipment would be installed in all TIM vehicles and North and South service
público vehicles in order to monitor contract compliance. It may also be beneficial to have this equipment
installed in UPR Trolley Colegial vehicles, in order to help with coordination of services.
It should be noted that the previous discussion relates specifically to the development of the TSM
Alternative for use in the MTS Alternatives Analysis. If the MAM were to choose to move forward with the
development of a público-oriented transit system, a host of administrative and operational issues would
need to be considered:
70
Administrative
As an example, development of the system would necessitate coordination with the DTPW as
the Commonwealth agency that regulates público operations. System operations would then
require expansion of MAM transportation offices, in order to coordinate and implement
contracting of services, to monitor compliance with contractual requirements, as well as to
handle any customer complaints. To facilitate this critical aspect, individual
operators/contractors could be required to organize into a cooperative operation, so that all
aspects of service can be agreed to and discussed with one entity, as opposed to a larger
number of individuals. However, while an association of operators does exist in Mayagüez,
the loose operation of “públicos urbanos” would likely require the formation of a new
organization.
Operational
A variety of operational issues would need to be considered. For instance, the TSM
Alternative focuses on provision of transit service north and south along PR-2 using públicos.
Actual transit routes served by público vehicles could potentially be located off PR-2 closer to
residential areas or activity centers. However, this could also result in lowering operational
frequency, negatively affecting service reliability, and increasing trip duration.
8.5
Evaluation of Community and Environmental Issues
The purpose of this section is to present and discuss the potential environmental impacts that might result
from the implementation of any of the refined alternatives in the Mayagüez urban area, in accordance
with FTA guidelines.
8.5.1
Definition of Resources
For the environmental review, there were many categories of resources that were evaluated. Resources
included in an environmental review under MAP-219 include:
Air Quality
Hydrology/Water Quality
Soils and Unique Geologic Features
Noise and Vibration
Wildlife Habitat and Vegetation
Archaeological and Historic Sites
Land Use, Neighborhood Impacts and Displacements
Economic Development
Safety
Environmental Justice
Traffic/Parking
All of these resources were described in detail in the Existing and Future No-Build Transportation
Facilities Report (January 2015) for both the North-South and East-West corridors. As documented, the
study corridors have already been densely developed and the proposed action will primarily make use of
space within the existing transportation right-of-way.
8.5.2
Methodology
This analysis focused on the resources most likely to be impacted by the proposed action – water
resources, including wetlands and surface waters. It should be noted that all surface water bodies within
the study corridors were disturbed and/or modified during the construction and expansion of PR-2 and
9
Note that some resources formerly included in an environmental review under SAFETEA-LU are no longer included in
MAP-21 reviews.
71
PR-2R and are no longer in their natural condition. Other than the areas immediately adjacent to the
Yagüez River and two shallow creeks along PR-2, the study corridors generally lie outside of flood prone
areas.
Future No-Build traffic conditions were discussed for each of the two study corridors and a survey of
existing parking spaces was completed in order to estimate the potential impacts to parking, both onstreet and off-street, as a result of the Build and TSM Alternatives. All other environmental resources
were described in the Existing and Future No-Build Transportation Facilities Report, evaluated in the
context of the location of the Build Alternatives, and found to have no impact.
8.5.3
Impact Evaluation – Environmental Resources
8.5.3.1
The proposed action minimizes any negative impacts by using the existing PR-2 roadway; but some
preventive and/or mitigation measures would be needed if any structural changes or widening of existing
lanes extended into any areas associated with waterbodies, wetlands or undisturbed areas. During the
construction and operational phases, control measures would need to be taken to comply with federal,
Commonwealth, and local laws.
Most of the streets and corridors are covered with impervious surfaces and very few green areas remain.
The widening of the shoulders to accommodate the proposed Build Alternatives will not result in a major
impact to existing environmental conditions. However, an increase in runoff might be experienced due to
the increase in impervious surface area caused by potential widening of PR-2 shoulder lanes.10
8.5.3.2
East-West Corridor
The proposed action would eliminate one of the current lanes used for parking to accommodate the new
MTS lane and bus stops. The impacts on this corridor would be to the existing infrastructure only and
would occur only during the construction phase. Thus, any resources within the East-West Corridor,
including historic and cultural resources identified in the Existing and Future No-Build Transportation
Facilities Report, would not be adversely impacted by the action. During the construction and operational
phases, control measures would need to be taken to comply with federal and Commonwealth laws.
8.5.4
Impact Evaluation – Parking
A survey of existing parking spaces was completed in order to estimate potential impacts to parking, both
on-street and off-street, as a result of the TSM Alternative and the four remaining Build alternatives.
Parking impacts in the North-South Corridor would be very limited.
8.5.4.1
There would be no parking impacts in the North-South Corridor for the TSM alternative. Alternatives IA,
IB, II, and III would have limited impacts to both on-street and off-street parking in the North-South
Corridor. Off-street parking impacts would occur at Centro Médico Station (southbound) as a result of
placement of the station facilities. See Table 16 for an inventory of potentially impacted parking spaces.
10
If needed, this would be assessed in a Hydraulic and Hydrological Study.
72
Table 16: Potential North-South Corridor Parking Impacts
On-Street Parking
Frontage Road: Martínez Nadal to Ramirez de Arellano
Frontage Road: Ramirez de Arellano to Franco
Frontage Road: Franco to Honore
Total
Off-Street Parking
Centro Médico
Total
Number of Spaces
2
7
4
13
Number of Spaces
4
4
In the North-South Corridor, potential parking impacts, both on- and off-street, would be offset by
replacement facilities. At Centro Médico, the off-street parking potentially impacted by the placement of
the southbound station facilities could be replicated immediately adjacent to the south side of the existing
parking area. On-street parking potentially affected in the vicinity of the on-ramp to PR-2 just south of
Candelaria Street would also be limited. These spaces are not in a congested area and ample parking
exists on all side streets just around the corner from the frontage road.
8.5.4.2
East-West Corridor
Parking impacts in the East-West Corridor would be greater than in the North-South Corridor. In 2015, the
Municipality will also be expanding/reinstating the use of parking meters in substantial portions of the
downtown core. While this measure itself will not offset the number of parking spaces potentially lost due
to the Build alternatives, it will eliminate the use of on-street parking spaces for all day parking by
municipal and other employees. The net effect of this action will be to improve turnover of on-street
parking spaces, a beneficial outcome for downtown business owners.
8.5.4.2.1 TSM Alternative and Alternative IA
The TSM Alternative comprises predominantly changes to transit operations; however, it does include
limited physical improvements in the East-West Corridor. These physical improvements would include
the creation of queue jump lanes at three intersections: Candelaria Street at Betances Street, Méndez
Vigo Street at Betances Street, and Candelaria Street at Martínez Nadal Street. Table 17 indicates
potential on-street parking impacts resulting from implementation of the TSM Alternative. On Candelaria
Street, potential impacts would occur on the south side leading up to the intersection with Betances
Street. On Méndez Vigo Street, impacts would occur on the north side leading up to the Martínez Nadal
and the Betances Street intersections.
Alternative IA concentrates physical improvements in the North-South Corridor; however, it also
incorporates the same improvements in the East-West Corridor included with the TSM Alternative. As a
result, potential parking impacts in the East-West Corridor for Alternative IA would be the same as the
TSM Alternative (see Table 17).
Table 17: TSM and Alternative IA Potential East-West Corridor On-Street Parking Impacts
On-Street Parking
Number of
Spaces
Handicapped
Spaces
Candelaria (south side)
6
0
Méndez Vigo (north side)
13
2
Total (including Handicapped Spaces)
21
8.5.4.2.2 Alternatives IB, II, and III
For Alternatives IB, II, and III, potential parking impacts in the East-West Corridor would be greater than
those for both the TSM Alternative and Alternative IA (see Table 18). This variation results directly from
the proposed creation of the exclusive transit lanes on the right side of Candelaria, Méndez Vigo, and
73
Oriente Streets. With Alternatives II and III, the exclusive transit lanes would be used by BRT service.
With Alternative IB, the exclusive lanes would be used by TIM Route 3 to provide circulator service
between the BRT service north-south along PR-2 and the downtown core.
It should be noted that, in addition to the potential on-street parking impacts in the East-West Corridor,
there would also be potential impacts to loading zones and certain zones designated for specific uses,
such as dropping off and picking up children at school and patients at medical clinics.
Table 18: Alternatives IB, II, and III Potential East-West Corridor On-Street Parking Impacts
On-Street Parking
Candelaria (south side)
Méndez Vigo (north side)
Oriente (west side)
Total (including Handicapped Spaces)
Number of Spaces
107
110
Handicapped Spaces
2
5
2
226
The Municipality would need to develop a multi-pronged strategy for replacement of parking and other
facilities, particularly in the East-West Corridor. While five handicapped parking spaces would be
potentially impacted, three of these spaces are singles and two lie adjacent to each other. As a result,
relocating these spaces immediately across the street or around the nearest corner would serve to
minimize any difficulties associated with the loss of the existing demarcated spaces. This would not
reduce the number of parking spaces potentially impacted overall, since relocation of the handicap
spaces themselves might entail further displacement of existing parking spaces.
Implementation of the proposed Build alternatives would also serve to reduce the amount of parking
required in the downtown, to the extent that the transit system is successful in attracting passengers to
the system. Nevertheless, the Municipality is also in the process of developing a new parking garage in
the downtown area. The Municipality has also begun to discuss the potential for developing off-street
“pocket” parking lots in a number of locations within the downtown core to further offset loss of on-street
parking.
Other measures to consider would be the creation of on-street diagonal parking in areas where the width
of the existing roadway might allow it and limiting use of the exclusive transit lanes to peak periods only.
Diagonal parking typically occupies less curb space compared to parallel parking, resulting in the creation
of additional on-street spaces. Similar to the nearby relocation of handicapped parking spaces, loading
zones and drop off/pick up zones would also need to be relocated.
8.5.5
Community and Environmental Issue Conclusions
This assessment of the study area demonstrates that the Build Alternatives are proposed for corridors
that have already been impacted by decades of urban, commercial, and industrial development. Very few
characteristics remain of the original natural conditions of the region, and those that do will not be
impacted by the proposed action. If the proposed action requires additional expansion or widening of
existing traffic lanes, there may be impacts to existing wetlands. This would require additional study to
assess the environmental impacts of the new action.
Traffic conditions are expected to further degrade through 2018, especially in the North-South Corridor,
with vehicle delays and queue lengths at intersections increasing, and travel speeds and LOS
decreasing. Therefore, the implementation of the proposed action would reduce future traffic congestion
by providing frequent, high speed transit service along the corridors.
The Municipality will be expanding/reinstating the use of parking meters in substantial portions of the
downtown core in 2015. While this measure itself will not offset the number of parking spaces potentially
lost due to the Build alternatives, it will eliminate the use of on-street parking spaces for all day parking by
74
municipal and other employees. The net effect of this action will be to improve turnover of on-street
parking spaces, a beneficial outcome for downtown business owners.
8.6
Operations and Maintenance Costs
O&M costs are expressed on a yearly basis in constant year 2013 dollars.11 O&M cost estimates were
developed at a conceptual level for the TSM Alternative and the four Build Alternatives.
8.6.1
Methodology
Under the TSM Alternative, the costs to MAM would be (a) operational costs of the operators and
incentives to promote participation, and; (b) a management structure to facilitate monitoring of service to
ensure compliance and to manage contracts, payments, and passenger complaints. Compliance with
service contracts would be monitored by GPS-type technology.
For the Build Alternatives, the O&M cost estimate model consists of a simple two variable formulation,
based on two important cost drivers for a transit system: vehicle miles traveled and vehicle hours
accumulated, both in revenue service. Planning level assumptions were then made for service frequency
and span of service.
Operating assumptions for development of O&M costs include:
1. Headways, hours of operation, route length, and travel time, consistent with the Task 5.0 –
Development of Initial Alternatives (Long List) Report.
2. The required fleet size, specified according to the factors in Assumption 1, includes a 12 percent
layover/recovery time and a 20 percent spare factor, which provides an allowance for
maintenance and driver breaks.
Initially, a “bottom up” method for developing unit costs was attempted, using the cost structure for the
TIM System. However, as of the 2013 National Transportation Database (NTD) report, the TIM System
remained under a FTA Small Systems waiver from reporting requirements. The scale of the four
remaining BRT Build Alternatives proposed in the MTS is such that the cost structure, in terms of
operating costs per revenue hour, would more likely resemble that of a larger operator than that of the
current system in Mayagüez.
Therefore, in lieu of this bottom up approach, a “top down” approach for estimating O&M unit costs was
developed, following a review of O&M costs for other systems, with operations similar to those proposed
in the MTS, using the cost structure reported in the NTD for the 2013 Report Year.
As seen in Table 19, proposed Build Alternatives would require a total of 11 or 12 vehicles, including BRT
and TIM vehicles, to provide service, depending on the specific alternative selected. Table 19 also
presents average travel speed for each alternative. It should be noted that average speed for BRT
service under Alternatives II and III appears slower than for Alternatives IA and IB. This results from the
slower travel speeds along the East-West Corridor, even in the exclusive transit lanes provided, relative
to average speeds along PR-2 north-south. Under Alternative IB, average speed is similar to that for
Alternative IA, despite the implementation of the exclusive transit lanes. This results from the fact that
Alternative IB maintains all of the existing TIM System stops and boarding/alighting times for TIM vehicles
are slower than for BRT vehicles, resulting in an overall slower average travel speed.
11
2013 is the most recent year of unit cost data from the National Transit Database (NTD).
75
Table 19: Total Fleet Requirements by Build Alternative
Alternative
Average
One-way
Route
Distance
(miles)
Average
One-way
Run Time
(minutes)
(1)
Average
Speed
Total Cycle
Time (2)
Peak
Headway
Vehicles
Vehicles
(with
(miles per
hour)
min
hr
(minutes)
(12%
Layover)
Layover
and 20%
Spares(3))
Alternative IA
BRT
TIM (AM Peak)
TIM (PM Peak)
6.33
1.65
1.65
28
38
49
14
3
2
56
76
98
0.93
1.27
1.63
12
30
30
5.2
2.8
3.7
7
4
5
6.33
1.58
29
18
13
5
58
36
0.97
0.60
12
10
5.4
4.0
7
5
Alternative IB
BRT
TIM
Alternative II
North Service
South Service
Alternative II Total
3.82
21
11
42
0.70
12
3.9
5
4.15
24
10
48
0.80
12
4.5
6
7.96
45
11
90
1.5
12
8.4
11
7.96
46
10
92
1.5
12
8.6
11
Alternative III
(1) One way travel time for each route in minutes. Based on the Build traffic analysis, a multiplier of 1.2 was applied to
the average travel time for delays at intersections.
(2) Round trip run time.
(3) Vehicles with layover and 20% spares are rounded up.
8.6.2
Estimates
8.6.2.1
TSM Alternative
The estimated total annual O&M cost for the TSM Alternative would be approximately $420,000 for the
base year 2013 (see Table 20). The O&M cost for the forecast year 2035 was then estimated by applying
an inflation rate of 2.6 percent to the 2013 cost and projecting it forward 22 years. The projected total
annual O&M cost for TSM alternative would be approximately $738,739 for the year 2035.
Table 20: Annual O&M Cost Estimates for TSM Alternative
Estimated Total
Monthly Cost
(for both North and South
Services)
TSM Alternative
8.6.2.2
$35,000
Total Annual
Cost
Projected Total
Annual Cost
(2013 Dollars)
(2035 Dollars)
$420,000
$738,739
Build Alternatives
Annual O&M cost estimate models based on two methods (cost per revenue mile and cost per revenue
hour) were developed for the four Build Alternatives for the base year 2013. The O&M cost for the
forecast year 2035 was then estimated by applying an inflation rate of 2.6 percent to the 2013 cost and
projecting it forward 22 years. Total annual estimated O&M costs for BRT and TIM services are shown in
Table 21. The table also includes annual O&M cost per revenue hour with a 12 percent layover.
While all the Build Alternatives have comparatively similar one-way route distances (approximately 7.98
for Alternative IA, 7.91 miles for Alternative IB and 7.96 miles for both Alternative II and III), Alternative IA
has a significantly longer one-way run time of 77 minutes (28 minutes for BRT service and 49 minutes for
TIM service) compared to other Build Alternatives (Alternative IB has a total of 47 minutes, Alternative II
has 45 minutes, and Alternative III has 46 minutes) because Alternative IA TIM service experiences
slower average speeds due to intersection delay in the East-West Corridor and absence of exclusive
lanes. As a result, the estimated O&M cost based on the cost per revenue hour method for Alternative IA
76
is higher than the cost from the per revenue hour method for the remaining alternatives. However,
although TIM Route 3 is eliminated for Alternatives II and III, the annual O&M cost for both alternatives
are still similar to Alternatives IA and IB and the overall net savings are minimal.
Table 21: Annual O&M Cost Estimates by Build Alternative
Alternative
Estimated Total Annual O&M Costs
(2013 dollars)
Based on Cost per
Based on
Revenue Hour**
Cost per
Revenue
With 12%
No Layover
Mile*
Layover (1)
Alternative IA
BRT
$2,121,087
$1,315,089
TIM
$256,793
$1,068,900
Alternative IA Total
$2,377,880
$2,383,989
Alternative IB
BRT
$2,121,087
$1,362,057
TIM
$567,072
$905,515
Alternative IB Total
$2,688,159
$2,267,572
Alternative II
Alternative II North
$1,278,349
$986,317
Alternative II South
$1,388,927
$1,127,219
$2,667,276
$2,113,536
Alternative III
Alternative III Total
$2,667,276
$2,160,504
* Estimated based on $15.27 per revenue mile.
**Estimated based on $128.42 per revenue hour.
(1) 12 percent layover only applies to per hour estimates.
8.7
Projected Total Annual O&M Costs
(2035 dollars)
Based on Cost per
Based on
Revenue Hour
Cost per
Revenue
With 12%
No Layover
Mile
Layover (1)
$1,472,900
$1,197,168
$2,670,068
$3,730,787
$451,673
$4,182,460
$2,313,115
$1,880,091
$4,193,206
$2,590,689
$2,105,702
$4,696,390
$1,525,504
$1,014,177
$2,539,680
$3,730,787
$997,424
$4,728,211
$2,395,726
$1,592,713
$3,988,439
$2,683,213
$1,783,839
$4,467,052
$1,104,675
$1,262,486
$2,367,161
$2,248,492
$2,442,988
$4,691,480
$1,734,836
$1,982,670
$3,717,506
$1,943,016
$2,220,590
$4,163,607
$2,419,764
$4,691,480
$3,800,117
$4,256,131
Capital Costs
This section presents the methodology and key assumptions used in the development of capital cost
estimates for the MTS Alternatives Analysis.
8.7.1
Methodology
The capital cost methodology was prepared consistent with the most recent version of “Reporting
12
Instructions for the Section 5309 Small Starts Criteria” available on the FTA website, adapted to the
specific project elements of the MTS Build Alternatives.
Capital cost elements are derived from the FTA Standard Cost Category (SCC) worksheet. Project
sponsors are required to submit capital cost information using the most recent Small Starts SCC
Workbook issued by FTA.13 The SCC format allows for use of an extensive database of cost information
gathered from projects across the country, adjusted for regional cost influences. The SCC structure
accommodates all project elements in 10 major cost categories, including soft costs and contingencies as
separate cost categories (Small Project Capital costs must be reported in 2015 constant dollars):
10 Guideway (Running Ways) and Track Elements
12
FTA Reporting Instructions for the Section 5309 Small Starts Criteria (July 2014). Available at:
http://www.fta.dot.gov/12347_5221.html
13
FTA Standard Cost Category for Capital Projects. Small Starts SCC Workbook (Excel) is available at:
77
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Stations, Stops, Terminals, Intermodal
Support Facilities: Yards, Shops, Administration Buildings
Sitework and Special Conditions
Systems
ROW, Land, Existing Improvements
Vehicles
Professional Services
Unallocated Contingency
Finance Charges
With unit costs and basic quantities for standard categories, use of SCC simplifies the comparison
between diverse alternatives and gauges the reasonability of costs for each alternative. The use of a
standard format for capital costs increases the reliability of cost estimates for projects in various stages of
development from planning to preliminary engineering and forward through final design. Use of SCC in
capital cost estimates also helps to rationalize project evaluation and comparative evaluations during the
decision-making process.
The MTS capital cost estimation methodology is applicable to the full range of service types for the
proposed alternatives. The cost estimation is conceptual. Unit costs were developed for BRT lane
construction, station elements, retaining walls, tree mitigation, and vehicles. All other project elements
were estimated on individual bases. Local Puerto Rico construction engineers estimated the unit costs for
BRT lane and retaining wall construction elements, as well as obstacle relocations. Vehicle costs were
estimated from the Nova LFS Smart Bus, a model recently purchased by the Puerto Rico Metropolitan
Bus Authority. The station shelter cost was estimated from a supplier with experience shipping to Puerto
Rico. Station elements including foundation, communications, security cameras and ticket
vending/validating machines are yet to be determined.
8.7.2
Estimate
Capital cost estimates were developed for the TSM Alternative and for the four Build Alternatives (see
Table 22; for Capital Cost Estimate Scoping Drawings for Build Alternatives, see Appendix E). The TSM
Alternative focuses on less capital-intensive means of improving or optimizing existing transit operations
in the two study corridors. In the context of the MTS, this alternative begins with potential low-cost
investments in both the TIM and público systems. Improvements include the addition of two fixed routes
with stops served by públicos, modifications to existing TIM Route 3, and certain physical improvements,
such as traffic signal optimization and creation of three queue bypass lanes, and provision of GPS and
radio equipment in vehicles.
Table 22: Summary Capital Cost Estimate
Alternative
Cost
TSM
$2,413,385
Alternative IA
$78,791,332
Alternative IB
$83,710,747
Alternative II
$84,166,787
Alternative III
$84,166,787
8.7.3
FTA Guidance
In April 2015, FTA issued Proposed Interim Policy Guidance – Federal Transit Administration – Capital
Investment Grant Program. This document quoted extensively from the Federal Register and other FTA
publications in defining new projects eligible for FTA capital grants and the elements required for funding
of bus rapid transit projects. MAP-21 Section 5302(7) defines fixed guideway as projects “using and
occupying a separate right-of-way for the exclusive use of public transportation; using rail; using a fixed
78
catenary system; for a passenger ferry system; or for a bus rapid transit system.” In Section 5309(a)(4),
MAP-21 states additional requirements for BRT projects:
The majority of the project operates in a separated right-of-way dedicated for public transportation
use during peak periods.
The project represents a substantial investment in a single route in a defined corridor or subarea.
The project includes features that emulate the services provided by rail fixed guideway public
transportation systems including: defined stops; traffic signal priority for public transportation
vehicles; short headway bidirectional services for a substantial part of weekdays and weekend
days; and any other features the Secretary of USDOT may determine are necessary to produce
high quality public transportation services that emulate the services provided by rail fixed
guideway systems.
For projects to be eligible for funding, FTA further proposed in its State of Good Repair Circular in March
2014 (http://www.fta.dot.gov/legislation_law/12349_16262.html), they must include the following
characteristics of fixed guideway BRT project elements:
Over 50 percent of the route must operate in a separated right-of-way dedicated for transit use
during peak periods. Other traffic can make turning movements through the separated right-ofway.
The route must have defined stops that are accessible for persons with disabilities, offer shelter
from the weather, and provide information on schedules and routes.
The route must provide faster passenger travel times through congested intersections by using
active signal priority in separated guideway, and either queue-jump lanes or active signal priority
in non-separated guideway.
The route must provide short headway, bidirectional service for at least a fourteen-hour span of
service on weekdays and a ten-hour span of service on weekends. Short headway service on
weekdays consists of either (a) fifteen-minute maximum headways throughout the day, or (b) tenminute maximum headways during peak periods and twenty-minute maximum headways at all
other times. Short headway service on weekends consists of thirty-minute maximum headways
for at least ten hours a day.
The provider must apply a separate and consistent brand identity to stops and vehicles.
8.8
Ridership Projections
For each alternative, two scenarios were tested: Year 2010 (with 2010 land use assumptions) and Year
2040, the forecast year. The methodology for forecasting ridership was described in Section 7.2.1 of this
report. Table 23 shows the total boardings by each alternative for the Build Years 2010 and 2040.
Table 23: Total Boardings by Alternative
Alternative
TSM Alternative
Build Alternatives
Alternative IA
Alternative IB
Alternative II
Alternative III
Build Year
2010
2040
5,130
5,500
5,050
5,130
5,360
5,370
5,400
5,470
5,750
5,730
79
8.9
Sensitivity Analysis
As previously described, the MTS was developed according to the current and proposed New
Starts/Small Starts project evaluation, rating, and approval process.14 The sensitivity analysis continued
to use these New Starts/Small Starts criteria as metrics for evaluation.
The sensitivity analysis focused on how variations to travel speed, dwell time, and number of stops affect
the capital costs, O&M costs, and ridership for the remaining alternatives. The analysis looked only at
BRT elements of the alternatives, i.e., not at the service operated by the TIM System for Alternatives IA
and IB. The results helped to determine if refinements to the physical or operational aspects of the
alternatives could be beneficial to their performance prior to the second and final screening process.
Top travel speeds of 35 mph could be attained by providing dedicated transit lanes where physically
possible along the corridor. Variations in average speed can be affected by conflicting traffic volumes at
intersections. The sensitivity analysis considered the effects of an increase in average speed resulting
from implementing transit traffic signal pre-emption, giving BRT service a green light whenever possible.
Dwell time is the amount of time it takes a transit vehicle to make each stop and is assumed to be 60
seconds for the majority of stops in the Final Operations and Maintenance Cost Estimation Methodology
Report (June 2015). This short dwell time is achieved by the use of dedicated transit lanes, off-board fare
collection, low-floor BRT vehicles with adequate passenger circulation, and platform level boarding. To
account for the possibility that these elements may not be incorporated, the sensitivity analysis
considered increases in dwell times of 30 and 60 seconds (for a total of 90 and 120 seconds).
The number of stops proposed for the alternatives is currently sufficient for expected ridership demand
and it meets FTA minimum spacing requirements for BRT. The sensitivity analysis considered the effect
on costs and ridership of removing four stops, which represented a quantity great enough to impact cost
and ridership.
8.9.1
Travel Speed and Service Reliability
While increasing average travel speed on transit systems typically results in increased ridership, this is
not always reflected in forecasting. As discussed earlier, there are a large number of transit-dependent
households in the Municipality who will use the system regardless of average travel speed.
Service reliability is directly related to consistent travel speed; if a transit vehicle can maintain its average
speed all the time, it will result in reliable service. However, the reliability of alternatives that operate in
the general traffic stream will suffer due to the regular occurrence of periods of traffic congestion,
expected and unexpected.
The TSM Alternative exhibits forecast ridership in the same range as the Build Alternatives. However, in
reality, this would likely fall short. Any “build” actions taken to improve both the average travel speed and
reliability of the TSM Alternative will improve its performance. The performance of Alternative IA would
also benefit from improvements in the East-West Corridor. For instance, implementation of the proposed
improvements in the East-West Corridor, between PR-2 and Oriente Street, would likely result in
significant operational improvements. Indeed, the possibility of implementing the exclusive transit lanes
proposed in Alternatives IB, II, and III has already been under consideration by the Municipality.
For the Build Alternatives, the Municipality requested approval from DTPW for use of the right shoulders
along PR-2 for creation of exclusive transit lanes. While this might not be appropriate or affordable for the
TSM Alternative in its entirety, it may be possible to obtain approval for the creation of queue bypass
14
FTA Reporting Instructions for the Section 5309 Small Starts Criteria (July 2014) at:
80
lanes for público vehicles equipped with appropriate GPS-based transponders in certain key locations.
This would not likely increase travel speed dramatically, but it could improve overall service reliability.
BRT vehicles would run on dedicated lanes for the majority of their routes, only encountering traffic at
segments of shared-use lanes and at intersections. In the Final Operations and Maintenance Cost
Estimation Methodology Report (June 2015), route speeds were estimated by developing an uninhibited
travel time, then applying a traffic factor of 20 percent. This 20 percent factor was estimated by comparing
the BRT route travel time (not including dwell time at stops) with travel times in mild to moderate traffic,
derived from Google Maps navigation software.15 In order to uniformly increase average travel speed, the
traffic factor was reduced to 15 percent, and then to 10 percent.
Table 24 shows the effects of a reduced traffic factor on BRT fleet size. In order to justify these further
reductions in traffic factor, transit pre-emption technology would be implemented at intersections
throughout each alternative.
Alternatives II and III would have lower speeds than Alternatives IA and IB in each scenario due to BRT
vehicles routing through lower speed roadways on the East-West Corridor. Reducing the traffic factor to
15 percent had the effect of shortening the cycle times for each alternative and, as a result, decreased
the number of BRT vehicles needed in Alternative III from 11 to 10. Further reducing the traffic factor to
10 percent shortens the cycle times to the point where one fewer BRT vehicle would be needed for each
alternative.
Table 24: Speed Sensitivity - Effect on BRT Fleet Size
Base - 20% Traffic Factor
Alternative
One-Way
Distance
(miles)
Average
Speed
(mph)
Cycle
Time
(min)
Alternative IA
Alternative IB
Alternative II
Alternative III
6.3
6.3
8.0
8.0
14
13
11
10
Alternative
One-Way
Distance
(miles)
Average
Speed
(mph)
Cycle
Time
(min)
Alternative IA
Alternative IB
Alternative II
Alternative III
6.3
6.3
8.0
8.0
14
14
11
11
54
56
86
88
BRT Vehicles
(12% layover)
BRT Vehicles
(with Layover
and 20% Spares)
5.2
5.4
8.4
8.6
7
7
11
11
Headway
(min)
BRT Vehicles
(12% layover)
BRT Vehicles
(with Layover
and 20% Spares)
12
12
12
12
5.0
5.2
8.0
8.2
7
7
11
10
Headway
(min)
56
12
58
12
90
12
92
12
15% Traffic Factor
10% Traffic Factor
Alternative
One-Way
Distance
(miles)
Average
Speed
(mph)
Cycle
Time
(min)
Headway
(min)
BRT Vehicles
(12% layover)
BRT Vehicles
(with Layover
and 20% Spares)
Alternative IA
Alternative IB
Alternative II
Alternative III
6.3
6.3
8.0
8.0
15
15
12
11
52
52
82
86
12
12
12
12
4.9
4.9
7.7
8.0
6
6
10
10
15
Google Maps. https://www.google.com/maps
81
According to USDOT, project capital costs would increase by approximately $35,000 per intersection as a
result of incorporating transit vehicle pre-emption technology at intersections.16 Since the TSP
technology included in the original capital cost estimates for the project was $13,500 per intersection, the
overall increase in capital cost would be $21,500 per intersection. Table 25 summarizes the capital cost
differences for each alternative. Capital cost decreases result from a reduced fleet size. According to the
Final Capital Cost Estimation Methodology Report (June 2015), the capital cost per vehicle was
$540,100.
Alternatives II and III would have a greater pre-emption cost because they would operate through
additional intersections on the East-West Corridor. Alternatives IA and IB would provide BRT service on
the North-South Corridor only. In cases where the number of BRT vehicles was reduced (15 percent
traffic factor - Alternative III, 10 percent traffic factor – all Alternatives), an overall reduction in capital cost
occurred, because the cost savings of one less BRT vehicle was greater than the cost of installing signal
pre-emption. In all other cases, an overall increase in capital cost occurred from the added cost of traffic
signal pre-emption without reducing the BRT fleet size.
Table 25: Speed Sensitivity - Capital Cost Variations
Alternative
Intersections
Alternative IA
Alternative IB
Alternative II
Alternative III
14
14
19
19
Alternative
Intersections
Alternative IA
Alternative IB
Alternative II
Alternative III
14
14
19
19
15% Traffic Factor
Additional PreBRT
emption Cost
Vehicles
$301,000
7
$301,000
7
$408,500
11
$408,500
10
10% Traffic Factor
Additional PreBRT
emption Cost
Vehicles
$301,000
6
$301,000
6
$408,500
10
$408,500
10
Vehicle
Savings
$0
$0
$0
$540,100
Vehicle
Savings
$540,100
$540,100
$540,100
$540,100
Cost Difference
$301,000
$301,000
$408,500
($131,600)
Cost Difference
($239,100)
($239,100)
($131,600)
($131,600)
Annual O&M cost estimate models were based on two methods (cost per revenue mile and cost per
revenue hour) for the four Build Alternatives for the base year 2013 in the Final Operations and
Maintenance Cost Estimation Methodology Report (June 2015). The O&M cost for the forecast year 2035
was then estimated by applying an inflation rate of 2.6 percent to the 2013 cost, projected forward 22
years. Table 26 shows the effect of an increase in travel speed on O&M costs for both methods.
For the method based on cost per revenue mile, there was no change to O&M costs because revenue
mileage does not change with increased speeds. The method based on revenue hours decreased costs
for all alternatives because this method was based on the amount of time BRT vehicles spend traveling
their routes. The 15 percent traffic factor reduced costs by $53,000 - $106,000 (2013 dollars) and the 10
percent traffic factor reduced costs by $93,000 – $185,000 (2013 dollars).
In practice, achieving a 10 to 15 percent traffic factor may not be physically possible, due to the need to
balance transit system benefits with potential negative impacts to other roadway users. In other words,
general traffic flow would likely be negatively impacted as a result of allocating additional side-street
green time to the BRT system. In addition, potential cost savings stemming from implementation of
transit signal pre-emption are minimal compared to the projected annual O&M cost for each of the Build
Alternatives.
16
US Department of Transportation, Intelligent Transportation Systems, Joint Program Office. Costs Database.
http://www.itscosts.its.dot.gov/its/benecost.nsf/ID/478B21EDD18C9EAE85256DB100458929?OpenDocument&Query=CApp
82
The availability of exclusive transit lanes in Alternatives IB, II, and III assures both higher travel speed and
reliability, in general. There would be occasions when disabled vehicles in the shoulder lanes would likely
negatively affect transit operations, especially during peak traffic hours. It should be noted that, in the
future, it will be important to make sure that transit system concerns are accommodated whenever major
infrastructure projects are implemented at La Vita and Mayagüez Mall.
Any measures implemented to improve transit ridership would also result in additional costs. However,
the average cost per rider would typically decrease, along with the added benefits of providing improved
transit service to more riders.
Table 26: Speed Sensitivity - O&M Cost Variations
Alternative
Alternative IA
Alternative IB
Alternative II
Alternative III
Alternative
Alternative IA
Alternative IB
Alternative II
Alternative III
Alternative
Alternative IA
Alternative IB
Alternative II
Alternative III
8.9.2
Base - 20% Traffic Factor
(2013 dollars)
(2035 dollars)
Based on Cost per Revenue
Based on
Based on
Hour
Hour
Cost per
Cost per
Revenue
With 12%
With 12%
Revenue Mile
No Layover
No Layover
Mile
Layover
Layover
$2,121,087
$1,315,089
$1,472,900
$3,730,787
$2,313,115
$2,590,689
$2,121,087
$1,362,057
$1,525,504
$3,730,787
$2,395,726
$2,683,213
$2,667,276
$2,113,536
$2,367,161
$4,691,480
$3,717,506
$4,163,607
$2,667,276
$2,160,504
$2,419,764
$4,691,480
$3,800,117
$4,256,131
15% Traffic Factor
(2013 dollars)
Based on
Hour
Cost per
With 12%
Revenue Mile
No Layover
Layover)
$2,121,087
$1,268,122
$1,420,296
$2,121,087
$1,315,089
$1,472,900
$2,667,276
$2,019,601
$2,261,954
$2,667,276
$2,066,569
$2,314,557
(2035 dollars)
Based on
Hour
Cost per
Revenue
With 12%
No Layover
Mile
Layover
$3,730,787
$2,230,504
$2,498,164
$3,730,787
$2,313,115
$2,590,689
$4,691,480
$3,552,283
$3,978,557
$4,691,480
$3,634,895
$4,071,082
10% Traffic Factor
(2013 dollars)
Based on
Hour**
Cost per
With 12%
Revenue Mile
No Layover
Layover
$2,121,087
$1,221,154
$1,367,693
$2,121,087
$1,221,154
$1,367,693
$2,667,276
$1,925,666
$2,156,746
$2,667,276
$2,019,601
$2,261,954
(2035 dollars)
Based on
Hour
Cost per
Revenue
With 12%
No Layover
Mile
Layover
$3,730,787
$2,147,892
$2,405,639
$3,730,787
$2,147,892
$2,405,639
$4,691,480
$3,387,061
$3,793,508
$4,691,480
$3,552,283
$3,978,557
Passenger Loading and Unloading (Dwell Times)
The length of time it takes for passengers to enter and exit transit vehicles can dramatically affect overall
run time for a transit route. For that reason, low-floor BRT vehicles were specified for BRT service
resulting from the MTS. In similar fashion, the vehicles suggested for the TSM Alternative also facilitate
reasonably fast loading and unloading times. However, Alternatives IA and IB, which would continue to
use the existing TIM fleet of rubber-tired trolleys, would experience slower loading and unloading times.
83
Alternative IA would provide service in the East-West Corridor via TIM Route 3 with only limited capital
improvements. The slower loading and unloading times, caused by the need for passengers to climb up
and down stairs into and out of the vehicles, would likely have a detrimental effect on the ability of TIM
Route 3 to provide adequate transfer capability for the BRT service in the North-South Corridor. For this
reason, as well as scheduling concerns, TIM Route 3 service would operate at 10 minute headways
under Alternative IB. Despite slower passenger loading and unloading, the more frequent service could
better accommodate transfers to/from north-south BRT service. If and when TIM rubber-tired trolley
vehicles are replaced with standard transit vehicles, loading and unloading times would improve.
In the Final Operations and Maintenance Cost Estimation Methodology Report (June 2015), a dwell time
of 60 seconds was assumed for the majority of BRT stops. This estimate was based on provision of
exclusive lanes, off-board fare collection, platform level boarding, and use of low-floor vehicles with
adequate passenger circulation. This sensitivity analysis considered an increase in dwell times of 30 and
60 seconds, resulting perhaps from the use of an on-board cash payment system, instead of an off-board
proof-of-payment fare collection system. Table 27 shows the increased number of BRT vehicles needed
due to increased dwell times. These assumptions result in the capital cost differences shown in Table 28.
Table 27: Dwell Time Sensitivity - Effect on BRT Fleet Size
Alternative
Alternative IA
30 Seconds Additional Dwell Time
BRT Vehicles (with
BRT Vehicles
Run Time
Headway
Layover and 20%
(12% layover)
Spares)
70.5
12
6.6
8
Additional
Vehicles
1
Alternative IB
72.2
12
6.7
9
2
Alternative II
110.8
12
10.3
13
2
Alternative III
114.4
12
10.7
13
3
Alternative
Alternative IA
Run Time
Headway
BRT Vehicles
(12% layover)
84.9
12
7.9
BRT Vehicles (with
Layover and 20%
Spares)
10
Additional
Vehicles
3
Alternative IB
86.6
12
8.1
10
3
Alternative II
131.2
12
12.2
16
5
Alternative III
136.0
12
12.7
16
6
Table 28: Dwell Time Sensitivity - Capital Cost Variations
Alternative
Alternative IA
Alternative IB
Alternative II
Alternative III
Alternative
Alternative IA
Alternative IB
Alternative II
Alternative III
Additional
Ticketing
Vehicle Cost
Vehicles
Cost Savings
1
$540,100
$1,712,000
2
$1,080,200
$1,712,000
2
$1,080,200
$1,982,000
3
$1,620,300
$1,982,000
Additional
Ticketing
Vehicle Cost
Vehicles
Cost Savings
3
$1,620,300
$1,712,000
3
$1,620,300
$1,712,000
5
$2,700,500
$1,982,000
6
$3,240,600
$1,982,000
84
Total Cost
Difference
($1,171,900)
($631,800)
($901,800)
($361,700)
Total Cost
Difference
($91,700)
($91,700)
$718,500
$1,258,600
Vehicle costs for this analysis were the same as for the speed sensitivity analysis, $540,100. Although
additional BRT vehicles would be needed to complete the route, total capital cost decreased in certain
cases due to cost savings associated with eliminating off-board ticket validation costs. Ticketing cost
savings included the cost of ticket vending/validating machines, stand-alone validators, ticket station
hardware and software, and the central hardware and software system. In cases where the fleet size
increased by four or more vehicles (60 seconds additional dwell time for Alternatives II and III), the cost of
the additional BRT vehicles was greater than off-board ticket validation costs.
However, the reason for incorporating off-board fare collection into the Build Alternatives and reducing
BRT route cycle time was to stimulate ridership on the system by keeping transit travel time to a
minimum. A 30-second or 60-second dwell time increase equates to extending trip times by over 20 to 40
percent, respectively, which would likely negatively impact ridership substantially.
While in most cases overall capital costs would be reduced with the elimination of off-board fare
collection, O&M costs would increase dramatically (see Table 29). Similar to the case of speed sensitivity,
costs based on revenue mile would be unaffected because route distances would not change. However,
costs based on revenue hour would increase because BRT vehicles would remain on their routes for a
longer duration. In 2013 dollars, a 30-second increase in dwell time would result in an O&M cost increase
of $370,000 – $520,000 and a 60-second increase in dwell time would result in an O&M cost increase of
$580,000 - $1,050,000. Although not as high as the dwell time sensitivity capital cost increase, these
costs are significantly higher than the speed sensitivity O&M cost increases.
Table 29: Dwell Time Sensitivity - O&M Cost Variations
Alternative
Alternative IA
Alternative IB
Alternative II
Alternative III
Alternative
Alternative IA
Alternative IB
Alternative II
Alternative III
Alternative
Alternative IA
Alternative IB
Alternative II
Alternative III
Base Dwell Time
(2013 dollars)
(2035 dollars)
Based on
Based on
Hour
Hour
Cost per
Cost per
Revenue
Revenue
With 12%
With 12%
No Layover
No Layover
Mile
Mile
Layover
Layover
$2,121,087
$1,315,089
$1,472,900
$3,730,787
$2,313,115
$2,590,689
$2,121,087
$1,362,057
$1,525,504
$3,730,787
$2,395,726
$2,683,213
$2,667,276
$2,113,536
$2,367,161
$4,691,480
$3,717,506
$4,163,607
$2,667,276
$2,160,504
$2,419,764
$4,691,480
$3,800,117
$4,256,131
Dwell Time + 30 Seconds
(2013 dollars)
(2035 dollars)
Based on
Based on
Hour
Hour
Cost per
Cost per
Revenue
Revenue
With 12%
With 12%
No Layover
No Layover
Mile
Mile
Layover
Layover
$2,121,087
$1,643,862
$1,841,125
$3,730,787
$2,891,393
$3,238,361
$2,121,087
$1,690,829
$1,893,729
$3,730,787
$2,974,005
$3,330,885
$2,667,276
$2,583,211
$2,893,196
$4,691,480
$4,543,618
$5,088,852
$2,667,276
$2,677,146
$2,998,404
$4,691,480
$4,708,841
$5,273,902
Dwell Time + 60 Seconds
(2013 dollars)
(2035 dollars)
Based on
Based on
Hour
Hour
Cost per
Cost per
Revenue
Revenue
With 12%
With 12%
No Layover
No Layover
Mile
Mile
Layover
Layover
$2,121,087
$1,972,634
$2,209,350
$3,730,787
$3,469,672
$3,886,033
$2,121,087
$2,019,601
$2,261,954
$3,730,787
$3,552,283
$3,978,557
$2,667,276
$3,052,886
$3,419,232
$4,691,480
$5,369,731
$6,014,098
$2,667,276
$3,193,788
$3,577,043
$4,691,480
$5,617,564
$6,291,672
85
8.9.3
Number of Stops
The number of stops is another factor that affects convenience for people using the transit system. On
the one hand, it is important to provide enough stops for passengers to get on and get off in proximity to
their origins and destinations. On the other hand, too many stops will result in slowing down operations
and raising the overall level of inconvenience for everyone using the system. A balance must be found,
usually different for every transit system. For BRT systems, as opposed to fixed-rail systems, this is less
of an issue, because it can be adjusted more easily over time.
For all Build Alternatives, two stops were added during refinement to improve passenger convenience. It
was understood that these two stops would also be provided in the TSM Alternative. For the MTS, the
slight increases in travel time and costs for transit service would be offset by the increase in passenger
convenience.
With regard to analyzing sensitivity, reducing the number of BRT stops would decrease capital costs from
construction of fewer physical stops and from a reduced BRT fleet size needed to complete route
operations. Table 30 shows the total stop unit cost and the cost savings from eliminating four stops.
Table 30: Capital Cost per Stop
Item
Prefabricated Modular 5' x 15'
Prefabricated Modular 2'8" x 10'
Concrete 10' x 45' Station Pad
Concrete 10' x 90' Station Pad
Tactile Warning Strip 2' x 45'
Lighting Foundation, Pole, and Luminaire
Trash Receptacles, System Map, Station Icon, Etc.
Communication
Closed Circuit TV System
Ticket Vending/Validating Machines (TVMs)
Stand Alone Validator
Ticket Station Hardware/Software
Emergency Call Button
Total Cost per Stop
Combined Cost - Four Stops
Cost
$8,270
$5,845
$5,155
$10,300
$2,500
$5,000
$1,389
$21,000
$15,000
$45,000
$18,750
$45,000
$4,000
$5,000
$4,800
$197,009
$788,036
Removing stops would save time on BRT routes, and for Alternatives IA, IB, and III, this would reduce the
BRT fleet size by one. Table 31 shows the cost savings from decreasing the number of stops and the
resulting reduction in BRT fleet size.
Table 31: Stop Sensitivity - Capital Cost Variation
Alternative
Alternative IA
Alternative IB
Alternative II
Alternative III
Original BRT
Fleet Size
7
7
11
11
Sensitivity
BRT Fleet
Size
6
6
11
10
Vehicle
Savings
Stop
Savings
Total Cost
Savings
$540,100
$540,100
$0
$540,100
$788,036
$788,036
$788,036
$788,036
$1,328,136
$1,328,136
$788,036
$1,328,136
86
The O&M cost variations, shown in Table 32, resulted in a lower cost on the basis of revenue hour due to
the shorter operational cycle time on each route. On average, O&M costs would be reduced by $120,000
(2013 dollars).
Table 32: Stop Sensitivity - O&M Cost Variation
Alternative
Alternative IA
Alternative IB
Alternative II
Alternative III
Alternative
Alternative IA
Alternative IB
Alternative II
Alternative III
Base - All Stops
(2013 dollars)
(2035 dollars)
Based on
Based on
Hour
Hour
Cost per
Cost per
Revenue
Revenue
With 12%
With 12%
No Layover
No Layover
Mile
Mile
Layover
Layover
$2,121,087
$1,315,089
$1,472,900
$3,730,787
$2,313,115
$2,590,689
$2,121,087
$1,362,057
$1,525,504
$3,730,787
$2,395,726
$2,683,213
$2,667,276
$2,113,536
$2,367,161
$4,691,480
$3,717,506
$4,163,607
$2,667,276
$2,160,504
$2,419,764
$4,691,480
$3,800,117
$4,256,131
Sensitivity - Removing Four Stops
(2013 dollars)
(2035 dollars)
Based on
Based on
Hour
Hour
Cost per
Cost per
Revenue
Revenue
With 12%
With 12%
No Layover
No Layover
Mile
Mile
Layover
Layover
$2,121,087
$1,221,154
$1,367,693
$3,730,787
$2,147,892
$2,405,639
$2,121,087
$1,221,154
$1,367,693
$3,730,787
$2,147,892
$2,405,639
$2,667,276
$2,019,601
$2,261,954
$4,691,480
$3,552,283
$3,978,557
$2,667,276
$2,066,569
$2,314,557
$4,691,480
$3,634,895
$4,071,082
While capital and O&M costs would drop as a result of eliminating stops, the potential degradation to
service provision would far outweigh any potential savings benefit. Build Alternatives were originally
developed to provide stops in appropriate areas, while still maintaining appropriate spacing for provision
of BRT service.
8.9.4
Ridership Sensitivity
Alternative III was analyzed for ridership changes resulting from the various sensitivity analyses. Because
station locations are similar for all alternatives, the results are representative of all Build Alternatives.
Table 33 shows the difference in ridership numbers, as well as the percent change from the base
scenario.
In each case illustrated in Table 33 ridership would drop. In the case of adding 60 seconds of dwell time,
ridership would drop substantially. In the case of removing four stations, ridership would drops even
more precipitously. It should also be noted that due to the high level of transit dependent riders in the
MTS study area, projected ridership levels would not change as dramatically as would be expected in
other locations. Regardless of lack of service quality, transit dependent riders would still have to ride the
system, given a lack of other options.
87
Table 33: Ridership Sensitivity
Scenario
Ridership
Alternative III: Base
Alternative III: Dwell + 30 Seconds
Alternative III: Dwell + 60 Seconds
Alternative III: 15 percent Traffic Factor
Alternative III: 10 percent Traffic Factor
Alternative III: 4 Fewer Stations
8.9.5
5,370
5,240
4,960
5,330
5,330
4,670
Percent
Change
-2%
-8%
-1%
-1%
-13%
Sensitivity Analysis Conclusions
The three sensitivity analyses performed for travel speed, dwell time, and number of stations all affect the
capital cost, O&M cost, and ridership for the project. Table 34 gives a summary of capital and O&M cost
variations for each sensitivity analysis. As expected, additional dwell time increased costs and removing
stations reduced costs. Higher average transit speeds can reduce route cycle times, thereby reducing
O&M costs. Capital costs can also be reduced with higher average transit operating speeds because the
same service could be provided with a smaller BRT fleet.
Table 34: Sensitivity Analysis Cost Variation Summary
O&M Cost
Capital Cost
Alternative
Alternative IA
Alternative IB
Alternative II
Alternative III
Speed Increases
15% Traffic
10% Traffic
Factor
Factor
$301,000
($239,100)
$301,000
($239,100)
$408,500
($131,600)
($131,600)
($131,600)
Additional Dwell Time
Stations
30 Seconds
60 Seconds
Four Fewer
($1,171,900)
($631,800)
($901,800)
($361,700)
($91,700)
($91,700)
$718,500
$1,258,600
($1,328,136)
($1,328,136)
($788,036)
($1,328,136)
Alternative IA
($52,604)
($105,207)
$368,225
$736,450
($105,207)
Alternative IB
($52,604)
($157,811)
$368,225
$736,450
($157,811)
Alternative II
($105,207)
($210,415)
$526,036
$1,052,071
($105,207)
Alternative III
($105,207)
($157,810)
$578,639
$1,157,279
($105,207)
Overall, each of these cost differences made up less than two percent of the total project estimate of
approximately $80 million. Although cost reductions could be achieved, there is a trade-off. Increasing
speeds would cause disruption to general traffic, and may not be realistic given constraints of daily traffic
operations. Removing stations would provide service to fewer areas. Regardless of changes to project
elements, the effect of dwell time on cost should encourage best practices for BRT and efficient BRT
operations. Therefore, the Build Alternatives were not modified based on the sensitivity analysis.
9.
Final Screening
A matrix was developed to illustrate the relative benefits of each of the remaining alternatives in terms of
the screening criteria. The final screening process and results are summarized in the sections below.
9.1
Final Screening Criteria
In the first screening, evaluation criteria served as measures of effectiveness in assessing the
responsiveness of each alternative to the goals and objectives set forth for the MTS. As a result, the
TSM Alternative and remaining four Build Alternatives were assumed to meet the goals and objectives in
a reasonable manner. Therefore, in this second and final screening, evaluation criteria simply focused on
88
operational differences and both O&M and capital costs between the Build Alternatives. Table 35 indicates
the subset of criteria selected for use in this screening process taken from the Task 6.0 – Alternatives
Analysis Screening Methodology (February 2015) report.
Table 35: Selected Final Evaluation Criteria
9.2
Screening Results
In this section, each of the alternatives is discussed based on each of the individual screening criteria.
Differentiating characteristics of each alternative are shown in Figure 36.
Figure 36: Schematic Depictions of TSM and Build Alternatives
9.2.1
Mobility
As shown in Table 36, summarizing ridership for the build years 2010 and 2040 by alternative, the
differences in ridership between the TSM Alternative and Alternatives IA and IB were relatively small.
Alternatives II and III showed ridership clearly larger than the other alternatives, but very similar to each
other.
The relatively high level of ridership for the TSM Alternative and Alternatives IA and IB reflects the large
proportion of transit-dependent population in Mayagüez. In other words, despite mixed-traffic operations
(TSM Alternative) and the need to transfer between BRT and TIM services (Alternatives IA and IB),
passengers will still likely use the system in high numbers. However, ridership does tend to diminish as
travel time increases on a transit route, which mediates toward provision of transit service with both a
reasonably high average speed and service reliability.
89
Table 36: Ridership Summary for TSM and Build Alternatives
9.2.2
Transfers
The TSM Alternative and Alternatives II and III would all provide a “one-seat” ride between downtown and
either the north or south of Mayagüez. Alternatives IA and IB would necessitate a transfer at the PR-2
viaduct between north-south BRT service and east-west TIM Route 3 service in and out of downtown.
See Table 37 for a summary of transfers required by Alternative.
Table 37: Transfers by Alternative
For passengers traveling from the south to destinations along PR-2 just north of the East-West Corridor or
for passengers traveling from the north to destination along PR-2 just south of the East-West Corridor, all
alternatives, with the exception of Alternative III, would require a transfer somewhere in the East-West
Corridor, most likely at the viaduct. Depending on how proposed BRT service(s) and TIM System
services are coordinated, it may even be better for Alternative III passengers to transfer at the viaduct,
instead of riding BRT service in and out of downtown in order to continue their journey north or south. In
other words, if Alternative III BRT service is coordinated to provide timely transfers at the viaduct, it would
be better for passengers traveling north and south to transfer at the viaduct. On the other hand, if
Alternative III BRT service is coordinated to provide timely transfers with TIM System routes in the vicinity
of the Plaza downtown, then it may be better for passengers traveling north-south to remain on BRT
service while it traverses in and out of the downtown area.
For those passengers traveling north-south along PR-2, desiring to transfer to TIM System routes, aside
from Route 3, or to Trolley Colegial routes, this would require two transfers under Alternatives IA and IB.
The same would hold for the reverse direction, traveling from a Trolley Colegial or a TIM System route,
90
aside from Route 3, would entail two transfers to access BRT service in the North-South Corridor. Under
the TSM Alternative and Alternatives II and III, only one transfer would be required.
9.2.3
Cost Effectiveness
9.2.3.1
Operating Cost
Table 38 presents the annual O&M costs for the TSM Alternative and the four remaining Build
Alternatives. Not surprisingly, annual O&M costs for the TSM Alternative are dramatically smaller than for
any of the four Build Alternatives.
As shown in Table 38, focusing on O&M costs based on the “revenue hours” methodology, annual costs
for Alternative III are slightly higher than for Alternative II, despite the two separate services (north and
south) with that alternative. What is more surprising is that annual O&M costs, using the methodology
based on revenue hours, for Alternative IA are greater than for Alternative IB, despite much more service
being provided under Alternative IB. This relates entirely to the provision of exclusive transit lanes in the
East-West Corridor. In other words, transit service under Alternative IB moves much more efficiently, so
costs drop. Based on “revenue miles,” it is clear that Alternative IA is less expensive. However, for that
cost, much less service would be provided, compared to Alternative IB.
Table 38: Annual O&M Cost Estimate by Build Alternative
Alternative IA Total
Alternative IB Total
Alternative III Total
9.2.3.2
Capital Cost
Table 39 presents the estimated capital cost for each of the remaining alternatives. The TSM Alternative
is substantially less expensive than any of the Build Alternatives, because it does not include major
capital investment in either the North-South or East-West Corridors. Alternative IA is somewhat less
expensive than the other three Build Alternatives, because it does not include major capital investment in
the East-West Corridor. In Alternative IB, East-West Corridor service is provided by TIM Route 3 and, as
a result, has a slightly lower capital cost, because standard TIM System rubber-tired trolley vehicles are
less expensive than BRT vehicles.
91
Table 39: Summary Capital Cost Estimate
10.
Recommendation of a Locally Preferred Alternative
In conclusion of the screening of the remaining alternatives, a LPA is recommended and federal capital
funding programs available for potential use by the MTS Project (“Project”) are presented in this section.
10.1
Locally Preferred Alternative
Based on the discussion of each specific criterion in Section 9 of this report, the matrix in Figure 37
assigns a pictorial “value” to each of the criteria used for the screening process. Completely black circles
represent the “best” case, relative to the other alternatives. Completely white circles represent the “worst”
case, relative to the other alternatives.
Figure 37: Screening Matrix
The matrix indicates that Alternatives IA and IB are clearly the least effective in comparison to the other
three alternatives. It also indicates that Alternative II is more effective than Alternative III, by a small
margin. While the TSM Alternative performs best relative to all of the build alternatives, it must be noted
that the type of transit service that would be offered under the TSM Alternative varies significantly from
that proposed with the Build Alternatives. The most dramatic difference is that under the Build
Alternatives, BRT service would be provided in exclusive transit lanes, while in the TSM Alternative
públicos would remain in the general traffic stream. As a result, BRT service would be expected to be
significantly more efficient and reliable.
Therefore, Alternative II is recommended as the LPA resulting from the Alternatives Analysis
documented in the MTS and the on-going associated public involvement process. However, in the
interim, until local capital funding becomes available for implementation of the LPA, the MAM may pursue
92
implementation of the TSM Alternative in an effort to begin achieving the goals and objectives originally
established for the MTS.
10.2
Federal Funding Plan
A variety of discretionary and formula-based funding sources are available to the Project and its partners
to implement the Project, although there is considerable competition for these limited funds. This section
provides a strategic program-by-program review of the most promising federal funding options.
In advancing major transportation projects toward implementation, it is generally recognized that in
today’s constrained funding environment multiple funding types and sources are required. Opportunities
for the project sponsor to leverage private-sector and public-sector participation should also be
considered.
The estimated total capital cost to implement the Project is approximately $82.7 million ($2015).17 A 50
percent ($41.4 million) share is targeted as a potential grant request to the FTA, which is at the upper-end
of the experience of other comparable transit projects. While unlikely, if the total federal funding provided
to the Project is in the amount of 80 percent of total project cost (which represents the legal maximum for
federal participation), then this would require a 20 percent non-federal match of $16.5 million.
The highlights of the funding plan include:
There are several federal funding sources available to the Project to capitalize and implement the
transit investment program.18 Total federal funding (combined, including all sources) for a project
cannot, by law, exceed 80 percent.
A primary federal funding option is the discretionary FTA Section 5309 Small Starts program.19 The
recent Fiscal Year (FY) 2015 FTA Capital Investment Grant Program report indicates the following
program statistics:
-
Federal share of project costs for Small Starts ranges from 35 percent to 80 percent, with an
average of 49 percent.
On average, the FY 2015 budget recommendation was 29 percent of total project cost.
All federal funding sources require a local match. The most promising funding mechanisms for the
Project are identified in Table 40.
The Project sponsor has prepared an assessment to understand its condition to apply for FTA Small
Starts grants under a streamlined, versus a standard, review arrangement for grant application.
Table 40 summarizes an array of federal funding sources available for implementing the project. The
estimate of percentage share by funding source shown in the table exceeds 100 percent because several
alternative funding combinations are possible.
17
The average is calculated on the total capital cost of four alternatives, with Alternatives II and III cost estimates the same.
Mayaguez Transit Study, Task 11, Capital Cost Estimate (June 2015). Actual project costs subject to progression of design
and federal grant appropriation to the project based on the Full Funding Grant Agreement by the FTA.
18
The TIM System (Transporte Integrado de Mayagüez), operates the existing transit system. An operator has not been
determined for the Project.
19
Refer to http://www.fta.dot.gov/12304.html. In July 2012, a new authorization was enacted entitled the Moving Ahead for
Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) that changed several aspects of the program and streamlined the Small Starts
application process and supporting technical reports to be submitted with the grant. New guidance and reporting
instructions were recently issued by FTA in early August 2015.
93
Table 40: MTS Project – Summary of Potential Federal Funding Sources
Estimated Range
Use of Funds by Cost
Source of Potential Funds
of % of Project
Element
Cost *
FTA - Section 5309, Small Starts Grants
40 - 50%
Design, construction or
purchase of:
This program funds capacity improvement projects
Maximum of 50%
Guideway
such as corridor-based bus rapid transit (BRT)
of total net capital
Stations, stops,
projects that are less than $75 million in grant request
cost; maximum of
terminals, intermodal
from the FTA and the total net capital cost is less than
$75 million from
centers
$250 million. Projects are required to meet certain
this source
Systems/TSP
Vehicles
performance criteria to be eligible for funding.
Statutory provisions: 49 U.S.C.A. § 5309
Right-of-Way
FTA – Section 5309, Ladders of Opportunity
1 - 5%
Replace, rehabilitate, and
purchase buses and
This program was established from $100 million in
related equipment and to
recoveries from prior 5309 bus grant program. Recent construct bus-related
NOFA was in summer 2014, and grant application
facilities.
closed 11/17/2014. Additional NOFA likely for
FY2016. Application could be submitted as part of a
consolidated State proposal.
FTA - Section 5307, Formula Grants
Construction, Operations or 5 - 10%
purchase:
When an operator arrangement is determined for the
Vehicles
Project, this program provides formula funding for use
Station enhancements
to support capital expenses, although up to 10% of
System
the allocation may be used to assist with the
Operational right-ofoperating costs of Americans with Disabilities Act
way
(ADA)-mandated paratransit services. 1% of funding
allocations to be spent on safety and security
measures, and 1% spent on transit enhancements.
Funding for this program is approximately $3.6 billion
annually. Statutory provision: 49 U.S.C.A. § 5307
FTA 5307 – Reprogramming of Funds
Construction, Operations or 10% based on
total project cost.
purchase:
Specific to the MTS project, there is approximately $8
Vehicles
million of Section 5307 grant funds from a previous
disbursement that remain for use in the corridor
System
“subject to study results” for design, operational rightOperational right-ofof-way, or other eligible capital purchases.
way
FTA – Section 5307, Flexible Funds
Construction, Operations or 5 - 10%
purchase:
As a variant use by project sponsor and funding
Vehicles
partner as an option to “flex” (transfer) federal
transportation funds between highway and transit
System
programs.
Operational right-ofway
94
Estimated Range
of % of Project
Element
Cost *
FTA – Section 5310
1 - 5%
Planning, design,
infrastructure and
This program is aimed to improve mobility for seniors
facilities to meet ADA
and individuals with disabilities (e.g., ADA) through
and senior
grant funds for capital, mobility management, and
requirements
operating expenses. The new Circular (FTA
Operating expenses
C9710.1G allows areas less than 199,999 people) to
per eligible population
be recipients of Section 5310 funds. The
served
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico has received
apportionments for several programs.
All projects for funding to be included in a locally
developed, public transit-human services
transportation plan in coordination with human
services agencies.
This program is a non-urbanized area formula funding
applicable to the portion of the study area that meets
the population criterion. This federal grant program
provides funding for public transit with emphasis on
inter-city travel with a population below 50,000. FTA
apportions funds to governors of each State annually.
The Puerto Rico Dept. of Transportation and Public
Works (DTPW) is the delegated grantee. Statutory
provision: 49 U.S.C.A. § 5311
This is a new formula grant program (replacing
Section 5309 discretionary Bus and Bus Facilities
program). It provides funding to replace, rehabilitate,
and purchase buses and related equipment, and to
construct bus-related facilities. FY 2014 Authorized
funding is $428 million. $65.5 million will be allocated
with each State receiving $1.25 million and each
territory (including DC and Puerto Rico) receiving
$500,000. The FY 2015 Appropriations provides
$284,809,315 with fixed allocation to each State
$832,192 and each territory $332,877. The remaining
funding will be distributed by formula based on
population, vehicle revenue miles and passenger
miles. This program requires a 20 percent local
match.
95
Capital vehicle and
equipment
Bus purchases with
program for intercity
Planning and marketing
activities
1 - 5%
Buses and related
equipment
replacement,
rehabilitation, and
purchase.
1 - 5%
Estimated Range
of % of Project
Element
Cost *
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Flexible
5 - 10%
Multi-modal elements
Funds (Surface Transportation Program, STP)
of project
Bicycle and pedestrian
This program provides flexible funding that may be
elements
used by states and territories for projects to preserve
Station/stop and
and improve the conditions and performance on any
appurtenances
federal-aid highway, bridge and tunnel projects on
any public road, pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure,
and transit capital projects, including intercity bus
terminals.
FHWA Flexible Funds (Transportation
1 - 5%
Stations, stops,
Alternatives Program)
centers with pedestrian
This program provides funding for programs and
design requirements.
projects defined as transportation alternatives,
Roadway/guideway
including on- and off-road pedestrian and bicycle
improvements and
facilities, infrastructure projects for improving nonconstruction supporting
driver access to public transportation and enhanced
pedestrian environment
mobility.
and walkable access
FHWA National Highway Performance Program
1 - 5%
NHS related projects
(NHPP)
ITS improvements
Bicycle transport and
This is a formula funding program to support the
Pedestrian walkways
National Highway System (NHS), for the construction
Construction of publicly
of new facilities on the NHS, and to ensure that
owned intra-city or
investments of federal-aid funds in highway
intercity bus terminals
construction. NHPP; MAP-21 §1106; 23 USC 119
servicing the NHS.
Puerto Rico Department of Transportation and
5 - 10%
Guideway and road
Public Works
rehabilitation
Limited right-of-way
This program funds supported by federal, as well as
acquisition
state agency, funds to support reconstruction of major
arterials for use by the Project BRT system, while
enhancing the roadway throughput, functionality,
congestion relief, and improve pedestrian walkability.
96
Estimated Range
of % of Project
Element
Cost *
United States Department of Transportation
Design and construction of: 15% - 25%
(USDOT), Transportation Investment Generating
Guideway
Economic Recovery (TIGER) Grants
Stations, stops,
This is a very competitive, discretionary grant source
centers.
of funding requiring upwards of 40% match or more
Roadway/guideway
and readiness to move forward. In 2013, nearly $500
improvements and
million in TIGER grants were awarded for 52 out of
construction
250 projects applying for funding. Included public
Systems/traffic signal
transportation, roadway and intermodal facilities. The
prioritization (TSP)
TIGER Grant Program was not originally funded
Vehicles
beyond September 2014, but on December 16, 2014,
Limited property
the President signed the Further Continuing
acquisition
Appropriations Act, 2015, with a $500 million
authorization for TIGER in 2015. Funding availability
is indeterminate as of the date of this report, but
TIGERMAP-21 reauthorization legislation and the
Administration’s GROW AMERICA Act expands the
program. Due to the limited funds and
competitiveness, transit projects typically apply
repeatedly.
Transportation Infrastructure Finance and
50% credit
Guideway
Innovation Act (TIFIA)
assistance or loan
Stations, stops,
to contribute to
This program can be used to finance (that is,
financing
centers.
leverage) future revenue applied as the non-federal
Systems/TSP
share for federal funds. TIFIA is not a source new
Vehicles
funding; rather it offers direct loans, loan guarantees,
and credit assistance. Loans are negotiated between
the USDOT and the borrower and are based on the
project's economics and funding characteristics
(stable revenue stream of payments). Interest rates
are at the rate that the US Treasury borrows funds.
The amount of the loan cannot exceed 50% of total
eligible project costs, and is limited to projects with
total costs of at least $50 million. TIFIA offers credit
assistance in the form of direct loans, loan
guarantees, and standby lines of credit.
Note: For planning purposes, the asterisk (*) indicates a preliminary estimate of potential share from a prospective
federal funding source for primarily capital costs and as indicated for operations costs. The share allocation is not
cumulative, but an estimate of individual fund contribution. Eventual funding will vary depending on the capacity of the
local match, funding partners, combination of funding sources, competition for funds, and the strength of the
application.
A recent change in policy, FTA now officially favors applications that request less than the maximum
federal share (something they had informally advocated in the past). While allowing federal money to go
further, the major rationale for this approach appears to be FTA’s concern that federal funds should
support only those projects to which local (or state) officials are strongly committed, as demonstrated by
the extent of their financial contribution to a project.
97
FTA also considers the applicant’s overall financial plan, including the factors indicated in Figure 38.
Figure 38: Local Financial Commitment Factors
Source: FTA, Final Interim Policy Guidance Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grant Program, August
2015
The following are preliminary recommendations to advance MTS project delivery:
The near-term outcome of MAP-21 Reauthorization, or any variant thereof, presents a profound
implication for funding strategy for the MTS project in terms of timing, availability,
competitiveness, and the potential amount of federal funding sources. The project sponsor and its
partners should continue to monitor and strategize at all levels of government on funding
opportunities. Many of the steps to apply for federal grants are similar for other grant sources as
well and are necessary regardless of the overall implementation path of the project.
Determine the operator for the MTS Project. This is a “readiness” pre-requisite for the project to
be able to apply for federal funding support and demonstrating momentum for the project. The
outcome of selecting an operator also informs a host of other variables yet to be determined: a)
operations and maintenance revenues/costs; b) refinement of vehicle costs and service plan; c)
station/stop design requirements.
Model the fully integrated CapEx and OpEx funding and financing requirements, recognizing that
the total federal maximum participation is 80 percent.
Pursue FTA “Small Starts” funding by:
o
o
o
o
Preparing for a New Starts Financial Analysis Report as a condition to a FTA Small Starts
grant application. The financial analysis will need to be consistent with FTA “Guidance for
Transit Plans” (2014). Meeting the requirements of the streamlined Financial Analysis Report
will benefit overall project implementation. The early determination of the MTS Project team is
that the Project does qualify as a FTA Small Starts Project.
Preparing a “readiness” evaluation of potential funding resources and non-Small Starts share.
If the local financial commitment is more than 50 percent of the project capital costs, then the
Project is in a position to potentially receive a higher rating by FTA.
Preparing documentation regarding financial condition of the Project sponsor and operator
during the last three years with audited financial statements, with details on the new,
incremental operations and maintenance costs.
Describe the potential utilization of financing tools such as TIFIA once FTA “readiness” and
primary application requirements are met by the Project sponsor. TIFIA has a very detailed
application process, but could afford the Project flexibility in the timing and receipt of other
funds.
98
Appendix A: Individual Topic Area Reports
Below is a list of all of the individual topic area reports that comprise the MTS and the dates they were
finalized:
Task 3.0 – Existing and Future No-Build Transportation Facilities, January 2015
Task 4.0 – Purpose and Need Statement, February 2015
Task 4.0 – Project Initiation, March 2015
Task 5.0 – Development of Initial Alternatives (Long List), February 2015
Task 5.0 – Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Alternative, May 2015
Task 5.0 – Federal Funding Plan, September 2015
Task 6.0 – Alternatives Analysis Screening Methodology, February 2015
Task 7.0 – Screening of Initial Alternatives (Long List), March 2015
Task 8.0 – Conceptual Design, May 2015
Task 9.0 – Operating Plan, June 2015
Task 10.0 – Ridership Forecasts and Transportation Impacts Analysis, September 2015
Task 11.0 – Capital Cost Estimation Methodology, March 2015
Task 11.0 – Capital Cost Estimate, June 2015
Task 12.0 – Operations and Maintenance Cost Estimation Methodology, June 2015
Task 13.0 – Evaluation of Environmental and Community Issues, August 2015
Task 14.0 – Sensitivity Analysis, September 2015
Task 15.0 – Evaluation of Remaining Detailed Alternatives and Selection of a Locally Preferred
Alternative, September 2015
A-1
Appendix B: Public Involvement Summary
First Communications Team Meeting
July 17, 2014
Meeting with Municipality of Mayagüez (MAM) Communications Advisor to discuss community and
communications issues and establish timelines as part of the development of the Public Outreach Plan for
the Mayagüez Transit Study (MTS). Specific timetables and an action plan were determined.
Meeting with MAM Community Liaison
August 14, 2014
The first meeting with a community leader (Lucy Flores) was held to discuss strategies for community
outreach and meetings with the community. It was determined that Ms. Flores would invite a group of
selected community leaders to the first public meeting in order to present the project.
Public Outreach Plan
September 2014
A Public Outreach Plan was developed to outline how the MAM and the archUD-AECOM consultant team
will inform and seek input from all stakeholders in the project, including municipal governments, residents,
the business community, stakeholder groups, and other organizations. The objective was to ensure that
all stakeholders have ample opportunity to be informed and understand the federal study process, to
comment on the study as it progresses, to feel their concerns and ideas have been heard, and to
contribute to building a consensus about the outcomes; culminating in a locally preferred
transit enhancement project.
It also included a Calendar of Events with specific milestones as to each community activity.
Presentation to the Mayor of Mayagüez, Jose G. Rodriguez
November 12, 2014
The archUD-AECOM consultant team prepared and presented a detailed presentation about the project
to the Mayor of the Municipality of Mayagüez, Hon. Jose G. Rodriguez, in order to obtain his feedback
and comments with regards to the project and the public outreach plan. It was agreed at that meeting
that the first contact with community groups should be with the Asociacion Pro Desarrollo del Oeste.
Presentation to Asociación Pro Desarrollo del Oeste
December 9, 2014
The first official presentation was held for a group of influential business and educational leaders,
including the Chamber of Commerce, University of Puerto Rico (UPR)-Mayagüez Campus, and the
Rotary Club, among others.
First Public Workshop
December 11, 2014
More than 50 community leaders attended the first Community Workshop to learn about the project. A
question and answer session was held after the visual presentation.
B-1
First Stakeholder and Steering Committee Presentations
December 11, 2014
Two separate meetings were held with members of the Stakeholders Group and Steering Committee to
review the presentation, address questions and present comments and recommendations about the
project.
Educational Website
February 2015
A comprehensive, easy to use website was developed to educate the community about the project. It
includes the existing Mayagüez transportation system, future plans, an overview of the project, examples
of BRT systems and interactive maps. The website has English and Spanish versions and is compatible
with mobile devices.
Follow up Meeting with Stakeholders and Steering Committees
February 6, 2015
Meetings with each committee were held to follow up on the project and present progress and
developments.
Meeting with Medical Community
February 24, 2015
Mayagüez has a diverse and influential health and hospital community that includes medical centers,
hospitals, health clinics and private health practitioners. A presentation was given specifically to that
community to educate community members about the project, address any concerns and answer any
questions.
Meeting with Stakeholder and Steering Committees
February 24, 2015
Follow-up meetings to continue advancing the project.
March 17, 2015
Second Public Workshop
March 19, 2015
Workshop to update the community on project progress and development.
April 23, 2015
September 21, 2015
Final meeting to wrap up the project.
B-2
Appendix C: Maps of Preliminary Service Alternatives
Figure C-1: Service Option 1
C-1
C-2
C-3
C-4
C-5
C-6
C-7
C-8
Appendix D: Conceptual Design Drawings
Conceptual design drawings by corridor segment and roadway intersection are included on the following
pages.
D-1
PR
102
104
10
2
2
2
-63
PR 10
PR
E
CA
LL
CA
31
S
U
N
O
SC
-2R
North/South Corridor 4
PR 343
PR
(BE
)
PR
ES
NC
TA
SA
0
10
E
LE
CAL
H
ADIC
NEN
O
VIG
R
-2
PR
0
PR 38
PR 348
PR-2R (BET
ANC
ES)
AVENIDA CORAZONES
Z
DE
IA
AR
EN
M
EL
ND
LL
CA
CA
E
LL
CA
AN
JU
AS
B
CA
VI
GO
IDA
EN
AV
IA
AR
EL
ND
CA
ME
ND
EZ
PR
LL
E
08
CA
E
LL
AN
LO
BASOR
A
CALLE
PR
FIL
DE
AR
8
PR
10
PR
IA
PR
2
PR
PIL
E
LL
CA
PERAL
CALLE
RC
PR 64
D
PR
E
AV
PR 2
PR 2
0
38
PR
10
8
H
ADIC
CALL
E N
EN
PR
PR
65
9
34
6
PR
10
PR 348
East/West Corridor
PR 114
S)
ANCE
R (B
ET
PR-2
D-2
GA
PR
EZ
64
PR
BA
VD
PR
CALLE MARTINEZ NADA
L
PR
2
10
2
BL
PR
5
CARR 108
PR
10
PR 106
PR
PR 380
348
380
PR
PR
PR
M
BE
2
2
4
10
PR 2
64
PR 64
Task 8: Concept Design Plan (March 27, 2015)
Key Map
PR 114
PR 2
PR
3
RR
49
CA
35
1
8
10
CARR
PR
10
5
06
1
1
PR
CARR
35
CARR 108
PR 349
PR 2
Western Plaza Este
Western Plaza Oeste
Avenida Algarrobo Este
Avenida Algarrobo Oeste
PR 2
Northbound BRT
Southbound BRT
BRT Station Stop
Refer to Intersection
Pages (Blow-ups)
PR
4
10
D-3
PR
10
4
PR
104
Mar y Sol Este
PR
2
4
6
PR
Mar y Sol Oeste
PR
2
10
Northbound BRT
Southbound BRT
BRT Station Stop
Pages (Blow-ups)
D-4
B-4
2
10
Colegio Este
PR
N
A
U
2
J
N
Colegio AOeste
S
E
LL
A
C
PR
R
-2
CA
LL
E
CA
ME
LL
E
CA
ND
EZ
ND
EL
A
RI
VI
GO
Parque Suau Este
A
Parque Suau Oeste
CA
LL
E
M
EN
CA
DE
LL
E
Z
CA
N
VI
GO
DE
L
Northbound BRT
Southbound BRT
BRT Station Stop
Pages (Blow-ups)
D-5
B-5
CA
L
LE
PI
LA
R
DE
FI
LL
O
PR 10
2
AR
IA
IL L
DE
F
R
PI
LA
CA
L
LE
PR
2
Calle Nenadich Oeste
Calle Nenadich Este
CAL
LE
NEN
A
AV
E
U
D
N
SC
M
O
BE
PR
-63
Avenida
Dunscombe Este
Avenida
Dunscombe Oeste
A
S
AS
B
ID
EN
A
CA
AV
Centro Judicial Este
PR 2
Centro Judicial Oeste
Northbound BRT
Southbound BRT
BRT Station Stop
Pages (Blow-ups)
D-6
B-6
Centro M dico Este
)
ES
C
N
R
PR 2
-2
PR
TA
E
(B
AVE
Avenida Corazones Este
PR 114
Avenida Corazones Oeste
Northbound BRT
Southbound BRT
BRT Station Stop
Pages (Blow-ups)
D-7
B-7
Sultana Este
PR 114
Sultana Oeste
PR
2
PR 343
Northbound BRT
Southbound BRT
BRT Station Stop
Pages (Blow-ups)
D-8
Parque
Suau
Oeste
Ca
l
le
Ca
nd
el
ar
ia
Calle Martinez Nadal
ig
o
eral
de
Calle P
en
zV
asora
M
Parque Suau Sur
Calle B
le
Calle Betan
Ca
l
ces (PR-2R
)
Pa
rq
ue
S
ua
u
PR
-2
Parque Suau Norte
Pilar Defillo Norte
Peral Norte
Pilar Defillo Sur
Oriente
eP
ila
rD
ef
illo
Calle Mendez Vigo
Calle Candelaria
Calle Martinez Nadal
eral
Calle P
Calle Be
Calle Oriente
tances (P
R-2R)
Ca
ll
Peral Sur
Northbound BRT
Southbound BRT
BRT Station Stop
Pages (Blow-ups)
East-West Corridor: Alternative II
East-West Corridor: Alternative III
D-9
B-9
East/West Corridor
Concept Design
BRT Route
BRT Cueing Lane
BRT Station Stop
Pedestrian Crosswalk
Traffic Signal
Western Plaza
D-10
Concept Design
BRT Route
BRT Cueing Lane
BRT Station Stop
Traffic Signal
D-11
B-11
Mar y Sol
Concept Design
BRT Route
BRT Cueing Lane
BRT Station Stop
Traffic Signal
D-12
B-12
Colegio
Concept Design
BRT Route
BRT Cueing Lane
BRT Station Stop
Traffic Signal
D-13
B-13
Centro Judicial
Concept Design
BRT Route
BRT Cueing Lane
BRT Station Stop
Traffic Signal
D-14
B-14
Centro Medico
Concept Design
BRT Route
BRT Cueing Lane
BRT Station Stop
Traffic Signal
D-15
Typical Pavement Marking for Continuous Preferential Lanes (North/South Corridor)
D-16
B-16
Typical Pavement Marking for Continuous Preferential Lanes (East/West Corridor)
D-17
B-17
SHOULDER
TRAVELED WAY
MEDIAN
TRAVELED WAY
TRAVELED WAY
MEDIAN
TRAVELED WAY
SH
EXISTING
CONDITION
BRT
BRT
PROPOSED
CONDITION
North/South Corridor
D-18
B-18
TRAVELED WAY
MEDIAN
TRAVELED WAY
SHOULDER
TRAVELED WAY
BRT
EXISTING
CONDITION
BRT
EXISTING LANE
NEW LANE
MEDIAN
PROPOSED
CONDITION
North/South Corridor
D-19
B-19
20'
20'
15'
15'
10'
10'
5'
5'
0'
0'
PARKING
TRAVELED WAY
PARKING
PARKING
EXISTING CONDITION
TRAVELED WAY
PARKING
EXISTING CONDITION
20'
20'
15'
15'
10'
10'
45
67
111
123
5'
45
67
111
123
5'
0'
0'
PARKING
TRAVELED WAY
BRT
PARKING
TRAVELED WAY
BRT
PROPOSED CONDITION
PROPOSED CONDITION
CANDELARIA STREET (NARROW SECTION)
CANDELARIA STREET (WIDE SECTION)
East/West Corridor
D-20
B-20
20'
20'
15'
15'
10'
10'
5'
5'
0'
0'
PARKING
TRAVELED WAY
PARKING
PARKING
EXISTING CONDITION
PARKING
EXISTING CONDITION
20'
20'
15'
15'
10'
10'
5'
TRAVELED WAY
45
67
111
123
5'
0'
45
67
111
123
0'
BRT
TRAVELED WAY
BRT
PARKING
PROPOSED CONDITION
TRAVELED WAY
PARKING
PROPOSED CONDITION
MENDEZ VIGO STREET (WIDE SECTION)
MENDEZ VIGO STREET (NARROW SECTION)
East/West Corridor
D-21
B-21
Appendix E: Capital Cost Scoping Drawings
Conceptual design drawings by corridor segment, including scope of work for Capital Cost evaluations for
Build Alternatives (IA, IB, II, III) summarized in Section 8.7 of this Final Report, are included on the
following pages.
E-1
E-2
E-3
E-4
E-5
E-6
E-7
E-8
E-9
NORTH/SOUTH
PR-2 CORRIDOR
CORRIDOR - EDGE REHABILITATION OPTIONS
E-10
NORTH/SOUTH
PR-2 CORRIDOR
CORRIDOR - ROADWAY REHABILITATION OPTIONS
E-11
EAST/WEST CORRIDOR
MENDEZ VIGO/CANDELARIA
CORRIDOR - ROADWAY REHABILITATION OPTIONS
E-12

Mayagüez Transit Study

Transcription

Similar documents

How do I get more information?

view presentation - East-West BRT Feasibility Study

Froggy Drawing handout2 - Mid Mon Valley Transit Authority

TASK 4.0 – PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT

International Academy for Design and Health

pico union/ echo park - LADOT Transit Services

Mississauga Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Project - West

june 4 : fado irish pub

PDF presentation