January 2018 Final Phase 2 Initial Screening Memorandum
This page intentionally left blank
Table of Contents 1. Introduction... 1 1.1 Project Area, Context, and Description... 1 1.2 Study Evaluation Process and Phasing... 1 2. Purpose of this Memorandum... 5 2.1 Overview of Phase 2... 8 2.2 Overview of Investment Corridor Screening... 9 2.2.1 Mode (Technology) Assessment... 9 2.2.2 Connector Corridor Screening... 9 2.3 Overview of Enhancement Projects Screening... 9 2.3.1 Enhancement Project Compatibility/Integration... 10 2.3.2 Gap Analysis... 10 3. Phase 2 Investment Corridor Initial Screening Methodology... 11 3.1 Mode (Technology) Assessment... 12 3.1.1 Typical Capital Cost per Mile... 12 3.1.2 Typical Route Length... 13 3.1.3 Operations and Maintenance Cost per Revenue Hour... 13 3.1.4 Typical Weekday Ridership... 14 3.1.5 Past Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grant Funding... 14 3.1.6 Timeframe for Implementation... 15 3.1.7 Economic Development Potential... 15 3.1.8 Average Travel Speed... 15 3.1.9 Mode (Technology) Assessment Results... 16 3.2 Connector Corridor Screening... 19 3.2.1 Current Corridor Ridership... 20 3.2.2 Income-Rent Balance... 20 3.2.3 Zero-Car Households... 21 3.2.4 Corridor Employment... 21 3.2.5 Corridor Population Density... 22 3.2.6 Local Project Coordination... 22 3.2.7 Downtown Segment (#99)... 23 3.2.8 Connector Corridor Screening Results... 24 4. Phase 2 Enhancement Project Screening Methodology... 27 4.1 Enhancement Project Gap Analysis... 28 4.1.1 Overview... 28 4.1.2 Phase 1 Survey Results... 29 4.1.3 Enhancement Project Gap Analysis Recommendations... 31 4.2 Enhancement Project Phase 2 Initial Screening Results... 33 5. Next Steps: Phase 2 Detailed Definition of Alternatives... 38 5.1 Partner Projects and Initiatives... 38 5.2 Investment Corridor Alignment and Logical Termini Options... 39 Doc Control# 531.02
List of Figures Figure 1-1: Project Connect Regional Study Area and Focus Area... 2 Figure 1-2: Project Connect Study Phases... 4 Figure 2-1: Phase 1 Investment Corridor Recommendations... 6 Figure 2-2: Phase 1 Enhancement Project Recommendations... 7 Figure 2-3: Phase 2 Investment Corridor Workflow... 8 Figure 2-4: Phase 2 Enhancement Project Workflow... 8 Figure 3-1: Investment Corridor Alternative Definition Components... 11 Figure 3-2: Phase 2 Connector Corridor Screening Criteria... 20 Figure 3-3: Downtown Austin Connector Corridor Segment #99... 24 Figure 4-1: Enhancement Project Gap Analysis Summary... 29 Figure 4-2: Phase 2 MetroExpress Enhancement Projects... 34 Figure 4-3: Phase 2 MetroRail Enhancement Projects... 35 Figure 4-4: Phase 2 MetroRapid Enhancement Projects... 36 Figure 4-5: Phase 2 Mobility Hubs Enhancement Projects... 37 Figure 5-1: Phase 2 Connector Corridors and Possible Extensions... 41 List of Tables Table 3-1: Phase 1 Investment Corridors... 11 Table 3-2: Phase 2 Mode (Technology) Assessment Results... 18 Table 3-3: Phase 2 Connector Corridor Screening Results... 26 Table 4-1: Phase 1 Enhancement Project Recommendations... 27 Table 4-2: Most A-C-R Responses (by Location)... 30 Table 4-3: Most S-I-T Responses (by Location)... 30 Table 4-4: Most A-C-R Comments (Non-Location-Specific, by Service Type)... 31 Table 4-5: Most S-I-T Comments (Non-Location-Specific, by Service Type)... 31 Table 4-6: Enhancement Project Gap Analysis Recommendations... 32 Table 5-1: Regional Transportation Partners and Coordinated Planning Initiatives... 38 Table 5-2: Potential Phase 2 Connector Corridor Extension Options... 39 Doc Control# 531.02
1. Introduction 1.1 Project Area, Context, and Description Project Connect is a 30-month project being led by the Capital Metro Transportation Authority (CMTA) that will identify, analyze, and prioritize potential high-capacity transit solutions to facilitate travel into, out of, and within Central Austin. The project objectives will focus on enhancements to transit services and infrastructure that would improve existing high-capacity transit services (MetroRail, MetroRapid, and MetroExpress). Additionally, this project will examine corridors that may be suitable for the implementation of future high-capacity transit solutions. Project Connect builds on the Project Connect Central Texas High-Capacity Transit System Plan (2012) that outlined and established a framework for moving forward with developing high-capacity transit in the region. The project worked with regional partners and community stakeholders to define how transit should evolve in the region, how the system and expansions would be financed, and what regional partnerships could be organized to develop and operate the system. Today, Project Connect has a defined Focus Area in Central Austin that is generally bounded by US 183 to the north and east, Mopac Expressway (SL 1) to the west, and US 290/Ben White Boulevard to the south. While the Focus Area examines a more centralized area of service, the project also includes a regional Study Area that provides connections to the Focus Area from the surrounding five-county metropolitan statistical area of Bastrop, Caldwell, Hays, Travis, and Williamson counties. Figure 1-1 displays the mutual relationship between the Study Area and the Focus Area. Due to unprecedented employment and population growth, the Central Texas region is approaching a critical juncture for addressing the mounting transportation needs that are affecting all of the communities, agencies, and regional partners who can collectively build a more connected region. It is clear that a comprehensive set of mobility solutions is needed to support and sustain the continued success of the region. Since the 1980s, Central Texas has been studying opportunities to implement high-capacity transit service (initially focusing on light rail investment) in the region. Project Connect began the process by reviewing locally-adopted, community-supported, or agency-produced transportation plans that identify potential high-capacity transit projects, starting with CMTA s first application for capital funding to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) in 2000. 1.2 Study Evaluation Process and Phasing Project Connect is following a three-phase process to develop and evaluate alternatives for highcapacity transit investment (Investment Corridors) and enhancements to existing MetroRail, MetroRapid, and MetroExpress service (Enhancement Projects). The Corridors and Projects will be evaluated concurrently and generally following the same methodology, but will be evaluated separately so Corridors will only be compared to Corridors, and Projects will only be compared to Projects. This process will help to ensure an apples-to-apples comparison of the various Corridors and Projects. The outcome of Project Connect will be a program of projects for implementation, including Investment Corridors and Enhancement Projects. Page 1 of 41 Doc Control# 531.02
Figure 1-1: Project Connect Regional Study Area and Focus Area The study goals and evaluation criteria identified for Project Connect were developed to largely align with the stated goals and objectives of CMTA and cooperating agencies, such as the City of Austin and FTA. The following goals have been established for Project Connect and serve as the foundation from which the evaluation criteria were developed. Details can be found in the Purpose and Need Memorandum and the Phase 1 Evaluation Criteria Memorandum. Customer Experience: Increase efficiency, attractiveness, and utilization of high-capacity transit service to/from/within Central Austin. Reliability: Provide frequent, reliable high-capacity transit service along dedicated right-of-way to/from/within Central Austin. Sustainability: Contribute to a socially, economically, and environmentally-sustainable highcapacity transit network. Land Use and Policy: Support compact and connected land use and development patterns. Page 2 of 41 Doc Control# 531.02
Implementation and Operations: Develop and select constructible, affordable, and communitysupported transit projects for implementation. A summary of the three Project Connect evaluation phases is outlined below and shown on Figure 1-2. Phase 2 is described in more detail in Chapter 2 of this report, and detail regarding the Phase 2 evaluation criteria can be found in Chapters 3 and 4 of this report. Phase 1: Investment Corridors and Enhancement Projects were identified by reviewing locallyadopted, community-supported, or agency-produced transportation plans that identify potential high-capacity transit projects. A full list of the studies and plans that were consulted is included in the Enhancement Project and Investment Corridor Identification Methodology report. Through this effort, 29 Corridors and 44 Projects were identified by CMTA staff in coordination with study committee members. These Projects and Corridors are being subjected to a two-step evaluation process that included quantitative and qualitative components. Based on the evaluation results, Projects and Corridors were broken into three tiers. Projects and Corridors identified as Tier 1 were recommended for further study in Phase 2. Projects and Corridors identified as Tier 2 or 3 were removed from further consideration. The outcome of the Phase 1 evaluation was a list of Corridors and Projects to move forward into Phase 2. Phase 2 includes the detailed definition and evaluation of the Corridors and Projects that scored in Tier 1 of the Phase 1 evaluation. Project- and Corridor-specific information will be generated to help support detailed evaluation, including capital costs, operating and maintenance (O&M) costs, ridership forecasts, socioeconomic impacts, environmental impacts, traffic and parking impacts, and a number of other factors. The outcome of this phase will be a list of Corridors and Projects to move forward for refinement in Phase 3. Phase 3 will include the refinement of the Projects and Corridors recommended for further study in Phase 2. The Corridors and Projects will be optimized during Phase 3 to maximize competitiveness in the FTA s New/Small Starts capital funding program (for Corridors) and to balance benefits, impacts, costs, and funding sources (for Projects). The outcome of Phase 3 will be the identification of Corridors to take forward in a capital funding application to FTA through the New/Small Starts Capital Investment Grant (CIG) Program and the identification of Projects for CMTA to implement as capital and operating funding sources are identified and available. Page 3 of 41 Doc Control# 531.02
Figure 1-2: Project Connect Study Phases Page 4 of 41 Doc Control# 531.02
2. Purpose of this Memorandum Project Connect completed the Phase 1 evaluation of preliminary Investment Corridors and Enhancement Projects on June 26, 2017, with the CMTA s adoption of the resolution approving the results of the Phase 1 evaluation. Phase 1 identified 18 potential high-capacity transit Investment Corridors for detailed definition and evaluation in Phase 2 (see Figure 2-1). Investment Corridors are categorized according to the travel markets they serve: Commuters, Connectors, or Circulators. Commuter Corridors are typically established highway or rail corridors that travel through suburban and rural environments. Commuter Corridors most often take users from the Study Area to the Central Austin Focus Area (exurbs to downtown). Connector Corridors serve high population and high employment dense areas with multiple concentrations of activity centers. They connect multiple modes of density. Circulators Corridors mainly provide service within Austin s downtown area (central business district) and the areas immediately around downtown. The Phase 1 evaluation of preliminary Investment Corridors recommended 3 Commuters, 12 Connectors, and 3 Circulators for further evaluation in Phase 2. The CMTA Board resolution also approved 19 Enhancement Projects for Phase 2 (see Figure 2-2). Enhancement Projects are categorized by the type of existing high-capacity transit service they would potentially improve. MetroRail: Red Line commuter rail service MetroRapid: Rapid Bus routes 801 and 803 MetroExpress: Express bus routes Mobility Hubs: Identified through the Connections 2025 service plan update The Phase 1 evaluation of preliminary Enhancement Projects recommended three MetroRail, five MetroRapid, two MetroExpress, and nine Mobility Hubs for further evaluation in Phase 2. Phase 2 focuses on detailed definition and evaluation of potential high-capacity transit solutions (alternatives) and selection of locally preferred alternatives (LPAs). Alternatives will be developed to include different combinations of Service operation, Infrastructure, and Technology (S-I-T) recommendations for Corridors and Projects. The LPAs will consist of Investment Corridors and Enhancement Projects selected for implementation by the project team (CMTA and consultant staff), Central Texas agency stakeholders, and affected communities. To ensure consistency when developing alternatives for Investment Corridors and Enhancement Projects, the Phase 2 process applied an initial screening of S-I-T components that may be included in the detailed alternatives, which will be developed during the remainder of Phase 2. This document identifies the approaches, methodologies, and results of the Phase 2 initial screening. Page 5 of 41 Doc Control# 531.02
Figure 2-1: Phase 1 Investment Corridor Recommendations Page 6 of 41 Doc Control# 531.02
Figure 2-2: Phase 1 Enhancement Project Recommendations Page 7 of 41 Doc Control# 531.02
2.1 Overview of Phase 2 The goal of Phase 2 is to determine how the CMTA high-capacity transit system should grow, the investments needed to facilitate that growth, and the right types of infrastructure and vehicles to meet both future demand and constraints. Phase 2 includes a multi-level screening of the Phase 1 Investment Corridors and Enhancement Projects, and is designed to define the appropriate combination of S-I-T options that should be used to develop draft alternatives for further refinement in Phase 3. The Phase 2 initial screening of Investment Corridors featured two distinct components: Mode (Technology) Assessment: Pair modes with appropriate Corridor market types. Connector Corridor Screening: Prioritize the list of Phase 1 Connector Corridor recommendations for detailed definition. Figure 2-3 illustrates the Phase 2 Investment Corridor workflow. The mode assessment and corridor screening will be followed by development of detailed alternatives through the combination of modes/guideway options and market types. The Phase 2 initial screening of Enhancement Projects involved two decision points: Phase 1 Enhancement Project Compatibility/Integration: Identify CMTA and partner agency constraints that must be addressed to implement Phase 1 recommended projects. Gap Analysis: Ensure that the Phase 2 Enhancement Projects address the most significant needs of the existing MetroRail, MetroRapid, MetroExpress, and Mobility Hubs. Figure 2-4 illustrates the workflow for identification of Gap Analysis Projects and the refinement of Phase 1 Enhancement Projects for evaluation in Phase 2. Figure 2-3: Phase 2 Investment Corridor Workflow Figure 2-4: Phase 2 Enhancement Project Workflow Page 8 of 41 Doc Control# 531.02
2.2 Overview of Investment Corridor Screening 2.2.1 Mode (Technology) Assessment The purpose of the Mode (Technology) Assessment was to identify viable high-capacity transit modes that could potentially be implemented in the Phase 2 Investment Corridors. The assessment did not link transit modes to specific corridors, but to market types (Commuter, Connector, Circulator). This approach enabled the project team to streamline the assessment process by focusing on the combinations of mode and market that had the highest likelihood of success. The Mode (Technology) Assessment included the following transit technology modes: Bus (arterial and dedicated bus rapid transit [BRT]) Rail (streetcar, light rail transit [LRT], commuter rail transit [CRT], and heavy rail transit [HRT]) Emerging transit technologies (autonomous vehicles, electric bus, and gondola) BRT Streetcar LRT CRT HRT Emerging Technologies The project team analyzed peer agencies nationwide for best practices related to each high-capacity transit mode. The team also considered the typical travel market characteristics of the Commuter, Connector, and Circulator Corridors. The project team used transit service characteristics such as trip purpose, trip length, average travel speed, weekday ridership capacity, and capital and annual O&M cost to match high-capacity transit modes (bus, rail, emerging transit technology) with the Corridor market types (Commuter, Connector, Circulator). Details of the Mode (Technology) Assessment methodology and results are included in Section 3.1. 2.2.2 Connector Corridor Screening The Phase 1 evaluation identified Investment Corridors that best meet the project goals and objectives (as defined in the project Purpose and Need Statement), and are most likely to be competitive for FTA CIG program funding opportunities. The final list of Phase 1 Investment Corridors consisted of: 3 Commuter Corridors 12 Connector Corridors 3 Circulator Corridors Due to a limited amount of resources available to develop detailed alternative solutions, the project team began Phase 2 with a high-level screening of the Phase 1 Connector Corridors. Details of the Connector Corridor screening are included in Section 3.2. 2.3 Overview of Enhancement Projects Screening Enhancement Projects are designed to improve the operations and ridership of existing high-capacity transit services. Enhancement Projects would not adversely impact or interfere with new Investment Corridors. The Enhancement Project screening approach consisted of a two-step process: Page 9 of 41 Doc Control# 531.02
Phase 1 Enhancement Project Compatibility/Integration: Identify CMTA and partner agency constraints that must be addressed to implement Phase 1 recommended projects. Gap Analysis: Ensure that the Phase 2 Enhancement Projects address the most significant needs of the existing MetroRail, MetroRapid, MetroExpress, and Mobility Hubs. Details of the Enhancement Project screening are included in Chapter 4. 2.3.1 Enhancement Project Compatibility/Integration The Phase 2 screening of Enhancement Projects assessed the degree to which these Projects overlap with projects identified in the CMTA Short Range Planning and Long-Range Planning (Project Connect) and any required implementation coordination with partner agencies. 2.3.2 Gap Analysis The screening also identified additional Enhancement Projects based on community input from the Phase 1 online survey. Feedback received during the survey period identified general S-I-T concerns regarding existing MetroRail, MetroRapid, MetroExpress, and Mobility Hub services, and issues at specific high-capacity transit stations that were not addressed by the Phase 1 Enhancement Projects. Page 10 of 41 Doc Control# 531.02
3. Phase 2 Investment Corridor Initial Screening Methodology The Phase 1 evaluation process resulted in the advancement of 18 potential high-capacity transit Investment Corridors for detailed definition and evaluation in Phase 2 (Table 3-1). The definition of Phase 2 Investment Corridors involved identifying the combination of mode, guideway, technology, and service operating conditions that best serve the needs of each Corridor (Figure 3-1). Table 3-1: Phase 1 Investment Corridors Commuter Connector Circulator IH 35 Green Line MetroRail Red Line 7th/Lake Austin Airport Boulevard Congress S Lamar N Lamar/Guadalupe MLK Jr. Oltorf Pleasant Valley Highland/Red River/Trinity Manor/Dean Keeton Riverside 45th/Burnet Downtown S Congress Red River Figure 3-1: Investment Corridor Alternative Definition Components Phase 2 used a streamlined process to limit the number of potential Investment Corridors to only those that best met the project s goals and objectives, as defined by the Purpose and Need Statement. The Phase 2 initial screening of Investment Corridors featured two distinct components: Page 11 of 41 Doc Control# 531.02
Mode (Technology) Assessment: Pair modes with appropriate Corridor market types. Connector Corridor Screening: Prioritize the list of Phase 1 Connector Corridor recommendations for detailed alternatives. 3.1 Mode (Technology) Assessment The first step in the Mode (Technology) Assessment was to identify modes that may be appropriate to provide high-capacity transit service. The assessment did not link modes with specific Investment Corridors, but was designed to link the modes with appropriate market types (Commuter, Connector, Circulator) to further define the Corridor alternatives. The mode technologies considered in the Mode (Technology) Assessment included: BRT: including alternative fuel vehicles Rail: Streetcar, LRT, CRT, HRT Emerging transit technologies: autonomous vehicles, electric bus, gondola Mode technologies were compared based on basic operating characteristics and national industry standards, which were reported for the following metrics: Typical capital cost per mile Typical route length O&M cost per revenue hour Typical weekday ridership Past FTA CIG funding Timeframe for implementation Economic development potential Average travel speed The following sections provide an overview of the metrics, including the methodology and data sources, that were applied during the Phase 2 Mode (Technology) Assessment. 3.1.1 Typical Capital Cost per Mile This criterion identifies the typical capital cost per mile of construction for dedicated guideway transit. This data point is an early indicator of overall financial viability. Methodology The typical capital cost per mile for each mode was calculated by averaging the capital costs of FTA New Starts CIG projects that are currently recommended for Full Funding Grant Agreements. An average permile capital cost of autonomous vehicles and aerial gondola was calculated because those modes have not been funded through the CIG program, and currently there is no standardized, reliable capital cost data source for them. Data Sources FTA New Starts CIG Projects Recommended for Full Funding Grant Agreements Page 12 of 41 Doc Control# 531.02
3.1.2 Typical Route Length This criterion identifies the average length of operational transit services (by mode) from peer agencies around the country. This criterion was designed to identify the typical corridor length that is considered appropriate for each mode, based on current operations. Methodology The typical route length for each mode was gathered from the list of New Starts CIG projects that were recommended for funding, as of July 2017. The average was calculated by using the following formula: Average route length per mode = (sum of project lengths per mode/number of projects per mode) The typical route length was not presented as a single data point, but was reported as a range in order to emphasize the varied nature of projects. For each mode, the projects were listed in order of their length and a range of typical project lengths was calculated through a rough standard deviation from the average value. For example, the average length of BRT projects was 10.08 miles, but the majority of projects range between 7 and 16 miles. The typical route length for aerial gondola was gathered through a comparison of two active transit aerial gondolas (Portland and Roosevelt Island). Data Sources New Starts CIG Projects Recommended for Full Funding Grant Agreements Portland Aerial Gondola in Portland, Oregon Roosevelt Island Tramway in New York, New York 3.1.3 Operations and Maintenance Cost per Revenue Hour This criterion identifies a typical range of O&M costs per revenue hour per mode type. This data point, like capital costs, is an early indicator of overall financial viability. Methodology The O&M costs per hour by mode were derived from an average of the 2015 National Transit Database data for operating expense per hour. The average was calculated by analyzing the sum of operation costs per revenue hour per mode divided by the number of projects per mode, as shown in the following formula: Average O&M costs per revenue hour = (sum of costs per mode/number of projects per mode) Similar to the typical route length criterion output, the O&M cost per revenue hour was not presented as a single data point, but was reported as a range in order to emphasize the varied nature of the projects. For each mode, the modes were listed in order of their O&M cost per revenue hour and a range of typical costs was calculated through a rough standard deviation from the average value. Page 13 of 41 Doc Control# 531.02
For example, the average cost per revenue hour of BRT projects was $127.03, but the majority of modes had costs per revenue hour between approximately $90 and $160. Data Sources National Transit Database (2015), Operating Expense per Hour Portland Aerial Gondola in Portland, Oregon Roosevelt Island Tramway in New York City, New York 3.1.4 Typical Weekday Ridership Typical weekday ridership is an important metric because it is an early step in matching corridor demand with transit mode capacity. Based on the anticipated or forecasted ridership demand in a proposed transit corridor, it is important to select a mode technology that is right-sized for the market that it will serve. Methodology The typical weekday ridership was gathered from the New Starts CIG projects that were recommended for funding, as of July 2017. The average weekday ridership by mode was calculated using the following formula: Average weekday ridership per mode = (sum of weekday riders per mode/number of projects per mode) The typical weekday ridership was not presented as a single data point, but was reported in a range in order to emphasize the varied nature of the projects. For each mode, the projects were listed in order of their weekday ridership. The range of weekday ridership was gathered through a rough standard deviation from the average value. The typical weekday ridership for aerial gondola was calculated through a comparison of two active transit aerial gondolas (Portland and Roosevelt Island). Data Sources New Starts CIG Projects Recommended for Full Funding Grant Agreements Portland Aerial Gondola in Portland, Oregon Roosevelt Island Tramway in New York, New York 3.1.5 Past Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grant Funding This criterion was designed to assess the likeliness of each mode to attract CIG funding, based on whether the mode was part of a project that had previously been funded through the CIG program. As stated in the Purpose and Need Statement, the ability to attract FTA CIG funding will be critical to project implementation. Methodology Annual funding recommendations from the FTA CIG program were reviewed to determine which modes have been used in projects that have received CIG funding. Page 14 of 41 Doc Control# 531.02
Data Sources Federal Transit Administration Annual Reports on Funding Recommendations (2000-2017) 3.1.6 Timeframe for Implementation The timeframe required to design and construct transit capital investments can be influenced by the mode technology that is selected. This criterion was designed to identify the typical timeframe that is required to design and construct projects using each mode under consideration. Methodology The typical implementation timeframe was calculated for each mode by reviewing the implementation schedules of projects that are currently recommended for CIG Full Funding Grant Agreements. Data Sources New Starts CIG Projects Recommended for Full Funding Grant Agreements (2000-2017) AECOM (standard implementation timeframes based on previous projects and professional expertise) 3.1.7 Economic Development Potential This criterion was designed to assess each mode s economic development potential and overall ability to induce additional investment. Methodology An analysis of peer cities with various modes of high capacity transit that are currently in operation, including New Starts CIG Projects, was completed. While the potential for catalysis of development is dependent upon several factors, a corollary relationship has been observed between capital investment in high capacity transit and economic development in locations where local policies and strong market conditions are supportive. Dependent upon mode technology, installing dedicated guideway transit solutions may require reconstructing major arterials, allowing for Complete Streets and Context Sensitive Solutions principles to be implemented. Data Sources New Starts CIG Projects Recommended for Full Funding Grant Agreements 3.1.8 Average Travel Speed Modes operate at different speeds due to design characteristics (dedicated right-of-way versus undedicated right-of-way) and market type served (Commuter, Connector, Circulator). This criterion was designed to identify the average travel speed per mode type. Methodology The average travel speed per mode was calculated based on a review of systems from across the country. Page 15 of 41 Doc Control# 531.02
Data Sources AECOM (average travel speed based on previous projects and professional expertise) 3.1.9 Mode (Technology) Assessment Results The results of the Mode (Technology) Assessment are summarized below and in Table 3-2. Mode Project Connect Assessment Dedicated BRT is recommended for further consideration in Phase 2 Commuter, Connector, and Circulator Corridors. BRT BRT in dedicated guideway is a cost-effective solution that can mimic rail operations, with a lower passenger capacity per vehicle. Dedicating roadway for bus can be installed cheaper and faster than rail. Streetcar is recommended for further consideration in Phase 2 Connector and Circulator Corridors. Streetcar Modern streetcars are higher capacity vehicles than bus and provide added economic development potential. While it can be used to serve longer corridors, it is typically operated as a downtown circulator or very dense urban areas. It has higher capital and annual operating costs for rail guideway and electrified systems. LRT is recommended for further consideration in Phase 2 Commuter and Connector Corridors. LRT LRT technology can couple multiple vehicles to carry very high passenger volumes along greater distances than streetcar. Vehicle length and conflicts with auto traffic may limit ability to operate in the densest areas, but it can contribute to economic development. It has higher capital and annual operating costs for rail guideway and electrified systems. CRT is recommended for further consideration in Phase 2 Commuter Corridors. CRT CRT is effective for moving large numbers of passengers over long distances during high demand periods, but can become costly to operate. It requires a completely separate guideway and may use various propulsion systems. HRT is NOT recommended for further consideration in Phase 2. HRT HRT has the greatest carrying capacity of all mode technologies considered, but is also the most expensive to construct and operate. The transit ridership demand on Project Connect Corridors does not support the investment in this technology at this time. Page 16 of 41 Doc Control# 531.02
Mode Project Connect Assessment Aerial gondolas are NOT recommended for further consideration in Phase 2 of Project Connect. Autonomous vehicles will be considered for implementation through Project Connect as technology evolves to support high-capacity transit service. Aerial gondolas were found to be in operation in areas where topography (such as a water crossing or vertical incline) required an alternative to provide connections between destinations. The transportation services are frequently operated by private entities that are responsible for developing the technology. Emerging Technology Advances in autonomous bus and rail vehicle technologies are occurring rapidly. Current technological limitations and safety concerns would likely require operation in a completely separate, dedicated guideway to minimize potential vehicle conflicts. However, autonomous vehicles may offer the opportunity to stream several highcapacity vehicles for high frequency service at a minimal cost for operator staffing. Commuter, Connector, or Circulator Corridors could be operated by autonomous vehicles, if the appropriate dedicated guideway opportunities exist. Page 17 of 41 Doc Control# 531.02
Table 3-2: Phase 2 Mode (Technology) Assessment Results Screening Criteria Dedicated BRT Streetcar LRT HRT CRT Aerial Gondola Autonomous Vehicles Typical capital cost per mile $15M to $30M $50M to $60M $70M to $90M $150M to $200M $25 M to $35M?? Typical route length 7 to 15 miles 2 to 5 miles 5 to 15 miles 5 to 10 miles 15 to 30 miles Under 2 to 3 miles? O&M cost per revenue hour $90 to $160 $80 to $120 $150 to $360 $260 to $360 $400 to $600?? Typical weekday ridership 5,000 to 10,000 5,000 to 15,000 10,000 to 30,000 over 20,000 5,000 to 20,000 3,000 to 6,000? Past FTA CIG funding? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Time to implement (years) Relative economic development potential Average travel speed (mph) 5 to 6 6 to 8 8 to 10 10 to 15 8 to 10?? $$ $$ $$$ $$$ $$$?? 20 to 55 10 to 35 25 to 65 40 to 60 30 to 50 5 to 20 10 to 35 Recommended Markets (Limited) Page 18 of 41 Doc Control# 531.02
3.2 Connector Corridor Screening While there are three travel markets (Commuter, Connector, Circulator) that are being studied as part of Project Connect, only the Connector Corridors were screened during Phase 2. The Commuter Corridors (IH 35, Red Line, Green Line) were not subject to the Phase 2 Connector Corridor screening. The potential range of mode and guideway solutions is limited due to the existing conditions of the rail (Red and Green Lines) and interstate highway (IH 35) corridors. They will not likely be eligible for traditional FTA CIG funding opportunities due to a sub-optimal balance of cost and ridership when compared to CIG evaluation criteria thresholds, and will move towards implementation as non-cig funding is available. The exception may be the Red Line, which may be eligible to receive FTA Core Capacity capital funding as its ridership increases. The Phase 1 priority Circulator Corridors (Downtown, Red River, South Congress) were aggregated into a single Downtown Circulator corridor, with an expanded project area to cover the preliminary limits and boundaries identified in Phase 1. Project Connect was intended to support the detailed definition and evaluation of Corridors that may be competitive for CIG funding. The results of the Phase 1 initial screening indicated that it is unlikely that all 12 Connector Corridors recommended for study in Phase 2 would meet FTA funding eligibility thresholds. Consequently, a Connector Corridor screening process was defined to help prioritize the 12 Phase 2 Connector Corridors for Phase 2 detailed definition and evaluation. The Phase 2 Connector Corridors that do not serve the greatest number of riders or appear competitive for federal funding opportunities will remain in the long range high-capacity transit plan for future consideration. The CIG program is the primary mechanism by which major transit capital improvements are funded. This program, which typically awards up to 50 percent of capital funding for projects costing more than $300 million, and 70 percent of capital funding for projects costing up to $300 million, is extremely competitive. FTA uses pre-defined criteria calculated from pre-defined data sources as a means to determine which projects are likely to be the most effective use of federal money. This standardized evaluation process ensures that projects from across the country are competing on an equal playing field. While performance against FTA CIG criteria was an important element of deciding which Phase 1 Connector Corridors to advance for detailed definition and evaluation in Phase 2, community priorities must be acknowledged and incorporated into the Phase 2 initial screening. This Connector Corridor screening process was tailored to use a simplified set of proxy metrics to mimic likely performance against FTA CIG criteria and address community feedback to use more recent data and answer questions about equity and affordability. The FTA CIG criteria rely on data that are calculated within a half-mile of proposed station areas. While the screening was designed with FTA CIG criteria and thresholds in mind, the absence of defined station locations at this point in the Project Connect process meant that data outputs from the screening would not be comparable against the CIG scoring thresholds (which are based on station area, rather than corridor-level) calculations. The project team defined a series of proxy thresholds to estimate the potential performance of the Phase 2 Connector Corridors against the FTA CIG criteria. Therefore, for the purposes of this screening, data within a half-mile of Corridor areas were used instead. This approach: Utilizes existing data (from the Phase 1 analysis) Page 19 of 41 Doc Control# 531.02
Expedites data collection and processing for the detailed Phase 2 evaluation phase (when station locations will be identified and the same data points will be necessary for the half-mile area around stations) Positions selected Corridors for FTA CIG application(s) Addresses local concerns and issues (housing affordability, service equity, maximize ridership) The Phase 2 Connector Corridor initial screening criteria, including methodologies and data sources, are described in Sections 3.2.1 through 3.2.6 and are shown on Figure 3-2. Details of the thresholds and evaluation results are in Section 3.2. Figure 3-2: Phase 2 Connector Corridor Screening Criteria Corridor Ridership Income-Rent Balance Zero-Car Household Employment Population Density 3.2.1 Current Corridor Ridership The current corridor ridership criterion was used to identify Phase 2 Connector Corridors that met a minimum ridership threshold to justify a high-capacity transit solution. Current ridership can be an effective proxy to estimate future ridership demand for a high-capacity transit investment. Methodology The current Corridor ridership estimates were calculated during Phase 1. The total number of boardings and alightings for each stop or station along the Connector Corridors was averaged to calculate the average daily weekday boarding. The average daily weekday boardings were then summed for all stops or stations along each Corridor to generate a measure of total ridership activity. The threshold for this criterion was set at 5,000, which is higher than the 3,000 rider threshold established by FTA. The Phase 2 Connector Corridor screening was performed at the corridor rather than station area level. The higher threshold reflects the comparatively larger geography used for this screening. Data Sources Phase 1 Corridor evaluation 3.2.2 Income-Rent Balance The income-rent balance criterion was used as a proxy to determine general housing affordability by calculating rent as a percentage of household income. The federal government defines households spending 30 percent or more of their income on rent as cost-burdened. Corridors with high percentages of cost-burdened households have less income for other expenses, including transportation, which makes them more likely to use transit (versus owning a car). Additionally, the FTA CIG evaluation process awards higher scores to projects that serve transit-dependent populations and that have station Page 20 of 41 Doc Control# 531.02
areas with a high proportion of legally-binding affordable housing units. The income-rent balance criterion was used as a proxy to address the issues related to affordable housing in a particular Corridor. Methodology United States Census American Community Survey (ACS) data were used to identify households spending 30 percent or more of their income on rent. The data were clipped to a half-mile buffer around each Corridor. The density of households within a half-mile buffer of the corridor that are spending 30 percent or more of their income on rent was calculated using the following formula: Percentage = (Total households spending 30 percent of their Income on rent/total households)*100 It was assumed for purposes of clipping the data to the Corridor buffer that density was evenly distributed within the Census block group. The final Corridor percentage was calculated using the percentage of each block group that fell within a Corridor. This method mitigates over-representation of the block groups that are partially included in the Corridor buffer. A threshold of 50 percent of total households was used to evaluate each Corridor. Data Sources ACS (2014) 3.2.3 Zero-Car Households The zero-car household criterion was used to identify households without access to a vehicle, which is a proxy for transit-dependent riders, as defined by FTA. FTA provides extra points in its ridership evaluation guidelines for zero-car households. Zero-car households tend to rely on transit to meet their daily mobility needs (which drives system ridership and expands residents access to opportunity), so sensitivity to the location of these households can result in a more equitable distribution of transit capital investment. Methodology ACS data were used to identify zero-car households; the data were clipped to a half-mile buffer around each Corridor. It was assumed for purposes of clipping the data to the Corridor buffer that the number of zero-car households was evenly distributed within the Census block group. The final Corridor total was calculated using the percentage of each block group that fell within a Corridor. This method mitigates over-representation of the block groups that are partially included in the Corridor buffer. The threshold considered while evaluating this criterion was 1,500 households within the Corridor, based on the Project Connect team s professional judgement. Data Sources ACS (2014) 3.2.4 Corridor Employment Higher levels of employment within Corridors generally correspond to higher ridership; this is also a key rating factor used by FTA when evaluating projects for CIG funding. Page 21 of 41 Doc Control# 531.02
Methodology CAMPO s 2015 projections (based on CAMPO s 2010 Regional Model) were used to identify the number of jobs; the data were clipped to a half-mile buffer around each Corridor. It was assumed for purposes of clipping the data to the Corridor buffer that jobs were evenly distributed within the traffic analysis zone (TAZ). The final Corridor total was calculated using the percentage of each TAZ that fell within a Corridor. This method mitigates over-representation of the TAZs that are partially included in the Corridor buffer. A threshold of 50,000 was set. This is used as a proxy for the 70,000 suggested by FTA in their policy guideline for evaluating a project for the CIG program. Data Sources Number of jobs reported for 2015 obtained from CAMPO in August 2016 3.2.5 Corridor Population Density High population density within Corridors generally corresponds to higher ridership; this is also a key rating factor used by FTA when evaluating projects for CIG funding. Methodology CAMPO s 2015 projections (based on CAMPO s 2010 Regional Model) were used to identify the number of residents; the data were clipped to a half-mile buffer around each Corridor. Population density was calculated using the following formula: Population density = Existing population with a corridor/area (square mile) of the Corridor It was assumed for purposes of clipping the data to the Corridor buffer that density was evenly distributed within the TAZ. The final Corridor percentage was calculated using the percentage of each TAZ that fell within a Corridor. This method mitigates over-representation of the TAZs that are partially included in the Corridor buffer. Based on the population density within each Corridor, a threshold of 5,000 people per square mile was used as a proxy for the 5,760 people/square mile threshold used by the FTA CIG program. Data Sources Population counts reported for 2015 obtained from CAMPO in August 2016 3.2.6 Local Project Coordination This criterion identifies the percentage of overlap between Mobility Bond Corridors (CoA) and the Tier 1 Corridors (Project Connect). This criterion helps to identify opportunities for collaboration on similar mobility improvement initiatives being conducted by different agencies on Connector Corridors in Austin. Local Project Coordination was not factored into the final screening recommendations for Connector Corridors, however, as both initiatives are still in the process of defining the final scope of potentially overlapping projects. Page 22 of 41 Doc Control# 531.02
Methodology The percentage of overlap between Mobility Bond Corridors and the Tier 1 Corridors was calculated using the following formula: Percentage of overlap = (length of mobility bond shared with Tier 1/length of the Tier 1 corridor) Data Sources 2016 mobility bond data obtained from the City of Austin 3.2.7 Downtown Segment (#99) When comparing initial Phase 2 screening results, it was observed that a direct connection to the employment and activity centers in the downtown Austin core significantly impacted the performance of Connector Corridors. When comparing the independent utility of Phase 2 Connector Corridors, the Phase 1 boundaries of the S. Lamar, MLK Jr., Manor/Dean Keeton, Congress, and Riverside Corridors did not connect to the downtown Central Business District (CBD) area. However, they all terminated within a half-mile of the CBD and major destinations. If any of these corridors were recommended by Project Connect for implementation, they would be designed to provide a direct connection to the downtown core. To avoid negatively skewing the performance of these five corridors based on Phase 1 boundaries that do not include access to the downtown core, a new corridor-segment extension (segment #99) connecting the CBD area (between W. Cesar Chavez and W. MLK Jr.) was created (see Figure 3-3). The analysis assumed any high capacity transit corridor would logically tie into the Guadalupe-Lavaca transit priority spine and connect the Corridors directly to the downtown core; therefore, the demographic and development information calculated within a half-mile of segment #99 were added (or aggregated) to the data generated for the five Phase 1 Connector Corridors. A direct connection to downtown Austin was not assumed for the Airport, Oltorf, Pleasant Valley, or 45 th / Burnet Corridors, as these Corridors do not terminate within a half-mile of the CBD. Page 23 of 41 Doc Control# 531.02
Figure 3-3: Downtown Austin Connector Corridor Segment #99 3.2.8 Connector Corridor Screening Results Phase 1 Connector Corridors were evaluated against the five proxy screening metrics representing FTA CIG evaluation criteria and public feedback regarding affordability/equity (see Table 3-3). A point-based scale was used to represent the Corridor s performance in meeting the proxy thresholds established by the project team. Points Investment Corridor Performance 1 Corridor exceeds metric threshold 0.5 Corridor approaches metric threshold 0 Corridor does not exceed metric threshold The cumulative points for each Connector Corridor ranged from 1 to the maximum score of 5. Based on this distribution, the project team identified six Competitive Corridors scoring between 4 and 5 points, showing high potential to qualify for CIG funding opportunities: S. Lamar N. Lamar/Guadalupe MLK Jr. Highland/Red River/Trinity Manor/Dean Keeton Riverside Page 24 of 41 Doc Control# 531.02
Additionally, the Congress and 7 th /Lake Austin corridors scored between 3.5 and 4 points, showing that they may also have potential to qualify, and were considered as Competitive Corridors. All eight Competitive Corridors will be considered in the Phase 2 development of detailed alternative solutions. The remaining four corridors (Airport, Oltorf, Pleasant Valley, and 45 th /Burnet) will remain in the Project Connect long-range system plan as Illustrative Corridors for consideration during future plan updates or should additional funding become available. To identify potential opportunities for coordinating capital improvements with CMTA s partner agency, City of Austin, Table 3-3 also includes the length of the connector corridor (by percentage) that overlaps with the limits of proposed roadway improvements funded by the 2016 Austin Mobility Bond. Page 25 of 41 Doc Control# 531.02
Table 3-3: Phase 2 Connector Corridor Screening Results FTA (CIG) Medium: N/A N/A N/A 70,000 5,760 Project Connect Threshold: 5,000 1,500 50% 50,000 5,000 ID Investment Corridor Name Existing + Downtown Ridership Pts Zero-Car Households (2014 ACS) Pts % HH with rent over 30% of HH income Pts CAMPO year 2015 Employment Pts CAMPO year 2015 Population Density Pts Mobility Bond % overlap Overall Score Level 1? 3 7th/Lake Austin 4,400 0.5 1,200 0.5 52.12% 1 76,307 1 4,295 0.5 0% 3.5 Maybe 7 Airport Blvd 1,813 0 1,600 1 68.65% 1 26,652 0 4,400 0.5 100% 2.5 No 10 Congress 10,990 1 1,647 1 30.61% 0 97,512 1 5,195 1 0% 4 Maybe 11 S Lamar 9,784 1 1,369 0.5 50.03% 1 94,674 1 5,485 1 80% 4.5 Yes 12 N Lamar/Guadalupe 17,000 1 2,300 1 63.99% 1 126,323 1 6,692 1 15% 5 Yes 13 MLK Jr. 9,526 1 1,594 1 57.11% 1 121,709 1 4,764 0.5 0% 4.5 Yes 14 Oltorf 3,770 0 1,400 0.5 59.68% 1 10,951 0 7,890 1 0% 2.5 No 15 Pleasant Valley 3,444 0 1,900 1 84.08% 1 9,591 0 7,468 1 0% 3 No 16 Highland/Red River/ Trinity 7,860 1 1,800 1 51.31% 1 111,584 1 4,751 0.5 20% 4.5 Yes 17 Manor/Dean Keeton 16,718 1 1,994 1 70.15% 1 108,692 1 5,793 1 0% 5 Yes 18 Riverside 10,625 1 2,694 1 65.17% 1 103,201 1 6,227 1 75% 5 Yes 19 45th/Burnet 1,462 0 1,100 0 43.21% 0.5 35,716 0 4,828 0.5 58% 1 No Page 26 of 41 Doc Control# 531.02
4. Phase 2 Enhancement Project Screening Methodology Enhancement Projects represent various service (operational), infrastructure and technology components that support the existing MetroRail, MetroRapid, MetroExpress, and Mobility Hub highcapacity transit services. Service (Operational) Infrastructure Technology The Phase 2 Enhancement Project screening methodology included two primary objectives: System compatibility assessment of all Phase 2 Enhancement Projects that may be adjacent to (or overlapping with) other programmed capital projects and may require further coordination Gap analysis of public input received through Phase 1 survey responses to update the scope of Phase 1 Enhancement Project recommendations and identify additional Enhancement Projects to support the existing MetroRail, MetroRapid, MetroExpress, and Mobility Hubs Table 4-1 lists the Enhancement Projects recommended for advancement as a result of the Phase 1 evaluation and approved by the CMTA Board of Directors. MetroRail ML 1 ML 2 ML 4 MetroRapid MD 5 MD 6 MD 8 MD 9 Table 4-1: Phase 1 Enhancement Project Recommendations Rail Station Capacity Projects Passing Sidings Highland Station Relocation Enhancement Project S 1st St Bridge Transit priority treatments Guadalupe St (southbound)/lavaca St (northbound) - Extend existing Transit Priority Lanes W. MLK Jr Blvd (Guadalupe/Lavaca) - Intersection upgrades Guadalupe St (southbound)/lavaca St (northbound) - Activate Transit Signal Priority MD 10 N. Lamar Blvd (Crestview) - Intersection upgrades and traffic signal improvements MetroExpress ME 2 ME 7 W. 5th St & W. Cesar Chavez (Mopac to Guadalupe) transit priority treatments US 183 North - Express Lane operations Mobility Hubs MH 1 W 4th St (Downtown MetroRail Station) MH 2 MH 3 MH 4 W 4th St (Republic Square) W 4th Street Crestview Page 27 of 41 Doc Control# 531.02
MH 6 MH 7 MH 8 MH 9 MH 10 Enhancement Project Tech Ridge Park n Ride Lakeline Station Howard Park n Ride North Lamar Transit Center Westgate Transit Center 4.1 Enhancement Project Gap Analysis 4.1.1 Overview The public survey conducted during Phase 1 allowed members of the community to provide feedback on the perceived challenges of using existing high-capacity transit services (MetroRail, MetroRapid, MetroExpress, or Mobility Hub). Responders provided comments on specific stations of the existing services and general remarks related to an overall high-capacity transit service type. All public comments received during the Phase 1 process were analyzed and matched to a potential Enhancement Project, if possible. Comments that did not directly associate to a Phase 1 Enhancement Project were categorized by service type (MetroRail, MetroRapid, MetroExpress, or Mobility Hub), and linked with a specific station for inclusion in the gap analysis process. This process was designed to filter miscellaneous comments and to sort them into smaller subgroups to establish data trends. Generally, there were three types of comments: Comments that were related to a specified Phase 1 Enhancement Project, including those that recommended an improvement that was addressed by the Phase 1 project description Comments that were related to an existing high-capacity transit service type, but were systemwide and could not be correlated to a specific location or Phase 1 Enhancement Project Comments that did not relate to Phase 1 Enhancement Projects or existing high-capacity transit services Figure 4-1 shows the summary of Phase 1 survey responses factored into the gap analysis. The majority of comments identified constraints or challenges to the high-capacity transit accessibility, connecting facilities and/or ride quality (A-C-R). To use this public input to inform the development and definition of Phase 2 alternatives, the project team developed categories of S-I-T enhancements to track trends in potential solutions. Page 28 of 41 Doc Control# 531.02
Figure 4-1: Enhancement Project Gap Analysis Summary 4.1.2 Phase 1 Survey Results The station locations most frequently identified by responders are shown in Table 4-2 (by Access, Connect, Ride issues) and Table 4-3 (by S-I-T solutions). Howard Station received the highest number of responses (84). Kramer Station, North Lamar Transit Center, and Crestview Station each received approximately 50 responses. Of the priority locations with the most responses, all had related Enhancement Projects, with the exception of MLK Jr. (Red Line), Plaza Saltillo (Red Line), Chinatown (801), and Oak Hill Park n Ride (MetroExpress). Chinatown and Oak Hill received a number of comments related to bicycle and pedestrian access, insufficient station amenities, and last-mile connectivity. These issues will continue to be addressed during the remainder of Phase 2. Full discussion of Phase 1 survey results and recommendations are documented within the Phase 1 Enhancement Project Survey Results memorandum (August 2017). Note that while the majority of the MetroRapid and MetroRail Enhancement Projects proposed in Phase 1 were operational improvements (i.e., travel time, capacity, reliability), several individual stations were identified as potential Mobility Hubs. As the public survey allowed users to provide feedback on issues Page 29 of 41 Doc Control# 531.02
with existing high-capacity transit stations, a high number of Mobility Hubs and several specific stations moved forward into Phase 2. Table 4-2: Most A-C-R Responses (by Location) Location # of Selections % of Total (1,599) * Howard (Red Line, Park & Ride) 84 5.3 * Kramer (Red Line) 50 3.1 * North Lamar Transit Center (801, Park & Ride) 46 2.9 * Crestview (801, Red Line) 46 2.9 * Lakeline (Red Line, Park & Ride) 42 2.6 MLK Jr. (Red Line) 41 2.6 * Southpark Meadows (801, Park & Ride) 41 2.6 * Domain (803) 40 2.5 * Republic Square (801, 803) 39 2.4 * Downtown (Red Line) 37 2.3 * Tech Ridge (801, Park & Ride) 36 2.3 Plaza Saltillo (Red Line) 34 2.1 Chinatown (801) 29 1.8 Oak Hill (Park & Ride) 26 1.6 *UT West Mall (801, 803) 26 1.6 *Westgate (803) 25 1.6 *Austin History Center (801, 803) 24 1.5 *Highland (Red Line) 23 1.4 *Rundberg (801) 23 1.4 *South Congress Transit Center (801, Park & Ride) 21 1.3 *UT Dean Keeton (801, 803) 20 1.3 Total 753 47.1 * Phase 1 Enhancement Project location Table 4-3: Most S-I-T Responses (by Location) Location # of Selections % of Total (1,088) *Howard (Red Line, Park & Ride) 73 6.7 *Kramer (Red Line) 56 5.2 *North Lamar Transit Center (801, Park & Ride) 47 4.3 *Crestview (801, Red Line) 40 3.7 MLK Jr. (Red Line) 36 3.3 *Lakeline (Red Line, Park & Ride) 33 3.0 *Republic Square (801, 803) 28 2.6 *UT West Mall (801, 803) 27 2.5 Austin History Center (801, 803) 20 1.8 Page 30 of 41 Doc Control# 531.02
Location # of Selections % of Total (1,088) *Domain (803) 20 1.8 *Downtown (Red Line) 19 1.7 Chinatown (801) 18 1.7 Capitol (801, 803) 16 1.5 Westgate (803) 16 1.5 *Rundberg (801) 15 1.4 *South Congress Transit Center (801, Park & Ride) 15 1.4 Total 479 44.1 * Phase 1 Enhancement Project location Of the responders who did not identify a specific station for improvement, the majority identified issues for improvement regarding the MetroRail service. Many of these comments were related to operating frequency and hours of service. Frequency related comments were assumed to relate to Project ML 2 (Passing Sidings). MetroRapid also had a significant number of non-location-specific comments (121), many of which were related to redesigned station canopies and additional benches at stops. MetroExpress comments typically called for improved park and ride facilities, regional expansion of the service, and improved frequency. The breakdown of non-location-specific responses by each service type is shown in Table 4-4 and Table 4-5. Table 4-4: Most A-C-R Comments (Non-Location-Specific, by Service Type) No Location Specified # of Selections % of Total (1,599) MetroRail 214 13.4 MetroRapid 121 7.6 MetroExpress 51 3.9 No location or service type specified 62 3.2 Mobility Hubs 3 0.2 Total non-location-specific 451 28.2 Table 4-5: Most S-I-T Comments (Non-Location-Specific, by Service Type) No Location Specified # of Selections % of Total (1,088) MetroRail 182 16.8 MetroRapid 97 8.9 MetroExpress 16 1.5 No location or service type specified 16 1.5 Mobility Hubs 1 0.1 Total non-location-specific 312 28.7 4.1.3 Enhancement Project Gap Analysis Recommendations The Phase 1 survey results provided valuable insight into gaps in identifying the Phase 1 Enhancement Projects related to the A-C-R qualities of the existing high-capacity transit services. After prioritizing the Page 31 of 41 Doc Control# 531.02
locations with the highest response in the Phase 1 survey, modifications were made to the list of Phase 1 Enhancement Projects: For the locations not considered in the Phase 1 evaluation, new Enhancement Projects were created based on the S-I-T categories most commonly identified. New systemwide projects were added for MetroRail and MetroRapid services based on the most non-location-based S-I-T responses. The proposed scope of those enhancements was refined to address the identified priority issues using survey feedback on locations aligned with Phase 1 Enhancement Projects. Improvements, such as pedestrian and bicycle safety, first/last mile circulation, and a greater frequency of service, were prominent themes and have been added to the list of Phase 1 Enhancement Project improvements. The refinements and new Enhancement Projects recommended for detailed definition and evaluation in Phase 2 are shown in Table 4-6. Table 4-6: Enhancement Project Gap Analysis Recommendations Enhancement Project Phase 1 --Tier 1 Project (Y/N) Gap Analysis Recommendations MetroRail (Systemwide) -- Extend service area, hours of operation, and increase frequency Plaza Saltillo station N Pedestrian and bicycle safety and accessibility MLK Jr. station N Improve first/last mile circulation and multimodal connections Pedestrian and bicycle safety and accessibility Howard park n ride (MH 8) Y Additional park and ride facilities Kramer station (MH 16) Y Additional park and ride facilities Lakeline station (MH 7) Y Additional park and ride facilities MetroRapid (Systemwide) -- Extend transit priority lanes, where possible Chinatown station N Pedestrian and bicycle safety and accessibility Potential station relocation Capitol station N Westgate station N Realign service to new Westgate Transit Center UT West Mall and Dean Keaton stations Rundberg (MH 21) MetroExpress (systemwide) -- Mobility Hubs (systemwide) -- Oak Hill (Park and Ride) N Y N Expand MetroExpress service and develop a regional park and ride system Placemaking for TNCs and policy for integrating them at Mobility Hubs Fixed route transit service modifications to serve hubs Improve first/last mile circulation and multimodal connections Page 32 of 41 Doc Control# 531.02
Enhancement Project Crestview (MH 4) Phase 1 --Tier 1 Project (Y/N) Y Gap Analysis Recommendations Additional park and ride facilities Explore adjacent Transit Oriented Development opportunities The Domain (MH 5, 23) Y Additional park and ride facilities Republic Square (MH 2) Y Improve first/last mile circulation and multimodal connections Tech Ridge Park n Ride (MH 6) Y Additional park n ride facilities Improvements to service frequency and site operations *Note: Howard and Lakeline park and ride expansions were in the construction phase at the time of the survey. 4.2 Enhancement Project Phase 2 Initial Screening Results The results of the Phase 2 initial screening process resulted in identification of additional service, infrastructure, and technology enhancement needs to the Phase 1 recommendations, and new gap analysis projects to address community concerns at existing high-capacity transit station locations. Figure 4-2 through Figure 4-5 show the complete list of projects that were analyzed in Phase 2 projects that were a result of Phase 1 and projects that moved forward due to the gap analysis process - and a map of their locations. Page 33 of 41 Doc Control# 531.02
Project Connect 1/16/2018 Figure 4-2: Phase 2 MetroExpress Enhancement Projects Page 34 of 41 Doc Control# 531.02
Figure 4-3: Phase 2 MetroRail Enhancement Projects Page 35 of 41 Doc Control# 531.02
Project Connect 1/16/2018 Figure 4-4: Phase 2 MetroRapid Enhancement Projects Page 36 of 41 Doc Control# 531.02
Project Connect 1/16/2018 Figure 4-5: Phase 2 Mobility Hubs Enhancement Projects Page 37 of 41 Doc Control# 531.02
5. Next Steps: Phase 2 Detailed Definition of Alternatives The priority Investment Corridors and Enhancement Projects identified by this Phase 2 initial screening process will require further refinement in order to begin selecting LPAs at the conclusion of Phase 2 and into Phase 3. Investment Corridors: Specific potential high-capacity transit solutions (alternatives) for the priority Commuter, Connector, and Circulator corridors will be defined during the remainder of Phase 2. The alternatives will be defined by alignment (routing), dedicated guideway, mode (vehicle technology), and service operating options to support the evaluation of costs, benefits, and community support. Enhancement Projects: The priority Enhancement Projects identified at the conclusion of Phase 1 will be defined during the remainder of Phase 2 by combining S-I-T components to best address issues related to A-C-R. 5.1 Partner Projects and Initiatives CMTA understands that the successful development and operation of a regional high-capacity transit system will require cooperation and participation from many regional partners. While Phase 1 identified potential Project and Corridors based on recommendations / definitions from previously adopted transportation plans and studies, it did not reflect ongoing planning processes, policy directives and capital programs that may inform and influence the development of Alternative solutions going forward in Phase 2. Table 5-1 identifies ongoing transportation studies and initiatives that may affect the Alternatives defined during the remainder of Phase 2. These concurrent initiatives may be independent of CMTA or undertaken in cooperation with other regional transportation authorities. Austin Strategic Mobility Plan Table 5-1: Regional Transportation Partners and Coordinated Planning Initiatives Study/Planning Initiative Participating Agency(ies) City of Austin 2016 Mobility Bond Program City of Austin Transit Priority Working Group Code Next All Ages and Abilities Active Transportation Plan Regional Express Bus / Park and Ride Program Travis County Transportation Plan Mobility 35 CAMPO Region Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) Austin Downtown Parking Strategy City of Austin City of Austin City of Austin CTRMA Travis County TxDOT CAMPO Downtown Austin Alliance The project team understands that coordination with these complementary efforts will help move Project Connect recommendations towards implementation, so will continue to work with Project Connect partner agencies throughout Phase 2 and beyond. Page 38 of 41 Doc Control# 531.02
5.2 Investment Corridor Alignment and Logical Termini Options When developing the detailed definitions of Connector Corridors, selecting the potential alignments and end of line (terminus) stations is a priority. Understanding the existing conditions of the roadways and ability to support dedicated transit guideway investment is critical to developing implementable alternatives. Phase 1 Connector Corridor alignments were limited to the study Focus Area, which is bounded by US 183, MoPac and SH 71/Ben White Boulevard. However, the final alignment of the proposed Alternatives may extend beyond these boundaries to reach the areas of employment and/or residential concentration that are able to support high-capacity transit service. Specific routing options for Connector Corridors, that use parallel streets in areas with constrained conditions, may also be considered and carried forward through the selection of LPAs and Preliminary Engineering. The Phase 2 termini of some Connector Corridors may be designed to also allow future expansion in more than one direction (branches serving eastern and/or western destinations from a north/south alignment). Potential end points (termini) and/or branch alignment options for priority Connector Corridors will be considered based on: Concentrations of population and employment outside of the study Focus Area Major intersections that may support transit oriented development (TOD) opportunities or a large park-and-ride facility Accessibility to connecting arterials or highways and connectivity to Mobility Hubs Existing terminal point of transit services operating along the Corridor Table 5-2 and Figure 5-1 illustrate the Phase 2 Priority and Illustrative Connector Corridors and potential alignment extensions and terminal stations for consideration in the Phase 2 detailed definition of alternatives. Corridor Name Priority (Y/N) Table 5-2: Potential Phase 2 Connector Corridor Extension Options Phase 1 Phase 2 From To Extension Option 1 Extension Option 2 7th/Lake Austin Y Red Bud Tr US 183 -- -- Congress Y Riverside Dr S Lamar Y Riverside Dr US 290/SH 71 US 290/SH 71 Slaughter Ln (S Park Meadows) FM 1826/ACC Pinnacle (via US 290 W) -- Slaughter Ln (via Manchaca) N Lamar/ Howard Dr Esperanza Crossing Y Riverside Dr US 183 Guadalupe (Tech Ridge) (The Domain) MLK Jr. Y Guadalupe St US 183 Decker Lane -- Highland/Red River / Trinity Y East 4 th St ACC Highland Mall North Lamar @ Airport Parmer (via Dessau/Cameron) Page 39 of 41 Doc Control# 531.02
Corridor Name Manor/ Dean Keeton Priority (Y/N) Phase 1 Phase 2 From To Extension Option 1 Extension Option 2 Y Guadalupe St US 183 Center Delco Center Travis County Expo (via Loyola) Austin Bergstrom Int l Airport (ABIA) -- Riverside Y S 1 st St SH 71 Airport N N Lamar Blvd US 183 Oltorf N S Lamar Blvd S Pleasant Valley Rd Pleasant Valley N Airport Blvd E Oltorf St Austin Bergstrom Int l Airport (ABIA) -- -- -- William Cannon at Salt Springs 45th/Burnet N Guadalupe St US 183 The Domain -- - Multiple routing options available -- Page 40 of 41 Doc Control# 531.02
Figure 5-1: Phase 2 Connector Corridors and Possible Extensions Page 41 of 41 Doc Control# 531.02