The following documents describe the first step in
the acceptance process for the first-ever Major Investment
Study (MIS) that has been done for an application of a
Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) technology anywhere in the
world. This material was presented to the Transportation
Policy Board of the Puget Sound Regional Council on January
8, 1998. These materials provide a brief history of the study
and an analysis of the findings and conclusions.
ACTION ITEM December 29, 1997
To: Transportation Policy Board, Puget Sound Regional
Council
From: King Cushman, Director, Transportation
Planning Department
Subject: Completion of SeaTac Personal Rapid
Transit (PRT) Major Investment Study
AT ISSUE
In 1993, the Regional Council provided ISTEA funding
for the City of SeaTac to undertake an analysis of
alternatives to meet its local circulation requirements. This
included an assessment of the feasibility of developing and
operating a personal rapid transit (PRT) system to link the
airport with major hotel complexes and commercial activity
areas. This planning study was also designed to meet federal
major investment study (MIS) requirements. The City of SeaTac
has completed and submitted its Personal Rapid Transit
Feasibility Project MIS (June 1997) for review and
endorsement (see Attachment A, letter from City of SeaTac).
The Regional Council must find that programs/projects subject
to a Major Investment Study (MIS) meet Federal MIS
requirements (CFR 450.318) prior to the program/project being
fully eligible in the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP).
Attachment B provides a staff assessment of how the MIS study
complied with Major Investment Study requirements and is
consistent with the adopted MTP.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Based on the City of SeaTac's documentation of
completion of the MIS process requirements, the
Transportation Policy Board should recommend an Executive
Board finding that the MIS process employed by the City of
SeaTac satisfies the level of effort and range of
documentation required by federal regulations for MIS content
and procedures, thereby making it eligible to proceed for
further more specific environmental analysis and testing of
"the marketplace" for potential public-private
collaboration on implementation.
DISCUSSION
MIS documentation submitted by the City of SeaTac has
been analyzed by Regional Council staff with respect to the
federal guidelines for preparation of an MIS. Each of the
following areas required to be addressed in the MIS process
was adequately completed and documented by the City of
SeaTac:
- Description of Corridor-level or Subarea Level
Problems and Scoping Results;
- Collaboration with Affected Stakeholders;
- Multimodal Analysis and Rationale for Selecting the
Preferred Alternative;
- Broad Range of Decision Criteria Appropriately
Applied;
- Reasonable Public Involvement; and
- Specific Outcomes that Affect the MTP.
For more information, please call Peter Beaulieu, (206)
464-7537.
Attachments:
A. Letter from City of SeaTac (not included
here)
B. Finding of Satisfactory Completion of Federal MIS
Requirements by the City of SeaTac .
Attachment B:
Finding of Satisfactory Completion of
Federal MIS Requirements by the
City of SeaTac (lead agency)
for Compliance with CFR 450.318
Based upon Analysis of
"Personal Rapid Transit Feasibility Project
Major Investment Study"
June 1997
For review by the Transportation
Policy Board
January 8, 1998
For Final Approval by the Executive
Board of the
Puget Sound Regional Council
January 22, 1998
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The City of SeaTac's preferred alternative for elevated
Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) provides a new system of
personal mobility within SeaTac's emerging urban activity
center. This alternative travel mode provides a high degree
of service and is not affected by worsening ground-level
congestion. The Major Investment Study (MIS) builds on an
earlier multimodal analysis and, therefore, is scoped largely
as a PRT feasibility assessment. The proposed PRT system --
Alternative C - (see Exhibits 1 & 2 for conceptual layout
at end of Finding - not included here) provides a preliminary
layout with 12.1 miles of elevated guideways serving 21
stations between South 200th Street and South 170th Street
and aligned generally with International Boulevard.
A major finding of the MIS is that transportation
problems in the area do not justify the full estimated cost
for PRT as a totally private system. However, in addition to
a possible physical system, the preferred alternative also
includes and depends upon a public-private partnership, and
recommends a specific implementation approach. A key
checkpoint for implementation is whether a competitively
selected private vendor concludes that the project, funded
only in part by public partners, merits private sector
financial risk. (This judgment will be based, in part, on how
successful the innovative PRT technology being developed for
testing in another metropolitan region actually turns out).
ANALYSIS OF DOCUMENTATION
1. What are the MIS problems and scoping statement
results?
The MIS addresses both innovative mobility and unique
implementation issues. First, the current mobility problems
within the SeaTac high density area are: surface congestion
on International Boulevard, the Airport's limited curb access
roadways, the number of low-occupancy shuttle trips,
unpredictable ground travel times, and traffic diversion onto
International Boulevard from Interstate-5. Future needs of
the airport and of the intended SeaTac urban center add to
these current mobility concerns. Within this context, future
PRT markets are: airport work trips (3 percent), airport
passenger trips (31 percent), non-airport related trips (20
percent), and regional transit trips (45 percent).
Second, because of the high startup costs involved in
PRT as a new technology, the MIS also focused on innovative
financing methods. Thus, the recommended action is a PRT
alignment combined with a selected public-private
implementation strategy. This PRT alternative also is offered
as a technical and implementation demonstration project with
possible application in other activity centers within and
outside of the region.
2. Did the lead agency collaborate with other
affected stakeholders?
The project steering committee included SeaTac
staff: Planning Commission and Council members; staff from
the Port of Seattle; the Washington State Department of
Transportation (WSDOT); the Regional Council; King County;
and private interests.
Interagency and public-private negotiations are
identified as major and continuing efforts that will build
directly on the completed feasibility assessment (the MIS).
This future work will entail considerable coordination among:
affected operating agencies (e.g.,$117,000 in
remaining project funds were reprogrammed in September for
system integration analyses relating to the Regional Transit
Authority's [RTA] three light rail transit stations
designated for the SeaTac area);
private stakeholders (the future franchisee
private beneficiaries); and
between the public sector and the franchisee
(e.g., respective cost shares).
The focus on innovative financing opportunities and
strategies, added during the MIS process, was a direct
response to the concerns of potential stakeholder agencies
(the RTA, the Port of Seattle, the Office of Urban Mobility,
and the Regional Council).
The most suitable implementation method analyzed in the
MIS is the "partnership franchise" method. This was
recommended over several other franchise methods:
conventional, limited turnkey, turnkey, super turnkey,
four-phase turnkey, build/operate/transfer, and full
franchise. (These methods are compared in one of nine MIS
Appendices.) Franchisee responsibilities and public sector
responsibilities are identified in the MIS for use in
subsequent steps to solicit, screen, select, and work in
partnership with a franchisee. Under the partnership
franchise, a private franchisee is responsible for a large
share of the finances and would help decide the final project
scope, layout, and design.
3. Is the analysis multimodal, and why was the
preferred alternative selected over the other
alternatives?
The analysis adds to earlier work to determine if a
people-mover system might be worthwhile within a limited area
of the City of SeaTac and Sea-Tac International Airport. The
SeaTac People Mover Study (February 1992) evaluated bus
(airport high occupancy vehicle [HOV] access), light rail
transit, group rapid transit (GRT), and personal rapid
transit (PRT). It concluded that these four components would
likely be staged as the area grows and as system technologies
continue to advance. (Light rail transit was regionally
approved by voters in November 1996 as part of the RTA Ten
Year Plan.)
The current MIS contributes to this multimodal solution
by focusing on the potential PRT element. Combined with this
broader previous work, the focused range of PRT alternatives
satisfies the MIS requirement. As required by federal
guidelines, the MIS directly considers the no-action
alternative and transportation demand management/system
management (TDM/TSM) options. Many TDM/TSM actions are
already committed or completed, such as a HOV lane on a
widened International Boulevard. Already committed (TDM/TSM)
actions broaden what is included in the required
"no-action" alternative (presented as a
"baseline" alternative). As a new TDM option in the
MIS, private shuttle service is grouped geographically to
more efficiently serve major shuttle markets that could
otherwise be served by the proposed PRT. These markets link
the hotels, car rental agencies, and park-and-fly lot
businesses to the airport. Public shuttle service between
Sea-Tac Airport and Bellevue is a TDM measure that now is
being tested by the Port, Metro, and the City of
Bellevue.
For the two examined PRT alternatives, Alternative A
offers a more extensive alignment than does the
cost-effective and preferred Alternative C described above.
The PRT recommendation is based on superior service for
system users, lower total and unit costs compared to the more
extensive Alternative A, and the assumed results of
franchisee arrangements yet to be achieved as a condition of
any project development. A successful franchisee package will
depend in large part on agreements between a franchisee and
existing and future courtesy van operators and other
benefitting public/private properties within the study
area.
From a multimodal perspective, the PRT system can be an
important part of the potential nexus (immediately east of
the Sea-Tac Airport parking garage) among several converging
travel modes. These modes are: regional light rail (RTA); bus
(King County Metro); pedestrian movements on International
Boulevard; and an east-west moving walkway connecting these
elements to each other and to Seattle-Tacoma International
Airport (Port of Seattle).
4. For the needed decision, was a broad range of
decision criteria appropriately applied?
The PRT evaluation criteria are reported in the MIS
Executive Summary and include several measures each for
service and mobility, environmental impacts, and economic
feasibility. Additional measures were used during the study
(such as measures of total ground congestion and of ambient
air quality), but the benefits under each alternative were
either so minor or so uniform that the criteria did not
distinguish between the PRT and other alternatives. The
findings under all criteria are reported in the MIS Appendix.
Because economic feasibility is such a decisive factor
in implementing PRT, the scale of the preferred alternative
was reduced, and the MIS scope was broadened. The broadened
scope examines public-private funding options in detail and
then recommends a franchise arrangement. The scaled-back and
preferred system alternative, PRT Alternative C, generally
follows International Boulevard from the north at South 170th
Street and to the south at South 200th Street. The alignment
circulates into the airport terminal building and south
between 24th and 28th Avenues South as well as east of
International Boulevard along 32nd Avenue South. This
alignment no longer extends north to the Sea-Tac Airport
employee parking lot, but could represent a "first
phase" of a more extended system.
In the second response to the economic feasibility
criterion, the preferred alternative now includes a
franchisee proposal. It was found that despite the high
capital cost ($300-450 million) and annual operating cost
($7.5-$10 million) for PRT, the resulting average cost per
passenger ($2.42 to $4.53) remains within the range expended
by the private shuttle operators (and recovered indirectly as
part of hotel room charges). With this comparison in mind,
the MIS scope was expanded to directly address innovative
financing, and calls for significant private financing by a
competitively selected franchisee as a condition for project
implementation.
5. Was the public reasonably involved at important
decision points?
During the MIS feasibility assessment, public
involvement efforts included stakeholder interviews, scoping
meetings, a meeting with courtesy van operators who were
identified as key stakeholders, a meeting with area
businesses, an open house near completion of the project,
articles published in the local media, and public city
council action to accept the MIS. The MIS is a Type I MIS
effort, meaning that it does not include an environmental
impact statement (EIS), but does include sufficient
environmental information to support the MIS decision on PRT
feasibility.
The alternatives to be carried forward into EIS review
of a possible franchisee proposal -- and involving additional
public review -- include the no-build alternative and a PRT
alignment.
Given the unusual nature of the project and technology,
strong public support will be important, more so than for
more conventional transit procurement projects. The adopted
SeaTac Comprehensive Plan, with its own earlier public review
process, includes policies supporting a PRT element (Policies
3.4C, 3.4D). Further, the selected PRT financing method, an
integral part of the preferred alternative, removes most of
the financial burden from the public sector.
6. What are the specific outcomes that affect the
Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) or the Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP)?
Generally, projects in the MTP can be reclassified
from candidate (C) to approved (A) with completion of: an MIS
(if needed); local reviews and approval (including
environmental review); regional air quality review; regional
policy consistency; and sponsor identification of funding
sources. The MIS effort responds to these points.
First, while local PRT at the City of SeaTac is not
specifically listed in the MTP, PRT is consistent with the
MTP's regional policies for activity centers and for
multimodal transportation solutions which reduce automobile
dependency. Regional air quality review of a more finished
project design can be considered, when needed, as part of the
Regional Council's annual TIP amendment process.
Second, the completed MIS identifies innovative
public-private partnership options for financing. Only if a
franchisee approach is successful can the project
realistically proceed. Parallel to its franchisee search and
negotiations, the City will also continue to seek public
share funding from the TIP as well as other sources (federal
demonstration grant, the state, the RTA's innovative
technology budget, and the Port of Seattle). With these
public sector efforts and a private franchisee commitment in
place, the PRT project can satisfy the legal requirement at
the regional level for a financially balanced MTP.
And, third, the project sponsor, the City of SeaTac,
accepted the MIS document at its regular Council meeting of
July 22, 1997. Full local acceptance depends upon further
project review, interagency negotiations, development of an
environmental documents, and a potential franchisee
agreement.
Future project-level preliminary engineering and EIS
work is now eligible to compete for TIP support. It is
understood that under the specifically recommended franchisee
model, final project scope and layout responsibilities
including preliminary engineering, may be shared with a
prospective private sector franchisee.
Last modified: January 16, 1998