portland transportation hub link feasibility study final

Portland Transportation Hub Link Feasibility Study

FINAL REPORT

May 2016

PORTLAND TRANSPORTATION HUB LINK FEASIBILITY STUDY

FINAL REPORT

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc.

Table of Contents

Page

1 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. i Background and Purpose ........................................................................................................................... i Alignments ..................................................................................................................................................... i Evaluation and Recommendations ............................................................................................................ i

2 Background ......................................................................................................................... 1

3 Inventory of Hubs and Services .......................................................................................... 2 Portland International Jetport ................................................................................................................. 2 Portland Transportation Center .............................................................................................................. 3 Casco Bay Lines Ferry Terminal and Ocean Gateway Cruise Ship Terminal ............................... 3 METRO Pulse ............................................................................................................................................... 4

4 Potential Hub Link Alignments ........................................................................................... 6 Phase I: PTC/Thompson’s Point to Ferry Terminal ............................................................................... 6 Phase II: PTC/Thompson’s Point to Jetport .......................................................................................... 12

5 Public Involvement ........................................................................................................... 16 Key Themes ............................................................................................................................................... 16

6 Evaluation ........................................................................................................................ 17 Connectivity ............................................................................................................................................... 17 Mobility ...................................................................................................................................................... 22 Economic Development ........................................................................................................................... 29 Cost Effectiveness..................................................................................................................................... 35

7 Evaluation Summary ........................................................................................................ 37 Recommendations .................................................................................................................................... 39

8 Funding Considerations .................................................................................................... 45 The Market for hub Link Service ........................................................................................................... 46

9 Appendix .......................................................................................................................... 50 Public Outreach Summary ...................................................................................................................... 50 Public Involvement Events ....................................................................................................................... 51 Stakeholder Focus Group ....................................................................................................................... 51 Public Meeting .......................................................................................................................................... 51 What We Heard ..................................................................................................................................... 52 Overview of Comments .......................................................................................................................... 54 Stakeholder Focus Group ....................................................................................................................... 54 Public Meeting .......................................................................................................................................... 56 Intercept Survey Questions .................................................................................................................... 57


FINAL REPORT

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | i

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Portland is a multi-modal community, enjoying high quality regional bus, rail, ferry, and airline

services. However, Portland’s transportation hubs are mostly on the periphery of its urban core

and geographically dispersed. This geographic separation makes connections between modes

inconvenient and difficult. The aim of this study is to identify alternatives to conveniently link

Portland’s transportation hubs. The proposed “Hub Link” service would play a key role in

Portland’s effort to bolster transit use and foster car-free travel options for both visitors and

residents by connecting the Jetport, Portland Transportation Center (PTC), and the Casco Bay

Ferry Terminal / Ocean Gateway.

ALIGNMENTS

The Hub Link was analyzed in two sections: Phase I from the PTC to the ferry terminals, and

Phase II, from Jetport to PTC. The alternatives considered for Phase I are as follows:

I-A: PTC to Ferry Terminal via I-295

I-B: PTC to Ferry Terminal via Congress Street

I-C: PTC to Ferry Terminal via Commercial Street

I-D: PTC to Ferry Terminal via Congress and Commercial Street

I-E: PTC to Ferry Terminal via Park Avenue

For Phase II, the alignment was the same for each alternative (reflecting the limited travel options

between the Jetport and the PTC), but differed in the level of transit priority treatments

considered for the corridor. Alternative II-A assumed no transit priority improvements, while II-B

would have transit signal prioritization and queue jump lanes.

EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Four major objectives guided the evaluation process:

Connectivity: effectively linking Portland’s major transportation hubs and facilitating

multi-modal connections

Mobility: contributing to the overall mobility of the region by integrating well into the

existing and planned services

Economic Development: supporting access to key activity centers and development

sites

Cost Effectiveness: making the most of available funding sources


FINAL REPORT

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | ii

Based on of these objectives, Alternative I-B (PTC to Ferry Terminal via Congress

Street), which connects the PTC, Jetport, and ferry terminals, while also serving the METRO

Pulse transit center and Greyhound intercity bus terminal, performed best and was deemed the

recommended alternative for Phase I. For Phase II between Jetport and PTC, Alternative II-B,

which includes transit priority treatments, rates the highest. However, given the strong sentiment

expressed at public meetings to start small and demonstrate success first, Alternative II-A

(PTC/Thompson’s Point to Jetport with No Corridor Treatments) was recommended

above the more-difficult-to-implement Alternative II-B.


FINAL REPORT

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 1

2 BACKGROUND Portland, ME has established itself as one of the most “livable” communities in the United States.

This reputation has attracted new residents to the area, and spurred a vibrant and growing

tourism industry. Portland’s economic success, including its status as a tourist destination, is

supported by multiple transportation hubs that foster travel to, from, and within the region.

Portland is a multi-modal community. The city enjoys high quality regional bus, rail, ferry, and

airline services. However, for practical reasons, Portland’s transportation hubs are mostly located

on the periphery of its urban core, separated from key destinations in the city and from one

another. This geographic separation makes multi-modal connections complicated. For example,

seasonal visitors to the Portland region may arrive by plane, but have a final destination on one of

Portland’s many island communities located off-shore in Casco Bay. In this scenario,

arrangements would need to be made for transportation between Portland’s International

Jetport, west of downtown, and the Casco Bay Lines Ferry Terminal on the eastern edge of

downtown. Similarly, upcoast residents of Maine may find it easier to fly out of Boston than

Portland because intercity bus service is available directly to Logan Airport, while a taxi or

multiple bus connections are required to get from the Portland Transportation Center to the

Portland International Jetport.

The aim of this study is to identify several alternatives to conveniently link Portland’s

transportation hubs, and to provide analysis on the relative strengths of each alternative. The

proposed “Hub Link” service would play a key role in Portland’s efforts to bolster transit use and

foster car-free travel options for visitors and residents alike. Throughout, the study is informed by

input from stakeholders representing the respective hubs, and members of the public who

participated in various public meetings and intercept surveys.

Central to the development of a Hub Link service is the Thompson’s Point Transit Oriented

Development Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District. The District was established in 2011 to

support the new Thompson’s Point mixed-use development, located adjacent to the Portland

Transportation Center (PTC), and to improve and expand transit connections between

Thompson’s Point/PTC and the other transportation and commercial hubs in the region. In

pursuing the Hub Link Study, the goal is for the Hub Link service to be designed and ready to

begin operation in time to utilize TIF District funds from the first year of revenue capture.

However, given the inherent uncertainty of the pace of TIF revenue capture, Hub Link service

could be implemented in phases and funded in part, or in full, by other funding sources.


FINAL REPORT


3 INVENTORY OF HUBS AND SERVICES

As a first step toward assessing various options for linking Portland’s multiple transportation

hubs, the study team developed a comprehensive inventory of each hub, including the location of

the facility, the transportation services available at the hub, and the approximate volume of

passengers that flows through the hub daily. The following chapter focuses on the characteristics

of the Portland International Jetport, the Portland Transportation Center, the METRO Pulse, and

the Casco Bay Island Transit District (CBITD) Ferry Terminal.

PORTLAND INTERNATIONAL JETPORT

The Portland International Jetport is located in southwest Portland, approximately four miles

west of downtown (see Figure 1). The airport is served by five major airlines and offers direct

service to ten east coast and Midwest hubs.

Figure 1 Shortest Travel Distance between Jetport and Other Hubs

Hub Miles

Portland Transportation Center 2.5

METRO Pulse 3.9

CBITD Ferry Terminal 4.5

Air traffic into and out of Portland varies by time of year. Approximately 25 flights per day depart

the Jetport during the winter months, compared to 35 daily departures in the summer, with

similar arrival activity. In summer, the number of enplanements peaks in August, with close to

96,000 monthly boardings. During the winter months, enplanements drop to roughly 48,000 per

month in January and February.

The airport has short-term hourly parking, as well as a long term parking garage. Parking fees are

$2 per hour and $12 daily. Jetport staff is currently evaluating the possibility of raising the long-

term parking rate to $13 per day.

Numerous ground transportation options are also available at the Jetport, including courtesy

shuttles to area hotels and on-site car rental services. The average cost of a taxi ride between the

airport and downtown Portland (using the “METRO Pulse” downtown transit center as the

destination) is $20. Uber service from the airport to the same destination is approximately $15.

METRO Transit Route 5 provides service between the Jetport and METRO Pulse every 40-50

minutes on Weekdays and Saturdays, from approximately 6:00 AM to 10:00 PM. Sunday service


FINAL REPORT


to the Jetport will begin on Route 5 in August 2015. One-way fares are $1.50, with various

discounts available for qualified individuals, as well as multi-ride passes.

Besides being a transportation hub, the Jetport is a major economic hub for Portland, with nearly

1,000 badged employees, including over 100 TSA workers.

PORTLAND TRANSPORTATION CENTER

The Portland Transportation Center (PTC) is the city’s terminal for Amtrak’s Downeaster service

to Boston and Brunswick, as well as Concord Coach Lines intercity buses to northern Maine, New

Hampshire, and Massachusetts. The PTC is located approximately half-way between the Portland

Jetport and downtown Portland (see Figure 2).

Figure 2 Shortest Travel Distance between Portland Transportation Center and Other Hubs

Hub Miles

Portland International Jetport 2.5

METRO Pulse 2.0


Amtrak has five trains per day operating between Boston and Portland, with two trips per day

continuing to Brunswick. There are 171,400 annual rail boardings at this station, or more than

14,000 boardings per month on average. Alightings are comparable.

Concord Coach Lines serves Portland with between 22 and 29 trips per day, depending on the

season. Most trips travel between Portland and Boston South Station or Boston Logan

International Airport (with some trips serving both). Select trips also serve the Maine cities of

Augusta, Brunswick, Bangor, and Orono. In total, 500,000 annual coach boardings, or an average

of nearly 42,000 per month, occur at Portland Transportation Center.

Parking is available at the PTC for $4 per day. Taxi and Uber service is available at the PTC, and

trips downtown typically range between $7 and $10. Service from the PTC to downtown Portland

is also available via METRO Transit Route 1, which operates between the PTC and METRO Pulse

every 30 minutes on Weekdays and Saturdays, from approximately 5:00 AM to 9:00 PM and

hourly until 11:00 PM. On Sundays, Route 5 replaces Route 1, providing service every 30 to 50

minutes between 9:00 and 6:30 PM. One-way fares are $1.50, with various discounts available for

qualified individuals, as well as multi-ride passes.

CASCO BAY LINES FERRY TERMINAL AND OCEAN GATEWAY CRUISE SHIP TERMINAL

The Casco Bay Lines Ferry Terminal is located near Commercial Street and Franklin Street in

downtown Portland. Ferries depart frequently from the terminal to Portland’s island

communities, and are used by both residents and visitors. The ferry terminal is located less than

one mile from the METRO Pulse, and 4.5 miles from the Portland International Jetport (see

Figure 3).


FINAL REPORT


Figure 3 Shortest Travel Distance between Casco Bay Ferry Terminal and Other Hubs

Hub Miles



METRO Pulse 0.7

Casco Bay Lines offers service to Peaks, Little Diamond, Diamond Cove, Chebeague, Cliff, and

Long Island. While ridership fluctuates heavily depending on the season (up to 195,500 total

riders in August versus a low of 34,500 in February), the number of scheduled trips remains

relatively constant throughout the year. Peaks Island normally has 16 daily departures during the

summer season and 14 departures during winter, while the Down Bay islands are served six times

daily during summer months and four times daily in the winter.

The Ocean Gateway Cruise Ship Terminal is located two blocks away at Thames and Hancock

Street, and has three berths for cruise ships stopping in Portland. The cruise ship season begins in

mid-May and ends at the beginning of November. The peak number of departures occurs in

September, with 27 scheduled departures during the month. Larger cruise ships can carry up to

3,600 passengers with an additional 1,360 crew.

The Nova Star Cruise connects Portland to Yarmouth, Nova Scotia daily from June to October.

The ferry arrives at the Ocean Gateway Terminal at 6:30 PM and departs at 8:00 PM. Ridership

fluctuates between each month and has also varied year by year. This year, the Nova Star Cruise

carried 8,507, 13,319, and 15,974 passengers in June, July, and August respectively. This is

somewhat down from 2014, when ridership peaked at 20,500 in August.

Neither the Casco Bay Lines Ferry Terminal nor the Ocean Gateway Cruise Ship Terminal

provides any long-term parking. Several parking facilities are located within walking distance of

the cruise and ferry terminals, and most allow for long-term parking. However, these facilities

tend to fill up quickly in summer months.

The Casco Bay Lines Ferry Terminal is served by METRO Route 8, with service to the METRO

Pulse every 30 minutes on weekdays from 6:45 AM to 6:00 PM, and every 50 minutes on

Saturdays from 8:00 AM to 6:15 PM. Sunday service on Route 8 will begin in August 2015. One-

way fares are $1.50, with various discounts available for qualified individuals, as well as multi-

ride passes.

METRO PULSE

The METRO Pulse, located on Elm Street near Congress Street, is the main hub for local bus

service in Portland. Six of METRO’s eight bus routes serve the transit center (Route 1 and 8 have

stops about a block away). In addition to facilitating transfers between routes, METRO Pulse

offers an enclosed waiting space with restrooms and passenger information. The facility is

approximately two miles from the PTC and four miles from the Jetport (see Figure 4).


FINAL REPORT


Figure 4 Shortest Travel Distance between Metro Pulse and Other Hubs

Hub Miles




Nearly 900 METRO passengers per weekday board buses at the METRO Pulse. One-way fares on

all METRO routes are $1.50, with various discounts available for qualified individuals, as well as

multi-ride passes.


FINAL REPORT


4 POTENTIAL HUB LINK ALIGNMENTS Like most cities, Portland has a diversity of built environments reflecting the city’s history and

geography. South and east of I-295, the city has a grid system of streets with relatively short

blocks. Outside of I-295, the roadway network is more hierarchical, with smaller arterials feeding

into larger ones, and fewer options for cross-town travel. Thus, there are several viable routing

alternatives for service between the Casco Bay Lines Ferry Terminal and the Portland

Transportation Center, but only one realistic option for service between the PTC and Jetport.

The following chapter presents potential Hub Link alignments in two phases: Phase I focuses on

service between the ferry terminal and the PTC, and Phase II focuses on connecting the PTC to

the Jetport. The two phases could be implemented concurrently, or individually (and in no

particular order), but they are presented separately in this chapter due to the different operating

environments that each phase represents.

PHASE I: PTC/THOMPSON’S POINT TO FERRY TERMINAL

Alternative I-A: PTC/Thompson’s Point to Ferry Terminal via I-295

Alternative I-A would connect the Casco Bay Lines Ferry Terminal to the Portland Transportation

Center via Franklin Street and I-295 (see Figure 5).

Figure 5 Alternative I-A: Alignment


FINAL REPORT


The average operating speed for this alignment is estimated to be 20 mph (see Figure 6). This

relatively high speed reflects the fact that more than half of the route is on a freeway, and thus

would operate without stops.

Figure 6 Alternative I-A: Operating Statistics

Operating Statistics

Length 2.9 miles

Average Speed 20 mph

Roundtrip travel time 17 minutes

Given the route’s length and estimated operating speed, a round trip on this alignment would take

approximately 17 minutes. Thus, a single vehicle could provide service every 20 minutes with 3

minutes of “recovery” time. Recovery time is the time between the end of one trip and the start of

the next. This time is used both as a buffer to ensure that a bus that is running late on one trip

does not impact the on-time performance of the next trip, and as an opportunity for drivers to

take a brief rest. However, recovery time of less than five minutes can be risky, especially for a

route that may serve a significant number of tourists and visitors, as these riders tend to take

longer to board and alight transit vehicles, resulting in longer dwell times at each stop. Figure 7

shows the number of vehicles required to provide various service frequencies on this route, as well

as the resulting recovery times.

Figure 7 Alternative I-A: Operating Requirements

Frequency Bus Requirement Recovery Time

30 minutes 1 13 minutes




Alternative I-B: PTC/Thompson’s Point to Ferry Terminal via Congress Street

Alternative I-B would connect the Casco Bay Lines Ferry Terminal with the PTC via Congress

Street (see Figure 8). West of St. John Street, Congress Street is designated as one-way

(eastbound). Under this routing alternative, westbound buses would travel north on Weymouth

Street and west on Park Avenue to Fore River Parkway and the PTC. Alternative I-B would also

provide proximate service to the METRO Pulse, as well as the Greyhound terminal at Congress

and St. John Street.


FINAL REPORT


Figure 8 Alternative I-B: Alignment

The estimated average operating speed for this alternative is 12 mph (see Figure 9), which is the

typical operating speed of bus service in an urban environment. As a result, a single vehicle could

provide roundtrip service along this alignment every 30 minutes with 3 minutes for recovery,

while two vehicles could provide service every 20 minutes with 13 minutes of recovery (see Figure

10).

Figure 9 Alternative I-B: Operating Statistics


Length 2.7 miles



Figure 10 Alternative I-B: Operating Requirements







FINAL REPORT


Alternative I-C: PTC/Thompson’s Point to Ferry Terminal via Commercial Street

Alternative I-C would connect the PTC with the Casco Bay Lines Ferry Terminal via Commercial

Street (see Figure 11). As a result, neither the METRO Pulse nor the Greyhound terminal would be

served. Although Alternative I-C is slightly longer than Alternative I-B, average operating speeds

for the alignment would be faster during most times of the day (see Figure 12). Commercial Street

is generally wider than Congress Street, and has fewer intersections, fewer traffic lights, and less

development (at least west of the Casco Bay Bridge). It does, however, experience congestion

during peak periods when it serves as a primary gateway to downtown Portland for I-295

commuters from the south.

Figure 11 Alternative I-C: Alignment

A single vehicle could provide 30-minute service frequency along the alignment shown in

Alternative I-C with five minutes for recovery. Two vehicles could provide service every 15 or 20

minutes, with either five or 15 minutes of recovery time for each vehicle per trip, depending on

the scenario (see

Figure 13).

Figure 12 Alternative I-C: Operating Statistics


Length 3.2 miles




FINAL REPORT


Figure 13 Alternative I-C: Operating Requirements






Alternative I-D: PTC/Thompson’s Point to Ferry Terminal via

Congress and Commercial Street

Alternative I-D is a hybrid of Alternatives I-B and I-C, operating on Congress Street for most of

the alignment, but also serving the most densely developed section of Commercial Street between

Union Street and the Casco Bay Lines Ferry Terminal (see Figure 14). Under this scenario,

Temple/Union Street would bridge the Congress and Commercial Street corridors, allowing for

service to be provided to the ferry terminal, METRO Pulse, Greyhound terminal, and PTC.

Figure 14 Alternative I-D: Alignment

The length of this alignment, combined with an estimated average operating speed of 12 mph,

results in a 30-minute roundtrip travel time (see Figure 15). While 30-minute service frequency

could theoretically be provided with one vehicle, no time would be left over for recovery. Two

vehicles could provide service every 20 minutes, with ten minutes of recovery time for each

vehicle per trip (see Figure 16).


FINAL REPORT


Figure 15 Alternative I-D: Operating Statistics


Length 2.8 miles



Figure 16 Alternative I-D: Operating Requirements






Alternative I-E: PTC/Thompson’s Point to Ferry Terminal via Park Avenue

Alternative I-E would operate primarily on Park Avenue, Portland Street, Union Street, and

Commercial Street. There are some one-way pairs needed due to the current street patterns

(Preble Street/Elm Street and Congress Street/Park Avenue, west of St John Street). This

alternative would serve the Portland Exposition Building and Hadlock Field, Deering Oak Parks,

and the Portland Public Library, and METRO Pulse. Because the alignment avoids congestion on

most parts of Congress Street, its operating speed is slightly faster than the Congress Street

alignments.


FINAL REPORT


Figure 17 Alternative I-E: Alignment

The length of this alignment combined with an operating speed of 13 mph results in a 26 minute

roundtrip travel time (see Figure 18). This alternative would therefore support 15 minute

frequencies with two vehicles and still have four minutes of recovery time (see Figure 19).

Figure 18 Alternative I-E: Operating Statistics


Length 2.9 miles

Average Speed 13


Figure 19 Alternative I-E: Operating Requirements






PHASE II: PTC/THOMPSON’S POINT TO JETPORT

Phase II of the proposed Hub Link would connect the Portland Transportation Center to the

Portland International Jetport (see Figure 20). With the exception of a rather circuitous


FINAL REPORT


alignment using I-295, Western Avenue, and Johnson Road to access the airport from the south,

the only viable option for linking the PTC with the Jetport is via Congress Street and the Jetport

Access Road.

Figure 20 Phase II: Alignments

Alternative II-A: PTC/Thompson’s Point to Jetport with No Corridor Treatments

Alternative II-A envisions buses operating in mixed traffic along Congress Street and the Jetport

Access Road, just as METRO Route 5 does today. Assuming a 15 mph average operating speed,

which is typical in medium-density suburban environments, a round trip between the Jetport and

the PTC could be made in 24 minutes (see Figure 21).

Figure 21 Alternative II-A: Operating Statistics


Length 3 miles



A single vehicle could provide 30-minute service frequency along the alignment shown in

Alternative II-A with six minutes for recovery. Two vehicles could provide service every 15 or 20

minutes, with either six or 16 minutes of recovery time for each vehicle per trip (see Figure 22).


FINAL REPORT


Figure 22 Alternative II-A: Operating Requirements






Alternative II-B: PTC/Thompson’s Point to Jetport with Transit

Priority Treatments

While there are few good alternatives to Congress Street for linking the PTC and Jetport, the

Congress Street corridor could itself be modified to improve the performance of transit service

along the alignment. Transit priority treatments for the corridor could include dedicated lanes,

queue jump lanes, and/or transit priority signals that extend green times or shorten red times in

response to an approaching transit vehicle (see Figure 23). These treatments could increase

average operating speeds by up to 2 mph (see Figure 24).

Figure 23 Rendering of Bus Lane on Congress Street

Transit priority treatments have a cumulative effect. The longer the corridor and the more

signalized intersections there are to “treat,” the greater the impacts of the priority treatments, in

terms of average operating speed and resulting time savings. The PTC-to-Jetport corridor is only

three miles long, so the estimated 2 mph improvement in operating speed will serve to increase

the recovery time for each trip, but is not enough to reduce the number of vehicles required to

maintain a given service frequency (compared to Alternative II-A).


FINAL REPORT


Figure 24 Alternative II-B: Operating Statistics


Length 3 miles



Figure 25 Alternative II-B: Operating Requirements







FINAL REPORT


5 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Following the initial inventory of hubs and services, the study team met with key stakeholders and

members of the public to identify key goals and objectives for the Hub Link service. Based on this

input, the study team developed evaluation criteria that reflect the community’s priorities and

translated them into a series of metrics by which to evaluate each service alternative. This

evaluation process allowed the team to determine which alternative best meets the needs and

values of the community.

KEY THEMES

Several common themes emerged from the stakeholder and public feedback:

Connectivity should be a priority of any new service. Respondents

predominantly agreed that connectivity between major hubs should be a priority of the

potential service, preferring more direct service between hubs over serving as many

places as possible.

Service should be convenient and easy to use. Above all, any Hub Link service

needs to provide connections that are reliable and convenient, and must be easy to use

and understand. This is particularly important for visitors, as well as Portland residents

who are not regular transit users.

Demonstrate success first. Respondents urged that the service should maximize

chances of success by starting small and making sure that service performs well first. If

the service is successful, then it can expand by phasing in additional service (increased

frequency, longer span of service, etc.) over time based on demonstrated demand.

Branding should play a major role. Branding can make service easy to recognize

and legible to riders and non-riders alike. Service branding and materials should clearly

convey that the service is easy to use and will take visitors where they need to go.

Additionally, the stakeholder and public meetings were used to validate key objectives developed

by the study team for the Hub Link service. These objectives are outlined in the following chapter.

A full summary of public outreach comments can be found in the Appendix of this report.


FINAL REPORT


6 EVALUATION All of the alternative alignments described in the Chapter 4 are technically feasible. To gauge the

relative benefits and disadvantages of each option, it is necessary to evaluate the alternatives

against specific objectives. For example, if the objective of the Hub Link service is to stimulate

economic development in Portland to the greatest extent possible, an alignment that offers the

fastest travel time between hubs, but few opportunities to access other downtown destinations,

may be viewed less favorably than a slower alignment that gives riders the opportunity to access

major employers and tourist destinations in downtown Portland.

The study team identified four key objectives for the Hub Link service, reflecting goals outlined in

the city’s long range transportation planning efforts. These objectives, which were developed with

input from project stakeholders and members of the public in a series of public and stakeholder

meetings, are listed and described below:

Connectivity: Effectively linking Portland’s major transportation hubs to facilitate

multimodal connections

Mobility: Contributing to the overall mobility of the region by complementing existing

and planned transit services

Economic Development: Supporting access to key activity centers and development

districts

Cost Effectiveness: Making the most of available funding sources

Alternatives were rated on measurable for each objective, producing a final rating for each

objective by which each alternative could be evaluated relative to the others. By assigning a score

of 1-4, where a “Poor” rating is awarded 1 point and a “Best” rating is awarded 4 points, the

various alignment alternatives can be ranked on how well they meet each metric. The sum of all

three metrics produces a final score for each objective. Note that not every rating will be applied

under every metric.

CONNECTIVITY

There are several ways to measure connectivity. For the purpose of this analysis, the study team

focused on three metrics: travel time, transfers, and frequency/span of service. Each alternative

(along with a “no build” option) was ranked for each metric.

Travel Time

The alignment that offers the fastest travel time between the Portland Transportation Center and

the Casco Bay Lines Ferry Terminal is Alternative I-A (PTC to Ferry Terminal via I-295) (see

Figure 26). Travel time is a function of both route length and average operating speed, and the


FINAL REPORT


primary advantage of Alternative I-A is that it operates along a freeway, ensuring the highest

average operating speed.

Figure 26 Travel Time Comparison – Phase I

ALTERNATIVE ONE-WAY TRAVEL TIME

(MINUTES) RATING

No Build (Existing METRO Service) 30 – 60* POOR

I-A (PTC to Ferry Terminal via I-295) 9 BEST

I-B (PTC to Ferry Terminal via Congress Street) 14 GOOD

I-C (PTC to Ferry Terminal via Commercial Street) 13 GOOD

I-D (PTC to Ferry Terminal via Congress and Commercial Street) 15 FAIR

I-E (PTC to Ferry Terminal via Park Avenue) 13 GOOD

* Travel times vary by direction due to differences in wait times for transfers between METRO Routes 1 and 8

Between the PTC and Jetport, Alternative II-B offers slightly faster travel times as a result of the

priority treatments envisioned for the scenario (see Figure 27).

Figure 27 Travel Time Comparison – Phase II

ALTERNATIVE ONE-WAY TRAVEL TIME

(MINUTES) RATING

No Build (Existing METRO Service) 25* POOR

II-A (PTC to Jetport with no Corridor Treatments) 12 BEST

II-B (PTC to Jetport with Transit Priority Treatments) 11 BEST

* Includes walk time between PTC and METRO bus stop at Congress Street and Whitney Avenue

Transfers

Requiring transit users to transfer from one vehicle to another in order to reach their final

destination tends to reduce the appeal of transit as an option, and has a negative impact on

ridership potential since the added step is perceived as an inconvenience by riders. When

estimating ridership, this is known as a “transfer penalty.” In Phase I, three of the alternative

alignments connect the Casco Bay Lines Ferry Terminal, METRO Pulse, Greyhound terminal, and

Portland Transportation Center, while two other alignments link the PTC and ferry terminal but

require transfers to METRO routes (or long walks) to reach the METRO Pulse or Greyhound

terminal (see Figure 28). As a result of this transfer penalty, these alternatives offer less direct

and convenient service than those that do not require transfers.


FINAL REPORT


Figure 28 Transfer Comparison – Phase I

ALTERNATIVE TRANSFERS NEEDED TO REACH ALL HUBS RATING

No Build (Existing METRO Service) 1 FAIR

I-A (PTC to Ferry Terminal via I-295) 1 FAIR

I-B (PTC to Ferry Terminal via Congress Street) 0 BEST

I-C (PTC to Ferry Terminal via Commercial Street) 1 FAIR

I-D (PTC to Ferry Terminal via Congress and Commercial Street) 0 BEST

I-E (PTC to Ferry Terminal via Park Avenue) 0 BEST

No transfers would be necessary for travel between the Portland Transportation Center and the

Jetport under either proposed alternative. Currently, there is no direct service between the PTC

and Jetport, although bus service to the Jetport is available at a 0.3 mile walk from the PTC.

Figure 29 Transfer Comparison – Phase II

ALTERNATIVE TRANSFERS NEEDED TO REACH ALL HUBS RATING

No Build (Existing METRO Service) 0* GOOD



* Requires walk to METRO bus stop at Congress Street and Whitney Avenue to avoid transfer between Route 1 and Route 5

Span of Service and Frequency

The demand for transit service to each of Portland’s transportation hubs is directly related to the

arrival and departure schedules of the various modes serving each terminal. Figure 30 below

shows that Portland is truly a 24-hour city when it comes to regional and national transportation.

Passengers travel into and out of Portland from 5:00 AM until midnight, and to serve these

passengers, work shifts must begin several hours earlier and end well after midnight.

Figure 30 Ferry, Plane, Train, and Bus Departures (Peak Season, Friday)


FINAL REPORT


Service frequency and service span are primarily limited by service performance standards and

available funding. Service performance standards are usually set by an oversight body such as a

transit board or city council, and define acceptable levels of ridership and productivity. If

ridership fails to meet the set standards, service hours and/or frequency can be adjusted.

Funding is another key consideration, as service frequency is controlled by the number of vehicles

in concurrent operation. The more vehicles in service, the higher the operating cost. Similarly, the

number of hours that each bus is in operation impacts the total operating cost of the service.

Since the Hub Link service is envisioned as a premium transit service, as compared to existing

local transit service provided by METRO, it can be assumed that both frequency and span of

service will be more robust than the current METRO service. Beyond that, the only way to

differentiate the various alignment alternatives is to consider the frequency of service that can be

provided under each alternative with an equal level of resources. Figure 31 and Figure 32 show

the service frequency that can be provided with two vehicles assuming a minimum of 5 minutes

recovery for every trip.

Figure 31 Span of Service and Frequency – Phase I

ALTERNATIVE PEAK

FREQUENCY RATING

No Build (Existing METRO Routes 1 and 5) 30* POOR

I-A (PTC to Ferry Terminal via I-295) 15 BEST

I-B (PTC to Ferry Terminal via Congress Street) 20 GOOD

I-C (PTC to Ferry Terminal via Commercial Street) 15 BEST

I-D (PTC to Ferry Terminal via Congress and Commercial Street) 20 GOOD

I-E (PTC to Ferry Terminal via Park Avenue) 20 GOOD

*Routes 1 and 8 both offer 30-minute service frequency for most of their service day, but do not provide seamless connections


FINAL REPORT


Figure 32 Span of Service and Frequency – Phase II

ALTERNATIVE PEAK

FREQUENCY RATING

No Build (Existing METRO Route 5 Service) 30-45 POOR



Connectivity Summary

By assigning a score of 1-4, where a “Poor” rating is awarded 1 point and a “Best” rating is awarded 4 points, the various alignment alternatives can be ranked on their relative connectivity. Figure 33 shows that three alternatives have the same cumulative score for connectivity, but with different ratings for the various assessments of connectivity. For example, Alternative I-A (PTC to Ferry Terminal via I-295) ranks “Best” in terms of travel time and service frequency, but only “Fair” in terms of the number of transfers required to reach all hubs. Alternatives I-B (PTC to Ferry Terminal via Congress Street) and I-E (PTC to Ferry Terminal via Park Avenue) require the least number of transfers to reach each hub, but rank less favorably than Alternative I-A in terms of travel time and service frequency.

Figure 33 Connectivity Rating – Phase I

ALTERNATIVE Travel Time Transfers

Service Span /

Frequency Score

No Build (Existing METRO Service) POOR FAIR POOR 4

I-A (PTC to Ferry Terminal via I-295) BEST FAIR BEST 10

I-B (PTC to Ferry Terminal via Congress Street) GOOD BEST GOOD 10

I-C (PTC to Ferry Terminal via Commercial Street) GOOD FAIR BEST 9

I-D (PTC to Ferry Terminal via Congress and Commercial Street)

FAIR BEST GOOD 9

I-E (PTC to Ferry Terminal via Park Avenue) GOOD BEST GOOD 10

For Phase II, both build alternatives would represent decreases in travel time, more direct service

between hubs, and increases in span of service and frequency. Thus, both build alternatives are

rated as best.


FINAL REPORT


Figure 34 Connectivity Rating – Phase II

ALTERNATIVE Travel Time Transfers

Service Span /

Frequency Score

No Build (Existing METRO Service) POOR GOOD POOR 5

II-A (PTC to Jetport with no Corridor Treatments) BEST BEST BEST 12

II-B (PTC to Jetport with Transit Priority Treatments) BEST BEST BEST 12

MOBILITY

The objective of mobility refers to the ability of each alternative alignment to contribute to the

overall quality and mode share of transit in the Portland region. This objective goes beyond

connectivity between the City’s transportation hubs, and considers the following additional

metrics: ridership potential, integration with the existing METRO network, and whether the

alignment complements future transit investments. More information on the topics of ridership

potential and integration with the existing network is also presented in Chapter 6: The Market for

Hub Link Service.

Ridership Potential

More than any other non-service related factor, transit use is driven by density. In most

communities, population and employment densities are strong indicators of ridership potential.

Downtown Portland is a high-density environment, with many blocks having densities of more

than 60 residents or employment positions per acre. As a point of reference, the recommended

minimum density for fixed-route transit service is approximately five residents or jobs per acre.

Figure 35 shows the transit potential of downtown Portland as a function of density.

Alternatives with the greatest interaction with the surrounding environment tend to generate the

highest ridership. Thus, Alternative I-A (PTC to Ferry via I-295), which would operate “closed

door” for a significant portion of its alignment, would offer relatively few boarding and alighting

opportunities as it traveled between the ferry terminal and PTC, and would thus perform poorly

in terms of overall ridership potential. Similarly, Alternative I-C (PTC to Ferry Terminal via

Commercial Street) would have lower ridership potential than the two alternatives operating

along Congress Street because Commercial Street is bordered by Portland Harbor on one side (see

Figure 36). Alternative I-E (PTC to Ferry Terminal via Park Avenue) operates adjacent to Deering

Oaks Park, an area with no population and little employment.


FINAL REPORT


Figure 35 Transit Potential Index Based on Population and Employment Density

Figure 36 Ridership Potential Ratings – Phase I

ALTERNATIVE RANKING

No Build (Existing METRO Service) FAIR*

I-A (PTC to Ferry Terminal via I-295) POOR

I-B (PTC to Ferry Terminal via Congress Street) BEST

I-C (PTC to Ferry Terminal via Commercial Street) FAIR

I-D (PTC to Ferry Terminal via Congress and Commercial Street) BEST

I-E (PTC to Ferry Terminal via Park Avenue) FAIR

*Reflects transfer penalty

All Phase II alternatives would follow the same alignment from the PTC to the Jetport, so

qualitatively differentiating the routes based solely on density is difficult. However, ridership

tends to increase in proportion to the level of corridor treatments applied to a transit route.

Corridors with dedicated bus lanes and enhanced passenger amenities generate greater interest

and awareness from prospective riders. In addition, corridor treatments can help stimulate

transit-oriented development as business owners and other developers recognize the long-term


FINAL REPORT


commitment that these investments represent on the part of the transit operator and other public

entities. Together, these factors translate into higher ridership potential.

Figure 37 Ridership Potential Ratings – Phase II

ALTERNATIVE RANKING

No Build (Existing METRO Service) FAIR

II-A (PTC to Jetport with no Corridor Treatments) FAIR

II-B (PTC to Jetport with Transit Priority Treatments) BEST

Integration with Existing Network

An analysis of recent METRO ridership shows high boarding activity in central Portland along

Congress Street, St. John Street, and Park Avenue (see Figure 38). While these ridership patterns

are certainly a function of the existing network, they also serve to highlight proven transit

corridors in the sense that other downtown corridors with METRO service have lower passenger

volumes.

Figure 38 METRO Transit Ridership (2013 Boarding and Alighting Study)

Serving existing ridership patterns is a key measure of the mobility impact of each alternative

alignment, as is proximity to other routes to facilitate transfers. The proposed Hub Link should be

well integrated with the existing transit network to ensure that local riders can benefit from the


FINAL REPORT


enhanced transit service that the Hub Link would provide along its alignment. From this

perspective, service along Congress Street and Park Avenue preferable to service along

Commercial Street, where there is very little existing ridership and far fewer transfer

opportunities.

As noted previously, a route that includes service along I-295 would provide minimum

opportunities for mid-route access, including transfers to other routes. Thus, Alternative I-A (PTC

to Ferry Terminal via I-295) ranks most poorly in terms of integration with the existing transit

network (see Figure 39).

Figure 39 Integration with Existing Network Ratings – Phase I

ALTERNATIVE RATING

No Build (Existing METRO Service) BEST




I-D (PTC to Ferry Terminal via Congress and Commercial Street) GOOD

I-E (PTC to Ferry Terminal via Park Avenue) BEST

For Phase II, all of the alternatives would follow an identical alignment, and would thus provide

nearly identical benefits in terms of mobility. The one differentiating factor is that the current

METRO Route 5, which most closely mimics the proposed Phase II Hub Link alignment, does not

directly serve the PTC. This ranks it slightly lower than the Hub Link alternative alignments in

terms of seamlessly integrating key areas of existing ridership activity (see Figure 40).

Figure 40 Integration with Existing Network Ratings – Phase II

ALTERNATIVE RATING

No Build (Existing METRO Service) GOOD

II-A (PTC to Jetport with no Corridor Treatments) BEST


Ability to Complement Future Transit Investments

A high quality transit service connecting Portland’s key transportation hubs can be the

predecessor for future larger capital investments such as full-scale Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) or

streetcar service. Alignment decisions made in the near term can help ensure the success of future

transit investments. For example, if a streetcar service is envisioned for a particular corridor, Hub

Link service in the same corridor can begin to cultivate the ridership and development patterns

that will eventually support the rail service. On the other hand, Hub Link service in a corridor that

cannot support future rail or BRT service may result in a more disruptive transition for

passengers who have become reliant on the Hub Link service.

Future streetcar or BRT service along I-295 is extremely unlikely for all the accessibility reasons

mentioned previously. Thus, Alternative I-A (PTC to Ferry Terminal via I-295) scores poorly


FINAL REPORT


compared to other alternatives on its ability to complement future transit investments (see Figure

43). The remaining alternatives are ranked based on the relative likelihood of their alignments to

accommodate BRT or streetcar service in the future. This is a speculative exercise, but certain

conclusions can be drawn based on the right-of-way dimensions and adjacent land use

characteristics.

With more than 60 residents and/or jobs per acre, much of Congress Street has the density and

trip generators to support future streetcar or BRT service, as seen in Figure 35. However,

Congress Street has a relatively narrow cross-section through much of downtown (see Figure 41).

Consequently, transit vehicles and automobiles would often share the same lane and have limited

passing opportunities. Stopped transit vehicles would delay traffic, and traffic congestion would

delay transit vehicles (reducing the reliability and appeal of the service).

Figure 41 Visualization of Streetcar on Congress Streets

Commercial Street is generally wider than Congress Street in downtown Portland, and thus allows

for the possibility of dedicated transit lanes, whether for rail or bus service. Even without

dedicated lanes, the width of Commercial Street through downtown would allow automobiles to

maneuver around transit vehicles at stops. Outside the central business district, Commercial

Street narrows to one lane per direction from approximately the Casco Bay Bridge to Cassidy

Point Drive. However, even where Commercial Street narrows, there are shoulders on both sides

of the roadway and sufficient easement for future roadway widening if necessary.


FINAL REPORT


Figure 42 Visualization of Streetcar on Commercial Streets

Commercial Street does tend to experience periods of heavy congestions, as it is a key gateway

into the central business district for commuters, but this can be addressed in several ways, both in

the long term and short term. In the short term, Hub Link vehicles could be permitted to operate

on shoulders under certain traffic conditions. In the longer term, a dedicated transit lane could be

added in each direction, and/or a park-and-ride facility could be built near the end of the

Veterans Memorial Bridge to intercept some downtown traffic and encourage commuter use of

the Hub Link or future BRT or streetcar service.

Finally, Alternative I-E (PTC to Casco Bay Ferry Terminal via Park Avenue) rates as only fair. The

alignment on Park Avenue is likely wide enough to accommodate future investments in high

capacity transit. However, the one way pairs on Elm Street and Preble Street are narrow and

would likely require a larger re-arrangement of streets to accommodate streetcar or BRT service.

Overall, Commercial Street appears to be a more promising corridor for future rapid transit

investment. This is reflected in the rankings shown in Figure 43.

Figure 43 Ability to Complement Future Transit Investments Ratings – Phase I

ALTERNATIVE RATING



I-B (PTC to Ferry Terminal via Congress Street) GOOD

I-C (PTC to Ferry Terminal via Commercial Street) BEST



For Phase II, each alternative alignment is almost evenly matched in terms of complementing

future transit investment. A Hub Link scenario that includes some corridor treatments in the near


FINAL REPORT


term would help build greater interest in and awareness of the transit service between the Jetport

and the PTC, resulting in more support for future BRT or streetcar service in the corridor. Thus

Alternative II-B (PTC to Jetport with Transit Priority Treatments) is rated best among the Phase

II alternatives.

Figure 44 Ability to Complement Future Transit Investments Ratings – Phase II

ALTERNATIVE RATING


II-A (PTC to Jetport with no Corridor Treatments) GOOD


Mobility Summary

Figure 45 is a summary of all metrics under the objective of Mobility. As with Connectivity, a

score of 1-4 is assigned for each metric, where 1 corresponds to a “Poor” rating and 4 corresponds

to “Best.” Alternative I-B (PTC to Ferry Terminal via Congress Street) scores highest on the

composite assessment of ridership potential, integration with the existing METRO network, and

whether the alignment complements future transit investments.

Figure 45 Mobility Ratings – Phase I

ALTERNATIVE Ridership Potential

Existing Network

Integration

Future Transit

Investment SCORE

No Build (Existing METRO Service) FAIR BEST GOOD 9

I-A (PTC to Ferry Terminal via I-295) POOR POOR POOR 3

I-B (PTC to Ferry Terminal via Congress Street) BEST BEST GOOD 11

I-C (PTC to Ferry Terminal via Commercial Street) FAIR FAIR BEST 8


BEST GOOD GOOD 10

I-E (PTC to Ferry Terminal via Park Avenue) FAIR BEST FAIR 8

For Phase II, Alternative II-B (PTC to Jetport with Transit Priority Treatments) represents the

greatest mobility benefit based on the metrics considered (see Figure 46).

Figure 46 Mobility Ratings – Phase II

ALTERNATIVE Ridership Potential

Existing Network

Integration

Future Transit

Investment SCORE

No Build (Existing METRO Service) FAIR GOOD GOOD 8

II-A (PTC to Jetport with no Corridor Treatments) FAIR BEST GOOD 9



FINAL REPORT


ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

While transit service is often seen as a mobility tool, it is also an important economic engine in

the communities it serves. By facilitating access to job and services, transit connects workers with

industry, patients with healthcare providers, students with educational institutions, and

customers with retailers. There are countless ways to measure economic development, but for the

purpose of this study, three metrics were considered: key destinations served, proximity to

development districts, and the potential to stimulate new development.

Key Destinations Served

In most communities, a handful of destination types generate the bulk of transit trips. These

include schools (especially highs schools, colleges, and universities), medical facilities, and major

retail centers (particularly with grocery stores). Access to these destinations is critical to a healthy

economy. Secondary and higher education provides job skills and job training, while pre-schools

and primary schools offer child care that gives parents the opportunity to pursue careers.

Other common points of interest for transit riders are libraries, government and social service

providers, and occasionally cultural destinations such as museums and concert halls (this tends to

be truer in strong tourist markets). For some members of the community, libraries and social

service providers are resource centers for reviewing job postings and receiving other assistance

that may eventually lead to employment.

In the case of the proposed Hub Link, hotels must also be added to the list of key destinations that

may generate significant ridership, because convenient connections from each of the hubs to

hotels can support and even stimulate car-free tourism, or simply encourage visitors to forgo

renting a car if that is their typical mode of travel while visiting Portland for business or other

purposes. Large hotels are also significant employers, which reinforces the importance of transit

access.

Figures 48 and 49 show each of the alignment alternatives in relation to key destinations in

Portland. Many of these destinations are located on or in close proximity to Congress Street.

Thus, Alternatives I-B (PTC to Ferry via Congress Street) and I-D (PTC to Ferry via Congress and

Commercial Streets) score best on the metric of key destinations served (see Figure 47).

Alternative I-C (PTC to Ferry via Commercial Street) serves fewer destinations overall, but does

serve a large cluster of hotels near Commercial Street, between Union and Franklin Street.

Alternative I-E (PTC to Ferry Terminal via Park Avenue) serves the Portland Exposition Building,

Ice Arena, and Hadlock Field as well as some destinations near Metro Pulse. However most of its

alignment on Park Avenue and Portland Street does not serve major activity centers. Alternative

I-A (PTC to Ferry Terminal via I-295) serves far fewer destinations than the other alternatives,

and the no-build alternative presents a high likelihood that riders will have to transfer at least

once to reach their intended destination. Consequently, both of these alternatives rank worse than

the other options in terms of destinations served.


FINAL REPORT


Figure 47 Key Destinations Served Ratings – Phase I

ALTERNATIVE RATING




I-C (PTC to Ferry Terminal via Commercial Street) GOOD


I-E (PTC to Ferry Terminal via Park Avenue) GOOD

Figure 48 Key Destinations

For Phase II, all of the alternatives serve the same key destinations except for the PTC. The No-

Build alternative does not provide a direct connection between the Jetport and the PTC, so it is

ranked lower compared to the other two alternatives (see Figure 50).


FINAL REPORT


Figure 49 Hotels in the Portland Area

Figure 50 Key Destinations Served Ratings – Phase II

ALTERNATIVE RATING




Proximity to Development Districts

The City of Portland has several pedestrian-oriented growth areas. These include the Waterfront,

Thompson’s Point, and Downtown/Arts District/Bayside. These districts are envisioned as

vibrant and diverse, both in their mix of economic generators and in their mix of transportation

options. Providing high quality transit service to these areas is central to that vision. Figure 51

shows that Alternatives I-B (PTC to Ferry Terminal via Congress Street), I-D (PTC to Ferry

Terminal via Congress and Commercial Street), and I-E (PTC to Ferry Terminal via Park Avenue)


FINAL REPORT


provide the greatest opportunities to access all three development districts. This is reflected in the

scoring in Figure 52.

Figure 51 Target Development Districts in Portland

Figure 52 Proximity to Development Districts Ratings – Phase I

ALTERNATIVE RATING


I-A (PTC to Ferry Terminal via I-295) FAIR




I-E (PTC to Ferry Terminal via Park Avenue) BEST

Alternatives II-A (PTC to Jetport with no Corridor Treatments) and II-B (PTC to Jetport with

Transit Priority Treatments) would both link the Jetport directly to the PTC and the Thompson’s

Point pedestrian-oriented growth area. The current METRO Route 5 serves the Jetport, but does


FINAL REPORT


not directly serve the Thompson’s Point district with its current alignment. Thus it scores lower

than the other two alternatives (see Figure 53).

Figure 53 Proximity to Development Districts Ratings – Phase II

ALTERNATIVE RATING




Potential to Stimulate Development

It has already been established that Congress Street is a high-density and destination-rich

environment. Commercial Street, on the other hand, still has quite a bit of redevelopment

potential, particularly west of Union Street where there are several large parking lots and other

low-density land-uses. For this reason, Alternative I-C (PTC to Ferry Terminal via Commercial

Street) is more likely to stimulate new development than other alternatives that serve either

corridors that are already densely developed or corridors that do not allow for interaction with the

adjacent environment (see Figure 54). It is assumed the no-build scenario will have no more

impact on development trends than it does currently.

Figure 54 Potential to Stimulate Development Ratings – Phase I

ALTERNATIVE RATING

No Build (Existing METRO Service) POOR


I-B (PTC to Ferry Terminal via Congress Street) FAIR

I-C (PTC to Ferry Terminal via Commercial Street) BEST



As discussed previously, corridor treatments can help stimulate transit oriented development as

business owners and other developers recognize the long-term commitment that these

investments represent on the part of the transit operator and other public entities. For this

reason, Alternative II-B (PTC to Jetport with Transit Priority Treatments) scored best among the

Phase II alternatives for potential to stimulate economic development.


FINAL REPORT


Figure 55 Potential to Stimulate Development Ratings – Phase II

ALTERNATIVE RATING

No Build (Existing METRO Service) POOR

II-A (PTC to Jetport with no Corridor Treatments) GOOD


Economic Development Summary

Figure 56 presents a summary of all metrics under the objective of Economic Development. As

with the previous objectives, a score of 1-4 is assigned for each metric, where 1 corresponds to a

“Poor” rating and 4 corresponds to “Best.” Alternative I-D (PTC to Ferry Terminal via Congress

and Commercial Street) scores highest on the composite assessment of proximity to key

destinations, proximity to development districts, and potential to stimulate development, and

thus ranks highest in meeting the objective of Economic Development.

Figure 56 Economic Development Ratings – Phase I

ALTERNATIVE

Proximity to Key

Destinations

Proximity to Development

Districts

Potential to Stimulate

Development SCORE

No Build (Existing METRO Service) FAIR FAIR POOR 5

I-A (PTC to Ferry Terminal via I-295) POOR FAIR POOR 4

I-B (PTC to Ferry Terminal via Congress Street) BEST BEST FAIR 10

I-C (PTC to Ferry Terminal via Commercial Street) GOOD FAIR BEST 9


BEST BEST GOOD 11

I-E (PTC to Ferry Terminal via Park Avenue) GOOD BEST FAIR 9

For Phase II, both build alternatives present the opportunity to support economic development,

although Alternative II-B (PTC to Jetport with Transit Priority Treatments) offers the most

potential to stimulate development. Thus, Alternative II-B is ranked higher than Alternative II-A.

Figure 57 Economic Development Ratings – Phase I

ALTERNATIVE

Proximity to Key

Destinations

Proximity to Development

Districts

Potential to Stimulate

Development SCORE

No Build (Existing METRO Service) GOOD GOOD POOR 7

II-A (PTC to Jetport with no Corridor Treatments) BEST BEST GOOD 11



FINAL REPORT


COST EFFECTIVENESS

The proposed Hub Link service is envisioned to be funded in part by tax revenue generated

through the Thompson’s Point Transit Tax Increment Finance (TIF) district. The mechanism of a

TIF district is that as the property value of an area increases with redevelopment, a portion of the

resulting additional property tax revenue is set aside to fund specific projects such as

infrastructure or transportation. The exact amount of the Thompson’s Point TIF revenue is not

known, nor is it certain how quickly it will materialize, meaning that the Hub Link service may

require other funding sources if near-term implementation is a priority. Further discussion of

funding can be found in a subsequent section of this document. Regardless of how the service is

funded, cost effectiveness will be an important consideration, as it is with all public services.

The costs associated with providing transit service fall into two primary categories: Capital cost

and operating cost. For the most part, both of these cost categories are a function of the service

characteristics associated with transit operation. For example, to operate a transit service more

frequently, more vehicles must be added to the service. The purchase of these additional vehicles

is a capital cost, but if there are four vehicles operating concurrently where there were previously

two, then the operating cost of the service will double as well.

In the Span of Service and Frequency analysis presented earlier in this document, the various

alignment alternatives were ranked based on the service frequency that could be provided on each

alignment with just two buses. To evaluate cost effectiveness, service frequency will be treated as

fixed variable in order to analyze three metrics of cost effectiveness: operating cost, capital cost,

and recovery time.

Operating Cost / Capital Cost / Recovery Time

The current operating cost for METRO service is approximately $65 per revenue hour. This

means that one bus operating for two hours costs $130, the same as two buses operating for one

hour each. The hourly operating cost for the proposed Hub Link is not currently known, as it has

not been determined whether the service will be operated by METRO, a private contractor, or

some other entity. As a proxy, each alignment alternative can be compared based on revenue

hours, which are directly proportional to operating cost.

As described in the example above, revenue hours are a function of the number of vehicles in

service and the number of hours that each vehicle operates. For the purpose of this analysis, Hub

Link service is assumed to operate at a 15-minute service frequency and for 16 hours per day.

Based on the overview of each alignment alternative presented in Chapter 3, each of the Phase I

alternatives would require two vehicles to provide 15-minute service frequency. With two vehicles

operating for 16 hours per day, each alternative would result in 32 revenue hours per day. So,

based on operating cost (revenue hours) and capital cost (vehicles requires) alone, all of the Phase

I “build” alternatives are equal. The one measure of cost effectiveness that sets the alternatives

apart is recovery time, which can be used as a proxy to gauge how efficiently vehicles are being

used. Cost effectiveness can also be measured in terms of cost per passenger. However, that

measure is not used here, as ridership potential is already included as a separate metric, discussed

in the Mobility section above.

As mentioned in Chapter 3, recovery time is the time between the end of one trip and the start of

the next. Recovery time of less than five minutes can risk on-time performance, while recovery

time of more than 10% of the total cycle time for a route (cycle time = travel time + recovery time)

can mean that a bus is sitting unproductively for excess periods of time. By this measure,


FINAL REPORT


Alternative I-C (PTC to Ferry Terminal via Commercial Street) scores best in terms of cost

effectiveness because it allows for the most optimal use of resources (see Figure 58).

Figure 58 Operation Statistics by Alternative – Phase I

ALTERNATIVE Revenue

Hours Rating Vehicles Required Rating

Recovery Time Rating Score

No Build (Existing METRO Service)

Increase Route 1 to 15 Minute Service


64:00*

64:00* POOR

4.0*

4.0* POOR

0:00*

0:00* POOR 3

I-A (PTC to Ferry Terminal via I-295)

32:00 BEST 2.0 BEST 0:13 FAIR 10

I-B (PTC to Ferry Terminal via Congress Street)

32:00 BEST 2.0 BEST 0:03 POOR 9

I-C (PTC to Ferry Terminal via Commercial Street)

32:00 BEST 2.0 BEST 0:05 BEST 12


32:00 BEST 2.0 BEST 0:00 POOR 9

I-E (PTC to Ferry Terminal via Park Avenue)

32:00 BEST 2.0 BEST 0:03 POOR 9

* Value reflects estimate for providing 15-minute service frequency for 16 hours per day along existing METRO route, with no additional route changes

As with Phase I, the only factor that differentiates the “build” alternatives is recovery time.

Alternative II-A (PTC to Jetport with no Corridor Treatments) scores slightly better than the

Alternative with treatments as it has less excess recovery time (see Figure 59).

Figure 59 Operation Statistics by Alternative – Phase II

ALTERNATIVE Revenue

Hours Rating Peak

Vehicles Rating Recovery

Time Rating Score



80:00* POOR 5.0 POOR 0:00 POOR 3

II-A (PTC to Jetport with no Corridor Treatments)

32:00 BEST 2.0 BEST 0:06 BEST 12

II-B (PTC to Jetport with Transit Priority Treatments)

32:00 BEST 2.0 BEST 0:09 GOOD 11

* Value reflects estimate for providing 15-minute service frequency for 16 hours per day along existing METRO route, with no additional route changes


FINAL REPORT


7 EVALUATION SUMMARY As stated previously, all of the alternative alignments identified in this study are technically

feasible. What sets them apart is how well they perform on specific objectives that the Hub Link

service should achieve. Alternative alignments were measured against four objectives –

Connectivity, Mobility, Economic Development, and Cost Effectiveness – based on the

recommendations of the study team and feedback from community stakeholders and members of

the public. Each alternative was rated on three metrics for each objective, resulting in a total score

for each alternative on all four objectives.

Figure 60 Overall Ratings of Alternatives

ALTERNATIVE Connectivity Mobility Economic

Development Cost

Effectiveness Total Score

PHASE I


4 9 5 3 21


10 3 4 10 27


10 11 10 9 40


9 8 9 12 38


9 10 11 9 39


10 8 9 9 36

PHASE II


5 8 7 3 23


12 9 11 12 44


12 12 12 11 47


FINAL REPORT


When all objectives are considered for Phase I, Alternative I-B (PTC to Ferry Terminal via

Congress Street) ranks highest among all four alternatives and the No Build alternative (see

Figure 60). Alternatives I-D (PTC to Ferry Terminal via Congress and Commercial Street), I-C

(PTC to Ferry Terminal via Commercial Street), I-E (PTC to Ferry Terminal via Park Avenue)

rank just behind I-B based on the sum of their ratings under all four objectives.

The “No Build” alternative ranks as the lowest among all the Phase I alternative alignments, and

Alternative I-A (PTC to Ferry Terminal via I-295) scores well behind the top performing

alternatives.

Among the Phase II alternatives, Alternative II-B (PTC to Jetport with Transit Priority

Treatments) performs highest, with the highest scores on three of the four objectives. Alternative

II-A (PTC to Jetport with no Corridor Treatments) also performs very well. The “No Build”

alternative least meets each of the four established objectives, and so receives a score of less than

half that of the two other alternatives.

While the alternative alignments for the Hub Link service may be evaluated based on the four

objectives cumulatively, it is important to remember that all objectives may not be equal. For

example, if enhancing mobility is deemed a higher priority objective for the Hub Link service than

supporting economic development, than the alternative alignments may be evaluated based solely

on their performance on the Mobility metrics; alternatively, each objective may be weighted, with

heavier weighting on the objectives that are more highly valued by the community.

Figure 61 shows that different alternatives perform best on different objectives. In terms of

Connectivity, Alternatives I-A (PTC to Ferry Terminal via I-295), I-B (PTC to Ferry Terminal via

Congress Street), and I-E (PTC to Ferry Terminal via Park Avenue) perform best among the Phase

I alternatives, while Alternative I-B also performs best on Mobility. Alternative I-C (PTC to Ferry

Terminal via Commercial Street) ranks highest on Cost Effectiveness, and Alternative I-D (PTC to

Ferry Terminal via Congress and Commercial Street) performs best on Economic Development.

In Phase II, both Alternatives II-A (PTC to Jetport with no Corridor Treatments) and II-B (PTC to

Jetport with Transit Priority Treatments) perform well on Connectivity. Alternative II-A ranks

highest on Mobility and Economic Development, while Alternative II-A performs best on Cost

Effectiveness.


FINAL REPORT


Figure 61 Top-Rated Alternatives by Objective

ALTERNATIVE Connectivity Mobility Economic

Development Cost

Effectiveness

PHASE I







PHASE II




RECOMMENDATIONS

Two important themes, which emerged from the public involvement process, help determine the

preferred alternatives for potential Hub Link service:




places as possible.





Given these sentiments, Alternative I-B (PTC to Ferry Terminal via Congress Street) is

the recommended Phase I alignment. This alternative scores highest when all objectives are

considered, but also does best on the Connectivity objective, which emerged as the highest

priority from the public involvement process.

Among the Phase II alternative, Alternative II-A (PTC to Jetport with no Corridor

Treatments) is most consistent with the theme of demonstrating success first. Although

Alternative II-A scored lower than Alternative II-B in cumulative scoring, the only difference


FINAL REPORT


between the two alternative is the level of capital investment. Thus, Alternative II-A can be

considered the first step toward the eventual implementation of Alternative II-B, after success has

been demonstrated.

During the public involvement process, a suggestion emerged to consider a service alternative

that includes more than one of the alignments. In other words, a Hub Link service operating as a

loop between the PTC and the Casco Bay Ferry Terminal using both Commerce Street and

Commercial Street (as an example, although some other combination of corridors could also be

considered). This suggestion was not pursued by the study team because it would either introduce

a transfer at the PTC for passengers wishing to travel to the Jetport, or result in double the

amount of service frequency along Congress Street between the PTC and Jetport as along the two

legs of the loop between the PTC and ferry terminal. Neither of these results is desirable as a

forced transfer would reduce the appeal of the service, and higher service frequency between the

PTC and Jetport is not justified.

STOP SPACING

As a general rule, arterial-running rapid transit services like streetcars or Bus Rapid Transit have

stop spacing of approximately every ¾ mile. The actual distance between stops can be more or

less, based on the built environment and location of key destinations. Based on current land-use,

recommended Hub Link stop locations include the following:

Portland International Jetport

Shaw’s / Tim Horton’s Shopping Center

PTC / Thompson’s Point

Greyhound / Maine Medical Center

Congress, between State and High Street

METRO Pulse

Congress and Franklin Street

Casco Bay / Ocean Gateway Terminals

PHASING

Throughout this study, Hub Link service between the PTC and Jetport and the PTC and ferry

terminals has been presented as two separate phases. In August 2015, the study team conducted

in-person intercept surveys at the Jetport, PTC, and ferry terminals in order to gauge the level of

interest and ridership potential for Hub Link service among the current users of each hub. From

the intercept surveys, it emerged that the strongest market for Hub Link service appears to be

between the Jetport and PTC, followed by the Jetport and ferry terminals.

Creating a direct link between the Jetport and PTC could be achieved with a relatively minor

modification of the existing METRO Route 5 alignment. With improved service frequency and

marketing, Route 5 could attract a larger share of trips between the Jetport and PTC than it

currently does. Thus, the introduction of a new Hub Link service to link the Jetport and PTC only

is likely not justified, given that another simpler option exists. However, the intercept surveys


FINAL REPORT


show the importance of the Jetport to the over-all ridership potential of the Hub Link service, so

the concurrent implementation of Phase I and Phase II is recommended.

Schedules and Operating Cost

The combined length of the Alternative I-B and II-A alignments is 11.4 miles. With an estimated

average operating speed of 13 mph (based on previous assumptions of 12 mph average speed for

Alternative I-B and 15 mph average speed for Alternative II-A), one round-trip can be completed

in 52 minutes, leaving seven minutes for recovery time between trips. Four vehicles operating

concurrently could provide 15-minute service frequency along the entire route from the ferry

terminals to the Jetport, while 20-minute service frequency could be provided with three vehicles

(Figure 62).

With a combination of 15-minute peak (weekdays from 6am to 9pm) and 20-minute off-peak

(weekends all day, and weekdays before 6am and after 9pm) service frequency, the estimated

annual operating cost for the Hub Link service is $1.5 million (Figure 62).

Figure 62 Operating Characteristics and Estimated Cost (Service Periods Approach)

Service Day Peak

Frequency Peak # of Vehicles

Off-Peak Frequency

Off-Peak # of

Vehicles

Daily In-Service

Hours

Annual In-Service

Hours

Total Annual Cost*

Weekday 0:15 4 0:20 3 69 17,250 $1,121,250

Saturday 0:20 3 0:20 3 54 2,808 $182,520

Sunday 0:20 3 0:20 3 54 2,808 $182,520

Holidays 0:20 3 0:20 3 54 324 $21,060

Total 23,190 $1,507,350

* Assumes cost of service is $65 per hour.

An alternative approach, which could reduce costs, is to run only alternating trips to the Jetport;

in other words, all trips would begin at the ferry terminals, but trips would alternate between

service to the PTC only, and service to the Jetport via the PTC. As every other trip would “short-

turn” at the PTC, service would be twice as frequent between the ferry terminals and the PTC as it

would be between the ferry terminals and the Jetport. With three vehicles operating concurrently,

the Jetport could be served every 30 minutes, while service between the PTC and the ferry

terminals would be available every 15 minutes (on average). This approach would reduce the

estimated annual operating cost to approximately $1.26 million (see Figure 63), but would also

reduce service frequency to the Jetport to once every 30 minutes. However, given existing

METRO ridership patterns and the overall higher density of development along Congress Street

east of the PTC, higher service frequency between the PTC and ferry terminals (and lower

frequency between the PTC and Jetport) would be justified in a phased approach that aims to

demonstrate success first.


FINAL REPORT


Figure 63 Operating Characteristics and Cost (Service Segments Approach)

Service Day Peak

Frequency* Peak # of Vehicles

Off-Peak Frequency*

Off-Peak # of

Vehicles

Daily In-Service

Hours

Annual In-Service

Hours

Total Annual Cost**

Weekday 0:15 3 0:15 3 54 13,500 $877,500

Saturday 0:15 3 0:15 3 54 2,808 $182,520

Sunday 0:15 3 0:15 3 54 2,808 $182,520

Holidays 0:15 3 0:15 3 54 324 $21,060

Total 19,440 $1,263,600

* 15-minute frequency is along the segment between the Ferry Terminal and the PTC. Due to short-turn at the PTC every other trip, service past the PTC to the Jetport would operate every 30 minutes.

** Assumes cost of service is $65 per hour.

Branding and Capital Costs

For many prospective transit users, a lack of familiarity with the service can be a major barrier to

access. This is true for both local residents and out-of-town visitors. Branding can play an

important role in increasing awareness of a service and conveying key service characteristics

related to the quality of the service and markets served. Branding can be applied to vehicles, to a

corridor, or to both. One approach that has become popular and affective with services that

attract a significant number of tourists is to integrate a system map into the vehicle livery (see

Figure 64).

Figure 64 Circulator Bus (Washington, DC)

However, for small transit systems, overly-specialized vehicle designs can create operational and

maintenance challenges. For example, a specially branded vehicle cannot be easily interchanged


FINAL REPORT


with a “regular” bus without risking the integrity of the brand. In addition, specially branded

vehicles may include unique design characteristics such as luggage racks, or utilize alternative fuel

sources such as battery power, that make it impossible to interchange vehicles or parts for

maintenance purposes. Thus, if a transit system operates specially branded service, it may need to

maintain two parallel fleets, including spares, in order to provide a consistent and reliable level of

service on the branded route.

An alternative approach to service branding is to focus on the corridor rather than the vehicles.

Branding a corridor can include distinct bus stop signs, enhanced bus shelters (see Figure 65),

and the application of technologies to improve service performance and the user experience (next

bus arrival information at shelters, signal prioritization at intersections, etc.).

Figure 65 METRO Enhanced Bus Shelter (Cincinnati, OH)

The capital costs of the Hub Link service depend on both branding (what type of vehicle to use)

and service scenario (how many vehicles will be needed in peak service). All combinations of

service scenario and vehicle type are presented in Figure 66.

Figure 66 Capital Cost Scenarios

Scenario Peak

Frequency

Peak # of Vehicles Needed

Standard Transit Bus Specialized Vehicle

Unit Cost* Total Cost Unit Cost* Total Cost

Service Periods 0:15 4 $275,000 $1,100,000 $600,000 $2,400,000

Service Segments 0:20 3 $275,000 $825,000 $600,000 $1,800,000

* Based on vehicle cost estimates provided by Portland METRO


FINAL REPORT


As with service schedules, a phased approach can be taken to capital investments in order to

prove success before committing to higher levels of capital investment. Initially, branding can be

applied to the corridor only, and can begin with relatively inexpensive items like bus stops,

shelters, and real-time arrival information. Additional corridor treatments like signal

prioritization technology can be applied in the future if warranted. As ridership increases,

specialized vehicles can be considered to complement the corridor investments. A case study of a

service with many similarities to the proposed Hub Link service is provided below.

Case Study: Logan Express Back Bay Shuttle

Boston, MA

The Massachusetts Port Authority (Massport) launched the Logan Express Back Bay shuttle in 2014 as a two-year pilot program. Unlike Massport’s other Logan Express routes, which primarily serve Boston’s suburban communities, the Back Bay shuttle serves urban areas in the city of Boston that lack direct transit access to Logan Airport.

The Back Bay shuttle stops at each terminal at Logan Airport, and then travels non-stop to the Back Bay neighborhood in downtown Boston, where the bus makes two stops and passengers can connect to bus, subway, light rail, commuter rail, and Amtrak. Back Bay shuttle buses run every 20 minutes all day, with the first trip departing Back Bay at 5:00 a.m. and the last trip departing Logan Airport at 10:00 p.m. Shuttle fare is $5.00, but passengers with a MBTA fare card can show their pass to the driver and ride fare-free.

At Logan Airport, there are clearly marked zones for ground transportation at each terminal, with signage that directs travelers to public transportation options. Signage inside the terminals also advertises the transit options available. Shuttle buses are branded to indicate that they are Logan Express Back Bay shuttle service.

All buses are low-floor 42-foot Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) vehicles, and are equipped with wide aisles and luggage racks to accommodate passengers travelling with large items. The buses were purchased as part of a larger order of airport shuttle bus vehicles under the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) Voluntary Airport Low Emission (VALE) program designed to reduce airport ground emissions.


FINAL REPORT


8 FUNDING CONSIDERATIONS Most transit systems in the United States get a significant portion of their funding from federal

grants, with the remainder of funds coming from passenger fares, advertising revenues and

contributions from other level of government (city, county, state, special districts, etc.).

A central purpose of creating the Thompson’s Point Transit Oriented Development TIF district

was to support improved and expanded transit service between Portland’s transportation hubs.

However, TIF revenue can be difficult to predict as it is determined by the pace of development

(or redevelopment) in the designated TIF district and the market valuation of the resulting real

estate projects. If revenue from the Thompson’s Point TIF district is slower to materialize than

anticipated, other funding sources can also be considered to supplement TIF revenue and support

the capital and operating costs of the Hub Link service. While the list below is not exhaustive, it

provides a sample of funding sources that could be considered.

Private Sponsorship/Partnership (for operating costs). Partnering with major

employers, hotels, and visitor sites could offset some of operating costs. Major hotels in

the Portland already provide complimentary shuttles to the Jetport and other local

destinations. Hotels may therefore be interested in funding the Hub Link so long as it

serves their guests with equal or greater convenience than their own shuttles at present.

The Congress Street alignment, which serves the most hotels and local destinations, may

have the highest potential in attracting funding from such businesses. An in-state

example of a sponsored shuttle services is the Acadia Explorer funded by L.L. Bean. Given

the number of tourism-related businesses in downtown Portland, sponsorship may be a

viable funding option for the Hub Link service.

Farebox Revenue (for operating costs). Intercept surveys conducted at Portland’s

transportation hubs in August 2015 suggested that 96% of those willing to use a potential

Hub Link service would pay a $3 fare. Thus, a premium fare could be considered for the

Hub Link service. To mitigate the financial impact of a premium fare on local users, a

discounted multi-ride pass could also be considered.

FTA Small Starts (for capital costs) Chapter 49 U.S.C. 5309 authorized the Federal

Transit Administration to create the Small Starts program for fixed-guideway (and bus

corridor) projects requesting Section 5309 Bus and Bus-Related Facilities funding of up

to $75 million, with a total project cost of less than $250 million. According to FTA’s

Small Starts final policy guidance for New and Small Starts Evaluation & Rating Process

(August 2013), FTA’s decision to recommend a project for funding is driven by a number

of factors, including the “readiness” of a project for capital funding, geographic equity, the

amount of funds versus the number and size of the projects in the Section 5309 funding

pipeline, and the project’s overall Small Starts rating. Small Starts grants can cover up to

80% of the total project costs or a maximum of $75 million.


FINAL REPORT


TIGER Grants (for capital costs). Transportation Investment Generating Economic

Recovery (TIGER) is a discretionary US DOT grant program that allows it to invest in

road, rail, transit and port projects. For fiscal year 2015, $500 was enacted to become

available for investment. The notice of funding availability was issued in early March

2015, and projects will be awarded on a competitive basis as in previous TIGER grant

rounds. A key criterion is project readiness (shovel ready).

TIFIA Loan Program (for capital costs). The Transportation Infrastructure Finance

and Innovation Act (TIFIA) program provides federal credit assistance to national and

regionally-significant surface transportation projects, including transit and rail. The

program is designed to fill market gaps and leverage substantial private match (or co-

development) by providing supplemental debt financing. The amount of a TIFIA loan

cannot exceed 33% of the total capital cost of a project. The loans are backed by Federal

revenues. Some capital components of the Hub Link may be backed by such funding

program.

CMAQ (for capital costs). Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds are

used to support transportation projects in areas that are non-attainment areas of the

Clean Air Act. Projects with CMAQ funding must contribute to the attainment of the

national ambient air quality standards by reducing pollutant emissions from

transportation sources.

STP (for capital costs). Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds can be used for a

wide variety of transportation projects. These funds are also flexible funds that can be

transferred to FTA for award under Chapter 53 of Title 49.

FTA Urbanized Area Formula Grant (for capital costs). The Urbanized Area

Formula Funding program (49 U.S.C. 5307) makes Federal resources available to

urbanized areas and to Governors for transit capital and operating assistance in

urbanized areas and for transportation related planning. For urbanized areas with a

population less than 200,000, operating assistance funds are also available.

THE MARKET FOR HUB LINK SERVICE

Most federal grants are awarded through a competitive process that requires applicants to

quantify the benefits of the proposed project to be funded. Similarly, both sponsorships and

advertising partners are typically interested in the impact of their support on the local market.

Thus it is important to quantify the potential market for the recommended Hub Link service.

To establish a quantifiable ridership estimate for the recommended Hub Link service, the study

team followed a multi-step process:

Step 1: Baseline Ridership. The recommended Hub Link alignment is currently

served by several existing METRO routes. A METRO boarding and alighting study

conducted in 2013 provides an approximate average daily ridership for each route. A

2014 METRO passenger survey provides additional information on the origins and

destinations of riders on each route. By combining these two datasets, the study team was

able to determine the percentage of daily riders on each route whose trips both begin and

end within the recommended Hub Link corridor. This figure is considered the ridership

baseline for the Hub Link corridor.


FINAL REPORT


Step 2: New Riders. The inventory of Hubs conducted at the start of this project

identified the volume of passenger traffic that uses each hub on a monthly basis. Using

the month of August as a dataset, the approximate average daily passenger volume was

calculated for each hub. The study team then conducted in-person intercept surveys at

each hub to determine the percentage of passengers (and employees) at each hub whose

trips could reasonably be accommodated by the Hub Link service (i.e. passengers

transferring from the PTC to a ferry terminal) and who would be willing to consider a

transit solution for this sort of transfer. The questions included in the intercept survey are

included in the Appendix of this report.

Step 3: Total Ridership. The total ridership estimate for the recommended Hub Link

service is the cumulative total of the baseline ridership for the corridor and the estimated

new riders who likely use the Hub Link service.

For this analysis, it is assumed that Phases I and II of the Hub Link service will be implemented

concurrently, allowing for the consideration of trips to and from the Jetport, PTC, and ferry

terminals.

The following tables demonstrate both the process and findings of the Hub Link ridership

estimation process. Alternative I-B overlaps with four existing METRO routes: Route 1, Route 3,

Route 5, and Route 8. The total ridership on these routes, based on METRO’s boarding and

alighting study, is presented in Figure 67.

Figure 67 Existing Daily Ridership (2013 METRO Boarding and Alighting Study)

ALTERNATIVE Existing Route 1

Existing Route 3

Existing Route 5

Existing Route 8

I-B (PTC to Ferry Terminal via Congress Street) 902 525 1080 547

The study team then identified the percent of riders on each route that currently make trips

beginning at ending within the Hub Link corridor (Figure 68). Applying this percentage to each

route’s existing ridership provides an estimated baseline ridership for the Hub Link service

(Figure 69), assuming that riders that currently travel between hubs would use the new service to

make more direct connections.

Figure 68 Trips that both Begin and End within the Hub Link Corridor (2014 METRO Passenger Survey)


Existing Route 3

Existing Route 5

Existing Route 8

I-B (PTC to Ferry Terminal via Congress Street) 67% 8% 46% 53%

Figure 69 Estimated Baseline Ridership


Existing Route 3

Existing Route 5

Existing Route 8 Total

I-B (PTC to Ferry Terminal via Congress Street) 601 42 492 292 1,427

The study team also estimated potential new Hub Link riders. Based on the results of the

intercept survey, the percentage of passengers who were making a “hub link” trip and would be


FINAL REPORT


willing to use transit was calculated for each hub (see Figure 70). By applying these percentages to

the approximate daily passenger volumes at each hub, potential new Hub Link ridership was

estimated for each hub (Figure 71). The total estimated ridership for the new Hub Link service,

including both estimated baseline ridership and potential new Hub Link riders, is presented in

Figure 72.

Figure 70 Level of Interest in Hub Link Service

Survey Location % of Surveyed Making a “Hub

Link” % Making a Hub Link and

Willing to Use Transit

Airport 51.3% 46.2%

PTC 11.1% 6.7%

Ferry Terminal / Ocean Gateway 11.9% 7.7%

Figure 71 Potential New Hub Link Riders

Hub Existing Monthly

Passengers (August) Existing Approximate

Daily Passengers Estimated Potential

Hub Link Users

Airport 96,000 3,097 1,429 (46.2%)

PTC 56,000 1,806 120 (6.7%)

Ferry Terminal / Ocean Gateway 211,500 6,823 525 (7.7%)

Figure 72 Total Estimated Daily Ridership on Recommended Hub Link Corridor (August)

ALTERNATIVE Baseline Riders

New Riders

Total Riders

I-B (PTC to Ferry Terminal via Congress Street) 1,427 2,313 3,502

The intercept survey conducted by the study team provided important insight into the level of

interest in a Hub Link service, and allowed for an initial estimate of potential ridership. However,

the sample size of the survey was quite small, and the estimated share of Jetport passengers who

would potentially use the Hub Link (46.2%) is quite high, especially compared to the other hubs

(6.7% at the PTC and 7.7% at the Ferry Terminal/Ocean Gateway). Therefore, the study team

reviewed the mode share for transit at other airports in the U.S. to determine a more realistic

ridership estimate for Jetport passengers.

The study team examined the transit mode share for the 27 U.S. airports with the most public

transport users.1 The top and bottom ranked airports were removed to mitigate the impact of

outliers, and the average mode share for the remaining 25 airports was calculated (11.4%) and

applied to the Jetport’s approximate daily passengers to provide an alternative estimate of

potential Hub Link ridership at the Jetport (Figure 73). This estimate is lower than the figure

1 Airport Cooperative Research Program. “ACRP Report 4: Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation.” Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board, 2008. (http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/acrp/acrp_rpt_004.pdf)

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/acrp/acrp_rpt_004.pdf


FINAL REPORT


based on the intercept survey results, and may be more realistic given the transit mode share

experience of these other airports.

This revised Jetport ridership estimate leads to an updated estimate for total Hub Link ridership,

as shown in Figure 74.

Figure 73 Revised Potential New Hub Link Riders

Hub Existing Monthly

Passengers (August) Existing Approximate

Daily Passengers Estimated Potential

Hub Link Users

Airport 96,000 3,097 353 (11.4%)

PTC 56,000 1,806 120 (6.7%)

Ferry Terminal / Ocean Gateway 211,500 6,823 525 (7.7%)

Figure 74 Revised Total Estimated Daily Ridership on Recommended Hub Link Corridor (August)

ALTERNATIVE Baseline Riders

New Riders

Total Riders

I-B (PTC to Ferry Terminal via Congress Street) 1,427 998 2,425


FINAL REPORT


9 APPENDIX

This appendix includes a summary of comments received in both the public and stakeholder

meetings for this project. In addition, the questions to the intercept survey administered in

August 2015 are included.

The following data sets will be provided in electronic format due to formatting and size:

Metro boarding and alighting data (2013)

Onboard Metro survey results (2014)

Raw and processed intercept data (2015)

PUBLIC OUTREACH SUMMARY

Goals for Public Involvement

The first round of public involvement focused on sharing the ideas for a “Hub Link” transit

service with members of the community, and soliciting feedback about what the priorities and

goals for such a service should be. At two events (a stakeholder focus group and a public meeting),

community members were asked to identify what features would be most important to them for a

Hub Link service, and what the goals and objectives should be for such a service. Based on this

input, the study team will develop evaluation criteria that reflect the community’s priorities and

translate them into a series of metrics by which to evaluate each service alternative. This

evaluation process will allow the team to determine which alternatives best meet the needs and

values of the community.

Key Themes

Several common themes emerged from the public feedback:




places as possible.

Service should be convenient and easy to use. Above all, any Hub Link service

needs to provide connections that are reliable and convenient, and must be easy to use

and understand. This is particularly important for visitors, as well as Portland residents

who are not regular transit users.


FINAL REPORT






Branding should play a major role. Branding can make service easy to recognize

and legible to riders and non-riders alike. Service branding and materials should clearly

convey that the service is easy to use and will take visitors where they need to go.

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT EVENTS

The project team held two events to engage members of the community. A stakeholder focus

group was held with key stakeholders for the project, including representatives of the major

transportation providers in Portland. A public meeting was also held at Portland City Hall, where

members of the public were invited to learn more about the project and share their priorities for

the proposed Hub Link service.

STAKEHOLDER FOCUS GROUP

A focus group of local stakeholders was held on Thursday, May 7. The focus group included

stakeholders representing the six following organizations:

Greater Portland METRO

Portland International Jetport

Concord Coach Lines

Amtrak

Casco Bay Lines

Thompson’s Point

The focus group began with a brief presentation by the project team to introduce the study

purpose and provide an overview of the alignment alternatives, the goals of the project, and

performance measures. Following the presentation, stakeholders participated in a facilitated

conversation where they discussed their priorities and preferences for a Hub Link service,

including the potential route alignment, service characteristics, and the role of branding.

PUBLIC MEETING

The project team also held a public meeting on the evening of Thursday, May 7, at Portland City

Hall. A total of 17 members of the public attended the meeting, as well as two reporters. Of all

meeting attendees, five identified themselves as Portland residents, and two stated that they lived

downtown.

The meeting consisted of a presentation to attendees, although attendees were able to ask

questions and discuss the project during the course of the presentation. Project staff posed

questions to attendees throughout the presentation, and attendees had the opportunity to interact

with staff during and after the presentation.


FINAL REPORT


WHAT WE HEARD

Several common themes emerged from the discussions and feedback at the public involvement

events. Based on the discussions held at each event and input received by the project team, the

following themes were identified as priority issues for any proposed Hub Link service. More

detailed notes from each meeting are provided in the subsequent section.

Key Challenges

Car-free travel options for tourists are a major need in Portland. Tourism plays

a significant role in the Portland economy. Especially during the peak season, traffic

congestion and difficulty in finding vehicle parking pose challenges for visitors and residents

alike. One stakeholder shared that their organization had conducted a focus group outside of

Portland, and that participants identified their uncertainty about how to get around in

Portland as their greatest barrier to visiting the city without a personal vehicle. Respondents

largely concurred that meeting the needs of tourists and other visitors should be a key role of

the potential service. This car-free access is also important for Portland residents that need to

connect to major hubs to complete intercity, interstate, or international trips.

Portland’s tourism economy is seasonal. Tourism in Portland largely ebbs and flows

over the course of the year, with the peak occurring in the summer months, especially August.

While Portland is a major travel hub throughout the year, traffic through the major

transportation centers can double in August from what it is during the winter months as a

result of seasonal tourism. This seasonality poses a challenge to designing an effective service,

since demand may be very high for half the year and require a large amount of service, while

demand may be significantly lower in the winter and support a much lower level of service.

Service Priorities



potential service, rather than spreading service over multiple corridors to maximize coverage.

Respondents expressed a desire for direct, convenient multimodal connections between hubs,

and stated that this is especially crucial for visitors or those making connections in Portland.

Demonstrate success first. Service needs to be effective to demonstrate success.

Respondents suggested that the earlier Portland Explorer service did not last because it “tried

to be everything to everyone,” rather than taking a more focused approach and trying to

achieve effectiveness. Based on that, respondents urged that the service should maximize

chances of success by starting small and making sure that service performs well first. If the

service is successful, then it can expand by phasing in additional service (increased frequency,

longer span of service, etc.) over time based on demonstrated demand.

Service should be convenient and easy to use. Service needs to provide

connections that are reliable and convenient. This is particularly important for visitors, as

well as Portland residents who are not regular transit users. Service needs to be easy for

visitors to understand and use, and should be recognizable as providing connections to major


FINAL REPORT


travel hubs. Simple and intuitive service design should make the service easy to use, as well as

make it attractive to those who do not already use transit.

Commercial Street and Congress Street both offer advantages. Respondents

expressed interest in both the Commercial Street and Congress Street alignments,

acknowledging that each street presents different advantages and meet different goals.

Respondents identified Commercial Street as suitable for serving primarily tourists, given the

proximity to the waterfront and the presence of several hotels and other businesses catering

to visitors. Congress Street, on the other hand, runs through the heart of downtown Portland,

and also provides connections to the METRO Pulse.

Frequency is an important part of service success. Among stakeholders and

community members alike, respondents indicated that high service frequency would be one

of the most important features of a potential Hub Link service. Increased frequency and

longer span of service each have advantages and drawbacks, but respondents largely agreed

that high service frequency would be a more important feature for the proposed route.

Additional Priorities

Branding should play a strong role in making service recognizable and legible. Branding and information materials should clearly convey that the service is easy to

use and will take visitors where they need to go. Respondents noted that non-riders should be

able to understand where to wait, how to board, and where the vehicle will take them. Stops

and/or stations should be clearly marked and uniquely branded to make them easy to find.

Simple, clear service design will also play a key role in the branding and legibility of the

service.

Specialized vehicles should be considered to accommodate tourists’ needs. Respondents noted that many tourists and other visitors frequently have luggage or other

large items, which can be difficult to bring on standard transit vehicles. Specialized vehicles

can be configured to meet the needs of visitors with luggage racks, low-floor boarding, wider

aisles, and fewer seats to accommodate luggage, strollers, and other large items.

Decisions about fare may affect the attractiveness of service. Some respondents

suggested that the service be fare-free, indicating that a fare may pose an additional barrier to

visitors considering the service. Other respondents suggested that, beyond charging the

current METRO fare, a higher fare could be charged since the service would offer a premium

transit experience, featuring limited stops, frequent service, and other key elements.


FINAL REPORT


OVERVIEW OF COMMENTS

This section provides an overview of the comments and questions about the study from both the

stakeholder focus group and the public meeting. The comments below present a more detailed

account of the discussions that occurred at each event, with the most common and significant

themes summarized in the previous section. Comments are not attributed to individual

participants.

STAKEHOLDER FOCUS GROUP

Thursday, May 7, 2015

12-2PM

METRO Offices

Attendees: 14

Greg Jordan, Greater Portland METRO

Hank Berg, Casco Bay Lines

Dana Knapp, Concord Coach Lines

Harry Blunt, Concord Coach Lines

Patricia Quinn, Amtrak

Zach Sundquist, Portland Jetport

Chris Thompson, Thompson’s Point

Carl Eppich, PACTS

Steve Linnell, Greater Portland COG

Bruce Hyman, City of Portland

Christine Grimando, City of Portland

Jeff Levine, City of Portland

William Needelman, City of Portland

Alex Jaegerman, City of Portland

Service Priorities

Cost effectiveness is critical. The downfall of the Portland Explorer was that it provided

an unsustainable level of service relative to the amount of funding, and so the service

burned through the CMAQ funds quickly. Based on that experience, this service should be

phased in, assessing the needs over time and acting accordingly. What is the service that

has the highest probability of success? Need to prioritize service characteristics

(frequency versus span).

Lots of demand for connection between the PTC and downtown/ferry. Ferry passengers

are generally travelling without a car, so that is a logical connection. Ferry connections to

train are important.

Could potentially do a trial service during the summer peak. Transportation hubs and

service providers could advertise to riders.

Seasonal variation in service would make it more difficult to coordinate with METRO

year-round service. There is some demand to connect from PTC to the Jetport, especially

from students. Students could support service during the rest of the year given academic

breaks. The connections would need to be really good, and the vehicles should anticipate

lots of luggage.

Current services

METRO will launch Sunday service on all routes beginning in August.


FINAL REPORT


Concord Coach provides 22 bus trips daily, and more in the summer. Carries

500,000 passengers annually

Casco Bay Lines does not have parking, but there is a municipal garage. Garage is

always full, and finding parking is a challenge.

Alignment

Traffic issues on Commercial Street: gridlocked in the summer, but only along the busiest

segment of the street.

Consider a bidirectional loop to serve both Commercial and Congress? The only reason

not to would be cost. Frequencies along different sections of a bidirectional loop would be

very tricky.

The Congress alignment could be faster than current fixed-route service, since it would be

limited-stop. But, it is a single lane and gets congested.

Absolutely need to connect the ferry to the Jetport.

Frequency and Span of Service

Concord Coach first trip is at 3:45am, last departure at 1:15am. Acknowledge that,

realistically, can’t serve that early with this service. Jetport: 4:30am would work for

airport passengers, but not employees.

Focus on frequency over span of service. Visitors don’t want to wait a long time for a bus.

Locals that take the train to Boston have already figured out how to get there. We need to

focus on serving inbound visitors without cars who want to get downtown.

Ferry and Concord Coach buses are both hourly during the peak season. Need to ensure

that people feel they can be guaranteed to make a connection to the Jetport or PTC if they

need to.

15-20 minutes would be a good frequency for this service.

Portland Explorer was hourly.

Integration with Existing Transit Services

Service should serve METRO Pulse, or otherwise connect to fixed-route service

Would Route 1 still serve the PTC? There would still be underlying transit service. Do we

really want to force a transfer on everyone? There can be other transfer points than the

Pulse.

Branding

It’s important to uniquely brand the service. The service should be easily identifiable.

The experience is most important – it should feel like something more special than

regular fixed-route service.

No expectation that this would be a local service. This should be a limited-stop, high-

speed, specially branded service. It should serve tourists, but there are also opportunities

to serve new and existing riders here.


FINAL REPORT


PUBLIC MEETING

Thursday, May 7, 2015

6:30-8 PM

Portland City Hall

Attendees: 17

Frequency versus Span of Service

Frequency is more important than span of service for this project. Every 30 minutes

would be acceptable.

Every 15 minutes would be nice, but 30 minutes is acceptable.

Alignment

Is this for tourists, or people in Portland? Commercial Street would be better for tourist

connections.

There is a lot of development on Commercial, and there will be more. The current Metro

bus only goes to the ferry. Tourists and employees have a hard time reach other

destinations.

Visitors would take a bus if it were a shuttle. Walking between hubs is not always

attractive or feasible for tourists. Make it easier to be here car-free.

It is not easy to get downtown. Congress would be better for both tourists and locals.

A two-way loop would be great. If the service is geared toward tourists, most would want

to go to downtown/Congress anyway. If there is not a loop route, then the service to

should operate on Congress.

The biggest barrier to a bidirectional loop route would be cost.

Route choice probably depends on the season. Commercial St. would better serve tourists

in the summer, while Congress St. could serve locals during the winter.

It is also important to note that the season is growing: there are more winter visitors.

Hotels are open year-round, too.

Integration with Other Transit Services

Like the idea of integrating with METRO Pulse; you could get anywhere.

There is a general perception that rapid transit is not feasible in Portland.

Need to make sure there is fare integration between METRO, Downeaster, etc.

Branding

Need to decide if the service is oriented toward tourists or not. If yes, then a specially

branded transit vehicle could be considered. Either a separate vehicle, or a METRO bus

with a unique wrap.

Having a special vehicle is important to making it stand apart.

It is not enough to have specially branded stops or corridors without special vehicles; it’s

important to get people thinking differently about transit.


FINAL REPORT


People have luggage, etc. Larger vehicles would be great so that there is more space to

accommodate these items.

Beyond amenities, branding is about legibility, and making it easier for visitors and non-

users to use transit. How can we use branding to make the service intuitive and easy to

understand?

So few people here use the bus, so making it attractive to tourists may also make it

attractive to locals who don’t use transit.

System maps at stops would help, but stops also need to feature bigger, more prominent

branding.

What about revenue/funding sources? We need to charge a fare.

Fare may be a barrier to tourists; consider making service fare-free if possible.

INTERCEPT SURVEY QUESTIONS

1. Are you:

An employee of this hub?

A local resident taking a trip?

A visitor to the Portland region?

Other

2. How are you traveling on this trip?

Plane

Train

Bus

Ferry

Other

3. Will you or did you use any other modes mentioned above during this trip (Portland

Region Only)?

Plane

Train

Bus

Ferry

Other

4. How did you get to this hub?

Car (Their Own)

Got a Ride

City Bus


FINAL REPORT


Taxi

Other

5. Where in the Portland region are you going or coming from on this trip?

6. Would you consider using a fast, frequent, direct transit service that connects this hub to

downtown and each of the other hubs if it were available?

7. Would you use this service if it were free?

8. Would you use this service if it were $3 a trip?

9. Comments

10. Where did you come from?

portland transportation hub link feasibility study final

Documents