Project Connect January 2014 Regional Challenges & Opportunities Centers Core Constraints Growth Congestion 2 Project Connect Vision 3 Project Development Process 4 1 Project Connect Corridors NORTH · 9 Project NORTHWEST Connect Corridors · 5 High Priority: · · · · · North East Southwest Northwest Central EAST CENTRAL SOUTHWEST 5 Project Connect Next Steps 6 North Corridor 7 North Corridor Purpose & Need CENTER S CONGESTI ON 6 of the 100 most congested roadways in Texas are in the North Corridor Central Austin, Webberville, Mueller, Highland Mall, SH130 & US290, North Burnet Gateway, Tech Ridge, Howard Lane, Pflugerville, I-35 & SH45 North, Round Rock, Hutto, University Boulevard, Georgetown CORRIDO R 58% of all jobs in the region will be in the corridor by 2035. Population: 99% increase (2010-2035) Employment: 83% increase (2010-2035) GROWT H · Limited right-ofway for roadway expansion · Limited funding for roadway expansion · Few east-west highways or arterial streets 8 CONSTRAIN TS North Corridor Study Area · Georgetown to Downtown Austin · Bounded by MOPAC on west and SH-130 on east 9 North Corridor Alternatives Analysis What are the mobility problems in the corridor? What are their underlying causes? What are the viable options to address these problems? · What are their costs? · What are their benefits? · What are the constraints? 10 Feedback from Phase 1 Include SH 130/Hutto Connect centers, not just downtown Austin Must be convenient to home & work (via Park & Rides) Use SH 130 in some alternatives Concern running MoKan through Pflugerville 11 North Corridor : Planning Process 12 2 Central Corridor 13 1 Project Connect Corridors NORTH · 9 Project NORTHWEST Connect Corridors · 5 High Priority: · · · · · North East Southwest Northwest Central EAST CENTRAL SOUTHWEST 14 2 Central Corridor Work Plan Phases Decision-Making Process ·Phase 1: Select Priority Sub-Corridor ­ `Where are we going... next?' ·Phase 2: Select Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) ­ `How will we get there?' 15 3 Central Corridor Public Involvement 16 3 Step 3 Public Involvement · Three public workshops ­ Norris Conference Center (Anderson Lane) 11/5 --40+ participants ­ Faith United Methodist (South Lamar) 11/6 -- 30+ participants ­ St. David's Episcopal (Downtown) 11 /7-- 50+ participants · Webinar 11/6 ­ 60 participants 17 3 Step 3 Recent Public Engagement · Online Survey/Evaluation Tool ­ Beta live 11/8 ­ Unprecedented transparency ­ 210+ surveys · Stakeholder Group Briefings, including ­ 12/4 Alliance for Public Transportation · Televised Community Conversation ­ 11/26 18 4 Recommendatio n Summary 19 4 Evaluation Approach · 10 sub-corridors identified + Core · Comparison of sub-corridors for high-capacity transit (HCT) suitability · No single factor tells the whole story 20 4 Project Team ERC 70 Highland 61 Lamar 53 Mueller 52 East Austin 50 SoCo 44 West Austin 33 MLK 27 Mopac 27 SoLa 24 Evaluation Results Current Focus Future Focus CCAG ERC Highland Mueller Lamar East Austin SoCo West Austin SoLa MLK Mopac 58 58 51 48 45 41 32 22 22 18 Public* ERC 72 Highland 65 Mueller 56 Lamar 51 East Austin 49 SoCo 46 West Austin 42 MLK 30 Mopac 29 SoLa 28 Equal Weight ERC 60 Highland 57 Mueller 51 Lamar 50 East Austin 47 SoCo 43 West Austin 32 MLK 25 SoLa 22 Mopac 21 Serving Criteria Only ERC 55 East Austin 53 Lamar 53 West Austin 52 Highland 47 Mueller 45 SoCo 37 Mopac 36 MLK 31 SoLa 16 Shaping Criteria Only ERC 57 Highland 52 Mueller 44 Lamar 42 SoCo 38 East Austin 34 West Austin 28 SoLa 21 MLK 18 Mopac 11 Key Findings · ERC & Highland are top performers From various perspectives · Weightings do not change the overall results · All sub-corridors could support Evaluation scores can only be compared within each column. *Three public workshops input. 21 4 Initial Recommendation · Highland are consistently in the top two · Advance both into Phase 2 ­ Develop best project East Riverside & Highland East Riverside (ERC) and · Balanced recommendation ­ System Development ­ Shaping Characteristics ­ Serving Characteristics 22 5 Evaluation Summary 23 5 Project Team ERC 70 Highland 61 Lamar 53 Mueller 52 East Austin 50 SoCo 44 West Austin 33 MLK 27 Mopac 27 SoLa 24 Evaluation Results Current Focus Future Focus CCAG ERC Highland Mueller Lamar East Austin SoCo West Austin SoLa MLK Mopac 58 58 51 48 45 41 32 22 22 18 Public* ERC 72 Highland 65 Mueller 56 Lamar 51 East Austin 49 SoCo 46 West Austin 42 MLK 30 Mopac 29 SoLa 28 Equal Weight ERC 60 Highland 57 Mueller 51 Lamar 50 East Austin 47 SoCo 43 West Austin 32 MLK 25 SoLa 22 Mopac 21 Serving Criteria Only ERC 55 East Austin 53 Lamar 53 West Austin 52 Highland 47 Mueller 45 SoCo 37 Mopac 36 MLK 31 SoLa 16 Shaping Criteria Only ERC 57 Highland 52 Mueller 44 Lamar 42 SoCo 38 East Austin 34 West Austin 28 SoLa 21 MLK 18 Mopac 11 Key Findings · ERC & Highland are top performers From various perspectives · Weightings do not change the overall results · Evaluation scores can only be compared within each column. *Three public workshops input. 24 5 · Toward a Recommendation ­ Highland Ranking Highland 2 5 22 52 23 55 33 6 19 25 8 25 16 19 21 10 13 12 25 Keys to Highland Congestion Congestion Index ­ Scored in the top two due to Growth and Travel Demand Index Congestion criteria ­ Strong in all other criteria Constraints & Growth ­ Significant development plans Growth Index Constraint Index ­ Limited additional roadway network and capacity Core ­ A focal point of all three Project Connect: Affordability Index North Corridor final alternatives Econ Development Index ­ Served by MetroRail (Highland Station) Centers · TIGER Grant-funded improvements ­ Added track/sidings will reduce headways from 34 minutes to 17 minutes at peak times ­ Allows 4 train runs during peak hours instead of 2 Centers Index Consistency with Plans System Future Ridership Potential Current Ridership Potential Connectivity Index Transit Demand Index 5 · Toward a Recommendation - ERC ERC Ranking 1 5 25 57 19 56 16 8 27 33 10 40 8 27 29 16 22 15 26 Keys to East Riverside (ERC) ­ Scored #1 in all scenarios ­ Best responds to all problems · Highest on 3 of 5, Congestion, Centers, and System · Second highest on Growth and Core Congestion Congestion Index Travel Demand Index Constraints & Growth Growth Index Constraint Index ­ High existing densities and potential growth · Population and employment Core Affordability Index Econ Development Index ­ ­ ­ ­ High existing ridership High future ridership potential Not currently served by HCT Constraints are a challenge · Lady Bird Lake and I-35 crossings Centers Centers Index Consistency with Plans System Future Ridership Potential Current Ridership Potential Connectivity Index Transit Demand Index 5 Initial Recommendation · Highland are consistently in the top two · Advance both into Phase 2 ­ Develop best project East Riverside & Highland East Riverside (ERC) and · Balanced recommendation ­ System Development ­ Shaping Characteristics ­ Serving Characteristics 27 6 Central Corridor Next Steps 28 6 The Road to the Priority SubCorridor Board & Council Briefings · December 10 ­ Austin City Council · CCAG Meetings November 1 ­ Present Data (2 of 2) ­ Evaluation Process ­ Public Comment · · December 11 ­ Capital Metro Board · November 15 ­ Evaluation Results ­ Project Team Recommendations ­ Public Comment March 7 ­ Lone Star Board · December 6 ­ Public Comment ­ CCAG Action 29 2 Central Corridor Work Plan & Schedule Decision-Making Process ·Phase 2: Select Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) 30 THANK YOU Information: More Project Connect & Central Corridor HCT Study projectconnect.com