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
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