Attachment 1764

8/11/2019 Attachment 1764

1/58

PROPOSAL FOR

CITY OF BOISE

DOWNTOWN BOISE

CIRCULATOR SYSTEM

ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

RFP 13-116

SUBMITTED MARCH 13, 2013


2/58

Downtown Boise Circulator System Alternatives Analysis RFP #13-116

TOC

Table of Contents

Cover LetterCover Letter 1

Signature Sheet 2

B. Team StructureIntroduction 3Meet the URS Team 3

Organizational Structure 3

DBE Firms 4

C. Key Personnel QualicationsKey Staff 5

Additional Key Staff 8

D. Project Management & Approach to the Project

Project Goals 9Project Management and Approach 10

Project Management 10

Project Approach 11

Evaluation of Alternatives 14

Locally Preferred Alternative 17

Challenges and Solutions 18

E. Specic Relavant ExperienceSimilar Work Experience 21


3/58


1


4/58


2


5/58


3

IntroductionThe Downtown Boise Circulator System Alternatives Analysis(AA) project is a critical step in arriving at a locally preferredalternative that is buildable, a right t for the community andcontributes to economic development goals for downtownBoise. To assist the City of Boise and its partners with thiseffort, URS has carefully assembled a team of professionalswith the local knowledge, management expertise and

technical skills to successfully complete this critical planningphase that will set the stage for implementation.

Meet the URS TeamURS and our teaming partners bring proven recordsof completing projects similar to the Downtown BoiseCirculator AA project. In addition to expertise in alternativesplanning and development, community and stakeholderengagement and nancial strategy, our team offers uniqueinsights for the planning phase which are informed by ourstrong record of in-street running streetcar projects currentlyin operation.

B. Team StructureWe will leverage our lessons learned from previous naldesign and implementation assignments to strategicallynavigate the Downtown Boise Circulator project through thecurrent FTA AA process while avoiding pitfalls and maintainthe exibility to adapt to changes from Moving Ahead forProgress in the 21st Century (MAP-21). Exhibit 1 detailsthe specic roles and relevant experience of our primaryteaming partners, along with those of our specialty sub-consultants.

Organizational StructurePeople not rms deliver projects. With this philosophy inmind, URS has carefully assembled a group of professionalswith the right skill set to assist the City of Boise and itsproject partners in effi ciently completing the AA process.An organizational chart of the URS team, which indicatesour key staff and project resources needed to completeall elements of the Scope of Work is on page 4 (Exhibit 2).Brief summaries of our key staff qualications are includedin Section C (page 5), while detailed, full-page resumes areincluded in Appendix A.

Firm / Role / Offi ce Information(Size, Corporate Location)

Expertise Relevant to Boise Streetcar AA

URSProject Management, Conceptual Design,Alternatives Development and Evaluation, ProjectDevelopment, FTA Coordination and StrategySize: 50,000 staff

Corporate Offi ce: San Francisco, CA

Boise offi ce: 48 staff; Portland offi ce: 120

Unmatched experience in advancing similar urban circulator projects from feasibility throughnal design.

URS served as the engineer of record for the modern streetcar systems currently in operation(Seattle, Portland) and for those currently in construction (Tucson and Atlanta).

Proven FTA AA experience in communities including Boise, Salt Lake City, Seattle, Santa Ana,and Vancouver, WA, among others.

Extensive transit and transportation experience in Boise, including the Treasure Valley High-Capacity Transit Study and State Street Transit and Traffi c Operations Plan.

John Parker Consulting LLCTravel Demand Forecasting/Transit Ridership

EstimatesFirm Size: 2 staffCorporate Offi ce: Tigard, OR

Knowledge of Federal Transit Administration project development process, including NewStarts/Small Starts and FTAs SUMMIT software.

Experience and technical expertise in travel demand model application, calibration, validationand analysis that meet FTA requirements. Close working relationship with key travel forecasting staff at FTA.

Leland Consulting GroupEconomic DevelopmentSize: 7 staff

Corporate Offi ce: Portland, OR

Provided economic development and funding strategy for circulator feasibility studies in eightcities, including Salt Lake City, Sacramento, Denver, and Portland.

Extensive experience working with CCDC and other Boise-area public and private partners toprovide planning and implementation strategies for downtown housing and other uses.

Prepared implementation strategies for public and private development in over 80downtowns and 35 urban corridors.

Kittelson & AssociatesTraffi cFirm Size: 152 staff


Boise offi ce: 10 employees

KAI holds transportation on-call contracts with CCDC and ACHD and has assisted theseagencies on projects including the Downtown Boise Multimodal Center EA.

KAI worked on several previous studies that support this project, including the DowntownImplementation Plan, Downtown Multimodal Center, Treasure Valley High Capacity TransitStudy, and CCDC streetcar studies.

RBCIPublic Involvement ConsultantSize: 6 staff

Corporate Offi ce: Boise, ID

Boise offi ce: 6 Employees

RBCI has managed over 85 public involvement projects in the Treasure Valley. Managed public involvement activities for the Downtown Boise Mobility Study and the

Treasure Valley High Capacity Transit Study. Outstanding working relationships with Boise City, Boise State University, Idaho

Transportation Department, COMPASS, Ada County Highway District, Valley Regional Transitand businesses.

ZGF ArchitectsPlanning and Urban DesignFirm Size: 450 (rmwide), 200 (Portland)


25 year history of urban design and planning projects in downtown Boise Current engagement on design of Boise Downtown Multimodal Center Author of BSU Master Plan National experience of urban design for transit projects

Exhibit 1.URS Team Experience Summary


6/58


4

DBE FirmsURS consistently meets and exceeds Disadvantaged BusinessEnterprise (DBE) and Small Business Enterprise (SBE) goals byproviding meaningful roles for DBE/SBE sub-consultants onour projects. For this project, our team features the following

DBE rms: Rosemary Brennan Curtin, Inc. (RBCI) (Idaho DBE) led

by Rosemary Curtin will provide public involvementsupport.

While not a certied DBE rm in Idaho, our team alsofeatures John Parker Consulting LLC (JPC), which is DBEcertied in Oregon and meets federal SBE criteria. JPC isled by Jennifer John and Randy Parker will provide TravelDemand Forecasting and Transit Ridership Estimates. LelandConsulting Group (LCG) also meets federal SBE criteria. LCG isled by Chris Zahas and will provide Economic Developmentstrategies.

In assembling our team, our outreach efforts with DBE/SBErms included:

Building on existing relationships by asking DBE/SBErms we have previously worked with regarding theirinterest on this project.

Asking our non-DBE/SBE teaming partners for referralsto DBE/SBE rms.

Hosting annual DBE/SBE Open House Events to networkwith these rms for upcoming transit projects.

Researching the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD)DBE directory for rms that specialize in the areas ofwork required for this project.

Reviewing our internal DBE/SBE database, whichprovides DBE/SBE rms the opportunity to pre-qualifyfor work based on their expertise area.

Making one-on-one contacts by phone and email topotential team members, including rms listed on thePlanholders List on Onvia.

Exhibit 2.URS Team Structure

City of BoiseJim Pardy

Project Manager

John Cullerton (PDX)

FTA Coordination and

StrategyTerry Kearns (PDX)

ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION

All Staff URS, Except:

[1] - John Parker Consulting

[2] - Kittelson & Associates

[3] - Leland Consulting Group

[4] - RBCI

[5] - ZGF

ProjectDevelopmentBob Post (PDX)

Local FundingBob Post (PDX)

Brian Vanneman (PDX) [3]

Financial Analysis

Chris Zahas (PDX) [3]Small Starts

Jerry Smiley, AICP (Dallas,TX)

ConceptDevelopment

Mark Dorn, PE (PDX)

StationsKatharine Brendle (PDX)

Capital CostsOmar Jaff, PE (PDX)

StructuresRod Woodhouse, PE (BOI)

Civil/UtilitiesBob Jones, PLS (BOI)

Marv Thorne, PE (BOI)

Systems/VehiclesKen Boyd (MIA)

Maintenance FacilityKatharine Brendle (PDX)

Transportation

Jay Witt, PE (BOI)

TrafficJohn Ringert, PE (BOI) [2]Eric Lindstrom, PE (BOI) [2]

RidershipJennifer John (PDX) [1]Randy Parker (PDX) [1]

TransitSeth Gallant (PDX)

EvaluationCriteria

Seth Gallant (PDX)

Purpose and NeedJohn Cullerton (PDX)

Goals and ObjectivesRosemary Curtin (BOI) [4]

EconomicDevelopment

Chris Zahas, AICP (PDX) [3]

Market AnalysisTed Kamp (PDX) [3]

Brian Vanneman (PDX) [3]

GIS

Ted Kamp (PDX) [3]

Environmental

Dautis Pearson (BOI)

Cultural/HistoricBrian Wallace, RPA (BOI)Martha Richards (PDX)

BiologyLynell Sutter (BOI)

Water Quality andHazardous Material

Lisa Gates (BOI)

Air Quality and NoiseJay Witt, PE (BOI)

Dautis Pearson (BOI)

Environmental JusticeLisa Gates (BOI)

Greenhouse GasEmily Whiteman (PDX)

Visual AnalysisDautisPearson

Planning andUrban Design

Paddy Tillett, FAIA,FAICP, LEED AP

(PDX) [5]

Brian McCarter , FASLA(PDX) [5]

Public Involvement SupportRosemary Curtin (BOI) [4]


7/58


5

C. Key Personnel QualicationsThe Downtown Circulator project is a high priority for the City and project partners. It is also a high priority for the URS team,so we are dedicating our top talent to this project. Our key personnel offer a deep understanding of the project throughwork in previous phases, local Boise experience coupled with national transit expertise, and well-established workingrelationships with the project stakeholders to effectively integrate with the Citys project team. Brief summaries of our keystaff knowledge and experience follow, with full resumes in Appendix A.

Key Staff

John brings extensive transit planning, alternatives analysis, and Federal Transit Administrationexperience. John blends strong technical and analytical skills with a keen understanding of thesurrounding political and strategic context for a project. John has managed transit AAs in Portland,Boise, and Vancouver, Washington; prepared a county-wide HCT study in Clark County, Washington;and worked on streetcar studies in Boise, Seattle, and Portland.

Project Manager, Treasure Valley (Boise, Idaho) High Capacity Transit Study, West Corridor Phase1 Alternatives Analysis, Boise, ID:Developed a range of high-capacity transit modes and potentialalignments for improved transit service from downtown Boise to Caldwell. With the project team,narrowed to the most promising options and developed more detailed analysis (including order-of-magnitude costs, ridership and impacts) on the smaller set of promising options.

Reference: Charles Trainor, Planning Director, COMPASS, 208.475.2243 | Dates: 2007 - 2009 | Cost: $1.3 million

Alternatives Analysis Manager, Fourth Plain Transit Improvement Project, Vancouver, WA:Managed the technical analysis of transit improvements in the Fourth Plain corridor. The analysis

included ridership, travel time, environmental, transit operations, traffi c, land use, economicdevelopment and costs. Modeling tools included Southwest Washington Regional TransportationCouncils regional travel demand model and micro-simulation analyses using Vissim and Synchro.

Reference: Chuck Green, PE, Project Manager, CTRAN, 360.906.7362 | Dates: 2011 - 2013| Cost: $185,300

Project Manager, Portland to Lake Oswego Transit and Trail Alternatives Analysis, Portland/LakeOswego, OR:Project Manager for alternatives analysis, conceptual design and order-of-magnitudecost estimates for a transit study comparing streetcar alternatives with bus rapid transitalternatives.Prepared special studies including analyses of reversible travel lanes, streetcar safetyand security, multi-use trail safety and security, tunnel requirements and visual and noise mitigationstrategies.

Reference: Brian Monberg, Metro, 503.797.1621 | Dates: 2006 - 2009 | Cost: $550,000

John Cullerton Time Commitment:50%Project Manager

EducationBS/Geography

Years Experience(Total/With Firm)

30/8FirmURS

Work LocationPortland

Mark specializes in the planning, design, and construction of modern streetcar. Mark was the chiefdesign engineer for both the Portland and Seattle Streetcar systems and has been involved in everyphase of their development, from alignment alternatives through construction documents, for 10major projects. Besides Portland and Seattle, Mark has had signicant roles in the streetcar planningefforts in Charlotte, Atlanta, Boise, San Francisco, Oklahoma City, and Dallas.

Project Manager, Boise Circulator (Streetcar) Advanced Conceptual Design, Boise, ID: Mark led thedevelopment of advanced conceptual design for the proposed Downtown Boise Circulator(Streetcar) Project. This project built upon a prior study completed by URS. Scope included reningalignment denitions and cost estimates, and providing a more detailed assessment of utilities,traffi c control system impacts and O&M facility denition.

Reference: Phillip Kushlan, Former Executive Director, Capital City Development, 208.433.8429 |Dates: April 2009 - April 2010 | Cost: $150,000

Project Manager, Portland Streetcar Loop Project (AA, EA, Project Development and Final Design), Portland,OR: Mark served as the Planning and Design Manager for this 3-mile extension to Portlands LloydDistrict, Central Eastside and OMSI. Mark led the Design Development and cost management ofthis project to help the City gain critical funding approval from FTA. The Central Loop projectsuccessfully opened for operation on September 22, 2012.

Reference: Vicky Diede, Project Manager, City of Portland, 503.823.7137 | Dates: 2007 - 2012 | Cost: $7 million

Design Lead, Seattle Streetcar Network Plan, South Lake Union Streetcar and First Hill Streetcar Extension,Seattle, WA: As Design Lead for the Seattle Streetcar Network Plan, Mark examined the feasibility ofin-street modern streetcar technology in Seattle. This involved exploring alternative streetcar routeswithin downtown, including environmental impacts, vehicle denition and cost estimating. Thestudy recommended the South Lake Union line as the initial segment; Mark subsequently managedthe civil design team for this project. Mark and URS were hired in 2009 to plan and design the 2.5mile First Hill Streetcar Line, which is currently under construction and will open in early 2014.

Reference: Ethan Melone, Rail Transit Program Manager, City of Seattle, 206.684.8066 | Dates: 2006 - present | Cost: $100,000 (Network Plan); $1.3 million(South Lake Union); $7 million (First Hill)

Mark Dorn, PE Time Commitment:30%

Concept Development Task Lead

EducationBS/Civil Engineering

RegistrationPE - Oregon

Years Experience(Total/With Firm)25/20

FirmURS



8/58


6

Bob brings 39 years of experience in the transportation industry. He has successfully advancedtransit bus and rail projects through early concept planning to the securing of project funding,design, construction and onto successful operations. Bob is familiar with funding opportunitiesthrough the FTAs New and Small Starts programs and local funding options used on projects similarto those under consideration for the Boise Downtown Circulator.

Project Manager, Treasure Valley High Capacity Transit Study, Boise ID: Three inter-related projectswithin the Boise region including the location assessment and concept designs for a Federallyfunded downtown multimodal center, a feasibility study for a downtown circulator and the earlycorridor study of the area west of Boise. The multimodal center EA prepared under Bobs directionreceived FTAs 2009 Outstanding Achievement Award for Excellence in Environmental DocumentPreparation. The circulator study element included early evaluation of bus and streetcar alignmentoptions, cost estimating, an extensive public involvement process and exploration of fundingoptions. The three-phased, $1.3 million project was conducted from 2007 to 2010.

Reference: Charles Trainor, Planning Director, COMPASS, 208.8552558 | Dates: 2007 - 2010 | Cost: $1.3 million

Project Manager, Rail Corridor Evaluation Study, Boise, ID: An evaluation of the 22-mile segment ofthe Boise Cutoff extending from the vicinity of the Boise airport to Nampa. The study included twoprimary components: 1) an assessment of the potential cost for acquisition of this rail corridor and2) the feasibility of introducing a commuter rail operation with service to the Boise Depot. Includedwas a brief assessment of connections between the depot and downtown Boise.

Reference: Charles Trainor, Planning Director, COMPASS, 208.855.2558 | Dates: 2002 2003 | Cost: $150,000

Design Manager, Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Study and Alternatives Analysis:TheConceptual Design Lead for a series of streetcar alignment options for a four-mile corridor servingthe Santa Ana Regional Transportation Center (SARTC), downtown Santa Ana, the Civic CenterComplex and the emerging development area along the Pacic Electric right-of-way. Work includeddeveloping alignment designs, traffi c integration, station locations, maintenance facility optionsand urban design components including pedestrian and bike integration. Also included was thedevelopment of the operations plans, operating costs, capital cost estimates, project delivery optionsand guidance with respect to FTA coordination.

Reference: Cathy Higley, Vice President, Cordoba Corporation, 714.558.6124 | Dates: 2009 - present | Cost: $640,000 (URS portion)

Bob Post Time Commitment:25%Project Development Task Lead

EducationBS Architecture and BusinessAdministration


FirmURS


Rosemary has unmatched experience at all levels of transportation planning, project developmentand construction. She has successfully managed over 100 communication and public involvementprojects, many of which have been related to transportation in the Treasure Valley. She is knownfor designing and managing creative, focused and effective public relations and involvementprocesses that use a full range of tools to engage communities. For seven years, Rosemary managedpublic involvement services for the design and construction of ITDs GARVEE projects along the I-84corridor. In her work for Idaho Power Company, Rosemary has involved Treasure Valleys electedoffi cials and key leaders to plan future electrical infrastructure. When leading the public involvementfor the Downtown Boise Mobility Study and the Treasure Valley High Capacity Transit Study,Rosemary gained in-depth knowledge about Boises transportation conditions and mobility issues.As part of the Communities in Motion project, she was a key contributor to helping develop a long-range transportation plan for the entire Treasure Valley.

Public Involvement Consultant, Broadway Bridge Replacement Project, Boise, ID:Designed and iscurrently managing the public involvement process for ITDs plans to replace the Broadway Bridgeover the Boise River.

Reference: Wade Christiansen, District 3 Project Manager, Idaho Transportation Department, 208.334.8969 | Dates: 2012 - present | Cost: $16 million (totalproject cost)

Public Involvement Consultant, Treasure Valley High Capacity Transit Study, Boise, ID: Developedcommunication materials and managed education and involvement efforts to engage the publicand gather input about plans for a multimodal transportation center, a downtown circulator and aregional high-capacity corridor.

Reference: Terri Schorzman, Director of Art and History, Boise City, 208.433.5672 | Dates: 2007 - 2009 | Cost: $175,660 (fee)

Public Involvement Consultant, Downtown Boise Mobility Study, Boise, ID: Managed publicoutreach process to collect input from the community about downtown Boises existingtransportation conditions and how mobility in this area can be improved.

Reference: Kelli Fairless, Executive Director, Valley Regional Transit, 208.258.2712 | Dates: 2003 - 2005 | Cost: $80,000 (fee)

Rosemary Curtin Time Commitment:40%Public Involvement Support

EducationMS/Political Science; BS/Economics; BS PoliticalScience

Years Experience(Total/With Firm)

25/15FirmRBCI

Work LocationBoise


9/58


7

Chris Zahas manages internal teams and collaborations with other consultants on projects with anemphasis on downtown revitalization, urban corridors, transit-oriented development, and public-private partnerships. His project approach is to assist public and private sector clients in turningbroad visions into prioritized and achievable action plans. In over 12 years at Leland ConsultingGroup, he has managed more than 20 downtown and corridor implementation strategies. In thetransportation realm, he is frequently sought out for his understanding of the linkage betweentransit and land use, particularly for modern streetcar systems.

Market Analyst, Boise Downtown Housing and Revitalization Initiative, Boise, ID: In 2003, Chris managed adetailed market analysis for urban housing in downtown Boise, supported a series of workshops ledby Leland Consulting Group to engage local private developers and lenders, and assisted in severalother work tasks including opportunity site analyses for several downtown districts.

Reference: Katina Dutton, D evelopment Manager, CCDC, 208.384.4264 | Dates: 2003 - 2005 | Cost: $75,000

Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Development Advisor, State Street Transit and Traffi c Operations Plan,Boise, ID: In 2010 and 2011, Chris evaluated market opportunities at key opportunity sites along StateStreet from downtown Boise to Eagle. The work included long-term development forecasts andprioritization of opportunities based on market readiness and other factors.

Reference: Kathleen Lacey, Planner, City of Boise, 208.384.3835 | Dates: 2009 - 2011 | Cost: $60,000

Local Funding Analyst, Downtown-Riverfront Streetcar, Sacramento, CA: Chris managed the analysis ofseveral local funding mechanisms as part of a planned streetcar system in Sacramento. Workingwith multiple agencies (two counties, two cities, and two transit agencies), Leland Consulting

Group analyzed a range of mechanisms to provide the local match for the project, including localimprovement districts, tax increment nancing, parking districts, developer fees, and sales taxes.Project cost: approx. $80,000 over multiple contracts.

Reference: Maureen Daly-Pascoe, Development Manager, City of West Sacramento, 916.617.4542 | Dates:2006 - 2008| Cost: $86,000 (Leland fee)

Chris Zahas, AICP Time Commitment:25%Economic Development

Education/CerticationBA/International AffairsMaster of Urban & RegionalPlanningAICP


FirmLeland Consulting Group

Work Location

Portland

Jennifer John, co-owner of John Parker Consulting LLC, has over 20 years of experience intransportation planning and multi-modal travel demand model development and application. Shespecializes in providing travel demand forecasting services, and FTA New Starts/Small Starts andProject Development coordination. Jennifer has been involved in peer review of travel forecasting

models and is currently chairing TCRP H-37, Characteristics of Premium Transit Services that AffectChoice of Mode.

Travel Demand Forecasting and Cost Effectiveness/User Benets Analysis, West EugeneEmX Extension Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment/Small Starts ProjectDevelopment Submittal, Eugene, OR:The West Eugene EmX Extension (WEEE) project wentthrough an Alternatives Analysis and selected the alignment and mode which were carried into anEnvironmental Assessment and ultimately through the FTA Small Starts process. Services includedanalysis of transit on-board survey results to calibrate and validate the regional model, coordinationwith FTA on forecasting methods, preparation of travel demand forecasts and outputs to evaluatealternatives and prepare information for Alternatives Analysis, Environmental Assessment and SmallStarts Project Development submittals, which resulted in successful federal funding of the project.

References: Susan Payne, Senior Transportation Planner, Lane Council of Governments, 541.543.0523 and John Evans, Senior Transportation Planner, LaneTransit District, (541) 682-6146 | Dates: 2008 - 2011 | Cost: AA $125,000, Pre SS $35,000, SSPD - $160,000

Travel Demand Forecasting and Cost Effectiveness/User Benets Analysis, Portland Streetcar Loop ProjectDevelopment Application, Portland, OR:The Portland Streetcar Loop Project is a 3.3-mile extensionof the existing streetcar in Portland. Services performed included preparing the travel demandforecasts for the Small Starts and Project Development application, including evaluation of transiton-board survey data and development of a data-based ridership model. This project involved closecoordination with FTA staff and local project stakeholders to meet the needs of the project.

References: Dave Unsworth, Director of Project Development and Permitting, TriMet, 503.962.2147 | Dates: January 2008 July 2008 | Cost: $81,000

SR 305/Kitsap Transit Alternatives Analysis, Kitsap County, WA: The SR 305 AA analyzed differenttransit alternatives in the SR 305 corridor on Bainbridge Island, Washington. Services performedincluded analysis of transit and ferry on-board data, assessment of the regional model, coordinationwith FTA on an alternative data based approach and documentation of results for use in the AA.

References: Tom Brennan, Principal, Nelson/Nygaard Consulting, 503.789.2718 | Dates: Project Duration: October 2009 January 2011 | Cost - $55,000

Jennifer John Time Commitment:50%Ridership

EducationBS/Economics


FirmJohn Parker Consulting LLC

Work Location

Tigard, OR


10/58


8

Additional Key StaffJay Witt, PE: Transportation Analysis (URS) Time Commitment:30%

Education/Certication:BS/Metallurgical Engineering; PE in ID (#10986) Years Experience: (Total/With Firm): 15/7 Work Location: Boise

UNIQUE QUALIFICATIONS RELEVANT EXPERIENCE/REFERENCES

Prior to URS, Jay worked at COMPASS where hedeveloped the regions rst Congestion ManagementSystem.

Areas of expertise include transportation corridorstudies, traffi c impact studies and analysis, and traffi cforecasting.

Project Manager and Technical Lead, Nampa Citywide Transportation Plan, Nampa,ID: Clair Bowman, Sr. Transportation Planner, City of Nampa, 208.468.5474

Project Manager and Technical Lead, Downtown Nampa Traffi c Alternatives

Analysis, Nampa, ID: Beth Ineck, Assistant Economic Development Director, City ofNampa, 208.468.5488

Project Manager, SH-45 Realignment Concept Report, Nampa, ID:Clair Bowman,Sr. Transportation Planner, City of Nampa, 208.468.5474

John Ringert, PE: Traffi c Engineering (Kittelson & Associates) Time Commitment:30%

Education/Certication:MS, BS/Civil Engineering; Idaho PE Years Experience: (Total/With Firm): 23/23 Work Location: Boise


Signicant experience with project stakeholdersincluding ACHD and CCDC.

Has conducted preliminary work in support of theproject.

Worked on a number of traffi c engineering and analysisprojects for CCDC, including the traffi c analysis ofimplementing the downtown streetcar.

Project Principal, Downtown Boise Multimodal Center, Boise, ID: Kelli Fairless,Executive Director, Valley Regional Transit, 208.846.8547

Project Principal, Capital City Development Corporation On-Call Traffi c andTransportation Consulting Services, Boise, ID: Pam Sheldon, Contracts Manager,

CCDC, 208.384.4264 Project Principal, Southwest Boise Transportation Study, Boise, ID:SabrinaAnderson, Ada County Highway District, 208.387.6100

Terry Kearns: FTA Coordination and Strategy (URS) Time Commitment:25%

Education/Certication:BS/Urban Planning Years Experience: (Total/With Firm): 29/14 Work Location: Portland


Well-versed in current FTA requirements and is playinga role in how FTA will implement the new MAP-21 regulations through his work on the BroadwayExtension to Seattles Streetcar system.

Adept at managing and documenting NEPA projectsincluding Environmental Impact Statements,Environmental Assessments and DocumentedCategorical Exclusions.

NEPA Task Lead, Seattle Streetcar - Broadway Extension, Seattle, WA: EthanMelone, Rail Transit Manager, Seattle Department of Transportation, 206.684.8066

Project Manager, Lake Oswego to Portland Transit Project, Lake Oswego/Portland,OR:Brian Monberg, Metro, 503.797.1621

Task Manager, Portland Streetcar Loop, Portland, OR: Vicky Diede, Project Manager,

City of Portland, 503.823.7137

Dautis Pearson: Environmental (URS) Time Commitment:30%

Education/Certication:BS/Biology Years Experience: (Total/With Firm): 25/11 Work Location: Boise


Served as project manager, environmental task lead orstrategic advisor on more than 40 NEPA analyses in theNorthwest.

Local Boise presence combined with transit experiencethroughout the Northwest.

Environmental Task Manager, Downtown Boise Multimodal Center EA, Boise, ID:Charles Trainor, Planning Director, COMPASS, 208.8552558

Natural Environment Task Manager, Portland Streetcar Loop EA, Portland, OR: VickyDiede, Project Manager, City of Portland, 503.823.7137

Environmental Resources Task Manager, Fourth Plain Bus Rapid Transit AA,Vancouver, WA:Chuck Green, PE, Project Manager, CTRAN, 360.906.7362

Paddy Tillet, FAIA, FAICP, LEED AP: Planning and Urban Design (ZGF) Time Commitment:20%Education/Certication:Master of Civic Design; Architecture Diploma; Registered Architect in ID a nd OR Years Experience: (Total/With Firm): 41/31 Work Location: Portland


More than 40 years of professional experience, and hasworked on projects in Boise since 1986

Assisted CCDC in developing long range plans for fourcontiguous areas in downtown Boise.

Has extensive experience of downtown urban designprojects involving transit, notably in Denver and Boise

Principal Urban Planner, Central Boise Urban Design Plans, Boise, ID:PhillipKushlan, Former Executive Director, Capital City Development, 208.433.8429

Principal Urban Planner, River District, Portland, OR: Homer Williams, Chairman,Williams/Dame & Associates LLC, 503.227.6593

Principal Campus Planner, Boise State University Master Plans, Boise, ID:JamesMaguire, (formerly with Boise State University), Vice Chancellor for FacilitiesPlanning and Construction/Chief Architect, University of North Texas, 214.752.5978


11/58


9

D. Project Management and Approach to the ProjectTo successfully complete the Downtown Boise Circulator AAURS has compiled a team of the top transit (urban circulator),transportation and land use professionals from the Boisearea and from the western United States. Our Projectmanagement and approach will provide the City of Boise,FTA and Project partners with the technical, nancial andstrategic information needed to support the project goals,select a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) and advance the

downtown transit circulator Project toward implementation.Project Goals

The goals in the RFP reect the elements of a goodplanning and decision-making process. These will providethe foundation for the URS Team to work collaborativelywith the City and the Project stakeholders to organize thework, dene alternatives, conduct the technical analysis,share information with the community, support the LPAselection and prepare an implementation plan. Our teamwill incorporate these goals into our overall approach to the

Project as follows:

The Consultant shall become an integrated member of the City s Projectteam.

In order to be successful, the consultant will need to work closely with theCitys Project Manager and other staff in planning and implementing thework scope.

URS project manager, John Cullerton has excellent communicationskills and well-established working relationships with the Projectteam, including VRT, ACHD, CCDC, COMPASS and Boise City planning.

In addition, our team includes members who are Boise residents andwill be available on short notice to meet with the City as issues arise.

Project Goal URS Approach

Engage the community and analyze technical data to dene the Purposeand Needfor a circulator in downtown Boise.

The Purpose and Needfor a downtown circulator transit project may seemobvious to some, but dubious to others. As the community

becomes engaged, sound, technical information can be used to dispelpreconceived ideas and spark new ideas.

The City will lead in engaging the community on the choices involvedwith a downtown circulator. Our team includes Rosemary Curtin (RCBI)who has worked with the downtown Boise community on variousissues. Rosemary will be available to strategize with and support City

staff as needed to help public outreach be successful.Our technical team is also experienced effectively presenting technicalndings in public meetings and forums.

Advance the understanding of the choices for a transit Project and furtherProject development if supported by technical data and communitymembers.

Advancing a Project under NEPA (and good planning practice) requires allpotential alternatives meeting the Purpose and Need be evaluated andpresented to the community, with narrowing decisions based on soundtechnical analysis prepared at an appropriate level of detail.

The URS team will build upon previous downtown circulatorstudies and present mode, alignment and termini options to thecommunity and decision-makers. We will use a three-step process:1. Develop alignment options to connect with the multi-modal

center site at 8th and Jefferson.

2. Reconrm the south alignments and termini choices previouslyidentied and mapped.

3. Narrow down to a single LPA, including a choice between a busmode and streetcar.

Screen alternatives for mode and alignment against evaluation criteria,considering environmental impacts, transit technology, operations, and

the regional transit system, and available funding.Developing and reaching agreement on evaluation criteria is a critical stepfor comparing and evaluating alternatives. The evaluation criteria need toreect community Goals and Objectives and be measurable.

Our ideas on appropriate criteria include: enhance economic

opportunities; support central city housing; provide access to majoractivity centers; improve transit system connectivity; and be affordablefor capital construction, and operations and maintenance. Final criteriawill be developed with the Project team and stakeholders.

Understand the nancial possibilities and constraints of funding a transitProject in the Study Area.

An analysis of urban circulator options has only minimum value unless theprocess can help garner community support and identify feasible Projectnancing opportunities that will allow a strong Project to move forward.

We offer the team with the most experience helping communitiesmove rapidly from adopting an LPA, to preparing a nance plan, toconstruction and operations. Bob Post has successfully developednance plans for projects in Glendale, CA and Spokane, WA. MarkDorn has helped to blend the nancing, design and start up for everymodern streetcar now in operation in Portland and Seattle, and thoseunder construction in Atlanta and Tucson.

Provide data to educate policy makers and the public on the interactionbetween sustainable land use and transportation decisions.

The relationship between transit and land use is intertwined and the

analysis of how each can enhance the other is both technical andqualitative. Objective research on how this relationship manifests itself inthe unique environment of downtown Boise will be essential in gainingbroad-based support for the circulator. The analysis results need to bepresented in an easily accessible format.

The URS team has addressed these questions in multiple cities, fromworking with regional-level models down to completing analysis ofland use impacts on a parcel-by-parcel basis. The URS team uses simple

Consumer Reports format matrices to present technical data andother tools to prepare clear maps and graphics.

Complete the AA per FTA requirements, adapting accordingly as additionalguidance regarding MAP-21 becomes available.

FTAs guidance for AAs provides an excellent framework for a thoroughtechnical evaluation and decision-making process. MAP-21 will eliminatealternatives analysis as a specic step in the federal project developmentprocess, however, based on our discussions with FTA, we anticipate thatprojects funded with 5339 AA grants will be expected to complete AAstudies consistent with the existing FTA guidance.

MAP-21 addresses urban circulator projects in two ways. One relates toNEPA streamlining that provides the opportunity to move the Projectalong quickly and use a Categorical Exclusion rather than an EA or EIS.

The second relates to changes in New Starts/Small Starts evaluation.The FTA issued new 5309 New Starts and Small Starts guidance in

January 2013, which pre-dates MAP-21 and revises the evaluation ofNew Starts and Small Starts projects.

We propose taking the Small Starts changes into account in preparingthe AA technical analysis. To the extent possible we will use technicalmethods consistent with those that will eventually be required for aSmall Starts application.


12/58


10

Project Management Approach

Johns project management approach is based on teamwork,collaboration and shared goals. Key elements of Johns approachinclude:

Assigning experienced task leads supported by knowledgeabletechnical staff to maximize the project budget.

Keeping all team members informed to avoid surprises.

Promoting teamwork and project success by involving City staffand team resources at the appropriate phase of study.

Using a proven, exible approach to adapt to the evolving needsof planning-level projects.

Project Management and Approach to the ProjectOur project management philosophy focuses on providingservices and deliverables that meet or exceed our clientsexpectations while meeting the schedule and budget.Our team is led by John Cullerton who has over 25 yearsof experience working with FTA on transit alternativesanalyses and has worked extensively on transit plans in theBoise area. John will work with Jim Pardy to foster a positiveenvironment where public agency representatives andconsultants can function as a unied team. John will support

Jim in identifying the required skills and the best resources,whether they are agency or consultant staff, to accomplishthe study goals. Johns approach to project managementis based on teamwork, collaboration and shared goals. Heencourages team members to raise issues early and to feelthey have a stake in the outcome. Under Johns direction,URS commitment is to provide:

Experienced task leaders- supported by experiencedand knowledgeable technical staff. Our task leadersunderstand regional planning, New and Small Startsprocesses, ridership analysis, traffi c operations, cost-effectiveness/cost-benet analysis, conceptual design,public involvement, bicycle and pedestrian integration,transit planning, transit operations, and how to

successfully integrate these elements into projectimplementation.

Active Project management oversight- with acommitment to deliver quality products on time andwithin budget. John and the task leaders will be hands-on participants with the City. They will keep all teammembers informed about issues and concerns so thatthere are no unexpected outcomes.

Teamwork - promoting individual and team success.John is known for promoting a culture of success andsupport that extends to the entire project team. He willfoster project and team success by working closely withCity staff and involving the right resources from theconsultant team at the appropriate phase of the study.

Adaptive management approach - John has been aproject manager for URS on transit planning projectsfor nearly 8 years. Prior to joining URS he was a seniortransportation planner at Metro in Portland where heoversaw the technical analysis for virtually all of therail transit projects in Portland. John has developed aneffective management approach that is highly exible toadapt to the evolving needs of planning-level projects.

This requires a commitment to foster communicationand provide timely information so that there are nosurprises, and issues and problems are identied as earlyas possible.

Project Management1. Keeping Project on Task Challenges and Solutions.

Our project manager, John Cullerton, has completedseveral transit alternatives analyses and is well-aware of thechallenges this project may face. John has worked closelywith key team members on transit projects in Boise (TreasureValley High Capacity Transit and State Street Transit and

Traffi c Operations Plan) and on transit AAs in Portland,Seattle and Vancouver, Washington.

John will prepare a Project Management Plan which will bea roadmap for conducting the work, managing resources,communications protocols, budget and schedule control,reporting project status, document control and qualityassurance/quality control (QA/QC). John will use an Issues/Action log to track key elements of the Project and ensuretimely resolution to issues or decisions to maintain theProject schedule and meet critical milestone deliverables. Hewill also use URS EnterpriseOne (E1) Project ManagementSystem to actively track and monitor project budgets on aweekly basis.

2. Day-to-Day Coordination.

John will be in Boise on an as-needed basis to attendregularly scheduled meetings and informal meetings

with staff. In addition, ight schedules from Portland toBoise allow for a full work day (leaving Portland at 6:30 AMand leaving Boise at 6:30 PM). John has used this full-dayschedule several times on his previous work in Boise. Johnwill have offi ce space in URS Boise offi ce so that he canoptimize productivity during his time in Boise.

In addition to relatively easy travel access between Portlandand Boise, URS team features key staff located in Boise.Dautis Pearson (environmental) and Jay Witt (transportation)are task leads located in URS Boise offi ce.John has anexcellent working relationship with both of them, and theywill represent URS as needed on short notice. Our Boise-based key staff also includes John Ringert (Kittelson andAssociates) and Rosemary Curtin (RBCI). John Cullerton hasworked closely with both individuals on previous transit

projects in Boise.

Day-to-day coordination with Jim Pardy and the Citysproject team will be via conference call or video conferenceas needed. As noted above, URS will be represented in-person by Dautis and Jay, available on short notice, and onthe phone by John, depending on the topic.

3. Managing the Budget: Tracking Expenditures andProgress.

As noted above, URS uses budget tracking tools from ourpropriety project management system, E1. John will workwith the City to determine a task-level budget and will useE1 to ensure task-level work stays on budget. However,planning studies often require budget and scope exibility

as unanticipated issues arise and other topics do not requireas much effort as originally anticipated. John will monitorthe budget and scope and work with the City to make anyneeded adjustments.

4. Quality Assurance/Quality Control.

John and the task leaders will provide clear expectations atthe beginning of the study, setting the stage for ongoingquality assurance throughout the process. High qualitywork is paramount at all stages of a Project, and for the fullrange of tasks and products, including project managementoversight and technical analysis.


13/58


1

John will use URS QA/QC procedures for all deliverables,which provides for data checking and independent technicalreview by technical experts not associated with the project.

URS will be responsible for all deliverables, including thoseproduced by sub-consultants. The subs included on thisteam were selected because of their expertise on a particularsubject. John has worked with all of our major subs andhas great condence in their ability to produce top qualitywork. URS will ensure this by including major sub-consultantproducts in the same URS review process described above.

5. Meeting the Project Schedule.

The URS team has prepared several recent transitalternatives analyses and will build upon that previouswork to collaborate with the City to develop an achievableproject schedule. John will utilize several tools to managethe project and ensure that the work stays on schedule,including loading project milestones into the E1 system,preparing a detailed Gantt chart using Microsoft Project, andregularly scheduled meetings with the Project team and keyconsulting team members.

6. Managing Production

As noted earlier, our Boise and Portland based teammembers have worked together on several previous

projects. John will schedule bi-weekly consultant teammeetings and make use of the video conferencingcapabilities that URS has in both Boise and Portland to holdface-to-face meetings as needed. In addition, we will utilizeURSs le sharing tool, Secure Folders, to share draft workproducts among the team. As the project manager, John willbe responsible for the timing and content of all deliverables.

7. Managing Sub-Consultant Production.

John has a strong background in the technical elds wherewe are relying on well-qualied subs (traffi c, ridershipforecasting, public involvement) and he has a strategicunderstanding of how to present technical information tosupport project decision-making. John will use all of theproven project management techniques described above to

manage the sub-consultants work.

Project ApproachProject Scoping

We recommend initiating this alternatives analysis underNEPA by holding an agency scoping meeting with key stateand federal agencies and also by holding a public scopingmeeting to allow the public and stakeholders to commenton the project and identify critical issues that will guide thetechnical work. One option for the public scoping meetingwill be holding a series of smaller, open meetings with keystakeholders. This will provide the opportunity for broadpublic input, without the risk of a single voice dominatingone meeting.

A Documented Categorical Exclusion (DCE) will likely bethe appropriate NEPA treatment for the project, particularlyin light of MAP-21 changes that identify streetcars andbus projects within existing public right-of-way as beingcategories considered for exclusion from NEPA requirements.A scoping process is not required for a DCE; however,since NEPA requirements will not be known at this stage,it is prudent to initiate a formal scoping process in casean Environmental Assessment or Environmental ImpactStatement is required.

Purpose and Need, Goals and Objectives, EvaluationCriteria

This task will lay the foundation for identifying and screeningalternatives and for the NEPA analysis. The Purpose and Needand Goals and Objectiveswill be developed collaborativelywith the City and project team and will be reviewed with FTAas needed.

Purpose and Need

An effective Purpose and Needstatement will clearly statewhy a Downtown Transit Circulator is important to pursueat this time. It will carry forward as a useful review tool forFTA during the follow-on NEPA review. It also provides aframework for agreement on project goals, objectives andevaluation criteria. Some ideas for consideration for the AAinclude:

Purpose:

Provide north-south transit connection between the

Boise State University/Boise Depot and the plannedmulti-modal center.

Enhance BSUs role as a community resource byenhancing the physical connection between BSU anddowntown Boise.

Support development of additional housingopportunities in downtown Boise.

Support continued development of retail and hotelspace in downtown Boise.

Need:

Downtown activity centers are widely dispersed. Transit connections between downtown, the cultural

center and BSU are infrequent and not clear to non-transit users.

Access and parking at BSU is limited.

Goals and Objectives

The RFP includes eight goals to be accomplished by thisAA. In addition to these specic project outcomes, the URSteam will collaborate with the City and the project teamto identify a set of draft aspirational community Goals andObjectivesfor the Project. These draft Goals and Objectiveswill be consistent with the Purpose and Need, and we willseek public and stakeholder input on the draft Goals andObjectivesduring the early scoping phase of the Project.

The Goals and Objectiveswill be nalized and approved bythe management committee and will form the basis for thetechnical evaluation of alternatives.

Evaluation Criteria and Technical Methods

Evaluation Criteria describe how the project will evaluateand compare the alternatives and describe how thealternatives meet the Projects Goals and Objectives.Examples of criteria that could be applied to the Goals andObjectives include:

Example goal: Develop an affordable transit Project

Example criteria that address that goal: Order-of-magnitude capital cost estimates

Estimated operations and maintenance costs

The URS team worked extensively with downtown stakeholders todevelop a Purpose and Needstatement and Goals and Objectivesfor the

early downtown circulator study. We will revisit that previous work andmake use of certain elements as appropriate.


14/58


12

Example goal:Reduce walk distances and improve transitaccessibility.

Example criteria that address that goal:

Employees within one-block of alignment Residents within one-block of alignment Walk distance from other transit connections

The evaluation criteria will include both quantitativemeasures (e.g. travel times, ridership, cost) and qualitativemeasures (e.g. consistency with policies, ability to support

new downtown development). Technical methods for thesemeasures will include sources of data, key assumptions, andcalculations to assess the alternatives. The methods will alsodescribe the ranking methodology.

For the technical evaluation, we will develop three matrices(see Exhibit 3 for samples of these), with varying levels ofdetail, to easily compare performance by each alternative:

Technical Matrix Each cell is populated with summarytechnical, quantitative data or a qualitative evaluationstatement, providing a side-by-side comparison of thedata used to rank the performance of each alternative.

Ranking Matrix Provides a ranking methodologybased upon the technical results with a numerical score

(e.g. 1 through 5) for each criteria. Summary Matrix Converts the ranking into symbols

(e.g. full, half, or quarter moon). The Summary Matrix willoften roll up several criteria and summarize their rankingby project goal. This is the evaluation and comparisontool that is typically shared with the project stakeholdersand the public.

Exhibit 3.Sample evaluation matrices - Ranking (left) and Summary (right).

Goals / Corridors Highway 99

BRT-Hybrid

Fourth Plain

BRT-Hybrid

I-205 Incremental

Bus Improvements

Mill Plain

BRT-Hybrid

Approx. 60%

exclusive lane.

Approx. 4.1 signals per mile(not including downtown

Vancouver).

Approx. 80%

exclusive lane.

Approx. 4.1 signals per mile(not including downtown

Vancouver).

Direct access ramps. No

exclusive lane.Approx. 1.3 signals per mile.

Approx. 5%

exclusive lane.

Approx. 4.2 signals per mil(not including downtown

Vancouver).

Median BRT limits left turns to

signalized intersections

throughout much of the

corridor.



throughout the corridor and

reduces number of travel lanes

in some sections.

No traffic restrictions as a

result of bus improvements.

Some increase in traffic

conflicts.

Small section of median BR

in area with few driveways

Poor connectivity to

neighborhoods. Gaps in

sidewalk network. Connectivity

would improve with the

Hwy 99 sub-area plan.

Good connectivity to

neighborhoods.

Alignment in freeway median.

Poor connections to station

locations.


neighborhoods.

Moderate ridership on BRT.High transit demand in

corridor. Many bi-state trips

served by express buses.

High r ider ship. High ridership.Moderateridership.

Good projected densities.

Hwy 99 sub-area plan

envisions HCT.


Fourth Plain sub-area plan

envisions HCT.

Lowest projected densities and

no active planning processes.

Good projected densities. N

active planning processes

Would support sub-area plan

and act as a catalyst to

improve neighborhood

accessibility and vitality.





Would moderately improve

accessibilty to adjacent

neighborhoods.

Would act as a catalyst to



Less employment forecast than

Fourth Plain and Mill Plain.

Sub-area plan focuses on

mixed use and transit-

supportive development.

High number of jobs forecast.

Sub-area plan projects

significant business growth.

Few jobs close to alignment.

Existing businesses tend to be

auto-oriented.

High number of jobs forecas

No sub-area plan.

$115 M. capital cost.Moderate ridership.

Could make case for Small

Starts funding due to ongoing

transit-supportive planning

effort.

$152 M. capital cost.High ridership.




effort.

$80 M. capital cost.May not be eligible for Small

Starts funding. Land uses

would not likely help make the

case for Small Starts funding.

$60 M. capital cost.Could be eligible for Very S

Starts funding due to low co

of capital improvements.

Economic Development

FTA Fundability

Transportation

Community

Feasibility

Ridership

Land Use

Neighborhood Livability

Reliability

Proportion of exclusive lane and

approximate number of signalsper mile.

Traffic

Acces s

Amount of negative impact

on traffic operations.

Ease of access to stations and

pedestrian and bicycle environmentin area adjacent to stations, based on

existing conditions.

Number of boardings on HCT line.

Assessment of existing and

planned land use in corridor.

Potential to promote economic

growth in the corridor.

Ability to raise the funding

necessary to construct andoperate HCT in the corridor.

Potential to promote increased

neighborhood vitality.

Ratings:

Very Good

Good

Moderate

Goals / Corridors Highway 99

BRT-Hybrid

Fourth Plain

BRT-Hybrid

I-205

Incremental

Bus

Improvements

Mill Plain

BRT-Hybrid

4 4 3 3

Approx. 60%

exclusive lane.

Approx. 4.1 signals per mile

(not including downtown

Vancouver).

Approx. 80%

exclusive lane.



Vancouver).

Direct access ramps. No

exclusive lane.

Approx. 1.3 signals per mile.

Approx. 5%

exclusive lane.



Vancouver).

3 2 5 4



throughout much of the

corridor.



throughout the corridor and

reduces number of travel lanes

in some sections.

No traffic restrictions as a

result of bus improvements.

Some increase in traffic

conflicts.

Small section of median BRT

in area with few driveways.

2 4 1 4

Poor connectivity to

neighborhoods. Gaps in

sidewalk network. Connectivity

would improve with the

Hwy 99 sub-area plan.


neighborhoods.

Alignment in freeway median.

Poor connections to station

locations.


neighborhoods.

3 4 4 3

Moderate ridership on BRT.High transit demand in

corridor. Many bi-state trips

served by express buses.

High ridership. High ridership.Moderate

ridership.

4 4 1 3


Hwy 99 sub-area plan

envisions HCT.


Fourth Plain sub-area plan

envisions HCT.

Lowest projected densities and

no active planning processes.

Good projected densities. No

active planning processes.

4 4 3 4









Would moderately improve

accessibilty to adjacent

neighborhoods.

Would act as a catalyst to



5 5 2 4

Less employment forecast

than Fourth Plain and Mill

Plain. Sub-area plan focuses

on mixed use and transit-

supportive development.


Sub-area plan projects

significant business growth.

Few jobs close to alignment.

Existing businesses tend to be

auto-oriented.


No sub-area plan.

4 4 2 4

$115 M. capital cost.Moderate ridership.




effort.

$152 M. capital cost.High ridership.




effort.

$80 M. capital cost.May not be eligible for Small

Starts funding. Land uses

would not likely help make the

case for Small Starts funding.

$60 M. capital cost.

Could be eligible for Very

Small Starts funding due to low

cost of capital improvements.

Land Use

Neighborhood Livability

Reliability - Proportion of exclusivelane and approximate signals per mile.

Traffic

Acc ess - Based on existing access.

Economic Development

FTA Fundability

Transportation

Community

Feasibility

Ridership

Downtown Circulator Alignment and Design Experiencein Boise

Between 2007 and 2010 URS prepared conceptual designs for a rangeof downtown circulator alignment options as part of the TreasureValley High Capacity Transit Study and follow-on studies. As a resultof this earlier work, the URS team has a detailed understanding of thephysical layout of downtown, street network operations and currentValleyRide service. This experience highlighted a number of issues thatwill be important in developing and evaluating alternatives as part ofthis AA. Important design considerations previously evaluated by ourteam include:

Utility locations including Boises geothermal system

Operations and maintenance facility sites

9th Street and Capitol Boulevard bridges ability to accommodaterail transit modes

Access to the BSU campus and Boise Depot

Traffi c operations at Capitol and Front, 9th and Myrtle and apossible new signal on Capitol south of the river to provide accessfrom 9th to the BSU campus

We recognize the need for this AA to provide a fresh and balancedlook at circulator alignments, termini and modes. Our experience withvarious modes and alignments in Boise will provide the URS team withthe ability to collaborate with the City to quickly identify the range ofalternatives to be considered in this AA.


15/58


1

Denition of Alternatives

A typical transit alternatives analysis considers a rangeof mode, alignment and termini options. The URS teamhas previously helped the City, CCDC, VRT and COMPASSto develop and analyze a range of downtown circulatoroptions. This earlier work will provide a strong foundationfor the AA. Previous work determined that a north-southalignment rather than an east-west alignment was preferredand identied four south termini alternatives (Library,Morrison Center, Student Union, Boise Depot).

The alignment and termini at the north and west end of the

circulator will be revisited during this alternatives analysisphase, because the earlier work was designed to connectwith a multi-modal site on 11th between Bannock andIdaho, rather than at the current proposed multi-modalcenter site at 8th and Jefferson.

The Scoping phase of the project will seek public andstakeholder input on the mode, alignment and terminialternatives. This phase will be used to reconrm the earlieralignment and south termini decisions and will seek newinput on possible routings and connections to the newmulti-modal center site.

We suggest that decision-making for this AA be structuredto identify an LPA by answering four key questions:

1. What is the best circulator alignment and termini

in the north and west portion of downtown thatprovides access to the multi-modal center site at 8thand Jefferson?

2. What is the best south termini location, consideringcapital and operating costs, access to the culturaldistrict, the Morrison Center, BSU campus facilities,redevelopment opportunities and connection to theBoise Depot?

3. Are there strategies for phasing the project byconsidering a minimum operable segment (MOS) thatmeets the project goals, is fundable and sets the stagefor a second phase that more fully meets the projectgoals?

4. What is the best transit mode for a downtowncirculator considering transportation and economicdevelopment needs?

We propose two-tiered decision-making process asillustrated in Exhibit 4. The Tier 1 early step will evaluateand narrow choices for the north/west alignments andtermini and reconrm the south termini alternatives andthe mode alternatives. Tier 2 will be select the LPA and animplementation strategy with possible project phases andMOS options.

The URS team will build upon our previous work indeveloping and evaluating conceptual designs for streetcarand bus circulator options. To support Tier 1 decision-making, we will work with the project team and thedowntown community to identify a range of circulatoralignments to provide access to the multi-modal siteat 8th and Jefferson.These alignment options will bedescribed and evaluated consistent with the DowntownBoise Circulator Conceptual Design Report, 2008.We willevaluate these alignment options by focusing on criteria tonarrow the choices. Key criteria for narrowing the north/westalignment options will include traffi c, circulator operations,economic development and capital and operating cost.

To support the earlier conceptual design, URS preparedconceptual design plan sets showing potential alignments

overlain on aerial base maps and street cross-sectionsdescribing the layout of the transit circulator options withinthe street rights-of-way. We propose producing a similarlevel of detail to support decision-making on north/westalignment options.

Reconrming the south termini options and the modeoptions will also rely on previous work including DowntownBoise Circulator Bus Option Conceptual Design, 2008, BoiseStreetcar Project North-South Alignment Assessment TechnicalMemo, 2010and Boise Streetcar North-South AlignmentsMarket Evaluation and Ridership Assessment, 2011.

Exhibit 4.Alternatives Analysis Evaluation Framework

TIER1EVALUATION

Identify mode,

alignment and

terminusalternatives to

be evaluated

in the AA

based on

previous

studies and

public input.

Range of

Alternatives

Prepare

Purpose and

Need Goalsand

Objectives;

and Evaluation

Criteria.

Determine if

alternatives

meet the

Purpose and

Need.

Purpose

and Need

Select the

most

promisingalignment(s) to

serve the

planned

multi-modal

center. Conrm

the south

terminus

alternatives

and mode

alternatives.

Tier 1

Narrowing

Based on

technical

ndings andpublic input,

select the

mode,

alignment,

and terminus

for the Locally

Preferred

Alternative.

Tier 2

Select LPA

Alternative

meets purpose

and need.

Alternative

meets Tier 1

criteria.

Alternative does not meet

purpose and need.

Alternative does not meet

Tier 1 criteria.


16/58


14

Evaluation of AlternativesThe evaluation of alternatives will address the criteriadescribed earlier and will provide technical ndings tosupport the decision-making process. The followingdescribes our technical approach to evaluating several keyelements of the Alternatives Analysis.

1. Pedestrians, Bicycles and Motor Vehicles

How well pedestrians, bicycles, and motor vehiclesinteract with the circulator alternatives and integratewith one another is dependent upon three categories ofconsiderations:

Intersection and Signal Operation Considerations

Pedestrian and Bicycle Connectivity.

User accessibility.

Our approach will build upon work already completedin the Downtown. KAI is currently wrapping up the BoiseDowntown Implementation Plan which includes theevaluation of pedestrian and bicycle connectivity, thepotential for converting some one-way streets to two-way,and the development of a comprehensive GIS databaseof all the roadway improvements, pedestrian streetscapeimprovements, and transit routes in the downtown.

The data for the study, which includes traffi c counts,

pedestrian counts, bicycle counts, and crash informationby transportation mode provides a solid foundation forreviewing the potential impacts of the circulator alternatives.In addition, KAI completed a detailed micro-simulationmodel of the previous Boise Downtown Streetcar Evaluationunder contract with CCDC that was utilized by the projectteam, ACHD, and the public involvement process tounderstand the impacts and solutions.

The most signicant operational impacts for a circulatorare traditionally the impact to the traffi c circulation andintersection operations. This can be in the form of asignicant change required in the cross-section of a streetto accommodate the circulator and stations or a decrease inintersection capacity due to an exclusive transit signal phasethat is needed for a streetcar to turn or operate through an

intersection.Our approach will start with a qualitative review of theproposed alignment and operational plan for each circulatoralternative. This task will identify critical locations in whichthe traffi c movements or the intersection will be impactedby the alignment or station location. For instance, in theearlier evaluation conducted by KAI, one issue was theproposed left-hand turn from 9th Street across CapitolBoulevard on to the BSU campus and how that relates to theBSU campus circulation and future access for developmentwest of 9th Street where a new development is proposed.Further north on 9th Street, a circulator on the east sideof the street could impact garage entrances in BoDo andpotentially conict with left-turn-only lanes to Myrtle Street.

Finally a circulator returning to downtown on CapitolBoulevard will need stops located on the east side of thestreet to avoid the two left-turn lanes at Front Street whichimpacts the intersections operations at Main Street andIdaho Street.

Our evaluation of issues, such as the ones discussedabove, will included using the most recent Synchromodel maintained by ACHD which has updated existingweekday p.m. peak hour traffi c volumes and signal timing.A future conditions model will then be developed using

COMPASS 2035 weekday p.m. peak hour traffi c projections.KAI recently created a future conditions model for theDowntown Boise Two-Way Street Conversion Study andwe intend to utilize that work to minimize the effort indeveloping new 2035 intersection traffi c volume projections.

Pedestrians and bicyclists can also be impacted by thedesign and operation of a circulator. The most signicantissue can be how bicycles navigate routes that overlapstreetcar tracks. Our approach to addressing pedestriansand bicycles will utilize the combined planning anddesign knowledge of KAI and URD. KAI is completing anevaluation of the bicycle routing in Downtown and hasunique knowledge of the bicycle and pedestrian routes inthe downtown. Mark Dorn (URS) is a nationally recognizedexpert in the design of bicycle treatments that operate within-street streetcar operations.

A key part of any complex project like this one is being ableto communicate how all of the transportation elements ttogether. As part of the earlier downtown circulator studies,KAI prepared a traffi c assessment and identied issues andconstraints along the Main Street/Idaho Street alignment.

This earlier analysis prepared a VISSIM simulation modelfor a streetcar operating in downtown. The VISSIM modelillustrated and evaluated impacts on traffi c and signals, andprovided a helpful public involvement tool. We proposed tomodify and expand this VISSIM model to add the segment toBSU.


17/58


1

2. Ridership

The URS team includes John Parker Consulting LLC (JPC)a rm that specializes in ridership forecasting for transitprojects. They have a great deal of experience forecastingridership for projects that have met FTA criteria and receivedfunding through the Federal Transit Administration (FTA)Small Starts/New Starts grant program. In addition, JohnCullerton has managed ridership forecasting for severaltransit AAs and worked closely with COMPASS on previousstudies to use their model to compare transit options in the

Treasure Valley. Jay Witt, who will be the transportation tasklead, formerly worked with the model at COMPASS and is amember of the Travel Demand Model Advisory Committee(TMAC).

There are a number of tools available that we can use toestimate ridership on a downtown circulator. These toolsinclude:

The COMPASS regional travel demand model

A data-based modeling approach using availableinformation on central city trip-making

FTAs new national ridership model known as STOPS

The mode choice portion of the COMPASS model hasbeen updated using recent transit rider survey data. This

updated model can be an excellent resource for preparingcirculator ridership forecast, but regional models typicallyhave limitations when used at the level of detail needed for adowntown circulator analysis.

JPC has developed data-based modeling tools for use indowntown circulator studies in Portland and is currentlydeveloping a data-based methodology for a downtowncirculator AA in Seattle.

FTA recently announced that their new national STOPSmodel will be available this spring. This model usescensus data, regional model data, local GIS data and dataon systems currently in operation nationally to forecastridership.

We propose that JPC and URS work closely with COMPASSto prepare a ridership analysis methodology that will meetlocal needs and provide a forecast that can be used for apossible Small Starts submittal. A likely approach will beto prepare a data-based model that relies heavily on theCOMPASS mode choice model and other available local data.

This data-based approach will be used to compare amongalignments, termini and modes for the AA.

Once the LPA is selected, we propose using FTAs STOPSmodel in anticipation of submitting a Small Startsapplication. By this time, likely the winter of 2013/2014,the STOPS model will have been used for similar studiesand worked out some of its kinks. An FTA submittal couldalternatively rely on the data-based approach used forcomparing alternatives for the AA. Ultimately a decision on

how to best proceed will depend on the reliability of theSTOPS model and the performance of the local data-basedapproach.

JPC and the URS team recognize and understand thediffi culties inherent in forecasting transit trip making withina downtown environment. JPC has worked closely withJim Ryan and Ken Cervenka at FTA to develop strategies toovercome modeling limitations associated with downtowncirculator forecasts. JPC also has prepared ridership forecastsfor the Eugene, Oregon BRT system that took into accountthe unique ridership characteristics from the University ofOregon campus.

3. Environmental

MAP-21 lays out different strategies for streamlining theenvironmental review process and integrating it with theAlternatives Analysis process. One strategy emphasized inMAP-21 is using an early and open scoping process. Theintent of the process is to integrate the early and preliminaryplanning work seamlessly into the follow-on environmentalprocess. We propose to initiate this AA with agency andpublic scoping meetings that will set the project up to meetfuture NEPA requirements. Doing so avoids duplication

of effort in different stages of project development, and,in the case of the Downtown Boise Circulator System AA,it would allow the project to move directly into the NEPAclassication phase of project development.

Specic to the AA project, we will assess all appropriateenvironmental resource areas to serve two purposes. First isto compare among alternatives and to provide a scientic-based rationale for narrowing the alternatives. The secondpurpose for environmental documentation is to provideenvironmental baseline information for use in any follow-onNEPA evaluations if federal funding becomes a part of theproject. This will provide for effi ciencies in the environmentaprocess by accelerating project delivery and reducing costsof program expenditures. Our process for meeting thegoals of the alternative analysis and addressing NEPA areconsistent with and anticipate emerging MAP-21 guidance.

Data collection for the alternative analysis will be comprisedof a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) based assessmentand regulatory agency database review for the project area.Additionally, based on our understanding and past work inthe Boise area, we have relevant in-house data that can beused for the alternative analysis.

Specic topic areas that could be addressed in the desktopenvironmental evaluation include:

Archaeological Resources and Historic Sites

Fish and Wildlife

Special Status Terrestrial and Aquatic Species, including

Threatened and Endangered (TES) Water Resources

Parks/Recreation

Noise

Environmental Justice

Air Quality

Greenhouse Gas

Hazardous Materials

Visual

All collected data, including GIS spatial data, will besummarized for the alternative analysis document. Allsupporting information will be included in appendices orheld as part of the administrative record for future use.

4. Economic Development

In order to narrow the modes, alignments and termini forthe downtown circulator, the project will need to considerand compare the economic development opportunitiespresented by each alternative. The following describesour proposed approach to comparing the economicdevelopment benets of the alternatives. We havestructured this approach by making a distinction of theinformation to be presented in the mode comparison and inthe comparison of alignments and termini.


18/58


16

Economic Development Approach to Selecting the AppropriateMode

Our approach to identifying the appropriate mode for aDowntown Boise Circulator reects the reality that such adecision is an iterative one, in which there is a feedback loopbetween the mode, the potential economic developmentimpacts of that mode, and the potential capital andoperational funding that could be generated.

While much research has been done on the connection

between streetcars and redevelopment, this research islargely inconclusive on the causal relationship betweenthe two that is, it is not well understood whether thedevelopment measured adjacent to a streetcar line is solelythe result of the streetcar or some complex combination ofmarket demand, market timing, other public investments,and developer interest. Furthermore, there is comparablylittle case research from the United States on the relationshipbetween enhanced buses and land use redevelopment. Thisis a challenge that we will need to address so that we neitheroverstate nor underestimate the potential catalytic effectof the modes being evaluated. We will work closely withthe project partners and the FTA to conrm an appropriatemethodology.

Specically, we will conduct the following as part of the

economic analysis of mode options: Meet early and often with landowners, institutions, and

developers in order to gauge development interestfrom those who are most likely to make the privateinvestments.

Identify and quantify known redevelopment projects

Evaluate the impact of different modes and alignmentoptions on downtowns retail environment

Translate economic development opportunities into arange of local funding potential.

Implementation tools, market conditions, and publicinvestments that will contribute to the circulatorssuccess.

Economic Development Approach to Comparing Alignmentand Termini Alternatives

There is no single industry-accepted methodology forevaluating the economic development impacts of oneproposed alignment compared with another. Real estateinvestment decisions are made based on numerous factors,of which the presence of a particular transit mode is one(albeit an important one). And with all other variableskept equal, such development is still subject to the whimsof developer personalities, nancial markets, communitypolitics, and other factors that are virtually impossibleto quantify in a land use model. For these reasons, theproject team will take a careful and measured approach tocomparing the economic development potential among

alignments and termini.Our approach to comparing the economic impactsalignments and termini will include:

Assessing the opportunity to increase affordablehousing.

Developing a parcel-by-parcel database of the studyarea, including known development plans, propertyownerships, improvement values, and land uses.

Ongoing developer outreach.

Utilize GIS wherever possible to map and communicate.

Use ranges of potential economic impacts whereverpossible.

Clearly articulate the complementary implementationactions and market conditions that must be in place inorder to achieve the potential development.

Translate each alternative into a range of economicimpacts such as development value, job creation, wages,and spending impacts.

5. Cost Estimates

With a range of alternatives to be considered at the AAstage, it is important to provide comparative capital and

operating costs at an appropriate level of detail to supportthe decision-making process. Often cost estimates at thisearly planning stage are referred to as order-of-magnitudeestimates. These order-of-magnitude estimates can providea good comparative analysis among alternatives and providea general sense of the budget that may be necessary toconstruct and operate a project.

The following provides a description of the cost estimatingmethodology we propose to use for this AA.

Capital Cost

URS will develop capital costs for the alternatives methodsconsistent with those used in the 2008 Conceptual DesignReport. This cost estimate will quantify major project

elements including streetcar track, roadway, sidewalks,shelters, signals, etc., which will be documented on aconcept design plan set. Unit costs will be derived fromrecent transit (in-street rail and/or bus) projects includingFirst Hill Streetcar (Seattle), Sugar House Streetcar (SaltLake City) and the Fourth Plain Bus Rapid Transit project(Vancouver, WA). Quantities will be organized into FTAsStandard Cost Category (SCC) format. We will apply anappropriate contingency at this level of analysis.

Operating Cost

The URS team has developed streetcar and bus operatingcost models for use at an early planning stage for comparingamong alternatives. URS will review available O&M data fromVRT and use that data to provide a comparative estimate.

O&M cost elements and operating assumptions will begathered from existing urban circulator operations in thewestern United States. We will prepare cost estimates forthe urban circulator route by itself and also account for anychanges to the bus system that could impact VRT systemO&M costs.

6. Land Use and Urban Design

In comparing downtown circulator alternatives, the URSteam will consider the circulators role in enhancing theurban fabric of Boise by linking downtown activity centersand improving access and awareness of these facilities.

This work will be closely integrated with the EconomicDevelopment analysis, recognizing that the design ofthe urban environment and the location of key assets is a

fundamental factor for real estate development and landuse change. Capitol Boulevard is Boises signature street,with the Capitol dome dominating northward views alongeach side. Adding a downtown circulator to this street couldbe of great symbolic importance, both in appearance andin the connective function it will perform for Boises culturalcorridor.

The circulator could link cultural and educational venues onthe BSU campus, the Boise Library, Julia Davis Park, BoiseArt Museum, Ballet Idaho, Idaho State Historical Museum,the Anne Frank Memorial, the Basque Museum, and threecinemas with other downtown venues. Importantly, thecirculator will help make visitors and residents familiar withthese locations, and could ease access to all of them.


19/58


1

In the past three decades downtown Boise has transformedfrom a place active only during business hours to a go toplace with people and activities from dawn to late nightseven days a week. The alternatives analysis will considerthe effectiveness of each alternative to extend the walkingrange within downtown and increase access to attractionswithin the City.

Locally Preferred AlternativeThe nal product of this Alternatives Analysis will be anadopted LPA for a downtown Boise transit circulator. The LPAwill describe the preferred mode, alignment and termini. Itwill also discuss project phasing opportunities, nancingstrategies and integrating the circulator operation with theexisting Valleyride bus routes. Each of these is discussed inmore detail below.

Project Phasing FTA uses the term MinimumOperable Segment (MOS) to describe a portion of aproposed capital project with independent utility thatwill be a viable stand-alone project. An MOS is usuallyan initial phase for a longer project; however somecommunities have found that nancially, a reasonableMOS can fulll many of the goals of a longer, more

complete project

The URS team has dened and analyzed MOS onmany of the rail transit projects we have planned andimplemented. An MOS analysis usually weighs the costsand benets of the full-length project with the availablefunding opportunities, community desires and technicalmerits of the longer versus shorter project.

Project Finance - While the AA phase does notrequire identifying and securing funding sources andcommitments, there is the need to identify potentialsources and select the most appropriate. The URS teamwill identify a preferred strategy for local funding andwill prepare a targeted short-list of potential capital andoperating sources at the end of the AA process.

The URS team will explore potential funding sourcesand identify any restrictions regarding use for capital oroperating costs. Given the close association betweencirculator projects and desired and planned landdevelopment and revitalization, many communities includepublic-private partnerships as one type of funding source.Based on discussions with the City and other appropriateparties, a reduced list of the most promising funding sourceswill be analyzed for the level of potential funding andanticipated local acceptance of each source.

In addition to a thorough investigation of potential federalfunding sources, a representative list of potential localsources either considered or utilized for similar projectsinclude the following:

Local Improvement Districts

Parking related fees

Tax increment nancing

Development fees

Farebox revenues

Direct developer and/

Attachment 1764

Documents