Technical Advisory Committee Presentation

TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
January 29, 2013
1
• Introductions and Review
– Common TAC and PAG comments
– TAC-specific input
• Refined Draft Scoring Factors/Transit
Development Strategy review
• Revised Transit Alternatives review/discussion
• Approach to land use and transit
• Revised project schedule
• Other discussion
2
Travel Pattern/
Demand Analysis
Project Connect
CAMPO Centers
Previous Studies/Plans
Purpose & Need
Congestion
Growth
Constraints
Centers
Transit Development Strategy
Activity Density Index
Implementation Strategies
Conceptual Alternatives
Alignments
Modes/service options
Coverage
Centers served
Evaluation Criteria for
Screening
Initial Screening of
Alternatives
Design Charrette for
Remaining Alternatives
Alignments/modes/
service options
Timing/phasing
Centers and connecting
land use structure
SROI Evaluation
LPA
3
• Discussed the redirected approach based on
what we heard and learned
– Increased the focus on the transit and land use
relationships
– Added the concept of timing for delivery of
transit service over time
• Reviewed the Scoring Factors
• Reviewed and discussed the Alternatives
• Made revisions and took to PAG
4
• Refinements were made to the Scoring
Factors
• The Transit Development Strategy was
enhanced
• Further work on land use/transit
integration/phasing are underway
• New multi-modal Alternatives were
developed
5
• Provide long and short haul transit options at
regional scale
• Provide multi-modal options
• Use MoPac managed lanes
• Caution on IH35 managed lanes dependence
• Do not preclude use if available
6
• Provide east/west connections
• Connect more centers and identify multi-modal
transit hubs
• Use MoKan
• Refine evaluation criteria
• Provide more interactive work time in meetings
7
• North Corridor assessed within the regional
context
• CAMPO’s 4 C/G approach is the basis
–
–
–
–
–
Centers
Congestion
Core
Constraints
Growth
• Added two new Factors to reflect the strategy
‒ Complexity
‒ Livability
• Used to screen from 6 alternatives to 2-3 for
more detailed evaluation
8
• Centers
̶ Number served by type
̶ Transit-supportive planning
̶ Capacity
• Congestion
̶
• Complexity
̶
̶
Cost implications
System efficiency/phases
Intermodal connectivity
̶
• Growth
̶
Estimated population changes Estimated
employment changes
New transit-supportive land use opportunities
Transit-readiness for Center connectors
Estimated change in corridor
congestion and vehicle hours traveled
̶
• Core
̶
̶
Linkage between centers to relieve
congestion to Core
Propensity to use transit
• Constraints
̶
̶
̶
• Livability
̶
̶
Potential to advance the six Livability
Principles
Added detail to the Factor based on Livability
Principle sub-factors
Environmental suitability
ROW needs
9
10
Implementation
Period
Phase 1 –
1 to 5 years
Example Transit
Level of Service
Investment
Increase headways;
add express service
Example Transit
Improvement
Strategies
(CMTA & Cities)
Example Land Use/
Development
Strategies
(Cities)
Add shelters and
Rezone around transit
extend sidewalks; bus centers and major
pull-outs
stops
Phase 2 –
5 to 10 years
Phase 3 –
10 to 20 years
11
Implementation
Period
Example Transit
Level of Service
Investment
Example Transit
Improvement
Strategies
(CMTA & Cities)
Example Land Use/
Development
Strategies
(Cities)
Phase 1 –
1 to 5 years
Increase headways;
add express service
Add shelters and
Rezone around transit
extend sidewalks; bus centers and major
pull-outs
stops
Phase 2 –
5 to 10 years
Turn diamond lanes
into exclusive
transit/HOV lanes
Focus transit service
on TOD locations
Offer incentives or
expedited permitting
Phase 3 –
10 to 20 years
12
Implementation
Period
Example Transit
Level of Service
Investment
Example Transit
Improvement
Strategies
(CMTA & Cities)
Example Land Use/
Development
Strategies
(Cities)
Phase 1 –
1 to 5 years
Increase headways;
add express service
Add shelters and
Rezone around transit
extend sidewalks; bus centers and major
pull-outs
stops
Phase 2 –
5 to 10 years
Turn diamond lanes
into exclusive
transit/HOV lanes
Focus transit service
on TOD locations
Phase 3 –
10 to 20 years
Construct rail in most Program station
suitable alignments
locations as system
with circulators
expands
Offer incentives or
expedited permitting
Set minimum
development
standards and use
mix
13
MetroRail - Commuter rail service similar to Capital
Metro using Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) trains
MetroRapid Plus - Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) in
dedicated fixed guideway operating similar to light
rail, plus branding and high image stations
MetroRapid - BRT on arterials operating in traffic
with signal prioritization similar to Capital Metro’s
MetroRapid
14
MetroExpress - Long haul, limited service buses on
major highways similar to the Capital Metro’s
MetroExpress commuter service
MetroConnect - Short haul, limited service buses
operating between major Centers generally on
arterials
15
• Major Routes
– IH35, SH45, MoPac
• Modes
– MetroRapid
– MetroExpress
– MetroConnect
• Capital Facilities
– Transit Hubs: Central Austin,
Howard Lane, Pflugerville,
Round Rock
– Park-and-Rides: Georgetown,
Hutto, SH130/US290/Manor,
SH130/SH71
16
• Major Routes
– SH130, US290, MoKan, Freight
Rail ROW, IH35, SH45, MoPac
• Modes
– MetroRapid
– MetroExpress
– MetroConnect
• Capital Facilities
– Transit Hubs: Central Austin,
Howard Lane, Pflugerville,
Round Rock
– Park-and-Rides: Georgetown,
Hutto, SH130/US290/Manor,
SH130/SH71
17
• Major Routes
– SH130, FM685, MoKan, Freight
Rail ROW, IH35, SH45, MoPac
• Modes
– MetroRapid
– MetroExpress
– MetroConnect
• Capital Facilities
– Transit Hubs: Central Austin,
Howard Lane, Pflugerville,
Round Rock
– Park-and-Rides: Georgetown,
Hutto, SH130/US290/Manor,
SH130/SH71
18
• Major Routes
– SH130, FM1460, MoKan, Freight
Rail ROW, IH35, SH45, MoPac
• Modes
– MetroRapid
– MetroExpress
– MetroConnect
• Capital Facilities
– Transit Hubs: Central Austin,
Howard Lane, Pflugerville,
Round Rock
– Park-and-Rides: Georgetown,
Hutto, SH130/US290/Manor,
SH130/SH71
19
• Major Routes
– UP ROW, FM1460, IH35, SH45,
MoPac
• Modes
–
–
–
–
MetroRail (interlined with LSTAR)
MetroRapid
MetroExpress
MetroConnect
• Capital Facilities
– Transit Hubs: Central Austin,
Howard Lane, Pflugerville,
Round Rock
– Park-and-Rides: Georgetown,
Hutto, SH130/US290/Manor,
SH130/SH71
20
• Major Routes
– IH35, SH45, MoPac, MoKan,
Freight Rail ROW
• Modes
–
–
–
–
MetroRapid Plus
MetroRapid
MetroExpress
MetroConnect
• Capital Facilities
– Transit Hubs: Central Austin,
Howard Lane, Pflugerville,
Round Rock
– Park-and-Rides: Georgetown,
Hutto, SH130/US290/Manor,
SH130/SH71
21
22
Service Features
Local bus & shuttle
operations at
baseline levels (30
min peak)
Local bus at
enhanced service
level (15 min. peak)
Local bus & limited
stop operations (10
min peak)
Local bus & LRT/BRT
(5 min peak)
Service Type
Local Transit
Arterial Transit
Rapid Transit
High Capacity
Transit
Persons +
jobs/acre Index
Development/
Density/patterns Linkages between
+ mobility
centers
support
5 - 20
5-8 DU/A
Limited mobility
support
Limited
20 - 40
Up to 20 DU/A
Moderate mobility
support
Emerging
40 - 60
Up to 40 DU/A
High mobility
support
Planned
60+
> 40 DU/A
High mobility
support
Committed
23
• Land Use Components
– Existing and future land use
– Persons + jobs/acre index
– Density/use mix
– Patterns
– Readiness
• Mobility Components
– Transit service level
– Supporting/underlying transit
service
– Pedestrian facilities
– Bicycle facilities
24
• Areas that have or are planned to have transit-
supportive qualities
–
–
–
–
–
Concentrations of population and employment
Compact and intensifying forms of development
Streets supporting walking and biking
Plans and policies promoting transit supportiveness
Potential for future transit supportiveness
• Understand readiness across North Corridor and
for each Alternative
25
Collect and evaluate corridor-wide datasets
• Land use and development data (CAMPO, CAD, CAPCOG)
• Centers datasets and research to further define Centers (CAMPO)
• Local plans and policies (Cities)
Establish scoring methods
• Thresholds based on review of industry literature and calibrated to
relate to local conditions
• Scoring using high-med-low scale in screening
Evaluate alternatives
• Alternative scoring by measure (½ mile buffer)
• Alternative scoring by composite
26
Data used to assess supportiveness and readiness
Dataset
Notes
Source
Population, households and
employment
TAZ-Level for Employment
36ac cells for Population/HH
CAMPO
Land use existing and future
2012 and Composite FLU
CADs/CAMPO/Cities
Intensity and utilization
2012 Data re: Development
CADs/CAPCOG
Development pattern
Intersection density
GIS
Sidewalks and bike lanes
Existing facilities
CAMPO
Transit service
Supporting Service
CMTA
Mobility priorities
Pedestrian priority areas
Bicycle priority corridors
CAMPO
27
• Maps for North Corridor and each Alternative
AREA-WIDE MAP OF TRANSIT SUPPORTIVENESS
CORRIDOR MAP OF SINGLE MEASURE
28
• Analysis of supportiveness is related to local
development types
• Current regional development types have transit
supportive characteristics
⁻
⁻
⁻
⁻
Compact
Walkable
Mixed use
Dense (versus typical suburban patterns)
• Readiness is based land availability and local plans
and policies
29
Suburban Neighborhood – Less than 7 du/ac, 1-2 floors typical, Low
density single family subdivision, 5,000 sf lots or greater
Compact Neighborhood 1 – 7-15 du/ac, 1-2 floors typical, Walkable
urban, detached houses on lots less than 5,000 sf, town homes on lots
less than 2,500 sf
Compact Neighborhood 2 – 15-30 du/ac, 2-3 floors typical, Surface
parked, garden apartments, stacked flats
Urban Neighborhood 1 – 30-75 du/ac, 3-4 floors typical, wood frame
construction, encapsulated or podium garage
Urban Neighborhood 2 – 75+ du/ac, greater than 4 floors, high density,
high rise, concrete and wood construction, typically in more urban
locations
30
Low Intensity Suburban – less than .25 FAR, strip commercial retail,
low rise office, surface parked at 4 or more cars per 1,000 sf
Mid Intensity Commercial – .25 FAR-1.0 FAR, 1-3 stories, combination of
surface and decked parking
Higher Intensity Commercial – Greater than 1.0 FAR, 4 stories or greater,
mid-rise, garage parking in podium or separate structure, often in
downtown or urban locations
31
32
• TAC meeting – February 13, Round Rock Chamber
Board Room
• Project Connect open houses, week of February 17
• PAG meeting - February 26, McConico Bldg
Community Room, Round Rock
• TAC meeting - March, date and location TBD
• PAG meeting - March, date and location TBD
• Two public open houses – Week of April 15, TBD
• Technical Design Charrette – Week of May 20
33
Technical Advisory Committee
Thank You!
January 29, 2013
34