Automated People Mover System and Intermodal Center ...

Broward County Intermodal Center

And People Mover

Broward County Intermodal Center Broward County Intermodal Center

And People MoverAnd People Mover

Project Development & Environment Study

AASHTO Value Engineering Conference Presentation

September 1, 2009San Diego, CA

2

P D & E Study Regional Context

Project Study Area

Central Broward East West LPA

Background

3

P D & E Study Background

• Project Need– Access Congestion (people and freight) - driven by demand at

Airport and Seaport• Major Economic Engines in the County• Rarity for two major terminals to be in such close proximity

• Project Goal– Address Need and build on

• Synergy between Port and Airport (FLL-PEV movements)• Catalyst to support Transit and Economic Development in the County

and Region

4

P D & E Study Background

• Techno-Economic Feasibility Study on Project– Identify feasible technologies– Identify feasible fundingFindings:– Project is viable, but needs External Funding– Eligibility to receive Federal and/or State funding requires compliance with NEPA

• PD&E for Project (to demonstrate NEPA Compliance)– Authorized by BOCC in March 2005– Demonstrate compliance with NEPA to achieve eligibility for Federal

and/or State Funding– Federal Lead Agency – Federal Highway Administration– State Lead Agency – FDOT District 4

• Project Identified in the MPO Long Range Transportation Plan – as an unfunded project

5

P D & E Study NEPA Compliance

• Eligibility for Federal and/or State Funding• “NO BUILD” is not an option – LONG TERM HORIZON

(20 – 25 years from now)– Project Sponsor selects the Recommended Alternative – Federal and State Agency evaluate and concur by issuing Record of

Decision (ROD) or Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)• Recommended Alternative

– “Best Value” alternative on the basis of Technical Merit and Cost/Benefit

– Technical Merit based on • Addressing Need• Environmental, Social and Physical Impacts

– Cost based on Capital and Operations & Maintenance

Background

6

P D & E Study Key Project Milestones

• Class of Action Determination by FDOT/FHWA– EA with a potential FONSI (less onerous than EIS process)

• Multiple Public Information Meetings throughout process

• Viable Corridor Alternatives– Converging multiple alternatives to only viable alternatives– April 2007 concurrence by FHWA

PD&E Study

7

P D & E Study

APM /Elevated Busway 2

APM /Elevated Busway 1

At-grade Mixed Traffic /Dedicated Busway

At-grade Rail

Intermodal Center

Location Options

Intermodal Center

Location Options

Airport to Port Alternatives:

On-airport segmentOn-airport segment1

2

3

4

Corridor Evaluation

Initial Project Options

Corridors and Alternatives

8

P D & E Study

Intermodal Center

Location Options

Intermodal Center

Location Options

Airport to Port People Mover Alternatives:

On-airport segmentOn-airport segment

3

Viable Project Corridors

People Mover and IMC LocationPer Project Corridor Workshop and Corridor Report dated January 2007 accepted by FHWA in April 2007

APM/ Bus on Elevated Structure

Bus- Mixed Traffic / Exclusive Lanes

1

Corridors and Alternatives

9

P D & E Study

• People Mover Alternatives– No Build– Bus– APM– Bus/APM Combination– Bus Phasing to APM

• Potential Project PhasingPhase-1 Project’s near term Midport Congestion MitigationPhase-2 On-Airport SegmentPhase-3 Extension to MidportPhase-4 Extension to Northport

• IMC Location AlternativeIntermodal Facility for Regional ConnectivityParking Element (not in project but programmed)

Project Development Considerations

Alternatives

10

P D & E Study

No Build – DO NOTHING

Automated People Mover Alternatives:

Alignment 1:

Alignment 2:

Alignment 6:

Alignment 6A:

Bus Alternatives (at grade and/or Elevated)

Alignment 5

5A: APM on Airport, Bus on Grade/Dedicated lane for Port

5B : Bus on Elevated busway

5C: APM on Airport, Bus on Grade/Dedicated lane for Port

5D: APM on Airport, Bus on Elevated busway on Port

Project Alternatives

Alternatives

11

P D & E Study No Build Projected Conditions

(Planning Horizon Year 2026, per Master Plans)• Access Roadways

– Airport & Port access roadways – DEMAND EXCEEDS CAPACITY – Processing constraints of Curbfront and Port security gates– Impact on freight traffic accessing Port cargo container yards.

• Curb staging requirements for cruise buses

Alternatives

LocationStaging (number of buses)

Current Capacity

Projected Need (2026)

FLL 25 – 30 * 40-45

Midport 11 – 12 20-22

Northport 8 – 9 10-12

*two levels and some double stacking of buses

12

P D & E Study Projected Operations 2026

Cruise Season

Weekend/ Weekday

Bus Alternatives APM Alternatives

Peak(Nov. Thru April)

Weekend(2 days to potential 3 days per PEV M/VP)

150 bus trips during peak hourBus staging and berthing terminals necessary at Airport and Seaport

4 car APM (train) every 2 minutes.

Weekday(5 days)



Off –Peak(May Thru Oct)

Weekend(2 days potential 3 days per PEV M/VP)



Weekday(5 days )



Based on projected peak demand of 6,744 passengers per hour per direction 34,000 daily passengers per day over 3.5 AM hours (7:30 to 11:00AM) and 4.5 PM hours (11:00 AM to 3:30 PM)

per forecast from PEV Master/Vision Plan for full build-out; 5.96M multi-day cruise passengers;per O-D Survey: 67.7% of PEV multi-day cruise passengers use FLL

Alternatives

13

P D & E Study

Value Engineering Conducted by FDOT District 4, January 14 - 18, 2008

Summary of FDOT VE Team Findings:• No Build is not an option according to VE Team• Provide a near term Midport congestion mitigation• Use Bus as immediate solution to be converted to APM

when needed• In addition to phasing some additional suggestions were:

- build one station only at Airport- combine Midport and Terminal 18 Station

Project Value Engineering PD&E Study

14

P D & E Study

No Build 5B 6A

Evaluation Criteria No Action Bus elevated APM

Construction and Engineering Costs 5 3 2

Operations and maintenance costs 2 3 4

Right of Way Costs and Business Damages 5 3 3

Environmental Impacts (natural, physical and cultural) 1 3 5

Social and Economic Impacts 2 3 3

Operational Analysis - - -

(connection to) Regional transportation network 1 4 4

Enhanced Ground Access thru put to meet demand at Port 1 * 4 5

Enhanced Ground Access thru put to meet demand at Airport 1 * 4 5

Operational Flexibility and System Scalability 1 5 4

Greatest use of existing County rights-of-way 5 3 3

Level of Service for users 1 * 3 5

Safety and Security 2 3 4

Totals 27 41 47

* Unsustainable for year 2026 projections.Note 1: Reviewed with BCAD, PEV staff on 3/14/08, 3/21/08 and 4/11/08

Alternatives

Preliminary Consolidated Ratings(1)

Maximum Total of 60Legend:1-Worst; 2-Poor; 3-Neutral; 4-Good; 5-Best

15

P D & E Study

IMC Location Options 1 3

System functionality with People Mover alignment alternatives 5 2

Property Impacts 5 5

Inter-modality 5 4

Environmental Impacts 4 3

Security Issues 5 2

Viability & Space for IMC Egress and Access Elements 4 2

Project Constructability 4 4

Total Score 32 22

3

1

Alternatives

Preliminary Ratings - IMC Alternatives(1)

Note 1: Reviewed with BCAD, PEV staff on 3/14/08, 3/21/08 and 4/11/08

Maximum Total of 35Legend:1-Worst; 2-Poor; 3-Neutral; 4-Good; 5-Best

16

P D & E Study Estimated Capital Costs in 2007$

Feasibility Study vs. PD&E Study Update

Project Funding Options

Notes1. From Phase 1 Feasibility Study Escalated to year 2007$ at annual rate of 4% 2. Change in IMC Need resulted in IMC Project costs limited to Transit element cost only.3. Includes R.O.W Cost, frontage impacts and property for Bus or APM maintenance yard.

Project Segment

Feasibility StudyAPM

PD&E UpdateAPM(6A)

PD&E UpdateElevated Bus

(5B)

On-Airport $227M $173M $82M

Extend to Midport $470M $410M $227M

Extend to Northport $326M $177M $110MSub-total People

Mover $1,023M $760M $419M

IMC $464M $79M $79M

TOTALS $1,487M $840M $498M

17

P D & E Study Estimated Capital and O&M Costs Full Build of APM Alternative 6A


Segment of System

Period of Development

CapitalAnnual Operating &

Maintenance

Cost in 2007$

Escalated to YOE

(Year of Expenditure)

Cost in 2007$ Startup Year

On-Airport 2016-2020 $173M $267M$4.6M

(*)$6.3M

(*)

Extend to Midport 2018-2022 $410M $683M $8.5M $12.3M

Extend to N. Port 2020-2022 $177M $295M $3.6M $5.3M

IMC 2020-2022 $79M $132M $1.0M $1.4M

Totals $840M $1,377M $17.7M $25.3M

Note : “*” = Offset by RCF Bus operation cost transferred to APM : APM System would replace current shuttle bus operation for RCF. By agreement, portion of Customer Facility Charge (CFC) equivalent to current cost for RCF shuttle bus can be applied to cover APM operation costs.

18

P D & E Study Estimated Capital and O&M Costs Full Build of Elevated Bus Alternative 5B


Segment of System

Period of Development

CapitalAnnual Operating &

Maintenance

Cost in 2007$

Escalated to YOE

(Year of Expenditure)

Cost in 2007$ Startup Year

On-Airport 2016-2020 $82M $126M$4.0M +

(+ exist RCF)$5.5M +

(+ exist RCF)

Extend to Midport 2018-2022 $227M $378M $10.3M $15.0M

Extend to N. Port 2020-2022 $110M $184M $4.4M $6.3M

IMC 2020-2022 $79M $132M $1.0M $1.5M

Totals $498M $820M $19.7M $28.3MNote : “+” : Covers incremental cost for the IMC to Airport shuttle bus operation for Airport / Seaport connection. Current shuttle bus operation for Rental Car Facility to continue with use of CFC.

19

P D & E Study Financial Analysis

Potential Local Funding Sources• APM Users Fees• Passenger Facility Charges• RCC Customer Facility Charges • Concessions

Capital and O&M Costs• People Mover• Intermodal Center• Phased Development Scenarios tied to benefit

Integrated Financing ModelMulti-Tiered Debt (Senior, TIFIA)

Multiple IssuancesIncorporates Reserves, Issuance Costs

Simulates All Stages of Financing Transactions

Financial Assessment

Revenues and Costs for the APM/IMC

Project Financing

Assessment

Financial Assessment


20

P D & E Study Financial Sensitivity Analysis

Coverage With Range of PFCs and User Fee


Notes:• User fee is per trip applied to multi-day cruise passengers using system between FLL & PEV• Passenger Facility Charges (PFC) could finance facilities used directly by airport passengers

and level of PFC could be based on share of airport passengers using the system. However, future PFC availability is uncertain.

• Coverage Ratio for Senior Debt = 1.85• Results similar to Feasibility Study

Funding Scenario Percent of Project Financed

Multi-Day Cruise Pax

FeeFull APM APM to

MidportFull Elevated

BusElevated Bus

to Midport

$10.00 41% 40% 53% 49%

21

P D & E Study Financial Sensitivity Analysis Cost per Rider by Segment


Segment

Cost Per Rider

Full APM APM to Midport

Full Elevated

Bus

Elevated Bus to

Midport

Airport to IMC $1.30 $0.80

IMC to Port $21.50 $21.20 $15.10 $14.80

1) Airport users include Airport / Seaport passengers and Airport Rental Car Patrons2) Potential Funding Sources:

i) Airport to IMC : Potential funding sources to cover a portion of costs include PFCs for capital costs and rental car Customer Facility Charges (CFC) for operating costs.

ii) IMC to Port : Potential funding sources to cover a portion of costs - APM passenger user fee.

22

P D & E Study External Funding Strategies

• Federal Approval of PD&E will create external funding opportunities – State of Florida – Strategic Intermodal System Funds– Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) programs– Public Private Partnership (P3)– Some combination of the above

• Focused Approach for External Funds– Reduces reliance on local sources


23

P D & E Study Project Phasing Considerations

Midport Congestion Mitigation

Project Phasing

Notes1. Midport Congestion Mitigation Option (estimated cost 80 M), cost included as part of Midport

Extension for financial analysis

24

P D & E Study Deferred Conversion to APM

Incremental Steps to build from Near-term to Final RA

PhasesAlternatives

APM Bus on Bridge Bus at-grade

I Midport Congestion Mitigation

II On-Airport On-AirportFacility and Roadway Improve-

ments

III Extend to Midport

Extend to Midport

IV Extend to Northport

Extend to Northport

Project Phasing

Steps Phase DescriptionStep 1 I Build Midport Phase I

Step 2 II Airport Elevated Bridge for Bus

Step 2A II Switch to APM

Step 3 III Extend to Midport with Bus

Step 3A III Extend to Midport with APM

Step 4 III Switch to APM

Step 5 IV Extend to Northport

PH-1

PH-2

PH-3

PH-4

25

P D & E Study Advanced Conversion to APM

Incremental Steps to build from Near-term to Final RA

PhasesAlternatives

APM Bus on Bridge Bus at-grade

I Midport Congestion Mitigation

II On-Airport On-AirportFacility and Roadway Improve-

ments

III Extend to Midport

Extend to Midport

IV Extend to Northport

Extend to Northport

Project Phasing

Steps Phase DescriptionStep 1 I Build Midport Phase I

Step 2 II Airport Elevated Bridge for Bus

Step 2A II Switch to APM

Step 3 III Extend to Midport with Bus

Step 3A III Extend to Midport with APM

Step 4 III Switch to APM

Step 5 IV Extend to Northport

PH-1

PH-2

PH-3

PH-4

26

P D & E Study Next Steps1. Based on BOCC’s designation of

Recommended Alternative, Draft and Final EA Submitted to FDOT and FHWA

2. 30-45 days agency and public comment period after Notice of Availability.

3. Public Hearing during the comment period

4. Prepare FONSI Documents5. Final Approval from FHWA

Further activities will require Board action based on facility needs, phasing, funding opportunities and other considerations.

Automated People Mover System and Intermodal Center ...

Documents

Transcript of Automated People Mover System and Intermodal Center ...