Spokane Downtown Transit Alternatives by CD+A, Inc

July 2009

Downtown Transit Alternatives FINAL REPORT

Photo: Mark Wagner

Spokane Transit: Downtown Transit Alternatives

Final Report

SPOKANE TRANSIT AUTHORITY

Table of Contents Page Background and Issues ............................................................................................................. 1 Identifying the Initial Alternatives ............................................................................................. 8 Alternative #1 – Improve Plaza Operations .............................................................................. 9 Alternative #2 – Move the Central Transfer Function to the Intermodal Center ..................... 13 Alternative #3 – Create Dual Peripheral Centers ................................................................... 19 Alternative #4 – Develop a True Downtown Grid System ....................................................... 26 Alternative #5 – Develop a Downtown Transit Mall ............................................................... 30 Evaluating the Initial Five Alternatives ................................................................................... 35 Detailed Analysis – Plaza and Intermodal Center .................................................................. 37 Plaza - Recommendations ..................................................................................................... 37 Intermodal Facility - Recommendations ................................................................................. 53 Conclusions and Recommendations...................................................................................... 60 *These sections are Community Design + Architecture work product

Page i

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Spokane Transit: Downtown Transit Alternatives  Final Report SPOKANE TRANSIT AUTHORITY

Table of Figures Page Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9 Figure 10 Figure 11 Figure 12 Figure 13 Figure 14 Figure 15 Figure 16 Figure 17 Figure 18 Figure 19 Figure 20 Figure 21 Figure 22 Figure 23 Figure 24 Figure 25 Figure 26 Figure 27 Figure 28 Figure 29 Figure 30 Figure 31 Figure 32 Figure 33 Figure 34

Employment within a ½ -mile Walking Distance of Spokane Transit Facility Locations (Estimated 2005) ............................................................... 4 Employment within a ½ -mile Walking Distance of Spokane Transit Facility Locations (Estimated 2030) ............................................................... 5 Population within a ½ -mile Walking Distance of Spokane Transit Facility Locations (Estimated 2005) ............................................................... 6 Population within a ½ -mile Walking Distance of Spokane Transit Facility Locations (Estimated 2030) ............................................................... 7 Alternative 1 - Peak Number of Buses Per Hour, Per Block – Enhanced Plaza Alternative .................................................................................... 12 Possible Intermodal Center – Downtown Core Shuttle Route ................................. 14 Peak Number of Buses Per Hour, Per Block – Intermodal Center Alternative .................................................................................. 18 Possible Intermodal Center – Downtown Core – Courthouse Area Shuttle Route............................................................................... 21 Peak Number of Buses Per Hour, Per Block – Dual Peripheral Centers Alternative ........................................................................ 25 Peak Number of Buses Per Hour, Per Block – Grid Alternative ........................................................................................................ 29 Peak Number of Buses Per Hour, Per Block – Transit Mall Alternative (1-Street Option) ................................................................ 34 Evaluating the Initial Five Alternatives ..................................................................... 36 Proposed Interline of High Frequency Routes in Downtown Spokane .................... 38 Aerial/Schematic View Demonstrating Location of First Group of Proposed Improvements .................................................................. 46 Aerial/Schematic View Demonstrating Location of Second Group of Proposed Improvements ............................................................. 46 Existing View - Wall and Riverside .......................................................................... 47 Proposed - Wall and Riverside ................................................................................ 47 Existing View – Sprague Sidewalk .......................................................................... 48 Proposed - Sprague Sidewalk ................................................................................. 48 Existing View – Interior space with escalator .......................................................... 49 Proposed – Interior space without escalator ........................................................... 49 Existing View – Interior Rotunda ............................................................................. 50 Proposed – Interior Rotunda ................................................................................... 50 Existing view – Internal corridor............................................................................... 51 Proposed – Internal Corridor ................................................................................... 51 Intermodal Center – Proposed – View #1 ................................................................ 54 Intermodal Center – Proposed – View #2 ................................................................ 54 Intermodal Center – View of Proposed Passenger Loading Zones ......................... 55 STA Bus Circulation ................................................................................................ 56 Intercity Bus Circulation ........................................................................................... 57 Auto Circulation ....................................................................................................... 57 Bernard – Existing Street Configuration .................................................................. 59 Bernard – Proposed Street Configuration ............................................................... 59 Comparison of Plaza and Intermodal Center Options ............................................. 60

Page ii  Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Spokane Transit: Downtown Transit Alternatives  Final Report SPOKANE TRANSIT AUTHORITY

Background and Issues Operational Assessment The STA Operational Assessment report (OA) completed by Nelson\Nygaard1 provided the following synopsis of transit in downtown Spokane: 

33 of STA’s 40 routes travel into downtown and meet at the Plaza. The vast majority of service (buses, not individual routes) comes from the north and the east via Monroe, Stevens/Washington and Sprague/Riverside.



Routes serving downtown operate as often as every 7 minutes or as infrequently as every 60 minutes.



Buses traveling through downtown range in size from cutaways and 30’ Historic Replica Trolleys to 60’ heavy-duty articulated buses.



Over 9,000 daily boardings occur at the Plaza, making this by far the most important bus stop in the entire STA system. About 25% of the boardings occurring at the Plaza are simply people transferring from one line to another, unrelated to downtown travel; the remaining boardings are for trips into or out of the downtown core.

The OA documented existing conditions and trends in downtown development, and their impacts on transit demand. Important findings included: 

Downtown Spokane is home to the single greatest concentration of jobs in the region (over 26,000), as well as the medical centers, civic center complex, convention center, River Park Square Shopping Center and Riverfront Park, and the highest density of hotel and motel rooms in the region.



Residential and commercial growth is trending east towards the U-District and west towards the Kendall Yards site. (See Figures 1 through 4).2



The increase in housing density downtown means that the area will gradually become both a home and work trip destination on transit. This means that buses that currently come into downtown with a full load in the morning and typically leave with very light loads (and do the opposite in the evenings) may eventually fill up in both directions during both commute periods. As residential development helps to create an “18-hour city,” travel demand will transcend the traditional 9-to-5 work day. New downtown jobs may also include significant numbers of hospitality workers, many of whom work outside of standard business hours. Also, people who are attracted to downtown housing often work in or adjacent to downtown, and their shorter commute trips are ideally suited to transit products designed for speed, frequency and direct service.

Plaza Survey As part of its effort to better understand transit usage in and around downtown, Nelson\Nygaard conducted a survey of more than 1,200 people at the Plaza3 and learned that: 

95% of respondents said that the Plaza is a clean facility, 87% found it safe, and 83% described it as comfortable.

May 2007. Since the OA was released the local, regional and national economies have all taken a significant downturn. It’s unclear at this time what impact this slowdown will have on the Kendall Yards development over the next few years. 3 A detailed analysis of the survey can be found in the Operational Assessment report. 2

Page 1  Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Spokane Transit: Downtown Transit Alternatives  Final Report SPOKANE TRANSIT AUTHORITY



90% of respondents were at the Plaza to catch a bus, 70% indicated that they typically spend 15 minutes or less at the facility, and 96% spend less than an hour.



73% arrived at the Plaza by bus, and 22% either walked or biked.



73% percent said they use the Plaza at least five days a week.



Nearly 40% of people who were at the Plaza arrived there either to go to work or school, 25% said they were there solely to transfer between buses.

Interviews with Key Stakeholders In addition to the survey of people at the Plaza, Nelson\Nygaard conducted interviews with 30 key stakeholders to understand their impressions of the Plaza and transit service in downtown Spokane.4 Some of the key findings and impressions were: 

The majority of stakeholders believe that the Plaza was poorly designed for its primary mission as a transit transfer facility and terminal, and that the excessive internal space on both floors encourages “hanging out” and provides refuge for people who might be discouraged from lingering in other places.



Stakeholders were split on the question of whether the existing facility could, or even should, be improved. Stakeholders who do not ride transit regularly tended to be more adamant about the need to completely remove transit operations from the Plaza. The stakeholders who use transit perceive the existing facility as well located and central to most downtown travelers.



While the Plaza is identified by many stakeholders as “not the highest and best use for that parcel,” the expense of moving transit to another facility was a concern to all of them.



A significant number of stakeholders expressed an interest in alternatives to a central facility downtown. A large number of all stakeholders and a majority of transit riders suggested that STA’s goal should be finding the best way to serve downtown and then designing the facilities to make that work—rather than focusing on either keeping or moving the Plaza.

The Relationship between Transit and Downtown Development One might ask the question… Why is bus service needed in downtown Spokane, and what is the need for a downtown transit center? The simple answer is that… In order to maximize operational efficiency and make the system as attractive as possible to potential users, transit needs to be focused in those areas where people really want to go. Downtown Spokane is one of the region’s most important activity centers. It is also the location of some of the densest employment development in the area. Determining where to put a downtown transit facility is critically important to the STA system simply because moving from the

Due the confidential nature of many comments, a detailed analysis of the stakeholder interviews has been provided only to the Spokane Transit Chief Executive Officer. Page 2  Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Spokane Transit: Downtown Transit Alternatives  Final Report SPOKANE TRANSIT AUTHORITY

Plaza to a new facility, even one that’s just a few blocks away, can have a huge impact on system access for existing and potential passengers. The following maps (Figures 1 through 4) illustrate 2005 and 2030 employment and residential densities within a ½ mile walking distance, using city streets, of each of the two transit center sites. The analysis reveals that, both now and in the future, there will be significantly more people within a ½ mile walk of the Plaza than there will be within the same distance of either the Intermodal Center or the Courthouse. One of the objectives of effective fixed-route service design is to create a system which minimizes transfers, and one of the best ways to do that is to place the transfer facility in a spot that is also a desired destination. Of the three possible sites for a transfer location, the existing Plaza facility provides the shortest walking distance for the largest number of people.

Other Studies Related to the Plaza and Transit in Downtown Spokane There are three other transportation/urban planning studies that are being completed simultaneously with the STA study. Below are recommendations from each with respect to the Plaza and/or transit in downtown Spokane:

U-District/Downtown Spokane Transportation Improvement Plan (2008) 

“Retaining the Plaza and improving its operations and environment is likely the best solution for transit service in downtown.”

Downtown Spokane Plan (2008) 

“Retain the Plaza as a central transit facility.”

Fast Forward Spokane Downtown Plan Update (Feb 2008) 

Transit connections focused on downtown destinations are becoming increasingly important to downtown Spokane and its future growth. Many of the destinations and activity centers in downtown Spokane are just outside of a comfortable walking distance from the downtown core.”

Page 3  Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Figure 1 Employment within a 1/2-mile Walking Distance of Spokane Transit Facility Locations (Estimated 2005) Maxwell Av

Sharp Av Pl Po st

Ruby Pl

North River Dr

Spokane Falls

Spokane Falls Bl

1,001 - 10,000 10,001 - 50,000

Interstate 90

50,001 - 146,896 Half-Mile Walking Distance from Facility Plaza

v ay A

Free

Walnut St

0 - 1,000

0.5 Miles

5th Av

Intermodal Center

Cowley St

Employment Per Square Mile (2005)

3rd Av

Browne St

Sherman St

Intermodal Center (10524 Jobs)

Browne St

Maple St

Trent Av

Sprague Av

2nd Av Washington St

4th Av

Stevens St

Wall St

amp

Lincoln St

D ON R

Post St

Maple

1st Av

Sprague Av

Howard St

Plaza (14711 Jobs) Sprague Av

Bernard St

6th Av

Riverside Av

Bernard St

Bridge

0.25

Main Av

Wall St

Lincoln St

Maple

Sprague Av

Ruby St

Monroe St

Lincoln St

Maple St

Broadway Av

Division St

Atlantic St

Ash St

Boone Av

Spokane Transit Routes Major Roads

7th Av 7th Av GIS Data Source: Spokane Transit, City of Spokane, Spokane County, SRTC

Figure 2 Employment within a 1/2-mile Walking Distance of Spokane Transit Facility Locations (Estimated 2030) Maxwell Av

Sharp Av Pl Po st

Ruby Pl

North River Dr

Spokane Falls

Spokane Falls Bl

1,001 - 10,000 10,001 - 50,000

Interstate 90

> 50,000 Half-Mile Walking Distance from Facility Plaza

v ay A

Free

Walnut St

0 - 1,000

0.5 Miles

5th Av

Intermodal Center

Cowley St

Employment Per Square Mile (2030)

3rd Av

Browne St

Sherman St

Intermodal Center (17091 Jobs)

Browne St

Maple St

Trent Av

Sprague Av

2nd Av Washington St

4th Av

Stevens St

Wall St

amp

Lincoln St

D ON R

Post St

Maple

1st Av

Sprague Av

Howard St

Plaza (21537 Jobs) Sprague Av

Bernard St

6th Av

Riverside Av

Bernard St

Bridge

0.25

Main Av

Wall St

Lincoln St

Maple

Sprague Av

Ruby St

Monroe St

Lincoln St

Maple St

Broadway Av

Division St

Atlantic St

Ash St

Boone Av

Spokane Transit Routes Major Roads

7th Av 7th Av GIS Data Source: Spokane Transit, City of Spokane, Spokane County, SRTC

Figure 3 Population within a 1/2-mile Walking Distance of Spokane Transit Facility Locations (Estimated 2005) Maxwell Av

Sharp Av Pl Po st

Ruby Pl

North River Dr

Spokane Falls

Spokane Falls Bl

2,001 - 5,000 5,001 - 10,000

Interstate 90

10,001 - 16,215 Half-Mile Walking Distance from Facility Plaza

v ay A

Free

Walnut St

0 - 2,000

0.5 Miles

5th Av

Intermodal Center

Cowley St

Population Per Square Mile (2005)

3rd Av

Browne St

Sherman St

Intermodal Center (1753 Residents)

Browne St

Maple St

Trent Av

Sprague Av

2nd Av Washington St

4th Av

Stevens St

Wall St

amp

Lincoln St

D ON R

Post St

Maple

1st Av

Sprague Av

Howard St

Plaza (2549 Residents) Sprague Av

Bernard St

6th Av

Riverside Av

Bernard St

Bridge

0.25

Main Av

Wall St

Lincoln St

Maple

Sprague Av

Ruby St

Monroe St

Lincoln St

Maple St

Broadway Av

Division St

Atlantic St

Ash St

Boone Av

Spokane Transit Routes Major Roads

7th Av 7th Av GIS Data Source: Spokane Transit, City of Spokane, Spokane County, SRTC

Figure 4 Population within a 1/2-mile Walking Distance of Spokane Transit Facility Locations (Estimated 2030) Maxwell Av

Sharp Av Pl Po st

Ruby Pl

North River Dr

Spokane Falls

Spokane Falls Bl

2,001 - 5,000 5,001 - 10,000

Interstate 90

> 10,000 Half-Mile Walking Distance from Facility Plaza

v ay A

Free

Walnut St

0 - 2,000

0.5 Miles

5th Av

Intermodal Center

Cowley St

Population Per Square Mile (2030)

3rd Av

Browne St

Sherman St

Intermodal Center (3252 Residents)

Browne St

Maple St

Trent Av

Sprague Av

2nd Av Washington St

4th Av

Stevens St

Wall St

amp

Lincoln St

D ON R

Post St

Maple

1st Av

Sprague Av

Howard St

Plaza (4423 Residents) Sprague Av

Bernard St

6th Av

Riverside Av

Bernard St

Bridge

0.25

Main Av

Wall St

Lincoln St

Maple

Sprague Av

Ruby St

Monroe St

Lincoln St

Maple St

Broadway Av

Division St

Atlantic St

Ash St

Boone Av

Spokane Transit Routes Major Roads

7th Av 7th Av GIS Data Source: Spokane Transit, City of Spokane, Spokane County, SRTC

Spokane Transit: Downtown Transit Alternatives  Final Report SPOKANE TRANSIT AUTHORITY

Identifying the Initial Alternatives Based on the information listed in the previous section, plus the data collected by the consulting team during its fieldwork, the consultant has concluded that a robust transit network is an important component for the continued growth and viability of downtown Spokane. Furthermore, a centralized transit/transfer facility located in, or adjacent to downtown Spokane is a necessary component of a viable long-term transit system. This conclusion raises two important questions: 1. Should STA maintain a traditional “radial” system with a central transfer facility and pulse operation or should it switch to a grid system that doesn’t need a central facility? 2. If a central transfer facility is needed, where might it be located? Staff from STA and Nelson\Nygaard developed five initial alternatives to address these two questions: 1. Retain the Plaza as a central transfer center and improve the facility 2. Develop a new central transfer center at or near the Intermodal Station 3. Develop “dual peripheral transfer centers” for timed transfers 4. Switch to a grid system and eliminate the central transfer center 5. Create a downtown transit mall to replace the central transfer center Nelson\Nygaard conducted a high level analysis (i.e. order of magnitude) assessment of each alternative. NOTE - The two alternatives that passed the initial screening criteria (Plaza and Intermodal Center), receive a much more detailed analysis at the end of this document.

Page 8  Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Spokane Transit: Downtown Transit Alternatives  Final Report SPOKANE TRANSIT AUTHORITY

Alternative #1 – Improve Plaza Operations In this alternative STA continues using the Plaza as its central timed-transfer (pulse) facility. The building would receive a number of upgrades to address a number of issues noted in the Operational Assessment report: 

Insufficient number of bus bays



Insufficient space for end-of-route layovers



Poor visibility of bus bays from inside the Plaza



Suboptimal assignment of routes and bus bays



Underutilization of Wall Street perimeter



Poor utilization of indoor space

Enhancements can be made to increase bus bay capacity, improve the “customer experience” and mitigate some concerns about the Plaza as a “poor neighbor”. However, over the long term there is still a major concern about whether the Plaza will have enough bus bay capacity to meet long term needs. This issue can only be addressed by ultimately reducing the total number of buses stopping at the site (a function of redesigning the entire network). One of the biggest advantages of using a central transfer center rather than an on-street grid system in a downtown area is that a central facility brings all of the routes together in one location. Passengers don’t need to know where individual routes stop or connect with each other on the street; they just know that they can go to the center to get whatever service they need. This makes using transit much easier for new and/or infrequent passengers. In addition, a central facility also provides the highest level of customer information and customer comfort, by providing indoor and protected outdoor waiting areas.

Potential Improvements at the Plaza 1. Reconfigure the Wall Street side of the building to add bus bays and eliminate the “smoking zone.” 2. Relocate the Customer Service Office and all related functions to the first floor. This could be accommodated in the rotunda-like space at the corner of Wall Street and Riverside Avenue. With some additional investment, the façade could be altered to create a setup in which information windows could be established to answer questions of customers who would rather stay outside the building. This would help enliven the corner of Wall Street and Riverside Avenue and create more of an indoor/outdoor relationship. 3. Reconfigure the first floor interior waiting areas to be more purposeful and transit-oriented. Consider adding restrooms downstairs for customer convenience, and limiting public access to restrooms upstairs that are not easily monitored. Channel people to areas with customer service functions or information so that people who are just “hanging out” can be easily identified. Once reliable arrival/departure information is available, people may feel more comfortable waiting inside rather than outside where sidewalks are overburdened at times. As more STA customers use the inside space, there will be less inside space available for people to “hang out”.

Page 9  Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Spokane Transit: Downtown Transit Alternatives  Final Report SPOKANE TRANSIT AUTHORITY

4. Widen sidewalk along the Sprague side of the Plaza as much as practical (possibly by reducing the width of travel lanes on Sprague). This will reduce some of the need for people to sit on the windowsills of the businesses facing bus stops 9 and 10. 5. Redesign the network to reduce total number of routes serving the Plaza. One way to do this is by switching to a 15/30/60 pulse which means all routes operating on 15-minute headways, half of the routes operating on 30-minute headways, and ¼ of the routes operating on 60-minute headways can meet at any given pulse. These improvements may help to restore timed-transfer reliability to the system. Other ways to reduce the number of routes operating though the plaza include connecting routes into "through routes" that reduce the number of transfers. Opportunities to reconfigure routes will be studied in later phases of this plan. 6. Increase the “visibility” between the Plaza interior and the bus zones with exterior camera views from interior displays and NextBus style real time arrival displays.

What It Might Cost? Operating Costs Assuming that the route structure and level of service to the Plaza remain essentially unchanged, there should be no significant changes to the annual operating costs, even with the switch to a different pulse.

Capital Costs Preliminary cost estimates by Nelson\Nygaard and CD+A suggest that STA will need to spend between $1.5 and $2.0 million to make these changes. The major costs will involve changing the Wall Street bus bays and moving the customer service functions to the first floor rotunda.

What Are the Opportunities and Impacts? Beyond the financial impacts, this alternative would likely have a number of effects, both positive and negative, on transit riders, motorists, and the downtown community.

Advantages For Passengers: 

Retains the important functions the Plaza serves in the heart of existing downtown development. According to estimates, there are 14,711 jobs and 2,549 residents within a ½ -mile walking distance of the existing Plaza site. The SRTC (Spokane Regional Transportation Council) projects that by 2030, there will be 21,537 jobs and 4,423 residents in the area. (Figures 1 through 4 show existing and projected employment and population densities within walking distance of the Plaza and other potential transfer center sites.)



Improves passenger comfort and convenience by enhancing visibility and easy access to customer information.



Retains the ability of passengers to transfer between any two routes that serve downtown at a single, easy-to-identify location.



Retains the current route structure with minimal disruption.



Maintains a central downtown presence for police and security operations. Page 10  Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Spokane Transit: Downtown Transit Alternatives  Final Report SPOKANE TRANSIT AUTHORITY

For Transit Operations: 

Provides adequate bus bays for today’s service configuration.



Increased capacity could allow for limited increased service.



No need to relocate or perform major route restructuring.

For Traffic: 

More efficient bus operations should reduce congestion in the area around the Plaza caused by buses “spilling over” the Plaza.

Other: 

More attractive interior, other improvements should reduce sidewalk loitering.



Continuing to pulse at a central facility avoids “wall of buses” effect of pulsing onstreet.

Drawbacks/Impacts For Transit Operations: 

The proposed investment provides just 30% additional capacity (3 new bus bays).



Does not eliminate the need for an alternative location for some layovers.

Traffic: 

Continuing the pulse system creates periodic stress on traffic flow during pulse periods (Approximately 3 times per hour).

Other: 

Does not remove what many stakeholders perceive as a “blight” on downtown.



Passenger comfort and operational capacity could be compromised during construction.

The following map illustrates the peak number of buses per hour, per block under the Plaza alternative. These illustrations were created using existing schedules and are intended for illustrative purposes only.

Page 11  Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

18 18

RubR y uPbl

y St

Figure 5 Alternative 1 - Peak Number of Buses Per Hour, Per Block - Enhanced Plaza Alternative

North River Dr

33 Lincoln St

12 12 12

Broadway Av

Monroe St

Post St

4 4

6 6 6

2 Division St

-3

-5

-2

-1

-5 1

2nd Av

Washington St

Transit Routes: Buses per Hour

Stevens St

Howard St

Transit Facility Location

3rd Av

0.5 Miles

Sprague Av

12 4

Riverside Av

Trent Av

Bernard St

21 1 1

Walnut St

Spokane Falls

Browne St

4 Post St

0.25 5

12 12

Wall St

amp

Lincoln St

D ON R

Maple

p FF Ram mp aple F O Ra FF O E ple Ma

6 1st Av

10 19

Plaza

Ram O6FF6

Spokane Falls Bl

Main Av

Bridge

Wall St

19 21

Maple

Sprague Av

le F

Map

Lincoln St

17 33

4 4

GIS Data Source: Spokane Transit, City of Spokane, USGS Location: Downtown Spokane, Spokane County, WA

Spokane Transit: Downtown Transit Alternatives  Final Report SPOKANE TRANSIT AUTHORITY

Alternative #2 – Move the Central Transfer Function to the Intermodal Center This alternative retains the pulse system, but relocates the central transfer function to the Intermodal Center, a site just east of the downtown core. No design has been completed for such a facility, but a preliminary investigation suggests that with extensive reconfiguration of the parking lot, the existing bus volumes can likely be accommodated on-site. Moving the functions of the Plaza to a new site would provide STA with an opportunity to design a more functional facility “from the ground up” mitigating or eliminating many of the problems associated with the current Plaza site. However, relocating is not a panacea, and it comes at a cost as routes would be reconfigured to extend through downtown to the new site. There is also a cost to passengers, many of whom are now able to easily walk from the Plaza to their downtown destination. The Intermodal Center is considerably further from many downtown destinations, which will either cause significantly more transfers or, in the worst case, cause some riders to abandon transit altogether. Other cities that have chosen to locate their transit centers away from the downtown core have done so either to create development opportunities downtown, to remove a perceived blight in the core, or because there is a substantial generator outside of downtown that can be served with the center.

How It Might Be Implemented in Spokane The Intermodal Center is on the edge of the current downtown core, approximately 2,000 feet east of the existing Plaza site. If one goal of moving to the Intermodal Center is to retain as many one seat rides as possible, then it might be necessary to force many routes to travel “out of direction” to reach the Intermodal Center. This will result in some very inefficient route alignments, which in turn will increase operating costs (see “What It Might Cost” below). An alternative operating plan could involve replacing a number of the routes that travel through downtown with a new downtown shuttle service that would either make timed connections to routes at the transfer point, or operate frequently enough to obviate the need for timed transfers. While requiring riders to transfer would act as a deterrent to ridership, connections to a shuttle service with a clear and much shorter route—and hence greater reliability—might be less onerous than transfers to other bus routes. Such a shuttle might serve the greater downtown area (including the U-District, the Kendall Yards site, the Arena and the Medical Centers) and solve the problem of providing a coherent circulation system downtown. For this exercise, we have assumed that all routes from the east would terminate at the Intermodal Center, and that a shuttle service (See Figure 6) would operate on 10-minute headways along Sprague, Lincoln, Riverside and Browne between 6:30 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. weekdays. Note that this route does not serve any of the greater downtown destinations listed above; a longer route would be bring greater benefits by serving these locations, but would also carry additional costs. A downtown shuttle route will be considered in later planning tasks.

Page 13  Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

RubR y uPbl y St

North River Dr

Broadway Av Lincoln St

Post St

Monroe St

Spokane Falls

Trent Av

Wall St

Main Av Bernard St

Lincoln St

Browne St

Spokane Falls Bl

Riverside Av

Maple

Sprague Av

Plaza

Bridge amp

Intermodal Center/Downtown Shuttle

2nd Av

0.25

Post St

Walnut St

Division St

Howard St

D ON R

Lincoln St

Maple

Washington St

1st Av

p FF Ram mp aple F O Ra FF O E ple Ma

Intermodal Center Stevens St

F Ra

F OF

Wall St

Sprague Av

le Map

Figure 6 Possible Intermodal Center-Downtown Core Shuttle Route

0.5 Miles

Transit Facility Locations 3rd Av

GIS Data Source: Spokane Transit, City of Spokane, USGS Location: Downtown Spokane, Spokane County, WA

Spokane Transit: Downtown Transit Alternatives  Final Report SPOKANE TRANSIT AUTHORITY

What It Might Cost Operating Costs Because the pulse system could be retained, relocation of the central transfer point to the Intermodal Center should not require any significant changes in levels of service. Re-aligning existing routes to reach the Intermodal Center would result in an increase in total miles traveled, and an annual increase in operating costs of approximately $380,000 (1%). Additionally, the very simple shuttle service detailed above might cost approximately $260,000 annually to operate, for a net additional cost of $640,000 (2%).

Capital Costs Nelson\Nygaard estimates that there’s just enough room at the existing intermodal facility to develop a 10-12 bay transfer terminal between the existing train station building and the southern curb line on Sprague Avenue. Approximately two (2) acres (500 linear feet along Sprague and 180 linear feet along Bernard) will be needed to provide space for 10-12 bus bays, bus circulation, platforms and pedestrian circulation. A maintenance building (housing a janitorial service) would need to be demolished and the ramp from Sprague to the upper bus deck would need to be realigned to a new position over Browne next to the railroad tracks. Passengers waiting for buses can use the existing train station waiting room, which should help minimize capital construction costs. It might be necessary to open up the front wall of the existing building to create a glass curtain that would make it easier to view the bus bays from inside the building. Significant changes to this historic building may not be possible. Outdoor waiting areas (with heated shelters and lighting) will be needed adjacent to each of the 2-3 platforms (depending upon the configuration). Land acquisition costs for the facility will not be an issue since the City, or STA, will ultimately control all of the land. There may be some acquisition costs associated with realignment of the ramp but those cannot be estimated at this time. Estimated “order of magnitude” capital costs for 2010 (the earliest date for developing an operational facility) should be in the range of $3.0 to $3.5 million. This includes money for 2-3 large capacity heated shelters (50 people/shelter), 10-12 bays split into 2-3 islands, a station office (for security and customer service staff), exterior lighting, benches, drinking fountains, first floor restrooms, trash receptacles, concrete paving, trees, information systems (i.e., signs and “NextBus”) and minor changes to the front wall of the train station building. This cost estimate does not include funds for relocating/extending utilities or site grading.

What Are the Opportunities and Impacts? Moving the primary transit center to an area outside of the heart of downtown will have an impact primarily on the large number of passengers traveling to and from generators that are in close proximity to the current Plaza site. As illustrated in Figures 1 through 4, the Intermodal Center is within a ½ -mile walking distance of 10,524 jobs and 1,753 residents, 28% and 31% fewer than the current site; by 2030, SRTC projects there will be 17,091 jobs and 3,252 residents in the area, 21% and 26% fewer than the current site.

Advantages: For Passengers: Page 15  Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Spokane Transit: Downtown Transit Alternatives  Final Report SPOKANE TRANSIT AUTHORITY



An opportunity to create an improved transit center “from the ground up”.



Connectivity to interregional bus and rail services.



Improved visibility of all bus bays from a single vantage point.



As downtown growth trends to the east, numbers of jobs and residents within ½ -mile walking distance would increase.

For Transit Operations: 

An opportunity to develop an appropriately sized transit center with improved operations.



Immediate availability of additional bus bays.



More concentrated and controllable environment than existing Plaza configuration.

For Parking: 

Possibility of restoring some street parking on Riverside, Wall, Sprague and Post by Plaza site.

For Traffic: 

Reduced congestion on Sprague, Riverside, Wall and Post by the Plaza, where buses currently stop on-street.

Other: 

Removes a perceived blight at the current Plaza location.



Continuing to pulse at a central facility avoids “wall of buses” effect of pulsing onstreet.

Drawbacks/Impacts: For Passengers: 

May require more out-of-direction travel for passengers going through downtown to make their transfers.



Within proximate walking distance to 28% fewer jobs and 31% fewer residents than the existing Plaza. (See Figures 1 through 4).



Modeling will be required to estimate ridership impact.

For Transit Operations: 

Fewer access routes to site limit flexibility in routing.



Requires extensive reconfiguration of routes.



Creates an additional transfer and longer travel times for a significant percentage of riders, which will tend to reduce ridership.

For Parking: 

Requires extensive reconfiguration of existing parking at Intermodal Center.



Preliminary analysis of site has determined that 1st Avenue just to the west might have to be reconfigured, resulting in elimination of on-street parking spaces. (Any changes to traffic patterns would have to be approved by the city of Spokane).

Page 16  Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Spokane Transit: Downtown Transit Alternatives  Final Report SPOKANE TRANSIT AUTHORITY

For Traffic: 

Increased congestion on Sprague and Riverside east of Plaza site, especially if shuttle service is included. On block of Sprague just west of Intermodal Center, between Bernard and Washington, peak number of buses per hour in both directions could increase from 8 to 71.



Assuming current schedules are maintained, peak pulse of ten buses arriving simultaneously, plus another departing at the same time.

Other: 

Runs the risk of simply “moving the problem” from one place to another.



Unless the Plaza site redevelops quickly, security may remain a problem in that location.



Design, environmental work and construction could easily take 3-5 years.



Relatively high capital costs for a facility that may not allow for significant expansion.

The following map illustrates the peak number of buses per hour, per block, under the Intermodal Center Alternative. These illustrations were created using existing schedules and are intended for illustrative purposes only.

Page 17  Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

18 18

RubR y uPbl

y St

Figure 7 Peak Number of Buses Per Hour, Per Block - Intermodal Center Alternative

9 8

North River Dr

33 Lincoln St

12 12 12

Broadway Av

Monroe St

4 4 19

Post St

4 4

6 6

10 4

Division St

-5

-3

5 -2

-1

-5 1

2nd Av

3rd Av

Transit Facility Locations

Transit Routes: Buses Per Hour

Howard St

0.5 Miles

Sprague Av

Intermodal Center

Washington St

Stevens St

24 28

28 8

Trent Av

Riverside Av

65 7

Main Av

Bernard St

Wall St

Spokane Falls

21 1 1

Spokane Falls Bl

Browne St

Post St

Walnut St

3 24

12 12

0.25

Lincoln St

1st Av

48 24

Bridge

Maple

Sprague Av

17 Wall St

17 Lincoln St

GIS Data Source: Spokane Transit, City of Spokane, USGS Location: Downtown Spokane, Spokane County, WA

Spokane Transit: Downtown Transit Alternatives  Final Report SPOKANE TRANSIT AUTHORITY

Alternative #3 – Create Dual Peripheral Centers In this alternative, sometimes referred to as a “dumbbell” or "barbell" system, STA would establish two new small transfer/layover stations just outside of the downtown core. For purposes of this analysis, the sites were assumed to be the Intermodal Center and in the vicinity of the County Courthouse. This essentially models one of the alternatives developed for STA by Weslin Consulting in the 1988 Spokane Downtown Transit Project Feasibility Study. Dual peripheral center configurations offer a few advantages over a single transfer facility. Because they are typically located on the edges of downtowns, they do not claim valuable space in the core and can serve outlying trip generators. Because they need to be connected both to the downtown core and to each other by high capacity, high frequency transit, such as a shuttle service, they can “clarify” downtown transit by providing a single, simple circulator service, rather than a potentially confusing array of routes. If routes terminate at the centers rather than continuing through downtown, they can remove large numbers of buses from downtown streets, reducing congestion, but also potentially reducing coverage to the downtown core. And if routes are divided between the two sites, rather than continuing through downtown to serve both, the centers’ traffic, parking and other impacts on the immediate area are limited. In addition, removing the perceived “negative impacts” of such facilities from the downtown core would be perceived as a positive improvement from the downtown community, but similar negative impacts may simply be transferred to a new location which adds a new set of issues to the mix. On the other hand, peripheral transit centers, like peripheral parking facilities for drivers, are less convenient for the large number of passengers traveling to the core or beyond the core to other destinations. Many more transfers would be required, increasing some “two-seat rides” to “threeseat rides” and potentially depressing transit use. Actual transit impacts would require ridership modeling once the route network is developed more fully.

How It Might Be Implemented in Spokane In its 1988 Spokane Downtown Transit Project Feasibility Study, Weslin Consulting proposed “dual peripheral transfer centers” with one near the County Courthouse on West Broadway, north of downtown, and along Division east of downtown, and a second near the present Intermodal Center. The 1988 study does not name a specific parcel for the facility near the Courthouse; for the purposes of this analysis, we have placed the facility at the Courthouse itself. In order to implement this plan, an acceptable nearby parcel would have to be identified. Using Denver as an example, the study explained that “buses would pass through the downtown core and layover at the peripheral centers where riders could transfer. An electric bus shuttle could operate between the transfer centers to provide service when regional buses weren’t pulsing.” As explained in the case study, Denver commuter buses terminate at centers on “their” side of downtown, rather than continuing into the core (some local buses operate on downtown streets). Denver’s RTD does operate a shuttle service between the centers. A reasonable alternative for Spokane might be to time transfers between “long” and “short” routes at the peripheral centers, but to have a number of longer, commuter-oriented routes continue into downtown, or through downtown to the center on the opposite side. For the purposes of this analysis, however, we have assumed the simplest option: transfer facilities at the Intermodal Center and Courthouse with essentially independent operation. All routes would terminate at their closest logical transit center. The two centers would be connected Page 19  Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Spokane Transit: Downtown Transit Alternatives  Final Report SPOKANE TRANSIT AUTHORITY

by a shuttle service operating primarily along Sprague, Riverside and Monroe. All downtown routes would no longer connect at a single transfer center, however, STA may wish to operate shuttles in evenings, on the weekend, and more frequently than every 10 minutes to accommodate those riders continuing their trips not just into downtown, but through downtown to transfer to routes terminating at the other center (see “Operating Costs”). In other words: Routes approaching downtown from the east would terminate at the Intermodal Center; passengers connecting to a route that terminates at the Courthouse would need to take the shuttle to their connection.

Page 20  Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

RubR y uPbl y St

Figure 8 Possible Intermodal Center-Downtown Core-Courthouse Area Shuttle Route

Courthouse North River Dr

Broadway Av Lincoln St

Post St

Monroe St

Spokane Falls

Trent Av

Wall St

Main Av Bernard St

Lincoln St

Browne St

Spokane Falls Bl

Maple

Riverside Av Sprague Av

Bridge

Plaza Wall St

Sprague Av

Intermodal Center Division St

Washington St

Howard St

Lincoln St

Stevens St

1st Av

2nd Av

0.25

Post St

Walnut St

Courthouse/Downtown Shuttle

0.5 Miles

Transit Facility Locations 3rd Av

GIS Data Source: Spokane Transit, City of Spokane, USGS Location: Downtown Spokane, Spokane County, WA

Spokane Transit: Downtown Transit Alternatives  Final Report SPOKANE TRANSIT AUTHORITY

What It Might Cost Operating Costs If STA were to adopt the Weslin model of extending routes through downtown to serve both transit centers, miles traveled and operating costs would be increased significantly. A simpler alternative modeled for this analysis shortens the routes so that they stop at only one of the two facilities; this would substantially reduce miles traveled by regular routes and reduce annual operating costs on these routes by approximately $330,000. However, truncating most of STA’s routes outside of the downtown core would require a very frequent shuttle to handle the large number of transfers that could be expected to occur. Assuming the shuttle route operated every 5 minutes for 12 hours a day on weekdays, and on 10-minute headways an additional 5 hours on weekdays, 15 hours on Saturdays, and 11 hours on Sundays (generally reflecting STA’s hours of operation), it would cost about $1,490,000 annually to operate, for a net additional systemwide operating cost of around $1,150,000 annually (3.3%). This high frequency is needed to accommodate the large numbers of transfers that would now occur at both centers, as well as providing all day circulation downtown.

Capital Costs The two satellite facilities will each be smaller in size than a single transfer station, but they won’t be half the size of a single facility. A full size facility needs 10-12 bays. Each of the smaller facilities will likely need 6-8 bays (because some routes will likely serve both facilities and layovers will occur at both places). The amenities and improvements at the two small facilities will be essentially the same as the single larger facility (canopies, shelters, lighting, paving, etc.). The estimated cost for two small facilities is estimated to be $4,000,000, not including the cost of land acquisition.

What Are the Opportunities and Impacts? Replacing the primary transit center with two centers outside of the heart of downtown will have a substantial negative impact on the large number of passengers traveling to and from generators that are in close proximity to the current Plaza site. As illustrated in Figures 1 through 4, there are 10,524 jobs and 1,753 residents within a ½ -mile walking distance of the Intermodal Center, 28% and 31% fewer, respectively, than within a ½ -mile of the Plaza; and there are 6,263 jobs and 1,073 residents within a ½ -mile walking distance of the Courthouse site, 57% and 58% fewer, respectively, than within walking distance of the Plaza. By 2030, SRTC projects there will be 17,091 jobs and 3,252 residents within a ½ -mile walking distance of the Intermodal Center (21% and 26% fewer than the Plaza) and 8,899 jobs and 3,039 residents in the area of the Courthouse (59% and 31% fewer than the Plaza). Additionally, dividing routes between two transit centers would not only require riders making connections to transfer a second time, but would result in longer waits and total travel times, under a worst-case scenario, of up to 70 minutes more each way. Ultimately, ridership modeling would be required to determine the impact of service changes on the route network.

Page 22  Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Spokane Transit: Downtown Transit Alternatives  Final Report SPOKANE TRANSIT AUTHORITY

Advantages For Passengers: 

Frequent shuttle through the downtown area, providing enhanced access for intradowntown trips.



For a minority of riders, enhanced service to their destinations, especially in the area of the Courthouse.

For Transit Operations: 

May improve reliability by removing buses from some of the most congested streets downtown.



Potentially expands transit center capacity by dividing the needs over two locations.

For Parking: 

Possibility of restoring some street parking on Riverside, Wall, and Sprague by Plaza site.

For Traffic: 

Reduced congestion on Sprague, Riverside, Wall and Post by the Plaza, where buses currently stop on-street, as well as on Sprague and Riverside to the west, between Post and Lincoln.

Other: 

Removes the perceived blight at the Plaza location.



Continuing to pulse at a central facility avoids “wall of buses” effect of pulsing onstreet.



Dividing transit service between two sites limits impacts on areas around facilities.

Drawbacks/Impacts: For Passengers: 

If routes do not continue through core: 1. Reduced access to core, with transfers required for all downtown-bound riders. 2. Reduction in opportunities to transfer to the widest array of routes. 3. Creates “three-seat” rides for a significant number of passengers who now have only one transfer.

For Transit Operations: 

If the Monroe Street Bridge closed for any reason, operations would be severely disrupted.



Requires extensive reconfiguration of routes.



Fewer opportunities to interline routes.



Increased costs for operation of two transit centers.



Potentially reduced ridership. Page 23  Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Spokane Transit: Downtown Transit Alternatives  Final Report SPOKANE TRANSIT AUTHORITY

For Parking: 

Preliminary analysis of site has determined that 1st Avenue just to the west might have to be reconfigured, resulting in elimination of a few on-street parking spaces.



Depending on the location of Courthouse area facility, on-street parking could be eliminated along several blocks. Additionally, much of the area around the Courthouse is now utilized for off-street parking that could potentially be eliminated by a transit facility (although it may be possible to include some parking in the transit facility) or have its access restricted by bus stop locations or bus movements.



Requires extensive reconfiguration of existing parking at Intermodal Center.

For Traffic: 

Increased congestion in areas of facilities. Impacts on streets adjacent to Intermodal Center are not as great as if it were the sole transit center. The hourly number of buses on Monroe Street Bridge increases from existing 33 to 58.



Continuing pulse system creates periodic stress on traffic flow during pulse periods.

Other: 

Runs the risk of simply “moving the problem” from one place to two others.



Unless the Plaza site redevelops quickly, security may remain a problem in that location.



Securing two facilities may be more difficult than securing one larger one.



There is no known publicly available land in the area of the Courthouse. Land acquisition may be impossible (approximately 1 acre would be needed). If land is available, it could be expensive.



Capital intensive improvements which would not improve passenger access to the core.

The following map illustrates the peak number of buses per hour, per block, under the Dual Peripheral Centers Alternative. These illustrations were created using existing schedules and are intended for illustrative purposes only.

Page 24  Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

RubR y uPbl

18 18

8 8

North River Dr

58 Lincoln St

12 12 12

Broadway Av

Courthouse

y St

Figure 9 Peak Number of Buses Per Hour, Per Block - Dual Peripheral Centers Alternative

Monroe St

Post St

4 4

6 6 6

Division St

-5

-3

-2

-1

-5 1

4 4

2nd Av

Transit Routes: Buses Per Hour

Transit Facility Locations

3rd Av

Sprague Av

Intermodal Center

4 9

0.5 Miles

Washington St

Post St

Walnut St

0.25

6 12 12

Trent Av

Stevens St

Howard St

Lincoln St

Riverside Av

Bernard St

Wall St

22 10

1st Av

6 1

Browne St

Spokane Falls

Main Av

St Bridge

Spokane Falls Bl

Wall St

Lincoln St

58 50

Maple

Sprague Av

GIS Data Source: Spokane Transit, City of Spokane, USGS Location: Downtown Spokane, Spokane County, WA

Spokane Transit: Downtown Transit Alternatives  Final Report SPOKANE TRANSIT AUTHORITY

Alternative #4 – Develop a True Downtown Grid System This option would replace the pulse system, with its reliance upon one or more timed-transfer locations, with a system of routes intersecting at various points downtown. Under a grid system, major transfer facilities are rendered unnecessary. However, to ensure continuation of relatively convenient transfers, levels of service would need to be increased significantly. Grid systems offer the advantage of spreading transit routes throughout the downtown. Passengers have increased opportunities for “front door” service if routes operate at frequencies that allow for easy transfers. Passengers are not clustered at a single location, but are dispersed throughout downtown. Grid systems work best in situations where frequencies are relatively high, allowing passengers to transfer from route to route with minimal waiting. When routes operate on 30- or 60-minute headways, wait times in one direction are nearly as long as a headway interval, which may be intolerable to passengers. Passengers who have more than one route option for their trip would have to know where to go to catch all of their alternates, and would have to choose their location in advance. Building the grid requires dispersing passenger amenities through downtown. Transfer stops in particular would require specialized bus shelters that potentially offer heating for winter conditions. Real time bus information at all shelters would be important so that passengers could make decisions about whether to transfer or walk when that is an option. A grid system would have impacts on parking and traffic, not yet quantified, because it would require eliminating street parking at designated bus stops.

How It Might Be Implemented in Spokane STA’s current route configuration could be converted, with a few minor alterations, into a grid system with transfers distributed among multiple stops around downtown. Routes could either loop through downtown, or where opportunities exist, be interlined or combined with routes from the opposite direction to extend through downtown, continuing on the other side. Through routes would have layovers at their outer ends, rather than at or near a terminus in the downtown core. The greatest change would be in the level of service necessary to maintain some of the existing convenience of timed transfers. In a pulse system, it is relatively easy to schedule routes so they converge and depart simultaneously. Schedules in grid systems are more complicated to coordinate since transfers occur in multiple locations and riders may have to travel in different directions to transfer. Were STA to switch to a grid system, headways would have to be shortened on some routes, significantly in some cases, as the longest reasonable headway under a grid system (the longest one might reasonably be expected to wait to transfer) is 20 or perhaps 30 minutes. It is important to note that while the implementation of a grid system in Spokane would likely involve re-evaluation of the system’s service plan, this analysis does not include new route planning. It also does not include service changes such as short-turn frequency enhancements. For this exercise, we have assumed that the current route structure is maintained, except that westbound routes terminating at the Plaza would continue to Lincoln on the west side of downtown, and eastbound routes terminating at the Plaza would continue to Stevens on the east side of downtown (routes that did not approach the Plaza from Sprague or Page 26  Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Spokane Transit: Downtown Transit Alternatives  Final Report SPOKANE TRANSIT AUTHORITY

Riverside were extended past the Plaza to a logical point on the far side of downtown). Additionally, all routes operating on half-hour or greater weekday headways would operate on 15minute weekday headways, and all routes operating on hourly evening and weekend headways would operate on 30-minute evening and weekend headways.

What It Might Cost Operating Costs The increased service detailed above would substantially increase STA’s operating costs. Extending routes to travel through downtown, rather than merely into downtown, would increase annual operating costs by approximately $370,000 (1%). However, reducing headways to a standard of 15 minutes on weekdays and 30 minutes evenings and weekends would cost approximately $7,140,000, for a total additional annual system-wide operating cost of roughly $7,510,000 (22%). As with the other options, final costs would depend on route configuration changes, short-turn options, and other design issues to be determined later.

Capital Costs Although this alternative does not require STA to build an actual facility, it will require that STA upgrade most, if not all, of its bus stops in the downtown area. Depending on the final route configuration in downtown, this could mean making upgrades to as many as fifty (50) stops. The upgrades should include new signage, shelters (possibly heated), lighting (at stops where it doesn’t exist), real-time information displays, benches (at stops without shelters) and trash receptacles. Most shelters should be large enough to accommodate 10-15 people. Assuming a cost of $20,000 per stop, the total cost to improve up to 50 stops will be $1,000,000.

What Are the Opportunities and Impacts? Advantages For Passengers: 

Because routes would continue past the Plaza, through downtown, some riders could alight closer to destinations.



Because headways would be made standard for most routes, opportunities may exist for increased interlining, decreasing the need for transfers.



Distributing routes around downtown and operating at higher frequencies might result in a more complete and convenient circulation system for local travel downtown.

For Transit Operations: 

Increased frequencies could attract additional ridership.



Elimination of the need to serve a central transfer point increases flexibility in routing and presents an opportunity to radically reconfigure route structure.



Elimination of the need to operate on scheduled pulses, which is increasingly difficult to achieve under current space constraints and operational conditions.

For Parking: 

Possibility of restoring some street parking on Riverside, Wall, Sprague and Post adjacent to the Plaza site.

Page 27  Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Spokane Transit: Downtown Transit Alternatives  Final Report SPOKANE TRANSIT AUTHORITY

For Traffic: 

Significant reductions in congestion on Wall and Post by Plaza site (and possibly on other streets if route structure reconfigured).

Other: 

Elimination of the perceived blight at the Plaza.



Increased pedestrian activity throughout downtown as riders walk to transfer.

Drawbacks/Impacts: For Passengers: 

Transfers may be more confusing, time-consuming and less comfortable than at the Plaza.



Depending on frequencies, transfer delays and wait times may increase.

For Transit Operations: 

Increased frequency unlikely to be offset by increased ridership, likely to result in reduced productivity, decreased cost-effectiveness.



Requires substantial investments in vehicles and amenities.



Maintenance costs for new street amenities would be an ongoing and unknown cost.

For Parking: 

Elimination of street parking at new bus stops.

For Traffic: 

Extending routes through downtown would result in more buses on most downtown blocks of Sprague and Riverside.

Other: 

Unless the Plaza site redevelops quickly, security may remain a problem in that location.



Increased number of street shelters would require a different type of security operation.



Possible passenger and operator “learning curve” for transition to radically new system.

The following map illustrates the peak number of buses per hour, per block, under the Grid Alternative. These illustrations were created using existing schedules and are intended for illustrative purposes only.

Page 28  Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

RubR y uPbl y St

18 18

9 8

North River Dr

33 Lincoln St

12 12 12

Broadway Av

Monroe St

Post St

4 4

10 6

Sprague Av

Division St

0 -5

-3

-1

-5 1

-2

3rd Av

2nd Av

4 4

Transit Routes: Buses per Hour

Washington St

Howard St

Stevens St

0.5 Miles

Trent Av

Riverside Av

45 14

Main Av

Bernard St

Spokane Falls

Spokane Falls Bl

Browne St

4 Post St

Walnut St

Wall St

3 24

12 12

0.25

Lincoln St

amp

Plaza

D ON R

6 1

Maple

1st Av

p FF Ram mp aple F O Ra FF O E ple Ma

Bridge

6mp F Ra 6

FO 6F

17 Wall St

18 Lincoln St

33 12

Sprague Av

Maple

le Map

Figure 10 Peak Number of Buses Per Hour, Per Block - Grid Alternative

GIS Data Source: Spokane Transit, City of Spokane, USGS Location: Downtown Spokane, Spokane County, WA

Spokane Transit: Downtown Transit Alternatives  Final Report SPOKANE TRANSIT AUTHORITY

Alternative #5 – Develop a Downtown Transit Mall In this alternative all buses entering the downtown would be routed down one or two “transit only” streets, with very limited or no auto access. This Transit Mall would operate as a linear, outdoor transfer facility, retaining much of the existing center’s convenience for users while mitigating its perceived negative impacts by eliminating the building and distributing passengers over a larger area. The Transit Mall concept offers the opportunity for a more robust street design, which would help enhance clarity for riders who would clearly know where to go to access transit routes. Implementing this model would require buy-in from the City of Spokane and the downtown business community. There are many possible configurations for such a facility (see “How It Might Be Implemented in Spokane” below), but each will require some public right-of-way exclusively for transit vehicles. This typically means reducing access for automobiles and reduction or elimination of on-street parking. It could also require full closure of some streets to auto traffic. It should be noted that downtown business owners have been strongly opposed to the elimination of any on-street parking. Depending upon the weather, waiting for a bus at a Transit Mall won’t be as comfortable for many passengers as waiting inside the Plaza. To mitigate the negative issues related to bad weather, STA will need to invest in additional shelters and amenities to improve street conditions, similar to those outlined in the grid system alternative. Transit Malls can accommodate either pulse or grid scheduling, though timed transfers are likely to result in a “wall of buses” along the Mall, while grid scheduling enables buses to “flow” through one after another. Riders waiting to transfer can increase sidewalk activity, generating foot traffic for businesses, and Transit Mall construction generally includes improvements to the streetscape in the form of wider sidewalks, new street furniture, public art and other amenities. The trade-off is reduced front-door access and parking for businesses along the Transit Mall. From an operations perspective, one of the key considerations in a mall design is whether buses can pass each other. This is very important if there is a breakdown or other blockage in the transit lane. Transit Malls, like the one described below, in Portland, Oregon, offer passing lanes that allow for independent movement of buses through the mall.

How It Might Be Implemented in Spokane In Portland, the Transit Mall operates on parallel streets. In Spokane, it might be possible to dedicate to buses one or two eastbound lanes on Riverside and one or two westbound lanes on Sprague between Lincoln and Stevens. However, if two westbound auto lanes are removed from Sprague, only three westbound lanes would remain between Main, Riverside, Sprague and 1st Avenues, and if both eastbound auto lanes are removed from Riverside, no eastbound lanes would remain on either Sprague or Riverside in the downtown core (assuming, of course, that downtown streets weren’t otherwise reconfigured). If only one lane were removed from each street, the Transit Mall’s capacity would be severely limited, as buses would be unable to pass one another. A better alternative might be to convert Riverside, a relatively wide street located midway between Spokane Falls Boulevard to the north and the railroad right-of-way on the south Page 30  Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Spokane Transit: Downtown Transit Alternatives  Final Report SPOKANE TRANSIT AUTHORITY

side of downtown, to exclusive or primarily transit use. Given Riverside’s generous right-of-way, it might be possible to continue to allow limited use by autos, taxis and loading trucks for turning movements or entrance to garages, while still widening sidewalks and accommodating bus travel. Riverside’s location at the heart of downtown also makes it ideal for a major civic space. Stakeholder support, however, would be a prerequisite. The existing pulse system could be applied to the mall, with allowances for riders to walk a couple of blocks to transfer. However, a grid system with shorter headways might be preferable, as pulsing buses could create a “wall” along the Mall several times each hour. Buses would also need to layover on or near the Mall. Conversely, a grid system would allow buses to “flow” more smoothly and evenly through the Mall and to layover at the outer ends of their routes. At the request of STA, Nelson\Nygaard modeled only the one-street option and assumed that all routes that now terminate at the Plaza would travel on the Mall for at least one block. Some minor rerouting was necessary to accommodate westbound travel on Riverside. Both pulse and grid alternatives have been analyzed for operating costs. For the pulse-transfer option, existing schedules have been assumed, although some minor adjustments might be needed to take into account the time required to walk a few hundred feet for transfers. It should be noted that this is only one example of operating through a mall configuration. It is likely that substantial restructuring would be required to take best advantage of the mall.

What It Might Cost Operating Costs Were the existing pulse system continued with current frequencies, the slight decrease in miles traveled could result in minor reductions to operating costs of approximately $170,000 annually. However, were service levels increased as in the grid alternative, there would be net annual increases in system-wide operating costs of approximately $6,730,000.

Capital Costs The primary factor impacting the cost of the Transit Mall will be the length. Nelson\Nygaard is assuming that the Transit Mall will be four (4) blocks long, stretching from Stevens on the east to Lincoln on the west. Each block will need a pair of Super-Stops (one in each direction). Each Super-Stop should include a single or double shelter (accommodating up to 30 people), plus new signage, extra benches (outside the shelters), real-time arrival signs and trash receptacles. Concrete bus pads and special paving may be needed along the entire length of the mall. In addition, sidewalks on both sides of the street will need to be widened in several locations. A small “customer service booth” large enough to accommodate a customer service window plus desk space for four people (including security staff) should be created in the center block. If sufficient space is available, the booth could have restrooms attached for use by both passengers and transit staff. The total estimated capital cost for a Transit Mall is between $1.5 and $2 million exclusive of any right-of-way acquisition costs.

Page 31  Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Spokane Transit: Downtown Transit Alternatives  Final Report SPOKANE TRANSIT AUTHORITY

What Are the Opportunities and Impacts? The Transit Mall concept has the potential to maintain relatively convenient passenger connections while eliminating the need for a single central downtown facility. Maintaining customer comfort and convenience is dependent on a high level of street amenities and either maintaining the pulse schedule, or increasing frequencies to the point that a pulse schedule is unnecessary. A pulse system would have limited operating cost impacts, but STA may be perceived as creating a “wall of buses” during pulse times. An attractively designed Transit Mall in the heart of downtown, with wide sidewalks and pedestrian amenities, would constitute a major new civic space and could be viewed positively, or it could be seen as “spreading a problem” throughout downtown. Impacts on traffic, parking, and businesses caused by severely restricting auto access to several blocks in the heart of downtown must be carefully considered.

Advantages For Passengers: 

Because either version of the Transit Mall would be roughly centered on the current Plaza site, it would retain the important functions the Plaza serves in the heart of existing downtown development—according to 2005 SRTC estimates, there are 14,711 jobs and 2,549 residents within a ½ -mile walk of the existing Plaza site; by 2030, SRTC projects there will be 21,537 jobs and 4,423 residents in the area.



Well-designed, well-used outdoor space with attractive shelters, landscaping and other amenities could prove more interesting and pleasant in mild weather than Plaza interior or exterior bus bays.



Identifiable and clear location for making transfers.

For Parking: 

Possibility of restoring limited street parking on Wall, Post and possibly Sprague by the Plaza site.

For Transit Operations: 

Additional capacity for loading, unloading, bus movements and layovers.



Possibility of reducing or eliminating the need for maintaining a pulse schedule.



Eliminates capacity constraints of the Plaza assuming buses operate frequently enough to eliminate pulse scheduling.



Exclusive right-of-way, improve maneuverability and reliability.

For Traffic: 

Bus-generated congestion on non-mall streets, similar to existing conditions.

Other: 

Increased pedestrian activity along mall blocks, generating some retail activity and potentially making downtown a livelier and more attractive destination.



Opportunity to create major new civic and open space in heart of downtown with many amenities, improving quality of life and potentially improving economic competitiveness of downtown Spokane.

Page 32  Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Spokane Transit: Downtown Transit Alternatives  Final Report SPOKANE TRANSIT AUTHORITY

Drawbacks/Impacts: For Passengers: 

Transfers may be more time-consuming and less comfortable in hot or cold weather (though likely no more confusing than at traditional transfer facility).



The need to walk some lateral distance to transfer could result in missed connections.

For Transit Operations: 

Requires substantial investments in, and maintenance of, shelters and other amenities.

For Parking: 

Elimination of all on-street spaces on mall blocks.



Possibly reduced access to parking garages or driveways on Transit Mall.

For Traffic: 

Reduces and/or eliminates auto access to mall blocks.



Increased congestion on adjacent streets.



Fewer routes available to motorists through downtown.



Goods movement concerns for deliveries to businesses on Transit Mall.

Other: 

Transit Mall may be seen as “spreading the problem” along key downtown streets.



Reduced auto access for businesses along the Mall.



Extensive construction impacts: will require complete reconstruction of several downtown blocks, and access to existing Plaza would be limited during reconstruction.



May cause an undesirable visual impact on the street.

The following map illustrates the peak number of buses per hour, per block, under the Transit Mall option.

Page 33  Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

18 18

RubR y uPbl

y St

Figure 11 Peak Number of Buses Per Hour, Per Block - Transit Mall Alternative (1-Street Option)

9 8

North River Dr

33 Lincoln St

12 12 12

Broadway Av

Monroe St

4 4 19

Post St

4 4

7 7

6 6

Riverside Av

Division St

Transit Routes: Buses per Hour

5 -3

-5

-2

-1

-5 1

3rd Av

Transit Facility Location

2nd Av

4 4

Howard St

Washington St

Stevens St

0.5 Miles

Sprague Av

16 14

Wall St

Trent Av

Bernard St

21 1 1

Spokane Falls

Browne St

Spokane Falls Bl

4 Post St

Walnut St

Main Av

3 24

12 12

0.25

amp

Lincoln St

D ON R

p FF Ram mp aple F O Ra FF O E ple Ma

6 1

Maple

1st Av

10 19

Sprague Av

Ram

Wall St

Bridge

F 6 O 6F

Maple

le F

Map

17 Lincoln St

GIS Data Source: Spokane Transit, City of Spokane, USGS Location: Downtown Spokane, Spokane County, WA

Spokane Transit: Downtown Transit Alternatives ď&#x201A;ˇ Final Report SPOKANE TRANSIT AUTHORITY

Evaluating the Initial Five Alternatives Nelson\Nygaard and STA staff evaluated the initial five alternatives using a variety of criteria related to operating costs, capital costs, passenger impacts and operational efficiency. A table summarizing the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative can be seen in Figure 12. This initial analysis was presented to the STA Board during the summer of 2008. At that time the Board determined that it wished to move forward with two alternatives: 1. Retain and improve the Plaza 2. Move the central transfer function to a new facility at the Intermodal Center

Page 35 ď&#x201A;ˇ Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Spokane Transit: Downtown Transit Alternatives  Final Report SPOKANE TRANSIT AUTHORITY

Figure 12 Evaluating the Initial Five Alternatives

Improve the Plaza

Alternatives

Move to Intermodal

     

Advantages Low capital costs and easy to implement Streamlines operations Easiest to implement Excellent location for passengers Direct connection with Amtrak Reduces impact of transit on downtown businesses

Dual hubs



Eliminates use of the Plaza

Switch to a downtown Grid

     

More frequent service for passengers Eliminates use of the Plaza Reduces traffic on Wall and Post Could reduce the need for downtown circulator Eliminates use of the Plaza facility Creates identifiable transit corridor

Downtown Transit Mall



             

Disadvantages Tough to overcome facility’s “bad image”

High level capital costs Difficult on-site operations Significant impact on traffic No direct connection to Light Rail Transit or streetcar Medium level impact on operations Can’t really use the bldg Inefficient operation Poorest option for passengers High capital cost High impact on operating costs Medium impact capital costs More buses on more streets High level capital costs Removes parking and auto traffic from 3 blocks of Riverside or Sprague

Page 36  Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Spokane Transit: Downtown Transit Alternatives  Final Report SPOKANE TRANSIT AUTHORITY

Detailed Analysis – Plaza and Intermodal Center After the STA Board selected the Plaza and Intermodal Center as the two most viable candidates, Nelson\Nygaard was asked by STA staff to conduct a more detailed assessment of the two sites. This new analysis utilized the following evaluation criteria:  Impacts on Bus Operations  Impacts on Passengers – Environment/Ridership/Destinations  Impacts on Downtown/Streets  Operational Timeframe  Operational Capacity  Connectivity with HCT/LRT  Costs  Setting the groundwork for operations beyond 2020

Plaza - Recommendations Nelson\Nygaard’s plan for improving the Plaza centers on two main actions: 1.

Streamlining the fixed-route operation

Improving the functional use of the Plaza interior and exterior areas

Streamlining the Operation Interlining the High Frequency Routes The first step in improving the operations involves interlining all of the high frequency routes to create identifiable, “single-ride”, long line transit corridors. Interlining is really nothing more than connecting two routes together in a manner that allows one route to flow into the other and back again. STA already does some interlining at the Plaza. We simply recommend taking this process to the next step. As a bus comes in to the Plaza it changes its head-sign to its next route and after it stops at the Plaza it continues on to the second route rather than doubling back on the original route. Route pairs should be interlined only if they seem to mimic actual passenger flows when accounting for transfers between buses. Nelson\Nygaard has examined the current STA transfer patterns and the long distance travel patterns as identified by the SRTC (Spokane Regional Transportation Council) Travel Model, and is recommending the following interline pairs:5 Routes 24 and 90 Combined they become the new “Red Corridor” Routes 23 and 44 Combined they become the new “Green Corridor” Routes 29, 65 and 66 Combined they become the new “Brown Corridor” Routes 20 and 25 Combined they become the new “Blue Corridor” The interlined routes are displayed in Figure 13. Service for all four corridor routes would be standardized to every 15 minutes all day. 5

For more information refer to “Downtown Transit Assessment” Nelson\Nygaard June 2007. Page 37  Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Spokane Transit: Downtown Transit Alternatives  Final Report SPOKANE TRANSIT AUTHORITY

Figure 13 Proposed Interline of High Frequency Routes in Downtown Spokane

Page 38  Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Spokane Transit: Downtown Transit Alternatives  Final Report SPOKANE TRANSIT AUTHORITY

Creating these interlined routes achieves several important goals: 1.

It reduces passenger transfer activity between buses.

It significantly reduces bus turning movements and congestion in the vicinity of the Plaza because “U-turns” on all nine routes are eliminated in the downtown area.

It reduces the risk of bus-pedestrian conflicts in intersections.

It begins to create the backbone for a true Bus Rapid Transit network.

It can reduce round-trip cycle times, which reduces operating costs.

Downtown Turning Movements The benefits to downtown traffic flows that result from interlining the high frequency routes cannot be overstated. Nelson\Nygaard has estimated that more than 700 daily bus turning movements can be eliminated within a 5-block perimeter of the Plaza. Combining Routes 24-90

Reduction of 224 weekday turns (-40%)

Combining Routes 20–25

Reduction of 224 weekday turns (-25%)

Combining Routes 23-44

Reduction of 224 weekday turns (-40%)

Combining Routes 29/65/66 Reduction of 36 weekday turns (-11%) High frequency routes that previously took layover/recovery at the Plaza will now layover/recover at the outer ends of the route.

Disconnecting the High Frequency Pulse The second operational change we recommend is to disconnect the high frequency routes from the timed transfer pulse. Very few large urban systems in the U.S. rely on timed-transfers between high frequency routes. In fact, having timed-transfers between these kinds of routes is actually a very inefficient use of resources because it requires the use of an excessive number of bus bays. For example, at the present time the high frequency routes are spread out at the Plaza amongst seven of the 10 main bus bays. With bus bays at a premium, STA is forced to use several off-site auxiliary bays adjacent to the Plaza. The use of these auxiliary bays is inconvenient for passengers and inefficient for operation, and it contributes to STA’s image as a “bad neighbor” in the downtown area. Nelson\Nygaard recommends that the high frequency routes (20, 23, 24, 25, 29, 44, 65 and 66) be condensed from seven bays into just four bays (two on Sprague and two on Riverside). Offsetting the schedules will ensure that each route has adequate time to stop and pick up passengers. Buses for these routes will not layover at the Plaza and will only need to dwell long enough to load and unload. If the average dwell time were 5 minutes (as it is with the current system), each bay would have a maximum capacity of 12 buses per hour. However, under the proposed operating plan (drop and go) most buses will dwell for less than one minute. This means that a single bus bay can have a capacity of 50 to 60 buses per hour.

Page 39  Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Spokane Transit: Downtown Transit Alternatives  Final Report SPOKANE TRANSIT AUTHORITY

It is certainly possible to consolidate these seven routes into just one bay on each side of the Plaza but for now Nelson\Nygaard recommends that STA use two per side until it gets comfortable with the operating scheme. This change will significantly increase the bus bay capacity of the Plaza which will extend the operational lifespan of the building to 2020. It will also allow STA to bring all routes back to the Plaza, eliminating the need to use the auxiliary bays adjacent to the building. Disconnecting the high frequency routes from the timed-transfer pulse will inconvenience some passengers because their timed connections will no longer be “perfectly timed.” However, since the interlining of routes reduces the total number of transfers at the Plaza, Nelson\Nygaard estimates that fewer than 10% of existing riders will be negatively impacted by disconnecting the high frequency routes from the pulse.

Improving the Functional Use of the Plaza Interior and Exterior Areas Community Design + Architecture (CD+A) conducted a detailed assessment of the Plaza interior and exterior sections and determined that the main functional problems are:

Plaza Issues Underutilization of the Wall Street Perimeter The existing “loading dock-like” layout on Wall Street causes conflicts between paratransit vehicles loading, passenger cars on Wall Street, and the Downtown Circulator trolley – which must make a full 360° turn here. The space is operationally dysfunctional and does not appear inviting to pedestrians or passengers. Near collisions between passenger cars and the turning trolley were observed on more than one occasion.

Concentration of Smokers on Wall Street The designated smoking area around the plaza is a curb bulbout between the bus bays and garage ramp on Wall Street and draws many smokers to the vicinity of the Plaza. The minority of people who frequent the smoking area are STA patrons, which is evidenced by the fact that frequently throughout the day the area becomes crowded with loiterers. The presence of the smoking area has received numerous complaints from surrounding businesses and is unnecessarily creating a negative image of the Plaza and transit riders.

Page 40  Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Spokane Transit: Downtown Transit Alternatives  Final Report SPOKANE TRANSIT AUTHORITY

Insufficient sidewalk space on the Sprague side Passengers and passing pedestrians have trouble walking along the sidewalk during peak periods due to crowding. At some of the narrowest parts of the sidewalk (such as the corner with the Peyton building) trash receptacles, signs, and trees become obstacles, forming a severe “pinch point”.

Sprague “blank wall” The Sprague side of the building presents a much less attractive “face” than the Riverside portion of the building; primarily because the Sprague side appears as a large, blank, windowless wall (the access ramp into the garage is located on the other side of the wall). The large wall is out of human scale and does not visually engage waiting passengers or pedestrians.

Page 41  Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Spokane Transit: Downtown Transit Alternatives ď&#x201A;ˇ Final Report SPOKANE TRANSIT AUTHORITY

Poor visibility of bus bays from inside the Plaza Despite the fact that the Plaza provides passengers with a sheltered environment, many passengers prefer to wait for their buses outside on the sidewalk, even during harsher weather conditions. This is partly because the bus arrival display located inside the Plaza is small, unnoticeable, and only displays scheduled departure information, not the actual departure time. Passengers concerned about missing their bus may prefer waiting outside of the building.

Page 42 ď&#x201A;ˇ Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Spokane Transit: Downtown Transit Alternatives  Final Report SPOKANE TRANSIT AUTHORITY

Location of the STA customer service booth The booth is currently located on the second floor in an area of limited activity that is inconvenient for passengers hurrying between bus transfers. In addition, many bus riders don’t realize the customer service booth is upstairs and inquire with the police for transit information instead. The recently added STA information booth on the first floor addresses the latter issue but adds to the overall confusion and requires additional STA personnel.

Layout of indoor space The Plaza includes a large amount of unprogrammed space that attracts activity, such as the opportunity to use the Plaza as a gathering and hangout space. This is true for some areas on the first floor as well as the second floor, where there is very little transit related activity and the activity generated by the second floor retail businesses is limited. In addition, the large visual obstructions, such as the escalator and the elevator, create spaces which are semi-secluded and difficult to patrol.

Plaza Design Objectives and Recommendations Community Design + Architecture developed a list of planning objectives to guide the redesign of the interior and exterior spaces: 

Focus the use on transit and passenger services



Concentrate all transit activity on the ground floor



Reclaim underutilized space for “highest and best use”



Provide services that enhance transit experience



Reduce opportunities for activities not related to transit and services



Take advantage of opportunities to significantly enhance the functionality of building and boarding areas



Develop a space that will contribute to a sense of civic pride

Page 43  Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Spokane Transit: Downtown Transit Alternatives  Final Report SPOKANE TRANSIT AUTHORITY

The following recommendations focus on physical improvements and alterations to uses of the interior and exterior of the Plaza building (also known as building “program”).

Exterior Improvements 1. Eliminate the smoking area on Wall Street and enforce the no-smoking law around all of the Plaza building. This will eliminate a major “draw” for the loitering that has become negatively associated with the Plaza and created numerous complaints from neighboring businesses. 2. Widen sidewalk on Sprague Avenue by three feet. A wider sidewalk would give more room to passing pedestrians and passengers waiting for their buses. The wider sidewalk can be achieved without affecting traffic by re-striping and slightly narrowing the lanes on Sprague. As the following figures indicate, the combination of widening the sidewalk and eliminating the saw-tooth configuration will result in a significantly larger gain in sidewalk space as compared to gain if the saw-tooth bus bays are retained. 3. Relocate information displays, trash receptacles, and trees from the “pinch point” in the pedestrian circulation at the western corner of the Peyton Building on Sprague Avenue. These items can be relocated to less congested areas of the sidewalk on the same block. 4. Replace/retrofit the bus arrival displays at the bus bays with new “real time” LCD displays. These new displays are part of the NextBus system, and will show accurate wait/arrival times for all of the bus routes. 5. Retrofit rotunda at the corner of Riverside and Wall Street with information and ticket windows staffed with STA employees. Passengers will be able to purchase tickets and obtain bus route information from outside the facility, creating a stronger connection between the Plaza interior and exterior. Making the rotunda approachable from the outside requires the construction of steps and a ramp in the sidewalk and Plaza area at the corner of Riverside/Wall (also see the following item). 6. Redesign the sidewalk space at the corner of Riverside and Wall Street into an urban outdoor plaza. This would help break up the scale of the large sidewalk, and create an outdoor focal point. This space should showcase a public art piece, which would enhance the spatial transition to the new Wall Street stop of the Downtown Circulator, demarcate the location of the Plaza building, and contribute to the unique character of downtown Spokane as a whole. 7. Install high quality public art on the “blank wall” on Sprague. The art would provide visual interest and break up the scale of the wall, making a more comfortable waiting area for STA passengers.

Interior Improvements 1. Close the second floor to the general public and convert it into offices for STA or another tenant for office use. The office space on the second floor would be configured so that public access to the skywalks across Riverside Avenue and Wall Street would be maintained. 2. Relocate the retail businesses that are currently located on the second floor. In some cases, relocation to the first floor may be possible. This consolidation of business activities on the first floor is recommended in order to increase the number of people

Page 44  Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Spokane Transit: Downtown Transit Alternatives  Final Report SPOKANE TRANSIT AUTHORITY

on the first floor of the Plaza that engage in purposeful activities. Having these stores downstairs would provide services and amenities to passengers, especially those with short waiting times between buses who previously did not have time to grab a snack or magazine upstairs. 3. Relocate the first floor police station to the second floor and reuse the space for retail. Currently, the police station is regularly mistaken for an STA information desk. It occupies an area along the circulation route with the highest foot traffic (between the two main entries/exits to Sprague and Riverside) and therefore would be most valuable as a retail space. Police presence should be maintained at current levels through officers that patrol the first floor. Due to the reduced need for patrolling the second floor (converted to office use), the police presence can be delivered more efficiently and focused on first floor activities. 4. Relocate the STA Information Kiosk from the second floor to the rotunda area on the first floor. Visitors and passengers, especially those transferring between buses, will be able to more quickly access information. The rotunda area is large enough to accommodate STA staff to help customers at the outside window, at the inside counter, and answering phone inquiries. 5. Install a large, prominent Smart Board that would provide real-time information for riders such as bus arrivals and delays. A reliable system would allow more passengers to wait inside, especially in extreme weather, without fearing that they will miss their bus. The Smart Board will be similar to those often found in train stations, visible from most areas of the Plaza, and would provide “entertainment” for waiting passengers. (Note: This can only occur after STA has implemented its GPS-based, real-time bus information system.) 6. Improve the interior lighting. Adding more lighting to the Plaza would make the space feel less gloomy, safer, and more active, especially during the short days of winter. 7. Remove the escalator from the central area of the Plaza. With the second floor no longer being a public space, the escalator is unnecessary (the stairs and elevator will remain). Removing the escalator will allow more sunlight to reach the first floor of the Plaza from the skylights above, creating a pleasant atrium-like space, ideally suited to accommodate a seating area. Removal of the escalator also allows more visibility within the Plaza, such that nearly all plaza activity could be observed from many vantage points. With far fewer places hidden from view, there would be fewer opportunities for undesirable activities. Security would be further enhanced by the recommended additional retail program (vending carts, more stores), patrolling police officers, shopkeepers, and waiting passengers, all of whom would be better able to keep their eyes on activities in the Plaza. 8. Create seating for waiting passengers in the center of the space where the escalators were previously. This atrium space would be a very pleasant waiting area for passengers. The new Smart Board would provide constantly updated information on arriving buses, which for many waiting passengers will be entertaining to watch. 9. Accommodate additional retail/ vendors along the southern wall. As more people feel comfortable waiting inside, the demand for businesses will likely increase. These businesses will add more desired activity to the first floor of the Plaza. Photo simulations for the various improvements can be found on the following pages.

Page 45  Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Spokane Transit: Downtown Transit Alternatives  Final Report SPOKANE TRANSIT AUTHORITY

Figure 14 Aerial/Schematic View Demonstrating Location of First Group of Proposed Improvements

1. Eliminate Smoking Area 2. Widen Sprague Sidewalk 3. Re-align Wall Street Curb 4. Create Circulator Arrival Center 5. Relocate Information Displays and Change “Pinch” Point 6. Create New Customer Service Ticket Window 7. Create Outdoor Plaza 8. Install Public Art or Treatment on Sprague Avenue wall

Figure 15 Aerial/Schematic View Demonstrating Location of Second Group of Proposed Improvements

Add Canopy or Other Structure to Sprague Wall

10. Space for mobile retail carts/kiosks/produce carts 11. Relocate Retail from 2nd to 1st Floor 12. Create New Customer Service Desk 13. Install “smart” arrival/display LED sign 14. Remove Escalator 15. Create central seating area

Page 46  Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Spokane Transit: Downtown Transit Alternatives  Final Report SPOKANE TRANSIT AUTHORITY

Figure 16 Existing View - Wall and Riverside

Figure 17 Proposed - Wall and Riverside

Page 47  Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Spokane Transit: Downtown Transit Alternatives  Final Report SPOKANE TRANSIT AUTHORITY

Figure 18 Existing View – Sprague Sidewalk

Figure 19 Proposed - Sprague Sidewalk

Page 48  Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Spokane Transit: Downtown Transit Alternatives  Final Report SPOKANE TRANSIT AUTHORITY

Figure 20 Existing View – Interior space with escalator

Figure 21 Proposed – Interior space without escalator

Page 49  Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Spokane Transit: Downtown Transit Alternatives  Final Report SPOKANE TRANSIT AUTHORITY

Figure 22 Existing View – Interior Rotunda

Figure 23 Proposed – Interior Rotunda

Page 50  Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Spokane Transit: Downtown Transit Alternatives  Final Report SPOKANE TRANSIT AUTHORITY

Figure 24 Existing view – Internal corridor

Figure 25 Proposed – Internal Corridor

Page 51  Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Spokane Transit: Downtown Transit Alternatives  Final Report SPOKANE TRANSIT AUTHORITY

Estimated Costs The total estimated costs for the proposed improvements will be in the range of $2.2 million.6 Improvements Widen Sprague Sidewalk Customer Service Desk Wall St. Circulator Center Escalator Demolition LED Display Reconfigure police space Bike Valet space Misc Items Total Cost*

Estimated Cost $75,000 to $100,000 $100,000 to $150,000 $200,000 to $250,000 $150,000 to $200,000 $20,000 to $40,000 $600,000 to $1,000,000 $100,000 to $150,000 $300,000 up to $2.2 million

*Does not include Public Art

Sidewalk – STA will need to add 4’ of sidewalk along 200’ of Sprague for a total of 800 linear feet. Assume $40/sq’ for a total of $32,000 plus another $50,000 to move trees or adjust fixtures and poles. Desk area – Little to no demolition required. Building a 3’ high station with a 20’ diameter. Assume 400 sq’ of floor space for construction. Desk space for 4 people with phones, computers, desks and storage space. Assume $180/sq’ construction/build-out costs. 400 sq’ * $180/sq’ = $72,000 plus $30,000 for equipment, computers, phones, etc. Wall Street Arrival Center – Top of the line bus stops for BRT projects (i.e. mini LRT stations) cost $60,000 to $75,000. Assume $75,000 plus $10,000 for utilities work and another $40/sq’ for 800 linear feet of curb reconfiguration ($32,000). Add $100,000 for repaving. Escalator Demolition – Quote from local demolition company for $100,000 plus $50,000 contingency for clean up and unknown issues with internal electrical lines. LED Display – http://www.electronicdisplays.com/photogallery2.asp?guid={0CE5EB21-1AFF-41F5-8162-7BA1ACC24D71} $30,000 Convert police space to retail - Assume 1,000 sq’ at a cost of $50/sq’ for demo and $180/sq’ for build-out to shell = $230/sq’ * 1,000 sq’ = $230,000. Add $500,000 for possible build-out costs to full retail space. = $730,000. Bike valet - Assume 750 sq’ at $180/sq’ (no demo) = $135,000 Page 52  Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Spokane Transit: Downtown Transit Alternatives  Final Report SPOKANE TRANSIT AUTHORITY

Intermodal Facility - Recommendations Moving the central transfer operation from the Plaza to the Intermodal Center is operationally feasible, but the geographic location of the center does impose some limits on the operational efficiencies that can be achieved at this site. STA will only be able to interline a few of the high frequency routes, instead of all eight and, perhaps more importantly, it will not be able to disengage the high frequency routes from the pulse. The street network and the proximity of the railroad tracks limit how effectively services can be redesigned. Compared to the Plaza, the Intermodal Center (located at the corner of W Sprague Avenue and S Bernard Street) is significantly farther from the center of downtown. Although there are some commercial land uses in the vicinity of the facility, it is unlikely that the Intermodal Center would be a destination point for STA passengers like the Plaza. Therefore it is expected that a larger proportion of the activity would be transit focused and strictly relate to bus transfers. At the Intermodal Center, buses would circulate around boarding islands with assigned bus bays and heated shelters for weather protection. Transfers and waiting activity would occur outside in front rather than inside of the main building (used by Amtrak and Greyhound), with only a few STA passengers accessing the building in order to use restrooms and other services located there. Since the timed-transfer pulse will be mostly kept intact, there will need to be twelve “saw tooth” shaped bays sized for 40’ full sized buses. One extra bay will be created to accommodate the paratransit service and the Downtown Circulator Service. There is an opportunity to build two more bus bays on Sprague in front of the Intermodal Center if extra capacity is needed in the future. If the basic operating plan (timed transfers) changes and fewer bus bays are needed, then the proposed layout can be changed to reflect this. Each bus bay will have a new “real time” information display which will inform passengers which buses are approaching and how long their wait time will be.

Page 53  Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Spokane Transit: Downtown Transit Alternatives  Final Report SPOKANE TRANSIT AUTHORITY

Figure 26 Intermodal Center – Proposed – View #1

Figure 27 Intermodal Center – Proposed – View #2

Page 54  Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Spokane Transit: Downtown Transit Alternatives  Final Report SPOKANE TRANSIT AUTHORITY

Figure 28 Intermodal Center – View of Proposed Passenger Loading Zones

STA Bus Circulation At the moment, West Sprague Avenue has two-way traffic east of North Bernard Street and oneway westbound traffic after North Bernard. Under the proposed layout, two-way traffic flow on West Sprague would be extended one more block to North Washington Street. Buses heading east on West Sprague would enter the Intermodal Center by continuing on West Sprague past Bernard and turning right halfway down the street into the large driveway. These buses will continue their right turn, reversing direction, in order to drop-off/ pickup on the south side of either of the two bus islands. To exit these buses will turn right and head north on Bernard or continue east across Bernard to West 1st Avenue. Buses heading south on Bernard will continue heading south across West Sprague and turn left to drop-off/ pickup on the north side of the bus island. To exit, these buses will either continue straight and head east of West Sprague or they will turn around the bus islands and exit as discussed previously.

Inter-City Bus Circulation Inter-city buses will enter from the large driveway on West Sprague, following the same ramps, and exiting onto South Bernard Street as they did before.

Passenger Car Circulation To avoid traffic conflicts, the majority of passenger car drop-offs and pickups would take place in a pullout on West Sprague Avenue between Bernard and the bus driveway. This drop-off/ pickup area could have a few amenities for passengers waiting to be picked up such as seating, lighting, trash receptacles, and wind protection. For employee and temporary parking, cars will enter the Intermodal Center on West Sprague and like the buses make a wide right turn into a drop-off lot Page 55  Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Spokane Transit: Downtown Transit Alternatives ď&#x201A;ˇ Final Report SPOKANE TRANSIT AUTHORITY

of the east side of the main building. If this lot is full, cars can continue west past the front of the main building (in a separate lane from bus traffic) into a secondary lot on the other side of the building. Cars exit either lot by turning left and heading west across South Bernard to West 1st Avenue. West 1st Avenue would be closed to through traffic. Buses and cars would exit the Intermodal Center onto West 1st Avenue heading west, while other vehicles entering West 1st Avenue from Washington must use the turnaround before South Bernard. Figure 29 STA Bus Circulation

Page 56 ď&#x201A;ˇ Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Spokane Transit: Downtown Transit Alternatives  Final Report SPOKANE TRANSIT AUTHORITY

Figure 30 Intercity Bus Circulation

Figure 31 Auto Circulation

Page 57  Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Spokane Transit: Downtown Transit Alternatives  Final Report SPOKANE TRANSIT AUTHORITY

Transit Center Park The proposed layout was designed to maximize the amount of land kept as “park like” open space. This area of lawn and trees would enhance the Intermodal Center’s visual appearance, especially from the street, buffer some of the noise from the diesel buses, and help manage stormwater. The pathways through this park will help connect pedestrians and dropped-off passengers to the bus islands and main building.

Use of the Main Building The majority of transfer activity and information availability would take place outside on the bus islands, away from the main building. The main building would retain its current function as the coach bus and Amtrak station, and in addition it might also house STA uses such as meetings. Since there would not be information inside the main building regarding STA bus arrivals and schedules, very few STA passengers would enter the building other than individuals with long waits between transfers.

Additional Parking In the proposed layout the two parking lots on site would have approximately 19 spaces each, plus surrounding street parking. Should more parking be needed, STA could acquire adjacent lots or demolish the existing maintenance building to create more parking on site. It might also be possible for taxis to wait for passengers in a few designated parking spots.

North Bernard Street Improvements Improvements to the North Bernard streetscape are recommended in order to create a connection between the Intermodal Center and Spokane Convention Center. These improvements would include widening the sidewalks, changing street parking from diagonal to parallel, adding storefronts and planting street trees. This would create a pedestrian friendly corridor and would connect both facilities to the future light rail stop on Riverside Avenue.

Page 58  Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Spokane Transit: Downtown Transit Alternatives  Final Report SPOKANE TRANSIT AUTHORITY

Figure 32 Bernard – Existing Street Configuration

Figure 33 Bernard – Proposed Street Configuration

Page 59  Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Spokane Transit: Downtown Transit Alternatives  Final Report SPOKANE TRANSIT AUTHORITY

Estimated Costs Nelson\Nygaard and Community Design + Architecture were only tasked to develop an order of magnitude cost for the new Intermodal Center. Given that instruction, the team believes it will cost at least $4 million to relocate the central transfer activity from the Plaza to a new facility at the Intermodal Center. The $4 million should cover the cost of the islands, shelters, passenger amenities, customer service kiosk and paving. However, it will not cover the cost of grading, utility relocation or, perhaps most importantly, any environmental remediation. This is the former site of a Burlington Northern Railroad facility and thus is almost certain to have some level of hazardous material contamination. If one were to factor in the cost for cleanup and utilities, the real cost of building a new facility is likely to approach $6 million.

Conclusions and Recommendations Upon completion of the more detailed analysis of the Plaza and Intermodal Center options, Nelson\Nygaard presented the findings to STA staff and completed an evaluation matrix using the agreed upon criteria. The matrix is displayed in Figure 34. Figure 34 Comparison of Plaza and Intermodal Center Options

Impacts on Bus Operations

Impacts on Passengers and Ridership

Impacts on Downtown/Streets

Connectivity with HCT/LRT

Operational Capacity

Costs & Timeframe

The Plaza Improves operations, service reliability and utilization of existing facility. New scheme may result in minimal cost savings. Perfectly supports short term service plan Expected to have a positive impact on passenger experience and could increase ridership by 3-5% in first year. Proposed operating scheme improves traffic flow and reduces conflicts with pedestrians. Also reduces “wall of buses” effect at pulse. 700 fewer daily turning movements. Directly served by HCT/LRT. Good prelude to Transit Mall after 2020 Disconnecting High Frequency pulse means the Plaza will have sufficient capacity for another 1015 years. $2.2 million Completion Date – FY 2009/2010?

The Intermodal Center Bus operations can work at this site but it won’t be as efficient as the Plaza. Interlining and breaking the pulse will have minimal benefits. Not optimal for supporting short term service plan. Expected to have a neutral or negative impact on passenger experience. Moving from Plaza could increase transfers and result in 3-5% decrease in ridership during first year. Significant traffic changes needed on Sprague, Bernard & 1st. Plaza still used as a super-stop. There might be “too much” bus traffic through Sprague/Bernard (at least 500 turns/day.) No direct connections - Passengers will have to walk 700’ to reach HCT/LRT. Poor prelude to Transit Mall after 2020. This facility has enough bus bay capacity, even with existing scheme, to be useful for 15-20 years. Minimum of $4 million + environmental costs for utilities + possible shuttle. Completion Date – FY 201½ 012?

Based on this evaluation, and our concern about some of the unknown costs involved in a move to the Intermodal Center, Nelson\Nygaard recommends that STA keep its central transfer activities at the Plaza and that it spend the $2.2 million to transform this facility into one that will continue meeting the needs of STA’s passengers. Page 60  Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.