R2007-196 2007-12-17Please Refer To R2007-203
RESOLUTION NO. R2007 -196
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PEARLAND,
TEXAS, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO
ENTER INTO AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE
METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PEARLAND, TEXAS:
Section 1. That certain interlocal agreement by and between the City of Pearland
and the Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County, Texas, a copy of which is attached
hereto as Exhibit "A" and made a part hereof for all purposes, is hereby authorized and
approved.
Section 2. That the City Manager or his designee is hereby authorized to execute
and the City Secretary to attest an interlocal agreement with the Metropolitan Transit
Authority of Harris County, Texas.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this the day of
A.D., 2007.
TOM REID
MAYOR
ATTEST:
YOUNG LORFING, TRMC
CITY SECRETARY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
DARRIN M. COKER
CITY ATTORNEY
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
WITH THE CITY OF PEARLAND
FOR AN
EXTRATERRITORIAL PARK AND RIDE FACILITY
THE STATE OF TEXAS S
COUNTY OF HARRIS S
COUNTY OF BRAZORIA S
This Agreement made and entered into by and between the City of Pearland, a home rule
municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Texas, hereinafter called "City" and the
Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County, Texas, a metropolitan transit authority under
the laws of the State of Texas, hereinafter called "METRO."
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, METRO and the City find that the operation of a park and ride facility will
facilitate the provision of transportation services within the City and METRO; and
WHEREAS, the City has agreed to contract with METRO for the operation of the
Pearland Park and Ride Facility (the "Facility") within the corporate limits of the City; and,
WHEREAS, METRO and the City each have legal authority to provide public
transportation services under Texas law; and,
WHEREAS, the City and METRO are empowered to cooperate and contract with other
governmental entities to provide governmental services; and,
WHEREAS, Section 451.056(a)(2) of the Transportation Code authorizes METRO to
contract with the City for public transportation services outside of the authority; and,
WHEREAS, the City and METRO have agreed to the provision of these governmental
services in accordance with the terms, rights and duties set forth in this agreement.
H: OAT A\Penrlnnd Park & Ride 7
Page 1
121612007
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants, agreements and
benefits to the parties herein named, it is agreed as follows:
ARTICLE 1.
1.1. Scope of Agreement. This Agreement specifies the terms and conditions under
which METRO will provide governmental transportation services at the Facility. The parties
agree that each will cooperate and coordinate with the other in all activities covered by this
Agreement and any supplemental agreements hereto.
1.2. Definitions. For the purpose of tins Agreement, the following terms shall have
the meanings set fOrtIl below:
1.2.1. "METRO" means the Metropolitan Transit AutIlority of Harris County, Texas.
1.2.2. "City" means the City of Pearland, Texas, a Texas home-rule municipal
corporation.
1.2.3. "City Council" means the City Council, the governmg body of the City of
Pearland, Texas.
1.2.4. "Facility" shall mean the Pearland Park and Ride Facility described in Exhibit A,
attached hereto and made a part of this Agreement.
ARTICLE 2.
METRO's Obligation to Provide Services.
2.1. METRO agrees to operate and provide park and ride service to and from the
Facility to the METRO Transit System. METRO will construct, or provide for the construction,
of a Pearl and Park & Ride Facility at State Highway 288 and FM 518 in the city of Pearland.
Pending construction of tile Facility, METRO will begin initial transit services at a designated
location of the parking lot at Silverlake Village Shopping Center (Cinemark Theater) in tile city
H:DATA\Pearlnnd Park Ride Lot 7
Page 2
121612007
of Pearland. Patrons will board and de-board transit vehicles owned and operated by METRO
for transportation to and from destinations within the METRO service area.
2.2. METRO agrees to operate the Facility, including the initial service at the
Silverlake Village Shopping Center (Cinemark Theater) location and provide necessary transit
vehicles. Times for operation of the service will be determined by METRO based on service
plroming. METRO will determine the fares and routes for such service and will determine the
kind and number of buses to be utilized for the service.
ARTICLE 3.
City Obligations
3.1. Each month this contract is in effect, the City agrees to pay for METRO's public
transportation services within 30 days upon the receipt of an invoice from METRO in the
amounts and for the services described in Exhibit B. In complirolce with Texas law, the City
agrees to make payment to METRO from current revenues then available to the City. METRO's
invoice for services shall include a description of the services provided and costs incurred by
METRO in providing the services to the City under tins Agreement. City agrees to pay net
operating costs after receipt of fare revenue and not to exceed $35,700 per month for the first
twenty-four (24) months. Monthly payments for the remaining period of this agreement shall be
calculated based on METRO's system-wide cost per revenue hour for the services described in
Exhibit B (based on arumal audited financial data) less the fare revenue.
ARTICLE 4.
Management of Services
4.1. Overall management and direction of this Agreement is assigned to the
, for METRO and
, for tile City. These
designated officials are authorized to approve and direct the provision of services under this
H:DATA\Pearland Park Ride Lot 7
Page 3
1216/2007
Agreement, except where, by City Charter or state law, the City Council is required to act on
behalf of the City.
These officials shall be responsible for coordinating all aspects of their employer's work
in providing the services. They shall ensure that the services and the tasks related thereto are
completed expeditiously and economically, and shall be the contact persons through whom
METRO and the City shall communicate officially, and shall coordinate and expedite all actions
relating to the City's and METRO's decision-making relating to the services.
ARTICLE 5.
Indemnification
EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THIS PARAGRAPH, THE CITY WILL BE
SOLEL Y RESPONSIBLE FOR, AND SHALL INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD
HARMLESS METRO OF, FROM AND AGAINST ALL CLAIMS, DAMAGES, LAWSUITS,
JUDGMENTS, COSTS, A TIORNEYS FEES AND EXPENSES, INCLUDING LOSSES OR
DAMAGES TO THE CITY OR METRO, AND INCLUDING ANY ACTUAL OR ALLEGED
JOINT OR CONCURRENT NEGLIGENT ACTS OR OMISSIONS OF METRO, ITS
OFFICIALS, OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES (IN BOTH THEIR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE
CAPACITIES), AND ANY OTHER PERSON OR ENTITY, ARISING OUT OF OR AS A
RESULT OF OPERATION OR MAINTENANCE OF METRO VEHICLES UNDER THIS
AGREEMENT.
NOTWITHSTANDING THE FOREGOING, THE CITY'S OBLIGATIONS SHALL NOT
INCLUDE INDEMNIFYING METRO WHERE DAMAGES OR LOSS RESULT FROM THE
ACTUAL SOLE NEGLIGENT ACTS OF METRO, ITS OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES OR
WHERE METRO, ITS OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES ARE GROSSL Y NEGLIGENT AND
THE CITY'S OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES OR CONTRACTORS ARE NOT GROSSLY
NEGLIGENT.
IN THE EVENT THAT IN A MA TIER INCLUDED ABOVE, METRO, OR ANY OF ITS
OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES ARE NAMED AS A GROSSLY NEGLIGENT DEFENDANT,
OR THE CITY IMPLEADS METRO, OR ANY OF ITS OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES AS A
GROSSL Y NEGLIGENT DEFENDANT, AND THE COURT (OR JURY) WITH
JURISDICTION OVER THE MA TIER DETERMINES METRO, ITS OFFICERS OR
EMPLOYEES ARE NOT GROSSL Y NEGLIGENT, OR THAT BOTH METRO (OR ITS
OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES OR CONTRACTORS) AND THE CITY (OR ITS OFFICERS OR
EMPLOYEES) WERE GROSSL Y NEGLIGENT, THE CITY, IN ADDITION TO THE
INDEMNIFICATION PROVIDED FOR ABOVE, WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE
PAYMENT OF METRO'S A TIORNEYS FEES AND REASONABLE EXPENSES IN THE
DEFENSE OF METRO, ITS OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES IN THE MA TIER.
H:DATA\Pearland Park Ride Lol7
Page 4
121612007
THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION ARE SOLELY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CITY
AND METRO, AND THEIR INDEMNIFIED OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES, AND NOT
INTENDED TO CREATE OR GRANT ANY RIGHTS, CONTRACTUAL OR OTHERWISE,
TO ANY OTHER ENTITY OR PERSON.
ARTICLE 6.
Termination and Default
6.1. Termination by METRO or the City. Notwithstanding any other provision of
this Agreement, either METRO or the City may, in its sole discretion, terminate the provisions of
services under this Agreement, if it determines that it is in its best interest to do so. The City
agrees to pay METRO for the cost of the governmental services provided under this Agreement
to the time that either METRO or the City terminates this Agreement.
6.2. Notice of Default.
6.2.1. The City or METRO shall be deemed in default under tIus Agreement if the City
or METRO in any material respect fails to perform, observe or comply witI1 any of its covenants,
agreements or obligation, or breaches or violates any of its representations contained in this
Agreement.
6.2.2. Before any failure of either the City or METRO shall be deemed to be a breach of
this Agreement, the party claiming such failure shall notify, in writing, the party alleged to have
failed to perform, of the alleged failure and shall demand the party cure the default within thirty
(30) calendar days. If the allegedly failing party has not cured the default, tI1at party will be in
default of this Agreement, unless the City and METRO agree to extend time for cure.
ARTICLE 7.
Term
The initial term of this Agreement shall be one year from the date of this Agreement is
executed and delivered by both parties; and this Agreement shall be thereafter automatically
renewed for up to _ additional terms of one year each, unless not less than 90 days before the
H:DA T A\Pearland Park Ride Lot 7
Page 5
121612007
end of the then-current term of this Agreement, the City Councilor the METRO Board of
Directors acts to terminate this Agreement.
ARTICLE 8.
Miscellaneous
8.1. Approvals, Further Documents. Where this Agreement reqUIres approval,
consent, permission, agreement or authorization by either party, such approval, consent,
pennission, agreement or authorization shall not be unreasonably withheld nor delayed.
8.2. The parties agree to execute such further documents, agreements, instruments and
notices as may be necessary or appropriate to effectuate the purposes of this agreement.
8.3. Maintenance of Records. The City and METRO shall maintain records to show
actual time involved in the provision of the services, and the cost incurred for the period of time
specified. To the extent applicable to the service, the City and METRO shall cooperate in good
faith to provide records satisfactory to the federal government.
8.4. Audit and Inspection Records. The City and METRO shall permit the
authorized representatives of METRO, the City, the State of Texas and the federal government to
inspect and audit all data and records of METRO and the City relating to their performances
under this Agreement. City representatives may perform, or have performed, an audit of
METRO's books and records. METRO shall keep its books and records available for this
purpose for at least four (4) years. after this Agreement terminates.
8.5. Notices. Any notices required or permitted to be given under the terms of this
Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed to be given as of the time of hand delivery to
the addresses set forth below, or five (5) days after deposit in the Unites States mail, postage
prepaid, by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, addressed as follows:
H:DATA\Pearland Park Ride Lot 7
Page 6
121612007
To the City:
The City of Pearl and, Texas
Attention:
To METRO:
Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County, Texas
1900 Main Street
Houston, Texas 77002
Ifby U.S. Mail:
P.O. Box 61429
Houston, Texas 77208-1429
8.6. Waiver. The failure of any party at any time or times to require performance of
any provision hereof shall in no manner affect the right at a later time to enforce the same. No
waiver of any party of any condition, or of any breach of any term, covenant, representation or
warranty contained herein, in anyone or more instances, shall be deemed to be constructed a
further or continuing waiver of any such condition or breach or waiver of any other condition or
of any breach of any other ternl, covenant, representation or warranty.
8.7. Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire agreement of the parties
with regard to the matters addressed herein. This Agreement may not be amended, modified,
superseded or canceled, nor may any of the terms, covenants, representations, warranties or
conditions be waived except by written instrument executed by the party against which such
amendment, modification, supersedure, cancellation or waiver is to be charged.
8.8. Force Majeure. Neither party shall be held liable for any loss or damage due to
delay or failure in performance of any part of this Agreement from any cause beyond its control
and without it fault or negligence, which causes may include acts of God, acts of civil or military
authority, governn1ent regulations (except those promulgated by the party seeking the benefit of
H:DATA\Pearlnnd Park Ride Lot 7
Page 7
121612007
this provision), embargoes, epidemics, war, terrorist acts, riots, insurrections, fires, explosions,
earthquakes, nuclear accidents, floods, strikes, power blackouts, other major environmental
disturbances or unusually severe weather conditions.
8.9. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be constructed and enforced in
accordance with the laws of the State of Texas. Any legal action to enforce the terms of this
Agreement shall be brought in Harris County, Texas.
8.10. Headings. Headings and captions contained herein are inserted for convenience
and of reference only, and are not deemed part of or to be used in constructing this Agreement.
8.11. Survival. Each party shall remain obligated to other party under all clauses of
this Agreement that expressly or by their nature extend beyond the expiration or termination of
this Agreement, including the indemnification obligation under Article 5 of this Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused the Agreement to be executed as of
the date first written above:
IN TESTIMONY OF WHICH, this Agreement, in duplicate originals, each having equal
force has been executed on behalf of the parties hereto as follows:
a.
City by
authorizing such execution.
It has on the _ day of , _, been executed on behalf of the
pursuant to a of the City Council
b. It has on the _ day of , _, been executed on behalf of
METRO by , and attested by its Assistant Secretary,
pursuant to the Resolution of its Board of Directors authorizing such execution.
H:DA T A\Penrland Pnrk Ride Lot 7
Page 8
121612007
City of Pearland, Texas
Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris
County, Texas
By:
By:
Frank J. Wilson
President & Chief Executive Officer
Attest:
City Secretary
Executed for and on behalf of the Metropolitan
Transit Authority pursuant to Resolution
No. , the Board of Directors passed on
the _ day of , _, and on file
in the office of the Assistant Secretary of
METRO
Attest:
Assistant Secretary
APPROVED:
Paula J. Alexander
General Counsel
Louise T. Riclunan
Chief Financial Officer
I-I:DATA\Pearland Park Ride Lot 7
Page 9
121612007
PEARLANDITMC PARK & RIDE
(RevIsed September 10, 2007)
Implementation Date
Type of Service
Peak Buses
Jan-OB
Weekday Only
7
Type of Bus
45' Suburban
Revenue Hours per day
33
Additional Spaces
400. 600-
space surface
lot
Total Revenue Hours
FY08
5,742
FY09
8,382
COSTS
Total Variable Costs
P&R. Capital Lease
TOTAL DOLLARS
$ 405,615
(1) $ 90,000
(2) $ 100,500
$ 596,115
$
(3) $
592,104
402.000
$
994,104
REVENUE
Proposed Ridership Increases in Boardings
(4)
Fares @ $3.15 (90% of $3.50)
$
108.225
340,909
(4)
$
179.580
565.677
NET OPERATING COSTS
$
255,206
$
428,427
(1) ProlJOSed P&R Lease - Temporary Lot - 6 Months @ $15,000
(2) Proposed P&R Lease - Permanent Lot - 3 Months @ $33,500
(3) Proposed P&R Lease - 12 months at $33,500
(4) Based on service plan proposed by Operations
Planing as of 8/3/07, approximately 300 per day
parking at the temporary lot. approximatly 360 per day
parkIng at the permanent lot.
3570'2..
I
9/18/2007
G:\Pearland-Real Estate 2 Sep 102007
Tran!)portatioll Policy COllneil
For the Houston-Galveston Transportation Management Area
3555 T,mmCI'lS Lane
Houston. Texas 77C27
PO Box 22777
Houston Texas 7t'227-2Ti7
Telephcne 713.6273200
Fax 713.99345C8
December 7, 2007
Mr. Bill Eisen
City Manager
City of Pearland
3519 Liberty Drive
Pearland, Texas 77581
RE: Analysis of Proposed Park and Ride Services to the Texas Medical Center
Dear Mr. Eisen:
Please find enclosed an assessment performed by H-GAC staff of three possible Park and Ride
locations within the SH 288 corridor. This report analyzes the potential for each location to
attract transit riders as well as their ability to support complementary development within
Pearland and future, locally destined transit services.
In addition, the City of Pearland requested my review of two unsolicited proposals to develop
and operate a Park and Ride service from Pearland to the Texas Medical Center. Based on my
review and conversations with City of Pearland staff, I wish to make the following observations
and recommendations:
The potential ridership for Park and Ride transit service appears to be conservatively
estimated by both METRO and Connect Transportation (the Connect estimate matches the
METRO estimate in 2010). Any agreement with the City and a transit provider should
indicate if and how additional bus service and/or expansion of parking spaces will be
considered.
The proposed operating cost of transit services is significantly less per bus hour for METRO
than that shown by Connect Transportation. METRO has also proposed (initially) higher
transit fares. As a consequence, METRO's Operating Revenue is almost equal to its
operating cost (without lease payments).
Cost for construction and operation of a Park and Ride facility is highly dependent on the
cost of land, cost to develop site access, use of surface versus multi-level parking and the
need for environmental mitigation. As a consequence there is no direct comparison
possible between the Connect and METRO costs for a parking facility.
Capitalizing the Park and Ride facility costs would substantially reduce the net costs of the
proposed transit service. However, no uncommitted federal transportation funding currentlv
available would likely be commensurate with the costs for acquisition or construction of a
Mr. Bill Eisen
Page 2 of 2
Park and Ride lot of the size envisioned for Pearland. Moreover, use of federal funds for
such a purpose would require additional federal approvals for environmental impact
analysis of potential sites, site selection, design, right of way acquisition, etc. Receipt of
federal transit funds also carries additional requirements for certification as a transit grant
recipient. Should the City desire to develop a publicly owned Park and Ride facility, I
strongly encourage working in partnership with an existing transit grant recipient and
service provider certified to receive federal transit funds and experienced in their use for the
development of capital projects.
It is likely that federal funding assistance could be available for both the near term (1 to 3
years) and long term (4 or more years) operation of Park and Ride service (including lease
costs for the parking lot). Both H-GAC (through its Transportation Policy Council) and
Connect Transportation have short term federal funding for which Park and Ride expenses
incurred by Pearland could qualify for reimbursement. Federal rules limit the eligibility of
federal assistance (generally up to 80% for capital costs and up to 50% for operating costs).
Other requirements for a funding award must also be met.
Neither proposal explicitly described marketing and community outreach efforts necessary
for successful start up of new transit services. Responsibility for security at a Park and Ride
should also be identified. Both of these activities merit inclusion in a final agreement.
Provision of transit services in a community can yield many benefits by improving access to job
opportunities to the citizens of Pearland as well as enhancing the City's ability to attract new
employers. However, it initiates a potentially significant, long term commitment of scarce public
resources. Therefore, H-GAC is pleased to support you in your consideration of transit
services now and in the future.
Sincerely,
~eW
Alan C. Clark
Director of Transportation Planning
Cc: Hon. Tom Reed, Mayor, City of Pearland
Mr. John Sedlak, METRO
Mr. Nick Finan, Pearland
Mr. Steve Flippo, METRO
ACC
City of Pearl and Park and Ride
Transit-Oriented Development Feasibility Study
Executive Summary
As the City of Pearland continues to grow, providing effective transportation alternatives
will become increasingly important. To continue to position itself as a regional leader in
quality of life, the City of Pearl and is exploring the possibility of implementing a Park
and Ride facility at three potential locations along SH288, as shown in the map below.
Location I is between South Spectrum
Blvd and SH288. This location has
the advantage of being sited in the
Waterlights District development,
which has the largest number of
residential units planned of the three
locations, increasing the likelihood of
generating ridership within the site.
The location has the disadvantage of
having low accessibility, both due to
the current lack of thru streets on the
site, and its proximity to BW8.
Location I also has the disadvantage
of being at the northern end of the
park and ride market shed, meaning that its ridership potential may be lower than the
other sites, as potential users are more likely to utilize a facility that is closer to their
origin than their destination. If location I is chosen for the Park and Ride site, it is
recommended that the City work closely with the Waterlights District developer and the
transit agency to help ensure proper accessibility to the site and potential coordination as
a transit-oriented development.
This report analyzes the three
potential locations for the park and
ride facility, assessing the strengths
and weaknesses of each, as well as the
overall potential for transit-oriented
development, reverse commuting, and
local transit service.
Location 2 is between Discovery Bay Dr. and Memorial Herman Dr. and SH288. This
location has the advantage of being in the center of the SH288 corridor and proposed
circulator route. The site is not in coordination with any proposed development, which is
a disadvantage from a transit-oriented development perspective. An additional
disadvantage is the sites current accessibility due to the lack of frontage roads along this
section of 288. If location 2 is chosen for the Park and Ride site, it is recommended that
the City develop a vision for future development surrounding the site to ensure that it will
be compatible and coordinated with the transit. If location 2 is chosen the City should
also work to increase accessibility to the site, either through frontage roads or
continuation of Discovery Bay Dr. over SH288.
Location 3 is at the intersection ofFM 518 and SH288. This location has the advantage
of being highly accessible for potential transit users, as FM518 is a major cross-street and
has direct access from SH288. In addition, the location has the advantage of being
coordinated with the Pearland Town Center development, which could provide additional
ridership and transit-oriented development opportunities. This location has the
disadvantage of being located at the southern end of current development along the
SH288 corridor, which places it at the south of the potential circulator route. However,
the southern location may be an advantage as far as maximizing ridership levels. If site 3
is chosen, the City should coordinate the facility with the Pearland Town Center
developer and the transit agency to ensure that the facility is easily accessible and
integrated with the development utilizing best design practices.
City of Pearland Park and Ride
Transit-Oriented Development Feasibility Study
Background:
The City of Pearl and Texas is the fasting growing city in Brazoria County. The
population has risen from 33,000 in 1990 to over 59,000 in 2000 and as of2007 the
population is over 81,000. This growth trend is projected to continue in the future with a
projected population of close to 100,000 by 2011. Pearland's growth may be partly
attributed to its location close to the Houston Central Business District and Texas
Medical Center and the high quality of life its residents enjoy.
As the city of Pearl and and its neighbors continue to grow, providing effective
transportation alternatives will become increasingly important. Although vanpools are
used by residents traveling to the Texas Medical Center from SH288, currently there are
no fixed route transit options for residents of Pearl and or surrounding cities. The major
transportation routes into the city, 1-45 and SH288, are increasingly experiencing travel
delays and heavy commutes. With continued population growth this congestion will
likely continue to worsen, depreciating Pearland's high quality of life.
To continue to position itself as a regional leader in quality oflife, the City of Pearl and is
exploring the possibility of implementing a Park and Ride facility at three potential
locations along SH 288. Park and Ride facilities range from surface parking lots to
parking garages integrated into developments and providing amenities for users. The
purpose of the proposed Park and Ride facility is to facilitate commuter bus service
between the City of Pearl and and the City of Houston. The Park and Ride facility would
provide the first significant transit alternative for Pearl and residents. Through this
project, the City of Pearl and has an opportunity to not only improve mobility and reduce
congestion, but also to enhance the community through supporting land uses, public
spaces, and quality design oftransit supportive development.
The 2002 Brazoria County Mobility Plan identified the 3,500 county residents who work
in the Texas Medical Center and Houston Central Business District and commute daily
using SH288 as the target population for park and ride services. The plan estimated
demand for 67,900 average annual passenger trips with an estimated growth rate in
ridership of 1.5%.1 If properly designed and located, the park and ride facility could
result in the following benefits for the City of Pearland and surrounding developments:
. Provide residents with alternatives to driving alone
. Reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and improve air quality
. Stimulate new, transit supportive development
. Enhance feasibility of local transit service
1 H-GAC Brazoria County Mobility Plan, 2002
1
The Houston-Galveston Area Council has prepared this report to assess the feasibility of
generating local transit ridership and transit supportive development surrounding the
proposed Park and Ride locations. The report contains four major elements:
. An alternatives analysis of the three proposed Park and Ride locations
. A discussion of best practices design practices for park and ride facilities and
transit-oriented development
. An analysis of the reverse commute potential of the park and ride facility and
. An analysis of the potential for local transit circulation.
This report will be a valuable tool for the City to use in evaluating the Park and Ride
proposals and in reviewing future developments around the selected Park and Ride site
for transit compatibility.
Location Alternatives Analysis: Correct siting ofthe park and ride facility is a critical
variable in the success of the facility, affecting its potential ridership and transit-oriented
development potential. The City of Pearl and has identified three potential locations for
the Park and Ride facility2:
Location 1: South Spectrum Blvd and SH288 in conjunction with future 'Waterlights
District' development.
Location 2: Between Discovery Bay Dr. and Memorial Herman Dr. and SH288
Location 3: Intersection ofFM 518 and SH288 in conjunction with 'Pearland Town
Center' Development.
Map 1: Locations of proposed Park
and Ride Facilities in the City of
Pearland.
The three proposed locations are all in
the same general vicinity: along the
western side of SH288.
Approximately two miles separate
location 1 from location 3, with
location 2 being approximately one
mile from each. Due to their
proximity, several traditional metrics
for locating transit facilities will score
the same for each of the sites.
However, differences do still exist
between the locations due to their
accessibility, proposed development
densities, and other variables.
Park and Ride Siting Metrics:
A wide variety of factors should be
2 Specific addresses for proposed locations were unavailable at the time of this report
2
examined to determine the proper location for a park and ride facility. Table 1
summarizes the most commonly used siting metrics and the rating for each of the
proposed park and ride facility locations. An equal sign denotes that there is no
perceptible difference between the three locations. A positive sign denotes that the
location is more favorable for a particular variable while a negative sign denotes that the
location is less favorable for a particular variable. These metrics have not been weighted
for importance.
Table 1: Siting Metric Evaluation of Proposed Park and Ride Locations
Location # 1 Location #2 Location #3
+ +
+
+
+ +
+
+
. Visibility of facility: Park and Ride facilities that are located at sites that have
good visibility from the high-volume corridor that it serves tend to be more
successful. The visibility increases awareness ofthe facility, as many potential
patrons learn about the facility by driving past it. High visibility can also increase
the perception of safety for users. All three proposed locations should receive
good visibility from SH288, the primary corridor it will be serving.
o Location 1: Location 1 may receive the additional benefit of being visible
from BW8. Review ofthe Waterlights District development proposal
finds a 'proposed transit stop' on the concept design map located at the
intersection of Kirby Drive and South Spectrum Blvd. The proposal
references a future light rail extension, but such a project is not currently
part of any adopted transit system plan. Location ofthe park and ride
facility at Kirby and South Spectrum would be reduced in visibility from a
location along SH288.
o Location 2: Location 2, in comparison to locations 1 or 3, does not have
the benefit of having a large cross-street to increase visibility.
o Location 3: Location 3 has the benefit of being visible from FM518 as
well as SH288.
. Accessibility of facility from major roads and arterials: the accessibility of the
routes that would be taken by potential transit rider to get to the facility will
impact the ridership as riders are hesitant to traverse certain facilities and/or back-
track to reach the transit destination. An additional accessibility concern that
should be considered is the coordination of the facility location with any future
high occupancy vehicle lanes/managed lanes proposed for SH288 and/or future
rail expansion including potential commuter rail service along FM521. There are
3
also several proposed grade separations with SH288 that would facilitate access to
the Park and Ride facility if it was located nearby.
o Location 1: The presence ofBW8 north oflocation I both increases and
decreases the accessibility of Location 1. Although locating near the
intersection of two major highways increases the potential reach ofthe
facility, at the same time locating near a major interchange can be a
deterrent as potential riders will have to maneuver multiple frontage roads
and back-track to reach the facility. In addition, location I has the
disadvantage of not currently having a complete street network north of
Shadow Creek Parkway. Although internal streets may be developed in
conjunction with the Waterlights District development, currently this site
is inaccessible from SH288.
o Location 2: Location 2, in comparison to locations 1 or 3, does not have
the benefit of having a large cross-street to increase accessibility. As there
is no exit on SH288 between location 1 and location 3, and there is no
frontage road alternative along this stretch of SH288, all riders would have
to exit at either FM518 or FM2234 and back track to reach the location.
o Location 3: Location 3 has the benefit of being accessible from FM518 as
well as SH288. As there is an exit from SH288 at FM518, riders traveling
either north or south to reach the facility will be able to do so without
back-tracking. The only deterrent to the accessibility oflocation 3 is the
heavy congestion on FM518.
. Origin and destination (Ridership catchment) density: Origin density refers to
the number of residents located within the facilities market-shed area. Destination
density refers to the density of employment at the destination of the park and ride
facility. All three of the proposed locations have the same destination density as
they will all be serving the same destination, Houston. The high concentration of
employment in the destination is a positive indicator ofthe potential success of
the facility. The market-shed area for the three proposed locations will not vary
enough given their proximity to one another to make a perceptible difference in
overall ridership figures. Any of the three proposed locations will draw riders
from the same general catchment area which is depicted in Figure 1, below.
4
Figure 1: Park and Ride Facility market-shed area
85%
Demand
-
II)
~
~
N
.....
-
CBO
E
~
(")
I~
_1._
16.1 km (10 Miles)
'\
4.0 km (2.5 Miles)
. Immediate surrounding density: Although most users will access the park
and ride facility by private vehicle, if properly designed and integrated, the
park and ride may also be able to take advantage of riders accessing the
facility by walking. Higher density in the immediate surrounding density
within walking distance ofthe facility will increase transit ridership for the
facility. Walking distance is measured as within Y4 mile of the park and ride
facility.
o Location 1: The Waterlights district development has proposed 961 multi-
family units in high density 'residential towers' of six stories. Depending
on the siting of the park and ride lot within the development, these units
would all be within walking distance of the facility. In addition, the
Promenade development, located directly north ofthe proposed
Waterlights District, has planned 350 units which could also be within
walking distance of the facility.
o Location 2: Location 2, in comparison to locations 1 or 3, does not have
the benefit of having a planned development with a residential component.
The nearest major development to location 2 is Memorial Hermann
hospital, which has low potential to generate walking origin trips.
o Location 3: The Pearland Town Center has planned 300 residential units
for the development, which depending on the siting ofthe units and the
park and ride facility, could be within walking distance of the facility.
. Distance required for user to reach facility: The majority of park and ride users
come from within 5 miles of the facility and more than 80 percent travel less than
5
10 miles to the facility.3 The ridership catchment area for a suburban park and
ride is often described as a parabola (see Figure 1, above)4. The catchment area,
also referred to as the market shed, is the area around the facility from which most
ofthe transit users will come. The numbers referenced in the diagram are from a
study completed in the Seattle metropolitan area. Other studies have found slight
differences in the distances but a remarkable similarity in the parabolic shape of
the market shed. In the parabolic catchment area, the majority of riders fall within
the area south ofthe park and ride facility as most users will not want to back
track from their origin to their destination. Any of the three proposed locations
will draw riders from the same general catchment area, with location 1 being at a
slight disadvantage being the furthest north in the catchment area.
. Distance of facility from destination: The exact proposed route of the bus lines
is not available but the service will undoubtedly run between Pearland and the
City of Houston, either to the medical center, the central business district, or both.
Once in the city of Houston METRO Service Area, transit riders will be able to
transfer to other routes and reach multiple destinations. The recommended
distance from the destination to the park and rider facility is a minimum five miles
and preferably greater than 10 miles. All three locations fall within the greater
than ten mile range. In addition, since this will be the only available service in the
area, it may be considered an end of the line facility, which tend to attract larger
than average service areas for ridership. In general, the facility needs to be
located closer to the user's origin than their destination to make the trip by transit
worthwhile. This criteria is considered especially important for the first park and
ride to locate within a particular corridor, such as the Pearland park and ride
within the SH288 corridor.
o As the farther the facility is from the user's origin than their destination,
the less likely they will be to utilize it, the closer you site the facility to the
destination (i.e. the more north on SH288 the location), the less likely that
users will utilize the facility. Locations 2 and 3 thus have greater potential
to serve those that will be traveling north to reach the facility, from Alvin
or other nearby communities. It is unlikely that riders will travel south to
the facilities as that would require back-tracking to reach the destination.
. Traffic volume on adjacent facilities: Park and ride facilities that are located
adjacent to heavily congested corridors experience stronger demand than in areas
without similar congestion. All three of the proposed locations are along SH288,
a corridor that is experiencing LOS F during peak periods. Corridors with an
LOS or E or lower appear to have the best potential for park and ride usage.
Optimally the facility should be located in an area along the corridor directly
before where the heaviest congestion occurs so users can obtain the benefit of
3 Turnbull, Katherine, and Richard Pratt, "Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes", Chapter
3 - Park-and-Ride/Pool, (Transit Cooperative Research Program, Report 95, 2004), pg. 3-8
4 Spillar, Robert, Park-and-Ride Planning and Design Guidelines, (Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade and
Douglas, Inc, 1997) Pg. 61
6
avoiding the worst congestion. All three of the proposed locations score equally
well on this criteria, being located along SH288 within a two mile span.
. Lot Spacing: Ifthere are multiple park and ride lots in the same vicinity the
market sheds will overlap and each lot may experience decreased ridership.
However, as this park and ride facility will be the only transit facility in the area
the facility should not experience any lot spacing issues. In fact, the opposite
issue may occur, as there are no transit facilities in a very large and populous
surrounding area it is feasible that the market shed may be much larger than is
generally accepted because there is such a limited supply of transit alternatives in
the area.
Transit-Oriented Development Potential:
The policy framework for successful park and ride development exists within the City of
Pearland's current planning and zoning ordinances, specifically the City's planned
development zoning category. Locations 1 and 3 for the park and ride have gone through
the planning process to be designated as planned development which provides the
developer a deal of flexibility in the planning process and encourages development types
such as mixed-use and transit-oriented development.
In order to ensure that the development and the future transit are well integrated and
achieve the city's larger vision and goals it is recommended that the city, developers, and
transit agency work collaboratively and proactively throughout the planning process.
This will help to ensure that the resulting transit service and surrounding development are
well coordinated and that the economic, community, fiscal, and regional benefits of the
transit are realized.
A park and ride facility that is integrated with the development may be classified as
transit-oriented or transit-supportive development. Transit-oriented development refers
to a type of development, generally mixed-use and higher density, that is pedestrian
friendly and is located with walking distance of a transit station or stop. Development
around the park and ride facility will not achieve the objective of increasing transit usage
unless it is transit friendly, meaning that it contains an appropriate mix of uses, is built at
an appropriate density and provides a pedestrian friendly network of sidewalks, paths,
and open spaces. Transit-oriented development has many potential benefits, including:
. Increasing multi-modal activity, especially walking
. Boosting transit ridership on nearby transit facility
. Increasing property values
. Providing a quality place for the community
. Coordinating land use and transportation efficiently
The link between transit and increased property values has been found to be a weaker
correlation in suburban locations where other factors, such as highway access and unit
cost, have a stronger influence on property values. However, the strong market
conditions that exist in the SH288 corridor, as evidenced by the high level of current and
7
planned development, suggest that favorable market conditions exist with or without
transit access.
The TOD trade-off. Locating the park and ride facility in an area such as those proposed
with supporting developments may increase use ofthe facility by providing convenient
services to the transit users and by providing a built-in transit base through residential
development. It has been noted that density around the park and ride location may also
act as a negative factor in the facility's usage if it makes it harder or less convenient to
access the facility or, if shared-parking exists, ifthere is a negative effect on parking
demand. This may be viewed as a trade-off between maximizing walk-on transit
ridership from higher development densities close to the park and ride facility and
maximizing park and ride patronage with easy auto access and ample parking. 5
However, this does not necessarily have to be a trade-off. If properly designed, using
best practices for transit-oriented development and park and ride facility design, the park
and ride facility should be able to accommodate both auto and pedestrian users.
Best Design Practices: To realize the full transit-oriented development potential of the
Park and Ride location sites, it is recommended that best practices in both design of
development surrounding the Park and Ride and best practices in street design are
followed in the chosen facility site. Best practices for transit-oriented development
include techniques to maximize the success of the development in its integration with the
transit environment, ensuring that the transition between transit and the development is
seamless. Quality design can also help to maximize ridership by ensuring that the transit
is accessible and desirable through the provision of streetscape and transit amenities such
as landscaping, shade, lighting, and signage.
Quality Design: Park and Ride facility designs vary greatly across the nation, reflecting
differing design goals. At one end are facilities that are designed primarily as an
extension ofthe highway network and work to serve vehicles in the most efficient
manner, often at the expense of other transportation modes. At the other end are facilities
whose design integrates them into the community, encouraging multi-modal access and
community acceptance. The Pearland park and ride facility has the potential to create a
multi-modal facility that is well-integrated into surrounding developments by creating an
appropriate mix of land uses and designing for all modes.
Land Use: The land uses surrounding the park and ride facility should include a mix of
residential, commercial, and retail services. This mixing of uses can encourage linking of
trips that might otherwise each require a separate vehicle trip. In addition, the mix of
land uses will support different functions of the park and ride facility. For example,
office uses may support a reverse commute function ofthe facility. Understanding the
travel uses associated with different land uses is an essential component in designing a
park and ride that will accomplish the goals of reducing single occupancy vehicle trips.
The higher the intensity and diversity of land uses, the higher the opportunity for
increased off-peak travel. Encouraging off-peak travel demand will help to support
5 Turnbull, Katherine, and Richard Pratt, "Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes", Chapter
3 - Park-and-Ride/Pool, (Transit Cooperative Research Program, Report 95, 2004), pg. 3-34
8
transit beyond the commuter service. The SH288 corridor contains a mix of uses already
and the developments proposed at locations 1 and 3 (the Waterlights District and the
Pearland Town Center) contain a mix of higher-density uses appropriate for transit-
oriented development.
Provision and Design of Parking: The design ofthe park and ride parking can also
influence the decision of a commuter to use the facility. The design can impact the
distance of the walk from the parking space to the transit stop, the provision of amenities
that influence safety, and internal and external circulation and access. The size of park
and ride facilities can vary widely from only a few dedicated parking spaces to several
thousand. Larger lots often feature parking garages and are served by frequent headway
high capacity transit, such as light rail. Parking that dominates the landscape will not be
pedestrian friendly and may detract from the overall pedestrian experience of patrons to
the development center. Very large lots should be avoided in transit-oriented
development park and ride facilities so that long walking distances will not be necessary.
Designingfor pedestrian access: Although the majority of riders will access the facility
by vehicle, designing for pedestrians is a critical aspect of park and ride facilities because
every person accessing the facility is a pedestrian at some point of their trip. It is
important to accommodate the pedestrian both within the park and ride facility and in the
surrounding land uses. Making access attractive for pedestrians even across large parking
lots is an essential component of designing a park and ride facility. Transit riders prefer
walking distances from their parked car to the transit stop of between 400 and 650 feet
with a maximum distance of 1000 feet. 6
VIIIlking Distance Uncler Normal Concitions
Walking
0 .lO' Distance
i~ :E'
'f J~ 8o. ~
to
~ ! Under 300 m (750 ft.)
.r; &
.2' Q
iJ ~c 300 m (750 ft.) Average
<
152 to 305 m (500 to 1.000 ft.)
~
400 to 533 m (1.320 to 1.750 ft. or 1/4 to 1/3 mile)
Source: Adapted from A Glide to Land Use and PWI/c TranspottatiOfl, SIlo- Tran. December 1989
6Tumbull, Katherine, and Richard Pratt, "Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes", Chapter 3
- Park-and-Ride/Pool, (Transit Cooperative Research Program, Report 95, 2004), pg. 3-58
9
In addition, as walking becomes the mode of choice to access the park and ride facility
within 1/4 of a mile in suburban centers, the facility should be designed to be integrated
with any residential component ofthe three sites to take advantage ofthese potential
transit users. Image 1 below shows an example of a pedestrian path linking a
development and a park and ride facility.
Image 1: Pedestrian Path 7
To minimize conflicts and increase safety,
pedestrian paths should be clearly
distinguishable and marked with raised paths
and sidewalks being preferable to walking
aisles. Pedestrian flow from the parking area
to the transit loading areas as well as from the
adjacent land uses should be unimpeded and
as direct as possible. Orienting parking stalls
perpendicular to the transit boarding area
allows pedestrians to use the aisles between
parking stalls to walk directly to the boarding
area. Raised pedestrian paths between stall
rows can also provide direct access to the
transit boarding area. 8
To minimize conflict and maximize efficiency, competing modes should be separated
whenever possible, providing separate areas for transit vehicles, private vehicles, bicycle
access, pedestrians, and drop off areas. This separate access can be accomplished
through the provision of separate access driveways for buses and vehicles and a separate
loading/unloading area for carpools or drop and ride activities. The graphic below
demonstrates how a park and ride could be designed to separate uses and provide transit
amenities.9
7 Spillar, Robert, Park-and-Ride Planning and Design Guidelines, (Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade and
Douglas, Inc, 1997) Ch. 6, Pg. 8
8 Spillar, Robert, Park-and-Ride Planning and Design Guidelines, (Parsons BrinckerhoffQuade and
Douglas,lnc, 1997) Ch. 6, Pg. 20
9 Graphic from Spillar, Robert, Park-and-Ride Planning and Design Guidelines, (Parsons Brinckerhoff
Quade and Douglas, Inc, 1997) Ch. 6, Pg. 52
10
Provision of transit amenities: Amenities make the transit experience more pleasurable
and may increase ridership as the amenities reduce the perceived cost of riding transit
versus a single occupancy vehicle. Amenities include providing shelters and benches at
the bus loading area, lighting for safety and security, newspaper or other vending
machines, and provision of services through the integration of the park and ride facility
with the surrounding development. Studies have found a positive relationship between
provision of transit station amenities and transit ridership. The highest correlations have
been found between provisions of street trees, sidewalks, and lighting, street connectivity
and shortness of blocks, and density of retail establishments.
Bicycle Parking and Access: In addition to reaching the park and ride facility by vehicle,
transit patrons may also access the facility by bicycle and provisions for bicycle parking
should be made available at the site. METRO has instituted a new bike rack on buses
program that allows bicycle riders to place their bicycles directly on buses. Often these
racks fill up or are not available, thus secure parking for bicycles at the park and ride
facility should be made available. Secure parking options include bicycle storage lockers
or racks, with lockers being preferred over racks because they are more secure. to
Bicycle access to the facility should also be considered in the siting and design of the
park and ride facility. Integration of trails or other bicycle paths should be taken into
consideration in the planning and design phase of the facility. Currently 21 % of METRO
park and ride users arrive to the facility by non-auto means, either transit, bicycling, or
walking. This high average percentage indicates that planning for bicycle and pedestrian
accessibility should remain a top priority in designing the Pearland park and ride facility.
10 Bike locker graphic from http://www.bikeiowa.comlasp/bike/images/bikelocker.gif
II
Best Practices for Street Design:
Best practices for street design ensure that the
transit environment will be supported by the
street network. Street designs should
incorporate the needs not only oftransit but of
all travel modes, including creating a safe and
vibrant pedestrian environment.
Access Management: Access management is a
toolbox to improve mobility and safety for
transit, vehicles, and pedestrians. Access
management techniques can provide solutions to
minimize conflict points between transit and
vehicles such as driveway consolidation, safe
bus pull-outs, traffic calming and signal timing
modification.
Driveway Consolidation: Frequent driveway spacing impedes mobility and poses a safety
risk as vehicles are continually re-entering traffic. Driveway consolidation is an effective
access management technique As many of the developments in which the park and ride
service is proposed are yet to be fully built-out or are at the planning phase, driveway
consolidation and other access management techniques can be directly incorporated into
the design, which is much more cost-effective than retrofitting streets. Shared driveways,
side street entrances, and creating cross access between properties are all recommended
access management techniques. The Waterlights and Pearl and Town Center proposals
have the benefit of having one land owner which makes it easier to plan entrances and
exits across a larger area. The recommended number of driveways by property frontage
by ITE is below:
Prop.rt). Frontage
(fHO N umbt"l" of Dri,,-eW3YS
o to 50 1
50 to 165 2
165 to 500 3
Over 500 4
Source: ITE Guidelines for Driveway Location and Design, 1987.
Bus Pull-Outs: Bus pull-outs are generally used for on-street transit service to remove
buses from general traffic when loading and unloading passengers. As the proposed
system will be a park and ride lot commuter system rather than an on-street bus system
there should be minimal potential conflict between general traffic and the bus when
passengers are loading and unloading. The position of the bus stop within the park and
ride lot is essential to minimizing potential conflict points between passengers and
vehicles.
12
The potential conflict point for the proposed system exists at the point the bus will re-
enter general traffic after loading or unloading passengers. The bus re-entry should occur
at the 'far-side' of any intersections so that the bus may safely re-enter traffic during the
red phase of the signal timing. Depending on the exact location of the park and ride, an
intersection may be created with a light specifically for the entry of the bus to the general
traffic lanes.
Traffic calming: As park and ride facilities support a variety of modes, speed control
devices such as speed bumps or raised pavement can reduce conflict points between
vehicles and pedestrians within the park and ride facility. 11
Signal timing modification: Buses
can be given priority signaling in
intersections to ensure that the bus
headways remain consistent and on-
time. Bus signal priority systems are
widely used throughout the nation as
a means improve on-street transit
times in areas with traffic
congestion. Although the Pearland
system will be a commuter service
with the majority ofthe trip occurring on the highway rather than on-street, priority
signalization at intersections between the park and ride lot and the entrance to the
highway system may provide an effective Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) tool.
As an ITS tool, implementation of bus signal priority may be eligible for category II
(operations management) funding in the Transportation Improvement Program.
~
'\ Raised Speed Hump Serving as
Pedestrian Crosswalk
.,
., ..-.. .
I
An effective bus signal priority system assists buses without causing excessive delay to
vehicles. The placement of bus stops, the number of buses running, the volume of bus
passengers, and the level of congestion all factor into the effectiveness of bus signal
priority systems. The signal timing for signals entering into the park and ride locations
should also be examined at peak periods once the commuter service is underway to
ensure that traffic does not back up getting into the park and ride lot.
Reverse Commute Potential: The currently proposed park and ride transit service
consists of commuter bus service between the City of Pearland and the City of Houston.
It is possible that as job growth continues in the Pearland area that reverse commuter
potential from Houston to Pearland may be a viable option. Specifically the SH288
corridor and the potential location sites of the Park and Ride facility are forecasted to
have large employment increases from their current levels. As of the 2000 Census less
than one half of one percent of Harris County workers commute to jobs in Brazoria
County. However, suburb to suburb commute patterns now account for the largest
11 Crosswalk graphic from Spillar, Robert, Park-and-Ride Planning and Design Guidelines, (Parsons
Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas, Inc, 1997) Ch. 6, Pg. 104
13
percentage of commute trips and the same should hold true for the Pearland area.12 Such
trips are notoriously difficult to serve by transit as the trip origins are widely dispersed.
Park and ride users are considered choice transit riders, meaning that they usually have an
option other than transit to make their trip. Most park and ride users have an auto
available and tend to have higher incomes than the average transit user. In addition, the
overwhelming majority of park and ride trip gurposes are journey to work trips,
averaging between 95-98 percent nationally. 3 These demographics mean that in order
for reverse commuting to be feasible from Houston to Pearland, there would have to be a
sizable employment market in the immediate vicinity ofthe Pearland park and ride lot as
the majority ofthe trips that would be made would be for employment purposes. In
addition, as there is no connecting local transit service currently available in the City of
Pearland, reverse commuters would be limited to the immediate walking area (usually
measured within V4 mile) of the park and ride facility.
The three proposed park and ride locations each contain future employment opportunities
of the following magnitude:
Location 1: The Waterlights District development has 392,040 square feet of office
floor area planned in addition to 740,520 square feet of retail space. This translates to
approximately 626 retail jobs and 1,457 office jobs. 14
Location 2: Location 2 is listed as having 435,600 square feet of retail space and 958,320
square feet of office space in the City of Pearl and planning materials. This translates to
approximately 368 retail jobs and 3,562 office jobs.
Location 3: The Pearland Town Center development is projected to have 871200 square
feel of retail space and 87,120 square feet of office space. This translates to
approximately 736 retail jobs and 324 office jobs.
As shown in table 2, location 2 is projected to have the highest number of jobs within
walking distance of the park and ride facility. However, estimates for location 2 are not
in conjunction with a specific proposed development as are locations 1 and 3 and
therefore may over-estimate the actual potential for employment at this location. The
split between retail and office jobs should also be examined as the demographic
characteristics of park and ride users suggest that a higher split toward office jobs may
increase the reverse commute potential.
12 Hooper, Katherine, TCRP Synthesis of Transit Practice 14, Innovative Suburb to Suburb Transit
Practices, 1995, Pg. 3
13 Turnbull, Katherine, and Richard Pratt, "Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes", Chapter
3 - Park-and-Ride/Pool, (Transit Cooperative Research Program, Report 95, 2004), pg. 3-9
14 Calculated using the following approximation: 1 retail job = 1183 square feet of retail space. 1 office job
= 269 square feet of office space
14
Table 2: Pro)ecte emp oyment Wit Illwa Ill!! Istance 0 . oar an neo
Retail Jobs Office Jobs Total
Location 1 626 1,457 2,083
Location 2 368 3,562 3,930
Location 3 736 324 1,060
d
. h.
lk' d.
f k d.d 1 cations:
Opportunities for Local Transit Service: The reverse commuter potential could
possibly be increased iflocal transit service existed within the City of Pearl and. This
transit service could take many forms, including a local bus circulator linking major
employment and retail destinations within the City of Pearl and. Such a local circulator
has recently begun service in the Woodland Town Center. Without further study
including origin-destination surveys it is difficult to predict the feasibility of local transit
service in the City of Pearl and. However, the concept deserves closer examination as
such as service would fulfill many of the overall goals of this report, including increasing
ridership for commuter bus service, making transit oriented development more feasible,
and decreasing overall trips and congestion in the Pearland area.
A 2004 Transportation Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) study found that park and
ride circulator bus service dedicated to serving suburban employment destinations are
largely unsuccessful. The distances between the park and ride lot and the destinations are
usually too great to justify the use of transit for most riders. IS However, a circulator or
trolley service linking the developments along the SH288 corridor has several factors that
may make it successful, such as the increasing density in retail, employment, and
residential uses along the SH288 corridor.
Proposed Transit Routes:
The lack of frontage roads along key sections of SH288 between FM2234 and FM518
makes it necessary for any transit circulator serving the SH288 corridor to use roads not
fronting the highway. Not crossing major roadways can help to avoid congestion for the
circulator, although the lack of connectivity in the corridor will dictate which roads are
viable options for the transit service. The only current north-south roads that could serve
to link the developments are Business Center Drive and Smith Ranch Road (CR94 after
Discovery Bay Dr.) This route links all three possible park and ride locations with the
major existing and proposed developments along the SH288 corridor. This route would
allow reverse park and ride users to access any of the employment destinations in the
corridor as well as allowing residents to park their cars once at any of the developments
and take the circulator rather than use their cars to get between developments.
The configuration shown in Figure 2 creates a loop at Discovery Bay Drive and then
extends north on Business Center Dr. to Shadow Creek Parkway where it terminates.
Current land uses north of Discovery Bay Drive on the east side of SH288 are
predominately residential. If land uses change in the future, the route could continue up
CR94 to McHard Road before crossing under SH288 to Shadow Creek Parkway. In
i5 Turnbull, Katherine, and Richard Pratt, "Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes", Chapter
3 - Park-and-Ride/Pool, (Transit Cooperative Research Program, Report 95, 2004), pg. 3-23
15
addition, if an internal street network is created within the Waterlights District, it could
connect to this route and extend the circulator farther north.
Figure 2: Proposed Transit Circulator Route #1
The second proposed local transit route would link the growing SH288 corridor with the
historic Pearland town center, at the junction ofFM518 (Broadway) and SH35 (Main
Street). This route would serve a slightly different purpose than route I, and the City
should consider both routes. Route #2 could serve to link the different sections of the
City and potentially lessen congestion along Broadway, the major east/west arterial in the
City.
Such a transit route could also act as a catalyst for reinvestment in the traditional town
center, which corresponds with the goals in the City of Pearl and's Comprehensive Plan,
planning initiative #1 to "reinvent the old townsite as a modern village with a compatible
mix of residential and nonresidential uses." Unlike the SH288 corridor, the old townsite
has the advantage of a traditional street grid which offers good connectivity for a transit
circulator. This route could connect with a trolley circulator linking the activity nodes of
the old townsite, such as that proposed in the Goodman Corporation's 'New Town
Center' report from July 2005 which recommends a circulator along Grand Boulevard.
16
Figure 3: Proposed Transit Route #2: Linking SH288 Corridor and Historic Town
Center
It is recommended that the City conduct a more detailed study specifically looking at the
viability of local transit service within the City of Pearl and, serving the growing SH288
corridor and linking the City of Pearland's various neighborhoods.
Post-Implementation benchmarking: As there is limited research into travel demand
estimation of suburban park and ride facilities, the City of Pearland, in coordination with
the transit agency, should plan on conducting monitoring and benchmarking of the
facilities success. Examples of benchmarking that have been used nationally include:
before and after evaluations, ongoing monitoring, and transit user surveys. Surveys can
ask what the prior mode of travel, how long their trip to get to the facility is, other
questions to determine origin and destination.
A frequent measure of park and ride success is the occupancy rate of the park and ride lot
facility. Park and ride utilization rates for suburban commuter systems average between
50 and 80 percent.16 However, the occupancy rate along does not reflect the actual
volume of facility usage and therefore volume, actual utilization, and mode share shift
should be used as measurements if possible.
16 Turnbull, Katherine, and Richard Pratt, "Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes", Chapter
3 - Park-and-Ride/Pool, (Transit Cooperative Research Program, Report 95, 2004), pg. 3-8
17
The three proposed locations for the park and ride facility each offer an opportunity for
the City of Pearl and to define its goals and create a prototype for future transit growth,
both as commuter services and transit within the City of Pearl and. This is a significant
opportunity for the City to put its planning principles into action and create a successful,
integrated, and well-designed facility that will serve the community and improve quality
of life in the Pearland area.
18
Community Services
City of Pearland
Memo
To: Bill Eisen, City Manager
Mayor and City Council
From: Nicholas J. Finan, Assistant City Manager
cc: Darrin Coker, Claire Manthei
Date: December 7, 2007
Re: Metro's Park and Ride Proposal
City Council had directed staff to work with HGAC to understand the proposals submitted by Metro and
Connect Transportation in the Spring of 2007. John Sedlak of Metro sent a request and new figures for
the city to accept a lesser lease agreement of roughly $35, 000 per month for the remainder of fiscal
year 2007/2008 with a temporary Park and Ride in the parking lot of the movie theater in Sliver Lake in
September. Council directed staff to continue to work with HGAC. Metro's September proposal was
anticipated to begin in January of 2008 and cost the city roughly $255,000 for the remainder of the fiscal
year and then in year two cost the city roughly $455,000 for a full year. The proposal did not include
any federal assistance or third party participants that may be able to contribute.
With respect to the latest proposal provided on December 6th, here are some very preliminary
comments by Mr. Eisen and staff and Metro has responded in blue:
1) Section 2.1 - Should state the Park and Ride Facility should be noted to be at or near one mile
south of Broadway on Business Center Drive and not SH288 and FM 518.
Also, it should be noted within that same section that the Cinemark Theater is located with the
City's ET J not city limits.
At the end of the section it should state that Patrons will also board and deboard in the Pearl and
area.
That's fine, it can be more clearly defined. Cinemark in ET J, noted.
2) Does City Council feel it should at least have an opportunity to comment on fares or routes?
Comment on fares and route is fine and will be taken into consideration, but Metro would
reserve the right to make decisions on routes and fares.
3) Should a Section 2.3 be added that has Metro obligated to assist the City in obtaining federal
grants, and outside financial assistance? Will definitely assist in every way possible, but cannot
be obligated for the funds.
4) Should a Section 3.2 be added that the primary responsibility to obtain federal assistance or other
outside financial assistance is the city's? We may need to discuss this, but I see it as a mutual
effort.
1
5} Section 3.1 either needs to add a system-wide exhibit and formula for calculating or another way
would be when requested and justified based upon cost of service analysis a CPI rule could be put
in place. We thought about using CPI, and would have preferred that, however to use CPI, a
"baseline" is needed, and our formula is more fluid. Operations costs will change every year
or few years and the amount from the farebox will vary (and increase), therefore, lack of a firm
baseline.
6} Also, within that section there needs to be a time frame that the city has to review the increase
before it goes into effect, such as 45 to 60 days or possibly the 90 days mentioned prior to the
automatic renewal. Can include a timeframe for review if you like.
7} Section 6.1 should state some sort of time frame for notice of termination from either Metro or the
City. As mentioned in a voicemail to Nick, the termination and term sections were held over
from a previous version where we would own the land. Obviously if we're tied to a long-term
lease with NewQuest, we would need a similar commitment from the City. I will replace the
term with 30 years, and ask our senior management about a termination clause.
8} Article 7 needs to outline the number of terms, but it seems no matter what the term is, it is stated it
is still an annual contract. (see above) cannot be an annual contract.
9} A section needs to be added that allows the city to survey the riders to determine satisfaction, fares,
where they are from, where they are going, and other questions that would assist the city determine
an appropriate participation level. We can work with you on survey of riders and other market
info.
10} It appears this is a turn-key proposal with no additional funding requested for security, marketing,
increase in service levels, additional or upgraded capital. Would like confirmation. No additional
funding requested for marketing. No anticipated funding for security. Our Metro Police need to
meet with City and County law enforcement to coordinate efforts, but it is not expected to be a
funding issue. There would be an increase to the City for increased bus service. However, the
level of bus service would not increase unless the ridership needs indicate more service is
justified. Perhaps the most important thing to remember here, is based on the service and
financial model, we could only add one or two more trips before we've reached a maximum
level of service equaling the number of cars parked at the facility, so there is a very fixed
ceiling on capacity.
On numbers 7, 8, and 10 staff will continue to work with Metro before Monday's meeting.
Based upon Metro's previous proposal and comments from HGAC of the likelihood of obtaining at least
contributions of 50% from the federal government to assist in covering the city's share, this proposal
appears to be quite good. HGAC will be available to comment. The City budgeted $200,000 for this
fiscal year. Should we obtain the federal assistance at 50% only for operations, that could bring the
city's out of pocket down to roughly $127,500. Year two could be in the $214,000 range. There may be
some capital participation, also which could affect the city's share also.
Prior questions or concerns were:
The Texas Medical Center is a beneficiary of the Park and Ride, could TMC or its hospitals or other
employers contribute? This has been discussed with HGAC, and it has been determined that TMC and
its employers contribute through fare reimbursement to its employers. The fare charged is the highest
currently charged by Metro which typically bases fares on distances - this is a short ride and has no
HOV access, so Metro feels the fare is quite high to help offset the City of Pearland's contribution.
Silver Lake residents that were not citizens would benefit, could the county or other entity contribute?
This needs to be explored, but the county has made no indication to provide financial commitment to
commuter transit needs. It is not likely a MUD could contribute or that an HOA could provide enough
support through its current fee structure.
. Page 2
Manvel residents would benefit, could Manvel contribute? Would need to still be contacted and
discussed.
With federal assistance and Metro's discounting, does that offset contributions by outsiders? That is a
question for city council to still decide. Metro feels that it has done a great deal in its contributions and
fare and will assist in gaining federal assistance to give the city residents a great deal, but it would apply
universally to all riders. Is the benefit of lessened congestion on SH288 for Pearl and residents enough
for the city to contribute to a Park and Ride that included non-residents?
After the Park and Ride is up and running, could the City of Pearland still seek outside assistance
besides federal funds? Yes. Metro has no problem with other entities assisting on the city's share of
the cost. Metro is even willing to assist the City in gaining the financial support of other entities.
. Page 3
John Sedlak
Executive VIce President
Office of the ExecutMt VIce President
MErAD
~t0 7 .
To: /VI,t..../ 4lK.- p~ LLI D. {)J~t- t::../s .e:.t\(
R€-: /~p .7~>I:::~~-'s~rw.
ph<.- d- bIL!--,
_ P~b j7,ur? _
/f .J-~ ./fIvt:? rvAN't::.4~
p~~~ I~~~~ r'!c P/6-
~ /1,;~JE.O 1:~en-J r A-
t' JA>tWC- h-!? ~OL- OP2V'/cE:" r---
~LM-~ 1?' 7fv. G-
/J:f ..:c .e;yp~,.J~ ~ /31lA-
YE1~O-o/, ~ flV-/"-L A-sSJ~ y,v /.J
~ ;::?~~ ~ 6v!J;oy,z/<<TV
b,r 1;4 ~ /'Pie J.Jt~c... ~.,--
pJ IJ-I?-- r ~ vr I~~ ~F / .::z: f$t2.~/~
bv-e-- ~~ oei/~~ A- C.csSr /1-1"efa-
~ Af7r/U~ j1#J'1 ~ ffir~ r.~ f.,.-,tL-
rJ ~ 4e17f$ ~ t-D1fLf-!!-MJL.r6.
~ jV-u::O P ~-r-.J 4J~U~1' L 'r: .~IL.--
~ /"'1d1/~ A-~ M ~
I
~~/~ ~ /I- [/-::;/ Sy..Iff.f'17/v-f2..-
~~. j/tAU1d~ ~I Ir- YJV'tfrr/6
frv( q;vtU't/'fd"'"' >, '..-L . /.
~- --
Metropolitan Transit Authority
1900 Main
P.O. Box 61429
Houston, Texas n20B-1429
METRO Board of Directors
David S. Wolff, Chairmen
Gerald B. Smith, Vice Chairman
Jackie L. Freeman, Secretary
Georgi A. DeMontrond. IJI
James Dixon. II
Carmen Orta
Rafael Ortega
Louise 1: Richman
C. Jim Siewert, III
METRO
President & Chief Executive Officer
Frank J. Wilson
September 18, 2007
The Honorable Tom Reid
Mayor, City of Pearland
3519 Liberty Drive
Pearland, Texas 77581
SUBJECT: Commuter Transit Service/Pearland to the Texas Medical Center
Dear Mayor Reid:
Over the last few months, METRO has continued to evaluate possible options for a partnership
toward the provision of commuter transit service from the Pearland area to the Texas Medical
Center. As you know, we have spent considerable time on this effort and believe we have a very
compelling idea for establishing a partnership for this Park & Ride service in your area.
In conjunction with a development partner, METRO could begin a temporary service from the
Cinemark Theater parking area as early as January 2008, with approximately 420 parking spaces.
METRO would then build a 600-space surface lot, just south of FM 518 at SH 288 Oust south of
the CBl development). This lot would have 20,000 square feet of retail built on-site, and be placed
into operation by fall of 2008.
H-GAC and METRO have recently received applications for Job Access Reverse Commute
(JARC) federal grant funds; another call for projects is expected to be issued within the next few
months. We believe this service would qualify for receipt of the grant funds and encourag~ the
City to apply. If selected, eligible project expenses are reimbursable at 80%. This would
substantially reduce the local financial commitment Pearland would be required to provide.
Attached are maps showing the location of the temporary and permanent lots. Also, attached is
our service plan with estimated operating expenses and fare box revenue.
Based on our estimates of operating cost of this service, we would need the City of Pearland to
partner with us in the amount of approximately $28,500 per month during the temporary lot phase
in January 2008, and $35,700 per month for the permanent facility, which we anticipate can be
operational by October 2008. Should you be successful in the competition for JARC funds, your
financial commitment would be substantially reduced.
The Honorable Tom Reid
Commuter Transit Service/Pearland to TMC
September 18, 2007
Page 2
I need to know as quickly as possible if this approach is something that the City of Pearland
would like to pursue towards an interlocal agreement. We believe, as I know you do as well, that
the rapid growth of your area requires immediate action to serve the needs of today and
tomorrow.
Sincerely,
Bill Eisen, City Manager/City of Pearland
David S. Wolff, METRO Board Chairman
METRO Board Members
Frank J. Wilson, President & Chief Executive Officer
Todd A. Mason, Vice President/Real Estate Services
Alan Clark, H-GAC
PEARLAND/TMC PARK & RIDE
(Revised September 10, 2007)
Implementation Date
Type of Service
Jan-08
Peak Buses
Weekday Only
7
Type of Bus
45' Suburban
Revenue Hours per day
33
Additional Spaces
400,600-
space surface
lot
FY08
FY09
Total Revenue Hours
5,742
8,382
COSTS
Total Variable Costs
$
405,615
90,000
100,500
596,115
$
592,104
402,000
P&R Capital Lease
TOTAL DOLLARS
(1) $
(2) $
$
(3) $
$
994,104
REVENUE
Proposed Ridership Increases in Boardings
(4)
Fares @ $3.15 (90% of $3.50)
$
108,225
340,909
(4)
$
179,580
565,677
NET OPERATING COSTS
$
255,206
$
428,427
(I) Proposed P&R Lease - Temporary Lot - 6 Months @ $15,000
(2) Proposed P&R Lease - Permanent Lot - 3 Months @ $33,500
(3) Proposed P&R Lease - 12 months at $33,500
(4) Based on service plan proposed by Operations
Planing as of 8/3/07, approximately 300 per day
parking at the temporary lot, approximatly 350 per day
parking at the permanent lot.
9/18/2007
G:\Pearland-Real Estate 2 Sep 10 2007
o
1.5
SH 288 Park & Ride
o
"
.,~s
",oV"
REED
AIRPOR
288
AlMEDA GENOA
J
!!!
~
SAM HOUSTON
2234
FM 518
BROADWAY
.
SH 288
Proposed ParK & Ride
ClnemarK
Miles
3
II
..
.A.' ". ;.' +,." ~" "' . m ,- ,,;,:: - . ,_ ,. " .
" .. "
' ,
' -" -" ^' .
' " -;. -- ..- , . -
\;'_'i',
,~~ - ~
, A.- " ".'.--,"._'f<i~ ",'. 'I' .
< "~~
.' -
~'~.;'" C.. _
., ,.,-,,~....
..". '.- - ~"" .'
t~_'_._ '_'___~_"~;.....' -:..-
II
11
"
MALL RING ROAD ~
v
u
~~~~~
I"
.. .. ..
. - .
. ,-
I
I ~
I
It U U If If It I i2
/ 0
0::
w
....
Z
w
u
en
en
w
Z
~ H l1 If " U U en
IE ::I
.. co
Ii:
11
u
"I"
"
If
~
-----
TOTAL PARKlNG: 600 PARKING SPACES
SITE PLAN
f/) ~
PEARLAND PARK &. RIDE
MErAD PRELIMINARY STUDY
PEARLAND, TEXAS
Q
N~~.
....UIIIfl:I:InN,......,M,
1r.lIn_ MlWIQII,1IL\I;nM
~.:rtAn__ p.DlAn.a.
"""'~"""'.-.=u
Metropolitan Transit Authority 0' Harrls County. Texas