HomeMy WebLinkAboutBus Rapid Transit Feasibility on the CRANDIC Rail Corridor - Oct24PREPARED FOR:
PREPARED BY:
IN ASSOCIATION WITH: NELSON NYGAARD
OCTOBER 2024
RAIL CORRIDOR
ON THE CRANDIC
BUS RAPIDTRANSIT FEASIBILITY
Bus Rapid Transit Feasibility
on the CRANDIC Rail Corridor
Final Report
Prepared for:
Metropolitan Planning Organization
of Johnson County
410 E Washington St
Iowa City, Iowa
Prepared by:
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
1300 Walnut Street, Suite 101
Des Moines, IA 50309
515.493.2757
FHU Reference No. 123626-01
October 2024
Final October 2024
Bus Rapid Transit Feasibility
on the CRANDIC Rail Corridor
Steering Committee
Name Position Organization
Jon Green County Supervisor Johnson County
Darian Nagle-Gamm Director of Transportation Services Iowa City Transit
Brian McClatchey CAMBUS Manager University of Iowa, CAMBUS
Vicky Robrock Director of Parking and Transportation Coralville Transit
Angela McConville Special Projects Coordinator North Liberty
Jeff Woods Director – Business Development CRANDIC
Amanda Martin Director, Rail Transportation Iowa DOT
Matthew Oetker Transit Programs Administrator Iowa DOT
Austin Korns Senior Director of Economic Development Greater Iowa City, Inc.
Kent Ralston Executive Director MPOJC
Final October 2024
Table of Contents i
T
a
b
l
e
o
f
C
o
n
t
e
n
t
s
Page
1.Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1
2.Existing Conditions .................................................................................................. 3
Street Corridors ........................................................................................................................... 3
Active Transportation ................................................................................................................. 4
Transit Service ............................................................................................................................... 6
Land Uses .................................................................................................................................... 11
3.Alternatives ............................................................................................................ 13
Tier 1 ............................................................................................................................................ 13
Tier 2 ............................................................................................................................................ 17
4.Capital Improvements .......................................................................................... 28
Stop Locations ............................................................................................................................ 28
Infrastructure Improvements .................................................................................................. 33
Potential Right-of-Way Impacts ............................................................................................. 37
Constructability .......................................................................................................................... 38
Opinion of Probable Capital Costs ....................................................................................... 38
5.Operations ............................................................................................................. 40
Service Plan ................................................................................................................................. 40
Changes to Existing Service .................................................................................................... 47
Operating & Maintenance Cost Estimates .......................................................................... 47
BRT Governance ........................................................................................................................ 48
6.Trail Corridor ........................................................................................................ 49
Trail Connection ........................................................................................................................ 49
Trail Capital Costs ..................................................................................................................... 51
Trail Maintenance Costs .......................................................................................................... 51
7.Conceptual Ridership ........................................................................................... 52
STOPS Model Overview .......................................................................................................... 52
Summary of Inputs .................................................................................................................... 52
Ridership Forecasts ................................................................................................................... 54
8.Regulatory Review ................................................................................................ 60
Environmental Review .............................................................................................................. 60
Railroad Abandonment............................................................................................................. 65
9.Funding .................................................................................................................... 66
Federal .......................................................................................................................................... 66
Final October 2024
Table of Contents ii
State .............................................................................................................................................. 68
Local .............................................................................................................................................. 69
10. Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 70
Benefits of BRT vs Rail Transit on CRANDIC ROW....................................................... 70
Implementing BRT on the CRANDIC ROW ..................................................................... 71
Next Steps................................................................................................................................... 72
Appendices
Appendix A. Existing Conditions Tables
Appendix B. Terminal Concept Alignments
Appendix C. Tier 2 Demographics Criteria
Appendix D. Alternatives Schedules
Appendix E. Model Calibration
Appendix F. Environmental Screening
Appendix G. CIG Analysis
List of Tables
Table 1. List of Streets in Study Area ............................................................................................. 3
Table 2. Iowa City Transit Routes ................................................................................................... 6
Table 3. CAMBUS Routes .................................................................................................................. 7
Table 4. Coralville Transit Routes ................................................................................................... 9
Table 5. 380 Express Service ............................................................................................................. 9
Table 6. Tier 1 Screening ................................................................................................................ 17
Table 7. Tier 2 Screening ................................................................................................................ 26
Table 8. Estimated Capital Costs by Alternative ....................................................................... 39
Table 9. Frequency by Service Day and Time of Day............................................................... 40
Table 10. Alternative 1 Stop Distance and Travel Time ......................................................... 42
Table 11. Alternative 5 Stop Distance and Travel Time ......................................................... 43
Table 12. Alternative 7 Stop Distance and Travel Time ......................................................... 44
Table 13. Alternatives Service Statistics ...................................................................................... 45
Table 14. Alternatives O&M Cost Summary .............................................................................. 47
Table 15. Trail Capital Cost Estimate .......................................................................................... 51
Table 16. STOPS Inputs Summary ................................................................................................ 53
Table 17. Daily Boardings Comparison ........................................................................................ 53
Table 18. Proposed Park-n-Ride for Three Alternatives ......................................................... 54
Table 19. Project Daily Ridership Summary ............................................................................... 55
Table 20. Routes with Highest Impact to Existing Ridership ................................................. 56
Table 21. Station Level Ridership for Alternative 1 .................................................................. 57
Table 22. Station Level Ridership for Alternative 5 .................................................................. 58
Table 23. Station Level Ridership for Alternative 7 .................................................................. 59
Table 24. Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the Proposed Project ........ 61
Final October 2024
Table of Contents iii
List of Figures
Figure 1. Study Corridor .................................................................................................................... 2
Figure 2. Trail Corridors Near BRT Study Corridor .................................................................. 5
Figure 3. CAMBUS – Research Park Route 34 ............................................................................. 8
Figure 4. Coralville Transit – North Liberty Route 22 ............................................................ 10
Figure 5. Land Uses Along Study Corridor ................................................................................. 12
Figure 6. Tier 1 Alternatives ........................................................................................................... 14
Figure 7. Tier 1 Alternatives - Northern Terminal ................................................................... 15
Figure 8. Tier 1 Alternatives - Southern Terminal .................................................................... 15
Figure 9. Alternative 1 Alignment ................................................................................................. 18
Figure 10. Alternative 2 Alignment ............................................................................................... 19
Figure 11. Alternative 3 Alignment ............................................................................................... 20
Figure 12. Alternative 4 Alignment ............................................................................................... 21
Figure 13. Alternative 5 Alignment ............................................................................................... 22
Figure 14. Alternative 6 Alignment ............................................................................................... 23
Figure 15. Alternative 7 Alignment ............................................................................................... 24
Figure 16. Alternative 8 Alignment ............................................................................................... 25
Figure 17. Alternatives Carried Forward ..................................................................................... 27
Figure 18. Alternative 1 Proposed Stops .................................................................................... 29
Figure 19. Alternative 5 Proposed Stops .................................................................................... 31
Figure 20. Alternative 7 Proposed Stops .................................................................................... 32
Figure 21. 1- and 2-Lane Segments ............................................................................................... 34
Figure 22. Schematic of 2 Lane BRT Corridor and Parallel Trail .......................................... 35
Figure 23. Schematic of 1 Lane BRT Corridor and Parallel Trail .......................................... 35
Figure 24. Example BRT Station in Oklahoma City .................................................................. 36
Figure 25. Schematic of 2 Lane BRT Corridor with Stop and Parallel Trail ....................... 36
Figure 26. Example BRT Park and Ride in Oklahoma City ..................................................... 37
Figure 27. Example BRT Vehicle Interior in Oklahoma City .................................................. 46
Figure 28. Example BRT Vehicle 40-Foot Floorplan ................................................................. 46
Figure 29. Future Trail Connection .............................................................................................. 50
Figure 30. FTA EIS Process (Source: FTA) ................................................................................. 64
Final October 2024
Introduction 1
1. Introduction
The Metropolitan Planning Organization of Johnson County (MPOJC) commissioned a study to analyze the feasibility
of converting the CRANDIC rail right-of-way (ROW) between North Liberty and Iowa City to a Bus Rapid Transit
(BRT) corridor. Figure 1 shows the limits of the study and the location of the corridor in relation to the
surrounding roadway network. This study will help guide planning and directly inform capital improvements and
transit operations and maintenance of BRT service on the corridor if determined to be feasible. This report examines
the existing conditions on the corridor, alternatives developed and evaluated, capital improvements necessary for
BRT service, operations of a BRT, conceptual ridership of advanced alternatives, regulatory items that will need to be
addressed, and potential funding options to advance the project. Additionally, the costs associated with a parallel trail
connection in the CRANDIC corridor were also evaluated.
The CRANDIC rail corridor has been studied multiple times to determine the feasibility of bus or rail transit
between Cedar Rapids, North Liberty, and Iowa City. The previous studies include:
Cedar-Iowa River Rail Transit Project Feasibility Study (2006)
Iowa City – Cedar Rapids Passenger Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study (2015)
Iowa City – North Liberty Passenger Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study (2016)
Iowa City – Oakdale CRANDIC Right-of-Way Rails-to-Trails Conversion Study (2018)
Iowa City – North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study (2020)
The four studies between 2015 and 2020 examined the feasibility of rail transit service or trail improvements along
the same study corridor reviewed in this analysis. Many of the key issues identified in the previous studies, including
at-grade crossing locations, ROW needs, stop locations, and regulatory requirements are consistent with issues
identified in the analysis of feasibility of bus rapid transit between North Liberty and Iowa City. These studies provide
insights into existing conditions and travel behavior that remain consistent with conditions examined in this study.
Final October 2024
Introduction 2
Figure 1. Study Corridor
Final October 2024
Existing Conditions 3
2. Existing Conditions
The CRANDIC corridor between Gilbert Street in Iowa City and Penn Street in North Liberty varies between 40-
feet and 120-feet of ROW with 27 at-grade street crossings, 7 bridges, and 17 culverts. The Iowa City-North Liberty
Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study (2020) provides a detailed description of conditions of the CRANDIC
ROW and rail infrastructure. The following items are included in the detailed analysis from previous studies:
Existing Railroad Track Characteristics
Railroad Bridges and Drainage Structures
At-Grade Crossings
Railroad Wayside Signaling and Wayside Asset Protection Devices
Fiber and Utility Infrastructure
Right-of-Way
Current Operations
Tables for existing infrastructure in the study corridor are provided in Appendix A.
Street Corridors
Existing transit services in the Iowa City metropolitan area use multiple street corridors between North Liberty,
Coralville, and Iowa City. This section provides context for the city streets that may be used for a BRT route along
the CRANDIC corridor.
Table 1. List of Streets in Study Area
Street Functional Class Speed Limit Number of Lanes
US Highway 6 Principal Arterial 30 – 40 mph 4 Lane, Turn Lanes at
Intersections
1st Avenue Minor Arterial 25 mph 5 Lane with CTWLTL
Burlington Street Principal / Minor Arterial 25 mph 5 Lane with CTWLTL
Iowa Avenue Minor Arterial / Local 25 mph 4 Lane (Undivided/Median)
Clinton Street Collector / Local 25 mph 3 Lane + Two-Way Bike
Madison Street Minor / Collector / Local 25 mph 3 Lane + Two-Way Bike
12th Avenue Minor Arterial / Collector 25 mph 2 Lane (H2H) + Shared
Coral Ridge Avenue / Highway 965 Minor Arterial 45 mph 4 Lane + Median
Penn Street Minor Arterial / Collector 25 – 35 mph 4 Lane / 2 Lane (H2H)
Final October 2024
Existing Conditions 4
Active Transportation
There are multiple trails and multimodal corridors running along or near the existing CRANDIC rail corridor to
support the recreational and mobility needs of residents of the metropolitan area. Trails and corridors that could
support future connections along the CRANDIC corridor are included in this section. The North Ridge Trail and
Iowa River Corridor Trail are shown with the Study Corridor in Figure 2.
North Ridge Trail
The North Ridge Trail is a 6.6-mile paved trail constructed adjacent to the CRANDIC Corridor through Coralville
and North Liberty. The North Ridge Trail starts at W. Penn Street in North Liberty and begins running to the west
of the CRANDIC right-of-way north of Golfview Drive. The trail crosses over the railroad on the north side of
Oakdale Boulevard before continuing south and crossing the railroad again just west of Lynncrest Drive. The trail
continues south through North Ridge Park and the North Ridge Open Space.
Iowa River Corridor Trail
The Iowa River Corridor (IRC) Trail is an 18.2-mile paved trail from Iowa City to Mehaffey Bridge northeast of North
Liberty. The trail includes a section along the Iowa River extending to the Iowa River Landing in Coralville. This
segment of trail extending into Coralville runs along the CRANDIC rail corridor from CRANDIC Park to the rail
crossing at 1st Avenue and 6th Street / 2nd Avenue.
On-Street Facilities
Multiple streets in the vicinity of the CRANDIC corridor have on-street bicycle facilities including shared lane
markings, on-street routes, bike lanes, sidepaths, and wide sidewalks. Surrounding the Pentacrest bike lanes and
shared lane markings are located on Jefferson Street, Clinton Street, and Madison Street. Iowa Avenue in the study
area is designated an on-street bicycle route. Wide sidewalks are located along 1st Avenue in Coralville. 12th Avenue
along the CRANDIC corridor has shared lane markings south of the CRANDIC at-grade crossing of 12th Avenue.
North of the CRANDIC crossing, 12th Avenue includes a sidepath. Holiday Road over the CRANDIC corridor also
has shared lane markings.
Final October 2024
Existing Conditions 5
Figure 2. Trail Corridors Near BRT Study Corridor
Final October 2024
Existing Conditions 6
Transit Service
There are three fixed route transit systems located in the Iowa City – North Liberty planning area. The three
systems work collaboratively to provide service between Iowa City, Coralville, and North Liberty. Each of the three
systems share transfer points at stops throughout the region, but also serve the transit center in Downtown Iowa
City. A fourth commuter focused service operates between Cedar Rapids and Iowa City with stops along Interstate
380 and a transfer point to local service at the West Campus Transportation Center.
Iowa City Transit
Iowa City Transit operates 13 routes in the City of Iowa City and City of University Heights. All but two routes
serve the Downtown Interchange on East Washington Street adjacent to the Pentacrest. In 2023, Iowa City Transit
transitioned to fare free service. Iowa City Transit operates on streets that cross the CRANDIC corridor including
Iowa Avenue, Burlington Street, South Capitol Street, and South Gilbert Street. Iowa City Transit currently does not
operate routes on Highway 6 adjacent to the CRANDIC corridor. Table 2 provides the hours of service and
frequency for weekday service for each of the 13 Iowa City Transit Routes.
Table 2. Iowa City Transit Routes
Route No. Route Name Hours of Service Frequency (min)
1 South Iowa City 6:00 AM – 10:00 PM 30
2 Court Street 5:50 AM – 9:35 PM 20
3 Eastside Loop
7:35 AM - 8:45 AM;
4:05 PM – 4:55 PM (M, T, W, F),
3:05 PM – 3:55 PM (TH)
One Trip
4 Downtown Shuttle 7:30 AM – 6:30 PM 15
5 Lower Muscatine/Kirkwood 5:55 AM – 10:00 PM 20
6 Peninsula 6:15 AM – 7:45 PM 30 (AM/PM Peak),
60 (Midday)
7 North Dodge 6:00 AM – 7:10 PM 30 (AM/PM Peak),
60 (Midday)
8 Oakcrest 6:15 AM – 10:00 PM 15 (AM/PM Peak),
30 (Midday)
9 Towncrest 5:50 AM – 9:35 PM 20
10 West Iowa City 6:00 AM – 10:15 PM 30
11 Rochester 5:50 AM – 7:15 PM 30 (AM/PM Peak),
60 (Midday)
12 Highway 1 6:10 AM – 10:30 PM 30 (AM/PM Peak),
60 (Midday)
13 South Gilbert 6:45 AM – 8:15 PM 30 (AM/PM Peak),
60 (Midday)
Final October 2024
Existing Conditions 7
CAMBUS
CAMBUS is the campus-wide transit service operated by the University of Iowa. CAMBUS operates 13 fixed routes
in Iowa City and Coralville. CAMBUS is a fare free system. CAMBUS operates eight routes that serve the Pentacrest
and six that serve the Downtown Interchange on East Washington Street. CAMBUS also operates six routes that
serve the West Campus Transportation Center located on Evashevski Drive just north of Kinnick Stadium.
CAMBUS operates on streets that cross the CRANDIC corridor including Iowa Avenue, North Riverside Drive, 1st
Avenue, Holiday Road, 12th Avenue, Old Hospital Road, Oakdale Boulevard, and Burlington Street. CAMBUS also
operates routes on Highway 6 adjacent to the CRANDIC corridor.
CAMBUS operates the Research Park route (Figure 3) that serves the Research Park campus – one of the stops
identified in the previous CRANDIC corridor studies – which has transfer points to five other routes along Newton
Road. Table 3 provides the hours of service and frequency for each of the 13 CAMBUS routes during weekday
academic service.
Table 3. CAMBUS Routes
Route No. Route Name Hours of Service Frequency (Min)
31 Red Route
6:30 AM – 7:00 PM
7:00 PM – 9:00 PM
9:00 PM – 12:45 AM
12
18
36
32 Blue Route
6:30 AM – 7:00 PM
7:00 PM – 9:00 PM
9:00 PM – 12:45 AM
12
18
36
33 South Campus Shuttle 6:30 AM – 6:30 PM 15
34 Research Park 5:45 AM – 7:40 PM 30 (AM/PM Peak),
60 (Midday)
35 Interdorm 6:15 AM – 9:30 PM 10 to 30
36 East Dorm Shuttle 7:00 AM – 9:30 AM
3:00 PM – 6:40 PM 20
41 Hawk Lot-Hospital 4:40 AM – 8:50 PM 7 (AM/PM Peak),
20 (Midday, Evening)
42 Hawkeye-Pentacrest 6:40 AM – 8:50 PM 20, 40 (Evening)
43 Hawkeye Interdorm 9:00 PM – 1:02 AM 60
51 Hospital-Finkbine/Arena 4:30 AM – 8:50 PM 4 (AM/PM Peak),
12 (early AM, Midday, Evening)
52 Finkbine-Pentacrest 6:20 AM – 9:10 PM 15 (AM/PM Peak),
30 (Midday, Evening)
53 VA Loop Shuttle 5:30 AM – 6:40 AM
4:00 PM – 5:30 PM 15
54 Hancher-Newton Road 6:35 AM – 8:30 AM
3:35 PM – 5:25 PM 15
Final October 2024
Existing Conditions 8
Figure 3. CAMBUS – Research Park Route 34
Final October 2024
Existing Conditions 9
Coralville Transit
Coralville Transit operates six routes in the City of Coralville with connections to the City of North Liberty and the
City of Iowa City. Coralville Transit serves the Downtown Interchange in Iowa City on the South Clinton Street side
of the Pentacrest. Coralville Transit fares are one dollar for adults, 50 cents for youth ages 5 to 18, and free for
children under five. Coralville Transit also offers a variety of passes. Table 4 provides the hours of service and
frequency for each of the six Coralville Transit routes.
Table 4. Coralville Transit Routes
Route No. Route Name Hours of Service Frequency (Min)
20 Iowa River Landing 6:07 AM – 5:25 PM 30
21 5th Street 5:25 AM – 6:14 PM 30 (AM/PM Peak),
60 (Midday)
22 North Liberty 6:38 AM – 7:37 AM
5:10 PM – 6:05 PM
One Trip (AM/PM)
23 10th Street 5:47 AM – 6:12 PM 30 (AM/PM Peak),
60 (Midday)
24 Night 5:10 PM – 12:13 AM 60
25 Saturday 7:13 AM – 8:09 PM 60
Coralville Transit operates on streets that cross the CRANDIC corridor including Iowa Avenue, 1st Avenue, Holiday
Road, 12th Avenue, Golfview Road, and West Cherry Street. Coralville Transit operates routes on Highway 6
adjacent to the CRANDIC corridor.
Coralville Transit currently operates one route between North Liberty and downtown Iowa City – Route 22: North
Liberty. The route generally follows Front Street from North Liberty before traveling through Coralville on 12 th
Avenue, Holiday Road, 1st Avenue, and Highway 6. The route also extends south of Interstate 80 on 12th Avenue as
far as 10th Street where the route begins and ends. In Iowa City, the route reaches the Pentacrest via Newton Road
and Iowa Avenue. On the return trip to North Liberty the route follows Newton Road and Hawkins Drive before
traveling on Highway 6 to 1st Avenue. The North Liberty route is shown in Figure 4.
380 Express
The 380 Express is a commuter bus service between Cedar Rapids and Iowa City. The service is managed by the East
Central Iowa Council of Governments (ECICOG) with operations contracted with Windstar Lines, Inc. The route
connects the Cedar Rapids Ground Transportation Center in Cedar Rapids to the Court Street Transportation
Center in Iowa City. The 380 Express stops at the Cedar Rapids Lot 44 Park and Ride, Kirkwood Community
College, Coralville Transit Intermodal Facility, and the West Campus Transportation Center. The 380 Express does
not provide service to North Liberty.
Table 5 provides the hours of service and frequency for the 380 Express.
Table 5. 380 Express Service
Route Hours of Service Frequency (Min)
380 Express 4:52 AM – 9:02 PM 60 (AM/Midday)
30 (PM)
Final October 2024
Existing Conditions 10
Figure 4. Coralville Transit – North Liberty Route 22
Final October 2024
Existing Conditions 11
Land Uses
Land use adjacent to the CRANDIC right-of-way varies between institutional, commercial/office, industrial, and
residential (Figure 5). At the south end of the corridor between Capitol Street and the Iowa River, the land uses are
primarily institutional for the University of Iowa. West of the Iowa River, University of Iowa campus buildings north
of the CRANDIC corridor give way to residential uses until Rocky Shore Drive. South of the CRANDIC corridor and
US Highway 6 land uses are institutional – including the VA Hospital – and residential. Between Rocky Shore Drive
and 1st Avenue, commercial uses are primarily located south of the study corridor with the Iowa River and
recreational uses to the north. Adjacent to 1st Avenue, there is also a utility substation along the rail corridor.
West of 1st Avenue, the CRANDIC corridor runs adjacent to residential uses on the south with industrial uses
located north of the corridor. After crossing under Interstate 80, the CRANDIC corridor continues through
residential neighborhoods in Coralville before reaching the University of Iowa Research Park. Between Lynncrest
Drive and Forevergreen Road, the CRANDIC Corridor is surrounded by commercial uses and offices of the Research
Park as well as several parcels of undeveloped land. North of Forevergreen Road, the corridor is primarily
surrounded by residential uses as the corridor enters North Liberty.
Final October 2024
Existing Conditions 12
Figure 5. Land Uses Along Study Corridor
Final October 2024
Alternatives 13
3. Alternatives
In the study area, alternative transit corridors were developed based on previous studies and discussions with the
project steering committee. The alternatives for a possible high-capacity transit alignment between Iowa City and
North Liberty include the CRANDIC railroad right-of-way (ROW), Coral Ridge Avenue/Highway 965, or 1st
Avenue/Holiday Road/12th Ave/Front Street. Additionally, several shorter street segments were analyzed for the
north and south terminals to enhance service coverage, connect to other transit services, and allow transit vehicles
to turn around. The segments analyzed included:
CRANDIC ROW from North Liberty to downtown Iowa City
Coral Ridge Avenue/Highway 965 from Zeller Street to 2nd Street/US Highway 6
1st Avenue/Holiday Road/12th Ave/Front Street from Zeller Street to 2nd Street/US Highway 6
Penn Street east of I-380 to the CRANDIC ROW
Dubuque Street to Main Street to Cherry Street (for possible turnaround)
Newton Road through the University campus (alternative to the rail ROW)
Riverside Drive south of the rail ROW to Burlington Street
Iowa Avenue between Riverside Drive and Madison Street
Burlington Street between Riverside Drive and Madison Street
Madison Street between Jefferson Street and Burlington Street
The quad around the old Capitol building, which includes Jefferson Street, Clinton Street, Washington Street,
and Madison Street.
The study analyzed alternatives in a two-tiered screening process to determine a set of alternatives to carry forward
for additional consideration and refinement. The alternatives carried forward were refined in terms of capital and
operations costs, ridership estimates, and impacts to the CRANDIC ROW with the selection of station locations and
a preferred maintenance facility location.
Tier 1
The initial evaluation of corridor alternatives examined several options for the high-capacity transit corridor including
various locations to start and end the corridor. These alternatives were screened using a set of criteria related to the
goals of the study.
Tier 1 Alternatives
The study area was divided into three areas for grouping segment alternatives – North, Central, and South. Each of
the three areas has unique street layouts, land uses, and development type that allow for transit connections to
effectively serve each area independently. The Tier 1 alternatives are shown in a map in Figure 6. The Tier 1
northern and southern terminal alternatives are shown in Figure 7 and Figure 8. Detailed maps of operations of the
northern and southern terminal alternatives are included in Appendix B.
Final October 2024
Alternatives 14
Figure 6. Tier 1 Alternatives
Final October 2024
Alternatives 15
Figure 7. Tier 1 Alternatives - Northern Terminal
Figure 8. Tier 1 Alternatives - Southern Terminal
Final October 2024
Alternatives 16
Tier 1 Screening
The alignment alternatives underwent Tier 1 technical screening,
which included measuring outcomes from a set of 18 criteria and
feedback gained during meetings with the steering committee. The
screening criteria were established based on the goals for the project
to provide a high-capacity transit corridor between downtown Iowa
City and North Liberty with travel time savings and opportunities for
new transit-oriented development.
Each alternative was given a score based on how well it met the
criteria. The scores were based on how well the alternatives
compared against each other relative to the specific criterion. Results
of the Tier 1 screening are included in Table 6. As a result of the
screening, two northern terminal, one central, and three southern
terminal alternatives were carried forward for Tier 2 screening. Each
alternative brought forward to Tier 2 was vetted through the steering
committee.
Eight (8) total alternatives at the conclusion of Tier 1 screening were
brought forward to Tier 2 for further screening analysis and are listed
by their name and the Tier 1 alternatives (north, central, and south)
that make up each one:
Alternative 1: N5-C1-S2
Alternative 2: N5-C1-S6
Alternative 3: N5-C1-S5
Alternative 4: N5-C1-S6
Alternative 5: N3-C1-S2
Alternative 6: N3-C1-S6
Alternative 7: N3-C1-S5
Alternative 8: N3-C1-S6
Tier 1 Criteria
1. Serve a high number of transit
riders.
2. Increase mode share for transit
over driving.
3. Reduce the need for parking.
4. Achieve the fastest end-to-end
travel time.
5. Increase connections to other
transit routes and services.
6. Improve rider access to the
multimodal transportation network.
7. Increase the ability to utilize active
transportation uses.
8. Increase connections for
disadvantaged populations.
9. Avoid project costs that are far
above the average for transit projects.
10. Avoid impacts to other
transportation uses (driving lanes,
parking, railroads).
11. Avoid costly obstacles such as
bridges and major utilities.
12. Serve a high amount of existing
population density.
13. Serve a high amount of existing
employment density.
14. Serve a high amount of future
population density.
15. Serve a high amount of future
employment density.
16. Increase connections to major
activity centers.
17. Increase connections to
healthcare facilities.
18. Increase connections to planned
development projects.
Final October 2024
Alternatives 17
Table 6. Tier 1 Screening
Criteria N1 N2 N3 N4 N5 C1 C2 C3 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6
1 6 8 8 3 10 7 6 5 4 8 5 5 8 10
2 7 7 7 5 10 9 5 7 6 8 6 6 8 9
3 6 7 7 6 8 8 5 7 7 8 7 7 8 7
4 8 8 8 8 7 8 4 6 9 7 7 8 10 1
5 5 5 5 5 10 5 5 7 7 8 7 7 8 9
6 5 5 5 3 8 7 5 3 7 7 8 7 7 10
7 7 5 5 4 3 8 6 4 4 8 6 5 8 10
8 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 7 5 5 5 5 5 5
9 8 6 7 6 4 6 8 8 3 10 10 5 1 10
10 4 6 6 6 6 8 6 4 5 4 4 3 8 5
11 8 5 6 8 4 6 8 4 6 8 8 6 1 8
12 7 5 5 3 6 5 5 4 4 5 5 4 4 7
13 5 4 4 3 6 7 6 3 6 8 6 7 8 10
14 2 8 8 1 7 7 3 6 3 2 2 2 2 3
15 2 8 8 1 7 7 3 6 7 2 3 3 2 5
16 3 3 3 3 3 5 6 4 3 6 3 3 6 8
17 3 5 5 1 7 8 6 4 3 6 3 3 6 7
18 3 8 8 6 7 7 5 6 6 5 5 5 5 5
Total Score 94 108 110 77 118 123 97 95 95 115 100 91 105 129
Avg Score 5.22 6.00 6.11 4.28 6.56 6.83 5.39 5.28 5.28 6.39 5.56 5.06 5.83 7.17
Rank 4 3 2 5 1 1 2 3 5 2 4 6 3 1
Tier 2
The Tier 2 screening focused on further reducing the alternatives from the eight alternatives advanced through the
Tier 1 analysis.
Tier 2 Alternatives
All eight alternatives share the CRANDIC ROW along the central segment. The south terminal has three different
options for serving the University of Iowa campus and downtown Iowa City, with most circling the Pentacrest. The
north terminal routes have two options for a transit center with potential park-and-ride, bus turnaround, and layover
location. Each alternative is described below.
Alternative 1 includes the northern terminal near Penn Street and I-380 and the southern terminal uses Iowa Avenue
to access the Pentacrest. The alignment for Alternative 1 is shown in Figure 9.
Final October 2024
Alternatives 18
Figure 9. Alternative 1 Alignment
Final October 2024
Alternatives 19
Alternative 2 includes the northern terminal near Penn Street and I-380 and the southern terminal uses Newton
Road through the university campus to Iowa Avenue to access the Pentacrest. The alignment for Alternative 2 is
shown in Figure 10.
Figure 10. Alternative 2 Alignment
Final October 2024
Alternatives 20
Alternative 3 includes the northern terminal near Penn Street and I-380 and the southern terminal uses the existing
railroad bridge over the Iowa River to a new at-grade connection with Iowa Avenue to access the Pentacrest. The
alignment for Alternative 3 is shown in Figure 11.
Figure 11. Alternative 3 Alignment
Final October 2024
Alternatives 21
Alternative 4 includes the northern terminal near Penn Street and I-380 and the southern terminal uses Newton
Road through the university campus with a return loop via Riverside Drive and back to the former railroad mainline
without crossing the Iowa River. The alignment for Alternative 4 is shown in Figure 12.
Figure 12. Alternative 4 Alignment
Final October 2024
Alternatives 22
Alternative 5 includes the northern terminal north of Penn Street and east of Dubuque Street in North Liberty. The
southern terminal uses Iowa Avenue to access the Pentacrest. The alignment for Alternative 5 is shown in
Figure 13.
Figure 13. Alternative 5 Alignment
Final October 2024
Alternatives 23
Alternative 6 includes the northern terminal north of Penn Street and east of Dubuque Street in North Liberty. The
southern terminal uses Newton Road through the university campus to Iowa Avenue to access the Pentacrest. The
alignment for Alternative 6 is shown in Figure 14.
Figure 14. Alternative 6 Alignment
Final October 2024
Alternatives 24
Alternative 7 includes the northern terminal north of Penn Street and east of Dubuque Street in North Liberty. The
southern terminal uses the existing railroad bridge over the Iowa River to a new at-grade connection with Iowa
Avenue to access the Pentacrest. The alignment for Alternative 7 is shown in Figure 15.
Figure 15. Alternative 7 Alignment
Final October 2024
Alternatives 25
Alternative 8 includes the northern terminal north of Penn Street and east of Dubuque Street in North Liberty. The
southern terminal uses Newton Road through the university campus with a return loop via Riverside Drive and back
to the former railroad mainline without crossing the Iowa River. The alignment for Alternative 8 is shown in
Figure 16.
Figure 16. Alternative 8 Alignment
Final October 2024
Alternatives 26
Tier 2 Screening
Tier 2 criteria included 11 factors used to differentiate the high-
capacity transit alternatives based on alignment. These criteria
provided planning-level insights on costs, funding, ridership potential,
land use, engineering constraints, equity, and community goals. The
Tier 2 screening ultimately resulted in three viable high-capacity
transit connection alternatives.
Tier 2 Screening Summary
The results of the Tier 2 screening analysis are presented in Table 7,
which details the scores for each criterion, the average score, and the
rank of each alternative. Like the Tier 1 screening, each alternative
received a score based on how well it meets each criterion allowing
for comparison between alternatives. Demographic related criteria
and maps are provided in Appendix C.
Table 7. Tier 2 Screening
Criteria A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8
Travel Time 7 5 9 7 7 5 10 8
Operating Costs 8 7 8 8 8 8 10 10
ROW Conditions and Physical Constraints 8 6 4 6 8 6 4 6
Capital Costs and Fundability 8 9 7 8 6 7 5 6
Potential Ridership Market 10 10 10 6 9 9 9 5
Population Density 10 10 10 7 10 10 10 7
Employment Density 10 10 10 5 9 9 9 4
Low Income Population 10 10 10 7 9 9 9 6
Minority Population 9 9 9 7 10 10 10 8
Zero Car Households 9 9 9 6 10 10 10 7
Redevelopment Potential 9 9 9 9 10 10 10 10
Total Score 98 94 95 76 96 93 96 77
Average Score 8.9 8.6 8.6 6.9 8.7 8.5 8.7 7.0
Rank 1 5 4 8 2 6 3 7
The Tier 2 screening analysis found that Alternative 1 scored the highest, followed closely by Alternatives 5 and 7.
The alternatives that cross the Iowa River and serve the Pentacrest received the best scores, as they effectively
connect to population centers, employment, and transit services in downtown Iowa City. Serving this area is crucial
for the success of the BRT route.
The northern terminal options scored similarly due to their connection to I-380 and potential development along
Penn Street, which enhances their viability. However, the longer route length for alternatives connecting to I-380
increases operational and capital costs. In contrast, the alternatives that terminate on Dubuque Street show high
development potential with lower capital and operational costs.
Tier 2 Criteria
1. Travel Time
2. Operating Costs
3. Right-of-Way Conditions and
Physical Constraints
4. Capital Costs and Fundability
5. Potential Ridership Market
6. Population Density
7. Employment Density
8. Low-Income Population
9. Minority Population
10. Zero Car Households
11. Redevelopment Potential
Final October 2024
Alternatives 27
The three alternatives carried forward for refinement were Alternatives 1, 5, and 7, shown in Figure 17. The three
alternatives are diverse in that they have different north and south terminals with one using the railroad bridge to
cross the Iowa River.
Figure 17. Alternatives Carried Forward
Final October 2024
Capital Improvements 28
4. Capital Improvements
This section provides details on the location of stops, infrastructure improvements, and potential ROW needs to
support the three advanced alternatives.
Stop Locations
For the purposes of developing running times for the Tier 1 evaluation, 12 stop locations in each direction were
assumed. The stop locations were then refined and given more precise locations for the three alternatives carried
forward.
Refinement of Stop Locations
The Iowa City-Cedar Rapids Passenger Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
Final Study stop locations were used as the initial starting point for
stops along the BRT corridor. The identified commuter rail stations
between Cedar Rapids and Iowa City are shown in the call out to the
right. Because of the shorter corridor being studied, stops north of
North Liberty and south of downtown Iowa City were removed from
consideration.
BRT stops are typically spaced closer together than commuter rail
stations. Additional stops were added to achieve a spacing of
approximately half a mile between them, ensuring adequate walking
distances and local transit connections. In denser areas, such as the
University of Iowa, stops are placed even closer together. BRT stops
are strategically located to maximize access, focusing on existing
street and sidewalk connectivity and proximity to major destinations.
Alternative 1 Proposed Stop Locations
Alternatives 1, 5, and 7 share most of the same stops because the
central segment, the CRANDIC ROW, is the same for all three
alternatives. The primary difference for Alternative 1 is the northern
segment of the route follows Penn Street west from the rail
alignment to near the I-380 interchange. The North Liberty Transit
Center in this alternative is located near the interchange to take
advantage of traffic coming from the north off I-380. The BRT would
provide access for passengers along the rest of the route supporting
an Iowa City to Cedar Rapids travel pattern.
Alternative 1 follows the rail alignment until just northwest of the Riverside Drive and Highway 6 intersection, where
it joins the street network via a new signalized intersection to cross the Iowa River and end in downtown Iowa City,
providing a direct connection to other routes in the transit system. Similar to the other two alternatives, Alternative
1 has the advantage of providing transportation to the University of Iowa campus, downtown Iowa City, and
connections to the CAMBUS transit system.
In addition to the park and ride at the North Liberty Transit Center, it is envisioned that six additional park and rides
would be located along Alternative 1 including Zeller Street in North Liberty, the East Lot on the Research Park
campus, and at 10th Street in Coralville. These locations have good access to property that can be used for passenger
parking. The proposed stop locations for Alternative 1 are shown in Figure 18.
Commuter Rail
Stations
•Eastern Iowa Airport/Cedar
Rapids Terminal
•Swisher
•Cou Falls
•North Liberty
•Oakdale
•South Oakdale
•Coralville Commuter
•Downtown Coralville
•University of Iowa Events
Venues
•University of Iowa Hospitals
•Downtown Iowa
City/University of Iowa Campus
•Iowa City Terminal (South of
Downtown Iowa City)
Final October 2024
Capital Improvements 29
Figure 18. Alternative 1 Proposed Stops
Final October 2024
Capital Improvements 30
Alternative 5 Proposed Stop Locations
Alternative 5 shares the same stop and park and ride locations along the rail alignment as Alternatives 1 and 7.
Additionally, the south end of the route is the exact same as Alternative 1. Alternative 5 has the same advantages of
providing direct connections to the University of Iowa campus, downtown Iowa City, and connections to the existing
transit systems.
The primary difference for Alternative 5 is the proposed location of the North Liberty Transit Center, just west of
Highway 965 and Dubuque Street. This location would utilize open space that can be turned into a mixed-use
development that is transit oriented.
The proposed stop locations for Alternative 5 are shown in Figure 19.
Alternative 7 Proposed Stop Locations
Alternative 7 shares the same stop and park and ride locations along the rail alignment as Alternatives 1 and 5.
Alternative 7 also uses the North Liberty Transit Center just west of Highway 965 and Dubuque Street. Alternative 7
has a slightly different configuration on the south end of the route, but still provides direct connections to the
University of Iowa campus, downtown Iowa City, and connections to the existing transit systems.
The primary difference for Alternative 7 is the use of the existing railroad bridge to cross the Iowa River, which
makes the trip into downtown Iowa City slightly faster than the other alternatives. Alternative 7 does not use the
Riverside Drive stop location included for both Alternatives 1 and 5, and passengers would need to use one of the
other stops to access this area.
The proposed stop locations for Alternative 7 are shown in Figure 20.
Final October 2024
Capital Improvements 31
Figure 19. Alternative 5 Proposed Stops
Final October 2024
Capital Improvements 32
Figure 20. Alternative 7 Proposed Stops
Final October 2024
Capital Improvements 33
Infrastructure Improvements
Infrastructure improvements are necessary to bring the corridor up to BRT standards, especially the existing freight
railroad mainline, which will need to transition to a transit-only roadway. The infrastructure improvements are
included in an investment package that details the necessary upgrades and construction to provide BRT service on
the corridor.
Initial Infrastructure Improvements
An initial list of improvements was created for each alternative in the Tier 1 evaluation. A high-level cost estimate of
infrastructure improvements was developed to compare the required capital cost for each alternative and was used in
the Tier 1 evaluation. The infrastructure improvements included:
Fixed guideway (cost to remove the railroad, grade the corridor, and construct a new roadway).
Bridge repairs and construction; including, rehabilitating or replacing existing railroad infrastructure.
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) improvements for traffic intersections, including Transit Signal
Priority (TSP) and bus queue jumps.
Street crossing upgrades for BRT at areas that currently feature railroad crossings.
Other street crossing improvements for pedestrians to access the BRT stops from sidewalks near the
alignment.
BRT stop platforms and amenities including shelters, bicycle racks, and trash cans.
The high-level cost estimates developed for the Tier 1 evaluation were used as a guide for initial budgeting and cost
comparisons between alternatives. These estimates were further refined as the alternatives were advanced past the
Tier 1 evaluation and should be refined again during the preliminary engineering and design phase after this study.
Detailed Infrastructure Improvements
After three alternatives were carried forward for additional analysis, the infrastructure required to provide BRT
service on the CRANDIC corridor was further refined with conceptual design elements to improve the accuracy of
the capital cost estimate and analyze potential ROW impacts. The analysis also included a desktop scan of the entire
transit corridor to determine structures, both drainage and bridges, that would need to be rebuilt or improved.
In addition to the structures, a detailed list of pedestrian crossings and intersections was developed to show where
sidewalks, pedestrian safety, and accessibility improvements are needed along the corridor. These improvements are
focused on providing BRT passengers access to the stops and allowing the BRT vehicles to travel safely and reliably
through the corridor. It is recommended that most street intersections have traffic signals and Transit Signal Priority
(TSP) added to help improve travel times for the BRT corridor. All crossings on the alignment will need additional
warning signs, especially for pedestrians.
BRT Guideway Lanes
Due to the narrow railroad ROW in some areas, it is recommended to operate the CRANDIC corridor with a mix
of 1- and 2-lane segments. This means that in some locations, there will be one lane that is shared by buses traveling
in both directions. Bus trips will need to be scheduled so that “meets,” (when the buses pass each other going in
separate directions), happen in segments with two lanes.
The longest stretch of 1-lane operation is between 1st Avenue and Rocky Shore Drive. It will take a bus
approximately three minutes to travel this segment in each direction, which means that a minimum bus frequency of
seven minutes is possible when accounting for a 30-second signal clearance time on each end. Bus meets can be
scheduled to happen between the two University of Iowa stops (University of Iowa Events and University of Iowa
Hospital), which will allow buses to pass each other without delay and share the other 1-lane segment, near Riverside
Drive, without causing a conflict or delay. Therefore, the proposed frequency of 15 minutes in the peak periods is
Final October 2024
Capital Improvements 34
possible even with the 1-lane segments. Figure 21 shows a map of segments for all alternatives that can be built with
1- or 2-lane segments.
Figure 21. 1- and 2-Lane Segments
Final October 2024
Capital Improvements 35
Cross Sections
For the 2-lane segments, a minimum width of 24 feet is required from face of curb to face of curb, with an additional
5 to 8 feet of greenway separating the 10-foot multi-use trail from the BRT. These segments necessitate a minimum
ROW of 60 feet, which includes a minimum 5-foot greenway buffer between the back of curb and the edge of multi-
use trail. The ROW width may vary depending on the installation and final width of the multi-use trail. While the trail
should be at least 8 feet wide, a 10-foot width is recommended. Figure 22 shows a schematic of a cross section of
the BRT corridor with two lanes (one travel lane in each direction) and the parallel multi-use trail. Figure 23 shows
a schematic of a cross section of the BRT corridor with one lane and the parallel multi-use trail.
Figure 22. Schematic of 2 Lane BRT Corridor and Parallel Trail
Figure 23. Schematic of 1 Lane BRT Corridor and Parallel Trail
Final October 2024
Capital Improvements 36
Typical station configurations
The BRT stops for this project are designed to be similar to those in other recent BRT initiatives. A notable example
is the Oklahoma City Embark Rapid service, which launched in December 2023 on the Northwest Line. This service
employs 40-foot buses and features standard BRT amenities, including shelters, public information displays, bike racks,
and trash cans. A photo of a standard Oklahoma City Embark Rapid stop is shown in Figure 24. Figure 25 shows a
schematic of a cross section of the BRT corridor with two lanes (one travel lane in each direction), a center BRT
stop platform with shelters and pedestrian crossing, and the parallel multi-use trail. Utilizing a center BRT stop
platform reduces the overall stop width and allows stops to be located within the existing ROW.
Figure 24. Example BRT Station in Oklahoma City
Figure 25. Schematic of 2 Lane BRT Corridor with Stop and Parallel Trail
Final October 2024
Capital Improvements 37
In addition to providing pedestrian and bicycle access and amenities at BRT stops, it is important to provide
automobile parking at locations that are referred to as a “Park and Ride.” These feature a parking lot where transit
customers that live further away than walking distance can access the BRT stop and leave their car at the stop while
they utilize transit for the remainder of their journey. An example Park and Ride facility is shown in Figure 26, which
is at the northern terminal of the Northwest BRT Line in Oklahoma City.
Figure 26. Example BRT Park and Ride in Oklahoma City
Each Iowa City BRT Park and Ride is assumed to have capacity for 25 cars. Some Park and Ride locations can share
parking with adjacent businesses while others will need to be built (or expanded) along with the overall BRT
construction. The Park and Ride stops at 12th Avenue (Tabernacle Baptist Church) and East Lot (University of Iowa)
are intended to utilize existing parking lots through shared agreements. The Park and Ride lots at Oakdale Boulevard
and University Parkway could be shared lots with existing or future business or a new dedicated lot for the BRT. The
Park and Ride lots at 10th Street, Zeller Street, and the North Terminal will need to have new lots constructed as
part of the project.
Potential Right-of-Way Impacts
Most of the BRT route will follow the existing CRANDIC railroad alignment, which ranges from 40 to 120 feet wide.
As previously mentioned, a mix of 1- and 2-lane segments are recommended to maximize the use of ROW without
additional property impacts. Along the two-lane segments, approximately 60 feet will be required to provide travel
lanes, buffers, and a proposed trail. The use of city streets also reduces potential ROW needs.
One area where impacts may occur is along 1st Avenue near 1st Avenue and 5th Street in Coralville. This segment is
recommended as a 1-lane cross section to limit impacts on existing street and sidewalk infrastructure, but the
corridor along 1st Avenue may require additional access to private property near driveways, parking lots, and other
existing infrastructure. This section will require additional design considerations prior to determining the impact to
property owners.
The other potential ROW need will occur at the north end of the corridor where the North Liberty Transit Center
is located. Alternatives 5 and 7 both include the proposed location of the Transit Center just west of Highway 965
and Dubuque Street. This land would need to be acquired for the purpose of the Transit Center or an agreement
with the landowner would be required to allow the BRT to design a station and turnaround in conjunction with
future development.
Final October 2024
Capital Improvements 38
Constructability
Three approaches were considered for constructing the proposed BRT alignment in the CRANDIC ROW. The first
approach will require site preparation to remove the existing rail infrastructure – ties, rails, and ballast – and grade
the ROW to street design standards to support the BRT guideway. This approach is most feasible due to
constructing the BRT and multi-use trail within the existing CRANDIC ROW with minimal impacts as compared to
the next two approaches. The two other approaches to constructing the corridor were considered and dismissed
due to the increase in costs compared to the conversion from rail to BRT. These two are discussed in further detail
below.
The second approach was to construct the BRT guideway in a manner that allowed for continued rail use on the
corridor while supporting the BRT. This approach would require removing all rail infrastructure to allow construction
and grading of the substructure that supports street design guidelines and rail infrastructure generally centered within
the existing CRANDIC ROW. After completing the removal and grading, the reconstruction of the rail line and BRT
guideway would occur. To achieve the best design, the rail line would stay in one lane of traffic like streetcars in
major cities. This approach would increase costs as the design of the BRT guideway would need to account for rail
design guidelines and street design guidelines. Additionally, the reconstruction of the rail line after removal would
substantially increase construction costs. Therefore, refined construction costs for this approach were not
developed.
The third approach that was considered was offsetting the BRT guideway alignment to run adjacent to the existing
rail line. Given the existing ROW varies between 40 to 120 feet wide, there are portions of the corridor where a
parallel BRT guideway would be accommodated within existing ROW. However, there are sections of the CRANDIC
ROW that are restricted and would require additional ROW purchases or collocated BRT lanes and rail line.
Corridor preparation for this approach is also concerning, as grading and guideway substructures could not impact
existing rail infrastructure. Therefore, refined construction costs for this approach were not developed.
Opinion of Probable Capital Costs
The cost estimate for the proposed BRT corridor, along with the integrated trail, has been calculated to reflect both
construction and implementation expenses. These costs have been refined from the planning level cost estimates
used for the Tier 1 analysis and reflect the additional concept design details required for estimating construction
costs. The Alternatives are a significant infrastructure investment, including dedicated lanes, stations, and operational
facilities. Concurrently, the trail, which will connect to existing pathways and sidewalks, adds additional costs for
construction and integration.
Capital cost items for this study include:
Vehicles required to operate the service.
Vehicle Maintenance Facility – either a new building or addition to an existing building to house the new
vehicles for storage and repair.
Vehicle chargers and/or fueling facilities (depending on what fuel source is decided on) – this project assumes
using battery electric bus technology and the cost is applied for two fast chargers at each end terminal
($850,000 each) and infrastructure at the maintenance facility for overnight charging of the full fleet ($80,000
for each charger plus utility upgrades and other structural construction costs).
Cost to build the fixed guideway of the central segment of the BRT corridor on the former railroad right-of-
way. Including, ITS for detecting transit vehicles and allowing for signal priority at street intersections, and
street crossing improvements which will require pedestrian and vehicle safety measures.
Bus stations and bus transfer centers (including a northern park-and-ride facility). Basic BRT stations are
estimated at $300,000 each, park and rides are estimated at $500,000 each with 25 parking spaces for
Final October 2024
Capital Improvements 39
commuters, and the transit center on the north end would cost about $5 million and include space for four
buses, about 25 parking spaces for commuters, and an operator restroom.
Environmental and design studies that will continue to refine the operations and infrastructure (including
environmental, engineering, and design work) and lead to the implementation of the transit service.
Overall, the combined cost estimate accounts for these elements while considering potential cost savings from
leveraging existing infrastructure and optimizing design efficiencies. The total estimated cost to construct the new
BRT corridor ranges between $91 and $93 million. This figure encompasses the full scope of construction, including
the development of dedicated lanes, full bridge replacements, transit stations, and related infrastructure necessary to
support the efficient operation of the BRT. Estimated costs for each alternative are shown in Table 8.
Table 8. Estimated Capital Costs by Alternative
Cost Item Alternative 1 Alternative 5 Alternative 7
Bus Vehicles ($1.2M per vehicle) $8.40 $8.40 $7.20
Vehicle Maintenance Facility ($3-4M) $3.50 $3.50 $3.00
Vehicle Chargers/Fueling Facilities $15.85 $15.85 $15.85
Fixed Guideway* $48.90 $48.90 $51.90
Trail $4.60 $4.60 $4.60
Stations ($0.3M per station) $3.60 $2.70 $2.40
Park and Rides ($0.5M per station) $3.00 $3.00 $3.00
North Transit Center $5.00 $5.00 $5.00
Environmental and Design Studies $3.00 $3.00 $3.00
Contingency (15%) $23.96 $23.74 $23.99
Total Capital Cost Estimate $92.85 $91.95 $92.95
Cost Per Mile $8.84 $9.99 $10.21
* Fixed Guideway costs include the removal of tracks, corridor preparation, street construction, bridge
constructions and storm sewer.
2024 Costs in Millions
Final October 2024
Operations 40
5. Operations
This section outlines the key components of the service plan, including anticipated future service changes, operating
and maintenance costs, and the governance structure for BRT implementation. A high-level operations plan, including
annual operations and maintenance cost estimates, was developed for each of the eight alternatives for the Tier 2
evaluation. These plans were refined with more detail, including updated stops and runtimes for Alternatives 1, 5,
and 7.
Service Plan
The service plan consists of several elements to provide service to customers with the intention of offering a higher
level of transit than regular bus routes. BRT is focused on faster travel times, which is obtained through fewer stops
spaced further apart, Transit Signal Priority to reduce traffic signal delay, and exclusive right-of-way. The dedicated
right-of-way of the CRANDIC railroad alignment greatly helps provide faster travel time for the proposed BRT
service and will increase the reliability in service by separating buses from general traffic congestion.
Other elements to consider are the span of service (when the transit service begins and ends each day) and the
frequency of service (how often the buses will run, measured by the amount of time between each bus trip). BRT
traditionally has higher frequency service and longer span of service than traditional bus routes. The faster travel
times makes it easier for transit vehicles to run the same route faster, which helps provide more frequent service for
a similar operating cost.
Span of Service & Frequency of Service
Frequency and span of service assumptions are the same for each alternative. Table 9 shows the proposed service
frequency by service day (Mondays-Friday, Saturdays, and Sundays/Holidays) and time of day. Typical BRT operation
provides a minimum of 15-minute service. It is proposed to provide this during the morning and afternoon Weekday
peak periods and 30-minute service at other times. Enhanced transit service, such as BRT, is commonly offered every
day of the week, even on holidays, and that service is assumed for Iowa City as well, although service can be trimmed
back in the early morning and late night on these service days. Additionally, depending on the funding source used for
the project, service and frequency minimums may be required.
Table 9. Frequency by Service Day and Time of Day
Service Day Type Early Morning
Peak Midday Afternoon
Peak Evening Late Night
5-6 AM 6-9 AM 9 AM-3 PM 3-6 PM 6-9 PM 9-11 PM
Mondays-Fridays 30 15 30 15 30 30
Saturdays* - 30 30 30 30 30
Sundays/Holidays* - 30 30 30 30 -
* Weekend service would be required for Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants (CIG)
Final October 2024
Operations 41
Estimated Travel Times
Travel time is based on the analysis of a combination of existing bus schedules and real driving time of parallel streets
and roads plus dwell time at potential station locations. Specifically, the schedule for Coralville Transit Route 22 was
used as a basis for understanding existing transit time between North Liberty and Iowa City. Travel time from Google
Maps was referred to as an example of how fast the service could be without stops and without transit signal priority.
Ultimately, a travel time was determined by incorporating data from both sources and considering the exclusive right-
of-way of the BRT using the CRANDIC railroad alignment. Station stops were estimated at one minute per stop for
deceleration, dwell time, and acceleration. The implementation of some transit signal priority is assumed to speed up
the service through traffic signals at intersections.
Each alternative has varying end-to-end travel times based on the different north and south terminals (total distances
vary from 9.1 miles to 10.6 miles), so a priority was placed on comparing the average speed of each alternative
instead. Average speed is calculated by taking the estimated minutes to complete a one-way trip, converting that time
to hours, and dividing by the route length in miles (Equation 1). Transit passengers will see a greater benefit of
routes with a faster average speed as they travel between multiple stop locations and save more time overall. This is
especially valuable when comparing transit travel time to automobile travel time in the same corridor.
Equation 1. Average Travel Speed
𝑅𝑚𝑡𝑡𝑒 𝐿𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑡�
𝑂𝑚𝑒 𝑊𝑎𝑦 𝑇𝑟�ℎ𝑚 𝑇�ℎ𝑚𝑒∗60
One Way Trip Time = BRT Travel Time in Minutes
Route Length = BRT Route Length in Miles
Table 10 through Table 12 show the distances between stop locations and the travel times for Alternatives 1, 5,
and 7.
Final October 2024
Operations 42
Table 10. Alternative 1 Stop Distance and Travel Time
Stop Intermediate Distance Cumulative
Distance
Intermediate Travel
Time
Cumulative
Travel Time
North Liberty Transit Center * 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Alexander Way 0.65 0.65 2.00 2.00
Jones Boulevard 0.56 1.21 1.00 3.00
Highway 965 0.50 1.71 2.00 5.00
Cherry Street 0.50 2.21 2.00 7.00
Zeller Street * 0.25 2.46 1.00 8.00
Golf View Drive 0.51 2.97 1.00 9.00
Ashley Court 0.51 3.48 1.00 10.00
Forevergreen Road 0.50 3.98 1.00 11.00
University Parkway * 0.60 4.58 2.00 13.00
Oakdale Boulevard * 0.35 4.93 1.00 14.00
East Lot * 0.50 5.43 2.00 16.00
12th Avenue * 0.57 6.00 1.00 17.00
10th Street * 1.14 7.14 2.00 19.00
1st Avenue 0.94 8.08 2.00 21.00
5th Street 0.30 8.38 2.00 23.00
University of Iowa Events 0.94 9.32 2.00 25.00
University of Iowa Hospitals 0.40 9.72 2.00 27.00
Riverside Drive 0.23 9.95 1.00 28.00
Iowa Avenue 0.26 10.21 1.00 29.00
Clinton Street 0.40 10.61 2.00 31.00
Avg. Stop Distance 0.53 - Total Time 31.00
* Park and Ride Location
Final October 2024
Operations 43
Table 11. Alternative 5 Stop Distance and Travel Time
Stop Intermediate Distance Cumulative
Distance
Intermediate Travel
Time
Cumulative
Travel Time
North Liberty Transit Center * 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Penn Street 0.59 0.59 2.00 2.00
Cherry Street 0.23 0.82 1.00 3.00
Zeller Street * 0.25 1.07 1.00 4.00
Golf View Drive 0.51 1.58 1.00 5.00
Ashley Court 0.51 2.09 1.00 6.00
Forevergreen Road 0.50 2.59 1.00 7.00
University Parkway * 0.60 3.19 2.00 9.00
Oakdale Boulevard * 0.35 3.54 1.00 10.00
East Lot * 0.50 4.04 2.00 12.00
12th Avenue * 0.57 4.61 1.00 13.00
10th Street * 1.14 5.75 2.00 15.00
1st Avenue 0.94 6.69 2.00 17.00
5th Street 0.30 6.99 2.00 19.00
University of Iowa Events 0.69 7.68 2.00 21.00
University of Iowa Hospitals 0.65 8.33 2.00 23.00
Riverside Drive 0.23 8.56 1.00 24.00
Iowa Avenue 0.26 8.82 1.00 25.00
Clinton Street 0.40 9.22 2.00 27.00
Avg. Stop Distance 0.51 - Total Time 27.00
* Park and Ride Location
Final October 2024
Operations 44
Table 12. Alternative 7 Stop Distance and Travel Time
Stop Intermediate Distance Cumulative
Distance Intermediate Travel Time Cumulative
Travel Time
North Liberty Transit Center * 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Penn Street 0.59 0.59 2.00 2.00
Cherry Street 0.23 0.82 1.00 3.00
Zeller Street * 0.25 1.07 1.00 4.00
Golf View Drive 0.51 1.58 1.00 5.00
Ashley Court 0.51 2.09 1.00 6.00
Forevergreen Road 0.50 2.59 1.00 7.00
University Parkway * 0.60 3.19 2.00 9.00
Oakdale Boulevard * 0.35 3.54 1.00 10.00
East Lot * 0.50 4.04 2.00 12.00
12th Avenue * 0.57 4.61 1.00 13.00
10th Street * 1.14 5.75 2.00 15.00
1st Avenue 0.94 6.69 2.00 17.00
5th Street 0.30 6.99 2.00 19.00
University of Iowa Events 0.69 7.68 2.00 21.00
University of Iowa Hospitals 0.65 8.33 1.00 22.00
Iowa Avenue 0.37 8.70 1.00 23.00
Clinton Street 0.40 9.10 2.00 25.00
Avg. Stop Distance 0.51 - Total Time 25.00
* Park and Ride Location
Final October 2024
Operations 45
Estimated Service Statistics
A draft schedule was developed for each alternative based on the service span, frequency, and travel time. These
schedules are used to develop service statistics to allow comparison between alternatives and provide resources
required for the operation of the BRT service. The schedule for each alternative shows what time each bus needs to
start, which is used to develop the number of operating hours required for each alternative. Schedules for
Alternatives 1, 5, and 7 are provided in Appendix D.
It is assumed that weekend and holiday service would be 80 percent of weekday service, based on experience from
similar BRT services. The operating hours were calculated for each weekday and estimated annually based on 255
weekdays and 110 weekends/holidays. Vehicle miles are calculated similarly and vary for each alternative as the
corridor mileage is slightly different based on the routing on the north and south ends of the corridor.
Table 13 shows a summary of the service statistics for Alternatives 1, 5, and 7. The cycle time is the amount of time
it takes for a bus to complete one round-trip, including layover/recovery time at each end. The number of peak
vehicles is derived from the cycle time divided by the peak frequency. A standard for calculating the number of spare
vehicles is to use 20 percent of the peak fleet. However, small fleets require a minimum of two spares, one
operational spare that can be ready to go in service at short notice, and a maintenance spare that could be getting
worked on (routine or emergency).
Table 13. Alternatives Service Statistics
Alternative 1 Alternative 5 Alternative 7
Cycle Time (Minutes) 75 75 60
Peak Frequency (Minutes) 15 15 15
Peak Vehicles 5 5 4
Spare Vehicles 2 2 2
Total Vehicles 7 7 6
Annual Miles 359,835 315,284 311,857
Weekday Hours 68.63 68.17 51.30
Weekend Hours 54.91 54.53 41.04
Annual Weekday Hours 17,501.50 17,382.50 13,081.50
Annual Weekend Hours 6,039.73 5,998.67 4,514.40
Total Annual Hours 23,541.23 23,381.17 17,595.90
Operating Vehicles
The BRT vehicles should be similar to those in use by other agencies. Based on the estimated ridership, detailed
further in section 7. Conceptual Ridership, the expected maximum amount of passenger crowds on a peak trip is
expected to be 40 passengers. This takes into account that passenger boardings are not evenly distributed
throughout the day. Instead, they peak during popular class start and end times, as well as typical business hours.
During these peak times, the service is expected to operate every 15 minutes, which will help reduce crowding.
With this expected maximum passenger crowd, a bus length of 40 feet would be suitable for BRT needs. The 40-foot
bus type is recommended as that would safeguard it against abnormal peak times, provide for growth as ridership
gradually increases over the years, and can be deployed for special event service. The BRT vehicle should also include
Final October 2024
Operations 46
a higher level of features than on existing transit buses currently operating in the region. This includes more
comfortable seats (which increases passenger comfort on slightly longer trip time that is expected for riders to travel
through most of the length of the route), real-time data and announcements for stops inside the bus, power outlets,
and Wi-Fi.
An example BRT vehicle interior is shown in Figure 27 and an example bus floor plans for a 40-foot vehicles is
shown in Figure 28. This floor plan is of a New Flyer Xcelsior Charge NG battery-electric bus.
Figure 27. Example BRT Vehicle Interior in Oklahoma City
Figure 28. Example BRT Vehicle 40-Foot Floorplan
Final October 2024
Operations 47
Changes to Existing Service
As the BRT service is implemented, careful and thoughtful service planning will need to be employed by the transit
systems to better connect the existing routes to the new BRT corridor. This could include adjusting routes to serve
new BRT stops, implementing new connector routes to allow better access to and from nearby neighborhoods, and
the deployment of new transit technologies such as on-demand or microtransit service to connect less-dense
neighborhoods with BRT stops.
Most of the existing routes should largely remain unchanged, especially CAMBUS and Iowa City Transit routes, which
intersect the BRT corridor at or near the University of Iowa campus and downtown Iowa City. Although, these
routes may need to be slightly adjusted to have stops closer to the new BRT stops.
Most of the existing Coralville Transit routes should largely remain unchanged; however, the existing service parallel
to the future BRT corridor provides the opportunity to connect the BRT to local routes. Where possible, BRT stop
locations should be located with convenient access to existing stops along Highway 6 and 1st Avenue via sidewalks,
trails, or other pedestrian infrastructure. Other stop locations offer transfer points between the BRT and
destinations throughout Coralville.
Based on Steering Committee discussions and efforts to minimize transfers from existing routes to the BRT, only
Route 22 should be considered for removal as the BRT is implemented. Route 22 serves the same route as the BRT
corridor and ridership is estimated to reduce to nearly zero passengers with the BRT in service. Route 22 will need
further evaluation as the BRT is implemented to determine if ridership shifts occur and operations are impacted.
The Steering Committee has consistently discussed the need for Sunday BRT service throughout the study and
acknowledged a potential need for additional service to align with BRT service. Both Iowa City Transit and Coralville
Transit currently do not operate on Sundays. If BRT service operates on Sundays, there may be a need for all three
agencies to operate Sunday service. Additionally, paratransit service in all communities may be necessary. With one
fixed route and one paratransit vehicle operating for both Iowa City Transit and Coralville Transit during BRT
operating hours, the additional cost of Sunday service will cost at least $500,000 per year based on current operating
cost per hour.
Operating & Maintenance Cost Estimates
Annual operating and maintenance costs were developed based on the service statistics from schedules for each
alternative. For calculating these costs, existing hourly costs from 2022 for the University of Iowa CAMBUS, City of
Coralville, and City of Iowa City transit services were used. The three-agency average cost for 2022 of $91.58 per
operating hour was then adjusted for inflation by 9.5 percent (per Bureau of Labor Statistics), bringing the projected
cost to $100.71 per operating hour in 2024.Using the weekday, weekend/holiday, and annual hours with the average
operating cost per hour, total annual costs are calculated for each alternative. Table 14 shows the operational costs
for each alternative.
Table 14. Alternatives O&M Cost Summary
Alternative 1 Alternative 5 Alternative 7
Weekday Cost $6,912 $6,865 $5,167
Weekend Cost $5,530 $5,492 $4,133
Annual Weekday Cost $1,762,644 $1,750,659 $1,317,489
Annual Weekend Cost $608,285 $604,149 $454,663
Total Annual Cost $2,370,929 $2,354,808 $1,772,152
Final October 2024
Operations 48
BRT Governance
An essential task in initiating the new BRT service is setting up the organization structure and overall governance.
This study analyzed several options and in discussions with the steering committee this will need to be decided on as
the project moves into final design and implementation. The options that this study examined included:
Setting up a new transit agency
Creating a new department within Johnson County
Choosing an existing transit agency to operate the service
New Transit Agency
There are two ways to implement a new transit agency: one is to create a separate agency that would serve to
operate the BRT and another is to create a new regional transit authority that could absorb the other transit system
operations in the area. Either option will take considerable time and involve multijurisdictional agreement, setting up
the organization to run it (which may require passing legislation at the state level), and hiring staff needed to control
the new authority or agency. The standalone transit agency would duplicate a lot of functions that could otherwise be
shared by existing transit agencies. The new transit authority or agency could also be part of a new funding
mechanism to help with capital and operations costs. This is a worthwhile idea to explore further, although it is not
recommended if the objective is to get a new service implemented in the near term.
Johnson County Operation
As Johnson County covers the entire BRT corridor, a new department could be set up within the current County
organization or Johnson County SEATS department could expand to the control and operate the BRT service. Like
the approach of a new transit agency, a new department would involve the same duplication of transit staff and
overlapping of services. Johnson County SEATS would need to adjust operations to include the fixed route BRT
service in addition to existing paratransit service.
This approach could be faster to set up than a new transit agency or regional transit authority as much of the
governance is already in place, although it will still require passing appropriate legislation for the new department
and/or hiring new staff. An advantage of this idea is Johnson County may be able to create a county-wide funding
source to help with capital and operations costs. However, this approach is not recommended if the objective is to
start BRT service in the near term and not overlap existing transit functions.
Existing Transit Agency
Operating the BRT within an existing transit agency is the fastest way to implement the service. During the study,
there was no transit agency with authority to operate the BRT service. Out of the three agencies, the Coralville
Transit may be best suited to operate the BRT service as they already operate in the entire corridor area and
currently have some parallel service. Having an existing agency operate the BRT would also limit the staff needed to
implement and operate the service and reduce overall overhead costs. The main issue will be allocating funding for
the new route, which should be shared among several entities including the municipalities, the University of Iowa, and
Johnson County. This approach is recommended to implement the BRT service the soonest and more easily staff and
control the new operation.
Final October 2024
Trail Corridor 49
6. Trail Corridor
As mentioned in section 2. Existing Conditions, there are multiple trails and multimodal corridors running along or
near the existing CRANDIC rail corridor to support the recreational and mobility needs of residents of the
metropolitan area. Trails and corridors including the North Ridge Trail and Iowa River Corridor Trail provide active
transportation options between North Liberty, Coralville, and Iowa City. However, the main CRANDIC corridor
would provide a missing link in the trail network between the three communities.
Trail Connection
A proposed 10-foot-wide multi-use trail, designed to run parallel to the
BRT route, will significantly enhance the regional trail network by
addressing existing gaps (Figure 29). The multi-use trail is strategically
designed to fill critical gaps in the regional trail network, linking the
North Ridge Trail to the Iowa River Trail. Starting at the University of
Iowa College of Public Health Building, the trail will extend westward
alongside the BRT alignment to Rocky Shore Drive.
At the intersection of 2nd Avenue, 6th Street, and 1st Avenue, a new
segment of the trail will head north along the BRT route to 12th
Avenue. This connection will seamlessly integrate with the 12th
Avenue sidewalk network, offering users convenient north-south travel
options.
Further west of 12th Avenue, the trail will continue along the south
side of the BRT, ultimately connecting with the North Ridge Trail. This
link will provide users direct access to the North Ridge Trail, which
stretches northward all the way to W. Penn Street, enhancing
connectivity and recreational opportunities throughout the area.
A five to eight-foot grass buffer zone separating the trail from the BRT guideway will not only improve safety but also
provide valuable greenspace. This buffer can support future landscaping and utility needs, ensuring long-term aesthetic
and functional benefits. Additionally, the trail is poised to elevate the appeal of the BRT corridor, fostering a vibrant,
pedestrian-friendly environment. By improving access to local businesses and recreational areas, it can also stimulate
economic activity in the region, creating a more connected and lively community.
Existing Trails
North Ridge Trail
The North Ridge Trail is a 6.6-mile
paved trail constructed adjacent to
the CRANDIC Corridor through
Coralville and North Liberty.
Iowa River Corridor Trail
The Iowa River Corridor (IRC) Trail
is an 18.2-mile paved trail from Iowa
City to Mehaffey Bridge northeast of
North Liberty.
Final October 2024
Trail Corridor 50
Figure 29. Future Trail Connection
Final October 2024
Trail Corridor 51
Trail Capital Costs
The total estimated cost to construct the 10-foot-wide trail integrated with the BRT is $4.6 million. As a standalone
project the estimated cost is $5.6 million (Table 15). By strategically aligning the trail with existing trails and
sidewalks, the project will significantly reduce construction and land acquisition costs.
Integration with the BRT minimizes the need for additional property purchases and extensive grading, optimizing the
overall budget. This cost-effective approach not only improves connectivity within the trail network but also
maximizes the utilization of existing resources. As a result, the project presents a more economical solution for
expanding the trail system while enhancing accessibility for all users.
Table 15. Trail Capital Cost Estimate
Construction Element Cost
Earthwork $ 1,209,000.00
Concrete trail (6” depth) $ 1,989,000.00
Temporary traffic control $ 100,000.00
Mobilization $ 340,600.00
Storm sewer (30% of surface & grading items) $ 959,000.00
Construction subtotal $ 4,597,600.00
Contingency (15%) $ 690,000.00
Construction total $ 5,288,000.00
Engineering, legal & administrative (5%) $ 264,000.00
Project total $ 5,552,000.00
Trail Maintenance Costs
Over the life of the trail, maintenance will likely be required to address common issues on concrete trails. Common
issues include cracking, joint faulting, or slab breaking. Often these common issues are the result of poor subgrade
condition or weather-related issues (freeze/thaw cycles). The trail will need to be monitored for common issues to
repair the trail before more serious issues arise. The addition of a new trail in the regional network will require
communities to increase trail or sidewalk maintenance budgets as required to address common issues. Addressing
common issues on the trail could costs between several thousand and tens of thousands of dollars.
As the new trail corridor is in a state where snow and ice build up on infrastructure, winter maintenance practices for
trails in the region will need to be modified to include clearing the new trail. Winter trail maintenance could occur in
conjunction with clearing of the BRT route or be managed separately, depending on local trail clearance practices.
Final October 2024
Conceptual Ridership 52
7. Conceptual Ridership
This section summarizes initial ridership forecasts developed for the CRANDIC BRT corridor. The conceptual BRT
service alternatives analyzed would transform the regional transit market offering travel time and reliability benefits
that would both attract riders from existing local bus service as well as new transit riders.
STOPS Model Overview
The Simplified Trips on Software (STOPS) application is a stand-alone ridership forecasting software package
developed by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). The software applies a set of travel models to predict
detailed travel patterns on fixed-guideway systems. STOPS was specifically developed to support New Starts and
Small Starts projects. The application uses a modified four-step model structure (trip generation, trip distribution,
mode choice, and trip assignment) to quantify total transit ridership by trip type, mode of access, and auto
ownership.
The ridership forecasts are based on a previous STOPS model that was updated for CRANDIC BRT corridor. The
previous model was initially developed for Iowa City to North Liberty (ICNL) rail transit corridor and approved by
FTA. The CRANDIC BRT service would operate in the corridor between North Liberty and Downtown Iowa City at
Clinton Street.
The CRANDIC BRT STOPS model was calibrated to post-pandemic (2023) ridership, consistent with the FTA’s
current Capital Improvement Grant (CIG) program guidance. The previous ICNL STOPS model used version 2.5
dated March 25, 2019. The ridership forecasts developed for the CRANDIC BRT corridor were based on STOPS
version 2.52 (dated December 12, 2022).
The following sections describe the key input data and steps performed to develop CRANDIC BRT STOPS Model.
Analysis Years
For this model, the current year represents the year 2023. The 20-year horizon years are set to 2045, respectively.
The horizon year 2045 aligns with the region's long-range transportation plan (LRTP) year. There is no 10-year
horizon period in this model.
Summary of Inputs
As mentioned, the CRANDIC BRT STOPS model was developed and calibrated from the ICNL Rail Corridor pre-
pandemic STOPS model approved by FTA. STOPS requires the following data from local, regional, and national
sources for implementation:
Census Data
Bus Boarding Data
Population and Employment Data
Local Street Network
Highway Skims
Transit Agency Data
Additional Inputs
In the model development and recalibration process, a few key inputs were updated from ICNL Rail Corridor pre-
pandemic STOPS model, as shown below in Table 16. Additional information on the model calibration process is
included in Appendix E.
Final October 2024
Conceptual Ridership 53
Table 16. STOPS Inputs Summary
Inputs Needed Source Source Year Note
Census Data ACS 2010 No Change
GTFS Files Coralville Transit,
CAMBUS, Iowa City
Transit
2023 (October) Updated from 2019
(April)
Bus Boarding Data Coralville Transit,
CAMBUS, Iowa City
Transit
2023 Updated from 2019
Population/Employment Data MPOJC 2010, 2014, 2020, 2025,
2030, 2035, 2040, 2045
Interpolated to Current
Year 2023
A.M. Peak Highway Skims MPOJC 2014, 2040 No Change
Transit Agency Data
General Transit Feed Specification (GTFS) is a standardized format for public transportation schedules used by transit
agencies throughout the world. GTFS is a collection of text files that, together, provide data necessary for trip
planners, schedules, and mobile phone applications. STOPS utilizes GTFS for estimating ridership in the existing, no-
build, and build scenarios. GTFS files from October 2023 were used as inputs into STOPS. These files were used for
calibration and as a foundation for the no-build and build scenarios.
Bus Boarding Data
The transit network assumed in the existing condition reflects 2023 service for Coralville Transit, CAMBUS, and Iowa
City Transit. Average weekday boardings were updated from 2019 to 2023. The 2023 combined total weekday daily
boardings for all three agencies was 19,705, compared to 24,723 weekday daily boardings in 2019. Table 17 presents
weekday daily boardings for each transit agency for both the ICNL Railway pre-pandemic (2019) and the CRANDIC
BRT post-pandemic (2023) STOPS models. As shown in this table, overall ridership declined about 20% in the post-
pandemic era when compared to pre-pandemic, reflecting Covid-19 effects on ridership.
Table 17. Daily Boardings Comparison
Service 2019 2023 Changes %Changes
Iowa City Transit 6,016 3,864 (2,152) -36%
CAMBUS 17,128 14,674 (2,454) -14%
Coralville 1,579 1,167 (412) -26%
Total Weekday Unlinked
Transit Trips
24,723 19,705 (5,018) -20%
Ridership for 2023 was selected as the existing condition due to data availability at the start of the analysis. The
current 2024 data shows ridership increases indicating ridership is continuing to approach pre-pandemic levels.
Additionally, Iowa City Transit has experienced a 43 percent increase in ridership since the start of the fare free pilot.
Final October 2024
Conceptual Ridership 54
Population and Employment Data
Population and employment data was collected from the MPOJC via the ICNL Railway STOPS model and
interpolated to current year 2023 for the CRANDIC BRT STOPS model.
Highway Skims
Highway skims (travel times between travel origins and destinations) were prepared from the MPOJC travel model
for 2015 and 2040 for estimated morning (a.m.) peak highway travel times.
Fares
Fares were prepared based on current one-way fare costs. Fare free services for CAMBUS and Iowa City Transit and
$1 per one-way trip for Coralville Transit. The BRT route was assumed to be fare free.
Ridership Forecasts
Ridership forecasts were completed for Alternatives 1, 5, and 7 using the proposed service hours and frequencies for
each alternative. Average end-to-end bus travel speeds have been estimated at 20 miles per hour (mph), resulting in
end-to-end trip travel times of 31, 27, and 25 minutes.
This faster and more reliable BRT service will compete directly with local bus service in several travel markets. Park-
and-ride locations at several stations also have the potential to divert some commuters from existing University of
Iowa shuttle services. Travel forecasts also indicate that BRT service will attract new riders to the regional transit
system, potentially reducing the number of automobiles commuting on regional roads.
Table 18 provides stations with Park-n-ride availability for all three alternatives being considered for this corridor.
Table 18. Proposed Park-n-Ride for Three Alternatives
Stop Location City Alternative(s) Parking
Spaces
North Liberty
Transit Center
Madison Avenue between Penn Court and
Kansas Avenue
North Liberty 1 25
North Liberty
Transit Center
Highway 965 and Dubuque Street (south of
240th Street)
North Liberty 5, 7 25
Zeller Street Zeller Street and Parkview Court (west of
Stewart Street)
North Liberty 1, 5, 7 25
University
Parkway
University Parkway (east of the mainline) Coralville 1, 5, 7 25
Oakdale
Boulevard
Oakdale Boulevard (west of the mainline) Coralville 1, 5, 7 25
East Lot West of Lynncrest Drive, south of Old
Hospital Road
Coralville 1, 5, 7 25
12th Avenue 2050 12th Avenue Coralville 1, 5, 7 25
10th Street 10th Street (east of the mainline, west of
the Water Plant)
Coralville 1, 5, 7 25
Final October 2024
Conceptual Ridership 55
This section summarizes the ridership forecasts for the Build Alternatives. Forecasts are generated for the current
year (2023) and horizon year (2045). Table 19 presents a summary of linked trip forecasts of all three BRT
alternatives. The linked trips summary table breaks down linked trips as project trips, new transit trips, and transit-
dependent trips. Transit-dependent trips are trips completed by individuals without access to other modes of
transportation.
Project trips are the total daily linked transit trips that use the proposed BRT at some point during the passenger’s
journey from one origin to one destination - either through end-to-end rides, between two intermediate stops, or
through transfers. Linked project trips are a key measure of mobility and cost-effectiveness in the FTA project
evaluation process once the model calibration process is complete.
Alternative 1 generates the highest number of projected daily trips, with 3,705 in the current year (2023) and 4,440 in
the horizon year (2045). However, differences between linked transit trips do not vary significantly between the
three alternatives. The major attraction location of linked project trips is the University of Iowa Hospital area. Major
generators of linked projects trips are in the North Liberty and Oakdale areas.
New linked transit trips present the number of incremental linked transit trips (build minus no-build). As shown in
Table 19, Alternative 1 has the highest projection of new linked daily transit trips, with 2,190 in the current year
(2023) and 2,680 in the horizon year (2045).
Table 19. Project Daily Ridership Summary
Alternatives Year Project Total
Trips
New Transit
Trips
Transit Dependent
Trips
1 2023 3,705 2,190 365
2045 4,440 2,680 400
5 2023 3,665 2,100 390
2045 4,360 2,575 430
7 2023 3,590 2,075 350
2045 4,150 2,485 375
While Table 19 shows that the three alternatives attract 2,000 to 2,700 new transit trips to the overall system, it
should also be noted that some existing routes may lose ridership because of the new competing service offered by
the BRT alternatives. In particular, the ridership modeling indicates that the following routes could be impacted most
significantly by the project alternatives: Coralville Transit Routes 20, 22, 23; CAMBUS Routes 31, 32, 34, 41, 52.
Table 20 shows the impact to ridership of the most impacted routes as a percentage of existing ridership
maintained.
Final October 2024
Conceptual Ridership 56
Table 20. Routes with Highest Impact to Existing Ridership
Route
Alternative 1 Alternative 5 Alternative 7
2023 2045 2023 2045 2023 2045
20 46% 55% 44% 53% 44% 53%
22 5% 5% 2% 3% 2% 2%
23 69% 68% 67% 67% 68% 68%
31 76% 82% 73% 80% 79% 86%
32 78% 83% 77% 82% 80% 86%
34 20% 21% 19% 20% 18% 19%
41 79% 81% 74% 77% 80% 82%
52 74% 68% 75% 70% 76% 72%
The ridership modeling indicated that all other routes would maintain at least 80 percent of their original ridership
after assuming implementation of the alternatives. This condition would be true for the current year as well as the
horizon year.
Table 21, Table 22, and Table 23 provide station-level average weekday boarding forecasts by mode of access for
all three alternatives for the current year (2023) and horizon year (2045). It should be noted that the project includes
new park-and-ride lots at several locations. Stations near downtown Iowa City (Clinton Street, Riverside Drive) tend
to have the highest ridership, followed by stations in the vicinity of the University of Iowa. Walk is the most
dominant mode with about 51 percent of riders accessing the project by this mode, followed by Park-and-ride at 23
percent, transfers at 18 percent, and passenger drop-off/pick-up at 4 percent.
Final October 2024
Conceptual Ridership 57
Table 21. Station Level Ridership for Alternative 1
Station Name Alternative 1
2023 2045
WLK PUDO PNR XFR ALL WLK PUDO PNR XFR ALL
North Liberty Transit 25 0 0 0 25 35 0 0 0 35
Alexander Way 15 0 0 0 15 15 0 0 0 15
Jones Boulevard 20 0 0 0 20 30 0 0 0 30
Highway 965 30 0 0 0 30 40 0 0 0 40
Cherry Street 55 0 0 0 55 70 0 0 0 70
Zeller Street 55 5 30 0 90 65 10 35 0 110
Golf View Drive 55 0 0 0 55 55 0 0 0 55
Ashley Court 40 0 0 0 40 55 0 0 0 55
Forevergreen Road 45 0 0 0 45 75 0 0 0 75
University Parkway 40 10 35 0 85 45 15 35 0 95
Oakdale Boulevard 85 30 315 0 430 110 45 445 0 600
East Lot 60 5 85 5 155 60 5 95 5 165
12th Avenue 65 5 115 5 190 60 5 110 5 180
10th Street 35 5 50 5 95 40 10 50 5 105
1st Avenue 55 0 0 0 55 75 0 0 0 75
5th Street 70 0 0 95 165 75 0 0 95 170
University of Iowa Events 405 10 35 15 465 455 15 55 15 540
University of Iowa Hospital 85 5 35 20 145 115 10 40 20 185
Riverside Drive 520 35 50 5 610 690 35 50 10 785
Iowa Avenue 120 35 80 50 285 130 45 100 55 330
Clinton Street 310 5 30 305 650 330 5 50 340 725
Total 2,190 150 860 505 3,705 2,625 200 1,065 550 4,440
WLK = Walk, PUDO = Pick-Up/Drop-Off, PNR = Park & Ride, XFR = Transfer
Final October 2024
Conceptual Ridership 58
Table 22. Station Level Ridership for Alternative 5
WLK = Walk, PUDO = Pick-Up/Drop-Off, PNR = Park & Ride, XFR = Transfer
Station Name Alternative - 5
2023 2045
WLK PUDO PNR XFR ALL WLK PUDO PNR XFR ALL
North Liberty Transit 30 0 0 0 30 40 0 5 0 45
Penn Street 65 0 0 0 65 90 0 0 0 90
Cherry Street 40 0 0 0 40 40 0 0 0 40
Zeller Street 65 5 30 0 100 75 10 35 0 120
Golf View Drive 60 0 0 0 60 55 0 0 0 55
Ashley Court 40 0 0 0 40 55 0 0 0 55
Forevergreen Road 50 0 0 0 50 75 0 0 0 75
University Parkway 40 10 35 0 85 40 15 35 0 90
Oakdale Boulevard 80 30 305 0 415 100 45 445 0 590
East Lot 60 5 80 5 150 65 5 85 5 160
12th Avenue 65 5 75 5 150 60 5 75 5 145
10th Street 40 5 40 20 105 40 10 40 25 115
1st Avenue 55 0 0 5 60 70 0 0 5 75
5th Street 70 0 0 105 175 75 0 0 100 175
University of Iowa Events 420 10 30 15 475 475 15 40 15 545
University of Iowa Hospital 85 5 35 25 150 115 10 40 25 190
Riverside Drive 440 35 50 10 535 615 35 50 5 705
Iowa Avenue 125 35 80 50 290 130 45 100 55 330
Clinton Street 320 5 30 335 690 340 10 45 365 760
Total 2,150 150 790 575 3,665 2,555 205 995 605 4,360
Final October 2024
Conceptual Ridership 59
Table 23. Station Level Ridership for Alternative 7
Station Name Alternative - 7
2023 2045
WLK PUDO PNR XFR ALL WLK PUDO PNR XFR ALL
North Liberty Transit 30 0 0 0 30 40 0 5 0 45
Penn Street 70 0 0 0 70 90 0 0 0 90
Cherry Street 40 0 0 0 40 40 0 0 0 40
Zeller Street 65 5 30 0 100 75 10 35 0 120
Golf View Drive 60 0 0 0 60 55 0 0 0 55
Ashley Court 40 0 0 0 40 60 0 0 0 60
Forevergreen Road 50 0 0 0 50 75 0 0 0 75
University Parkway 35 10 35 0 80 40 15 35 0 90
Oakdale Boulevard 80 30 285 0 395 100 45 400 0 545
East Lot 60 5 85 5 155 60 5 85 5 155
12th Avenue 65 5 90 5 165 60 5 85 5 155
Holiday Road 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10th Street 45 5 60 20 130 45 10 55 20 130
7th Avenue 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1st Avenue 55 0 0 5 60 70 0 0 5 75
5th Street 80 0 0 105 185 85 0 0 105 190
University of Iowa Events 445 10 55 5 515 495 15 65 5 580
University of Iowa Hospital 95 15 35 35 180 125 15 40 35 215
Iowa Avenue 425 45 75 60 605 535 55 85 65 740
Clinton Street 325 5 35 365 730 335 5 55 395 790
Total 2,065 135 785 605 3,590 2,385 180 945 640 4,150
WLK = Walk, PUDO = Pick-Up/Drop-Off, PNR = Park & Ride, XFR = Transfer
Final October 2024
Regulatory Review 60
8. Regulatory Review
Similar to the previous studies focused on passenger rail service along the CRANDIC corridor, the primary
regulatory areas that will need to be addressed with the establishment of the BRT corridor are the railroad
abandonment process and the environmental clearance process.
Environmental Review
This section summarizes the general environmental requirements for the
development of the BRT corridor between Iowa City and North Liberty.
Assumptions for the environmental review are included in the text box to the
right.
Environmental Study Area
An environmental study area will be established based on the area estimated
to be potentially impacted by the project (i.e., the area of potential effect).
The environmental study area will cover the project limits for the range of
alternatives being analyzed through the environmental study. If the project
scope or the project limits change, the environmental study area will be re-
evaluated.
Review Process
The process will start with the Lead Agency and the Grantee meeting to
discuss scoping for the environmental review. The scoping will determine the
range of issues and environmental studies that will need to be completed to
meet National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements. To assist in
the scoping of a future project, a desktop environmental review was
completed for the BRT corridor to determine potential environmental impacts
of the corridor improvements. The results of this desktop environmental
review are included in Table 24. Additional information on the desktop
environmental review is included in Appendix F.
Environmental
Review
Assumptions
• The document will analyze the
environmental impact(s) of BRT
service in the CRANDIC Corridor
between Iowa City and North
Liberty.
• The Federal Transit Administration
(FTA) is the Lead Agency for the
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) with cooperation from the
Surface Transportation Board (STB)
and other federal agencies.
• The Iowa DOT or one or more
local Iowa jurisdictions will be the
Grantee, and if Iowa DOT is not the
Grantee, it may be the Lead Agency.
• The environmental class of action
regarding the characteristics of the
Iowa City to North Liberty Corridor
and the range of alternatives, is
anticipated to be either a Categorical
Exclusion (CE) or an Environmental
Assessment (EA). Pending reviews
through the NEPA process an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
would be addressed if required.
Final October 2024
Regulatory Review 61
Table 24. Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the Proposed Project
Environmental
Resource Findings Mitigation Measures
Wetlands Mapped wetlands (National Wetland
Inventory) and channels are present along
the project corridor and may be impacted
by project activities. A wetland
delineation would be needed to
determine the boundaries of these
resources.
An Approved Jurisdictional Determination may
be requested from US Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) to determine if resources are
jurisdictional (Waters of the U.S.). If impacts to
jurisdictional resources cannot be avoided, a
Section 404 Permit (USACE) and a Section 401
Permit (Iowa Department of Natural Resources
(DNR)) will be required. Stream and/or wetland
mitigation may also be required depending on
impacts.
Water Quality Section 303(d) impaired waters located
within the Environmental Study Area
(ESA) include Muddy Creek (02-IOW-
2043), a Category 4a impaired water; and
an Unnamed Tributary to Muddy Creek
(02-IOW-6588), a Category 5p impaired
water which requires a Total Maximum
Daily Limit (TMDL) for pathogens (E. coli).
Water quality could be temporarily
impacted due to increased erosion and
runoff from construction areas, but BMPs
will be implanted. It is not expected to
increase TMDLs for impaired resources.
Best management practices should be
implemented during construction to minimize
erosion and sedimentation into waterbodies.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit to be obtained from Iowa DNR
including preparation of Storm Water Pollution
Protection Plan (SWPPP).
Floodplain Regulated floodways and Zone A/AE flood
zones are present within the ESA.
Construction activities that result in
changes to the floodway or flood zone is
strictly prohibited.
Floodplain permit(s) should be obtained from the
Iowa DNR and Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) (if applicable) to ensure project
activities are not going to result in changes to the
floodway or flood zone.
Cultural
Resources
There are several historic properties and
districts listed on the National Register of
Historic Places (NRHP). Impacts to these
properties are unlikely given their location
and anticipated project activities in the
vicinity of these properties.
Coordination should be conducted with Iowa
State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to
ensure Section 106 compliance and to determine
whether any cultural resource surveys are
warranted. In the event of an unanticipated
discovery of cultural resources, the Contractor
shall halt work immediately and contact a
qualified archeologist and notify Iowa SHPO.
Final October 2024
Regulatory Review 62
Environmental
Resource Findings Mitigation Measures
Threatened &
Endangered
Species
Several sensitive avian, aquatic, and bat
species could be impacted by various
project activities including tree/shrub
removal, culvert/bridge work, and grading.
To avoid impacts to bats, tree/shrub clearing
should be avoided between June 1 and July 31. If
tree-clearing cannot be avoided during this time
period, coordinate with US Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) and Iowa DNR.
Implementation of additional conservation
measures during design and construction can
help reduce and mitigate impacts to other
species. Coordination with the USFWS and Iowa
DNR will likely be required to identify
conservation measures or design
recommendations to help reduce impacts to
sensitive species.
Migratory Birds
and Bald and
Golden Eagles
Tree-clearing activities have the potential
to result in a “take” of migratory birds.
Trees and shrubs should be removed outside the
primary nesting season of April 1st to July 15th or
pre-construction surveys should be conducted by
a qualified biologist if within the primary nesting
season.
Regulated
Materials
Low potential for contaminated soil
and/or groundwater to be encountered
during construction. With mitigation
measures in place, no significant adverse
effects due to hazardous materials.
Work is to be stopped if contamination is
encountered. The Iowa DNR is to be notified,
materials management plan developed.
Parks &
Recreational
Areas
Several parks, recreational areas, and
trails are present within the ESA, including
a number of resources located adjacent to
the proposed project alignment.
If federally funded, the project will need to
conduct a Section 4(f) analysis to determine if
there will be a “use” of public recreational areas
and, if so, whether the “use” can qualify as de
minimis or if an Individual Section 4(f) Evaluation
is warranted.
Environmental
Justice / LEP
Minority populations were identified
within the ESA.
Minority populations will need to be considered
throughout the project planning process. A more
in-depth Environmental Justice analysis may be
warranted to ensure disproportionate adverse
effects do not occur to minority populations.
Air Quality The project is within an Attainment Area.
Minor short-term adverse effects of dust
during construction. Long-term adverse
effects are not anticipated.
None required.
Final October 2024
Regulatory Review 63
Environmental
Resource Findings Mitigation Measures
Noise Traffic noise could increase along portions
of the corridor due to the increased
traffic capacity. Noise from construction
activities would be expected to be minor
short-term adverse effects that would
cease after construction is completed.
It should be determined in later phases of project
planning whether a Noise Analysis and potential
noise abatement is warranted.
Land Use and
Zoning
The proposed project is expected to be
compatible with future land use plans for
the corridor. Any future development
within the corridor would be guided by
zoning plans established by the Iowa City,
Coralville, and North Liberty.
None required.
Airspace Iowa City Municipal Airport is located
approximately 1.25 miles south of the
proposed project. Project structures and
equipment must comply with applicable
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
height restrictions.
Not anticipated.
Utilities The proposed project is anticipated to
impact utilities along the corridor.
Coordinate with utility companies during design.
Utility relocations to be coordinated.
The environmental class of action for a future project on the CRANDIC corridor will be determined at the end of
the scoping process and a Project Work Plan will be created. The FTA may decide if the class of action for the
project is a Categorical Exclusion (CE) or an Environmental Assessment (EA). This step may be delayed until
completion of additional environmental analysis. While it is unlikely, if it is determined that the appropriate
environmental class of action is an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), the Lead Agency will issue a Notice of
Intent (NOI) to advise agencies and the public about the preparation of an EIS. The FTA has provided an EIS Process
flowchart that demonstrates the steps that are required to move a project from the identification of the project need
through the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Record of Decision (ROD). This process is shown in
Figure 30.
Final October 2024
Regulatory Review 64
Figure 30. FTA EIS Process (Source: FTA)
Assessing existing environmental conditions and characteristics of the area affected by a proposed activity forms the
foundation of the review. The baseline situation refers to what would occur without the proposed actions, and
baseline data collection is pertinent to the specific time and area of the proposed project. Data collection for the
desktop environmental review will be used to build the environmental review process, which further includes the
analysis of potential risks, community response, environmental determinations, and where mitigation measures might
be required.
To ensure that the proposed action will comply with the requirements of NEPA, the Endangered Species Act, the
National Historic Preservation Act, the Clean Water Act, and other applicable Federal and State laws, comments will
be solicited from all resource agencies applicable to the project, including the agencies listed below. Coordination
with these agencies should begin during the NEPA process and not the application process for permits, as permits
are initiated after NEPA approval is obtained for a project.
Final October 2024
Regulatory Review 65
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (federally-listed threatened and endangered species and/or critical habitat,
Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Fish & Wildlife Coordination Act, and Bald & Golden Eagle Act).
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (for comment on the possibility of impacting wetlands and other Waters of
the U.S.)
Iowa Department of Natural Resource (for comment on the possibility of impacting state listed threatened
and endangered species and water quality, stormwater permitting, hazardous waste compliance).
Iowa State Historical Preservation Office (SHPO) (for comment on the possibility of impacting cultural
resources).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (for comment on protection of human health, and the
natural environment, including land, air and water resources).
Iowa Commission of Native American Affairs (for comment on potential Tribal impacts).
Permitting and Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Environmental documentation will include identification of the permits required for the project. Permit applications
will need to be developed and all mitigation and associated conditions incorporated into the construction plan. A
Mitigation Monitoring Plan (MMP) will be developed that details mitigation monitoring measures to be implemented
during construction of the project and after construction has been completed. The MMP provides the plan to
maintain compliance, when to obtain permits, and identification of the agencies responsible for issuing permits. The
MMP will identify and describe adverse and beneficial effects of the project, identify specific measures to mitigate the
adverse impacts, and list parties that are responsible for ensuring compliance.
Railroad Abandonment
The railroad abandonment requirements included in 49 CFR 1152 and the abandonment procedures have not
changed since the previous passenger rail study was completed in 2020. The Surface Transportation Board (STB) and
the Iowa DOT will actively oversee and participate in the process of railroad abandonment on the CRANDIC
corridor if BRT advances toward implementation. The process for railroad abandonment, including the notice of
intent, abandonment application, public involvement, and STB decision process are outlined in the Railroad
Abandonment Brochure developed by the Iowa DOT.1
It is important to note that the types of public uses for abandoned railroad corridors is included in 49 CFR 10905.
This section of code states, “the Board shall find whether the rail properties that are involved in the proposed
abandonment or discontinuance are appropriate for use for public purposes, including highways, other forms of
mass transportation, conservation, energy production or transmission, or recreation.” As the proposed BRT corridor
is a form of mass transportation, the use of the CRANDIC corridor for the BRT could be an appropriate use if found
appropriate by the STB.
1 Railroad Abandonment, Iowa Department of Transportation, Revised March 25, 1997,
https://iowadot.gov/iowarail/railroads/regulatory/rail_abandonment_brochure.pdf
Final October 2024
Funding 66
9. Funding
This section provides an overview of possible funding mechanisms to advance the planning, design, and construction
of BRT in the CRANDIC Corridor. Funding programs are divided by Federal, State, and Local opportunities. Regional
funding opportunities through the Metropolitan Planning Organization of Johnson County could also be considered
for future transit projects in line with regionally specified funding priorities.
Federal
Capital Investment Grants (CIG) – USDOT
The Capital Investment Grants (CIG) program funds fixed guideway investments, including new and expanded rapid
rail, commuter rail, light rail, streetcars, bus rapid transit, and ferries, and corridor-based bus rapid transit
investments that emulate the features of rail.
Eligibility: There are three categories of eligible projects under the CIG program: New Starts, Small Starts, and
Core Capacity. Each type of CIG project has a unique set of requirements in the law, although many similarities exist
among them. To be eligible to receive a CIG construction grant, all proposed projects must go through a multiyear,
multistep development process outlined in the law. FTA is required to evaluate and rate CIG projects on statutorily
defined project justification and local financial commitment criteria that differ by project type.
Funding Availability: The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) authorized $3 billion per year in annual
appropriations and $1.6 billion per year in advance appropriations for the CIG program, including funding that may be
awarded under the Expedited Project Delivery Pilot Program. Individual awards vary depending on type of project.
Small Starts: Projects less than $400 million in total project cost and that are seeking CIG funding of less
than $150 million. Maximum federal share is 80 percent with 20 percent local match.
New Starts: Projects with total project cost of $400 million or more and that are seeking CIG funding of
$150 million or more. Maximum federal share is 60 percent with 40 percent local match.
Core Capacity: Projects in an existing fixed guideway corridor that is at capacity today or will be in 10
years, where the project will increase the capacity of the corridor by at least 10 percent. Maximum federal
share is 80 percent with 20 percent local match.
An analysis of the BRT alignments estimated ratings for CIG criteria is provided in Appendix G.
National Infrastructure Project Assistance (Mega)
Program – USDOT
The National Infrastructure Project Assistance Program (Mega) is one of three programs included in the Multimodal
Project Discretionary Grant (MPDG) Opportunity. The MPDG are competitive grants for surface transportation
projects which includes public transportation. Through the MPDG, USDOT is seeking projects that have a significant
national or regional impact. The Mega program is focused on constructing projects, so project readiness is a key
factor in the selection of projects. To best position projects for an award, projects should be able to show significant
progress toward environmental clearance, final design, and ROW acquisition.
Eligibility: The Mega program allows seven eligible project types including public transportation projects that are
eligible under Chapter 53 of title 49 and is part of another project type. Chapter 53 of title 49 makes fixed guideway
projects an eligible project under (49 U.S.C. 5309). A secondary project type eligible under Mega is railway highway
grade elimination projects.
Funding Availability: The 2025-2026 Mega program was appropriated $1.7 billion as part of the $5.1 billion
available under the MPDG opportunity. The Mega program requires 50 percent of the funds to go toward projects
Final October 2024
Funding 67
above $500 million in total costs and 50 percent to projects between $100 million and $500 million in total costs.
Mega grant funding cannot exceed 60 percent of project cost but can be combined with other federal funding to
reach 80 percent federal share. Local match will depend on the level of project funding up to 40 percent of project
cost.
Rebuilding America’s Infrastructure with Sustainability
and Equity (RAISE) - USDOT
The Rebuilding America’s Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity (RAISE) Discretionary Grant Opportunity is
the latest iteration of the former TIGER and BUILD grant programs focused on road, rail, transit, and port
infrastructure. With RAISE USDOT seeks projects that have a local or regional impact on multi-modal
transportation. RAISE offers two categories of projects: Planning and Capital. Based on the maximum funding
available to projects, a planning project would be more applicable to a future project. Planning projects can fund
planning, environmental analysis, design, and public engagement.
Eligibility: Eligible applicants for RAISE include municipalities, counties, port authorities, tribal governments, and
MPOs.
Funding Availability: The 2024 RAISE program awarded $1.8 billion to 148 projects. USDOT attempts to award
RAISE grants in as many states and territories as possible as no more than 15 percent of the funding can go to any
one state. At least five percent (approximately $75 million) is awarded to planning projects. RAISE grants are also
required to be split between rural and urban areas with no more than 50 percent of funds going to either area type.
Maximum federal share is 80 percent with a 20 percent local match.
Grants for Buses and Bus Facilities Program - FTA
The Grants for Buses and Bus Facilities Competitive Program (49 U.S.C. 5339(b)) makes federal resources available
to states and direct recipients to replace, rehabilitate and purchase buses and related equipment and to construct
bus-related facilities, including technological changes or innovations to modify low or no emission vehicles or facilities.
Funding is provided through formula allocations and competitive grants.
Eligibility: Eligible applicants for the Buses and Bus Facilities Program include designated recipients that allocate
funds to fixed-route bus operators, States (including territories and Washington D.C.) or local governmental entities
that operate fixed route bus service, and Indian tribes. Eligible subrecipients include all otherwise eligible applicants
and also private nonprofit organizations engaged in public transportation.
Capital projects to replace, rehabilitate and purchase buses, vans, and related equipment, and to construct bus-
related facilities, including technological changes or innovations to modify low or no emission vehicles or facilities.
Additionally, 0.5 percent of a request may be for workforce development training, and an additional 0.5 percent may
be for training at the National Transit Institute. Applicants proposing any project related to zero -emission vehicles
must also spend 5 percent of their award on workforce development and training as outlined in their Zero-Emission
Transition Plan, unless the applicant certifies that their financial need is less.
Funding Availability: Funds remain available for obligation for four fiscal years. This includes the fiscal year in which
the amount is made available or appropriated plus three additional years. Maximum federal share is 80 percent with a
20 percent local match.
Urbanized Area Formula Grants (Section 530) – FTA
The Urbanized Area Formula Funding program (49 U.S.C. 5307) makes federal resources available to governors and
other recipients for transit capital and operating assistance and transportation-related planning in urbanized areas. An
Final October 2024
Funding 68
urbanized area is an area that has been defined and designated by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the
Census as an 'Urban Area' with a population of 50,000 or more.
Eligibility: Funding for urbanized areas with a population of 200,000 or more is made available to designated
recipients that are public bodies with the legal authority to receive and dispense federal funds. For urbanized areas
with a population of 200,000 or more, governors, responsible local officials and providers of publicly owned public
transportation service shall select a designated recipient to receive and apportion funds to eligible projects and
recipients within the urbanized area.
Funding for urbanized areas with a population of between 50,000 and 199,999 is made available to a State's or
territory's governor or governor's designee. For urbanized areas with a population of less than 200,000, the governor
or governor's designee is responsible for receiving and apportioning funds to eligible projects and recipients.
Eligible activities include: planning, engineering, design and evaluation of transit projects and other technical
transportation-related studies; capital investments in bus and bus-related activities such as replacement, overhaul and
rebuilding of buses, crime prevention and security equipment and construction of maintenance and passenger
facilities; and capital investments in new and existing fixed guideway systems including rolling stock, overhaul and
rebuilding of vehicles, station infrastructure, track, signals, communications, and computer hardware and software. In
addition, associated transit improvements, workforce development activities, and certain expenses associated with
mobility management programs are eligible under the program. All preventive maintenance and some Americans with
Disabilities Act complementary paratransit service costs are considered capital costs.
For urbanized areas with populations less than 200,000, operating assistance is an eligible expense. Urbanized areas of
200,000 or more may not use funds for operating assistance unless identified by FTA as eligible under 49 U.S.C.
5307(a)(2) and (3).
Funding Availability: Funds are available the year appropriated plus five years. Maximum federal share for capital
projects is 80 percent with a 20 percent local match. Maximum federal share for operating expenses may not exceed
50 percent.
Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STBG) -
FHWA
The Surface Transportation Block Grant program (STBG) provides flexible funding that may be used by States and
localities for projects to preserve and improve the conditions and performance on any Federal-aid highway, bridge
and tunnel projects on any public road, pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, and transit capital projects, including
intercity bus terminals.
State
Public Transit Infrastructure Grant (PTIG) – Iowa DOT
This program is funded annually by the state legislature to fund some of the vertical infrastructure needs of Iowa’s
transit systems. Projects can involve new construction, reconstruction, or remodeling, but must include a vertical
component to qualify. Projects are evaluated based on the anticipated benefits to transit, as well as the ability to have
projects completed quickly. The infrastructure program participation in the cost of transit-related elements of a
facility project is limited to 80 percent and cannot, in combination with federal funding, exceed that number. No
single system can receive more than 40 percent of the available infrastructure funding in a given year.
Final October 2024
Funding 69
State Sales Tax - Iowa
Iowa’s 6 percent sales tax is used to fund several of the state’s public and social services. Infrastructure is one sector
funded by the sales tax and can be directed to supporting the infrastructure needed for BRT systems in Iowa.
Vehicle Registration Fee - Iowa
All vehicles must be registered to legally be driven in Iowa. The annual registration fees are determined by Iowa
Code sections 321.109 and 321.115 through 321.124 and are to be paid to the county treasurer’s office in the county
of residence. A legislative option to fund BRT could be to use some of the funds from vehicle registrations.
Local
Hotel-Motel Tax (Des Moines Case Study)
In 2022, the Iowa Legislature passed House File 2579, which related to and made appropriations to state departments
and agencies from the rebuild Iowa infrastructure fund, the technology reinvestment fund, and the sports wagering
receipts fund, providing for related matters, and including effective date and retroactive applicability provisions. The
House File included language directing the Iowa Department of Transportation (DOT) to establish a Des Moines
Area Regional Transit Authority (DART) Alternative Funding Advisory Committee to study the most effective and
efficient methods to increase funding for the Des Moines area regional transit authority that is alternative to an
increase in property taxes. DART had been seeking legislative action this session on their hotel-motel tax proposal
and this session's law language was passed by the legislature in response to DART’s proposal.
Local Option State and Service Tax (LOSST)
Code of Iowa Chapter 423B authorizes cities and counties to implement a Local Option Sales and Service Tax
(LOSST), subject to certain requirements if voted and approved by a majority vote of citizens at an election. Nearly
all cities in Iowa have adopted a LOSST and use the revenues approved by the voters.
In addition to the state sales tax, most local jurisdictions impose a LOSST. The rate is 1 percent. Within a county,
some cities may have the local option tax and some may not. Also, the unincorporated rural area of a county may or
may not have the tax. A jurisdiction may enact the tax on January 1 or July 1. In transactions where the retailer
should have collected state sales tax and local option sales tax but did not, the retailer is still liable for the
uncollected local option sales tax, even if the purchaser remits use tax.
Final October 2024
Conclusion 70
10. Conclusion
The Metropolitan Planning Organization of Johnson County commissioned this study to analyze the feasibility of
converting the CRANDIC rail ROW between North Liberty and Iowa City to a BRT corridor. This study builds on
the five previous studies examining transit and active transportation using the CRANDIC ROW and demonstrates
that conversion from a freight rail line to a BRT corridor is feasible. After a comprehensive review of costs, ridership
projections, and valuable feedback from the steering committee, three alternatives using the corridor were advanced
and considered the most promising of dozens of combinations using the corridor and local streets.
While any of the three alternatives would be implementable and enhance the regional transit network, Alternative 5
emerges as the most viable option for the proposed BRT route. The alignment would provide redevelopment
opportunities in North Liberty at the northern terminus without the impact of local traffic on Penn Street during
peak time. The connection to the Pentacrest at the southern terminus via Iowa Avenue may slow the BRT service
but removing reconstruction of the rail bridges over the Iowa River and Iowa Avenue reduce overall construction
costs. Additionally, using Iowa Avenue creates the opportunity to remove or modify the railroad bridge over Iowa
Avenue to address height restrictions for vehicles accessing downtown – including buses and emergency vehicles.
The analysis indicates that Alternative 5 offers a balanced approach, maximizing both efficiency and accessibility while
minimizing disruption to existing infrastructure. The feedback from the steering committee further underscores the
feasibility of this alternative. Adopting Alternative 5 will not only enhance public transportation in the region but also
contribute to economic development, reduce traffic congestion, and promote sustainable transit solutions.
Benefits of BRT vs Rail Transit on CRANDIC ROW
When evaluating Alternative 5 and comparing to the previously studied rail transit service, several key advantages and
disadvantages emerge.
Capital Cost: Alternative 5 is the lowest cost of the three BRT alternatives at $91.95 million (2024). This is
considerably higher than the previous rail transit study for Iowa City to North Liberty at $49.0 million
(2019). Even after adjusting to 2024 dollars, rail transit on the corridor still has lower capital costs than the
BRT route at $60.1 million. This higher capital cost is largely due to the need to resurface the rail right-of-
way and the additional stop platforms, although this will help with passenger accessibility and overall bus
network connectivity.
Operating Cost: Alternative 5 is the second lowest annual operating cost of the three BRT alternatives at
$2.4 million per year (2024). This is about half of the operating cost estimated for the previous rail transit
study for Iowa City to North Liberty at $4.8 million (2019). After adjusting to 2024 dollars, rail transit on the
corridor has higher operating costs than the BRT route at $5.9 million.
Capacity Tailored to Demand: Ridership estimates for the BRT alternatives were all lower than the
most recent rail transit study between North Liberty and Iowa City. As noted in the modeling section, the
BRT model was updated with post-pandemic ridership which has been approximately 20 percent lower than
pre-pandemic ridership. Without modeling the rail transit under post-pandemic conditions ridership
comparisons are limited. Additionally, the lower capacity of the BRT alternative aligns well with current
ridership demands, ensuring that resources are effectively utilized without excess.
Flexibility in Adjusting End Terminals: One of the major benefits for bus transit over rail transit is that
buses are more adaptable to changing passenger demand or development patterns. While rail transit options
on the CRANDIC line can utilize the existing rails to accommodate passenger service, the BRT can adapt and
use local streets if needed, especially at the north and south terminals. The BRT alternatives demonstrate the
flexibility to modify end terminals based on future needs or community input, enhancing its adaptability, while
maintaining a reliable central corridor.
Final October 2024
Conclusion 71
Opportunities for Development: There remains significant potential for further development along the
route that could benefit both bus and rail transit. As previously noted, the flexibility of the BRT on the north
and south ends would enable transit to quickly adapt to new development opportunities off the rail corridor
which could support economic growth and improve local infrastructure. The permanence of the central
corridor will allow for future transit-oriented development focused near the BRT stops.
Alternative 5 presents several key advantages, including lower operating costs, which make it more financially feasible
for implementation. Its capacity aligns well with current ridership demands, ensuring effective resource utilization.
Additionally, BRT offers flexibility in adjusting end terminals to meet future needs, and it retains significant potential
for further development along the route, especially on the fixed central corridor, supporting economic growth and
local infrastructure improvements. These benefits position Alternative 5 as a strong candidate for the proposed BRT
system.
Implementing BRT on the CRANDIC ROW
With the completion of this feasibility study, the process of implementing BRT on the CRANDIC ROW has begun.
This study acts as the initial planning document that can be used to advance the planning and design of the corridor.
The next phase of implementation includes public outreach and additional stakeholder engagement to refine the
projects goals and objectives with input from residents, businesses, and government entities. The next step, to
position this corridor for federal funding, is a pre-National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) study that will further
refine the BRT alternatives analysis that was started with this study and may include rail alternatives to determine a
reasonable preferred alternative to carry forward to a full NEPA study. Data collection and analysis of traffic patterns
and environmental impacts in this study will further inform the refined design process, leading to the development of
multiple alternatives at intersections.
The project will then move into design and engineering. This involves creating detailed plans and specifications for the
BRT route, including specific stop locations with site plans, infrastructure requirements, and any necessary street and
access modifications. Public outreach continues during this stage to maintain transparency and gather feedback on the
proposed designs. After finalizing the plans, the project must secure funding through grants, local budgets, and
partnerships. With funding in place, the project enters the construction phase, where contractors are selected, and
the physical build-out of the BRT route begins. This phase includes coordination with various agencies to minimize
disruption, as well as ongoing communication with the community to keep them informed about progress and
timelines. Considering the next study is commenced shortly after the completion of this study, the construction
phase could begin within five years.
Barriers to BRT Implementation
Several barriers can slow the progress toward implementing the BRT route. Below is a list of potential barriers that
could impact the implementation process:
Lack of community support or consensus on the implementation of the BRT route.
Lack of support or consensus on the implementation from transit agencies or CRANDIC.
Lack of local funding for operations.
Lack of funding for local match requirements of grants.
Environmental impacts not anticipated during planning.
Final October 2024
Conclusion 72
Next Steps
This study is the initial step in the development of the BRT route along the CRANDIC corridor. Immediate next
steps to advance the proposed BRT alternative include:
Determine the preferred approach to transit on the CRANDIC corridor – rail or BRT.
Submit a RAISE planning grant application to advance design, environmental, and traffic modeling.
Coordinate with CRANDIC on the timing and approach to railroad abandonment (if desired).
Determine regional consensus on agency to operate service.
Determine the financial capacity and need for additional Sunday service (if desired).
Identify preferred regional funding source for operating costs.
Prepare application and secure funding for CIG or other funding for construction.
Final October 2024
Appendix A
Appendix A. Existing Conditions Tables
Final October 2024
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: CRANDIC BRT Feasibility Study – Existing Conditions
Table 1: CRANDIC Division 2 Railroad Timetable Stations and
Railroad Milepost Locations in the Iowa City-North Liberty Corridor
Railroad Timetable Station CRANDIC Railroad Milepost
Iowa City, Iowa 25.1
Coralville, Iowa 22.9
Great Lakes, Iowa 22.3
Oakdale, Iowa 19.8
North Liberty, Iowa 16.9
Source: CRANDIC (September 2018)
Table 2: Railroad Bridges on the CRANDIC Corridor
Railroad Milepost
Superstructure
Description
Deck Type
Crossing Feature
Crossing Name
17.50 1-14'-6" TPT, 1-13'-
10" TPT, 1-13'-4"
TPT, 1-14'-3" TPT
Open Water Muddy Creek
23.30 1-43' SBM, 4-50'-8"
SBM, 1-31'-9" SBM
Ballast Water Clear Creek
23.80 1-35'-9" TPG Open Roadway Rocky Shore Drive
24.60 1-22' SBM, 1-34'-6"
SBM, 1-24'-6" SBM
Open Roadway Riverside Drive
24.70 4-74'-6" DPG Open Water Iowa River
24.80 1-14' TPG, 1-24'-9"
TPG, 1-20'-3" TPG,
1-24'-6" TPG, 1-17'
TPG
Open Roadway Iowa Avenue
24.90 1-19'-6" RC, 1-20'-
10" RC, 1-19'-6" RC
Ballast Pedestrian University Library
pedestrian
underpass
25.75 3-24'-8" SBM Open Water Ralston Creek
Source: CRANDIC
Railroad Bridge Type Notes:
• DPG – Deck Plate Girder
• RC – Reinforced Concrete Span
• SBM – Steel Beam Span
• TPG – Through Plate Girder
• TPT – Timber Pile Trestle
Final October 2024
CRANDIC BRT Feasibility Study – Existing Conditions
Page 2
Table 3: Railroad Drainage Structures on the CRANDIC Corridor
Railroad Milepost Culvert Description Crossing Type Length (feet)
16.70 1st: 1-3' CCP
2nd: 1-2.5’ CCP
1st: Water
2nd: Water
1st: Water
2nd: Water
16.90 1-2' CMP Water Water
17.75 1-3'x8' CA Water Water
17.80 1-5.5' CCP Water Water
18.00 1st: 1-3.5' SSP
2nd: 1-2.5’ CCP
1st: Water
2nd: Water
1st: Water
2nd: Water
18.30 1-3' CCP Water Water
18.90 1-1.25' CCP Water Water
19.30 1-1.5' VCP Water Water
19.50 1-3' CCP Water Water
20.00 1-0.67' CCP Water Water
20.50 1-1.5’ VCP Water Water
21.35 1-2' SSP Water Water
21.40 1-3' CCP Water Water
21.41 1-1.5' CMP Water Water
21.60 1-2' CCP Water Water
21.75 1-6' CCP Water Water
22.00 1-4' CMP Water Water
22.30 1-2' CMP Water Water
22.33 1-1.5’ SSP Water Water
22.40 2-4' CCP Water Water
24.45 1- CCP
(Unknown diameter) Water Water
24.69 1-8'x8' RCB Pedestrian Pedestrian
24.71 1-5'x7' RCB Pedestrian Pedestrian
Source: CRANDIC
Railroad Drainage Structures Notes:
• CCP – Circular Concrete Pipe
• CMP – Corrugated Metal Pipe
• SSP – Smooth Steel Pipe
• VCP – Vitrified Clay Pipe
Final October 2024
CRANDIC BRT Feasibility Study – Existing Conditions
Page 3
Table 4: Inventory of At-Grade Roadway Crossings in the CRANDIC
Corridor between Iowa City and North Liberty
Roadway Railroad
Milepost
FRA
Grade
Crossing
Number
Type of Crossing Existing Grade Crossing
Infrastructure
Gilbert Street 25.78 607299C Active (Public) Crossbucks, bells, and flashing light
signals
Lafayette
Street Alley 25.70 Not Assigned Passive (Private) Crossbucks
Dubuque Street 25.66 607300U Passive (Public) Crossbucks
Clinton Street 25.59 840196P Passive
(Public) Crossbucks
Capitol Street 25.50 840192M Passive (Public) Crossbucks
Court Street 25.15 840191F Passive (Public) Crossbucks and stop sign
Burlington Street 25.10 840190Y Active (Public) Crossbucks, bells, and flashing light
signals
University
Library Access 25.00 909194Y Passive (Public) Crossbucks and stop sign
Kings
Material
South
Entrance
23.21 Not Assigned Passive (Private) No signage
Kings Material North
Entrance 23.20 840182G Passive
(Private) No signage
First Avenue (Iowa
River Power House
Entrance)
23.06 840181A Active (Public) Crossbucks, bells, and flashing light
signals
Quarry Road 22.92 840180T Passive
(Private) Crossbucks and yield signs
First Avenue 22.90 840179Y Active (Public) Crossbucks, bells, and flashing light
signals
Seventh Avenue 22.30 909184T Passive
(Public) Crossbucks and stop signs
Tenth Street 21.80 840177K Active (Public) Crossbucks, bells, and flashing light
signals
Twelfth Avenue 20.70 840173H Active (Public) Crossbucks, bells, and flashing light
signals
Lynncrest Drive 20.30 909032W Passive
(Public) Crossbucks and stop signs
North Ridge Trail 20.15 840262A Passive
(Public) Crossbucks and stop signs
Substation Tiffin-
Tharp 19.95 Not Assigned Passive
(Private) No signage
Postal Road 19.80 840261T Passive
(Public) Crossbucks and yield signs
Oakdale Boulevard 19.70 840260L Active (Public) Crossbucks, bells, and flashing light
signals
Final October 2024
CRANDIC BRT Feasibility Study – Existing Conditions
Page 4
Roadway Railroad
Milepost
FRA
Grade
Crossing
Number
Type of Crossing Existing Grade Crossing
Infrastructure
University Parkway 19.27 840259S Active (Public) Crossbucks, gates, bells, and flashing
light signals
Forever Green
Road
18.70 840258K Active (Public) Crossbucks, gates, bells, and flashing
light signals
Golf View Drive 17.68 840256W Active (Public) Crossbucks, gates, bells, and flashing
light signals
West Zeller Street 17.18 840255P Active (Public) Crossbucks, bells, and flashing light
signals
Cherry Street 16.95 840254H Active (Public) Crossbucks, bells, and flashing light
signals
Penn Street 16.67 840252U Active (Public) Crossbucks, bells, and flashing light
signals
Source: CRANDIC (September 2018)
Final October 2024
Appendix B
Appendix B. Terminal Concept Alignments
Final October 2024
Concept
Alignment
Alternatives
South Termini S1
S5
S3
S6
S4
S2
Final October 2024
Concept
Alignment
Alternatives
South Termini S1
Final October 2024
Concept
Alignment
Alternatives
South Termini
S2
Final October 2024
Concept
Alignment
Alternatives
South Termini
S3
Final October 2024
Concept
Alignment
Alternatives
South Termini S4
Final October 2024
Concept
Alignment
Alternatives
South Termini
S5
Final October 2024
Concept
Alignment
Alternatives
South Termini
S6
Final October 2024
Concept
Alignment
Alternatives
North Termini
N1
N3 N2
N4
N5
Final October 2024
Concept
Alignment
Alternatives
North Termini
N1
Final October 2024
Concept
Alignment
Alternatives
North Termini
N2
Final October 2024
Concept
Alignment
Alternatives
North Termini
N3
Final October 2024
Concept
Alignment
Alternatives
North Termini N4
Final October 2024
Concept
Alignment
Alternatives
North Termini
N5
Final October 2024
Appendix C
Appendix C. Tier 2 Demographics Criteria
Final October 2024
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 2024
SUBJECT: Summary of Demographic Criteria from Alternatives Analysis
This memo is an excerpt from the Alternative Analysis and Screening Report completed for the CRANDIC
Bus Rapid Transit Feasibility Study. This document summarizes the demographic criteria used in the evaluation
of route alternatives.
Potential Ridership Market
This assessment used data from Replica Places, which simulated the complete activities and movements of residents,
visitors, and commercial vehicles within a given region and on a typical day. The following are the steps used to
calculate the potential ridership market:
• Computed half-mile buffers for each alternative using GIS.
• Manually digitized catchment areas with non-overlapping boundaries.
• Loaded catchment areas into Replica.
• Processed the Replica output to specific travel flows across each alignment alternative.
• Calculated the potential ridership market of each alternative.
Half-mile buffers were computed for each alignment alternative using Geographic Information Systems (GIS), which
included using the Tier 1 alternatives for better detail: five in the North area, three in the Central area, and six in
the South area. This distance of a half-mile is accepted as a basic catchment area for transit riders to a high-capacity
bus route, either by walking, biking, or another mode choice.
To obtain results from Replica, the catchment areas must be non-overlapping and large enough to capture at
least 100 residents or 100 employees. While accurate, the GIS-generated buffers resulted in several
overlapping catchment areas, some too small to be used in Replica. The final catchment areas were manually
digitized using the GIS-generated buffers as a baseline. The goal was to roughly identify the most critical
catchment areas and define non-overlapping boundaries. This process was not intended to represent every
single catchment area combination, given the small size and the negligible expected trip impact of those
combinations. Figure 1 shows the overall catchment zone fed into Replica for the individual alternative
alignments.
Final October 2024
October 2024
Summary of Demographic Criteria from Alternatives Analysis
Page 2
Figure 1 . Ridership Catchment Zones
The manually digitized catchment areas were loaded into Replica to obtain all the trips conducted within each
catchment zone and all the flows between them. This resulted in a total of 168,000 daily trips across all
catchment zones. Next, the raw Replica output was processed to aggregate specific flows across each
alignment alternative. The rules we set to define the flows were:
• Flows across all possible combinations of alternatives were calculated from different corridor areas to
form the Tier 2 alignments, such as N5 to C1, C1 to S6, or N3 to S2. Data in Replica is unidirectional;
for example, N5 to C1 and C1 to N5 are two distinct flows.
• Since a given corridor alternative will only include one alignment from each corridor area, all flows
between alignments of the same corridor area were removed. For example, C1 to C2 and S4 to S5
flows were removed from the analysis.
Final October 2024
October 2024
Summary of Demographic Criteria from Alternatives Analysis
Page 3
• Internal trips in the North and South catchment areas were not counted because it is unlikely the BRT
will capture those trips.
• Conversely, because of the Central alignment extension and coverage, internal trips in the Central
alignment catchment area were included.
In the final step, the potential ridership market of each corridor alternative was calculated by combining one
alignment of the North area, one of the Central area, and one of the South area to form the specific
alignments in the Tier 2 analysis.
Table 1 shows the results of the alternatives that include the Tier 2 alignments (as combinations of the north-
central-south alternatives identified in the Tier 1 analysis). Note that these numbers are not projected
ridership, but rather the population that ridership can be derived from. Ridership projections will be estimated
for the preferred alternatives in a future analysis.
Table 1 . Potential Market Population of Alternatives
Alternative
Bi-Directional Trips
Potential
Ridership Market
North-
Central
Central-
Central
Central-
South
North-South
A1 7,257 37,271 25,278 1,674 71,480
A2 7,257 37,271 25,278 1,674 71,480
A3 7,257 37,271 25,278 1,674 71,480
A4 7,257 37,271 12,639 837 58,004
A5 5,804 37,271 25,278 1,148 69,501
A6 5,804 37,271 25,278 1,148 69,501
A7 5,804 37,271 25,278 1,148 69,501
A8 5,804 37,271 12,639 574 56,288
Alternatives A1, A2, and A3 are expected to have the same ridership market as they share a similar corridor;
Alternatives A5, A6, and A7 are also this way. Alternatives A1, A2, and A3 have a slightly higher ridership
market than Alternatives A5, A6, and A7 because of the slightly longer corridor that extends west along Penn
Street, almost to I-380. Alternatives A4 and A8 are constrained as they rely on transfers to connect to
downtown Iowa City and do not have as great of a ridership market.
Population Density
This screening criteria measures the people per square mile in census tracts. Figure 2 shows a map of
population density in the study area with the alternative routes. Population density is more focused in three
areas: North Liberty, Coralville, and Iowa City. The proposed alternative alignments serve these areas well
overall. Population density is higher in downtown Iowa City, so the routes that loop around the Pentacrest
perform better. Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 score the best in terms of population density because of how
close their south terminals come to the more prominent population in downtown Iowa City. This also helps
create a “reverse peak direction” situation where riders are expected to utilize the transit route away from
Iowa City in addition to toward it for traveling to employment, which provides for a more efficient utilization
of the transit network.
Final October 2024
October 2024
Summary of Demographic Criteria from Alternatives Analysis
Page 4
Figure 2 . Population Density
Employment Density
Employment density is similar to population density, showing the density of workers per square mile for
census tracts. Also similar to population density, the employment density for the study area is focused around
three areas: North Liberty, Coralville, and Iowa City. In this case, there is also the employment area between
Coralville and Iowa City with the University of Iowa campus, which all alignment alternatives serve well.
Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 serve the employment density in Iowa City better and thus have higher scores.
Figure 3 shows a map of the employment density in relation to the alternatives.
Final October 2024
October 2024
Summary of Demographic Criteria from Alternatives Analysis
Page 5
Figure 3 . Employment Density
Low-Income Population
This criteria is the measure of the population that are in a household of people whose adjusted incomes do
not exceed 50 percent of the median family income for the area. Traditional transit ridership is closely linked
to people with lower incomes as it is usually less expensive to regularly take transit for commuting and other
trips instead of having the costs of owning and maintaining a private automobile. Therefore, concentrations of
low-income people results in an indication of favorable transit ridership. For this study, the areas of North
Liberty and Iowa City have the highest percentages of households by census tract with low-income residents.
Final October 2024
October 2024
Summary of Demographic Criteria from Alternatives Analysis
Page 6
Alternatives 1 through 4, with the north terminal near I-380, have better proximity to low-income households
than Alternatives 5 through 8. Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 are closer to the low-income households in Iowa
City and therefore score better. Figure 4 shows a map of the low-income households in the study area.
Figure 4 . Tier 2 Low Income Population
Minority Population
The proximity of minority population adjacent to a transit route is also closely associated with the degree to
which successful ridership can be obtained. In the study area, minority populations are higher in North Liberty,
the southern part of Coralville, and Iowa City. All alternatives score well in this criteria with Alternatives 5
Final October 2024
October 2024
Summary of Demographic Criteria from Alternatives Analysis
Page 7
through 8 scoring slightly higher due to the northern terminal being in an area with a higher percentage of
minority population. This is shown in Figure 5.
Figure 5 . Minority Population
Zero Car Households
The prevalence of people that live in the study area and do not own a car will help give an idea of how well
transit can succeed as they are very likely to utilize transit. Zero car households are shown in Figure 6 and all
alternatives are nearly equal in serving the higher areas, although Alternatives 4 and 8, which do not reach
Final October 2024
October 2024
Summary of Demographic Criteria from Alternatives Analysis
Page 8
downtown Iowa City, score lower, and Alternatives 5 through 8 have a small advantage over Alternatives 1
through 4.
Figure 6 . Zero Car Households
Redevelopment Potential
Areas slated for future development, or redevelopment, are advantageous for transit projects as they can
encourage ridership growth and, if planned and built with transit in mind, can be very beneficial.
Redevelopment opportunities are helpful to consider in addition to existing population and employment
densities as they will add to the existing land uses. For the study area, there are several opportunity areas, as
Final October 2024
October 2024
Summary of Demographic Criteria from Alternatives Analysis
Page 9
shown in Figure 7. In particular, areas in North Liberty and Oakdale exist for redevelopment of existing land
and can be prime opportunities for Transit Oriented Development (TOD). All alternatives serve these areas
similarly and while the north terminal options will serve different redevelopment areas, they nearly have the
same amount of land use that can be redeveloped for TODs, with a slight edge to Alternatives 5 through 8.
Figure 7 . Redevelopment Opportunities
Final October 2024
Appendix D
Appendix D. Alternatives Schedules
Final October 2024
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: CRANDIC BRT Feasibility Study – Alternatives Schedules
This document provides the schedules for Alternatives 1, 5, and 7 developed for the Alternatives Analysis of the feasibility of converting the CRANDIC
rail right-of-way (ROW) between North Liberty and Iowa City to a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) corridor.
Table 1 . Alternative 1 – Weekday Southbound
Penn-Kansas Cherry St Forevergreen Rd Oakdale Blvd 12th Ave 1st Ave Rocky Shore Riverside-
Iowa
Washington-
Clinton
5:00 5:07 5:11 5:14 5:16 5:20 5:23 5:25 5:30
5:30 5:37 5:41 5:44 5:46 5:50 5:53 5:55 6:00
6:00 6:07 6:11 6:14 6:16 6:20 6:23 6:25 6:30
6:15 6:22 6:26 6:29 6:31 6:35 6:38 6:40 6:45
6:30 6:37 6:41 6:44 6:46 6:50 6:53 6:55 7:00
6:45 6:52 6:56 6:59 7:01 7:05 7:08 7:10 7:15
7:00 7:07 7:11 7:14 7:16 7:20 7:23 7:25 7:30
7:15 7:22 7:26 7:29 7:31 7:35 7:38 7:40 7:45
7:30 7:37 7:41 7:44 7:46 7:50 7:53 7:55 8:00
7:45 7:52 7:56 7:59 8:01 8:05 8:08 8:10 8:15
8:00 8:07 8:11 8:14 8:16 8:20 8:23 8:25 8:30
8:15 8:22 8:26 8:29 8:31 8:35 8:38 8:40 8:45
8:30 8:37 8:41 8:44 8:46 8:50 8:53 8:55 9:00
8:45 8:52 8:56 8:59 9:01 9:05 9:08 9:10 9:15
9:00 9:07 9:11 9:14 9:16 9:20 9:23 9:25 9:30
9:30 9:37 9:41 9:44 9:46 9:50 9:53 9:55 10:00
10:00 10:07 10:11 10:14 10:16 10:20 10:23 10:25 10:30
10:30 10:37 10:41 10:44 10:46 10:50 10:53 10:55 11:00
11:00 11:07 11:11 11:14 11:16 11:20 11:23 11:25 11:30
11:30 11:37 11:41 11:44 11:46 11:50 11:53 11:55 12:00
12:00 12:07 12:11 12:14 12:16 12:20 12:23 12:25 12:30
12:30 12:37 12:41 12:44 12:46 12:50 12:53 12:55 13:00
13:00 13:07 13:11 13:14 13:16 13:20 13:23 13:25 13:30
13:30 13:37 13:41 13:44 13:46 13:50 13:53 13:55 14:00
14:00 14:07 14:11 14:14 14:16 14:20 14:23 14:25 14:30
14:30 14:37 14:41 14:44 14:46 14:50 14:53 14:55 15:00
15:00 15:07 15:11 15:14 15:16 15:20 15:23 15:25 15:30
15:15 15:22 15:26 15:29 15:31 15:35 15:38 15:40 15:45
15:30 15:37 15:41 15:44 15:46 15:50 15:53 15:55 16:00
15:45 15:52 15:56 15:59 16:01 16:05 16:08 16:10 16:15
16:00 16:07 16:11 16:14 16:16 16:20 16:23 16:25 16:30
16:15 16:22 16:26 16:29 16:31 16:35 16:38 16:40 16:45
16:30 16:37 16:41 16:44 16:46 16:50 16:53 16:55 17:00
16:45 16:52 16:56 16:59 17:01 17:05 17:08 17:10 17:15
17:00 17:07 17:11 17:14 17:16 17:20 17:23 17:25 17:30
17:15 17:22 17:26 17:29 17:31 17:35 17:38 17:40 17:45
17:30 17:37 17:41 17:44 17:46 17:50 17:53 17:55 18:00
17:45 17:52 17:56 17:59 18:01 18:05 18:08 18:10 18:15
18:00 18:07 18:11 18:14 18:16 18:20 18:23 18:25 18:30
18:15 18:22 18:26 18:29 18:31 18:35 18:38 18:40 18:45
18:30 18:37 18:41 18:44 18:46 18:50 18:53 18:55 19:00
18:45 18:52 18:56 18:59 19:01 19:05 19:08 19:10 19:15
19:00 19:07 19:11 19:14 19:16 19:20 19:23 19:25 19:30
19:30 19:37 19:41 19:44 19:46 19:50 19:53 19:55 20:00
20:00 20:07 20:11 20:14 20:16 20:20 20:23 20:25 20:30
20:30 20:37 20:41 20:44 20:46 20:50 20:53 20:55 21:00
21:00 21:07 21:11 21:14 21:16 21:20 21:23 21:25 21:30
21:30 21:37 21:41 21:44 21:46 21:50 21:53 21:55 22:00
22:00 22:07 22:11 22:14 22:16 22:20 22:23 22:25 22:30
22:30 22:37 22:41 22:44 22:46 22:50 22:53 22:55 23:00
23:00 23:07 23:11 23:14 23:16 23:20 23:23 23:25 23:30
Final October 2024
CRANDIC BRT Feasibility Study – Alternatives Schedules
Page 2
Table 2 . Alternative 1 – Weekday Northbound
Washington-
Clinton
Riverside-
Iowa Rocky Shore 1st Ave 12th Ave Oakdale Blvd Forevergreen Rd Cherry St Penn-Kansas
5:08 5:13 5:15 5:18 5:22 5:24 5:27 5:31 5:38
5:38 5:43 5:45 5:48 5:52 5:54 5:57 6:01 6:08
6:08 6:13 6:15 6:18 6:22 6:24 6:27 6:31 6:38
6:23 6:28 6:30 6:33 6:37 6:39 6:42 6:46 6:53
6:38 6:43 6:45 6:48 6:52 6:54 6:57 7:01 7:08
6:53 6:58 7:00 7:03 7:07 7:09 7:12 7:16 7:23
7:08 7:13 7:15 7:18 7:22 7:24 7:27 7:31 7:38
7:23 7:28 7:30 7:33 7:37 7:39 7:42 7:46 7:53
7:38 7:43 7:45 7:48 7:52 7:54 7:57 8:01 8:08
7:53 7:58 8:00 8:03 8:07 8:09 8:12 8:16 8:23
8:08 8:13 8:15 8:18 8:22 8:24 8:27 8:31 8:38
8:23 8:28 8:30 8:33 8:37 8:39 8:42 8:46 8:53
8:38 8:43 8:45 8:48 8:52 8:54 8:57 9:01 9:08
8:53 8:58 9:00 9:03 9:07 9:09 9:12 9:16 9:23
9:08 9:13 9:15 9:18 9:22 9:24 9:27 9:31 9:38
9:38 9:43 9:45 9:48 9:52 9:54 9:57 10:01 10:08
10:08 10:13 10:15 10:18 10:22 10:24 10:27 10:31 10:38
10:38 10:43 10:45 10:48 10:52 10:54 10:57 11:01 11:08
11:08 11:13 11:15 11:18 11:22 11:24 11:27 11:31 11:38
11:38 11:43 11:45 11:48 11:52 11:54 11:57 12:01 12:08
12:08 12:13 12:15 12:18 12:22 12:24 12:27 12:31 12:38
12:38 12:43 12:45 12:48 12:52 12:54 12:57 13:01 13:08
13:08 13:13 13:15 13:18 13:22 13:24 13:27 13:31 13:38
13:38 13:43 13:45 13:48 13:52 13:54 13:57 14:01 14:08
14:08 14:13 14:15 14:18 14:22 14:24 14:27 14:31 14:38
14:38 14:43 14:45 14:48 14:52 14:54 14:57 15:01 15:08
15:08 15:13 15:15 15:18 15:22 15:24 15:27 15:31 15:38
15:23 15:28 15:30 15:33 15:37 15:39 15:42 15:46 15:53
15:38 15:43 15:45 15:48 15:52 15:54 15:57 16:01 16:08
15:53 15:58 16:00 16:03 16:07 16:09 16:12 16:16 16:23
16:08 16:13 16:15 16:18 16:22 16:24 16:27 16:31 16:38
16:23 16:28 16:30 16:33 16:37 16:39 16:42 16:46 16:53
16:38 16:43 16:45 16:48 16:52 16:54 16:57 17:01 17:08
16:53 16:58 17:00 17:03 17:07 17:09 17:12 17:16 17:23
17:08 17:13 17:15 17:18 17:22 17:24 17:27 17:31 17:38
17:23 17:28 17:30 17:33 17:37 17:39 17:42 17:46 17:53
17:38 17:43 17:45 17:48 17:52 17:54 17:57 18:01 18:08
17:53 17:58 18:00 18:03 18:07 18:09 18:12 18:16 18:23
18:08 18:13 18:15 18:18 18:22 18:24 18:27 18:31 18:38
18:23 18:28 18:30 18:33 18:37 18:39 18:42 18:46 18:53
18:38 18:43 18:45 18:48 18:52 18:54 18:57 19:01 19:08
18:53 18:58 19:00 19:03 19:07 19:09 19:12 19:16 19:23
19:08 19:13 19:15 19:18 19:22 19:24 19:27 19:31 19:38
19:38 19:43 19:45 19:48 19:52 19:54 19:57 20:01 20:08
20:08 20:13 20:15 20:18 20:22 20:24 20:27 20:31 20:38
20:38 20:43 20:45 20:48 20:52 20:54 20:57 21:01 21:08
21:08 21:13 21:15 21:18 21:22 21:24 21:27 21:31 21:38
21:38 21:43 21:45 21:48 21:52 21:54 21:57 22:01 22:08
22:08 22:13 22:15 22:18 22:22 22:24 22:27 22:31 22:38
22:38 22:43 22:45 22:48 22:52 22:54 22:57 23:01 23:08
23:08 23:13 23:15 23:18 23:22 23:24 23:27 23:31 23:38
Final October 2024
CRANDIC BRT Feasibility Study – Alternatives Schedules
Page 3
Table 3 . Alternative 1 - Saturday Southbound
Penn-Kansas Cherry St Forevergreen Rd Oakdale Blvd 12th Ave 1st Ave Rocky Shore Riverside-
Iowa
Washington-
Clinton
6:00 6:07 6:11 6:14 6:16 6:20 6:23 6:25 6:30
6:30 6:37 6:41 6:44 6:46 6:50 6:53 6:55 7:00
7:00 7:07 7:11 7:14 7:16 7:20 7:23 7:25 7:30
7:30 7:37 7:41 7:44 7:46 7:50 7:53 7:55 8:00
8:00 8:07 8:11 8:14 8:16 8:20 8:23 8:25 8:30
8:30 8:37 8:41 8:44 8:46 8:50 8:53 8:55 9:00
9:00 9:07 9:11 9:14 9:16 9:20 9:23 9:25 9:30
9:30 9:37 9:41 9:44 9:46 9:50 9:53 9:55 10:00
10:00 10:07 10:11 10:14 10:16 10:20 10:23 10:25 10:30
10:30 10:37 10:41 10:44 10:46 10:50 10:53 10:55 11:00
11:00 11:07 11:11 11:14 11:16 11:20 11:23 11:25 11:30
11:30 11:37 11:41 11:44 11:46 11:50 11:53 11:55 12:00
12:00 12:07 12:11 12:14 12:16 12:20 12:23 12:25 12:30
12:30 12:37 12:41 12:44 12:46 12:50 12:53 12:55 13:00
13:00 13:07 13:11 13:14 13:16 13:20 13:23 13:25 13:30
13:30 13:37 13:41 13:44 13:46 13:50 13:53 13:55 14:00
14:00 14:07 14:11 14:14 14:16 14:20 14:23 14:25 14:30
14:30 14:37 14:41 14:44 14:46 14:50 14:53 14:55 15:00
15:00 15:07 15:11 15:14 15:16 15:20 15:23 15:25 15:30
15:30 15:37 15:41 15:44 15:46 15:50 15:53 15:55 16:00
16:00 16:07 16:11 16:14 16:16 16:20 16:23 16:25 16:30
16:30 16:37 16:41 16:44 16:46 16:50 16:53 16:55 17:00
17:00 17:07 17:11 17:14 17:16 17:20 17:23 17:25 17:30
17:30 17:37 17:41 17:44 17:46 17:50 17:53 17:55 18:00
18:00 18:07 18:11 18:14 18:16 18:20 18:23 18:25 18:30
18:30 18:37 18:41 18:44 18:46 18:50 18:53 18:55 19:00
19:00 19:07 19:11 19:14 19:16 19:20 19:23 19:25 19:30
19:30 19:37 19:41 19:44 19:46 19:50 19:53 19:55 20:00
20:00 20:07 20:11 20:14 20:16 20:20 20:23 20:25 20:30
20:30 20:37 20:41 20:44 20:46 20:50 20:53 20:55 21:00
21:00 21:07 21:11 21:14 21:16 21:20 21:23 21:25 21:30
21:30 21:37 21:41 21:44 21:46 21:50 21:53 21:55 22:00
22:00 22:07 22:11 22:14 22:16 22:20 22:23 22:25 22:30
22:30 22:37 22:41 22:44 22:46 22:50 22:53 22:55 23:00
23:00 23:07 23:11 23:14 23:16 23:20 23:23 23:25 23:30
Final October 2024
CRANDIC BRT Feasibility Study – Alternatives Schedules
Page 4
Table 4 . Alternative 1 - Saturday Northbound
Washington-
Clinton
Riverside-
Iowa Rocky Shore 1st Ave 12th Ave Oakdale Blvd Forevergreen Rd Cherry St Penn-Kansas
6:08 6:13 6:15 6:18 6:22 6:24 6:27 6:31 6:38
6:38 6:43 6:45 6:48 6:52 6:54 6:57 7:01 7:08
7:08 7:13 7:15 7:18 7:22 7:24 7:27 7:31 7:38
7:38 7:43 7:45 7:48 7:52 7:54 7:57 8:01 8:08
8:08 8:13 8:15 8:18 8:22 8:24 8:27 8:31 8:38
8:38 8:43 8:45 8:48 8:52 8:54 8:57 9:01 9:08
9:08 9:13 9:15 9:18 9:22 9:24 9:27 9:31 9:38
9:38 9:43 9:45 9:48 9:52 9:54 9:57 10:01 10:08
10:08 10:13 10:15 10:18 10:22 10:24 10:27 10:31 10:38
10:38 10:43 10:45 10:48 10:52 10:54 10:57 11:01 11:08
11:08 11:13 11:15 11:18 11:22 11:24 11:27 11:31 11:38
11:38 11:43 11:45 11:48 11:52 11:54 11:57 12:01 12:08
12:08 12:13 12:15 12:18 12:22 12:24 12:27 12:31 12:38
12:38 12:43 12:45 12:48 12:52 12:54 12:57 13:01 13:08
13:08 13:13 13:15 13:18 13:22 13:24 13:27 13:31 13:38
13:38 13:43 13:45 13:48 13:52 13:54 13:57 14:01 14:08
14:08 14:13 14:15 14:18 14:22 14:24 14:27 14:31 14:38
14:38 14:43 14:45 14:48 14:52 14:54 14:57 15:01 15:08
15:08 15:13 15:15 15:18 15:22 15:24 15:27 15:31 15:38
15:38 15:43 15:45 15:48 15:52 15:54 15:57 16:01 16:08
16:08 16:13 16:15 16:18 16:22 16:24 16:27 16:31 16:38
16:38 16:43 16:45 16:48 16:52 16:54 16:57 17:01 17:08
17:08 17:13 17:15 17:18 17:22 17:24 17:27 17:31 17:38
17:38 17:43 17:45 17:48 17:52 17:54 17:57 18:01 18:08
18:08 18:13 18:15 18:18 18:22 18:24 18:27 18:31 18:38
18:38 18:43 18:45 18:48 18:52 18:54 18:57 19:01 19:08
19:08 19:13 19:15 19:18 19:22 19:24 19:27 19:31 19:38
19:38 19:43 19:45 19:48 19:52 19:54 19:57 20:01 20:08
20:08 20:13 20:15 20:18 20:22 20:24 20:27 20:31 20:38
20:38 20:43 20:45 20:48 20:52 20:54 20:57 21:01 21:08
21:08 21:13 21:15 21:18 21:22 21:24 21:27 21:31 21:38
21:38 21:43 21:45 21:48 21:52 21:54 21:57 22:01 22:08
22:08 22:13 22:15 22:18 22:22 22:24 22:27 22:31 22:38
22:38 22:43 22:45 22:48 22:52 22:54 22:57 23:01 23:08
23:08 23:13 23:15 23:18 23:22 23:24 23:27 23:31 23:38
Final October 2024
CRANDIC BRT Feasibility Study – Alternatives Schedules
Page 5
Table 5 . Alternative 1 - Sunday Southbound
Penn-Kansas Cherry St Forevergreen Rd Oakdale Blvd 12th Ave 1st Ave Rocky Shore Riverside-
Iowa
Washington-
Clinton
8:00 8:07 8:11 8:14 8:16 8:20 8:23 8:25 8:30
8:30 8:37 8:41 8:44 8:46 8:50 8:53 8:55 9:00
9:00 9:07 9:11 9:14 9:16 9:20 9:23 9:25 9:30
9:30 9:37 9:41 9:44 9:46 9:50 9:53 9:55 10:00
10:00 10:07 10:11 10:14 10:16 10:20 10:23 10:25 10:30
10:30 10:37 10:41 10:44 10:46 10:50 10:53 10:55 11:00
11:00 11:07 11:11 11:14 11:16 11:20 11:23 11:25 11:30
11:30 11:37 11:41 11:44 11:46 11:50 11:53 11:55 12:00
12:00 12:07 12:11 12:14 12:16 12:20 12:23 12:25 12:30
12:30 12:37 12:41 12:44 12:46 12:50 12:53 12:55 13:00
13:00 13:07 13:11 13:14 13:16 13:20 13:23 13:25 13:30
13:30 13:37 13:41 13:44 13:46 13:50 13:53 13:55 14:00
14:00 14:07 14:11 14:14 14:16 14:20 14:23 14:25 14:30
14:30 14:37 14:41 14:44 14:46 14:50 14:53 14:55 15:00
15:00 15:07 15:11 15:14 15:16 15:20 15:23 15:25 15:30
15:30 15:37 15:41 15:44 15:46 15:50 15:53 15:55 16:00
16:00 16:07 16:11 16:14 16:16 16:20 16:23 16:25 16:30
16:30 16:37 16:41 16:44 16:46 16:50 16:53 16:55 17:00
17:00 17:07 17:11 17:14 17:16 17:20 17:23 17:25 17:30
17:30 17:37 17:41 17:44 17:46 17:50 17:53 17:55 18:00
18:00 18:07 18:11 18:14 18:16 18:20 18:23 18:25 18:30
18:30 18:37 18:41 18:44 18:46 18:50 18:53 18:55 19:00
19:00 19:07 19:11 19:14 19:16 19:20 19:23 19:25 19:30
19:30 19:37 19:41 19:44 19:46 19:50 19:53 19:55 20:00
20:00 20:07 20:11 20:14 20:16 20:20 20:23 20:25 20:30
20:30 20:37 20:41 20:44 20:46 20:50 20:53 20:55 21:00
21:00 21:07 21:11 21:14 21:16 21:20 21:23 21:25 21:30
21:30 21:37 21:41 21:44 21:46 21:50 21:53 21:55 22:00
22:00 22:07 22:11 22:14 22:16 22:20 22:23 22:25 22:30
Final October 2024
CRANDIC BRT Feasibility Study – Alternatives Schedules
Page 6
Table 6 . Alternative 1 - Sunday Northbound
Washington-
Clinton
Riverside-
Iowa Rocky Shore 1st Ave 12th Ave Oakdale Blvd Forevergreen Rd Cherry St Penn-Kansas
8:08 8:13 8:15 8:18 8:22 8:24 8:27 8:31 8:38
8:38 8:43 8:45 8:48 8:52 8:54 8:57 9:01 9:08
9:08 9:13 9:15 9:18 9:22 9:24 9:27 9:31 9:38
9:38 9:43 9:45 9:48 9:52 9:54 9:57 10:01 10:08
10:08 10:13 10:15 10:18 10:22 10:24 10:27 10:31 10:38
10:38 10:43 10:45 10:48 10:52 10:54 10:57 11:01 11:08
11:08 11:13 11:15 11:18 11:22 11:24 11:27 11:31 11:38
11:38 11:43 11:45 11:48 11:52 11:54 11:57 12:01 12:08
12:08 12:13 12:15 12:18 12:22 12:24 12:27 12:31 12:38
12:38 12:43 12:45 12:48 12:52 12:54 12:57 13:01 13:08
13:08 13:13 13:15 13:18 13:22 13:24 13:27 13:31 13:38
13:38 13:43 13:45 13:48 13:52 13:54 13:57 14:01 14:08
14:08 14:13 14:15 14:18 14:22 14:24 14:27 14:31 14:38
14:38 14:43 14:45 14:48 14:52 14:54 14:57 15:01 15:08
15:08 15:13 15:15 15:18 15:22 15:24 15:27 15:31 15:38
15:38 15:43 15:45 15:48 15:52 15:54 15:57 16:01 16:08
16:08 16:13 16:15 16:18 16:22 16:24 16:27 16:31 16:38
16:38 16:43 16:45 16:48 16:52 16:54 16:57 17:01 17:08
17:08 17:13 17:15 17:18 17:22 17:24 17:27 17:31 17:38
17:38 17:43 17:45 17:48 17:52 17:54 17:57 18:01 18:08
18:08 18:13 18:15 18:18 18:22 18:24 18:27 18:31 18:38
18:38 18:43 18:45 18:48 18:52 18:54 18:57 19:01 19:08
19:08 19:13 19:15 19:18 19:22 19:24 19:27 19:31 19:38
19:38 19:43 19:45 19:48 19:52 19:54 19:57 20:01 20:08
20:08 20:13 20:15 20:18 20:22 20:24 20:27 20:31 20:38
20:38 20:43 20:45 20:48 20:52 20:54 20:57 21:01 21:08
21:08 21:13 21:15 21:18 21:22 21:24 21:27 21:31 21:38
21:38 21:43 21:45 21:48 21:52 21:54 21:57 22:01 22:08
22:08 22:13 22:15 22:18 22:22 22:24 22:27 22:31 22:38
Final October 2024
CRANDIC BRT Feasibility Study – Alternatives Schedules
Page 7
Table 7 . Alternative 5 – Weekday Southbound
Hwy 965-
Dubuque Cherry St Forevergreen Rd Oakdale Blvd 12th Ave 1st Ave Rocky Shore Riverside-
Iowa
Washington-
Clinton
5:00 5:03 5:07 5:10 5:12 5:16 5:19 5:21 5:26
5:30 5:33 5:37 5:40 5:42 5:46 5:49 5:51 5:56
6:00 6:03 6:07 6:10 6:12 6:16 6:19 6:21 6:26
6:15 6:18 6:22 6:25 6:27 6:31 6:34 6:36 6:41
6:30 6:33 6:37 6:40 6:42 6:46 6:49 6:51 6:56
6:45 6:48 6:52 6:55 6:57 7:01 7:04 7:06 7:11
7:00 7:03 7:07 7:10 7:12 7:16 7:19 7:21 7:26
7:15 7:18 7:22 7:25 7:27 7:31 7:34 7:36 7:41
7:30 7:33 7:37 7:40 7:42 7:46 7:49 7:51 7:56
7:45 7:48 7:52 7:55 7:57 8:01 8:04 8:06 8:11
8:00 8:03 8:07 8:10 8:12 8:16 8:19 8:21 8:26
8:15 8:18 8:22 8:25 8:27 8:31 8:34 8:36 8:41
8:30 8:33 8:37 8:40 8:42 8:46 8:49 8:51 8:56
8:45 8:48 8:52 8:55 8:57 9:01 9:04 9:06 9:11
9:00 9:03 9:07 9:10 9:12 9:16 9:19 9:21 9:26
9:30 9:33 9:37 9:40 9:42 9:46 9:49 9:51 9:56
10:00 10:03 10:07 10:10 10:12 10:16 10:19 10:21 10:26
10:30 10:33 10:37 10:40 10:42 10:46 10:49 10:51 10:56
11:00 11:03 11:07 11:10 11:12 11:16 11:19 11:21 11:26
11:30 11:33 11:37 11:40 11:42 11:46 11:49 11:51 11:56
12:00 12:03 12:07 12:10 12:12 12:16 12:19 12:21 12:26
12:30 12:33 12:37 12:40 12:42 12:46 12:49 12:51 12:56
13:00 13:03 13:07 13:10 13:12 13:16 13:19 13:21 13:26
13:30 13:33 13:37 13:40 13:42 13:46 13:49 13:51 13:56
14:00 14:03 14:07 14:10 14:12 14:16 14:19 14:21 14:26
14:30 14:33 14:37 14:40 14:42 14:46 14:49 14:51 14:56
15:00 15:03 15:07 15:10 15:12 15:16 15:19 15:21 15:26
15:15 15:18 15:22 15:25 15:27 15:31 15:34 15:36 15:41
15:30 15:33 15:37 15:40 15:42 15:46 15:49 15:51 15:56
15:45 15:48 15:52 15:55 15:57 16:01 16:04 16:06 16:11
16:00 16:03 16:07 16:10 16:12 16:16 16:19 16:21 16:26
16:15 16:18 16:22 16:25 16:27 16:31 16:34 16:36 16:41
16:30 16:33 16:37 16:40 16:42 16:46 16:49 16:51 16:56
16:45 16:48 16:52 16:55 16:57 17:01 17:04 17:06 17:11
17:00 17:03 17:07 17:10 17:12 17:16 17:19 17:21 17:26
17:15 17:18 17:22 17:25 17:27 17:31 17:34 17:36 17:41
17:30 17:33 17:37 17:40 17:42 17:46 17:49 17:51 17:56
17:45 17:48 17:52 17:55 17:57 18:01 18:04 18:06 18:11
18:00 18:03 18:07 18:10 18:12 18:16 18:19 18:21 18:26
18:15 18:18 18:22 18:25 18:27 18:31 18:34 18:36 18:41
18:30 18:33 18:37 18:40 18:42 18:46 18:49 18:51 18:56
18:45 18:48 18:52 18:55 18:57 19:01 19:04 19:06 19:11
19:00 19:03 19:07 19:10 19:12 19:16 19:19 19:21 19:26
19:30 19:33 19:37 19:40 19:42 19:46 19:49 19:51 19:56
20:00 20:03 20:07 20:10 20:12 20:16 20:19 20:21 20:26
20:30 20:33 20:37 20:40 20:42 20:46 20:49 20:51 20:56
21:00 21:03 21:07 21:10 21:12 21:16 21:19 21:21 21:26
21:30 21:33 21:37 21:40 21:42 21:46 21:49 21:51 21:56
22:00 22:03 22:07 22:10 22:12 22:16 22:19 22:21 22:26
22:30 22:33 22:37 22:40 22:42 22:46 22:49 22:51 22:56
23:00 23:03 23:07 23:10 23:12 23:16 23:19 23:21 23:26
Final October 2024
CRANDIC BRT Feasibility Study – Alternatives Schedules
Page 8
Table 8 . Alternative 5 – Weekday Northbound
Washington-Clinton Riverside-Iowa Rocky
Shore 1st Ave 12th Ave Oakdale Blvd Forevergreen Rd Cherry St Hwy 965-
Dubuque
5:08 5:13 5:15 5:18 5:22 5:24 5:27 5:31 5:34
5:38 5:43 5:45 5:48 5:52 5:54 5:57 6:01 6:04
6:08 6:13 6:15 6:18 6:22 6:24 6:27 6:31 6:34
6:23 6:28 6:30 6:33 6:37 6:39 6:42 6:46 6:49
6:38 6:43 6:45 6:48 6:52 6:54 6:57 7:01 7:04
6:53 6:58 7:00 7:03 7:07 7:09 7:12 7:16 7:19
7:08 7:13 7:15 7:18 7:22 7:24 7:27 7:31 7:34
7:23 7:28 7:30 7:33 7:37 7:39 7:42 7:46 7:49
7:38 7:43 7:45 7:48 7:52 7:54 7:57 8:01 8:04
7:53 7:58 8:00 8:03 8:07 8:09 8:12 8:16 8:19
8:08 8:13 8:15 8:18 8:22 8:24 8:27 8:31 8:34
8:23 8:28 8:30 8:33 8:37 8:39 8:42 8:46 8:49
8:38 8:43 8:45 8:48 8:52 8:54 8:57 9:01 9:04
8:53 8:58 9:00 9:03 9:07 9:09 9:12 9:16 9:19
9:08 9:13 9:15 9:18 9:22 9:24 9:27 9:31 9:34
9:38 9:43 9:45 9:48 9:52 9:54 9:57 10:01 10:04
10:08 10:13 10:15 10:18 10:22 10:24 10:27 10:31 10:34
10:38 10:43 10:45 10:48 10:52 10:54 10:57 11:01 11:04
11:08 11:13 11:15 11:18 11:22 11:24 11:27 11:31 11:34
11:38 11:43 11:45 11:48 11:52 11:54 11:57 12:01 12:04
12:08 12:13 12:15 12:18 12:22 12:24 12:27 12:31 12:34
12:38 12:43 12:45 12:48 12:52 12:54 12:57 13:01 13:04
13:08 13:13 13:15 13:18 13:22 13:24 13:27 13:31 13:34
13:38 13:43 13:45 13:48 13:52 13:54 13:57 14:01 14:04
14:08 14:13 14:15 14:18 14:22 14:24 14:27 14:31 14:34
14:38 14:43 14:45 14:48 14:52 14:54 14:57 15:01 15:04
15:08 15:13 15:15 15:18 15:22 15:24 15:27 15:31 15:34
15:23 15:28 15:30 15:33 15:37 15:39 15:42 15:46 15:49
15:38 15:43 15:45 15:48 15:52 15:54 15:57 16:01 16:04
15:53 15:58 16:00 16:03 16:07 16:09 16:12 16:16 16:19
16:08 16:13 16:15 16:18 16:22 16:24 16:27 16:31 16:34
16:23 16:28 16:30 16:33 16:37 16:39 16:42 16:46 16:49
16:38 16:43 16:45 16:48 16:52 16:54 16:57 17:01 17:04
16:53 16:58 17:00 17:03 17:07 17:09 17:12 17:16 17:19
17:08 17:13 17:15 17:18 17:22 17:24 17:27 17:31 17:34
17:23 17:28 17:30 17:33 17:37 17:39 17:42 17:46 17:49
17:38 17:43 17:45 17:48 17:52 17:54 17:57 18:01 18:04
17:53 17:58 18:00 18:03 18:07 18:09 18:12 18:16 18:19
18:08 18:13 18:15 18:18 18:22 18:24 18:27 18:31 18:34
18:23 18:28 18:30 18:33 18:37 18:39 18:42 18:46 18:49
18:38 18:43 18:45 18:48 18:52 18:54 18:57 19:01 19:04
18:53 18:58 19:00 19:03 19:07 19:09 19:12 19:16 19:19
19:08 19:13 19:15 19:18 19:22 19:24 19:27 19:31 19:34
19:38 19:43 19:45 19:48 19:52 19:54 19:57 20:01 20:04
20:08 20:13 20:15 20:18 20:22 20:24 20:27 20:31 20:34
20:38 20:43 20:45 20:48 20:52 20:54 20:57 21:01 21:04
21:08 21:13 21:15 21:18 21:22 21:24 21:27 21:31 21:34
21:38 21:43 21:45 21:48 21:52 21:54 21:57 22:01 22:04
22:08 22:13 22:15 22:18 22:22 22:24 22:27 22:31 22:34
22:38 22:43 22:45 22:48 22:52 22:54 22:57 23:01 23:04
23:08 23:13 23:15 23:18 23:22 23:24 23:27 23:31 23:34
Final October 2024
CRANDIC BRT Feasibility Study – Alternatives Schedules
Page 9
Table 9 . Alternative 5 - Saturday Southbound
Hwy 965-
Dubuque Cherry St Forevergreen Rd Oakdale Blvd 12th Ave 1st Ave Rocky Shore Riverside-
Iowa
Washington-
Clinton
6:00 6:03 6:07 6:10 6:12 6:16 6:19 6:21 6:26
6:30 6:33 6:37 6:40 6:42 6:46 6:49 6:51 6:56
7:00 7:03 7:07 7:10 7:12 7:16 7:19 7:21 7:26
7:30 7:33 7:37 7:40 7:42 7:46 7:49 7:51 7:56
8:00 8:03 8:07 8:10 8:12 8:16 8:19 8:21 8:26
8:30 8:33 8:37 8:40 8:42 8:46 8:49 8:51 8:56
9:00 9:03 9:07 9:10 9:12 9:16 9:19 9:21 9:26
9:30 9:33 9:37 9:40 9:42 9:46 9:49 9:51 9:56
10:00 10:03 10:07 10:10 10:12 10:16 10:19 10:21 10:26
10:30 10:33 10:37 10:40 10:42 10:46 10:49 10:51 10:56
11:00 11:03 11:07 11:10 11:12 11:16 11:19 11:21 11:26
11:30 11:33 11:37 11:40 11:42 11:46 11:49 11:51 11:56
12:00 12:03 12:07 12:10 12:12 12:16 12:19 12:21 12:26
12:30 12:33 12:37 12:40 12:42 12:46 12:49 12:51 12:56
13:00 13:03 13:07 13:10 13:12 13:16 13:19 13:21 13:26
13:30 13:33 13:37 13:40 13:42 13:46 13:49 13:51 13:56
14:00 14:03 14:07 14:10 14:12 14:16 14:19 14:21 14:26
14:30 14:33 14:37 14:40 14:42 14:46 14:49 14:51 14:56
15:00 15:03 15:07 15:10 15:12 15:16 15:19 15:21 15:26
15:30 15:33 15:37 15:40 15:42 15:46 15:49 15:51 15:56
16:00 16:03 16:07 16:10 16:12 16:16 16:19 16:21 16:26
16:30 16:33 16:37 16:40 16:42 16:46 16:49 16:51 16:56
17:00 17:03 17:07 17:10 17:12 17:16 17:19 17:21 17:26
17:30 17:33 17:37 17:40 17:42 17:46 17:49 17:51 17:56
18:00 18:03 18:07 18:10 18:12 18:16 18:19 18:21 18:26
18:30 18:33 18:37 18:40 18:42 18:46 18:49 18:51 18:56
19:00 19:03 19:07 19:10 19:12 19:16 19:19 19:21 19:26
19:30 19:33 19:37 19:40 19:42 19:46 19:49 19:51 19:56
20:00 20:03 20:07 20:10 20:12 20:16 20:19 20:21 20:26
20:30 20:33 20:37 20:40 20:42 20:46 20:49 20:51 20:56
21:00 21:03 21:07 21:10 21:12 21:16 21:19 21:21 21:26
21:30 21:33 21:37 21:40 21:42 21:46 21:49 21:51 21:56
22:00 22:03 22:07 22:10 22:12 22:16 22:19 22:21 22:26
22:30 22:33 22:37 22:40 22:42 22:46 22:49 22:51 22:56
23:00 23:03 23:07 23:10 23:12 23:16 23:19 23:21 23:26
Final October 2024
CRANDIC BRT Feasibility Study – Alternatives Schedules
Page 10
Table 10. Alternative 5 - Saturday Northbound
Washington-Clinton Riverside-Iowa Rocky
Shore 1st Ave 12th Ave Oakdale Blvd Forevergreen Rd Cherry St Hwy 965-
Dubuque
6:08 6:13 6:15 6:18 6:22 6:24 6:27 6:31 6:34
6:38 6:43 6:45 6:48 6:52 6:54 6:57 7:01 7:04
7:08 7:13 7:15 7:18 7:22 7:24 7:27 7:31 7:34
7:38 7:43 7:45 7:48 7:52 7:54 7:57 8:01 8:04
8:08 8:13 8:15 8:18 8:22 8:24 8:27 8:31 8:34
8:38 8:43 8:45 8:48 8:52 8:54 8:57 9:01 9:04
9:08 9:13 9:15 9:18 9:22 9:24 9:27 9:31 9:34
9:38 9:43 9:45 9:48 9:52 9:54 9:57 10:01 10:04
10:08 10:13 10:15 10:18 10:22 10:24 10:27 10:31 10:34
10:38 10:43 10:45 10:48 10:52 10:54 10:57 11:01 11:04
11:08 11:13 11:15 11:18 11:22 11:24 11:27 11:31 11:34
11:38 11:43 11:45 11:48 11:52 11:54 11:57 12:01 12:04
12:08 12:13 12:15 12:18 12:22 12:24 12:27 12:31 12:34
12:38 12:43 12:45 12:48 12:52 12:54 12:57 13:01 13:04
13:08 13:13 13:15 13:18 13:22 13:24 13:27 13:31 13:34
13:38 13:43 13:45 13:48 13:52 13:54 13:57 14:01 14:04
14:08 14:13 14:15 14:18 14:22 14:24 14:27 14:31 14:34
14:38 14:43 14:45 14:48 14:52 14:54 14:57 15:01 15:04
15:08 15:13 15:15 15:18 15:22 15:24 15:27 15:31 15:34
15:38 15:43 15:45 15:48 15:52 15:54 15:57 16:01 16:04
16:08 16:13 16:15 16:18 16:22 16:24 16:27 16:31 16:34
16:38 16:43 16:45 16:48 16:52 16:54 16:57 17:01 17:04
17:08 17:13 17:15 17:18 17:22 17:24 17:27 17:31 17:34
17:38 17:43 17:45 17:48 17:52 17:54 17:57 18:01 18:04
18:08 18:13 18:15 18:18 18:22 18:24 18:27 18:31 18:34
18:38 18:43 18:45 18:48 18:52 18:54 18:57 19:01 19:04
19:08 19:13 19:15 19:18 19:22 19:24 19:27 19:31 19:34
19:38 19:43 19:45 19:48 19:52 19:54 19:57 20:01 20:04
20:08 20:13 20:15 20:18 20:22 20:24 20:27 20:31 20:34
20:38 20:43 20:45 20:48 20:52 20:54 20:57 21:01 21:04
21:08 21:13 21:15 21:18 21:22 21:24 21:27 21:31 21:34
21:38 21:43 21:45 21:48 21:52 21:54 21:57 22:01 22:04
22:08 22:13 22:15 22:18 22:22 22:24 22:27 22:31 22:34
22:38 22:43 22:45 22:48 22:52 22:54 22:57 23:01 23:04
23:08 23:13 23:15 23:18 23:22 23:24 23:27 23:31 23:34
Final October 2024
CRANDIC BRT Feasibility Study – Alternatives Schedules
Page 11
Table 11. Alternative 5 - Sunday Southbound
Hwy 965-
Dubuque Cherry St Forevergreen Rd Oakdale Blvd 12th Ave 1st Ave Rocky Shore Riverside-
Iowa
Washington-
Clinton
8:00 8:03 8:07 8:10 8:12 8:16 8:19 8:21 8:26
8:30 8:33 8:37 8:40 8:42 8:46 8:49 8:51 8:56
9:00 9:03 9:07 9:10 9:12 9:16 9:19 9:21 9:26
9:30 9:33 9:37 9:40 9:42 9:46 9:49 9:51 9:56
10:00 10:03 10:07 10:10 10:12 10:16 10:19 10:21 10:26
10:30 10:33 10:37 10:40 10:42 10:46 10:49 10:51 10:56
11:00 11:03 11:07 11:10 11:12 11:16 11:19 11:21 11:26
11:30 11:33 11:37 11:40 11:42 11:46 11:49 11:51 11:56
12:00 12:03 12:07 12:10 12:12 12:16 12:19 12:21 12:26
12:30 12:33 12:37 12:40 12:42 12:46 12:49 12:51 12:56
13:00 13:03 13:07 13:10 13:12 13:16 13:19 13:21 13:26
13:30 13:33 13:37 13:40 13:42 13:46 13:49 13:51 13:56
14:00 14:03 14:07 14:10 14:12 14:16 14:19 14:21 14:26
14:30 14:33 14:37 14:40 14:42 14:46 14:49 14:51 14:56
15:00 15:03 15:07 15:10 15:12 15:16 15:19 15:21 15:26
15:30 15:33 15:37 15:40 15:42 15:46 15:49 15:51 15:56
16:00 16:03 16:07 16:10 16:12 16:16 16:19 16:21 16:26
16:30 16:33 16:37 16:40 16:42 16:46 16:49 16:51 16:56
17:00 17:03 17:07 17:10 17:12 17:16 17:19 17:21 17:26
17:30 17:33 17:37 17:40 17:42 17:46 17:49 17:51 17:56
18:00 18:03 18:07 18:10 18:12 18:16 18:19 18:21 18:26
18:30 18:33 18:37 18:40 18:42 18:46 18:49 18:51 18:56
19:00 19:03 19:07 19:10 19:12 19:16 19:19 19:21 19:26
19:30 19:33 19:37 19:40 19:42 19:46 19:49 19:51 19:56
20:00 20:03 20:07 20:10 20:12 20:16 20:19 20:21 20:26
20:30 20:33 20:37 20:40 20:42 20:46 20:49 20:51 20:56
21:00 21:03 21:07 21:10 21:12 21:16 21:19 21:21 21:26
21:30 21:33 21:37 21:40 21:42 21:46 21:49 21:51 21:56
22:00 22:03 22:07 22:10 22:12 22:16 22:19 22:21 22:26
Final October 2024
CRANDIC BRT Feasibility Study – Alternatives Schedules
Page 12
Table 12. Alternative 5 - Sunday Northbound
Washington-Clinton Riverside-Iowa Rocky
Shore 1st Ave 12th Ave Oakdale Blvd Forevergreen Rd Cherry St Hwy 965-
Dubuque
8:08 8:13 8:15 8:18 8:22 8:24 8:27 8:31 8:34
8:38 8:43 8:45 8:48 8:52 8:54 8:57 9:01 9:04
9:08 9:13 9:15 9:18 9:22 9:24 9:27 9:31 9:34
9:38 9:43 9:45 9:48 9:52 9:54 9:57 10:01 10:04
10:08 10:13 10:15 10:18 10:22 10:24 10:27 10:31 10:34
10:38 10:43 10:45 10:48 10:52 10:54 10:57 11:01 11:04
11:08 11:13 11:15 11:18 11:22 11:24 11:27 11:31 11:34
11:38 11:43 11:45 11:48 11:52 11:54 11:57 12:01 12:04
12:08 12:13 12:15 12:18 12:22 12:24 12:27 12:31 12:34
12:38 12:43 12:45 12:48 12:52 12:54 12:57 13:01 13:04
13:08 13:13 13:15 13:18 13:22 13:24 13:27 13:31 13:34
13:38 13:43 13:45 13:48 13:52 13:54 13:57 14:01 14:04
14:08 14:13 14:15 14:18 14:22 14:24 14:27 14:31 14:34
14:38 14:43 14:45 14:48 14:52 14:54 14:57 15:01 15:04
15:08 15:13 15:15 15:18 15:22 15:24 15:27 15:31 15:34
15:38 15:43 15:45 15:48 15:52 15:54 15:57 16:01 16:04
16:08 16:13 16:15 16:18 16:22 16:24 16:27 16:31 16:34
16:38 16:43 16:45 16:48 16:52 16:54 16:57 17:01 17:04
17:08 17:13 17:15 17:18 17:22 17:24 17:27 17:31 17:34
17:38 17:43 17:45 17:48 17:52 17:54 17:57 18:01 18:04
18:08 18:13 18:15 18:18 18:22 18:24 18:27 18:31 18:34
18:38 18:43 18:45 18:48 18:52 18:54 18:57 19:01 19:04
19:08 19:13 19:15 19:18 19:22 19:24 19:27 19:31 19:34
19:38 19:43 19:45 19:48 19:52 19:54 19:57 20:01 20:04
20:08 20:13 20:15 20:18 20:22 20:24 20:27 20:31 20:34
20:38 20:43 20:45 20:48 20:52 20:54 20:57 21:01 21:04
21:08 21:13 21:15 21:18 21:22 21:24 21:27 21:31 21:34
21:38 21:43 21:45 21:48 21:52 21:54 21:57 22:01 22:04
22:08 22:13 22:15 22:18 22:22 22:24 22:27 22:31 22:34
Final October 2024
CRANDIC BRT Feasibility Study – Alternatives Schedules
Page 13
Table 13. Alternative 7 – Weekday Southbound
Hwy 965-
Dubuque Cherry St Forevergreen Rd Oakdale Blvd 12th Ave 1st Ave Rocky Shore Washington-
Clinton
5:00 5:03 5:07 5:10 5:12 5:16 5:19 5:23
5:30 5:33 5:37 5:40 5:42 5:46 5:49 5:53
6:00 6:03 6:07 6:10 6:12 6:16 6:19 6:23
6:15 6:18 6:22 6:25 6:27 6:31 6:34 6:38
6:30 6:33 6:37 6:40 6:42 6:46 6:49 6:53
6:45 6:48 6:52 6:55 6:57 7:01 7:04 7:08
7:00 7:03 7:07 7:10 7:12 7:16 7:19 7:23
7:15 7:18 7:22 7:25 7:27 7:31 7:34 7:38
7:30 7:33 7:37 7:40 7:42 7:46 7:49 7:53
7:45 7:48 7:52 7:55 7:57 8:01 8:04 8:08
8:00 8:03 8:07 8:10 8:12 8:16 8:19 8:23
8:15 8:18 8:22 8:25 8:27 8:31 8:34 8:38
8:30 8:33 8:37 8:40 8:42 8:46 8:49 8:53
8:45 8:48 8:52 8:55 8:57 9:01 9:04 9:08
9:00 9:03 9:07 9:10 9:12 9:16 9:19 9:23
9:30 9:33 9:37 9:40 9:42 9:46 9:49 9:53
10:00 10:03 10:07 10:10 10:12 10:16 10:19 10:23
10:30 10:33 10:37 10:40 10:42 10:46 10:49 10:53
11:00 11:03 11:07 11:10 11:12 11:16 11:19 11:23
11:30 11:33 11:37 11:40 11:42 11:46 11:49 11:53
12:00 12:03 12:07 12:10 12:12 12:16 12:19 12:23
12:30 12:33 12:37 12:40 12:42 12:46 12:49 12:53
13:00 13:03 13:07 13:10 13:12 13:16 13:19 13:23
13:30 13:33 13:37 13:40 13:42 13:46 13:49 13:53
14:00 14:03 14:07 14:10 14:12 14:16 14:19 14:23
14:30 14:33 14:37 14:40 14:42 14:46 14:49 14:53
15:00 15:03 15:07 15:10 15:12 15:16 15:19 15:23
15:15 15:18 15:22 15:25 15:27 15:31 15:34 15:38
15:30 15:33 15:37 15:40 15:42 15:46 15:49 15:53
15:45 15:48 15:52 15:55 15:57 16:01 16:04 16:08
16:00 16:03 16:07 16:10 16:12 16:16 16:19 16:23
16:15 16:18 16:22 16:25 16:27 16:31 16:34 16:38
16:30 16:33 16:37 16:40 16:42 16:46 16:49 16:53
16:45 16:48 16:52 16:55 16:57 17:01 17:04 17:08
17:00 17:03 17:07 17:10 17:12 17:16 17:19 17:23
17:15 17:18 17:22 17:25 17:27 17:31 17:34 17:38
17:30 17:33 17:37 17:40 17:42 17:46 17:49 17:53
17:45 17:48 17:52 17:55 17:57 18:01 18:04 18:08
18:00 18:03 18:07 18:10 18:12 18:16 18:19 18:23
18:15 18:18 18:22 18:25 18:27 18:31 18:34 18:38
18:30 18:33 18:37 18:40 18:42 18:46 18:49 18:53
18:45 18:48 18:52 18:55 18:57 19:01 19:04 19:08
19:00 19:03 19:07 19:10 19:12 19:16 19:19 19:23
19:30 19:33 19:37 19:40 19:42 19:46 19:49 19:53
20:00 20:03 20:07 20:10 20:12 20:16 20:19 20:23
20:30 20:33 20:37 20:40 20:42 20:46 20:49 20:53
21:00 21:03 21:07 21:10 21:12 21:16 21:19 21:23
21:30 21:33 21:37 21:40 21:42 21:46 21:49 21:53
22:00 22:03 22:07 22:10 22:12 22:16 22:19 22:23
22:30 22:33 22:37 22:40 22:42 22:46 22:49 22:53
23:00 23:03 23:07 23:10 23:12 23:16 23:19 23:23
Final October 2024
CRANDIC BRT Feasibility Study – Alternatives Schedules
Page 14
Table 14. Alternative 7 – Weekday Northbound
Washington-
Clinton Rocky Shore 1st Ave 12th Ave Oakdale Blvd Forevergreen Rd Cherry St Hwy 965-
Dubuque
5:00 5:04 5:07 5:11 5:13 5:16 5:20 5:23
5:30 5:34 5:37 5:41 5:43 5:46 5:50 5:53
6:00 6:04 6:07 6:11 6:13 6:16 6:20 6:23
6:15 6:19 6:22 6:26 6:28 6:31 6:35 6:38
6:30 6:34 6:37 6:41 6:43 6:46 6:50 6:53
6:45 6:49 6:52 6:56 6:58 7:01 7:05 7:08
7:00 7:04 7:07 7:11 7:13 7:16 7:20 7:23
7:15 7:19 7:22 7:26 7:28 7:31 7:35 7:38
7:30 7:34 7:37 7:41 7:43 7:46 7:50 7:53
7:45 7:49 7:52 7:56 7:58 8:01 8:05 8:08
8:00 8:04 8:07 8:11 8:13 8:16 8:20 8:23
8:15 8:19 8:22 8:26 8:28 8:31 8:35 8:38
8:30 8:34 8:37 8:41 8:43 8:46 8:50 8:53
8:45 8:49 8:52 8:56 8:58 9:01 9:05 9:08
9:00 9:04 9:07 9:11 9:13 9:16 9:20 9:23
9:30 9:34 9:37 9:41 9:43 9:46 9:50 9:53
10:00 10:04 10:07 10:11 10:13 10:16 10:20 10:23
10:30 10:34 10:37 10:41 10:43 10:46 10:50 10:53
11:00 11:04 11:07 11:11 11:13 11:16 11:20 11:23
11:30 11:34 11:37 11:41 11:43 11:46 11:50 11:53
12:00 12:04 12:07 12:11 12:13 12:16 12:20 12:23
12:30 12:34 12:37 12:41 12:43 12:46 12:50 12:53
13:00 13:04 13:07 13:11 13:13 13:16 13:20 13:23
13:30 13:34 13:37 13:41 13:43 13:46 13:50 13:53
14:00 14:04 14:07 14:11 14:13 14:16 14:20 14:23
14:30 14:34 14:37 14:41 14:43 14:46 14:50 14:53
15:00 15:04 15:07 15:11 15:13 15:16 15:20 15:23
15:15 15:19 15:22 15:26 15:28 15:31 15:35 15:38
15:30 15:34 15:37 15:41 15:43 15:46 15:50 15:53
15:45 15:49 15:52 15:56 15:58 16:01 16:05 16:08
16:00 16:04 16:07 16:11 16:13 16:16 16:20 16:23
16:15 16:19 16:22 16:26 16:28 16:31 16:35 16:38
16:30 16:34 16:37 16:41 16:43 16:46 16:50 16:53
16:45 16:49 16:52 16:56 16:58 17:01 17:05 17:08
17:00 17:04 17:07 17:11 17:13 17:16 17:20 17:23
17:15 17:19 17:22 17:26 17:28 17:31 17:35 17:38
17:30 17:34 17:37 17:41 17:43 17:46 17:50 17:53
17:45 17:49 17:52 17:56 17:58 18:01 18:05 18:08
18:00 18:04 18:07 18:11 18:13 18:16 18:20 18:23
18:15 18:19 18:22 18:26 18:28 18:31 18:35 18:38
18:30 18:34 18:37 18:41 18:43 18:46 18:50 18:53
18:45 18:49 18:52 18:56 18:58 19:01 19:05 19:08
19:00 19:04 19:07 19:11 19:13 19:16 19:20 19:23
19:30 19:34 19:37 19:41 19:43 19:46 19:50 19:53
20:00 20:04 20:07 20:11 20:13 20:16 20:20 20:23
20:30 20:34 20:37 20:41 20:43 20:46 20:50 20:53
21:00 21:04 21:07 21:11 21:13 21:16 21:20 21:23
21:30 21:34 21:37 21:41 21:43 21:46 21:50 21:53
22:00 22:04 22:07 22:11 22:13 22:16 22:20 22:23
22:30 22:34 22:37 22:41 22:43 22:46 22:50 22:53
23:00 23:04 23:07 23:11 23:13 23:16 23:20 23:23
Final October 2024
CRANDIC BRT Feasibility Study – Alternatives Schedules
Page 15
Table 15. Alternative 7 - Saturday Southbound
Hwy 965-
Dubuque Cherry St Forevergreen Rd Oakdale Blvd 12th Ave 1st Ave Rocky Shore Washington-
Clinton
6:00 6:03 6:07 6:10 6:12 6:16 6:19 6:23
6:30 6:33 6:37 6:40 6:42 6:46 6:49 6:53
7:00 7:03 7:07 7:10 7:12 7:16 7:19 7:23
7:30 7:33 7:37 7:40 7:42 7:46 7:49 7:53
8:00 8:03 8:07 8:10 8:12 8:16 8:19 8:23
8:30 8:33 8:37 8:40 8:42 8:46 8:49 8:53
9:00 9:03 9:07 9:10 9:12 9:16 9:19 9:23
9:30 9:33 9:37 9:40 9:42 9:46 9:49 9:53
10:00 10:03 10:07 10:10 10:12 10:16 10:19 10:23
10:30 10:33 10:37 10:40 10:42 10:46 10:49 10:53
11:00 11:03 11:07 11:10 11:12 11:16 11:19 11:23
11:30 11:33 11:37 11:40 11:42 11:46 11:49 11:53
12:00 12:03 12:07 12:10 12:12 12:16 12:19 12:23
12:30 12:33 12:37 12:40 12:42 12:46 12:49 12:53
13:00 13:03 13:07 13:10 13:12 13:16 13:19 13:23
13:30 13:33 13:37 13:40 13:42 13:46 13:49 13:53
14:00 14:03 14:07 14:10 14:12 14:16 14:19 14:23
14:30 14:33 14:37 14:40 14:42 14:46 14:49 14:53
15:00 15:03 15:07 15:10 15:12 15:16 15:19 15:23
15:30 15:33 15:37 15:40 15:42 15:46 15:49 15:53
16:00 16:03 16:07 16:10 16:12 16:16 16:19 16:23
16:30 16:33 16:37 16:40 16:42 16:46 16:49 16:53
17:00 17:03 17:07 17:10 17:12 17:16 17:19 17:23
17:30 17:33 17:37 17:40 17:42 17:46 17:49 17:53
18:00 18:03 18:07 18:10 18:12 18:16 18:19 18:23
18:30 18:33 18:37 18:40 18:42 18:46 18:49 18:53
19:00 19:03 19:07 19:10 19:12 19:16 19:19 19:23
19:30 19:33 19:37 19:40 19:42 19:46 19:49 19:53
20:00 20:03 20:07 20:10 20:12 20:16 20:19 20:23
20:30 20:33 20:37 20:40 20:42 20:46 20:49 20:53
21:00 21:03 21:07 21:10 21:12 21:16 21:19 21:23
21:30 21:33 21:37 21:40 21:42 21:46 21:49 21:53
22:00 22:03 22:07 22:10 22:12 22:16 22:19 22:23
22:30 22:33 22:37 22:40 22:42 22:46 22:49 22:53
23:00 23:03 23:07 23:10 23:12 23:16 23:19 23:23
Final October 2024
CRANDIC BRT Feasibility Study – Alternatives Schedules
Page 16
Table 16. Alternative 7 - Saturday Northbound
Washington-
Clinton Rocky Shore 1st Ave 12th Ave Oakdale Blvd Forevergreen Rd Cherry St Hwy 965-
Dubuque
6:00 6:04 6:07 6:11 6:13 6:16 6:20 6:23
6:30 6:34 6:37 6:41 6:43 6:46 6:50 6:53
7:00 7:04 7:07 7:11 7:13 7:16 7:20 7:23
7:30 7:34 7:37 7:41 7:43 7:46 7:50 7:53
8:00 8:04 8:07 8:11 8:13 8:16 8:20 8:23
8:30 8:34 8:37 8:41 8:43 8:46 8:50 8:53
9:00 9:04 9:07 9:11 9:13 9:16 9:20 9:23
9:30 9:34 9:37 9:41 9:43 9:46 9:50 9:53
10:00 10:04 10:07 10:11 10:13 10:16 10:20 10:23
10:30 10:34 10:37 10:41 10:43 10:46 10:50 10:53
11:00 11:04 11:07 11:11 11:13 11:16 11:20 11:23
11:30 11:34 11:37 11:41 11:43 11:46 11:50 11:53
12:00 12:04 12:07 12:11 12:13 12:16 12:20 12:23
12:30 12:34 12:37 12:41 12:43 12:46 12:50 12:53
13:00 13:04 13:07 13:11 13:13 13:16 13:20 13:23
13:30 13:34 13:37 13:41 13:43 13:46 13:50 13:53
14:00 14:04 14:07 14:11 14:13 14:16 14:20 14:23
14:30 14:34 14:37 14:41 14:43 14:46 14:50 14:53
15:00 15:04 15:07 15:11 15:13 15:16 15:20 15:23
15:30 15:34 15:37 15:41 15:43 15:46 15:50 15:53
16:00 16:04 16:07 16:11 16:13 16:16 16:20 16:23
16:30 16:34 16:37 16:41 16:43 16:46 16:50 16:53
17:00 17:04 17:07 17:11 17:13 17:16 17:20 17:23
17:30 17:34 17:37 17:41 17:43 17:46 17:50 17:53
18:00 18:04 18:07 18:11 18:13 18:16 18:20 18:23
18:30 18:34 18:37 18:41 18:43 18:46 18:50 18:53
19:00 19:04 19:07 19:11 19:13 19:16 19:20 19:23
19:30 19:34 19:37 19:41 19:43 19:46 19:50 19:53
20:00 20:04 20:07 20:11 20:13 20:16 20:20 20:23
20:30 20:34 20:37 20:41 20:43 20:46 20:50 20:53
21:00 21:04 21:07 21:11 21:13 21:16 21:20 21:23
21:30 21:34 21:37 21:41 21:43 21:46 21:50 21:53
22:00 22:04 22:07 22:11 22:13 22:16 22:20 22:23
22:30 22:34 22:37 22:41 22:43 22:46 22:50 22:53
23:00 23:04 23:07 23:11 23:13 23:16 23:20 23:23
Final October 2024
CRANDIC BRT Feasibility Study – Alternatives Schedules
Page 17
Table 17. Alternative 7 - Sunday Southbound
Hwy 965-
Dubuque Cherry St Forevergreen Rd Oakdale Blvd 12th Ave 1st Ave Rocky Shore Washington-
Clinton
8:00 8:03 8:07 8:10 8:12 8:16 8:19 8:23
8:30 8:33 8:37 8:40 8:42 8:46 8:49 8:53
9:00 9:03 9:07 9:10 9:12 9:16 9:19 9:23
9:30 9:33 9:37 9:40 9:42 9:46 9:49 9:53
10:00 10:03 10:07 10:10 10:12 10:16 10:19 10:23
10:30 10:33 10:37 10:40 10:42 10:46 10:49 10:53
11:00 11:03 11:07 11:10 11:12 11:16 11:19 11:23
11:30 11:33 11:37 11:40 11:42 11:46 11:49 11:53
12:00 12:03 12:07 12:10 12:12 12:16 12:19 12:23
12:30 12:33 12:37 12:40 12:42 12:46 12:49 12:53
13:00 13:03 13:07 13:10 13:12 13:16 13:19 13:23
13:30 13:33 13:37 13:40 13:42 13:46 13:49 13:53
14:00 14:03 14:07 14:10 14:12 14:16 14:19 14:23
14:30 14:33 14:37 14:40 14:42 14:46 14:49 14:53
15:00 15:03 15:07 15:10 15:12 15:16 15:19 15:23
15:30 15:33 15:37 15:40 15:42 15:46 15:49 15:53
16:00 16:03 16:07 16:10 16:12 16:16 16:19 16:23
16:30 16:33 16:37 16:40 16:42 16:46 16:49 16:53
17:00 17:03 17:07 17:10 17:12 17:16 17:19 17:23
17:30 17:33 17:37 17:40 17:42 17:46 17:49 17:53
18:00 18:03 18:07 18:10 18:12 18:16 18:19 18:23
18:30 18:33 18:37 18:40 18:42 18:46 18:49 18:53
19:00 19:03 19:07 19:10 19:12 19:16 19:19 19:23
19:30 19:33 19:37 19:40 19:42 19:46 19:49 19:53
20:00 20:03 20:07 20:10 20:12 20:16 20:19 20:23
20:30 20:33 20:37 20:40 20:42 20:46 20:49 20:53
21:00 21:03 21:07 21:10 21:12 21:16 21:19 21:23
21:30 21:33 21:37 21:40 21:42 21:46 21:49 21:53
22:00 22:03 22:07 22:10 22:12 22:16 22:19 22:23
Final October 2024
CRANDIC BRT Feasibility Study – Alternatives Schedules
Page 18
Table 18. Alternative 7 - Sunday Northbound
Washington-
Clinton Rocky Shore 1st Ave 12th Ave Oakdale Blvd Forevergreen Rd Cherry St Hwy 965-
Dubuque
8:00 8:04 8:07 8:11 8:13 8:16 8:20 8:23
8:30 8:34 8:37 8:41 8:43 8:46 8:50 8:53
9:00 9:04 9:07 9:11 9:13 9:16 9:20 9:23
9:30 9:34 9:37 9:41 9:43 9:46 9:50 9:53
10:00 10:04 10:07 10:11 10:13 10:16 10:20 10:23
10:30 10:34 10:37 10:41 10:43 10:46 10:50 10:53
11:00 11:04 11:07 11:11 11:13 11:16 11:20 11:23
11:30 11:34 11:37 11:41 11:43 11:46 11:50 11:53
12:00 12:04 12:07 12:11 12:13 12:16 12:20 12:23
12:30 12:34 12:37 12:41 12:43 12:46 12:50 12:53
13:00 13:04 13:07 13:11 13:13 13:16 13:20 13:23
13:30 13:34 13:37 13:41 13:43 13:46 13:50 13:53
14:00 14:04 14:07 14:11 14:13 14:16 14:20 14:23
14:30 14:34 14:37 14:41 14:43 14:46 14:50 14:53
15:00 15:04 15:07 15:11 15:13 15:16 15:20 15:23
15:30 15:34 15:37 15:41 15:43 15:46 15:50 15:53
16:00 16:04 16:07 16:11 16:13 16:16 16:20 16:23
16:30 16:34 16:37 16:41 16:43 16:46 16:50 16:53
17:00 17:04 17:07 17:11 17:13 17:16 17:20 17:23
17:30 17:34 17:37 17:41 17:43 17:46 17:50 17:53
18:00 18:04 18:07 18:11 18:13 18:16 18:20 18:23
18:30 18:34 18:37 18:41 18:43 18:46 18:50 18:53
19:00 19:04 19:07 19:11 19:13 19:16 19:20 19:23
19:30 19:34 19:37 19:41 19:43 19:46 19:50 19:53
20:00 20:04 20:07 20:11 20:13 20:16 20:20 20:23
20:30 20:34 20:37 20:41 20:43 20:46 20:50 20:53
21:00 21:04 21:07 21:11 21:13 21:16 21:20 21:23
21:30 21:34 21:37 21:41 21:43 21:46 21:50 21:53
22:00 22:04 22:07 22:11 22:13 22:16 22:20 22:23
Final October 2024
Appendix E
Appendix E. Model Calibration
Final October 2024
2 BRYANT STREET, SUITE 300 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105 415-284-1544 FAX 503-228-2320
nelsonnygaard.com
MEMORANDUM
To: Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
From: Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates
Subject: STOPS Model Calibration
STOPS Version
As noted in the overview, the STOPS application version was changed from version 2.5 (dated
03/25/2019) to version 2.52 (dated 05/05/2022) for the CRANDIC BRT STOPS model. This
new version of STOPS reflects changes to calibration coefficients for journey-to-work trips for
different trip purposes. In addition, this new version of STOPS replaced calibration settings
for all modes (Fixed Guideway, Bus) and Park-n-ride (PNR) access, Figure 1.
Figure 1.Calibration Settings for STOPS Version 2.52 (12/12/2022)
STOPS Mode
The FTA STOPS application uses the U.S. Census Bureau’s Census Transportation Planning
Products (CTPP) journey-to-work information to develop a person trip table. STOPS uses
Final October 2024
STOPS Model Calibration
Metropolitan Planning Organization of Johnson County
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 2
conventional mode choice models to predict trips using each transit station and route. The
ICNL Railway STOPS model uses what is called a “Synthetic Mode with Special Generator”
approach where the University of Iowa On-Board Survey, conducted by ETC for 2019, was
used for defining the University of Iowa as a special market. The updated CRANDIC BRT
STOPS model was updated to a Synthetic approach for the following reasons:
Travel market patterns by students observed from a previous 2019 survey do not
reflect the current year 2023 post-pandemic era
Route alignment changes to a few routes do not match with the 2019 survey trip
generator
In its synthetic mode, STOPS self-calibrates to match CTPP transit shares and observed
ridership counts at the system and route level. However, the STOPS synthetic mode generally
does not represent travel markets unrelated to the worker flows provided by the CTPP. This
includes travel by students to university campuses. An update to the region’s on-board
survey is recommended to better capture the special University of Iowa travel markets.
Partial Fixed Guideway Setting
A partial fixed guideway setting of 0.2 was used to provide the highest level of weight to
partial fixed guideway like BRT.
Other Adjustments
In this STOPS model, all BRT stations served by the transit agency routes were given two
minutes of bus-to-bus transfer penalties.
Group Calibration Approach
A STOPS model provides the option of reading station/stop or route level count data, which
is used to refine model calibration. The standard practice is to initially calibrate the STOPS
model without using these group calibration approach options. If needed, this option is
turned on depending on the data available to fine-tune some of the station or route-level
boardings.
For the CRANDIC BRT Corridor STOPS model, the modeling project team finalized the
calibration process using group calibration settings (of ‘11’). This option adjusts the person
origin-destination (OD) trip table to compare modeled and observed route level ridership
only. No station/stop group ridership were calibrated due to the lack of stop-level boarding
data for all transit agencies.
Final October 2024
STOPS Model Calibration
Metropolitan Planning Organization of Johnson County
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 3
Calibration Results
A STOPS model must be calibrated for each local application to ensure the model closely
replicates the study area’s transportation system and transit usage patterns. Typically, this
process coincides with the implementation of STOPS with the existing transit system. Thus,
the calibration results presented in this section are for this project’s defined current/existing
year of 2023, using 2023 average weekday ridership. Note that STOPS ridership estimates
presented in this section are based on a model run where the group calibration approach '11'
was used, as described in the previous section.
As previously noted, this STOPS model uses a synthetic approach where STOPS self-
calibrates to match CTPP transit shares and observed ridership counts. For the
current/existing year, the observed weekday boardings target is 19,075 and this project’s
STOPS model closely matches that number by estimating 18,917 weekday boardings,
resulting in a regional calibration factor of 1.01 (the ratio of observed to raw unlinked trips).
The model uses a ratio of 1.40 for unlinked to linked trips which fixes the observed region-
wide linked transit trips target of 13,796. With the model estimates of 14,350 linked trips, the
linked transit trip target and model estimates are also quite close. The regional calibration
factor is 1.01. The observed transfer rate of 32% is also closely matched by the model (40%).
Table 1 and Table 2 present the 2023 linked trips and the percentage by household vehicles
and trip purposes. About 51% of linked trips are made by Home-based Work (HBW) trips
while the other 49% consist of Home-based Other (HBO) and Non-home Based (NHB) Trips.
Table 1. Linked Trips by Household Vehicles by Trip Purpose
HBW HBO NHB All
0-Car 1,134 1,293 488 2,914
1-Car 3,468 2,112 699 6,280
2+ Cars 2,729 1,807 620 5,156
All 7,331 5,213 1,806 14,350
Table 2. Linked Trips % by Household Vehicles by Trip Purpose
HBW HBO NHB All
0-Car 8% 9% 3% 20%
1-Car 24% 15% 5% 44%
2+ Cars 19% 13% 4% 36%
All 51% 36% 13% 100%
Final October 2024
STOPS Model Calibration
Metropolitan Planning Organization of Johnson County
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 4
Compared to the previous ICNL Railway STOPS model, 15% of HBW trips were overestimated
while 17% fewer HBO trips were produced by this updated CRANDIC STOPS model. To help
understand this calibration of the model, average weekday route level boarding estimates
from STOPS model compared to the observed current/existing year 2023 data are almost
identical. However, the model overestimates boardings for Iowa City Transit while
underestimating CAMBUS daily boardings. This is not necessarily surprising due to the
absence of a University of Iowa focused origin-destination trip survey. CAMBUS is a service
primarily used by students for transit travel.
STOPS Review and Recommendations
STOPS application development is a prescriptive process established by FTA. As such, the
results from this fixed-guideway forecasting tool provide a basis for estimating potential
ridership. In order to provide more confidence in the STOPS forecasts for potential future
phases of study, the modeling team offers these recommendations:
Update the On-board Survey
The model used for this project observed some anomalies in non-work trips which
includes university students and hospital patients. The synthetic model self-calibrates
based mostly on CTPP’s work trips. To get the best-fit model, an incremental mode
should be used along with an updated on-board survey for all transit agencies, in
particular for CAMBUS which covers the university and hospital area.
Transit Boarding Data
Stop level boarding and alighting data was not available for this project. This
information, if available, would improve the STOPS application forecasts.
Update Census Data
There is a need to update all census data to coincide with FTA’s new STOPS version
which has potential to improve forecasts.
Update Land Use (Population and Employment) Data
While the MPOJC’s population and employment data used in the old ICNL Railway STOPS
model is a direct input into this CRANDIC BRT STOPS model, it is not used to estimate
existing transit trips. STOPS uses system and route-level boarding data together, along with
the special market trip table, to build a table of existing transit trips. STOPS does use the
MPOJC population and employment projections to estimate future transit trips.
One thing that stands out is the fact that the CRANDIC Corridor is a high-growth corridor, as
evidenced by the ongoing development and construction along the Corridor. So, MPOJC’s
new version of the latest land use data needs to be furnished and used in the future to
improve the model.
Final October 2024
Appendix F
Appendix F. Environmental Screening
Final October 2024
Environmental Review
CRANDIC BRT Study
Johnson County, Iowa
FHU Project No. 123626-01
Prepared for:
MPO of Johnson County
410 E. Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Prepared by:
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
1300 Walnut Street, Suite 101
Des Moines, Iowa 50309
March 2024
Final October 2024
Environmental Review MPOJC
CRANDIC BRT Study March 2024
i
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Project Description ............................................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Environmental Setting ....................................................................................................................... 1
2.0 Environmental Resource Analysis........................................................................................................... 4
2.1 Wetlands ........................................................................................................................................... 4
2.2 Water Quality .................................................................................................................................... 6
2.3 Floodplains ........................................................................................................................................ 9
2.4 Cultural Resources .......................................................................................................................... 11
2.5 Threatened and Endangered Species.............................................................................................. 14
2.6 Migratory Birds and Bald and Golden Eagles .................................................................................. 16
2.7 Regulated Materials ........................................................................................................................ 17
2.8 Parks and Recreational Areas .......................................................................................................... 20
2.9 Environmental Justice and Limited English Proficiency .................................................................. 23
2.10 Air Quality ....................................................................................................................................... 23
2.11 Noise................................................................................................................................................ 24
2.12 Land Use and Zoning ....................................................................................................................... 24
2.13 Airspace ........................................................................................................................................... 25
2.14 Utilities ............................................................................................................................................ 25
3.0 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................ 26
4.0 References ............................................................................................................................................ 29
Figures
Figure 1 Vicinity Map…………..…..…..……………………..………………………………………………………………………………..2
Figure 2 Location Map…………...……………..…………..………………….………………………………………………………………3
Figure 3 Water Resources Map .……………………………………………………………..……………………………………………..5
Figure 4 Floodplain Map………….……………………………………………………………..……………………………………………..8
Figure 5 Water Quality Map …………………………………………………………..…………………………………………………..10
Figure 6 Historical Properties Map ...……………………………………..……………………………………………………………13
Figure 7 Regulated Materials Map ….……..…………..………………….……………………………………………………………19
Figure 8 Parks and Trails Map ……….………….………..………………….……………………………………………………………22
Tables
Table 1 Properties or Districts listed under the National Register of Historic Places ..…………..….………..11
Table 2 State or Federally listed threatened and endangered species within Johnson County………..….14
Table 3 Registered sites within the ESA ………………………………………………………………………………………………18
Table 4 Recreational resources within the ESA ……………………………………………………….…………………………20
Table 5 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the Proposed Project……………………………….26
Final October 2024
Environmental Review MPOJC
CRANDIC BRT Study March 2024
1
1.0 Introduction
This report documents existing environmental conditions and potential impacts to the human and natural
environment from the Metropolitan Planning Organization of Johnson County’s (MPOJC) proposed
CRANDIC BRT Study (hereafter called “project”). This report also provides information and
recommendations on potential adverse environmental impacts to assist MPOJC in making informed
decisions for future project planning. This environmental review is not intended for use as compliance with
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for a transportation project with federal aid.
The MPOJC has identified the abandoned “Cedar Rapids and Iowa City” (CRANDIC) rail line between Gilbert
Street in Iowa City north to Penn Street in North Liberty as a potential commuter route for public transit.
Several previous studies have been completed looking at the feasibility of commuter rail (e.g. light rail,
streetcar) along the corridor. The MPOJC identified “Bus Rapid Transit” (BRT) as an alternative mode of
transportation along the corridor.
1.1 Project Description
The project would remove approximately 9.1 miles of the existing rail line and construct a two-lane
roadway with pedestrian facilities on one or both sides of the roadway. The existing right-of-way along the
corridor ranges from 40 feet to 100 feet. Grading would be required to accommodate the proposed
roadway. It is anticipated that additional permanent right-of-way acquisition would be required, but there
would be no relocations of homes or businesses. There are 27 at-grade street crossings, seven bridges, and
17 culverts along the corridor. Improvements to some or all of these structures may be required.
1.2 Environmental Setting
The project is located in the Southern Iowa Drift Plain. This region is composed primarily of glacial drift
typified by well-connected drainage systems separated by rolling hills and ridgetops (University of Iowa
2024). The project is also located within the Rolling Loess Prairies Ecoregion (Iowa DNR 2024f). This
ecoregion is characterized by loess deposits on well drained plains and open low hills. Potential natural
vegetation is a mosaic of mostly tallgrass prairie and areas of oak-hickory forest. Although cropland
agriculture is widespread, this region has more areas of woodland and pasture than the areas to the west.
The majority of the project is located within the Lower Iowa HUC 8 Watershed while a small area at the
north end is located in the Middle Iowa HUC 8 Watershed (USGS 2024). The corridor parallels the Iowa
River for a short period before eventually crossing the river further south in Iowa City.
The project corridor is located in Johnson County, Iowa within the municipal limits of the City of Iowa City,
the City of Coralville, and the City of North Liberty (Figure 1 and Figure 2). Land use within the vicinity of the
corridor includes a mix of commercial, industrial, residential (single and multi-family), and undeveloped
areas. The corridor also passes through portions of the University of Iowa campus.
Final October 2024
Environmental Review MPOJC
CRANDIC BRT Study March 2024
2
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Final October 2024
Environmental Review MPOJC
CRANDIC BRT Study March 2024
3
Figure 2. Location Map
Final October 2024
Environmental Review MPOJC
CRANDIC BRT Study March 2024
4
2.0 Environmental Resource Analysis
The Environmental Study Area (ESA) has been defined as a 0.25-mile-wide area around the centerline of the
proposed corridor. An environmental resource review was conducted to identify environmental resources
within the ESA that could potentially be impacted by the proposed project. The review was based on a
desktop evaluation of readily available and ascertainable information. Based on the desktop analysis, the
following resources were determined not to be present in the vicinity of the proposed project and were
therefore excluded from further review: federal and tribal lands, farmland, and Wild and Scenic Rivers.
Other resources were evaluated for their presence and potential impacts and are described in more detail
below. These include wetlands, water quality, floodplains, cultural resources, threatened and endangered
species, migratory birds, bald and golden eagles, hazardous materials, parks and recreational resources,
environmental justice, air quality, noise, land use and zoning, airspace, and utilities.
2.1 Wetlands
Wetlands are defined as “those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a
frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a
prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions” (33 CFR 328). Wetland
resources are afforded protection under the Clean Water Act (CWA) as amended, and EO 11990 of 1977
(Protection of Wetlands) and Iowa Code 314.23.
According to the National Wetland Inventory (NWI), 43 wetlands are present within the ESA and include
Emergent, Forested/Shrub, and Riverine wetlands (USFWS 2024) (Figure 3). Many of the mapped wetlands
appear to be located along streams or drainages. The National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) identifies 13
streams or drainages within the ESA and includes the Iowa River, Muddy Creek, Clear Creek, and several
unnamed tributaries to the Iowa River (USGS 2024). Several of the identified streams are likely perennial
streams with surface flow year-round.
Project Impacts. Due to the locations of wetlands and channels along the project corridor, construction of
the proposed project has the potential to impact these water resources. Some of the identified resources,
including isolated wetlands or ephemeral streams, may be non-jurisdictional. A wetland delineation using
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) approved methods is recommended to identify the type and location
of wetlands, streams, and other water resources. Based on the scope of the project, impacts to wetlands
and other water resources would be anticipated. If impacts are above the mitigation thresholds of 0.10-
acres (wetlands) or 0.03-acres (streams), an Approved Jurisdictional Determination from the USACE is
recommended to determine the jurisdictional status of resources as this can affect the amount and type of
mitigation required. Depending on final impact numbers and findings of the AJD (if requested), a Section
404 Permit from USACE may be required. Should impacts to jurisdictional resources be above the
mitigation thresholds, then mitigation would also likely be required. If total impacts remain below 0.5 acre,
the project would likely qualify as a Nationwide Permit 14 for linear transportation projects.
Final October 2024
Environmental Review MPOJC
CRANDIC BRT Study March 2024
5
Figure 3. Water Resources Map
Final October 2024
Environmental Review MPOJC
CRANDIC BRT Study March 2024
6
2.2 Water Quality
Impaired Waters. Water Quality is regulated under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of
1972 (CWA). The objective is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the
nation’s waters by preventing point and non-point pollution sources, providing assistance to publicly owned
treatment works for the improvement of wastewater treatment, and maintaining the integrity of wetlands.
Each individual state has jurisdiction for managing water quality in its respective state. Section 303(d) of the
CWA requires each state to evaluate water quality conditions in designated water bodies and list as
impaired any water bodies not meeting water quality standards; this is to be reported every other year.
Section 303(d) impaired waters located within the ESA include Muddy Creek (02-IOW-2043) and Unnamed
Tributary to Muddy Creek (02-IOW-6588) (Iowa DNR 2024a; Figure 4). The entire 7.20-mile length of Muddy
Creek is classified as a Category 4a impaired water. Muddy Creek begins in North Liberty (near the
intersection of Washington Avenue and W. Cherry Street) and generally flows south/southeast where it
eventually converges with the Iowa River east of Coralville (near the River Products Conklin Quarry).
Category 4A signifies that the waterbody is impaired, but all of the required Total Maximum Daily Loads
(TMDL) have been completed. Recreational use for this waterbody is impaired due to E. coli bacteria (Iowa
DNR 2022). The entire 0.50-mile length of the Unnamed Tributary to Muddy Creek is a Category 5p
impaired water. This tributary begins near N. Dubuque Street north of W. Penn Street in North Liberty and
flows south to Muddy Creek. This Category 5p water is threatened and requires a TMDL for pathogens
(E. coli) (Iowa DNR 2022).
Wells and Source Water Protection (SWP). Established under the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. § 300f
et seq. (1974)), Iowa’s Source Water Protection (SWP) is a voluntary program which assists communities
and other public water suppliers in preventing contamination of their water supplies. The SWP has
established a process to help communities through initial source water assessments and the development
and implementation of an SWP Plan.
Several wells are present within the ESA and include wells for Coralville Municipal Water System, Iowa City
Treatment Plant, Oakdale Hospital Water System, University of Iowa Treatment Plant, and Mayflower Hall
dewatering wells (University of Iowa) (Figure 4; Iowa DNR 2024b). The project is within the groundwater
capture zones for several of these wells. No public water supply surface intakes are present within the ESA.
Project Impacts. The proposed project would not be expected to result in increased E. coli in local
waterbodies. Water quality may be temporarily impacted due to increased erosion and runoff from
construction areas. However, Best Management Practices (BMPs) implemented during construction would
minimize erosion and sedimentation into waterbodies. These BMPs may include methods of erosion control
such as: wattle barriers, erosion checks, inlet/outlet protection, mulching, post-construction erosion
control, rolled erosion control, and revegetation. Minor short-term adverse effects on water quality would
occur during construction but would cease after construction and revegetation of the areas is completed.
The Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR) should be notified if any domestic or commercial wells
were to be impacted due the project.
Final October 2024
Environmental Review MPOJC
CRANDIC BRT Study March 2024
7
Because the project is anticipated to disturb more than one acre of land, a Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would need to be prepared for the proposed project and a National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction Storm Water Permit (General Permit No. 2) would be
required from the Iowa DNR. North Liberty, Coralville, and Iowa City are regulated Municipal Separate
Storm Sewer System (MS4) communities. The erosion control plans and SWPPP shall be submitted to each
municipality for project authorization under their MS4 permit prior to project letting.
Final October 2024
Environmental Review MPOJC
CRANDIC BRT Study March 2024
8
Figure 4. Water Quality Map
Final October 2024
Environmental Review MPOJC
CRANDIC BRT Study March 2024
9
2.3 Floodplains
EO 11988, Floodplain Management Guidelines, outlines the responsibilities of federal agencies in the role of
floodplain management. Each agency shall evaluate the potential effects of actions on floodplains and
should avoid undertaking actions that directly or indirectly support floodplain development. The Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is the primary agency responsible for evaluating impacts to the
floodway and the 100-year floodplain. In addition, Iowa Code Chapter 455B provides the Iowa DNR
authority over all flood plains in the state of Iowa and defines the administrative thresholds for approvals
required for different types of construction projects. A regulatory floodway is the area of a channel and
adjacent land areas that must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively
increasing the water surface elevation more than a designated height. Floodway is designated by FEMA and
must remain free of development for this purpose. The 100-year floodplain is the land area covered by
floodwaters during a 100-year flood event (i.e., areas that have a 1% annual chance of flooding). Flood Zone
AE designates those areas of the 100-year floodplain for which a Base Flood Elevation (BFE) has been
determined. All flood hazard areas identified on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) are termed Special
Flood Hazard Areas.
Portions of the project occur within the Regulatory Floodway associated with the Iowa River, Clear Creek,
and Muddy Creek, and the Zone A/AE flood zones (1% annual flood chance) of these streams (FEMA 2024;
Figure 5). Areas within the ESA that fall outside of mapped floodzones are at higher elevations or within
non-regulated floodzones (0.2% annual flood chance, Zone X).
Project Impacts. The proposed project may require the construction of bridges or culverts, road
embankments, and temporary stream crossings over regulated floodways. These construction activities
would require a floodplain permit from the Iowa DNR certifying that the construction activities will be in
compliance with state and federal floodplain regulations (Iowa Administrative Code 567, Chapter 71-72).
Efforts should be made to minimize work within regulated floodways that affects the hydrologic or
hydraulic characteristics of a flooding source and thus result in changes to the existing regulatory floodway,
effective BFE, or Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA). If modifications occur within the floodway, a Letter of
Map Revision (LOMR) may be required.
Final October 2024
Environmental Review MPOJC
CRANDIC BRT Study March 2024
10
Figure 5. Floodplain Map
Final October 2024
Environmental Review MPOJC
CRANDIC BRT Study March 2024
11
2.4 Cultural Resources
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires that federally funded or permitted
projects be evaluated for impacts to historic and cultural properties (buildings, archaeological sites, etc.).
Additionally, the Iowa City Urban Planning office houses the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commision
which locally designates historic resources (Iowa City 2024). Based on publicly available information, there
are several National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and National Register Historic Districts within the
ESA (NPS 2024; Figure 6). There are no state historic sites or state historic markers present within the ESA
(Iowa State Historical Society 2024). Several structures along the corridor were constructed in the early to
mid-twentieth century and could potentially be eligible for listing in NRHP.
Table 1. Properties or Districts listed under the National Register of Historic Places.
NRHP ID Name Type Address
72000475 Old Capitol Building University of Iowa Campus, Iowa City
73000729 Congregational Church of Iowa Building 30 N. Clinton St, Iowa City
78001229 Park House Hotel Building 130 E. Jefferson St, Iowa City
73000730 North Presbyterian Church Building 26 E. Market St, Iowa City
86000712 Franklin Printing House Building 115 S. Dubuque St, Iowa City
86000708 Paul-Helen Building Building 207-215 E. Washington St, Iowa City
01000911 Englert Theatre Building 221 E. Washington St, Iowa City
77000526 Coralville Union Ecclesiastical
Church Building 405 2nd Ave, Coralville
12000814 Samuel & Emma A. Ranshaw
House Building 515 Community Dr, North Liberty
78001230 Pentacrest District Iowa City
04001097 Jefferson Street District Iowa City
Project Impacts. The proposed project includes areas directly adjacent to properties and districts listed in
Table 1. The project may require reconstruction or improvements of existing roadways to bring
transportation facilities up to current standards and/or accommodate BRT operations. Any improvements
or reconstruction to Washington Street, Madison Street, Jefferson Street, or Clinton Street in Iowa City
could impact historic properties and districts directly adjacent to or overlapping the project area. In
addition, improvements identified for N. Penn Street in North Liberty may also impact the historic property
adjacent to the existing roadway. Other properties identified in Table 1 not directly adjacent to the project
area or properties set back from the existing roadway would likely not be impacted by project activities.
Soils within the existing right-of-way of the project alignment have previously been disturbed with
construction of the existing roadway and railroad and are therefore unlikely to contain subsurface cultural
resources. However, it is possible that previously undisturbed areas in the project corridor could contain
cultural resources.
Final October 2024
Environmental Review MPOJC
CRANDIC BRT Study March 2024
12
For project activities within Iowa City, coordination should occur with the Iowa City Historic Preservation
Commission (Urban Planning Office) to determine if the project would impact the historic character of
any listed buildings or districts. Should a Section 404 permit or other federal permits be required, or if the
project is federally funded, then coordination should also be conducted with the Iowa State Historic
Preservation Office (Iowa SHPO) to ensure compliance with Section 106 and determine if any cultural
resource surveys are warranted. In the event of an unanticipated discovery of cultural resources, the
Contractor shall halt work immediately and contact a qualified archeologist and notify Iowa SHPO.
Final October 2024
Environmental Review MPOJC
CRANDIC BRT Study March 2024
13
Figure 6. Historic Properties Map
Final October 2024
Environmental Review MPOJC
CRANDIC BRT Study March 2024
14
2.5 Threatened and Endangered Species
The Endangered Species Act protects imperiled species and their habitats. Section 9 of the Endangered
Species Act makes it unlawful for any person – including private and public entities – to “take” individuals of
an endangered and threatened species. Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires federal agencies
to consult with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for any federally permitted project that may affect a
species listed under the ESA. The USFWS is the primary agency responsible for administering the
Endangered Species Act. The Iowa DNR cooperates with federal agencies in the conservation, protection,
and artificial propagation of endangered and threatened species (9 Iowa Code Chapter 481B). Iowa
Administrative Code [571] Chapter 77 designates a state list of threatened and endangered species that
also must be protected.
Several species in Johnson County are either federally or state listed threatened and endangered species
Table 2; USFWS 2024; Iowa DNR 2024c).
Table 2. State or Federally listed threatened and endangered species within Johnson County.
Species Name Scientific Name State Listing
Status
Federal Listing
Status
Central Newt Notophthalmus viridescens Threatened -
Barn Owl Tyto alba Endangered -
King Rail Rallus elegans Endangered -
Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus Endangered -
Freckled Madtom Noturus nocturnus Threatened -
Orangethroat Darter Etheostoma spectabile Threatened -
Butterfly (Mussel) Ellipsaria lineolate Threatened -
Creeper (Mussel) Strophitus undulatus Threatened -
Fat Pocketbook
(Mussel) Potamilus capax - Endangered
Higgin’s-eye Pearly
(Mussel) Lampsilis higginsii Endangered Endangered
Pistolgrip (Mussel) Tritogonia verrucosa Endangered -
Purple Wartyback
(Mussel) Cyclonaias tuberculate Threatened -
Round Pigtoe (Mussel) Pleurobema sintoxia Endangered -
Sheepnose (Mussel) Plethobasus cyphyus Endangered Endangered
Yellow Sandshell
(Mussel) Lampsilis teres Endangered -
Byssus Skipper Problema byssus Threatened -
Final October 2024
Environmental Review MPOJC
CRANDIC BRT Study March 2024
15
Species Name Scientific Name State Listing
Status
Federal Listing
Status
Spotted Skunk Spilogale putorius Endangered -
Pinesap Monotropa hypopithys Threatened -
Pink Milkwort Polygala incarnata Threatened -
Ricebutton Aster Aster dumosus Endangered -
Waxleaf Meadowrue Thalictrum revolutum Endangered -
Winged Monkey
Flower Mimulus alatus Threatened -
Wooly Milkweed Asclepias lanuginose Threatened -
Eastern Prairie
Fringed Orchid Platanthera leucophaea Endangered Threatened
Oval Ladies’-tresses Spiranthes ovalis Threatened -
Pale Green Orchid Platanthera flava Endangered -
Showy Lady’s Slipper Cypripedium reginae Threatened -
Slender Ladies’-
Tresses Spiranthes lacera Threatened -
Slim-leaved Panic
Grass Dichanthelium linearifolium Threatened -
Ground Pine Lycopodium clavatum Endangered -
Oak Fern Gymnocarpium dryopteris Threatened -
Blanding’s Turtle Emydoidea blandingii Threatened -
Common Musk Turtle Sternotherus odoratus Threatened -
Eastern Massasauga Sistrurus catenatus Endangered Threatened
Ornate Box Turtle Terrapene ornate Threatened -
Indiana Bat Myotis sodalis - Endangered
Northern Long Eared
Bat Myotis septentrionalis - Endangered
Rusty Patch Bumble
Bee Bombus affinis - Endangered
Suitable habitat within the project ESA is lacking for many of the listed species that may occur within
Johnson County as much of the ESA occurs in areas that have already been developed or previously
disturbed. Portions of the ESA also occur in dense urban or residential/commercial areas that are not
suitable for sensitive species. For these reasons, many of the listed species are not likely to be present
within the ESA. However, some species could be impacted by project activities and are discussed below.
Final October 2024
Environmental Review MPOJC
CRANDIC BRT Study March 2024
16
Potentially suitable habitat is present for many of the aquatic species (fish, mussels, turtles) given the
proximity of the project to the Iowa River where several of these species have been documented. Culvert or
bridge construction and grading activities could negatively impact aquatic species by degrading water
quality or degrading existing habitat. Mitigation measures are recommended for construction activities
near or within Muddy Creek, Clear Creek, and other unnamed tributaries to minimize or negate impacts to
aquatic species.
The entire project area was identified as a “high potential zone” for Rusty Patched Bumble Bee habitat and
occurrence (USFWS 2023; USFWS 2024). These areas have been generated using a habitat connectivity
model based on typical bumble bee foraging distances and suitable habitat relative to known bumble bee
occurrences.
Potential habitat also exists within the ESA for several of the avian (Barn Owl, Northern Harrier) and bat
(Northern Long-Eared Bat, Indiana Bat) species along the riparian corridors of Muddy Creek and unnamed
tributaries, and within wooded areas near residential lots. Bat species may also be found occasionally
roosting in large culverts, bridges, or buildings. Avian and bat species may be directly impacted through the
removal of trees or structures where bats or birds are roosting or nesting. Mitigation measures should be
implemented to avoid adverse impacts to this species.
Project Impacts. Based on the draft Information for Planning and Consultation Tool (USFWS 2024) and
Iowa DNR Natural Areas Inventory (Iowa DNR 2024c), several species are potentially present within Johnson
County (Attachment 2). However, the ESA lacks habitat for many of the threatened and endangered
species listed species. The project has the potential to impact aquatic, bat, avian, and bumble bee species.
Coordination with the Iowa DNR and USFWS is recommended in later phases of project planning.
To avoid impacts to bat species, tree clearing should avoided during the active season of April 1st to October
31st. Tree clearing and grubbing should be avoided between February 1st and July 15th to avoid potential
impacts to Barn Owl or Northern Harrier. If tree removal cannot be avoided during these time periods,
coordination with USFWS and Iowa DNR to determine the need for surveys.
If possible, work within the waterways of Muddy Creek, Clear Creek, and other unnamed tributaries should
be avoided to minimize impacts to aquatic species. Debris from demolished bridges or culverts should be
captured to prevent it from entering into the waterway. Proper erosion control measures should also be
implemented throughout the construction period to maintain the water quality of these waterways.
2.6 Migratory Birds and Bald and Golden Eagles
Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), construction activities that would otherwise result in the
“taking” of migratory birds, eggs, young, and/or active nests, should be avoided (50 CFR 21.11). Although
the provisions of MBTA are applicable year-round, most migratory bird nesting activity in Iowa occurs from
April 1st to July 15th and from February 1st to July 15th for raptors; however, some birds may nest outside
these periods.
Final October 2024
Environmental Review MPOJC
CRANDIC BRT Study March 2024
17
Bald and golden eagles have specific protection under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA),
administered by the USFWS. The BGEPA protects bald and golden eagles from “take” and disturbance that
may interfere with their normal behavior or cause abandonment of nests. Bald and golden eagle habitat is
present along the proposed project corridor. Bald eagles nest in tall trees near large, open water bodies
where they can forage. Due to the presence of nearby open water (Iowa River, Coralville Reservoir), bald
eagles may nest or roost in areas with larger trees in the vicinity of the project corridor. Golden eagles while
scarce and often a transient species in Iowa, have been sighted near the ESA (Cornell 2024). However,
golden eagles would be unlikely to nest in the area.
Habitat is present for other migratory birds protected under the MBTA. This habitat includes trees and
shrubs located along the project corridor in residential and commercial lots, shelter belts, or isolated
woodlands.
Project Impacts. The proposed project would likely require tree and shrub removal. These activities have
the potential to directly impact birds, eggs, young, or active nests protected by MBTA. Mitigation measures
should be implemented to avoid impacts to migratory birds, including clearing trees outside of the primary
nesting season (April 1 to July 15). If tree and shrub clearing cannot be avoided during the primary nesting
season, surveys should be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to construction to determine the
presence or absence of breeding birds and active nests. Trees with active migratory bird nests should not
be cleared until the birds have fledged, or the nest has failed naturally. Bald eagle nests are protected year
round, regardless of whether they are actively being used. The Iowa DNR recommends limiting disturbance
of known bald eagle nesting sites and winter roosts by creating a minimum 0.25 mile no disturbance buffer
zone (Iowa DOT 2023). If any eagle nests are found to be present within 0.25 mile of the project,
coordination with USFWS is recommended.
2.7 Regulated Materials
The term hazardous materials is an all-inclusive term for materials or sites that are regulated including solid
waste, hazardous waste, and other wastes contaminated with hazardous substances, radioactive materials,
petroleum fuels, toxic substances, and pollutants. These materials are regulated and monitored by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Iowa DNR. A review for registered and potential hazardous
sites was conducted for the proposed project.
A review of available data (Iowa DNR 2024d, Iowa DNR 2024e), identified several registered hazardous sites
within the ESA. All sites identified were “closed”; however, there may still be potential for contamination
that could cause a risk to human health and safety (Figure 7). No leaking underground storage tanks were
located within the ESA. Several other potential hazardous sites were identified and include fueling stations,
bulk plants, substations, automotive repair shops, dry cleaners, and water treatment facilities. While not
registered as contaminated sites, additional investigations into these properties may identify sources of
contamination requiring additional coordination with the Iowa DNR or EPA. Table 3 provides details on the
registered sites.
Final October 2024
Environmental Review MPOJC
CRANDIC BRT Study March 2024
18
Table 3. Registered sites within the ESA (Iowa DNR 2024d, Iowa DNR 2024e).
Facility Name Facility ID Regulatory
Program
Facility
Status Facility Type
Coralville Donut
Property 1239 CERCLA Preremedial Closed Commercial
South CRANDIC,
Coralville 1740 CERCLA Preremedial Closed Commercial
Hawkeye Ready
Mix 969 Brownfield Closed Commercial
Sunset Motel 156 Land Recycling
Program Closed AST
CRANDIC Rail and
Coal Storage 17 Land Recycling
Program Closed Industrial
Delimart #4 1095 CERCLA Preremedial Closed AST
L.L. Pelling
Property 925 CERCLA Preremedial Closed AST
Coralville
Recycling Center 1197 Brownfield Closed Commercial
Summit Hills
Subdivision 1238 Brownfield Closed Commercial
New Horizon
Farm Services 781 CERCLA Preremedial Closed Ag-Chem
Project Impacts. Based on information in the regulatory file review, local topography, and anticipated
groundwater flow direction and depth, there is low potential for contaminated soil and/or groundwater to
be encountered during project construction. Right-of-way acquisition from registered or potentially
contaminated sites may require Phase 1 and Phase 2 field investigations of the sites prior to construction to
determine if contaminants are present or additional coordination with the Iowa DNR and EPA. If
contaminated soil, water, or materials are encountered during construction, then all work within the
immediate area of the discovered contaminated media must stop. The contractor may need to consult Iowa
DNR to coordinate appropriate actions.
Final October 2024
Environmental Review MPOJC
CRANDIC BRT Study March 2024
19
Figure 7. Regulated Materials Map
Final October 2024
Environmental Review MPOJC
CRANDIC BRT Study March 2024
20
2.8 Parks and Recreational Areas
Recreational resources developed with federal funding through the Land and Water Conservation Fund
(LWCF) are protected under Section 6(f) of the LWCF Act, which prohibits the conversion of these
properties to anything other than public outdoor recreation uses. This protection applies regardless of
whether a project has federal funding. Section 4(f) of the United States Department of Transportation Act
(USDOT Act) of 1966 stipulates that FHWA and other DOT agencies cannot approve the use of land from
publicly owned parks, recreational areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, or public and private historical
sites unless certain conditions apply.
Based on review of available data, parks, open/green space, and trails are present within the ESA (Figure 9).
None of the resources identified within the ESA appear to be protected under Section 6(f) (LWCF 2024).
There are 36 trail crossings (not including sidewalks) along the project alignment. Of those, 19 are
uncontrolled at-grade intersections, most of which occur along the CRANDIC rail line. Table 4 documents
the recreational resources present within the ESA and the proximity to the proposed project alignment.
Table 4. Recreational resources within the ESA.
Resource Name Proximity to Project Alignment Municipality
Blackhawk Park 0.09 miles Iowa City
Hubbard Park Adjacent Iowa City
Black Springs Circle Park 0.07 miles Iowa City
CRANDIC Park Adjacent Iowa City
Peninsula Park 0.07 miles Iowa City
Clear Creek Greenbelt 0.05 miles Coralville
Central Park 0.10 miles Coralville
Public Open Space 0.05 miles Coralville
Coralville Youth Sports Complex 0.11 miles Coralville
Creekside Commons Park 0.09 miles North Liberty
Joy’s Park Adjacent North Liberty
Parkview Neighborhood Park 0.02 miles North Liberty
North Liberty Community Center Adjacent North Liberty
Liberty Centre Pond 0.04 miles North Liberty
Iowa River Trail Adjacent Iowa City, Coralville
North Ridge Trail Adjacent Coralville, North Liberty
Unnamed Trails Adjacent Iowa City, Coralville, North
Liberty
Final October 2024
Environmental Review MPOJC
CRANDIC BRT Study March 2024
21
Project Impacts. Several recreational resources are present adjacent to the proposed project, including
Hubbard Park, CRANDIC Park, Joy’s Park, and North Liberty Community Center. The proposed project also
parallels or crosses several trails including the Iowa River Trail, North Ridge Trail, and several unnamed
recreational trails. Many of the uncontrolled intersections at trail crossings along the proposed alignment
would require improvement to ensure user safety. Additionally, cultural resources discussed in Section 2.5
are also protected under Section 4(f). Right-of-way acquisition is anticipated for the project and could
adversely impact Section 4(f) resources by incorporating them into a transportation facility or temporarily
impacting or restricting use. Under Section 4(f), any “use” of these resources, including land acquisition or
temporary closure during construction, would require coordination and approval with the official with
jurisdiction, Iowa DOT, and FHWA. Depending on the level of impacts to a particular resource, the “use”
may qualify as de minimis, meaning it does not adversely affect the activities, features, or attributes of the
property; or the “use” may require an Individual Section 4(f) Evaluation, including an alternatives analysis.
Final October 2024
Environmental Review MPOJC
CRANDIC BRT Study March 2024
22
Figure 7. Parks and Trails Map
Final October 2024
Environmental Review MPOJC
CRANDIC BRT Study March 2024
23
2.9 Environmental Justice and Limited English Proficiency
Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority and Low-Income
Populations, directs federal agencies to incorporate environmental justice in their decision-making process.
The ESA was reviewed for environmental justice and Limited English Proficiency (LEP) populations to make
informed decisions about the project.
Based on the EJ Screening and Mapping tool, environmental justice populations are present within the
vicinity of the proposed project (EPA 2024). The minority population in the vicinity of the project (23%) is
above the state-wide average (15%). The low-income population in the vicinity of the project (28%) is
slightly below the state average (29%) and the U.S. average (31%) (EPA 2024). LEP households comprise 2%
of the population. Therefore, LEP populations are unlikely to be present.
Project Impacts. Since a minority population was identified in the vicinity of the project, there is potential
for disproportionately high and adverse effects to environmental justice populations. Overall, the proposed
project is anticipated to be a benefit by providing transit to multiple communities within the area. However,
disproportionate, adverse impacts to minority populations will need to be considered throughout the
project planning process and avoided if feasible. Because LEP households comprise only 2% of the
population, LEP populations and translation of outreach materials is not anticipated to be needed.
2.10 Air Quality
Federal air quality policies are regulated through the Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1963, as amended (42 USC §
7401 – 7671). The CAA is intended to “protect and enhance the quality of the Nation’s air resources to
promote the public health and welfare and the productive capacity of its population.” The CAA directs the
attainment and maintenance of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) (40 CFR Part 50). The EPA
also implements the NAAQS and determines attainment of federal air quality standards on a short- and
long-term basis. Attainment status is a measure of six criteria air pollutants and includes sulfur dioxide,
lead, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, ground-level ozone, and nitrogen dioxide, of which the last four
are considered for transportation conformity to attainment status.
No additional air quality analyses were conducted because the proposed project is located in an Attainment
Area as defined by National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) (EPA 2024b).
Project Impacts. The proposed project will introduce new transit operations that may result in increased air
pollution along the corridor. However, the area is in attainment and the increased air pollution from the
transit operations is anticipated to have a minimal effect. The project should consider natural gas, diesel
hybrid, or electric buses as alternatives that have fewer emissions than traditional diesel buses.
Short term effects of the proposed project would include PM-10 (particulate matter 10 micrometers in size)
contributions, which include dust, dirt, soot, smoke, and liquid droplets directly emitted into the air by
sources such as construction activity and natural windblown dust. PM-10 contributions would result from
the operation of heavy machinery, increases in dust in the project area during construction operations, and
Final October 2024
Environmental Review MPOJC
CRANDIC BRT Study March 2024
24
windblown particles stemming from stockpiled construction materials. BMPs to minimize air quality
impacts would include wetting or otherwise preparing the construction area to minimize dust, avoiding
idling of construction machinery when not performing needed tasks, and covering or mulching staging
areas during or following construction activities. With the implementation of these BMPs, the proposed
project would not be anticipated to have significant adverse impacts to air quality.
2.11 Noise
Noise is defined as unwanted sound that interferes with normal activities or in some way reduces the
quality of the environment. In urban areas, most noise comes from transportation, construction, industrial,
and human sources. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) wrote Title 23, Section 772 of the U.S.
Code of Federal Regulations (23 CFR 772) to provide procedures for noise studies, to provide noise
abatement measures to help protect the public health and welfare, to supply Noise Abatement Criteria, and
to establish requirements for traffic noise information to be given to those officials who have planning and
zoning authority in the project area.
Throughout the environmental study area, the magnitude and frequency of ambient noise varies depending
on the surrounding land uses. Noise sources in the vicinity of the proposed project include roadway,
industrial, and human sources. Noise sensitive receptors in the project vicinity include single-family
residences and commercial businesses.
Project Impacts. Some general assumptions regarding noise impacts can be inferred from project activities.
The anticipated increase in traffic due to transit operations from the proposed project would likely increase
traffic noise for some receptors along the corridor. Noise impacts should be further evaluated in later
phases of project planning to determine whether a noise analysis is required. If required, the noise analysis
will determine whether an investigation of noise abatement (i.e., noise barriers) is warranted.
Construction activities such as the operation of heavy equipment may temporarily elevate noise during
construction of the project. However, these would be expected to be minor short-term adverse effects that
would cease after construction is completed.
2.12 Land Use and Zoning
The project lies within the City of Iowa City, City of Coralville, and City of North Liberty. Land use/Zoning
varies slightly within each municipality, but in general is composed of a mix of commercial, residential, and
institutional (University of Iowa). Small areas of dense multi-family residential are found in Iowa City near
the University of Iowa Campus and North Liberty along Penn Street. Industrial uses are found in Coralville
near the Interstate 80/1st Avenue interchange. A majority of the commercial uses are located along 1st
Avenue in Coralville and Penn Street in Coralville. Outside the ESA, most land in the vicinity of the
proposed project has been developed as residential, commercial, or institutional properties.
Project Impacts. Considering a majority of the land adjacent to or surrounding the project corridor has
already been developed or is zoned for future single-family residential, it is anticipated that the proposed
project would not adversely impact future planning efforts of the aforementioned municipalities (Coralville
Final October 2024
Environmental Review MPOJC
CRANDIC BRT Study March 2024
25
2014, Iowa City 2024, North Liberty 2023). Future development along the corridor would be guided by
zoning and land use plans established by the municipalities.
2.13 Airspace
The project is located approximately 1.25 miles north of Iowa City Municipal Airport. The Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) administers the notification requirements for objects affecting navigable airspace
established in 14 CFR Part 77.
Project Impacts. If the proposed project would have any structures or equipment that exceed 200 feet
above ground level or that exceed a 100:1 surface from any point on the runway within 20,000 feet of Iowa
City Municipal Airport, FAA Form 7460-01 (Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration) must be
submitted to FAA at least 45 days prior to construction.
2.14 Utilities
The City of Iowa City, City of Coralville, and City of North Liberty have the authority and responsibility to
regulate utility occupancy on all public property within the vicinity of the proposed project. Utilities along
the CRANDIC corridor include fiber optic/telecommunications lines, overhead utility lines, natural gas
pipelines, water lines, and sanitary sewer lines (HDR 2018).
Project Impacts. Project construction is anticipated to impact underground and overhead utilities. Utility
relocations would be coordinated through the City of Iowa City, City of Coralville, and City of North Liberty
throughout the design process and during construction by the general contractor. All utility companies in
the area would be notified of this project and contact information for each utility company will be provided
in the project plans. Coordination meetings with the utility companies will occur throughout project design.
Final October 2024
Environmental Review MPOJC
CRANDIC BRT Study March 2024
26
3.0 Conclusion
This environmental review was prepared to evaluate the potential impacts to the human and natural
environment resulting from the proposed CRANDIC BRT project. Potential impacts to protected resources
will need to be evaluated further as project plans are advanced. The breadth of impacts to protected
resources is largely dependent on the amount of right-of-way (ROW) acquisition needed, as much of the
existing ROW has previously been disturbed and lacks protected resources.
Table 5 provides a summary of the potential impacts to protected resources, along with recommended or
required mitigation measures. Overall, impacts to protected resources from the project could be minimized
or avoided with appropriate design elements and implementation of mitigation measures. Regardless, the
project will need to coordinate with the appropriate local, state, and federal agencies to identify avoidance,
minimization, or mitigation strategies and obtain the appropriate permits and clearances for impacts to
protected resources.
Table 5. Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the Proposed Project
Environmental
Resource Findings Mitigation Measures
Wetlands Mapped wetlands (NWI) and channels are
present along the project corridor and may be
impacted by project activities. A wetland
delineation would be needed to determine
the boundaries of these resources.
An Approved Jurisdictional Determination may
be requested from USACE to determine if
resources are jurisdictional (Waters of the U.S.).
If impacts to jurisdictional resources cannot be
avoided, a Section 404 Permit (USACE) and a
Section 401 Permit (Iowa DNR) will be required.
Stream and/or wetland mitigation may also be
required depending on impacts.
Water Quality Section 303(d) impaired waters located within
the ESA include Muddy Creek (02-IOW-2043),
a Category 4a impaired water; and an
Unnamed Tributary to Muddy Creek (02-IOW-
6588), a Category 5p impaired water which
requires a TMDL for pathogens (E. coli).
Water quality could be temporarily impacted
due to increased erosion and runoff from
construction areas, but BMPs will be
implanted. It is not expected to increase
TMDLs for impaired resources.
BMPs should be implemented during
construction to minimize erosion and
sedimentation into waterbodies. NPDES permit
to be obtained from Iowa DNR including
preparation of SWPPP.
Floodplain Regulated floodways and Zone A/AE flood
zones are present within the ESA.
Construction activities that result in changes
to the floodway or flood zone is strictly
prohibited.
Floodplain permit(s) should be obtained from
the Iowa DNR and FEMA (if applicable) to
ensure project activities are not going to result
in changes to the floodway or flood zone.
Final October 2024
Environmental Review MPOJC
CRANDIC BRT Study March 2024
27
Environmental
Resource Findings Mitigation Measures
Cultural
Resources
There are several historic properties and
districts listed on the NRHP. Impacts to these
properties are unlikely given their location and
anticipated project activities in the vicinity of
these properties.
Coordination should be conducted with Iowa
SHPO to ensure Section 106 compliance and to
determine whether any cultural resource
surveys are warranted. In the event of an
unanticipated discovery of cultural resources,
the Contractor shall halt work immediately and
contact a qualified archeologist and notify Iowa
SHPO.
Threatened &
Endangered
Species
Several sensitive avian, aquatic, and bat
species could be impacted by various project
activities including tree/shrub removal,
culvert/bridge work, and grading.
To avoid impacts to bats, tree/shrub clearing
should be avoided between June 1 and July 31.
If tree-clearing cannot be avoided during this
time period, coordinate with USFWS and Iowa
DNR.
Implementation of additional conservation
measures during design and construction can
help reduce and mitigate impacts to other
species. Coordination with the USFWS and Iowa
DNR will likely be required to identify
conservation measures or design
recommendations to help reduce impacts to
sensitive species.
Migratory Birds
and Bald and
Golden Eagles
Tree-clearing activities have the potential to
result in a “take” of migratory birds.
Trees and shrubs should be removed outside
the primary nesting season of April 1st to July
15th or pre-construction surveys should be
conducted by a qualified biologist if within the
primary nesting season.
Regulated
Materials
Low potential for contaminated soil and/or
groundwater to be encountered during
construction. With mitigation measures in
place, no significant adverse effects due to
hazardous materials.
Work is to be stopped if contamination is
encountered. The Iowa DNR is to be notified,
materials management plan developed.
Parks &
Recreational
Areas
Several parks, recreational areas, and trails
are present within the ESA, including a
number of resources located adjacent to the
proposed project alignment.
If federally funded, the project will need to
conduct a Section 4(f) analysis to determine if
there will be a “use” of public recreational areas
and, if so, whether the “use” can qualify as de
minimis or if an Individual Section 4(f)
Evaluation is warranted.
Final October 2024
Environmental Review MPOJC
CRANDIC BRT Study March 2024
28
Environmental
Resource Findings Mitigation Measures
Environmental
Justice / LEP
Minority populations were identified within
the ESA.
Minority populations will need to be considered
throughout the project planning process. A
more in-depth Environmental Justice analysis
may be warranted to ensure disproportionate
adverse effects do not occur to minority
populations.
Air Quality The project is within an Attainment Area.
Minor short-term adverse effects of dust
during construction. Long-term adverse
effects are not anticipated.
None required.
Noise Traffic noise could increase along portions of
the corridor due to the increased traffic
capacity. Noise from construction activities
would be expected to be minor short-term
adverse effects that would cease after
construction is completed.
It should be determined in later phases of
project planning whether a Noise Analysis and
potential noise abatement is warranted.
Land Use and
Zoning
The proposed project is expected to be
compatible with future land use plans for the
corridor. Any future development within the
corridor would be guided by zoning plans
established by the Iowa City, Coralville, and
North Liberty.
None required.
Airspace Iowa City Municipal Airport is located
approximately 1.25 miles south of the
proposed project. Project structures and
equipment must comply with applicable FAA
height restrictions.
If any structures or equipment exceed 200 feet
above ground level or exceed a 100:1 surface
from any point on the runway within 20,000
feet of Iowa City Municipal AIrport, FAA Form
7460-01 (Notice of Proposed Construction or
Alteration) must be submitted to FAA at least
45 days prior to construction.
Utilities The proposed project is anticipated to impact
utilities along the corridor.
Coordinate with utility companies during
design. Utility relocations to be coordinated
through the County or the Contractor.
Final October 2024
Environmental Review MPOJC
CRANDIC BRT Study March 2024
29
4.0 References
42 USC 2000d et seq. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
59 FR 7629. February 11, 1994. Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in
Minority and Low-Income Populations.
City of Coralville (Coralville). 2014. City of Coralville, Iowa Comprehensive Plan. Accessed from: City of
North Liberty (North Liberty). 2023. North Liberty Comprehensive Plan – Connected to Tomorrow.
Accessed from: https://rdgusa.mysocialpinpoint.com/nlplanning/homepage
City of Iowa City (Iowa City). 2024. IC2030: Comprehensive Plan Update (Updated January 2024). Accessed
from: https://www.icgov.org/government/departments-and-divisions/neighborhood-and-
development-services/development-services/urban-planning/comprehensive-and-district-planning
City of Iowa City. 2024. Historic Preservation Web Page. Accessed from:
https://www.icgov.org/government/departments-and-divisions/neighborhood-and-development-
services/development-services/historic-preservation
City of North Liberty (North Liberty). 2023. North Liberty Comprehensive Plan – Connected to Tomorrow.
Accessed from: https://rdgusa.mysocialpinpoint.com/nlplanning/homepage
Cornell Lab of Ornithology (Cornell). 2024. eBird – Golden Eagles Sightings (2019-2024). Access from:
https://ebird.org/home
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter V., F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater
Habitats of the United States. United States Fish and Wildlife Service Report No. FWS/OBS/-79/31.
Washington, DC.
Environmental Protection Agency. 2024. EJScreen: Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping Tool.
Accessed from: https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen
Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2024. National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) Viewer. Accessed from:
https://hazards-
fema.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8b0adb51996444d4879338b5529aa9cd
HDR. 2018. Iowa City-Oakdale CRANDIC Corridor Right-of-Way Rails-to-Trails Conversion Study Final Report.
Accessed from: https://www.iowa-
city.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=1860915&dbid=0&repo=CityofIowaCity
Iowa Department of Natural Resources (Iowa DNR). 2022. 2022 Iowa Integrated Report. Accessed frinL
https://programs.iowadnr.gov/adbnet/Assessments/Summary/2022#:~:text=Iowa%20DNR%20sub
mitted%20the%202022,EPA%20on%20April%2029%2C%202022.
Iowa DNR. 2024a. ADBNet. Accessed from:
https://programs.iowadnr.gov/adbnet?_gl=1*8z37gd*_gcl_au*NTczNDY5MzMxLjE3MDc4MzE5ND
Y
Final October 2024
Environmental Review MPOJC
CRANDIC BRT Study March 2024
30
Iowa DNR. 2024b. Source Water Mapper. Accessed from:
https://programs.iowadnr.gov/sourcewater/maps/index.html?_gl=1*ydorhy*_gcl_au*NTczNDY5M
zMxLjE3MDc4MzE5NDY
Iowa DNR. 2024c. Natural Areas Inventory – Johnson County. Accessed from:
https://programs.iowadnr.gov/naturalareasinventory/pages/Query.aspx?_gl=1*q1m7x4*_gcl_au*
MTUwMjk0NDI2NC4xNjg3NDY1OTU2
Iowa DNR. 2024d. Contaminated Sites. Accessed from:
https://programs.iowadnr.gov/contaminatedsites/home/allsitesmap
Iowa DNR. 2024e. Underground Storage Tanks Database – Leaking underground storage tanks. Accessed
from: https://programs.iowadnr.gov/tanks/pages/advanced.aspx
Iowa DNR. 2024f. Bionet Web Paged. Accessed from:
https://programs.iowadnr.gov/bionet/Docs/Ecoregions/47f
Iowa Department of Transportation. 2023. Instructional Memorandum No. 4.110. Accessed from:
https://www.iowadot.gov/local_systems/publications/im/4110.pdf
Iowa State Historical Society. 2024. State Historic Sites. Accessed from:
https://history.iowa.gov/history/sites
Land and Water Conservation Fund. 2024. The Land and Water Conservation Fund Web page. Accessed
from: https://lwcfcoalition.org/map
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). 1981. 36 CFR Part 60.
National Parks Service (NPS). 2024. National Register of Historic Places. Accessed from:
https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9-b808-4ff8-a2f9-a99909164466
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2024. EPA’s Environmental Justice Screen and
Mapping Tool (Version 2020). Access from: https://ejscreen.epa.gov/mapper/
United States EPA. 2021b. Nonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants (Green Book). Access from:
https://www.epa.gov/green-book
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Minnesota-Wisconsin Field Office. 2023. Rusty Patch
Bumble Bee Map. Accessed from:
https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=2716d871f88042a2a56b8001a1f1acae
USFWS. 2024a. National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Layer. Accessed from:
http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html.
USFWS. 2024b. Information for Planning and Consulting (IPaC). Accessed from:
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/
United States Geological Service (USGS). 2024. The National Map Viewer with 1 acre-second National
Elevation Dataset (NED) and National Hydrography Dataset (NHD). Accessed from:
http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer
Final October 2024
Environmental Review MPOJC
CRANDIC BRT Study March 2024
31
University of Iowa. 2024. Iowa Geological Survey Web page. Accessed from:
https://iowageologicalsurvey.uiowa.edu/
Final October 2024
Appendix G
Appendix G. CIG Analysis
Final October 2024
2 BRYANT STREET, SUITE 300 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105 415-284-1544 FAX 503-228-2320
nelsonnygaard.com
MEMORANDUM
To: Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
From: Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates
Date: August 14, 2024
Subject: Capital Investments Grants (CIG) Analysis
The FTA Capital Investments Grants (CIG) program is administered by the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) to fund major capital expenses for expansion and core capacity projects.
The CIG program’s rating criteria are codified at 49 U.S.C. § 5309, and FTA currently
administers the program in accordance with its Final Interim Policy Guidance published in
June 2016.
This report summarizes the estimated federal funding ratings of the Capital Investment Grant
(CIG) program for qualifying multimodal projects.
This CIG analysis:
Allows potential project sponsors to quickly determine a project’s (or projects’)
estimated CIG rating based on a technical analysis performed to date, but ahead
of detailed technical analysis and/or a formal FTA CIG rating evaluation.
Makes the estimated CIG rating performance easier to communicate to others via
unique graphics and visualization.
Allows potential project sponsors to analyze how the potential CIG rating may
differ due to changes in the project’s outcomes. During project development,
project benefits and costs usually shift in response to updated project information
and design details.
This section provides potential project sponsors with an assessment of how a potential
transit capital project may fare under current CIG standards and thresholds.
CIG Inputs
FTA’s CIG rating estimation uses a few STOPS ridership matrices like Project total linked trips,
new transit linked trips, transit dependent linked trips, and vehicle miles traveled (VMT). In
addition to STOPS ridership output, project costs such as Capital and Operation and
Maintenance costs are also needed to estimate CIG rating. Table 1 offers inputs required to
estimate a CIG rating for three alternative corridors according to FTA’s CIG estimation criteria.
Final October 2024
Capital Investments Grants (CIG) Analysis
Metropolitan Planning Organization of Johnson County
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 2
Table 1: Project Ridership Summary
Matrices Year Alternative 1 Alternative 5 Alternative 7
Project Total
Trips
2023 3,705 3,665 3,560
2045 4,440 4,360 4,150
New Transit
Trips
2023 2,190 2,100 2,075
2045 2,680 2,575 2,485
Transit Dependent
Trips
2023 365 390 350
2045 400 430 375
Vehicle Miles
Traveled (VMT)
2023 (10,005) (9,620) (9,675)
2045 (12,125) (11,735) (11,505)
Capital Cost
(Millions of $) 2024 92.85 91.95 92.95
Operation and
Maintenance Cost
(Millions of $)
2024 1.74 2.36 1.78
Federal Share 2023 50% 50% 50%
Annualization Factor 2023 300 300 300
Please note federal share of 50% and an annualization factor of 300 are used to analyze the
CIG rating for this practice. Also, a simplified analysis of Land use, Economic Development,
and Local Financial Commitment Ratings was performed for this effort. As the project
develops, additional quantitative analysis is required to confirm these ratings and/or
determine if a higher rating is possible.
CIG Rating
A project’s eligibility for CIG funding is determined by averaging FTA’s Project Justification
and Local Financial Commitment ratings. The Project Justification rating is comprised of six
scores:
Mobility Improvements - Weighted number of passenger trips per average
weekday, with transit dependent trips weighted twice the amount.
Cost Effectiveness - For Small Starts projects, this is the annualized federal share
of capital costs divided by annual trips on project
Congestion Relief - Additional systemwide linked transit trips as compared to the
No-Build alternative
Final October 2024
Capital Investments Grants (CIG) Analysis
Metropolitan Planning Organization of Johnson County
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 3
Environmental Benefits - Take into consideration change in air quality criteria
pollutants, change in energy use, change in greenhouse gas emissions and change
in safety, computed by the change in vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
Land Use - Takes into consideration employment served, average population
density adjacent to stations, typical CBD parking cost per average weekday and
ratio of parking spaces to employees within the CBD and level of legally binding
affordable housing in corridor. For purposes of this project, a medium rating of
"3" has been assumed (out of a scale of 1 to 5)
Economic Development - Assessment of transit-supportive development plans
and policies in the corridor. For purposes of this project, a medium rating of "3"
has been assumed (out of a scale of 1 to 5)
A project cannot be recommended for CIG funding unless the overall project rating is
Medium or higher. FTA also requires that the Project Justification and Local Financial
Commitment ratings individually must be Medium or higher to achieve a Medium or higher
project rating. If the average of the Project Justification and Local Financial Commitment
ratings is Medium or higher, but both ratings are not Medium or higher, the project is
assigned a Medium-Low rating. The FTA guidance also offers the opportunity for projects to
bypass the ratings if certain ridership and cost warrants are met. All CRANDIC alternatives
meet this threshold.
Each of the corridors is anticipated to receive at least a Medium rating for Project
Justification and a Medium rating for Local Financial Commitment, resulting in an overall
Medium rating, which is eligible for CIG funding. Additional quantitative analysis is required
to justify increasing the Land Use and Economic Development components of the Project
Justification. Further, significant reductions in cost or increases in projected ridership would
be required to influence the Mobility, Cost-Effectiveness, or Congestion Relief score enough
to change the project’s rating.
The following figures represent a summary of inputs and rating results are provided for each
alternative discretely.
Final October 2024
Capital Investments Grants (CIG) Analysis
Metropolitan Planning Organization of Johnson County
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 4
Figure 1: Summary of CIG Rating Results for Alternative 1
Final October 2024
Capital Investments Grants (CIG) Analysis
Metropolitan Planning Organization of Johnson County
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 5
Figure 2: Summary of CIG Rating Results for Alternative 5
Final October 2024
Capital Investments Grants (CIG) Analysis
Metropolitan Planning Organization of Johnson County
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 6
Figure 3: Summary of CIG Rating Results for Alternative 7
Summary
To optimize eligibility and competitiveness for federal funding, additional sub-alternatives
could be examined for impact on ridership and cost. Sub-alternatives could look at station
refinements and alternatives to high-cost aerial structures, building on the Engineering
Feasibility Study. Each of the three alternatives is anticipated to score at least Medium for
FTA CIG scoring. Additional land use and economic development analysis is required to
determine if a higher score can be achieved, which is required for entry into the CIG program.
The three alternatives were analyzed for funding eligibility using the FTA CIG rating process.
A summary of the rating results of all three alternatives is presented here.
Final October 2024
Capital Investments Grants (CIG) Analysis
Metropolitan Planning Organization of Johnson County
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 7
Table 2: Alternatives Comparison
Alternative
2045
Ridership
Projection
Cost
Estimate
(2024$)
CIG
Rating Additional Considerations
1 4,430 $92.85
million Medium Additional quantitative analysis
is required for Land Use,
Economic Development, and
Local financial commitment
criteria
5 4,375 $91.95
million Medium
7 4,165 $92.95
million Medium
Figure 4: CIG Rating of Alternatives 1, 5 and 7
Final October 2024
PREPARED FOR:
METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION
OF JOHNSON COUNTY
410 E WASHINGTON ST
IOWA CITY, IOWA
PREPARED BY:
OCTOBER 2024
RAIL CORRIDOR
ON THE CRANDIC
BUS RAPIDTRANSIT FEASIBILITY
1300 WALNUT ST. STE 101
DES MOINES, IA
50309
Final October 2024