File preview

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