Public Workshop #2, Community Advisory Committee Meeting #2 Summary of Input Prepared November 8, 2016 SUBJECT: Public Workshops (October 4, 6, and 13 2016), Community Advisory Committee Meeting (September 21 2016) ATTENDEES: Approximately 40 non-staff attendees 1. SUMMARY OF WORKSHOPS AND FINDINGS OVERVIEW OF WORKSHOP FORMAT The second round of public workshops for the Peninsula Corridor Study was held over the course of two weeks in October 2016. The dates, times, and locations of those meetings are provided below. Tuesday, October 4, 6-8pm: Downing-Gross Cultural Arts Center (2410 Wickham Ave, Newport News) Thursday, October, 6-8pm: Denbigh Early Childhood Center (15638 Warwick Blvd, Newport News) Thursday, May 19, 6-8pm: Hampton Roads Convention Center (1610 Coliseum Drive, Hampton) In addition, a Community Advisory Committee (CAC) meeting following the same format as the public workshops was held Wednesday, September 21, from 6-8pm at the Downing-Gross Cultural Arts Center (2410 Wickham Ave, Newport News). The CAC is a group of community and business leaders convened by HRT to offer input, guidance for public outreach activities, and a range of community perspectives throughout the study. Approximately 40 members of the public (non-staff attendees) were introduced to the study and participated in workshop sessions across the four meetings. Of the attendees that participated, approximately 30 attended the public workshops and approximately 10 attended the CAC meeting. The meetings were well staffed by Hampton Roads Transit (HRT) planners and executives, Hampton and Newport News staff, and members of the Kimley-Horn and Rhodeside & Harwell consultant team. Attendees were reminded of the study s purpose and schedule, learned about findings from prior public input, and were introduced to the study s current work on proposed high capacity transit corridors. Following an overview presentation, facilitators led small group activities centered on identifying participants preferences for project needs and draft Tier 1 corridor alternatives. The meeting closed with expression of thanks by HRT staff and distribution of a survey which attendees then completed. An overview of the meeting agenda is provided below. Public Workshop #2, CAC Meeting #2: Summary of Input 1
Public Workshop #2 Agenda 1. Sign In and Review the Display Boards (6:00 6:15) 2. Overview Presentation (6:15 6:45) 3. Activities in Breakout Groups (6:45 7:30) 4. Closing Remarks (7:30 7:45) 5. Complete Survey & Revisit Display Boards (7:45 8:00) 2. PRESENTATION Samantha Sink of HRT opened the meetings by welcoming attendees. She began her presentation by offering a brief study overview, findings from prior public input, study progress to date, and next steps. Sink offered explanations of the project purpose and need and proposed Tier 1 corridor alternatives, as background for the night s activities. Sink then encouraged participants to break into groups and proceed to the activity stations. During the presentation to the Community Advisory Committee (CAC), attendees were also asked to think about their constituents and consider the usability and accessibility of the night s activities. CAC members offered several suggestions and changes to the activities were made in advance of the public workshops. 3. ACTIVITY STATION RESULTS Following the presentation, the participants were divided into smaller groups. Groups progressed through four stations: one station on project needs and three stations on the proposed corridor alternatives. Descriptions of these stations as well as results are provided below. Project Need (Station 1) The purpose of this station was to offer information on the project s purpose and need statement and evaluation framework, and solicit input on the corridor evaluation criteria. Facilitators explained the corridor evaluation categories and project need statements, then asked participants to place a red dot next to the most important project theme and a green dot next to the second most important. The total number of dots assigned across all four meetings (three public workshops, one CAC meeting) are Public Workshop #2, CAC Meeting #2: Summary of Input 2
provided below. Project Need Most Important (red dot) Second Most Important (green dot) Total Provide reliable, frequent and efficient travel choices 14 4 18 Support regional growth and promote concentrated transitoriented development 4 12 16 Help to mitigate increases in traffic congestion 8 8 16 Contribute to a desirable place to live and work 8 10 18 When considered as a whole, participants considered providing reliable, frequent, and efficient travel choices the most important project need, and supporting regional growth the second most important. All four project needs received a similar number of total votes. There was some variation noted in which need was ranked highest at each workshop. The first workshop (Oct. 4) placed providing reliable and frequent choices and help mitigate traffic congestion as the most important; Oct. 6 s participants almost all voted providing reliable and frequent as the most important; and, Oct. 13 s attendees viewed contributing to a desirable place to live and work as the most important. Corridors (Stations 2, 3, 4) These stations introduced the Tier 1 high capacity transit corridor alternatives in three groups based on their general alignment direction: north/south, east/west, and diagonal. Facilitators first explained the possible routes, then asked how well each alternative would serve participants travel needs. Participants were provided with a Corridor Score Card and asked to rank each corridor on the following scale: Very Well (I frequently travel and would strongly consider using transit in this corridor) Well (I travel in this corridor and would consider using transit) Some (I rarely travel or would be unlikely to use transit in this corridor) Not At All (I do not travel or would not use transit in this corridor) Results from the scorecards collected are below. Public Workshop #2, CAC Meeting #2: Summary of Input 3
Very Well Well Some Not At All Total responses Alternative North/South 1 27% 30% 18% 24% 33 2a 12% 21% 39% 27% 33 2b 26% 29% 26% 18% 34 3 39% 29% 16% 16% 31 East/West 4 27% 7% 23% 43% 30 5a 13% 13% 39% 35% 31 5b 6% 16% 39% 39% 31 5c 0% 13% 28% 59% 32 5d 21% 4% 46% 29% 24 6 19% 35% 19% 26% 31 7 6% 32% 23% 39% 31 Diagonal 8 43% 17% 13% 27% 30 9 34% 22% 22% 22% 32 10a 9% 9% 41% 41% 32 10b 16% 29% 23% 32% 31 11 13% 16% 28% 44% 32 12 8% 33% 21% 38% 24 Note that Corridors 5d and 12 were generated as a result of Community Advisory Committee input and additional study team analysis; the total counts for those are lower as no preference votes were recorded during the CAC meeting as the alternatives did not yet exist. Several participants chose to add comments to their score cards. Those comments include: (#1) Airport connector (#2a, #2b) Spur to airport, the mall (#3) I think Jefferson Ave is the best alternative (#3) Should connect with airport; spur to the airport (#4) I think using Victory Blvd. is a good idea versus Pembroke. But Pembroke is more industrial and it serves more workers. (#5d) Fort Monroe has a great potential for growth-good to consider a connection there Public Workshop #2, CAC Meeting #2: Summary of Input 4
(#7) I won t use it but shipyard probably would (#8) Airport connection; Williamsburg start; Langley to airport! (#9, 10, 11) Downtown Hampton, Hampton University We need buses on Langley AFB. Very important. Discussion at the stations tended to center on desired destinations, key locations, and the challenge of having to weigh advantages and disadvantages. Participants often talked through ideas with each other, sharing perceptions of how/if high capacity transit corridors might improve their travel. 4. MEETING CLOSE Each public meeting ended with a thank you from HRT staff and reminders of the various means online and in person to remain informed during the study process. 5. SURVEY RESULTS The survey that was available at the meeting was also made available online. Preliminary results of those returned in-person and online through November 4 are provided below. Full results will be provided after the online survey closes. Thirty-eight (38) responses were collected through November 4. Of those, approximately 9 were completed online, the remainder (29) were collected in person. Twenty-one (21) respondents provided email addresses to receive further information. Respondents were from across the Hampton Roads region with over twenty-one different zip codes represented, based on self-reporting. The zip codes occurring most (three or more times) were 23602, 23608, 23661, and 23663. Summary charts from the questions included in the survey are provided below. Public Workshop #2, CAC Meeting #2: Summary of Input 5
Question 4 If a new transit system (light rail, bus rapid transit, or streetcar) brought you within a 15 min walk or 8 min bike ride of your home or office, how likely are you to ride it? 2.6% 2.6% 18.4% Very Likely Somewhat Likely 21.1% 55.3% Somewhat Unlikely Very Unlikely I don t know Question 5 If you could ride fast, convenient transit to just one place, which one would it be? Work, a job, employment 18.4% 18.4% 18.4% 2.6% 42.1% Shopping, running errands, medical appointments School, classes, to pick up family members from school Recreation, parks, sporting and cultural events Airport, train station, regional bus station Public Workshop #2, CAC Meeting #2: Summary of Input 6
Question 6 Which of the following do you think is the most important feature for light rail, bus rapid transit, or streetcar to have? Provide better, faster, and more reliable transit choices 10.5% Support economic development, business, or new housing 13.2% 28.9% 42.1% Help reduce the growth of traffic congestion, keep more cars off the road Contribute to a desirable place to live and work, improve neighborhoods, attract new residents Other (please specify) 5.3% 6. MEETING HANDOUTS For reference, the agenda and survey handed out at the workshops are provided on the next several pages. Public Workshop #2, CAC Meeting #2: Summary of Input 7
Agenda for Public Workshop #2 October 4, 6 & 13, 2016 Welcome to our second series of workshops for the Peninsula Corridor Study. In this session, we will share information on project progress and ask for your help and input on the proposed corridors and evaluation criteria. 1. Sign In and Review Introductory Display Boards (6:00 6:15) 2. Overview Presentation (6:15 6:45) 3. Activities in Breakout Groups (6:45 7:30) 4. Closing Remarks (7:30 7:45) 5. Complete Survey & Revisit Display Boards (7:45 8:00) Description of Breakout Group Activities Following the presentation, we will break into small groups to gain your feedback on a few key questions. Each group will rotate through four activity stations. STATIONS: 1. Evaluation Framework: The purpose of this station is to offer information on the project s purpose and need statement and evaluation framework, and solicit input on the corridor evaluation criteria. Your facilitators will explain the corridor evaluation categories and ask you to select which two are most important to you. (10 minutes) 2. North/South Corridor Alternatives: The purpose of this station is to introduce the Tier 1 high capacity transit corridor alternatives that generally run north to south and ask for your input. Your facilitators will first explain the possible routes, then ask you how well each alternative would serve your travel needs. (10 minutes) 3. East/West Corridor Alternatives: The purpose of this station is to introduce the Tier 1 high capacity transit corridor alternatives that generally run east to west and ask for your input. Your facilitators will first explain the possible routes, then ask you how well each alternative would serve your travel needs. (10 minutes) 4. Diagonal Corridor Alternatives: The purpose of this station is to introduce the Tier 1 high capacity transit corridor alternatives that run diagonally across the Peninsula, generally crossing from the north to southeast, and ask for your input. Your facilitators will first explain the possible routes, then ask you how well each alternative would serve your travel needs. (10 minutes)
What is High Capacity Transit? High capacity transit can operate in an exclusive corridor or in a mixed-traffic flow. The transit vehicle can be a streetcar or light rail system where the guideway is the track. Or, it can be a bus or bus rapid transit (BRT) system, where the guideway can range from a designated lane on an existing roadway to a separate roadway for buses only. High capacity transit generally incorporates a number of features to make transit more convenient and reliable: Fixed-Guideway: Exclusive runningway (track, lane, roadway) that provides consistent and reliable operating speeds Vehicles: Designed for improved passenger comfort and provide additional passenger capacity Branding: Establishes a unique system identity and conveys a positive image of the transit system Stations: Generally provide level boarding to minimize boarding times and improve accessibility Fare Collection: Proof-of-payment fare policies, off-board fare collection, or cashless fare media for increased passenger convenience Information Systems: Can improve travel times, reliability, and safety and security High Capacity Transit Modes Element Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Streetcar Light Rail Transit (LRT) Examples Fixed Guideway Vehicle Orlando - Lymmo Cleveland - Health Line Eugene - Emerald Express Either non-exclusive or exclusive Special bus (low floor, rail like, can be articulated) Portland Seattle Charlotte Non-exclusive Railcar (low floor, electric, less than 100 long) Norfolk Tide Minneapolis Charlotte Dallas Exclusive Railcar (low floor, electric, generally in multi-car trains) Typical Frequency 10 (peak) and 15 minute (headway) (off-peak) 15 minute (minimum) Implementation Cost Moderate-to-high High-to-very high Very high Typical Vehicle Capacity 70 to 120 passengers Approx. 170 passengers Approx. 230 passengers Stops/Stations Spacing 1/4-1/2 mile (approx.) 1-2 urban blocks (or more) 1/2-1 mile or more Fare Collection Information Systems Off-board (may use on-board in limited instances) Signal preemption (some), signal priority, and real-time arrivals information Stay Informed! GoHRT.com PeninsulaCorridorStudy@hrtransit.org facebook.com/hrtfan twitter.com/gohrt_com
Survey for Public Workshop #2 October 4, 6 & 13, 2016 1. What is your home ZIP code? 2. Email (optional, for future project information) 3. Do you use transit in Hampton Roads? (circle one option) A. Yes B. No 4. If a new transit system (light rail, bus rapid transit, or streetcar) brought you within a 15 min walk or 8 min bike ride of your home or office, how likely are you to ride it? (circle one option) A. Very Likely B. Somewhat Likely C. Somewhat Unlikely D. Very Unlikely E. I don t know 5. If you could ride fast, convenient transit to just one place,, which one would it be? (circle one option) A. Work, a job, employment B. Shopping, running errands, medical appointments C. School, classes, to pick up family members from school D. Recreation, parks, sporting and cultural events E. Airport, train station, regional bus station 6. Which of the following do you think is the most importantt feature for light rail, bus rapid transit, or streetcar to have? ( circle one option) A. Provide better, faster, and more reliablee transit choices B. Support economic development, business, or new housing C. Help reduce the growth of traffic congestion, keep more cars off the road D. Contribute to a desirable place to live and work, improve neighborhoods, attract new residents E. Other (specify): (over)
7. Questio Thank Yo ons or comme u! You may l ents? eave this com mpleted form at the sign in n table, or co mplete it onl ine at: gohrt..com.