1. Project Overview Paramics User Group Meeting July 14, 2008

2. Project Introduction  Client: Indianapolis MPO  Teamed with Stump/Hausman  Goal Provide initial planning-level operational analysis of three transit technologies on four potential alignments serving the northeastern suburbs of Indianapolis  Technologies Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Light Rail Transit (LRT) Automated Guideway Transit (AGT)

3. Study Area Overview Indianapolis, IN Population 2,000,000 Significant development northeast of the downtown outside of I-465 Beltway Carmel Westfield Fishers Noblesville Driving-oriented culture Few good options to get to and from the downtown

4. Proposed Alignments  4 Alignments Along major north- south routes ○ I-69/Binford Blvd ○ Keystone Avenue ○ Allisonville Road ○ Nickel Plate RR

5. Original Proposal  Combine two previously constructed Paramics models Northeast Corridor Regional Center (Downtown)  Individual Models for each alignment  Test AM and PM peak periods for each technology along the 4 alignments  Too expensive for client Large technical effort Back to the drawing board

6. Revised Proposal  Build individual models of select critical areas 8 Sub-areas chosen by client/study team  Test AM and PM Peak hours for all technologies  Easier model construction, calibration, and validation  Able to quickly eliminate problem areas, if no solution readily apparent

7. Study Areas  8 Critical Locations Allisonville Rd North Nickel Plate Railroad I-69 82 nd /86 th Street Keystone Ave/ Fashion Center Mall Allisonville Rd / 62 nd Street Keystone Ave/ Allisonville Rd/ Binford Blvd Downtown

8. Model Breakdown  80 Total Models 8 Locations 3 Technologies (plus No Build) 2 Time Periods 4 Alignments  Naming convention was critical to file management Ax-Ly-Tech-Period ○ Ax – Alignment Number ○ Ly – Location Number ○ Tech – Technology Type ○ Period – Time Period

9. Scheduling Issues  Slow responses from Client during rescoping  Prior project commitments  Forced to remove vehicle actuation from project scope Except for two of the smaller locations Not strictly necessary for a ‘first-look’ planning-level analysis

10. Working Parameters  Conceptual treatments No prior operational analysis was performed Carte blanche from client  Potential stop locations determined in previous study  Bi-directional Same route in both directions where possible Double-track for LRT and AGT  5-minute headways  “Maximize Consistency with Existing Travel Patterns and Respect Existing Urban/Suburban Environment” 1 1 TCRP Report 17 Integration of Light Rail Into City Streets

11. Working Parameters  BRT Located in the curb lane whenever possible Can be in mixed traffic or exclusive lane Minimal disruptions to turning movements and property access Stations largely outside of street alignment ≈12’ BRT lane widths Curb lanes generally shared between BRT & right–turning traffic on the street–running sections

12. Working Parameters  LRT Generally median alignment Where Feasible: Full or near-full control of Right-of-way Avoid Unsignalized Crossings of LRT Right-of-way Stations Generally in Median Horizontal Curve Radii ○ Absolute Min. ≈ 80’

13. Working Parameters  LRT Typical Cross-sections Typical Running Section Typical Station Section

14. Working Parameters  AGT Typically elevated No driver Column Spacing: ○ 100’ “Typical” ○ 150’ “Long” ≈22’ Minimum Width of Elevated Structure ○ Center Emergency Walkway ≈ 6’ Width of Columns Median- and Side-Running options both have their challenges ○ Columns interfere with turning sight distances ○ ROW issues ○ Vehicle safety with columns in median

15. Coding Challenges  BRT – Curb lane operation Left turns must be a protected movement ○ Crossing over through traffic ○ Independent “triangle” link on approach to intersection allows for control of lead-lag operation Restrictions ○ Must apply BRT-only, No BRT, Mixed traffic rules along entire alignment

16. Coding Challenges  LRT – Median Lane Operation Paramics limitation that similar movements must be in adjacent lanes This is an issue where the transit vehicle through lane is adjacent to a left-turn lane Fortunately, coding the through movement in the transit lane as “barred” works perfectly ○ Transit vehicle moves with normal traffic “through” green ○ Much cleaner coding than “triangle” solution used for BRT left turns Restrictions – Similar to BRT

17. Coding Challenges  AGT No major challenges Independent operation makes for easy coding Challenges come on the design/layout side ○ Column spacing ○ ROW issues ○ Median Running vs. Side Running

18. Location Overview  82 nd /86 th Street from Nickel Plate Railroad to Keystone Avenue Less busy than surrounding roadways Sufficient ROW for necessary widening Plenty of commercial access and minor roads Allisonville Rd and 82 nd Street intersection is an issue

19. 82 nd /86 th Street  AGT Fairly simple layout and coding ○ Sufficient ROW for columns along north side of street ○ Careful column placement around commercial development and minor streets

20. 82 nd /86 th Street  BRT Generally widen for exclusive BRT curb lane Roadside or siding station stops Issues: ○ WB left turn onto SB Keystone Ave ○ EB Left turn onto NB Nickel Plate RR ○ Reassignment of some minor roadway access

21. 82 nd /86 th Street - BRT  WB left turn onto SB Keystone BRT Vehicle receives two lead phases to proceed safely

22. 82 nd /86 th Street - BRT  EB left turn onto NB Nickel Plate RR receives similar treatment to WB Left Lead phase at two adjacent signals to complete movement  Craig St becomes one-way NB

23. 82 nd /86 th Street - BRT  Left turn completed at Nickel Plate RR  Short SB stub along Nickel Plate RR to serve SB traffic no longer served at Craig St

24. 82 nd /86 th Street  LRT Vehicle operates in the median along the length of the corridor Stations located in median on following side of intersections

25. 82 nd /86 th Street - LRT  Issues: WB Left to SB Keystone EB Left to NB Nickel Plate Driveways and minor streets become Right-In/Right-out New signals required to accommodate U-turn movements 82 nd /Allisonville intersection is problematic

26. 82 nd /86 th - LRT  Transit vehicle turns to and from Keystone Ave require special signal treatments

27. 82 nd /86 th Street - LRT  82 nd /Allisonville Intersection Existing Condition ○ Poor levels of service ○ Heavy turning volume (1:1 with thru vol) ○ Documented safety issues ○ Double-left turns on all approaches ○ Tight ROW Removing lanes for transit here causes intersection failure ○ Proposed grade-separation - tunnel

28. 82 nd /86 th Street - LRT  Tunnel laid out according to suggested grades and clearance distances

29. Downtown Indianapolis  Model constructed for a previous job All roadways within I-65/I-70 and White River 4Mi 2 (11km 2 ) ~200 Signals 30 Existing Transit Routes 265 Bus Stops

30. Cultural Trail  8-mile Multi-use Trail throughout Downtown Indianapolis  Currently under construction Alabama Street section is open  Included in transit analysis

31. Downtown Issues  Dense Development Alignment and Column Placement Issues  Historic Neigbourhoods  Minimum radius for turns  Pedestrian safety Sidewalks and Cultural Trail

32. Serve IUPUI / Medical Campus Access proposed transit center site Enter/Exit in northeast corner Downtown Routing  Enter/Exit in northeast corner  Access proposed transit center site  Serve IUPUI / Medical Campus

33. Downtown Routing - AGT  CSX alignment No Columns Misses CBD Core  “Street Running” Closer to CBD Core Min. Radius issues Tight development Existing CSX Freight Rail “Street Running” Elevated

34. Downtown Routing - BRT Existing CSX Freight Rail Street Running  CSX alignment Misses CBD Core Elevated Stops – less convenient  Street Running Closer to CBD Core Separate stops for one-way pairs

35. Downtown Routing - LRT Existing CSX Freight Rail Street Running  CSX alignment Misses CBD Core Elevated Stops – less convenient  Street Running Closer to CBD Core Separate stops for one-way pairs

36. Statistics  VMT U-turns, access changes  VHT Signal treatments favor transit Lane removal  Transit Service Time  Auto Travel Time along transit route

37. Final Products  Report Qualitative and quantitative analysis of each alignment Noted any physical constraints along alignments Did not select a preferred alignment, simply presented results for client interpretation

38. Final Products  Movies Demonstrate transit movement at critical locations along alignments 1 to 3 Movies for each alignment 30 to 90 seconds in length AVI for quality WMV for portability and performance 155 files Non-technical client PM Public presentations

39. Final Products  Custom 3D PMX Models LRT ○ Based of off Minneapolis’ Hiawatha Line (EK)

40. Final Products - PMX  AGT Based on JFK Air Train

41. Final Products - PMX  BRT Not based on an existing vehicle  Stations  Columns

42. Allisonville and 82nd

44. Q&A Adam Lanigan Jacobs Engineering Morristown, NJ adam.lanigan@jacobs.com 973-267-8830 x1181