DETAILED EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES TECH MEMO 6: … · • Tech Memo 3: Environmental Impacts •...

FINAL

February 2018

DETAILED EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES TECH MEMO 6: RIDERSHIP

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwioj-W1yMzRAhVUzWMKHZLYA4QQjRwIBw&url=https://www.linkedin.com/company/east-west-gateway-council-of-governments&bvm=bv.144224172,d.cGc&psig=AFQjCNHGx8vjIbR_rLZXJpFkCCtLHAcZUg&ust=1484858841569313

Document Revision Record

Project/Report Name: Northside-Southside Study: Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives Tech Memo 6: Ridership

AECOM Project Number: 60531190

PM: Dan Meyers Principal: Ken Kinney

Originator: Bill Woodford Date: February 2018

Comment/Revision History: Name, Firm: Date:

Kristen Lueken AECOM February 2018

Approvals: Date:

Project Manager:

Principal:

Client Project Manager:

Northside-Southside Tech Memo 6: Ridership | February 2018 | i

Contents 1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 1

2.0 Overview of Project Evaluation Process ........................................................................................... 2

3.0 Tech Memo #6 Overview .................................................................................................................. 3

4.0 Detailed Alternatives ......................................................................................................................... 3

Segments 1 and 2 ..................................................................................................................................... 6

Segment 3 ................................................................................................................................................. 7

Segment 4 ................................................................................................................................................. 8

Segment 5 ................................................................................................................................................. 9

Segments 6 and 7 ................................................................................................................................... 10

5.0 Ridership Forecasts ........................................................................................................................ 11

Methodology ............................................................................................................................................ 11

Calibration and Data Sources ................................................................................................................. 11

6.0 Summary of Results ........................................................................................................................ 17

Unlinked Trips by Route .......................................................................................................................... 18

Project Station Boardings ........................................................................................................................ 21

New Transit Riders .................................................................................................................................. 28

Trip Purpose and Auto Ownership .......................................................................................................... 29

Automobile Travel Impacts ...................................................................................................................... 30

Results for MOS Scenarios with Alternative Park-and-Ride Facilities .................................................... 31

List of Figures Figure 1-1: Northside-Southside Study Area ................................................................................................ 1

Figure 4-1: Northside-Southside MOS Alternatives ...................................................................................... 5

Figure 4-2: Segments 1 and 2 ...................................................................................................................... 6

Figure 4-3: Segment 3 .................................................................................................................................. 7

Figure 4-4: Segment 4 .................................................................................................................................. 8

Northside-Southside Tech Memo 6: Ridership | February 2018 | ii

Figure 4-5: Segment 5 .................................................................................................................................. 9

Figure 4-6: Segments 6 and 7 .................................................................................................................... 10

Figure 5-1: District Boundaries and Names for the Regional Core............................................................. 13

Figure 5-2: District Boundaries and Names for the Full Region ................................................................. 14

List of Tables Table 2-1: Project Evaluation Criteria ........................................................................................................... 2

Table 4-1: Northside-Southside Build Alternative and MOS Service Scenarios........................................... 4

Table 5-1: Summary of Population Projections........................................................................................... 12

Table 5-2: Summary of Employment Projections ....................................................................................... 12

Table 5-3: Comparison of Modeled MetroLink 2016 Weekday MetroLink LRT (by District) to Counts ...... 15

Table 5-4: Comparison of Modeled 2016 Weekday Route Ridership to Counts ........................................ 16

Table 6-1: Year 2017 Weekday Unlinked Transit Trips for the Project and Other Transit Routes by Alternative ................................................................................................................................................... 19



Table 6-4: Year 2017 Weekday Boardings by Station and Alternative ....................................................... 22



Table 6-7: Year 2017 Weekday Park-and-Ride Boardings by Station and Alternative .............................. 28

Table 6-8: Weekday Incremental (versus No-Build) Linked Transit Trips by Alternative ........................... 29

Table 6-9: Weekday Linked Project Transit Trips by Trip Purpose and Alternative ................................... 29

Table 6-10: Weekday Linked Project Transit Trips by Alternative .............................................................. 30

Table 6-11: Year 2017 Weekday Change in Automobile Travel by Alternative .......................................... 30

Table 6-12: Year 2045 Change in Park-and-Ride Boardings for Select Alternatives ................................. 31

Northside-Southside Tech Memo 6: Ridership | February 2018 | iii

List of Appendices Appendix A: Additional Ridership Tables

Northside-Southside Tech Memo 6: Ridership | February 2018 | 1

Figure 1-1: Northside-Southside Study Area

1.0 Introduction

The Northside-Southside MetroLink Conceptual Design Study (Northside-Southside Study) is being led by the East-West Gateway Council of Governments (EWGCOG) with support from the City of St. Louis. The Northside-Southside Study builds upon the 2008 Northside-Southside Study, which included a previously-adopted locally preferred alternative (LPA). The Northside-Southside Study will confirm and refine the alignment within a half-mile study area around the LPA and two potential alignment alternatives in North St. Louis, as shown on Figure 1-1.

Since the proposed Northside-Southside MetroLink expansion line was first explored in the late 1990s and then studied in 2008, the City of St. Louis and its neighborhoods have changed considerably. New development has transformed much of the central corridor. South St. Louis, along Broadway and Jefferson Avenue, has enjoyed grassroots community revitalization with the addition of new residents and small businesses. North St. Louis is the future home of the multi-billion dollar National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) West campus. The proposed Northside-Southside line would have the potential to leverage and extend the economic growth and momentum happening in the City of St. Louis. However, concentrations of poverty, joblessness, and crime continue to erode neighborhoods in both North and South St. Louis.

Through this study, decision-makers will work with stakeholders and members of the public to select a light rail investment that meets the needs of the community while maximizing competitiveness for federal capital funding through the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) New Starts Capital Investment Grant Program.


2.0 Overview of Project Evaluation Process

The Northside-Southside Study is following a two-phase method to identify and develop the LPA:

• Phase 1 will advance the definition of the LPA that was recommended during the 2008 Northside-Southside Study (hereinafter 2008 LPA), including the identification of potential alignment options in the area around the NGA facility. Phase 1 will also include detailed evaluation of the potential alignment alternative(s). The detailed evaluation will result in the identification of the preferred alternative, including the best-performing minimal operable segment1 (MOS), which will include a preferred alignment in the area around the NGA facility. The alternative resulting from this evaluation will become the preferred alternative, which will be advanced for further refinement in Phase 2.

• Phase 2 will refine the preferred alternative selected at the end of Phase 1 to become the LPA. The LPA will include an MOS, which will be the first investment in construction of the full 17-mile corridor.

The evaluation criteria associated with each phase are a combination of quantitative and qualitative performance measures. Phase 1 will apply metrics that are linked to the project goals and objectives (as defined in the study Purpose and Need Report, available under separate cover) and will identify the preferred alternative. Phase 2 will evaluate the preferred alternative against federal criteria to determine the LPA. This two-phase process will result in the identification of an LPA that not only meets locally-identified project purpose and needs, but is also competitive for federal funding.

Table 2-1 presents the evaluation criteria that are likely to be used during the two phases of alternative evaluation. Phase 2 will build upon the criteria from Phase 1, ensuring a consistent rating throughout. Details of these criteria, including the methodology and screening thresholds, will be defined as the study progresses.

Table 2-1: Project Evaluation Criteria

Project Goals Phase 1: Detailed Evaluation Phase 2: Refinement of the LPA

Foster Sustainable Development and Redevelopment

• Station area population and employment densities

• Station area equity characteristics

• Station area land use and economic development opportunities

• Environmental impacts/benefits

• Economic development a

• Land use a

• Environmental benefits a

Improve Access to Opportunity

• Ridership

• Transit travel times

• Traffic impacts

• Parking impacts

• Potential right-of-way impacts

• Bicycle and pedestrian impacts

• Mobility improvements a

• Congestion relief a

1 An MOS is a segment of the LPA that provides the most cost-effective solution with the greatest benefits for the project. According to the FTA, the MOS must be able to function as a stand-alone project and not be dependent on any future segments being constructed.


Project Goals Phase 1: Detailed Evaluation Phase 2: Refinement of the LPA

Develop and Select an Implementable and Community-Supported Project

• Capital and operating and maintenance costs

• Cost effectiveness

• Community support

• Financial capacity analysis a

• Cost effectiveness a

a Consistent with FTA New Starts criteria.

3.0 Tech Memo #6 Overview

The results of the first part of Phase 1 are documented in the Detailed Definition of Alternatives Report, which defines the alternatives. The second part of Phase 1 is the detailed evaluation of the alternatives with regard to their performance against the criteria in Table 2-1. Six technical memoranda (tech memos) are being prepared to describe the results of the evaluation. The six tech memos include the following:

• Tech Memo 1: Station Areas

• Tech Memo 2: Transportation

• Tech Memo 3: Environmental Impacts

• Tech Memo 4: Capital Costs

• Tech Memo 5: Operating and Maintenance Costs

• Tech Memo 6: Ridership

Results contained in the six tech memos are summarized in the Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives Report (available under separate cover). This tech memo discusses the ridership potential for the build alternatives described in Section 4.0.

4.0 Detailed Alternatives

All build alternatives are assumed to be street-running light rail transit operated at a schedule and frequency consistent with existing MetroLink services as described in the Service Planning and Ridership Methodology Tech Memo and the Detailed Definition of Alternatives Report. The primary differences compared to the 2008 LPA are related to runningway configuration and route alternatives/station locations in the area around the planned NGA facility.

The alternatives under evaluation include:

• Alternative 1: 2017 Design (2008 LPA) • Alternative 2: St. Louis Avenue

• Alternative 3: Delmar Boulevard

As discussed in the Detailed Definition of Alternatives Report, the corridor has been divided into segments to simplify the alternative definition and evaluation process. Environmental and capital cost impacts are evaluated by segment so that the full impact of an MOS can be determined through the modular organization of data. Ridership impacts and operations and maintenance costs reflect the interactions among segments, and are therefore organized by MOS alternative.


The preliminary MOS alternatives were developed using the same natural break points used for the segment level analyses, as described in the following subsections and shown on Figures 4-2 to 4-6. Segments are grouped sequentially, including the downtown corridor and at least one segment to both the north and south. Ridership models were developed for three full build NGA alternatives and four preliminary MOS alternatives, shown in Table 4-1 and Figure 4-1. All preliminary MOS alternatives assume an NGA alignment along St. Louis Avenue. This was done so that comparisons between the MOS alternatives can isolate differences related to the extent of the corridor, while a comparison between the three full-build alternatives isolates the changes related to the NGA alignment option. In addition to these primary alternatives, additional ridership models were developed to test the effect of additional park-and-ride locations as described in Section 5.0.

Table 4-1: Northside-Southside Build Alternative and MOS Service Scenarios

MOS Alternative End to end trip length (miles) End to end travel time (minutes) Full Build Segments 1-7

Alternative 1: 2017 Design (2008 LPA) 16.8 44.4

Full Build Segments 1-7

Alternative 2: St. Louis Avenue 16.9 44.4

Full Build Segments 1-7

Alternative 3: Delmar Boulevard 17.0 44.5

MOS Segments 2-6


MOS Segments 1-5


MOS Segments 2-5


MOS Segments 3-5


Note: End to end calculations reflect an average of one-way operations in each direction.


Figure 4-1: Northside-Southside MOS Alternatives


Segments 1 and 2

Segment 1 runs from the terminal station at Stratford Avenue and Natural Bridge Avenue to just north of the station at Goodfellow Boulevard and Natural Bridge Avenue. Segment 1 is included in the full build alternatives and in one MOS alternative extending to Segment 5 (Figure 4-2).

Segment 2 runs from the Natural Bridge & Goodfellow Station to just north of the Natural Bridge & Grand Station. Segment 2 is included in the full build alternatives and all but one of the preliminary MOS alternatives (Figure 4-2).

Figure 4-2: Segments 1 and 2


Segment 3

Segment 3 runs from the Natural Bridge & Grand Station to just south of the 14th & Delmar Station and includes three alignment options. The 2008 LPA option follows the 2008 LPA route and is shown in orange on Figure 4-3. NGA Option 1 (St. Louis Avenue) follows the 2008 LPA route, then turns south on Parnell Street and east on St. Louis Avenue before rejoining the 2008 LPA route and is shown in blue on Figure 4-3. NGA Option 2 (Delmar Boulevard) turns south on Parnell Street and Jefferson Avenue, then east on Delmar Boulevard to reach the 14th & Delmar Station and is shown in purple on Figure 4-3. Each alignment option for Segment 3 is included in one of the full build alternatives and NGA Option 1 (St. Louis Avenue) is included in all of the preliminary MOS alternatives.

Figure 4-3: Segment 3


Segment 4

Segment 4 runs through downtown from just south of the 14th & Delmar Station to S. Jefferson & Park Station along 9th/10th Streets (one-way pair), Clark Avenue, 14th Street, Chouteau Avenue, and Jefferson Avenue (Figure 4-4).

An alternative alignment, as shown by the dashed green line, would diagonally cross the existing surface parking lot that is bounded by Convention Plaza, North 11th Street, North 10th Street, and Lucas Avenue, and then use Lucas Avenue between 9th and 10th streets. This alternative would then follow 9th and 10th streets to reach Clark Avenue.

Segment 4 is included in the full build alternatives and all of the preliminary MOS alternatives. All alternatives assume the primary alignment option shown in orange on Figure 4-4.



Segment 5

Segment 5 runs from just south of the S. Jefferson & Park Station to the S. Jefferson & Chippewa Station along Jefferson Avenue. Segment 5 is included in the full build alternatives and all of the preliminary MOS alternatives (Figure 4-5).



Segments 6 and 7

Segment 6 runs from just south of the S. Jefferson & Chippewa Station to just north of the I-55 & Loughborough Station. Segment 7 runs from just south of the I-55 & Loughborough Station to the southern terminus along Jefferson Avenue and I-552. The dashed line indicates where an alternative alignment along Broadway may be studied in future project phases (Figure 4-6).

Segment 6 is included in the full build alternatives and one MOS alternative. Segment 7 is only included in the full build alternatives.

Figure 4-6: Segments 6 and 7

2 It is likely that the outcome of the Northside-Southside Study will be an LPA with an MOS, which will be the first phase of investment in the full 17-mile corridor. Following selection of the MOS, further evaluation should be conducted to determine whether the alignment along Broadway better meets the purpose and need of the Northside-Southside Study than the alignment along I-55, which was identified as the LPA during the 2008 study.


5.0 Ridership Forecasts

Methodology

The ridership forecasting methodology for this study is based on FTA’s Simplified Trips-on-Project Software (STOPS) model. The remainder of this subsection describes how STOPS was calibrated for the St. Louis metropolitan area and how it was applied to study potential fixed guideway projects.

Calibration and Data Sources

STOPS is a national model developed by FTA to dramatically reduce the effort required to prepare project-level ridership forecasts while improving the quality of the results. These goals are accomplished by:

• Direct use of transit schedule information (in General Transit Feed Specification [GTFS] format) to represent location-specific (i.e., zone-to-zone) transit levels of service. This use of GTFS schedules skips the labor-intensive step of converting this data into a form used in transportation planning models while improving the quality of the results by using precise bus and train schedules to represent transit services.

• Direct use of data on travel patterns from US Census and local survey data rather than construction of elaborate models designed to predict trip-making patterns.

• Calibration of models to match region-wide stop-level and route-level count information. This step results in a model that closely replicates current transit usage in different geographic areas of the metropolitan area and current route-by-route ridership.

Because supporting data vary considerably from region to region, STOPS is designed to work in a variety of application modes. In St. Louis, the following data and projections were used to calibrate the model.

• The geographic scope of the STOPS application is consistent with the forecasting region of the EWGCOG. This region is comprised of the City of St Louis; St. Louis, St. Charles, Franklin, and Jefferson counties in Missouri; and Madison, St. Clair, and Monroe counties in Illinois. All transit travel in the region is included in STOPS.

• Existing transit services are based on the transit service operated by Metro St. Louis on October 12, 2016 (a typical Wednesday in fall 2016).

• Input trip data are provided from the 2013 transit on-board survey and then updated to represent the overall change in system-wide unlinked trips between 2013 and 2016 (ridership changed from 161,392 unlinked trips in 20133 to 137,280 unlinked trips in 20164). This information is supplemented by the 2006-2010 five-year American Community Survey (the most recent available in a form suitable for STOPS).

• Unlinked trips are set to 137,280 trips per weekday to represent October 2016 ridership. Transit stop-level counts adding up to 49,165 boardings were used for MetroLink LRT stations. Transit route-level counts adding up to 88,114 riders per day were used for bus routes. Station and route count data were used in the final model calibration step to ensure that modeled results match observed data as closely as possible.

3 Total unlinked trip weight in the 2013 on-board transit survey.

4 Metro average weekday bus and rail ridership for October 2016.


• Zone level population and employment is based on EWGCOG demographic data files. Intermediate years (2016) are interpolated. Tables 5-1 and 5-2 provide a summary of these projections aggregated to each county.

Table 5-1: Summary of Population Projections

County 2016 2025 Change 2016-2025 2035

Change 2016-2035 2045

Change 2016-2045

St. Louis City 315,825 313,266 -0.8% 311,939 -1.2% 309,602 -2.0%

St. Louis Co. 1,003,214 1,005,666 0.2% 1,006,788 0.4% 997,493 -0.6%

St. Charles 388,081 430,575 10.9% 450,132 16.0% 449,609 15.9%

Franklin 102,742 108,110 5.2% 110,588 7.6% 109,416 6.5%

Jefferson 224,898 237,872 5.8% 243,863 8.4% 243,812 8.4%

Madison 266,431 270,636 1.6% 272,566 2.3% 271,672 2.0%

St. Claire 264,054 264,353 0.1% 264,490 0.2% 261,656 -0.9%

Monroe 34,048 36,868 8.3% 38,166 12.1% 37,546 10.3%

Total 2,599,293 2,667,346 2.6% 2,698,532 3.8% 2,680,806 3.1%

Table 5-2: Summary of Employment Projections

County 2016 2025 Change 2016-2025 2035

Change 2016-2035 2045

Change 2016-2045

St. Louis City 282,098 285,082 1.1% 290,676 3.0% 299,883 6.3%

St. Louis Co. 784,560 790,282 0.7% 795,405 1.4% 805,892 2.7%

St. Charles 194,398 200,729 3.3% 206,469 6.2% 218,142 12.2%

Franklin 54,960 55,981 1.9% 56,888 3.5% 58,791 7.0%

Jefferson 70,104 71,458 1.9% 72,679 3.7% 75,137 7.2%

Madison 129,521 130,523 0.8% 131,405 1.5% 133,234 2.9%

St. Claire 127,492 128,890 1.1% 130,142 2.1% 132,682 4.1%

Monroe 12,761 13,077 2.5% 13,356 4.7% 13,947 9.3%

Total 1,655,894 1,676,022 1.2% 1,697,020 2.5% 1,737,708 4.9%

A district system was used to aggregate transit count and trip table information for calibration and reporting. Figure 5-1 shows the district system for the regional core and Figure 5-2 shows the district boundaries for the entire region.


Figure 5-1: District Boundaries and Names for the Regional Core


Figure 5-2: District Boundaries and Names for the Full Region

The incremental version of STOPS was used for the St. Louis model. This version uses the survey and Census Transportation Planning Products (CTPP) data in tandem to estimate person trips and linked transit trips. Initial model results are compared to station-level counts and route-level counts to determine where adjustments are required to match observed passenger volumes. As needed, person trips are adjusted up or down so that transit trips match observed volumes. Even though the initial survey was adjusted from 2013 (the year of the survey) to represent 2016 conditions, the initial model matched counted volumes very well. Relatively modest adjustments were required to tune the model to closely represent existing ridership patterns. Tables 5-3 and 5-4 present the results of the ridership forecasting model after the initial implementation and the final results after route and station counts were used to adjust demand to match observed ridership.


Table 5-3: Comparison of Modeled MetroLink 2016 Weekday MetroLink LRT (by District) to Counts

District Count Initial Calibration Final Calibration

1-StlCBD 4,379 4,814 4,379

2-DwntnW 3,883 3,671 3,882

3-Midtwn 2,974 4,822 2,976

4-CWstEn 5,551 4,104 5,545

5-ForPrk 7,832 4,784 7,825

6-RockRd 1,054 947 1,055

7-UMSL 6,227 7,099 6,230

8-Lambrt 1,731 1,203 1,730

9-Clayton 861 599 860

10-Galleria 1,078 1,128 1,076

11-Maplewood 4,693 4,857 4,689

35-EStl 6,178 6,939 6,181

36-Belleville 2,724 4,209 2,726

Total 49,165 49,176 49,154

Note: The above districts reflect those with existing MetroLink connections


Table 5-4: Comparison of Modeled 2016 Weekday Route Ridership to Counts

Route Count Initial Calibration

Final Calibration Route Count

Initial Calibration

Final Calibration

1-Gold 1,058 1,040 1,060 77-McDonne 1,268 1,301 1,268

2-Red 1,044 672 1,044 78-Larimor 924 1,102 924

3-Forest P - 50 209 79-Ferguso 772 618 772

4-Natural 1,953 2,596 1,953 80-Park-Sh 367 264 367

8-Bates-Mo 554 475 554 90-Hampton 3,137 2,803 3,137

10-Gravois 2,837 1,709 2,837 91-Olive 1,737 1,050 1,737

11-Chippew 3,864 2,794 3,864 94-Page 2,933 2,460 2,933

13-Union 560 682 560 95-Kingshi 4,082 5,631 4,081

14-Botanic 463 368 463 97-Delmar 1,805 1,494 1,805

16-City Li 2,159 2,799 2,159 98-Ballas- 687 892 687

17-Oakvill 325 424 325 99-Downtow 484 542 484

18-Taylor 642 555 641 1-Main Str 2,835 2,214 2,834

21-Watson 1,171 1,184 1,171 2-Cahokia 1,069 963 1,069

30-Soulard 2,801 1,989 2,801 4-19th & C 659 327 659

32-ML King 2,290 2,191 2,290 6-Rosemont 415 746 415

33-Dorsett 652 616 652 8-Alta Sit 815 959 815

34-Earth C 879 731 879 9-Washingt 244 245 244

35-Rock Ro 2,437 2,193 2,437 12-OFallon 1,228 1,244 1,228

37-Hanley- 738 477 738 13-Caseyvi 354 1,133 354

38-Hazelwo 555 394 555 14-Memoria 216 191 216

39-Berkele 834 792 834 15-Bellevi 84 252 84

40-Broadwa 1,960 2,087 1,960 16-St Clair 766 1,648 766

41-Lee 1,338 1,332 1,338 17-Carlyle 205 62 205

42-Sarah 1,125 348 1,125 21-Scott A 62 315 63

46-Tesson 174 529 174 40X-I-55 E 126 436 126

47-Clayton 1,554 1,990 1,554 58X-Twin O 209 278 209


Route Count Initial Calibration

Final Calibration Route Count

Initial Calibration

Final Calibration

48-South L 961 864 961 110-Affton 56 146 56

49-North L 898 1,343 898 174X-North 701 2,645 701

56-Kirkwoo 310 509 310 210-Fenton 264 342 264

57-Maplewo 1,181 1,136 1,181 258-Clayto 665 623 665

58-Clayton 508 602 508 410X-Eurek 220 181 220

59-Dogtown 822 810 822 2X-Waterlo 66 108 66

61-Chamber 2,423 2,336 2,423 12X-Metrol 1 - -

64-Lucas H 1,088 1,188 1,088 17X-Lebano 40 30 40

66-Clayton 116 302 116 21X-Scott 55 214 55

68-Big Ben 294 337 294 GL-Green L 378 97 377

70-Grand 8,434 9,392 8,434 57X-Clayto 141 234 141

71-Parker 946 699 946 Total Bus 88,114 88,105 88,319

72-Monarch 309 117 309 MLB-MetroL 18,480 18,752 18,477

73-Caronde 2,209 1,081 2,209 MLR-MetroL 30,686 30,423 30,675

74-Floriss 3,063 2,238 3,063 Total LRT 49,166 49,175 49,153

76-Waterfo 511 340 511 Grand Total 137,280 137,280 137,472

6.0 Summary of Results

This section describes forecasted ridership for each of the alternatives for three forecast years—2017, 2025, and 2045. The 2017 forecasts represent projected ridership for each alternative if the project were in operation today. FTA uses these “current year forecasts” as a key element of the project development process since these estimates are independent of a key element of ridership uncertainty—the unknown extent to which projected demographic growth will occur within the stated timeframe. The remaining forecasts (2025 and 2045) represent short- and long-term horizon years that help to describe the ultimate potential ridership of the project.

Three types of ridership statistics are presented in the following subsections:

• Unlinked transit trips. Unlinked transit trips are equivalent to transit boardings and occur each time a customer boards a new transit vehicle. If a customer boards a bus and then transfers to another bus, then that customer will add two unlinked trips to the results. Unlinked trips are most useful for understanding how different alternatives will affect individual bus routes or rail stations. This statistic is less useful for understanding overall transit system performance since alternatives that require additional transfers will appear to have more ridership (i.e., boardings) than similar alternatives that require fewer transfers.


• Linked transit trips. Linked transit trips represent the number of origin-to-destination trips using transit as part of the journey. This statistic is unaffected by the number of transfers a customer makes and is, therefore, a better measure of the number of new riders that an alternative will attract to transit. A subset of linked transit trips (linked transit trips using the project) is one of the measures used by FTA to describe the mobility benefits of a potential fixed guideway transit improvement. These mobility benefits are part of the project rating system used by FTA to make capital funding recommendations.

• Changes in automobile travel. Another statistic used by FTA in the ratings process describes the change in automobile vehicle miles of travel (VMT) associated with a project. This statistic is computed by comparing vehicle travel (measured as vehicle miles of travel, VMT) with the project to the same statistic under the no-build scenario. VMT includes travel made by automobile from origin to destination and the home-to-parking lot portion of park-and-ride transit trips.

Unlinked Trips by Route

Tables 6-1, 6-2, and 6-3 present route-level ridership statistics for 2017, 2025, and 2045, respectively. The three full-length alternatives all attract similar levels of project ridership (i.e., ridership on the Northside-Southside MetroLink line). This ridership ranges from 15,500 to 15,700 trips per weekday in 2017 and grows to between 16,900 and 17,600 in 2045. The degree to which Alternatives 2 and 3 attract more ridership than Alternative 1 grows in 2025 and 2045, as compared to 2017, because the NGA facility is assumed to relocate into the corridor before 2025 and Alternatives 2 and 3 have been adjusted to provide better levels of service to that site. The different MOS alternatives attract between 8,000 and 14,400 riders in 2017 and MOS ridership grows to between 9,200 and 16,300 riders in 2045. As expected the MOS alternatives with the greatest number of segments (i.e., the longest length and most stations) also will attract the most ridership. For instance, the MOS consisting of Segments 2-6 has the highest ridership with 14,400 weekday riders in 2017 and 16,300 weekday riders in 2045. The MOS consisting of Segments 1-5 also has five segments but carries 12,400 in 2017 and 14,300 weekday riders in 2045. The difference between these two alternatives is explained by the fact that the southern-most segment (Segment 6) has three stations, while the northern-most segment (Segment 1) has only one station. Not surprisingly, the three stations included in MOS Segments 2-6 generate more riders than the one additional station included in MOS Segments 1-5.

Tables 6-1, 6-2, and 6-3 also describe the impacts of the project on corridor bus routes, connecting rail service, and on other (i.e., non-corridor) bus routes. Current MetroLink rail ridership is equal to approximately 50,000 trips per day and grows by up to 1,000 trips with the addition of Northside-Southside services to the STOPS model for 2017. Overall ridership on the existing rail system (i.e., the no-build scenario) is expected to grow to 51,000 in 2025 and 56,000 in 2045. This growth is driven by two factors—demographic growth in the service area and the introduction of a new station (now under construction) on the existing line at Cortex.

The impact of the Northside-Southside project on bus ridership is larger. In 2017, corridor bus ridership is equal to approximately 20,500 weekday trips in the no-build case. This number will decline to 18,300 weekday riders for all three full build alternatives. These impacts are generally caused by the diversion of existing bus riders to the new rail line. The routes experiencing the biggest diversions include Routes 41, 73, 74, and the combined ridership of Route 11/21. Similar impacts are seen in 2025 and 2045.


Table 6-1: Year 2017 Weekday Unlinked Transit Trips for the Project and Other Transit Routes by Alternative

Transit Route 2016 Count

2017 No-Build

Alt. 1 Full Build

Alt. 2 Full Build

Alt. 3 Full Build

MOS 3-5 Alt. 2 Build




Project

Northside-Southside - - 15,587 15,726 15,520 7,961 12,411 11,502 14,395

Existing MetroLink

MetroLink Blue Line 18,480 19,202 19,066 19,094 19,051 19,153 19,314 19,519 19,326

MetroLink Red Line 30,686 30,624 30,459 30,454 30,383 31,331 30,605 30,946 30,853

SUBTOTAL 49,166 49,826 49,525 49,548 49,434 50,484 49,919 50,465 50,179

Corridor Bus Routes

4-Natural Bridge 1,953 2,603 1,946 1,945 1,990 2,552 2,068 2,161 1,981

10-Gravois-Lindell 2,836 2,625 2,629 2,615 2,598 2,591 2,566 2,581 2,646

11-Chippewa a 3,864 3,959 3,966 3,968 3,974 3,979 4,047 4,047 3,972

30-Arsenal 2,800 1,144 1,189 1,189 1,195 1,192 1,191 1,195 1,194

40-North Broadway 1,960 1,088 997 995 1,010 1,043 1,004 1,024 1,035

41-Lee 1,337 1,261 1,056 1,042 1,146 1,245 1,014 1,060 1,099

73-Carondelet 2,209 2,161 1,220 1,215 1,222 1,320 1,350 1,341 1,269

74-Florissant 3,063 2,747 2,312 2,309 2,386 2,590 2,390 2,430 2,397

90-Hampton 3,137 2,944 2,988 2,988 2,978 2,943 3,221 3,108 3,140

SUBTOTAL 23,159 20,532 18,303 18,266 18,499 19,455 18,851 18,947 18,733

Other Bus Routes 64,920 69,955 66,259 66,271 66,111 68,639 67,144 67,368 66,215

TOTAL 137,245 140,313 149,674 149,811 149,564 146,539 148,325 148,282 149,522

a For all build alternatives, ridership estimates for the Route 11-Chippewa assume the combined 11/21 routing described in the Detailed Definition of Alternatives Report. 2016 Counts and the No-Build Alternative reflect the Route 11-Chippewa in its current configuration.



Transit Route 2025 No-Build

Alt. 1 Full Build

Alt. 2 Full Build

Alt. 3 Full Build





Project

Northside-Southside - 16,476 17,221 17,010 9,002 14,018 13,041 15,858

Existing MetroLink

MetroLink Blue Line 19,668 19,793 19,827 19,777 19,853 20,035 20,225 20,043

MetroLink Red Line 31,618 31,469 31,260 31,183 32,462 31,388 31,814 31,745

SUBTOTAL 51,286 51,262 51,087 50,960 52,315 51,423 52,039 51,788

Corridor Bus Routes

4-Natural Bridge 2,937 2,042 2,291 2,327 2,905 2,504 2,625 2,347

10-Gravois-Lindell 2,526 2,542 2,524 2,506 2,508 2,484 2,497 2,555

11-Chippewa a 4,017 4,052 4,055 4,060 4,055 4,118 4,119 4,058

30-Arsenal 1,141 1,239 1,239 1,247 1,245 1,246 1,250 1,245

40-North Broadway 1,110 1,050 1,060 1,071 1,096 1,044 1,065 1,098

41-Lee 1,911 1,270 1,317 1,422 1,778 1,487 1,564 1,377

73-Carondelet 2,252 1,264 1,258 1,266 1,394 1,426 1,416 1,298

74-Florissant 2,792 2,828 2,752 2,816 2,619 2,435 2,475 2,852

90-Hampton 3,023 3,140 3,092 3,082 3,020 3,537 3,409 3,451

SUBTOTAL 21,709 19,427 19,588 19,797 20,620 20,281 20,420 20,281

Other Bus Routes 71,636 67,970 67,735 67,561 69,910 68,314 68,585 67,550

TOTAL 144,631 155,135 155,631 155,328 151,847 154,036 154,085 155,477

a For all build alternatives, ridership estimates for the Route 11-Chippewa assume the combined 11/21 routing described in the Detailed Definition of Alternatives Report. The No-Build Alternative reflects the Route 11-Chippewa in its current configuration.



Transit Route 2045 No-Build

Alt. 1 Full Build

Alt. 2 Full Build

Alt. 3 Full Build





Project

Northside-Southside - 16,916 17,645 17,414 9,237 14,339 13,334 16,250

Existing MetroLink

MetroLink Blue Line 21,408 21,610 21,645 21,594 21,639 21,866 22,059 21,864

MetroLink Red Line 34,386 34,279 34,092 34,010 35,229 34,194 34,600 34,556

SUBTOTAL 55,794 55,889 55,737 55,604 56,868 56,060 56,659 56,420

Corridor Bus Routes

4-Natural Bridge 2,975 2,070 2,288 2,326 2,930 2,512 2,629 2,342

10-Gravois-Lindell 2,599 2,613 2,595 2,575 2,582 2,559 2,572 2,626

11-Chippewa a 4,067 4,154 4,157 4,161 4,152 4,217 4,217 4,160

30-Arsenal 1,229 1,275 1,275 1,284 1,266 1,265 1,269 1,281

40-North Broadway 1,156 1,085 1,095 1,106 1,143 1,090 1,110 1,137

41-Lee 2,012 1,311 1,354 1,463 1,866 1,557 1,637 1,416

73-Carondelet 2,250 1,298 1,291 1,300 1,434 1,465 1,455 1,332

74-Florissant 2,845 2,902 2,829 2,892 2,651 2,468 2,508 2,929

90-Hampton 3,079 3,156 3,108 3,101 3,083 3,590 3,461 3,486

SUBTOTAL 22,212 19,864 19,992 20,208 21,107 20,723 20,858 20,709

Other Bus Routes 74,362 70,596 70,387 70,200 72,560 70,979 71,244 70,187

TOTAL 152,368 163,265 163,761 163,426 159,772 162,101 162,095 163,566

a For all build alternatives, ridership estimates for the Route 11-Chippewa assume the combined 11/21 routing described in the Detailed Definition of Alternatives Report. The No-Build Alternative reflects the Route 11-Chippewa in its current configuration.

Project Station Boardings

Tables 6-4, 6-5, and 6-6 present station-level project boardings for 2017, 2025, and 2045, respectively. The total number of station boardings on the project match overall route-level ridership (with a small variance caused by rounding). A similar number of passengers will alight at each station over the course of a day.


Table 6-4: Year 2017 Weekday Boardings by Station and Alternative

Station 2017 No-Build

Alt. 1 Full Build

Alt. 2 Full Build

Alt. 3 Full Build





Goodfellow & Stratford

- 1,146 1,165 1,211 - 1,001 - -

Natural Bridge & Goodfellow

- 525 527 508 - 473 793 873

Natural Bridge & Union

- 426 426 413 - 410 400 415

Natural Bridge & Kingshighway

- 324 326 311 - 315 299 308

Natural Bridge & Newstead

- 671 673 653 - 624 620 655

Natural Bridge & Fair - 396 396 397 - 327 293 354

Natural Bridge & Grand

- 662 718 532 743 613 583 701

Natural Bridge & Parnell

- 426 - 489 - - - -

Parnell & St. Louis - - 450 - 366 323 307 438

Florissant & St. Louis - 479 485 - 540 609 590 465

N. Jefferson & Cass - - - 386 - - - -

14th & Biddle - 290 297 - 211 279 265 283

Jefferson & Delmar - - - 313 - - - -

14th & Delmar - 114 112 143 66 109 96 96

9th & Washington - 434 457 478 329 378 380 443

10th & Washington - 287 289 379 143 278 257 267

9th & Pine - 750 748 725 453 676 678 733

10th & Pine - 841 842 848 553 693 668 804

9th & Clark - 337 340 364 224 333 312 312

10th & Clark - 627 628 593 457 503 522 649

14th & Clark - 1,360 1,363 1,306 993 1,265 1,320 1,425

Chouteau & Truman - 230 231 228 144 195 182 214

S. Jefferson & Park - 172 172 169 112 119 118 165

S. Jefferson & Russell - 269 280 280 223 233 231 276

S. Jefferson & Gravois

- 556 539 547 427 457 447 525

S. Jefferson & Arsenal - 427 427 446 493 526 514 411



Alt. 1 Full Build

Alt. 2 Full Build

Alt. 3 Full Build





S. Jefferson & Cherokee

- 481 478 465 336 372 363 453

S. Jefferson & Chippewa

- 1,015 1,015 997 1,146 1,298 1,265 990

I-55 SB & Osceola - 628 627 622 - - - 662

I-55 SB Ramps & Bates

- 381 380 381 - - - 384

I-55 NB Ramps & Loughborough

- 1,069 1,071 1,070 - - - 1,095

I-55 NB Ramps & Bayless

- 263 264 267 - - - -

TOTAL - 15,586 15,726 15,521 7,959 12,409 11,503 14,396




Alt. 1 Full Build

Alt. 2 Full Build

Alt. 3 Full Build






- 1,348 1,362 1,415 - 1,217 - -


- 534 679 660 - 627 1,065 1,145


- 425 425 411 - 409 399 413


- 339 373 358 - 354 346 361


- 699 701 679 - 652 650 682



- 679 803 621 893 722 695 788


- 840 - 480 - - - -

Parnell & St. Louis - - 1,178 - 894 1,117 1,052 1,132


N. Jefferson & Cass - - - 1,115 - - - -

14th & Biddle - 298 334 - 246 315 302 322


14th & Delmar - 121 125 182 106 148 136 111

9th & Washington - 448 474 497 343 389 391 459

10th & Washington - 296 299 391 147 289 267 276

9th & Pine - 848 831 805 551 755 761 819

10th & Pine - 822 823 851 535 668 657 800

9th & Clark - 360 363 387 249 355 338 339

10th & Clark - 627 629 576 443 505 521 646

14th & Clark - 1,407 1,427 1,378 1,174 1,341 1,436 1,531

Chouteau & Grattan - 240 241 239 151 204 191 223

S. Jefferson & Park - 152 152 149 102 109 108 146



- 552 531 540 418 448 439 516




Alt. 1 Full Build

Alt. 2 Full Build

Alt. 3 Full Build






- 481 478 466 359 396 387 458


- 1,016 1,017 996 1,124 1,279 1,245 992

I-55 SB & Osceola - 630 629 623 - - - 661


- 384 383 385 - - - 388


- 1,062 1,063 1,064 - - - 1,080


- 252 253 258 - - - -

TOTAL - 16,473 17,221 17,012 9,003 14,016 13,042 15,860




Alt. 1 Full Build

Alt. 2 Full Build

Alt. 3 Full Build






- 1,372 1,388 1,444 - 1,239 - -


- 568 697 679 - 646 1,090 1,174


- 424 424 410 - 409 400 414


- 349 383 365 - 362 355 371


- 693 694 674 - 645 644 678



- 689 815 622 902 732 705 799


- 854 - 502 - - - -

Parnell & St. Louis - - 1,183 - 901 1,117 1,052 1,136


N. Jefferson & Cass - - - 1,113 - - - -

14th & Biddle - 319 360 - 264 339 323 345


14th & Delmar - 125 129 191 107 153 140 113

9th & Washington - 496 523 546 382 424 426 509

10th & Washington - 291 294 392 148 284 262 271

9th & Pine - 876 854 821 573 775 781 842

10th & Pine - 830 832 860 539 671 661 809

9th & Clark - 376 379 404 262 372 352 352

10th & Clark - 630 632 580 444 503 521 651

14th & Clark - 1,480 1,504 1,451 1,192 1,405 1,485 1,594

Chouteau & Grattan - 252 252 250 160 215 201 234

S. Jefferson & Park - 145 145 142 97 104 103 139



- 551 530 538 416 446 438 515




Alt. 1 Full Build

Alt. 2 Full Build

Alt. 3 Full Build






- 485 481 468 368 402 394 461


- 1,039 1,040 1,019 1,157 1,313 1,279 1,014

I-55 SB & Osceola - 653 653 644 - - - 684


- 399 398 400 - - - 403


- 1,087 1,088 1,089 - - - 1,104


- 257 259 263 - - - -

TOTAL - 16,916 17,646 17,414 9,238 14,340 13,334 16,248


Table 6-7 presents the subset of station boardings that come from park-and-ride customers for 2017, 2025, and 2045. A similar number of riders will alight at each station and then pick up their car to drive home each day. The statistics reported in Table 6-7 are approximately equal to the number of cars that could be expected to arrive at the various park-and-ride lots along the line and therefore could be used to confirm that the proposed parking supply will be adequate to meet the anticipated demand.

Table 6-7: Year 2017 Weekday Park-and-Ride Boardings by Station and Alternative

Station with Proposed Park-and-Ride

No-Build

Alt. 1 Full

Build

Alt. 2 Full

Build

Alt. 3 Full

Build





2017 Park-and-Ride Boardings

Goodfellow & Stratford - 313 325 336 - 327 - -

I-55 SB & Osceola - 138 138 134 - - - 174

I-55 NB Ramps & Bayless - 84 84 87 - - - -

2017 TOTAL - 535 547 557 - 327 - 174



I-55 SB & Osceola - 139 139 135 - - - 175


2025 TOTAL - 597 631 638 - 408 - 175



I-55 SB & Osceola - 142 142 136 - - - 177


2045 TOTAL - 603 637 642 - 408 - 177

New Transit Riders

Incremental linked transit trips are a key indicator of how well each alternative attracts new trips to transit. Full Build Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 attract approximately 5,700 new weekday linked trips to transit in 2017, as shown in Table 6-8. This number is slightly more than one-third of the total ridership on the Northside-Southside line. The other two-thirds of the ridership are diversions from existing bus routes. This ratio of new and diverted riders is consistent with other recent rail projects in the United States built in areas with mature transit systems. Tables detailing regional weekday linked transit trips and incremental linked transit trips stratified by trip purpose, auto ownership, and alternative for 2017, 2025, and 2045 are available in Appendix A. The ratio of new system riders to total project trips is similar for other alternatives and all forecast years and ranges from 0.36 to 0.38.


Table 6-8: Weekday Incremental (versus No-Build) Linked Transit Trips by Alternative

Alt. 1 Full Build

Alt. 2 Full Build

Alt. 3 Full Build





2017 5,684 5,765 5,644 2,890 4,501 4,151 5,247

2025 6,270 6,580 6,448 3,373 5,211 4,791 6,017

2045 6,458 6,770 6,624 3,485 5,373 4,942 6,192

Trip Purpose and Auto Ownership

Appendix Tables A-7, A-8, and A-9 present weekday linked project trips stratified by trip purpose, auto ownership, and alternative for 2017, 2025, and 2045, respectively. These trips represent the subset of all linked transit trips that use the Northside-Southside rail line at some point during the journey. Since there is no need to transfer within the project (i.e., the project consists of a single continuous line), linked project trips, Northside-Southside route ridership, and total boardings at Northside-Southside stations are all equal to one-another within a given alternative.

Table 6-9 summarizes the trip purpose for each alternative and for each year. Slightly more than half of all Northside-Southside customers will be making home-based work trips. As summarized in Table 6-10, slightly less than half of all trips will be made by members of zero-car households.

Table 6-9: Weekday Linked Project Transit Trips by Trip Purpose and Alternative

Trip Purpose

Alt. 1 Full

Build

Alt. 2 Full

Build

Alt. 3 Full

Build





2017 All Trip Purposes 15,587 15,726 15,520 7,961 12,411 11,502 14,395

Home-Based Work 8,021 8,130 8,101 4,406 6,683 6,051 7,282

Home-Based Other 6,356 6,385 6,260 2,911 4,806 4,569 5,989

Non-Home-Based 1,211 1,211 1,159 644 922 883 1,123


Home-Based Work 8,378 9,034 8,980 5,039 7,627 6,966 8,171

Home-Based Other 6,876 6,951 6,836 3,265 5,411 5,141 6,546

Non-Home-Based 1,222 1,235 1,193 698 980 935 1,142


Home-Based Work 8,558 9,194 9,140 5,111 7,745 7,069 8,314

Home-Based Other 7,143 7,222 7,090 3,424 5,622 5,339 6,801

Non-Home-Based 1,215 1,228 1,184 701 971 926 1,135


Table 6-10: Weekday Linked Project Transit Trips by Alternative

Weekday Linked Project Transit Trips from zero-car Households

Alt. 1 Full

Build

Alt. 2 Full

Build

Alt. 3 Full

Build





2017 0-car trips on the project

7,338 7,363 7,218 3,753 5,672 5,451 6,921

Percent of all linked project trips

47% 47% 47% 47% 46% 47% 48%


7,800 8,138 7,986 4,230 6,535 6,285 7,697

Percent of linked project trips

47% 47% 47% 47% 47% 47% 49%


7,896 8,219 8,066 4,259 6,551 6,297 7,772

Percent of linked project trips

47% 47% 46% 46% 46% 47% 48%

Automobile Travel Impacts

Table 6-11 presents estimates of weekday person-miles and VMT saved by each alternative. In 2017, the full-length project alternatives will result in reduction of approximately 43,000 weekday vehicle miles of automobile travel. The amount of VMT reduction will grow to approximately 46,000 to 47,000 VMT saved in 2025 and 48,000 to 49,000 VMT saved by 2045. As expected, the MOS alternatives result in lower VMT savings in proportion to the reduced numbers of projected riders for these options.

Table 6-11: Year 2017 Weekday Change in Automobile Travel by Alternative

Change in Vehicle Travel by Year

Alt. 1 Full

Build

Alt. 2 Full

Build

Alt. 3 Full

Build





Change in Person-Miles

2017 (47,183) (47,606) (47,398) (24,058) (36,675) (33,767) (42,561)

2025 (50,513) (52,149) (51,822) (26,900) (41,349) (38,104) (46,930)

2045 (52,326) (53,965) (53,545) (27,867) (42,594) (39,296) (48,632)

Change in Vehicle-Miles

2017 (42,894) (43,278) (43,089) (21,871) (33,341) (30,697) (38,692)

2025 (45,921) (47,408) (47,111) (24,455) (37,590) (34,640) (42,664)

2045 (47,569) (49,059) (48,677) (25,334) (38,722) (35,724) (44,211)


Results for MOS Scenarios with Alternative Park-and-Ride Facilities

Additional model runs were prepared for variations in park-and-ride facilities for different MOS alternatives to test the sensitivity of predicted ridership to park-and-ride availability. Those runs included the following changes to park-and-ride assumptions:

• MOS Segments 1-5: Additional park-and-ride lot at Jefferson Avenue and Gravois Boulevard

• MOS Segments 2-5: Additional park-and-rides at Natural Bridge Avenue and Goodfellow Boulevard and at Jefferson Avenue and Gravois Boulevard

• MOS Segments 3-5: Additional park-and-rides at Natural Bridge Avenue and Grand Boulevard and at Jefferson Avenue and Gravois Boulevard

As shown in Table 6-12, a park-and-ride facility at the Natural Bridge & Goodfellow Station (the northern terminus for the MOS Segment 2-5: Alternative 2 Build) has the greatest potential to generate additional park-and-ride boardings, with up to 347 boardings by year 2045. A park-and-ride facility at Natural Bridge Avenue and Grand Boulevard could generate up to 259 boardings by 2045 and a facility at Jefferson Avenue and Gravois Boulevard could add approximately 125, depending on alternative. Table 6-12 also summarizes the potential impact on total project boardings as a result of the additional park-and-ride facilities. Some park-and ride boardings may be diverted from walk, kiss-and-ride, or transit boardings while new riders attracted by the park-and-ride lot may make additional return-trip boardings at stations without a park-and-ride. As a result, the change in park-and ride usage and the change in total project boardings will not be identical. Appendix A, Tables A-10 through A-16 document ridership characteristics for the three MOS scenarios with additional park-and-ride facility assumptions. These tables provide a means of comparison to the preliminary alternative tables throughout Section 6, in order to assess the utility of additional park-and-ride facilities but do not reflect Northside-Southside engineering or cost estimates.

Table 6-12: Year 2045 Change in Park-and-Ride Boardings for Select Alternatives

Park and Ride Location MOS 1-5 Alt. 2 Build MOS 2-5 Alt. 2 Build MOS 3-5 Alt. 2 Build Goodfellow & Stratford (24) - -

Natural Bridge & Goodfellow - 347 -

Natural Bridge & Grand - - 259

S. Jefferson & Chippewa 133 132 123

I-55 SB & Osceola - - -

I-55 NB Ramps & Bayless - - -

Change in Weekday Park-and-Ride Boarding

109 479 382

Change in Average Weekday Project Boardings

116 522 426

Northside-Southside Tech Memo 6: Ridership | February 2018 | A-1

APPENDIX A: ADDITIONAL RIDERSHIP TABLES

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwioj-W1yMzRAhVUzWMKHZLYA4QQjRwIBw&url=https://www.linkedin.com/company/east-west-gateway-council-of-governments&bvm=bv.144224172,d.cGc&psig=AFQjCNHGx8vjIbR_rLZXJpFkCCtLHAcZUg&ust=1484858841569313


Table A-1: Year 2017 Weekday Linked Transit Trips by Alternative

Trip Purpose/ Household Autos Owned No-Build

Alt. 1 Full Build

Alt. 2 Full Build

Alt. 3 Full Build





Home-Based Work

0-car 19,722 20,409 20,412 20,407 20,067 20,227 20,199 20,353

1-car 11,452 12,811 12,826 12,818 12,092 12,503 12,365 12,636

2+cars 7,265 8,214 8,260 8,290 7,801 8,115 8,006 8,124

Total 38,440 41,434 41,497 41,515 39,960 40,844 40,570 41,113

Home-Based Other

0-car 23,648 24,463 24,466 24,427 24,062 24,255 24,245 24,433

1-car 8,859 9,788 9,800 9,786 9,297 9,554 9,520 9,761

2+cars 4,611 5,179 5,182 5,143 4,899 5,094 5,070 5,147

Total 37,117 39,430 39,448 39,356 38,259 38,902 38,836 39,341

Non-Home-Based

0-car 4,223 4,323 4,324 4,318 4,272 4,301 4,297 4,313

1-car 1,244 1,336 1,336 1,334 1,288 1,320 1,316 1,330

2+cars 875 1,059 1,059 1,019 1,010 1,032 1,030 1,048

Total 6,341 6,718 6,718 6,671 6,569 6,652 6,643 6,691

All Trip Purposes

0-car 47,592 49,195 49,201 49,152 48,401 48,782 48,741 49,099

1-car 21,554 23,935 23,962 23,938 22,676 23,376 23,201 23,727

2+cars 12,751 14,452 14,501 14,452 13,711 14,240 14,106 14,319

Total 81,898 87,582 87,663 87,542 84,788 86,399 86,049 87,145



Trip Purpose/Household Autos Owned No-Build

Alt. 1 Full Build

Alt. 2 Full Build

Alt. 3 Full Build





Home-Based Work

0-car 20,653 21,306 21,361 21,323 21,047 21,216 21,188 21,306

1-car 11,907 13,497 13,656 13,666 12,783 13,297 13,119 13,422

2+cars 7,330 8,270 8,330 8,356 7,880 8,206 8,089 8,196

Total 39,890 43,073 43,347 43,345 41,710 42,718 42,396 42,924

Home-Based Other

0-car 24,485 25,506 25,525 25,501 24,974 25,262 25,237 25,490

1-car 8,993 9,929 9,936 9,913 9,427 9,686 9,652 9,896

2+cars 4,680 5,335 5,340 5,301 5,051 5,246 5,222 5,304

Total 38,158 40,770 40,801 40,715 39,451 40,194 40,111 40,690

Non-Home-Based

0-car 4,295 4,477 4,479 4,476 4,359 4,389 4,385 4,469

1-car 1,298 1,402 1,406 1,403 1,354 1,390 1,381 1,397

2+cars 893 1,081 1,080 1,040 1,031 1,053 1,052 1,069

Total 6,485 6,959 6,964 6,920 6,745 6,832 6,818 6,935

All Trip Purposes

0-car 49,433 51,289 51,365 51,301 50,380 50,866 50,810 51,264

1-car 22,198 24,828 24,997 24,982 23,564 24,373 24,152 24,716

2+cars 12,902 14,686 14,750 14,698 13,963 14,505 14,362 14,570

Total 84,533 90,803 91,113 90,981 87,906 89,744 89,324 90,550




Alt. 1 Full Build

Alt. 2 Full Build

Alt. 3 Full Build





Home-Based Work

0-car 21,749 22,407 22,463 22,426 22,143 22,313 22,286 22,408

1-car 12,581 14,198 14,352 14,356 13,469 13,980 13,802 14,118

2+cars 7,960 8,943 9,008 9,036 8,527 8,883 8,763 8,870

Total 42,290 45,548 45,823 45,817 44,140 45,176 44,850 45,396

Home-Based Other

0-car 25,698 26,734 26,754 26,727 26,196 26,486 26,461 26,718

1-car 9,548 10,536 10,543 10,520 10,024 10,292 10,258 10,501

2+cars 4,970 5,668 5,674 5,630 5,368 5,576 5,543 5,630

Total 40,215 42,939 42,971 42,877 41,587 42,353 42,262 42,849

Non-Home-Based

0-car 4,628 4,807 4,809 4,807 4,692 4,720 4,716 4,799

1-car 1,311 1,416 1,420 1,418 1,368 1,404 1,395 1,411

2+cars 1,106 1,298 1,298 1,256 1,249 1,271 1,269 1,287

Total 7,046 7,521 7,526 7,480 7,308 7,394 7,380 7,497

All Trip Purposes

0-car 52,075 53,948 54,026 53,959 53,031 53,518 53,462 53,925

1-car 23,440 26,150 26,314 26,293 24,861 25,675 25,455 26,030

2+cars 14,036 15,910 15,980 15,922 15,143 15,730 15,575 15,787

Total 89,550 96,008 96,320 96,174 93,035 94,923 94,492 95,742


Table A-4: Year 2017 Weekday Incremental (versus No-Build) Linked Transit Trips by Alternative


Alt. 1 Full Build

Alt. 2 Full Build

Alt. 3 Full Build





Home-Based Work

0-car - 687 690 685 345 505 477 631

1-car - 1,359 1,374 1,366 640 1,051 913 1,184

2+cars - 949 995 1,025 536 850 741 859

Total - 2,994 3,057 3,075 1,520 2,404 2,130 2,673

Home-Based Other

0-car - 815 818 779 414 607 597 785

1-car - 929 941 927 438 695 661 902

2+cars - 568 571 532 288 483 459 536

Total - 2,313 2,331 2,239 1,142 1,785 1,719 2,224

Non-Home-Based

0-car - 100 101 95 49 78 74 90

1-car - 92 92 90 44 76 72 86

2+cars - 184 184 144 135 157 155 173

Total - 377 377 330 228 311 302 350

All Trip Purposes

0-car - 1,603 1,609 1,560 809 1,190 1,149 1,507

1-car - 2,381 2,408 2,384 1,122 1,822 1,647 2,173

2+cars - 1,701 1,750 1,701 960 1,489 1,355 1,568

Total - 5,684 5,765 5,644 2,890 4,501 4,151 5,247




Alt. 1 Full Build

Alt. 2 Full Build

Alt. 3 Full Build





Home-Based Work

0-car - 653 708 670 394 563 535 653

1-car - 1,590 1,749 1,759 876 1,390 1,212 1,515

2+cars - 940 1,000 1,026 550 876 759 866

Total - 3,183 3,457 3,455 1,820 2,828 2,506 3,034

Home-Based Other

0-car - 1,021 1,040 1,016 489 777 752 1,005

1-car - 936 943 920 434 693 659 903

2+cars - 655 660 621 371 566 542 624

Total - 2,612 2,643 2,557 1,293 2,036 1,953 2,532

Non-Home-Based

0-car - 182 184 181 64 94 90 174

1-car - 104 108 105 56 92 83 99

2+cars - 188 187 147 138 160 159 176

Total - 474 479 435 260 347 333 450

All Trip Purposes

0-car - 1,856 1,932 1,868 947 1,433 1,377 1,831

1-car - 2,630 2,799 2,784 1,366 2,175 1,954 2,518

2+cars - 1,784 1,848 1,796 1,061 1,603 1,460 1,668

Total - 6,270 6,580 6,448 3,373 5,211 4,791 6,017




Alt. 1 Full Build

Alt. 2 Full Build

Alt. 3 Full Build





Home-Based Work

0-car - 658 714 677 394 564 537 659

1-car - 1,617 1,771 1,775 888 1,399 1,221 1,537

2+cars - 983 1,048 1,076 567 923 803 910

Total - 3,258 3,533 3,527 1,850 2,886 2,560 3,106

Home-Based Other

0-car - 1,036 1,056 1,029 498 788 763 1,020

1-car - 988 995 972 476 744 710 953

2+cars - 698 704 660 398 606 573 660

Total - 2,724 2,756 2,662 1,372 2,138 2,047 2,634

Non-Home-Based

0-car - 179 181 179 64 92 88 171

1-car - 105 109 107 57 93 84 100

2+cars - 192 192 150 143 165 163 181

Total - 475 480 434 262 348 334 451

All Trip Purposes

0-car - 1,873 1,951 1,884 956 1,443 1,387 1,850

1-car - 2,710 2,874 2,853 1,421 2,235 2,015 2,590

2+cars - 1,874 1,944 1,886 1,107 1,694 1,539 1,751

Total - 6,458 6,770 6,624 3,485 5,373 4,942 6,192


Table A-7: Year 2017 Weekday Linked Project Transit Trips by Alternative


Alt. 1 Full Build

Alt. 2 Full Build

Alt. 3 Full Build





Home-Based Work

0-car - 3,324 3,341 3,280 1,891 2,679 2,569 3,131

1-car - 2,939 2,969 2,956 1,508 2,418 2,115 2,587

2+cars - 1,758 1,820 1,864 1,006 1,587 1,367 1,565

Total - 8,021 8,130 8,101 4,406 6,683 6,051 7,282

Home-Based Other

0-car - 3,359 3,366 3,292 1,536 2,503 2,415 3,187

1-car - 1,951 1,966 1,952 878 1,448 1,367 1,842

2+cars - 1,047 1,053 1,016 497 856 786 960

Total - 6,356 6,385 6,260 2,911 4,806 4,569 5,989

Non-Home-Based

0-car - 655 655 646 326 490 467 603

1-car - 206 206 202 102 168 157 191

2+cars - 349 349 311 216 264 258 330

Total - 1,211 1,211 1,159 644 922 883 1,123

All Trip Purposes

0-car - 7,338 7,363 7,218 3,753 5,672 5,451 6,921

1-car - 5,096 5,141 5,110 2,488 4,033 3,640 4,619

2+cars - 3,154 3,222 3,191 1,719 2,706 2,412 2,855

Total - 15,587 15,726 15,520 7,961 12,411 11,502 14,395




Alt. 1 Full Build

Alt. 2 Full Build

Alt. 3 Full Build





Home-Based Work

0-car - 3,455 3,732 3,633 2,148 3,080 2,972 3,528

1-car - 3,221 3,518 3,525 1,875 2,967 2,620 3,084

2+cars - 1,703 1,785 1,822 1,017 1,580 1,374 1,559

Total - 8,378 9,034 8,980 5,039 7,627 6,966 8,171

Home-Based Other

0-car - 3,688 3,746 3,691 1,727 2,936 2,817 3,559

1-car - 1,958 1,967 1,945 866 1,444 1,363 1,843

2+cars - 1,230 1,238 1,201 672 1,032 961 1,144

Total - 6,876 6,951 6,836 3,265 5,411 5,141 6,546

Non-Home-Based

0-car - 657 661 662 355 520 496 610

1-car - 209 219 214 122 191 175 195

2+cars - 356 356 317 221 269 264 337

Total - 1,222 1,235 1,193 698 980 935 1,142

All Trip Purposes

0-car - 7,800 8,138 7,986 4,230 6,535 6,285 7,697

1-car - 5,387 5,704 5,684 2,862 4,602 4,157 5,122

2+cars - 3,289 3,378 3,340 1,910 2,881 2,599 3,039

Total - 16,476 17,221 17,010 9,002 14,018 13,041 15,858



Trip Purpose/ Household Autos Owned No-Build

Alt. 1 Full Build

Alt. 2 Full Build

Alt. 3 Full Build





Home-Based Work

0-car - 3,482 3,742 3,652 2,151 3,069 2,956 3,533

1-car - 3,291 3,579 3,575 1,914 3,010 2,659 3,141

2+cars - 1,785 1,873 1,913 1,047 1,667 1,454 1,640

Total - 8,558 9,194 9,140 5,111 7,745 7,069 8,314

Home-Based Other

0-car - 3,771 3,831 3,766 1,756 2,977 2,860 3,643

1-car - 2,076 2,086 2,062 960 1,552 1,475 1,965

2+cars - 1,296 1,305 1,261 709 1,093 1,005 1,194

Total - 7,143 7,222 7,090 3,424 5,622 5,339 6,801

Non-Home-Based

0-car - 643 647 649 353 505 481 596

1-car - 209 219 215 123 192 176 196

2+cars - 362 362 321 226 275 269 343

Total - 1,215 1,228 1,184 701 971 926 1,135

All Trip Purposes

0-car - 7,896 8,219 8,066 4,259 6,551 6,297 7,772

1-car - 5,576 5,885 5,852 2,996 4,754 4,309 5,301

2+cars - 3,444 3,541 3,496 1,981 3,034 2,728 3,177

Total - 16,916 17,645 17,414 9,237 14,339 13,334 16,250


Table A-10: Weekday Unlinked Transit Trips for the Project and Other Transit Routes for Additional Park-and-Ride Alternatives

Transit Route

Year 2017 Park-and-Ride Alternatives












Project

Northside-Southside

8,362 12,521 12,009 9,428 14,132 13,547 9,664 14,457 13,855

Existing MetroLink

MetroLink Blue Line

18,797 19,180 19,191 19,478 19,902 19,914 21,244 21,725 21,741

MetroLink Red Line

30,940 30,478 30,413 31,961 31,260 31,194 34,721 34,063 33,980

SUBTOTAL 49,737 49,658 49,604 51,439 51,162 51,108 55,965 55,788 55,721

Corridor Bus Routes

4-Natural Bridge

2,663 2,067 2,188 3,018 2,503 2,634 3,045 2,511 2,643

10-Gravois-Lindell

2,561 2,547 2,554 2,478 2,464 2,470 2,552 2,538 2,544

11-Chippewa* 4,079 4,156 4,154 4,152 4,225 4,223 4,250 4,324 4,322

30-Arsenal 1,164 1,173 1,173 1,219 1,229 1,229 1,238 1,247 1,248

40-North Broadway

1,035 1,005 1,013 1,088 1,044 1,054 1,136 1,090 1,099

41-Lee 1,234 1,013 1,040 1,776 1,487 1,532 1,863 1,556 1,605

73-Carondelet 1,323 1,350 1,344 1,398 1,426 1,419 1,437 1,465 1,457

74-Florissant 2,598 2,393 2,423 2,628 2,437 2,467 2,659 2,470 2,500

90-Hampton 2,928 3,213 3,132 3,005 3,530 3,423 3,068 3,583 3,475

SUBTOTAL 19,585 18,917 19,021 20,762 20,345 20,451 21,248 20,784 20,893

Other Bus Routes

68,563 67,075 67,208 69,824 68,247 68,402 72,491 70,917 71,064

TOTAL 146,247 148,171 147,842 151,453 153,886 153,508 159,368 161,946 161,533

* For all build alternatives, ridership estimates for the Route 11-Chippewa assume the combined 11/21 routing described in the Detailed Definition of Alternatives Report. The No-Build Alternative reflects the Route 11-Chippewa in its current configuration.


Table A-11: Weekday Boardings by Station for Additional Park-and-Ride Alternatives

Station














- 981 - - 1,197 - - 1,217 -


- 473 1,156 - 628 1,484 - 647 1,511


- 410 397 - 409 396 - 409 397


- 316 305 - 355 347 - 363 357


- 625 606 - 653 636 - 646 633

Natural Bridge & Fair

- 329 307 - 350 329 - 356 334


998 613 588 1,212 722 695 1,221 732 705


- - - - - - - - -

Parnell & St. Louis

362 324 337 902 1,118 1,099 907 1,118 1,098

Florissant & St. Louis

552 610 611 556 603 605 576 627 629

N. Jefferson & Cass

- - - - - - - - -

14th & Biddle 216 281 280 251 317 316 270 341 340

Jefferson & Delmar

- - - - - - - - -

14th & Delmar 70 110 106 110 148 146 112 153 151

9th & Washington

316 381 379 330 392 390 367 427 426

10th & Washington

165 278 278 170 289 289 170 284 284

9th & Pine 445 672 644 540 752 723 559 770 741

10th & Pine 548 682 677 532 657 651 537 661 656

9th & Clark 226 340 314 247 363 336 260 379 351

10th & Clark 427 494 490 413 496 490 415 493 490

14th & Clark 947 1,259 1,224 1,083 1,335 1,299 1,103 1,400 1,354

Chouteau & Grattan

176 205 201 182 214 210 192 225 221


Station













S. Jefferson & Park

115 122 122 105 112 111 101 107 107

S. Jefferson & Russell

226 234 233 231 242 242 230 240 240


449 469 469 441 460 462 439 459 460

S. Jefferson & Arsenal

489 514 508 486 514 507 523 551 544


324 356 352 347 381 376 356 386 382


1,309 1,443 1,423 1,288 1,426 1,406 1,326 1,465 1,445

I-55 SB & Osceola

- - - - - - - - -


- - - - - - - - -


- - - - - - - - -


- - - - - - - - -

TOTAL 8,360 12,521 12,007 9,426 14,133 13,545 9,664 14,456 13,856


Table A-12: Weekday Park-and-Ride Boardings by Station for Additional Park-and-Ride Alternatives

Station














- 304 - - 384 - - 384 -


- - 287 - - 348 - - 347


186 - - 259 - - 259 - -


119 128 127 119 129 128 123 133 132

I-55 SB & Osceola

- - - - - - - - -


- - - - - - - - -

TOTAL 305 432 414 378 513 476 382 517 479


Table A-13: Weekday Linked Transit Trips for Additional Park-and-Ride Alternatives

Trip Purpose/ Household Autos Owned













Home-Based Work

0-car 20,072 20,228 20,203 21,052 21,217 21,191 22,149 22,315 22,290

1-car 12,173 12,535 12,447 12,899 13,328 13,226 13,587 14,011 13,911

2+cars 7,816 8,120 8,055 7,895 8,212 8,141 8,541 8,890 8,816

Total 40,062 40,883 40,705 41,846 42,757 42,558 44,277 45,216 45,017

Home-Based Other

0-car 24,070 24,254 24,244 24,971 25,261 25,230 26,197 26,485 26,455

1-car 9,328 9,568 9,546 9,459 9,700 9,678 10,057 10,306 10,285

2+cars 4,930 5,103 5,086 5,082 5,256 5,239 5,399 5,587 5,562

Total 38,329 38,925 38,876 39,512 40,217 40,147 41,653 42,377 42,302

Non-Home-Based

0-car 4,272 4,298 4,293 4,359 4,386 4,381 4,692 4,717 4,712

1-car 1,289 1,319 1,317 1,354 1,389 1,386 1,368 1,403 1,400

2+cars 1,012 1,033 1,032 1,033 1,054 1,053 1,250 1,272 1,271

Total 6,573 6,650 6,642 6,746 6,829 6,820 7,310 7,392 7,383

All Trip Purposes

0-car 48,415 48,780 48,739 50,382 50,864 50,802 53,037 53,517 53,456

1-car 22,790 23,422 23,311 23,712 24,418 24,290 25,012 25,720 25,596

2+cars 13,759 14,255 14,173 14,010 14,522 14,433 15,191 15,748 15,649

Total 84,964 86,457 86,223 88,104 89,803 89,525 93,240 94,985 94,702


Table A-14: Weekday Incremental (versus No-Build) Linked Transit Trips for Additional Park-and-Ride Alternatives














Home-Based Work

0-car 350 506 481 399 564 538 400 566 541

1-car 721 1,083 995 992 1,421 1,319 1,006 1,430 1,330

2+cars 551 855 790 565 882 811 581 930 856

Total 1,622 2,443 2,265 1,956 2,867 2,668 1,987 2,926 2,727

Home-Based Other

0-car 422 606 596 486 776 745 499 787 757

1-car 469 709 687 466 707 685 509 758 737

2+cars 319 492 475 402 576 559 429 617 592

Total 1,212 1,808 1,759 1,354 2,059 1,989 1,438 2,162 2,087

Non-Home-Based

0-car 49 75 70 64 91 86 64 89 84

1-car 45 75 73 56 91 88 57 92 89

2+cars 137 158 157 140 161 160 144 166 165

Total 232 309 301 261 344 335 264 346 337

All Trip Purposes

0-car 823 1,188 1,147 949 1,431 1,369 962 1,442 1,381

1-car 1,236 1,868 1,757 1,514 2,220 2,092 1,572 2,280 2,156

2+cars 1,008 1,504 1,422 1,108 1,620 1,531 1,155 1,712 1,613

Total 3,066 4,559 4,325 3,571 5,270 4,992 3,690 5,435 5,152


Table A-15: Weekday Linked Project Transit Trips for Additional Park-and-Ride Alternatives














Home-Based Work

0-car 1,908 2,676 2,587 2,163 3,077 2,991 2,166 3,066 2,977

1-car 1,678 2,482 2,348 2,092 3,034 2,879 2,131 3,079 2,922

2+cars 1,045 1,585 1,479 1,052 1,578 1,464 1,083 1,666 1,547

Total 4,631 6,743 6,415 5,307 7,689 7,334 5,379 7,811 7,445

Home-Based Other

0-car 1,564 2,512 2,436 1,734 2,944 2,829 1,763 2,986 2,872

1-car 927 1,466 1,424 917 1,463 1,417 1,011 1,571 1,531

2+cars 577 876 832 752 1,053 1,008 789 1,115 1,055

Total 3,068 4,854 4,691 3,404 5,461 5,254 3,564 5,673 5,459

Non-Home-Based

0-car 333 490 473 364 520 503 362 505 488

1-car 108 169 166 126 192 187 128 193 188

2+cars 221 265 263 227 271 269 232 276 274

Total 662 924 903 717 982 959 721 974 951

All Trip Purposes

0-car 3,806 5,678 5,497 4,261 6,541 6,323 4,290 6,557 6,337

1-car 2,712 4,118 3,938 3,136 4,690 4,483 3,270 4,843 4,642

2+cars 1,843 2,726 2,574 2,031 2,902 2,741 2,104 3,057 2,876

Total 8,362 12,521 12,009 9,428 14,132 13,547 9,664 14,457 13,855


Table A-16: Weekday Change in Automobile Travel for Additional Park-and-Ride Alternatives

Change in Auto Travel













Change in Person-Miles

(24,486) (36,772) (34,010) (27,291) (41,450) (38,414) (28,220) (42,689) (39,598)

Change in Vehicle-Miles

(22,260) (33,429) (30,918) (24,810) (37,682) (34,922) (25,655) (38,808) (35,998)

DETAILED EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES TECH MEMO 6: … · • Tech Memo 3: Environmental Impacts •...

Documents

Transcript of DETAILED EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES TECH MEMO 6: … · • Tech Memo 3: Environmental Impacts •...